STEM kid only looking at Research universities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP you are quoting, but the NSF study does NOT provide support for most of the claims you are making. Percentages aren’t chances (of completing a PhD program) when they are drawn from a diverse pool (all BA recipients 9 years earlier) with different goals and resources. We’re not talking about random selection here. It’s about people making choices. As posters have already pointed out, students at a public R1 university are likely to have both a wider range of options (including those that don’t require grad school) and a greater likelihood of economic constraints than students at elite private schools.

One could do a study looking at people who started vs people who finished S&E PhDs and then analyze whether LAC-educated undergrads had a higher completion rate than students who got their BAs at universities. But the NSF study that has been cited here did not do that. Also, it’s worth noting that, speaking categorically, that study concluded that “Research universities with very high research activity had the highest institutional yield ratio each year from 2002 to 2011, followed by baccalaureate colleges, other doctorate-granting universities, and master’s colleges and universities (figure 1). The institutional-yield ratios increased for all four types of institutions over this period, and research universities with very high research activity and other doctorate-granting universities showed the largest increases.” So it’s not LACs per se outperforming R1s on this metric. It’s about a few specific LACs standing out and *public* R1s, who dominate in terms of absolute numbers of PhDs produced, disappearing from the top 20. It’s also unclear how/whether the numbers have changed since. The study used BAs granted from 1993 to 2002 for its calculations, so it’s looking at students who matriculated at LACs 20-30 years ago.

As for cohort, realistically, at a school the size of Berkeley, your cohort from an academic standpoint isn’t everybody else getting a BA — it’s the people in your major and/or your courses. And that group will be numerically much larger than it is at a LAC.

Again, I'm not sure why you are so hesitant to accept the statistics findings. The NSF analysis is of BA origins for PhD completion in the sciences. And yes, of course individual constitution matters--and you will always have outliers at large state schools-- when you are looking at undergrad programs as a whole, there are obvious institutional factors at play that encourage their undergrads to go onto PhD programs. FWIW, it does matter where you go for undergrad if you want to complete a PhD. The numbers are frankly so overwhelmingly in favor of top SLACs that you'd have to ignore factual reality to deny this.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/
When institutional rankings are determined according to the institutional-yield ratio based on S&E doctorate recipients rather than the absolute counts of S&E doctorate recipients, the list of top U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions changes dramatically (table 4). Nine of the top 20 U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions of 2002–11 S&E doctorate recipients are baccalaureate colleges, 10 are research universities with very high research activity, and only 1 of the top 20 (New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology) is a public institution. Of the top 50 U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions ranked by the institutional-yield ratio, 27 are baccalaureate colleges and 21 are research universities with very high research activity). Only 3 of the institutions appearing on the top 20 list of table 2 also appear in the top 20 of table 4: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and Stanford University.

Wow, wherever you went to school, you never learned to interpret data. Or read a study. Or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DC has put together a preliminary list of schools to apply for admission (science/engineering). Great stats, high test scores/solid grades, ECs are music & science, some sports.

The list is comprised of all research universities. Do you think it’s a mistake to not consider any liberal arts colleges at all? I think the isolated campus locations and small sizes may have been the deterrent. I personally like the potential for more personal attention that LACs offer.

I have no clue. DC is our oldest. Thoughts?

Let's get back to this. The OP obviously knows exactly why she thinks her child is deterred from liberal arts colleges -- they're small and typically isolated -- but that "she personally" likes them.

She's not the one who will be going to college. Her child is. And most of you are suggesting colleges that are exactly what her child has signaled he doesn't want: small, isolated schools. Yes, they're good colleges, but beyond being good they need to be a good fit. These schools are not for him. He's made clear what he wants.

At a minimum, at least propose LACs strong in stem that are in or very convenient to urban areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP you are quoting, but the NSF study does NOT provide support for most of the claims you are making. Percentages aren’t chances (of completing a PhD program) when they are drawn from a diverse pool (all BA recipients 9 years earlier) with different goals and resources. We’re not talking about random selection here. It’s about people making choices. As posters have already pointed out, students at a public R1 university are likely to have both a wider range of options (including those that don’t require grad school) and a greater likelihood of economic constraints than students at elite private schools.

One could do a study looking at people who started vs people who finished S&E PhDs and then analyze whether LAC-educated undergrads had a higher completion rate than students who got their BAs at universities. But the NSF study that has been cited here did not do that. Also, it’s worth noting that, speaking categorically, that study concluded that “Research universities with very high research activity had the highest institutional yield ratio each year from 2002 to 2011, followed by baccalaureate colleges, other doctorate-granting universities, and master’s colleges and universities (figure 1). The institutional-yield ratios increased for all four types of institutions over this period, and research universities with very high research activity and other doctorate-granting universities showed the largest increases.” So it’s not LACs per se outperforming R1s on this metric. It’s about a few specific LACs standing out and *public* R1s, who dominate in terms of absolute numbers of PhDs produced, disappearing from the top 20. It’s also unclear how/whether the numbers have changed since. The study used BAs granted from 1993 to 2002 for its calculations, so it’s looking at students who matriculated at LACs 20-30 years ago.

As for cohort, realistically, at a school the size of Berkeley, your cohort from an academic standpoint isn’t everybody else getting a BA — it’s the people in your major and/or your courses. And that group will be numerically much larger than it is at a LAC.

Again, I'm not sure why you are so hesitant to accept the statistics findings. The NSF analysis is of BA origins for PhD completion in the sciences. And yes, of course individual constitution matters--and you will always have outliers at large state schools-- when you are looking at undergrad programs as a whole, there are obvious institutional factors at play that encourage their undergrads to go onto PhD programs. FWIW, it does matter where you go for undergrad if you want to complete a PhD. The numbers are frankly so overwhelmingly in favor of top SLACs that you'd have to ignore factual reality to deny this.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/
When institutional rankings are determined according to the institutional-yield ratio based on S&E doctorate recipients rather than the absolute counts of S&E doctorate recipients, the list of top U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions changes dramatically (table 4). Nine of the top 20 U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions of 2002–11 S&E doctorate recipients are baccalaureate colleges, 10 are research universities with very high research activity, and only 1 of the top 20 (New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology) is a public institution. Of the top 50 U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions ranked by the institutional-yield ratio, 27 are baccalaureate colleges and 21 are research universities with very high research activity). Only 3 of the institutions appearing on the top 20 list of table 2 also appear in the top 20 of table 4: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and Stanford University.

Wow, wherever you went to school, you never learned to interpret data. Or read a study. Or both.

You never learned statistics. FYI: N=1 is an anecdote, not a trend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Let's get back to this. The OP obviously knows exactly why she thinks her child is deterred from liberal arts colleges -- they're small and typically isolated -- but that "she personally" likes them.

She's not the one who will be going to college. Her child is. And most of you are suggesting colleges that are exactly what her child has signaled he doesn't want: small, isolated schools. Yes, they're good colleges, but beyond being good they need to be a good fit. These schools are not for him. He's made clear what he wants.

At a minimum, at least propose LACs strong in stem that are in or very convenient to urban areas.

Agree with this...which is what makes the LAC-obsessed poster particularly jarring. This will do just fine pursuing a STEM degree at a research university if that is otherwise the setting they want.

As to a LAC that's good in STEM and near an urban environment, Wellesley fits the bill...but I think OP indicated she's talking about a son in a later post.

Regardless, OP, your kid will be fine at a research university if that is the environment he prefers. Some universities, and departments, have more intensive educational oversight than others...so you could look into what the specific schools he's considering are like. But let him apply where he wants.

[Anonymous]

Wow, look at that study!!! That really tells you where to go for a future doctorate. Either a foreign university (lol) or a big Research U.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP you are quoting, but the NSF study does NOT provide support for most of the claims you are making. Percentages aren’t chances (of completing a PhD program) when they are drawn from a diverse pool (all BA recipients 9 years earlier) with different goals and resources. We’re not talking about random selection here. It’s about people making choices. As posters have already pointed out, students at a public R1 university are likely to have both a wider range of options (including those that don’t require grad school) and a greater likelihood of economic constraints than students at elite private schools.

One could do a study looking at people who started vs people who finished S&E PhDs and then analyze whether LAC-educated undergrads had a higher completion rate than students who got their BAs at universities. But the NSF study that has been cited here did not do that. Also, it’s worth noting that, speaking categorically, that study concluded that “Research universities with very high research activity had the highest institutional yield ratio each year from 2002 to 2011, followed by baccalaureate colleges, other doctorate-granting universities, and master’s colleges and universities (figure 1). The institutional-yield ratios increased for all four types of institutions over this period, and research universities with very high research activity and other doctorate-granting universities showed the largest increases.” So it’s not LACs per se outperforming R1s on this metric. It’s about a few specific LACs standing out and *public* R1s, who dominate in terms of absolute numbers of PhDs produced, disappearing from the top 20. It’s also unclear how/whether the numbers have changed since. The study used BAs granted from 1993 to 2002 for its calculations, so it’s looking at students who matriculated at LACs 20-30 years ago.

As for cohort, realistically, at a school the size of Berkeley, your cohort from an academic standpoint isn’t everybody else getting a BA — it’s the people in your major and/or your courses. And that group will be numerically much larger than it is at a LAC.

Again, I'm not sure why you are so hesitant to accept the statistics findings. The NSF analysis is of BA origins for PhD completion in the sciences. And yes, of course individual constitution matters--and you will always have outliers at large state schools-- when you are looking at undergrad programs as a whole, there are obvious institutional factors at play that encourage their undergrads to go onto PhD programs. FWIW, it does matter where you go for undergrad if you want to complete a PhD. The numbers are frankly so overwhelmingly in favor of top SLACs that you'd have to ignore factual reality to deny this.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/
When institutional rankings are determined according to the institutional-yield ratio based on S&E doctorate recipients rather than the absolute counts of S&E doctorate recipients, the list of top U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions changes dramatically(table 4). Nine of the top 20 U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions of 2002–11 S&E doctorate recipients are baccalaureate colleges, 10 are research universities with very high research activity, and only 1 of the top 20 (New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology) is a public institution. Of the top 50 U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions ranked by the institutional-yield ratio, 27 are baccalaureate colleges and 21 are research universities with very high research activity). Only 3 of the institutions appearing on the top 20 list of table 2 also appear in the top 20 of table 4: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and Stanford University.

Wow, wherever you went to school, you never learned to interpret data. Or read a study. Or both.

You never learned statistics. FYI: N=1 is an anecdote, not a trend.

Where’s the anecdote in my post? There isn’t one. I just pointed out what NSF actually studied/concluded and why its data doesn’t support your claims. NSF didn’t study PhD completion — it assumed it. So we can’t tell to what extent higher yield at a particular school is a function of higher interest vs admissions success vs. perseverance to degree. NSF also did not conclude that LACs generally had higher yield than very high research universities. As a category, LACs came in second to R1s (as the sentence I’ve bolded indicates).

Yes, the whole point of the study was you get a very different impression of Top 20 undergrad schools for producing STEM PhDs depending on whether you measure in terms of absolute numbers vs yield. But NSF isn’t saying one metric is better than the other, much less that one type of school is better than the other. It is saying either approach, in isolation, obscures important elements of where STEM PhDs come from. The study also looks at HBCUs because it’s interested in where AA STEM PhD’s come from.

Basically, this was a study designed by NSF in the context of figuring out how/where to provide support for undergrads if the policy goal is to increase the number of STEM PhDs. Previously, NSF was focused on institutions that had high absolute numbers. This study encouraged them to broaden their outreach. And they’ve done so. It wasn’t designed to show future PhDs where to go to college. It was designed to assess where PhDs were coming from as undergrads. And the answer was “not just R1s.” Which is very different from saying “avoid R1s as an undergrad.”

The context of this thread is that OP’s kid (who already aspires to a STEM PhD) explicitly does not want to go to a LAC and really wants to be at a major research university. There is nothing in this NSF study to suggest that his parent(sj should encourage him to go to a LAC instead. Conversely, for a kid who wants to go to a LAC, the study has some useful info about where to start looking (and a good rebuttal to claims that s/he’ll must go to an R1).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP you are quoting, but the NSF study does NOT provide support for most of the claims you are making. Percentages aren’t chances (of completing a PhD program) when they are drawn from a diverse pool (all BA recipients 9 years earlier) with different goals and resources. We’re not talking about random selection here. It’s about people making choices. As posters have already pointed out, students at a public R1 university are likely to have both a wider range of options (including those that don’t require grad school) and a greater likelihood of economic constraints than students at elite private schools.

One could do a study looking at people who started vs people who finished S&E PhDs and then analyze whether LAC-educated undergrads had a higher completion rate than students who got their BAs at universities. But the NSF study that has been cited here did not do that. Also, it’s worth noting that, speaking categorically, that study concluded that “Research universities with very high research activity had the highest institutional yield ratio each year from 2002 to 2011, followed by baccalaureate colleges, other doctorate-granting universities, and master’s colleges and universities (figure 1). The institutional-yield ratios increased for all four types of institutions over this period, and research universities with very high research activity and other doctorate-granting universities showed the largest increases.” So it’s not LACs per se outperforming R1s on this metric. It’s about a few specific LACs standing out and *public* R1s, who dominate in terms of absolute numbers of PhDs produced, disappearing from the top 20. It’s also unclear how/whether the numbers have changed since. The study used BAs granted from 1993 to 2002 for its calculations, so it’s looking at students who matriculated at LACs 20-30 years ago.

As for cohort, realistically, at a school the size of Berkeley, your cohort from an academic standpoint isn’t everybody else getting a BA — it’s the people in your major and/or your courses. And that group will be numerically much larger than it is at a LAC.

Again, I'm not sure why you are so hesitant to accept the statistics findings. The NSF analysis is of BA origins for PhD completion in the sciences. And yes, of course individual constitution matters--and you will always have outliers at large state schools-- when you are looking at undergrad programs as a whole, there are obvious institutional factors at play that encourage their undergrads to go onto PhD programs. FWIW, it does matter where you go for undergrad if you want to complete a PhD. The numbers are frankly so overwhelmingly in favor of top SLACs that you'd have to ignore factual reality to deny this.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/
When institutional rankings are determined according to the institutional-yield ratio based on S&E doctorate recipients rather than the absolute counts of S&E doctorate recipients, the list of top U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions changes dramatically(table 4). Nine of the top 20 U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions of 2002–11 S&E doctorate recipients are baccalaureate colleges, 10 are research universities with very high research activity, and only 1 of the top 20 (New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology) is a public institution. Of the top 50 U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions ranked by the institutional-yield ratio, 27 are baccalaureate colleges and 21 are research universities with very high research activity). Only 3 of the institutions appearing on the top 20 list of table 2 also appear in the top 20 of table 4: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and Stanford University.

Wow, wherever you went to school, you never learned to interpret data. Or read a study. Or both.

You never learned statistics. FYI: N=1 is an anecdote, not a trend.

Where’s the anecdote in my post? There isn’t one. I just pointed out what NSF actually studied/concluded and why its data doesn’t support your claims. NSF didn’t study PhD completion — it assumed it. So we can’t tell to what extent higher yield at a particular school is a function of higher interest vs admissions success vs. perseverance to degree. NSF also did not conclude that LACs generally had higher yield than very high research universities. As a category, LACs came in second to R1s (as the sentence I’ve bolded indicates).

Yes, the whole point of the study was you get a very different impression of Top 20 undergrad schools for producing STEM PhDs depending on whether you measure in terms of absolute numbers vs yield. But NSF isn’t saying one metric is better than the other, much less that one type of school is better than the other. It is saying either approach, in isolation, obscures important elements of where STEM PhDs come from. The study also looks at HBCUs because it’s interested in where AA STEM PhD’s come from.

Basically, this was a study designed by NSF in the context of figuring out how/where to provide support for undergrads if the policy goal is to increase the number of STEM PhDs. Previously, NSF was focused on institutions that had high absolute numbers. This study encouraged them to broaden their outreach. And they’ve done so. It wasn’t designed to show future PhDs where to go to college. It was designed to assess where PhDs were coming from as undergrads. And the answer was “not just R1s.” Which is very different from saying “avoid R1s as an undergrad.”

The context of this thread is that OP’s kid (who already aspires to a STEM PhD) explicitly does not want to go to a LAC and really wants to be at a major research university. There is nothing in this NSF study to suggest that his parent(sj should encourage him to go to a LAC instead. Conversely, for a kid who wants to go to a LAC, the study has some useful info about where to start looking (and a good rebuttal to claims that s/he’ll must go to an R1).

The NSF study counts PhD RECIPIENTS. Recipent, IMHO, means that you earned your PhD. Please read carefully.

[Anonymous]

I do read carefully. To study completion as a phenomenon and attempt to attribute causality you have to look at people who don’t complete as well as those who do. That’s why I said NSF didn’t study completion — it assumed it.

[Anonymous]

OP, do you have reason to believe your son isn't mature enough to handle the freedom and choices available at a large research university?

Because, if he can, there is no better education for someone who wants to run a lab or a science agency.

LACs are great, and you have that almost summer-camp-like closeness with your class and your school. But go to Madison, or Berkeley, or even Maryland. There is a vitality and excitement on a large campus that is just catalyzing for a lot of people. Not to mention, that's where the Nobel laureate labs are, that's where the summer STEM research internships recruit, and that's where the grad students and professors are who can actually tell you how to hustle and position yourself in the field.

And I agree with the other poster who talked about undergrad research opportunities. They abound. And if your #1 choice isn't available, it's a big place; something else will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you have reason to believe your son isn't mature enough to handle the freedom and choices available at a large research university?

Because, if he can, there is no better education for someone who wants to run a lab or a science agency.

LACs are great, and you have that almost summer-camp-like closeness with your class and your school. But go to Madison, or Berkeley, or even Maryland. There is a vitality and excitement on a large campus that is just catalyzing for a lot of people. Not to mention, that's where the Nobel laureate labs are, that's where the summer STEM research internships recruit, and that's where the grad students and professors are who can actually tell you how to hustle and position yourself in the field.

And I agree with the other poster who talked about undergrad research opportunities. They abound. And if your #1 choice isn't available, it's a big place; something else will be.

OP here: No, not at all. DC is very independent and self-driven. This thread has been helpful. Thanks to all for your input!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bTW—top 50 sc ools that produce science PhDs I had bookmarked. 2010, so you might want to search for an updated list. But I bet the top 20 of this list holds up. It’s where to look if your kid what’s research and not an MD (yes, I know some MDs research...). It’s a mix of school sizes. But some LACs do very well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-50-schools-that-produce-science-phds/

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

That’s only half the study. Here’s what NSF says about that list:

“This finding contrasts sharply with the baccalaureate origins of the absolute number of S&E PhDs. The top 50 known U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions of 1997–2006 S&E doctorate recipients are almost all research institutions with very high research activity, and more than half are public institutions (table 3). Two (Brigham Young University and College of William and Mary) have high research activity. None are baccalaureate colleges. The top 5 baccalaureate-origin institutions of 1997–2006 S&E doctorate recipients are: University of California Berkeley, Cornell University, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

And here’s the list of the actual top 50 undergrad schools wrt the production of STEM PhDs:

https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20160210152803/http%3A//www%2Ensf%2Egov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/tab3.gif

I think that the first list tells you that certainly you can get there (STEM PhD) from here (LAC BA) and gives you a sense of which LACs are best suited if that’s the path you want to take. But it doesn’t make the case that LACs are the best place to study if you want to get a STEM PhD.

If you look at STEM PHD production on a per capita basis, LACs feature prominently in the top 50. Schools like UT Austin are of course ranked high in absolute numbers because they have such a large undergraduate enrollment. Of note for Virginians, William and Mary has been ranked second on a per capita basis to Berkeley among national universities for baccalaureates that get STEM PHDs (and I think first overall for all PHDs).

Because most families that can afford 70K yearly tuition can ALSO afford PhD Universities as well. Many many many public state and university students go right to work first after their BS and then go back to school part time. Why? They don’t have trust funds.

Look, LACs even do well against private research universities if you look at the report. I don't think income is the issue. (And a number of public schools like Michigan and UVA have pretty high income levels if you believe the data, but they are not ranked particularly high for STEM PHD production per capita. They are well behind Berkeley and William & Mary). Plus, PHDs are typically funded by fellowships and/or working as a teaching or research assistant. I think the only point people should take away here is that you can certainly prepare yourself to get a STEM PHD after graduating from an LAC. The data shows that. This doesn't mean you can't get a STEM PHD after going to a research university (public or private).

For some reason, some have a perception that you have to go to a research university to get a STEM PHD. That is just false. I saw someone arguing on another board that you can't go to medical school if you don't go to a university with a medical school and medical center. This is also ridiculous. It would mean, among other things, that Princeton is no longer capable of producing future doctors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bTW—top 50 sc ools that produce science PhDs I had bookmarked. 2010, so you might want to search for an updated list. But I bet the top 20 of this list holds up. It’s where to look if your kid what’s research and not an MD (yes, I know some MDs research...). It’s a mix of school sizes. But some LACs do very well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-50-schools-that-produce-science-phds/

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

That’s only half the study. Here’s what NSF says about that list:

“This finding contrasts sharply with the baccalaureate origins of the absolute number of S&E PhDs. The top 50 known U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions of 1997–2006 S&E doctorate recipients are almost all research institutions with very high research activity, and more than half are public institutions (table 3). Two (Brigham Young University and College of William and Mary) have high research activity. None are baccalaureate colleges. The top 5 baccalaureate-origin institutions of 1997–2006 S&E doctorate recipients are: University of California Berkeley, Cornell University, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

And here’s the list of the actual top 50 undergrad schools wrt the production of STEM PhDs:

https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20160210152803/http%3A//www%2Ensf%2Egov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/tab3.gif

I think that the first list tells you that certainly you can get there (STEM PhD) from here (LAC BA) and gives you a sense of which LACs are best suited if that’s the path you want to take. But it doesn’t make the case that LACs are the best place to study if you want to get a STEM PhD.

If you look at STEM PHD production on a per capita basis, LACs feature prominently in the top 50. Schools like UT Austin are of course ranked high in absolute numbers because they have such a large undergraduate enrollment. Of note for Virginians, William and Mary has been ranked second on a per capita basis to Berkeley among national universities for baccalaureates that get STEM PHDs (and I think first overall for all PHDs).

Because most families that can afford 70K yearly tuition can ALSO afford PhD Universities as well. Many many many public state and university students go right to work first after their BS and then go back to school part time. Why? They don’t have trust funds.

Look, LACs even do well against private research universities if you look at the report. I don't think income is the issue. (And a number of public schools like Michigan and UVA have pretty high income levels if you believe the data, but they are not ranked particularly high for STEM PHD production per capita. They are well behind Berkeley and William & Mary). Plus, PHDs are typically funded by fellowships and/or working as a teaching or research assistant. I think the only point people should take away here is that you can certainly prepare yourself to get a STEM PHD after graduating from an LAC. The data shows that. This doesn't mean you can't get a STEM PHD after going to a research university (public or private).

For some reason, some have a perception that you have to go to a research university to get a STEM PHD. That is just false. I saw someone arguing on another board that you can't go to medical school if you don't go to a university with a medical school and medical center. This is also ridiculous. It would mean, among other things, that Princeton is no longer capable of producing future doctors.

We get it -- you like liberal arts colleges. A lot. Are you going to let your kids make their own decisions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Look, LACs even do well against private research universities if you look at the report. I don't think income is the issue. (And a number of public schools like Michigan and UVA have pretty high income levels if you believe the data, but they are not ranked particularly high for STEM PHD production per capita. They are well behind Berkeley and William & Mary). Plus, PHDs are typically funded by fellowships and/or working as a teaching or research assistant. I think the only point people should take away here is that you can certainly prepare yourself to get a STEM PHD after graduating from an LAC. The data shows that. This doesn't mean you can't get a STEM PHD after going to a research university (public or private).

For some reason, some have a perception that you have to go to a research university to get a STEM PHD. That is just false. I saw someone arguing on another board that you can't go to medical school if you don't go to a university with a medical school and medical center. This is also ridiculous. It would mean, among other things, that Princeton is no longer capable of producing future doctors.

We get it -- you like liberal arts colleges. A lot. Are you going to let your kids make their own decisions?

I'm thinking this might be a different PP than the other LAC booster on this thread. This poster seems much more reasonable.

It's actually really surprising to me that people have the perception that a well-regarded LAC limits your opportunities for advanced degrees (graduate or professional schools). But once it's pointed out, it makes sense why some people might think that even though it's not based in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Look, LACs even do well against private research universities if you look at the report. I don't think income is the issue. (And a number of public schools like Michigan and UVA have pretty high income levels if you believe the data, but they are not ranked particularly high for STEM PHD production per capita. They are well behind Berkeley and William & Mary). Plus, PHDs are typically funded by fellowships and/or working as a teaching or research assistant. I think the only point people should take away here is that you can certainly prepare yourself to get a STEM PHD after graduating from an LAC. The data shows that. This doesn't mean you can't get a STEM PHD after going to a research university (public or private).

For some reason, some have a perception that you have to go to a research university to get a STEM PHD. That is just false. I saw someone arguing on another board that you can't go to medical school if you don't go to a university with a medical school and medical center. This is also ridiculous. It would mean, among other things, that Princeton is no longer capable of producing future doctors.

We get it -- you like liberal arts colleges. A lot. Are you going to let your kids make their own decisions?

I'm thinking this might be a different PP than the other LAC booster on this thread. This poster seems much more reasonable.

It's actually really surprising to me that people have the perception that a well-regarded LAC limits your opportunities for advanced degrees (graduate or professional schools). But once it's pointed out, it makes sense why some people might think that even though it's not based in reality.

It makes sense that most of the cutting edge research would occur in big universities with big departments and lots of labs etc. but I am not sure if that is what you have to do as an undergraduate in order to get into a top Ph.D STEM program unless things have changed considerably in the last 5 years or so.
We toured Bryn Mawr recently and the department and labs seemed small and it sounds like they have around 20 students do research during the academic year and a dozen doing research during the summer so I think you have to be highly motivated to get an opportunity to do research.
Still, they are ranked pretty high (in the top 20) in the NSF study so I am hoping I am missing something since my kid is very keen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Look, LACs even do well against private research universities if you look at the report. I don't think income is the issue. (And a number of public schools like Michigan and UVA have pretty high income levels if you believe the data, but they are not ranked particularly high for STEM PHD production per capita. They are well behind Berkeley and William & Mary). Plus, PHDs are typically funded by fellowships and/or working as a teaching or research assistant. I think the only point people should take away here is that you can certainly prepare yourself to get a STEM PHD after graduating from an LAC. The data shows that. This doesn't mean you can't get a STEM PHD after going to a research university (public or private).

For some reason, some have a perception that you have to go to a research university to get a STEM PHD. That is just false. I saw someone arguing on another board that you can't go to medical school if you don't go to a university with a medical school and medical center. This is also ridiculous. It would mean, among other things, that Princeton is no longer capable of producing future doctors.

We get it -- you like liberal arts colleges. A lot. Are you going to let your kids make their own decisions?

I'm thinking this might be a different PP than the other LAC booster on this thread. This poster seems much more reasonable.

It's actually really surprising to me that people have the perception that a well-regarded LAC limits your opportunities for advanced degrees (graduate or professional schools). But once it's pointed out, it makes sense why some people might think that even though it's not based in reality.

It makes sense that most of the cutting edge research would occur in big universities with big departments and lots of labs etc. but I am not sure if that is what you have to do as an undergraduate in order to get into a top Ph.D STEM program unless things have changed considerably in the last 5 years or so.
We toured Bryn Mawr recently and the BIOLOGY department and labs seemed small and it sounds like they have around 20 students do research during the academic year and a dozen doing research during the summer so I think you have to be highly motivated to get an opportunity to do research.
Still, they are ranked pretty high (in the top 20) in the NSF study so I am hoping I am missing something since my kid is very keen

sorry. key word missing. This was just one department not the entire college!