|
Lately I've been hearing a lot about how excellent the top liberal art colleges are- worthy schools equivalent to the Ivies and other top universities. I was intrigued by this, so I decided to do some comparative research. My findings have shown me that the top LACs are not as good as the top universities for a number of reasons.
1) National Merit Scholars enrolled in the first year class. Williams, Amherst, and Pomona have slightly higher SAT averages than Brown, but have nowhere near the number of NMS enrolling. Brown for instance is 3.8x larger than Amherst, but enrolls 12.5x the number of National Merit Scholars. Duke is another school with similar enrolled test scores, but a much higher proportion of NMS scholars enroll. Some of the numbers at the top LACs are dismal- only 7 at Swarthmore, 6 at Middlebury, and 2 each at Vassar and Wesleyan. NMS is a proxy for who the brightest students in the nation are, as they scored exceptionally well on the PSAT as a junior and they were picked from a group of 16000 of the highest scorers (to 7367 students total). Regardless of whether or not the top LACs have comparable test scores, they aren't getting the very best to the same extent. 2) Faculty accomplishments. I looked at the CVs and recent publications of a number of professors across LACs and the Ivies (only those who actually teach courses), and was shocked by how lacking the LAC professors were. Many of them haven't had any research publications for at least 10 years, most don't have any books written, and some of them have research emphasis which are now considered pretty outdated (cushy tenure job, perhaps)? Meanwhile the Ivy professors have accomplished dossiers with noteworthy and recent publications, seminars, and so much more. I'm not even talking about the top Ivies- even at more undergraduate focused ones like Brown and Dartmouth, the quality of the faculty is stellar. I guess a case could be made for students having more accessibility with less noteworthy professors, but if it's coming at the expense of a superlative education and a deep exposure to its contemporary path, I don't think that's worth it. And some of the Ivies, like Dartmouth, are known for having just as great professor accessibility as the top LACs. 3) The most competitive PhD programs and fellowships are primarily taking applicants from the Ivies and peer schools. There is a letter written by a Swarthmore professor about how no one has been admitted to a top 5 math PhD program from Swarthmore in recent years, whereas Swarthmore had a consistently excellent track record in the past. This is the case at Williams too- none of the recent math grads are getting into the best PhD programs. I also took a look at where the graduates from the best clinical psychology programs (which is extremely selective) attended college, and saw mostly the Ivies, Stanford, and UChicago. I don't think this is because of anything specific to the LACs, but rather because the LACs can't match the resources the top universities have to provide cutting-edge research experiences or the most advanced curricula. Top LAC graduates may be smart and capable, but they are at a disadvantage. Graduate school has become much more competitive, and applicants now need to have extensive research experiences and endorsements from compelling researchers. I just looked at a psychology professor's recommendation for getting into grad school (from a LAC, no less!), and his primary recommendation was- find and work for a famous professor, do incredible work while there, and get a glowing recommendation from them. Then why not just go to a school with those famous professors? 4) Lack of curriculum. Some, if not many, of the departments at many LACs are dismal in content, only offering 5-8 courses a year. Many courses are not offered more than once every two years. In contrast, the Ivies and other universities have an incredible breadth of courses, and rather interesting ones too. They have a lot more faculty interests available for students to identify what they're passionate about, and they even offer exceptional students access to graduate level courses. I could easily see myself exhausting the CS or math curricula at most LACs. 5) Poor career support and performance. I checked out the on-campus recruiters who visited the LACs vs. universities, as well as post-graduate statistics, and the common result was that LACs performed far worse than universities. Furthermore, few recruiters visit LACs and they're often not the most prestigious companies. The recruiter list at even schools considered inferior to the top LACs- Vanderbilt, Rice, USC- is far more impressive. The career resources pages of most LACs are lackluster compared to those of universities. 6) Poor yield compared to the top schools. The highest yields among top LACs are Bowdoin and Pomona at 50% each, but they pale behind the Ivies. Even at top LACs like Amherst, the yield is only 39% compared to 48% at Georgetown, 57% at Brown, 65% at Penn, and 55% at Dartmouth. This suggests that students may be applying to the top LACs, but are ultimately not choosing to go to them to the same extent as they do the Ivies. Some of the LAC yields are inflated by ED applicants- only 20% of the students Wesleyan and Middlebury admits during RD choose to go to them. Carleton is even worse at 18%. Students probably can sense by going to admitted student days the depth of resources universities have to offer. 7) This is a subjective point, but intellectual and political diversity at the LACs is mediocre. There is a website where you can see which colleges are the most liberal by faculty donations, and the top LACs crowd the far left compared to slightly left Ivies/Stanford/UChicago. There have been many articles about students at Williams, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and the Claremont Colleges silencing their peers or preventing speakers from talking. Because these colleges are undergraduate only, these students unfortunately have a lot of power to influence campus administration, compared to a top university where they know they aren't the most important factor. This enables rampant political correctness and undermining of points a vocal group disagrees with. One thing I've sensed is that many people at the LACs think they already know it all. They don't see the benefit of taking courses and engaging with those outside their comfort zone or opinions. This makes me really question the worth of a degree from any LAC graduate, and I'd very carefully look at their course selection to see what they participated in. Many times, ethnic study departments practice grade inflation or hire professors with very charged political leanings who in turn give out A's to students who agree with them. Here's a quote from a student at Pomona which says it all: "Unsurprisingly, the curriculums are severely biased with dissenting views unwelcome. The number of class offerings shrinks dramatically for anyone unwilling to fully toe the progressive line. Several of my friends and I decide which classes to take based not on the course content or reading material, but instead based solely on which professors seem least likely to let political or racial biases affect classroom discussion and grading." This will not happen to the same extent at a top university. There are too many students from too many backgrounds to let a small group hold the campus hostile. 8) The bubble. Many LACs are located in isolated parts of the country. Even those which are suburban are generally in privileged towns, and students often don't go out to their surrounding communities. The life in a LAC is a comfortable one. There is a time and place for comfort, but LACs might be a bit too comfortable, which is dangerous for preparing graduates for the outside world. Grade inflation is rampant at many of these LACs, and frivolous spending of money without accountability and consideration gives undergraduates a false sense of entitlement which may very well harm them. That's not to say there aren't Ivies with a similar culture as well, but it's something more noticeable at the more residential schools, which include all the top LACs and some top universities. ---- I would not encourage parents to even consider sending their child to a liberal arts college at this day and time. They cost just the same, if not more, as the Ivies and other universities, while providing nowhere near the experience or benefits that the latter do. The most well-regarded LACs don't give out any merit aid, so there will never be a scenario in which a student is implored to choose Williams over Harvard because Williams gave out much more financial aid. |
|
Wow- this was really lengthy. I look forward to hearing counterpoints- I may have gotten the wrong impression with several of these and would appreciate the correction.
"I don't think this is because of anything specific to the LACs" what I meant by this is I don't think it's the case that the students who apply from LACs are quickly being dismissed without consideration simply because they attended a LAC. Rather, it's because they're not as competitive as undergraduates from the best universities. |
| Thank you OP, for putting in the time to research this - you have confirmed my suspicions. |
|
So I'm guessing you're a high schooler really concerned about having the best or rating yourself the best. Just realize that the best for you is different than the best for someone else. And nothing makes you better than another human being.
1) The best students in the country are not limited to National Merit Scholars. If so, they wouldn't have sub-20% acceptance rates at the elite colleges. 2) Faculty choose where they go as much as they colleges choose faculty. Some want to teach. They may be better at teaching than the best academic researcher. There are 700+ students in Mankiw's Econ 10a at Harvard. Is introductory microeconomics better with 700 students or 20? 3) Look at where the top LAC professors got their PhDs. Entry/funding into a graduate program has more to do with who your mentor is than your GREs. They need to know you well enough to vouch for you to their friends, peers, and mentors. It can be a lot easier at a LAC. 4) You don't take 20 classes every year in your major. You take 8-10 in total. A slimmer set of course offerings may mean stronger fundamentals rather than too narrow specialization. 5) Only a small number of big companies do major on-campus recruiting. That's the path for 2 year analysts on Wall Street and glorified temp work at consulting firms - and they all go to the elite LACs. The most interesting jobs aren't going to those. 6) Yield is largely driven by the school's admissions strategy. LACs just aren't/can't play the ED game to goose their USNWR ranking the way the larger schools do. 7) All the elite schools are comparatively wealthy, progressive communities of students and faculty. It's just harder to dismiss people for who they are in a community of just a few hundred students. 8) Every college is a bubble of hormonal adolescents. Being in a big city does not change that at all. |
| OP, while I appreciate your thoroughness (and I wonder how you have so much time on your hands) not a single one of those markers has any significance on the actual quality of instruction a student receives at a school. |
| You conveniently overlook some stats in favor of others. |
|
I went to a middle-of-the road LAC for undergrad on a full ride and went to Washington University in St. Louis for graduate school (where I taught and advised as well). Here's my perception of the two places: 1. There were more NMS in the undergrads at WUSTL. So what? It is a lousy meausre of student quality. The students at my middle tier LAC were better students than WUSTL students. They weren't as smart or highly ranked students, but they were much more interesting. They were intellectually curious and engaged with the curriculum. They took risks with academics. They took classes outside their major. They created quirky double majors (lots of Latin and Biology double-majors). WUSTL students are smart, but they were mostly polishing their resumes and GPA for graduate school or finance jobs. They weren't very interested in taking a risk. If I were a teacher, I would much rather teach at my LAC than at WUSTL. 2. Faculty accomplishments. Again, so what? LAC faculty are teachers first and researchers second. They usually don't have grad students to teach their sections. They teach themselves. They are more available to mentor students. 3. Grad school admissions. This is true somewhat. But it is also a function of the type of students that an Ivy attracts vs. the type of students an LAC attracts. The kids at my LAC who were Ivy qualified as high school students were still qualifed when applying for grad schools; they all went on to very high end grad programs and professional programs. It was a function of student quality, not anything the LAC or Ivy was doing. It wasn't a result of value added by an Ivy. 4. Lack of curriculum. Not my experience. Not at all. It is true that classes are offered less often. Students tend to pass through the curriculum as a cohort. You have all the same kids in all the same classes at the same time. You take the course sequence as it is offered and you can't jump around because not every class is offered every year. The trade-off for that is that you get to know your peers very well because you study with the same folks for your whole course of study. We could study anything we wanted by taking an independent study. Sometimes a few of us go together and tackled an independent study as a group. We also took more classes outside of our major, as I said before. 5. My LAC could have definitely used a better career services office. WUSTL had great career services. That isn't how I got my job, though. BTW, all "top universities" have ethnic studies departments, so I am not sure what that has to do with the career services office issue. 6. Yield? WTF? Yield has nothing to do with the quality of education. It's a bragging rights game for schools and alumni. 7. Again not my experience. LAC students were more engaged in the curriculum which encouraged more discussion and analysis. A small campus community means you don't have much room to hide Kids at WUSTL could live in their own little world without being challenged by other students because the place was so big . Top universities do not have students from "too many backgrounds." They have students from UMC and above backgrounds. Those students do tend to be more conservative, which is a function of their economic privilege. 8. The bubble. LACs do tend to be out in the country. That's a feature because it encourages students to be more engaged in the college community in both an academic and personal sense. Students are less likely to get lost or over-whelmed at a LAC because of the size and because they have a lot of personal relationships with peers and teachers. RE. grade-inflation. Again, I am not sure what this has to do with the bubble issue, but Harvard is notorious for grade inflation. It's not an LAC thing. ______________________________ I will be encouraging my sons to go to LACs before heading off to engineering school. (3-2 engineering programs are ideal). The Ivies give great financial aid, but most LACs can give us decent aid and the education and experience is better in my opinion. YMMV. |
|
Personally, I agree with OP. And I think that the pro-LAC argument often mischaracterizes faculty-undergrad relationships at top-tier major research universities. That said, no matter where "there" is, you can get there from either a LAC or a major research university. Much depends on learning style and whether you find a department and/or faculty that inspires you as an undergrad. And THAT probably only matters if you really want to be an academic. (I am; my kid probably will be.)
Most kids aren't intellectual and are going to college for the credential. Choosing the school with the highest % of NMSFs (or some better metric for undergrad brainpower) makes no sense unless your kid is him/herself a brainiac who needs a competitive cohort to thrive. ((And that category represents a small subset even of brainiacs, LOL!)). |
|
OP and others, why bother making this case? Why not just decide not send your kids there?
Obviously some other people reach different conclusions than you do. I can't fathom how someone can spend hours researching this just so they can declare a conclusive answer to what is ultimately a subjective personal choice. |
|
National Merit Scholarships are not a great measure of school quality. Some schools intentionally prioritize "buying" NMS students in order to appear more prestigious.
The University of Alabama has the highest number of NMS students enrolled: https://www.ua.edu/about/quickfacts |
|
As a share of the number of students enrolled, the elite LACs are extremely well represented in top PHD programs.
Both approaches are good, but they are different. The faculty have different obligations at work, which affects the type of research that you may see. However, access to labs and profs is available at an LAC, less so at universities. |
| The teaching is usually much better at the LACs. Faculty can focus on teaching rather than research. For an undergrad, this works to their benefit. Much better to have a prof who cares about teaching. At a large research university, the faculty views teaching as a distraction. |
OP here. Thanks for the feedback. Lots to tackle, and apologies for a lengthy response.
I don't disagree with you. My primary premise is that based on the evidence I've seen, I don't see a reason for there to be a fair equivalent between top LACs and top universities.
Of course not, but it's one of the best proxies out there.
The percent of classes under 20 at the top universities tends to be the same or higher than the LACs. Percent of classes under 20 at Columbia: 82.7%. Percent of classes under 20 at Amherst: 68%
This is true, but my concern primarily lies in whether or not they are teaching the most current understanding of the field. One can be assured that universities will always be at the cutting edge. But LACs depend on generally tenured professors with little research and publication output. All the teaching in the world may not be so great if it's not what future destinations are looking for or applying.
I know LACs are excellent PhD producers, and I'm certain that at one point Williams/Swarthmore/etc were top feeders to the best of the best. I'm talking about more recent statistics and only for the absolute best schools and fellowships like Rhodes. The top LACs are no longer doing as well for the very very best schools. It's only a comment on the top ranked programs- I'm sure they're still the top feeders for PhDs in general. The Swarthmore letter is here and the comment I defer to is this: "Years back, every year or two a Swat grad went off to math grad school at a top place (Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley). This hasn’t been true in recent years and we want to change that." (Source: http://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/mathematics-statistics/MathGradSchool.pdf)
At some majors, there are only 20-30 courses offered, preventing students from finding the coursework of interest they may want. For instance, many LACs don't have courses in artificial intelligence or neural networks in their CS departments. Just the fact that universities offer around 50-100 courses means that students won't have to resort to picking at the bottom of the barrel to fulfill major requirements or give up what they're passionate about.
Is this really true? Almost every top company I could think of from the top of my head recruited directly at the Ivies/Stanford/U'Chicago or at least was there for an employment fair. This was not the case at most LACs. Even "lesser-ranked" yet still top 25 universities had a ton of great companies visiting. It's just sort of common sense- why visit a school with only 2000 students when you could visit one with 6000 comparable students?
That may be, which is why RD yields are particularly telling as they can't be manipulated by admissions. The RD yields at LACs are consistently lower than the universities, suggesting students aren't finding them as desirable.
I've found that more residential experiences- and that includes schools like Yale- can make it particularly easy to step away from the real world.
You're correct. It may very well be that LAC graduates are more satisfied with their quality of instruction. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. But since this is a comparative point, it makes me wonder. How much of the satisfaction is coming from easier grading than that at top universities (gradeinflation.com highlights how grade inflated most LACs are)? How current is the teaching with the research interests these professors have that are pretty outdated? To give an example, for reference, one professor is a O'Chem professor is a pioneer of the QSAR technique, which is great but is not widely used these days.
This is a fair criticism. Could you let me know what else I should consider? 16:13- thank you for sharing your perspective. I really appreciate it and it raises a lot of interesting points, such as how experiences can't really be boiled down to numbers. When did you graduate? My focus is on comparing top universities with top liberal art colleges today, so it'd be interesting to see if those points are true today. The things I want to specifically address are: "They weren't very interested in taking a risk."- I've actually been seeing evidence that it's students at the LACs who aren't taking risks or venturing outside their comfort zone. " It wasn't a result of value added by an Ivy."- I feel that being surrounded by the most accomplished researchers and students out there would invariably influence a student's ability to be a compelling candidate for the best graduate programs and fellowships. I'm willing to accept that the top LACs may have students who're just as smart as their top university peers. But here's my concern. You have applicant A from top LAC X. They graduate Phi Beta Kappa, do tons of research, etc- and are basically the top student in their field. But they don't have the comparative sense that the competition is pretty intense. Meanwhile, applicant B from top University Y is similarly accomplished, but has connections with leading scholars in the field to really obtain the most coveted research experiences and perhaps even dive into graduate level courses. When graduate schools look at who to admit, they don't care that applicant A is the best in their school but rather what A brings compared to B. This is why LACs are doing more poorly in sending students to the absolute best PhD programs out there- they just don't have the resources to make their students as compelling. "You take the course sequence as it is offered and you can't jump around because not every class is offered every year." I've checked out several major requirements and they're pretty similar at LACs and universities. There is generally a lot of flexibility to pick a track or focus on a particular subset of courses, in addition to the required intro and core courses. Is it not the case that having only 2 courses to choose from in Medieval History at a LAC compared to 20 at a university when you have to pick 1 to study increases the risk that the LAC student isn't picking what they'd most desire? "Yield? WTF? Yield has nothing to do with the quality of education. It's a bragging rights game for schools and alumni." As pointed out above, I think RD yields are telling of how applicants perceive their choices. It's not a factor which can be influenced by admissions. Note that this is RD yields, not overall yield. "The Ivies give great financial aid, but most LACs can give us decent aid and the education and experience is better in my opinion." That's fair. But my comparison is with the top LACs, who don't have any merit available and will be as expensive as the top universities. |
OP here, response continued.
I find that people would appreciate the information. A lot of these factors are not necessarily discussed, and when it comes to something as important as the college selection process, I think there's nothing wrong with discussing it. I'm not looking for agreement or consensus, and can admit that I may have a bias or overlooked important factors.
I'm only looking into schools which don't sponsor NMS directly, such as most top universities and LACs.
I think this may have been the case historically, but it doesn't seem to be happening at this day and age (LAC graduates getting into the absolute highest ranked PhD programs as well as students at top universities are). See the Swarthmore letter I shared above.
Better teaching does make for more satisfied students. In general, I'm not really a big fan of satisfaction when it corresponds to an experience happening in a bubble. What I want to know is- is the teaching at the LACs preparing students well? When career and top PhD/fellowship performances aren't quite as high as they used to be, it makes me wonder not just about the absolute but the relative as well. One thing to note is that universities have taken great strides to offer more LAC like experiences in recent years- smaller courses (see my comment above regarding courses), similar residential experiences, and so forth. LACs haven't been able to provide the university experience. ----- This is a comment at large. But one of my friends shared this insight, and it got me wondering. A top LAC may very well be the place where a student is the most comfortable and secure. But is 4 years of that experience worth it compared to attending a top university which may not be the best fit, but can pay lifelong dividends in terms of career and academic connections? Where does one draw the line in thinking about worth? |
| Just quick clarification. When I made this statement- "I would not encourage parents to even consider sending their child to a liberal arts college at this day and time", I'm only referring to the very best liberal art colleges which don't offer any merit aid and are as expensive as the best universities. I could see a compelling reason for someone going to Washington and Lee with a full-ride Johnson Scholarship over full-pay Harvard. The argument for me boils down to going to places like Pomona or Williams- with absolutely no merit aid whatsoever- compared to Brown or Penn. |