I go to a top LAC for history and stem. It is overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

I'm the LAC booster (with concerns about some LACs) from earlier in the thread. This comment codifies my core general worry about LACs: the small classes and tutorial-like nurturing atmosphere are great, but at some point the budding scientist or scholar has to make it on his or her own. I don't doubt that the first-year experience may be enormously better at a LAC, but I suspect that the student who really is a candidate for an eventual PhD may be in better long-term shape having gone through undergrad in a way that more resembles the research culture of grad school. (Of course, it depends on the individual student. But my kid's probably going to choose a research university over a highly PhD-productive LAC for this reason, among others.)

Independence (or lack thereof) is a big issue there, for sure.

[Anonymous]

I believe that LAC are unrepresentative in non-medical STEM. They don’t attract those students. But LAC grads crazy outperform when it comes to medical and law school. Evidence is out there. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trust this Nobel prize winner more than anonymous trolls:
https://www.thecollegesolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cech_article2.pdf

The data in that report is 30 years old! Great if you want to know which you should choose in 1995. Less helpful 30 years later.

The NSF trends used there are still present today. The explanation in experiential differences by the author would also still apply today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

The Vanderbilt study cited earlier looked at this more directly than any other I’ve seen. Their conclusion was the opposite of yours, namely that LAC grads had less attrition and took less time to complete the PhD. They were also more likely to have been published as undergrads. The study had a limited scope (Econ PhD programs from certain schools over certain years), but it was thorough for that population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe that LAC are unrepresentative in non-medical STEM. They don’t attract those students. But LAC grads crazy outperform when it comes to medical and law school. Evidence is out there. Look it up.

They are well known to be over represented in all grad school categories. The more interesting question is why. It’s a combination of many factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ops statement for top phd placement is true for math and psychology, but not other disciplines.

R1 top-ranked universities, whether public or private, are better for phD placement in Math, Physics, Chemistry, and all Engineering disciplines, for every LAC except the very top LACs (WAS). R1s that are mediocre do not show the same clear benefit in STEM phD placement over LACs, especially known academically rigorous T15 LACS. The R1 standard is not what it once was.

You’re forgetting Pomona and Harvey Mudd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

I'm the LAC booster (with concerns about some LACs) from earlier in the thread. This comment codifies my core general worry about LACs: the small classes and tutorial-like nurturing atmosphere are great, but at some point the budding scientist or scholar has to make it on his or her own. I don't doubt that the first-year experience may be enormously better at a LAC, but I suspect that the student who really is a candidate for an eventual PhD may be in better long-term shape having gone through undergrad in a way that more resembles the research culture of grad school. (Of course, it depends on the individual student. But my kid's probably going to choose a research university over a highly PhD-productive LAC for this reason, among others.)

I think the counterpoint is the research is more likely to be meaningfully led by the student at an LAC. Removing grad students from the mix means undergrads play a bigger part in study design and analysis. (They also play a bigger part in educating other students which itself is a learning experience, but that’s another matter.)

Several of the top grad school feeder LACs also require a senior thesis that needs to be presented to a committee.

Reed probably has the curriculum that most mirrors grad school, complete with qualifying exams that precede the senior thesis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A family member works in a top 5 worldwide school for STEM in a position where the topic of undergrad study of prof children comes up often. The topic 3 destinations amongst that group’s children are LACs.

Np, my spouse is a Hopkins professor. He definitely strongly feels R1 schools are better than lacs for stem majors.

Was your spouse US educated? My spouse, also a T10 professor, doesn't get SLACs at all. He was educated in a country where SLACs don't exist. For many years, he didn't understand how they could be prestigious. Now, kids he has seen grow up are choosing SLACs/ seeing what they do after and he'd more aware.

SLACs are really small.

Yes, born here, private school and then went to a T3 college and medical school. If anything, a WASP. He isn’t anti slac generally, just for the hard sciences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ops statement for top phd placement is true for math and psychology, but not other disciplines.

R1 top-ranked universities, whether public or private, are better for phD placement in Math, Physics, Chemistry, and all Engineering disciplines, for every LAC except the very top LACs (WAS). R1s that are mediocre do not show the same clear benefit in STEM phD placement over LACs, especially known academically rigorous T15 LACS. The R1 standard is not what it once was.

Incorrect on a couple fronts. Only 3 of the top 10 and 7 of the top 20 (by rate) of STEM PhD feeders are R1s. Look at the far right column in below link. Also, minor point but Williams and Amherst aren’t in the top 3 for LAC feeders to PhD programs, though they are top 10.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202022.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

The Vanderbilt study cited earlier looked at this more directly than any other I’ve seen. Their conclusion was the opposite of yours, namely that LAC grads had less attrition and took less time to complete the PhD. They were also more likely to have been published as undergrads. The study had a limited scope (Econ PhD programs from certain schools over certain years), but it was thorough for that population.

Fair enough. But my observations are regarding a STEM field, not economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a discussion with PhD “admit rates.” The links I’ve seen here and elsewhere are always summaries of degrees conferred per the NSF database. So drop outs are already removed. There was a link earlier with data from the 90s and another through ‘22. LACs wouldn’t continue to produce disproportionately more STEM PhDs decade after decade if those programs saw underperformance of LAC grads.

Your alleged experience is not consistent with the best macro data available. It’s also inconsistent with the anecdotes I keep hearing from those I know in academia, but arguing based on personal experience is unnecessarily narrow given the consistency of data showing LACs are over-represented in STEM PhD production.

[Anonymous]

Can't really speak to your university's programs in the sciences, but -- sorry to say -- English died with the rest of the liberal arts throughout the whole of the conventional college system. Your experience with it would not be particularly different unless you were at one of the very few places which have not succumbed: St John's and a group of tiny, mainly conservative, oddball institutions with a classical bent (New Franklin, Thomas Aquinas, Zaytuna, etc).

[Anonymous]

My kid wanted a small LAC, but also aspired to a science grad degree so she purposely sought out schools that provided research experience for undergrads. There are many.

For example, she would notice which schools had scientific posters (or publications) hanging on the walls of the Biology Dept , that had been co-authored by students.

I guess I am saying that research experiences are not restricted to large universities (where undergrads have to compete with grad students). Either you did not do sufficient homework before selecting a college (were you blinded by rank?) or you favored a school strong in History but weak in science ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ops statement for top phd placement is true for math and psychology, but not other disciplines.

R1 top-ranked universities, whether public or private, are better for phD placement in Math, Physics, Chemistry, and all Engineering disciplines, for every LAC except the very top LACs (WAS). R1s that are mediocre do not show the same clear benefit in STEM phD placement over LACs, especially known academically rigorous T15 LACS. The R1 standard is not what it once was.

Incorrect on a couple fronts. Only 3 of the top 10 and 7 of the top 20 (by rate) of STEM PhD feeders are R1s. Look at the far right column in below link. Also, minor point but Williams and Amherst aren’t in the top 3 for LAC feeders to PhD programs, though they are top 10.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202022.pdf

This is just a list of the share of each school that goes on to receive a doctorate, though. It doesn’t really measure relative placement.

It’s a bit strange that boosters of a type of school that is accused of graduating kids that are less employable and that hiring managers haven’t heard of are so eager to highlight their high rate of kids going to PhD programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ops statement for top phd placement is true for math and psychology, but not other disciplines.

R1 top-ranked universities, whether public or private, are better for phD placement in Math, Physics, Chemistry, and all Engineering disciplines, for every LAC except the very top LACs (WAS). R1s that are mediocre do not show the same clear benefit in STEM phD placement over LACs, especially known academically rigorous T15 LACS. The R1 standard is not what it once was.

Incorrect on a couple fronts. Only 3 of the top 10 and 7 of the top 20 (by rate) of STEM PhD feeders are R1s. Look at the far right column in below link. Also, minor point but Williams and Amherst aren’t in the top 3 for LAC feeders to PhD programs, though they are top 10.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202022.pdf

This is just a list of the share of each school that goes on to receive a doctorate, though. It doesn’t really measure relative placement.

It’s a bit strange that boosters of a type of school that is accused of graduating kids that are less employable and that hiring managers haven’t heard of are so eager to highlight their high rate of kids going to PhD programs.

Dp, but I'm sorry are you dumb? If you want to avoid the job market and coast, a PhD is one of the hardest things you can possibly do. This is like claiming medical doctors are too stupid to get a career in biotech.