What makes an LAC "good"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors and grad school matriculation rates.

What a bunch of bs.

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.

If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM.

Do you often listen to braggadocious teens for your worldview? It’s not cool to be undereducated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BSing is certainly a thing in bioinformatics. Not a degree option at the LACs I know, however.

Which is probably why they said they got a masters in the subject?

[Anonymous]

It’s clear most people commenting don’t/can’t read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors and grad school matriculation rates.

What a bunch of bs.

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.

If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM.

You’re talking to a physics B.S. and bioinformatics M.S. BSing to an A is 100% a thing in stem, if you’re any good. This crap take is said by stem grads who wouldn’t be able to get into a grad program or even get grant funding, because they eschew any exercise in writing/the humanities. We get it: you think you’re better than others.

I’m going to trust the most recent Chicago alums I know over someone boasting about a bioinformatics degree.

You’re talking to a Chicago grad…
Anyway, it’s always interesting meeting people who think stem is the end-all, be-all, because they’re undoubtedly stupid.

And you just graduated? Acting like it…

I didn’t say STEM was the be-all. I don’t know any STEM major who skipped all the assigned homework and got an A like I’ve known in English, but I guess you are here to tell us Chicago has some of both. They say it’s changed over the years. I guess so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors and grad school matriculation rates.

What a bunch of bs.

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.

If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM.

You’re talking to a physics B.S. and bioinformatics M.S. BSing to an A is 100% a thing in stem, if you’re any good. This crap take is said by stem grads who wouldn’t be able to get into a grad program or even get grant funding, because they eschew any exercise in writing/the humanities. We get it: you think you’re better than others.

I’m going to trust the most recent Chicago alums I know over someone boasting about a bioinformatics degree.

You’re talking to a Chicago grad…
Anyway, it’s always interesting meeting people who think stem is the end-all, be-all, because they’re undoubtedly stupid.

And you just graduated? Acting like it…

I didn’t say STEM was the be-all. I don’t know any STEM major who skipped all the assigned homework and got an A like I’ve known in English, but I guess you are here to tell us Chicago has some of both. They say it’s changed over the years. I guess so.

Who is skipping 10-20 page papers and getting an A? Did you go to community college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors and grad school matriculation rates.

What a bunch of bs.

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.

If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM.

You’re talking to a physics B.S. and bioinformatics M.S. BSing to an A is 100% a thing in stem, if you’re any good. This crap take is said by stem grads who wouldn’t be able to get into a grad program or even get grant funding, because they eschew any exercise in writing/the humanities. We get it: you think you’re better than others.

I’m going to trust the most recent Chicago alums I know over someone boasting about a bioinformatics degree.

You’re talking to a Chicago grad…
Anyway, it’s always interesting meeting people who think stem is the end-all, be-all, because they’re undoubtedly stupid.

And you just graduated? Acting like it…

I didn’t say STEM was the be-all. I don’t know any STEM major who skipped all the assigned homework and got an A like I’ve known in English, but I guess you are here to tell us Chicago has some of both. They say it’s changed over the years. I guess so.

Who is skipping 10-20 page papers and getting an A? Did you go to community college?

The reading was the homework. The term paper was the term paper.

These are Ivy+ students I have known. Profs themselves have written about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors and grad school matriculation rates.

What a bunch of bs.

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.

If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM.

You’re talking to a physics B.S. and bioinformatics M.S. BSing to an A is 100% a thing in stem, if you’re any good. This crap take is said by stem grads who wouldn’t be able to get into a grad program or even get grant funding, because they eschew any exercise in writing/the humanities. We get it: you think you’re better than others.

I’m going to trust the most recent Chicago alums I know over someone boasting about a bioinformatics degree.

You’re talking to a Chicago grad…
Anyway, it’s always interesting meeting people who think stem is the end-all, be-all, because they’re undoubtedly stupid.

And you just graduated? Acting like it…

I didn’t say STEM was the be-all. I don’t know any STEM major who skipped all the assigned homework and got an A like I’ve known in English, but I guess you are here to tell us Chicago has some of both. They say it’s changed over the years. I guess so.

Who is skipping 10-20 page papers and getting an A? Did you go to community college?

The reading was the homework. The term paper was the term paper.

These are Ivy+ students I have known. Profs themselves have written about this.

Huh? What- no. Reading is reading, it’s the lowest expectation that you read anywhere from 100-1000 pages for class. That isn’t a grade.

[Anonymous]

So a supposed Chicago alum is telling us the top 30 LACs are all the same?

Silly stuff!

[Anonymous]

PP is a troll. They have no contact with top institutions and know nothing about the humanities. Don’t respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

No one answered, because the original point is complete bull$hit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors and grad school matriculation rates.

What a bunch of bs.

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.

If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM.

You’re talking to a physics B.S. and bioinformatics M.S. BSing to an A is 100% a thing in stem, if you’re any good. This crap take is said by stem grads who wouldn’t be able to get into a grad program or even get grant funding, because they eschew any exercise in writing/the humanities. We get it: you think you’re better than others.

I’m going to trust the most recent Chicago alums I know over someone boasting about a bioinformatics degree.

You’re talking to a Chicago grad…
Anyway, it’s always interesting meeting people who think stem is the end-all, be-all, because they’re undoubtedly stupid.

And you just graduated? Acting like it…

I didn’t say STEM was the be-all. I don’t know any STEM major who skipped all the assigned homework and got an A like I’ve known in English, but I guess you are here to tell us Chicago has some of both. They say it’s changed over the years. I guess so.

Who is skipping 10-20 page papers and getting an A? Did you go to community college?

I was an English major at T20. No one got A’s without doing endless reading. How does one analyze a body of literature and place that analysis within the vast universe of critical theory without, you know, reading the underlying works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors and grad school matriculation rates.

What a bunch of bs.

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.

If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM.

You’re talking to a physics B.S. and bioinformatics M.S. BSing to an A is 100% a thing in stem, if you’re any good. This crap take is said by stem grads who wouldn’t be able to get into a grad program or even get grant funding, because they eschew any exercise in writing/the humanities. We get it: you think you’re better than others.

I’m going to trust the most recent Chicago alums I know over someone boasting about a bioinformatics degree.

You’re talking to a Chicago grad…
Anyway, it’s always interesting meeting people who think stem is the end-all, be-all, because they’re undoubtedly stupid.

And you just graduated? Acting like it…

I didn’t say STEM was the be-all. I don’t know any STEM major who skipped all the assigned homework and got an A like I’ve known in English, but I guess you are here to tell us Chicago has some of both. They say it’s changed over the years. I guess so.

Who is skipping 10-20 page papers and getting an A? Did you go to community college?

The reading was the homework. The term paper was the term paper.

These are Ivy+ students I have known. Profs themselves have written about this.

Huh? What- no. Reading is reading, it’s the lowest expectation that you read anywhere from 100-1000 pages for class. That isn’t a grade.

Students getting As in Lit classes at top colleges by writing the term papers without doing the reading is not a revelation. It’s been a problem for decades. Far less common to see As in STEM classes after skipping the homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accessibility of professors, academic rigor, and commitment to undergraduate teaching. Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton are highly ranked in these areas—hard to beat them.

All small LACs are highly rated in these areas. That's what makes them SLACs.

DP. LACs are usually strong in those areas, but certainly all are not strong to the same degree. The three mentioned are excellent, as are others in the top 30 or so, but even within that group there’s variation on reputations for instruction quality and rigor.

Name a top 30 lac with lower quality instruction and rigor

USNWR does not have a 30 way tie for undergrad teaching.

For rigor, look at percentages of STEM majors and grad school matriculation rates.

What a bunch of bs.

Cause all majors are equally rigorous? Maybe you have a different idea of rigor, but fine, look at grad school matriculation or acceptance rates for what you consider rigorous then.

Also look at graduation requirements.

If your humanities majors aren't rigorous, you aren't as rigorous as you think you are. True rigor is in institutions like Reed and UChicago, where, across the subjects, you will undergo intense academic rigor, akin to academic hazing.

The STEM majors at those schools may have a different opinion on whether their humanities majors are undergoing a comparably rigorous experience. It’s not that I haven’t known some, there and at similar institutions. Even pre-ChatGTP one could get As without doing the reading at some of our finest English programs. BSing to an A isn’t really a thing in STEM.

You’re talking to a physics B.S. and bioinformatics M.S. BSing to an A is 100% a thing in stem, if you’re any good. This crap take is said by stem grads who wouldn’t be able to get into a grad program or even get grant funding, because they eschew any exercise in writing/the humanities. We get it: you think you’re better than others.

I’m going to trust the most recent Chicago alums I know over someone boasting about a bioinformatics degree.

You’re talking to a Chicago grad…
Anyway, it’s always interesting meeting people who think stem is the end-all, be-all, because they’re undoubtedly stupid.

And you just graduated? Acting like it…

I didn’t say STEM was the be-all. I don’t know any STEM major who skipped all the assigned homework and got an A like I’ve known in English, but I guess you are here to tell us Chicago has some of both. They say it’s changed over the years. I guess so.

Who is skipping 10-20 page papers and getting an A? Did you go to community college?

The reading was the homework. The term paper was the term paper.

These are Ivy+ students I have known. Profs themselves have written about this.

Huh? What- no. Reading is reading, it’s the lowest expectation that you read anywhere from 100-1000 pages for class. That isn’t a grade.

Students getting As in Lit classes at top colleges by writing the term papers without doing the reading is not a revelation. It’s been a problem for decades. Far less common to see As in STEM classes after skipping the homework.

Uh huh…sure

[Anonymous]

Anyway back to the topic, it’s important to consider faculty size. A few lacs arent hiring enough permanent faculty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you distinguish between the LACs when they're all similar, especially amongst WASP schools? They all have small class sizes, pretty campuses, and strong academics. DD is interested in a math/history double major, but the schools and offerings are so so similar that it seems like we are just splitting hairs deciding.

We visited WASB, they are just so different from each other! DC can immediately feel different vibes of these schools. It’s really important because the school is so small. If your DC doesn’t fit in, they won’t make friends there.

Really don’t see much difference, and I’ve been to W S and B 3 times each now.