The value of a liberal arts degree?

[Anonymous]

"The flaw in your logic is the assumption that professors at LACs aren't doing research. They are; and in fact at an LAC there are no grad students competing for the positions working with them. So the situation you mention is the opposite of the fact. You will likely form better relationships with your professors and have a better chance at a research position (key for grad school) if you are at an LAC."

There is not a flaw in their logic anymore than there is a flaw in yours.

While it seems possible some schools are so huge that undergrads don't interact with professors, actually, any undergrad who does research of high enough quality to matter for grad school admissions will have plenty of interaction with their advising professor.

I published a paper as an undergraduate. I guarantee my undergrad adviser spent just as much time with me related to my paper as he did with ANY grad student.

When I was in grad school, my grad adviser was the same. If they are going to put their name on it and you are first author, you have a relationship with the PI, even if they are a Nobel Laureate.

In addition, in many of the more liberal arts subjects publications don't really have coauthors and so professors are just editing in their limited spare time.

Finally, not to knock liberal arts schools even if I sound like it, many STEM subjects require expensive equipment that Universities can afford and LACs can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some students, access to graduate departments--and the requisite research opportunities and opportunity to build connections with professors who are leaders in their fields--doesn't matter because it doesn't align with their career goals, but for others it's really important.

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that professors at LACs aren't doing research. They are; and in fact at an LAC there are no grad students competing for the positions working with them. So the situation you mention is the opposite of the fact. You will likely form better relationships with your professors and have a better chance at a research position (key for grad school) if you are at an LAC.

Dig all the LACs on this list:

https://collegematchus.com/ranking-the-colleges-top-colleges-that-feed-alumni-into-grad-school-programs/

And then check out this article:

The children of professors are far more likely to attend liberal arts colleges than other parents. Children of university faculty are about twice as likely to select liberal arts college than children of parents earning more than $100,000 a year.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-professors-send-their-children-to-college/

So much wrong in this thread. If you are new to the college process, please disregard all the stupid comments here and do your own research.

I'm not new to the college process. However, I used to be in academia, my sister is in academia now, and my husband works in higher ed administration. So I know a little something about academic research.

Of course professors at LACs still do research; however, it's just a fact that, generally speaking, they have a higher teaching load and less time for research than most professors at R1 research universities.

Your claim is unsubstantiated by data; but even with the assumption that is true - the question is at which type of college is it easier for an undergraduate to get involved in research? The answer is: at a college where there are no graduate students to compete with.

Make no mistake, R1's are great undergrad choices for many students, and many get to do research at them (my son is one, FYI). And the LAC should be well-studied before choosing to ensure correlation of interests. But the idea that you need "access to graduate departments" or that LACs are not strong educational choices in the modern world is some flat-earth conspiracy level stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The flaw in your logic is the assumption that professors at LACs aren't doing research. They are; and in fact at an LAC there are no grad students competing for the positions working with them. So the situation you mention is the opposite of the fact. You will likely form better relationships with your professors and have a better chance at a research position (key for grad school) if you are at an LAC."

There is not a flaw in their logic anymore than there is a flaw in yours.

While it seems possible some schools are so huge that undergrads don't interact with professors, actually, any undergrad who does research of high enough quality to matter for grad school admissions will have plenty of interaction with their advising professor.

I published a paper as an undergraduate. I guarantee my undergrad adviser spent just as much time with me related to my paper as he did with ANY grad student.

When I was in grad school, my grad adviser was the same. If they are going to put their name on it and you are first author, you have a relationship with the PI, even if they are a Nobel Laureate.

In addition, in many of the more liberal arts subjects publications don't really have coauthors and so professors are just editing in their limited spare time.

Finally, not to knock liberal arts schools even if I sound like it, many STEM subjects require expensive equipment that Universities can afford and LACs can't.

I did not claim that you couldn't do research at an R1. That would be stupid. I countered the claim that you couldn't do research if you weren't at one. And I make the additional (but unsubstantiated by data) claim that at LACs, 100% of the research assistants are undergraduates.

As for your "equipment" claim -- true to some degree, but take a look at the chem and physics equipment at Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc. More than sufficient for significant research. You need a particle accelerator?, then yes, Hamilton is a bad choice.

[Anonymous]

If LACs are so great for research then why do most PhDs wand a job at an R1? Answer: because of the research opportunities there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If LACs are so great for research then why do most PhDs wand a job at an R1? Answer: because of the research opportunities there.

A few questions:

Did you read the previous posts? The ones that said I understood that research happens at research universities? The one that said I disputed that R1 was necessary to do research, not that it had to be one or the other?

Did you read the link that most college professors send their kids to LACs?

Did you read the link that showed top LACs send a higher percentage of their kids to grad school than many R1s?

Do you know that not all PhDs want to teach -- but the ones that go to LACs know they must teach and go there because they love teaching? Is that a bad quality for the people teaching your kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some students, access to graduate departments--and the requisite research opportunities and opportunity to build connections with professors who are leaders in their fields--doesn't matter because it doesn't align with their career goals, but for others it's really important.

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that professors at LACs aren't doing research. They are; and in fact at an LAC there are no grad students competing for the positions working with them. So the situation you mention is the opposite of the fact. You will likely form better relationships with your professors and have a better chance at a research position (key for grad school) if you are at an LAC.

Dig all the LACs on this list:

https://collegematchus.com/ranking-the-colleges-top-colleges-that-feed-alumni-into-grad-school-programs/

And then check out this article:

The children of professors are far more likely to attend liberal arts colleges than other parents. Children of university faculty are about twice as likely to select liberal arts college than children of parents earning more than $100,000 a year.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-professors-send-their-children-to-college/

So much wrong in this thread. If you are new to the college process, please disregard all the stupid comments here and do your own research.

I'm not new to the college process. However, I used to be in academia, my sister is in academia now, and my husband works in higher ed administration. So I know a little something about academic research.

Of course professors at LACs still do research; however, it's just a fact that, generally speaking, they have a higher teaching load and less time for research than most professors at R1 research universities.

I think you have it backwards. What is most valuable for many undergraduates is doing a self-directed research project that is mentored by faculty. Faculty who are spending time on their own research projects (rather than on instruction) have less time to provide this type of support. These projects are useful to students in graduate school and job applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If LACs are so great for research then why do most PhDs wand a job at an R1? Answer: because of the research opportunities there.

A few questions:

Did you read the previous posts? The ones that said I understood that research happens at research universities? The one that said I disputed that R1 was necessary to do research, not that it had to be one or the other?

Did you read the link that most college professors send their kids to LACs?

Did you read the link that showed top LACs send a higher percentage of their kids to grad school than many R1s?

Do you know that not all PhDs want to teach -- but the ones that go to LACs know they must teach and go there because they love teaching? Is that a bad quality for the people teaching your kids?

I never said LACs don’t have research. Of course I think professor relationships with undergrads are important.

But it’s ridiculous to not see the benefits for some kids or having access to the resources of a research university. That’s why they’re called RESEARCH universities.

[Anonymous]

What you’re all saying about LACs and PhD programs is true more for humanities than science PhD programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some students, access to graduate departments--and the requisite research opportunities and opportunity to build connections with professors who are leaders in their fields--doesn't matter because it doesn't align with their career goals, but for others it's really important.

The flaw in your logic is the assumption that professors at LACs aren't doing research. They are; and in fact at an LAC there are no grad students competing for the positions working with them. So the situation you mention is the opposite of the fact. You will likely form better relationships with your professors and have a better chance at a research position (key for grad school) if you are at an LAC.

Dig all the LACs on this list:

https://collegematchus.com/ranking-the-colleges-top-colleges-that-feed-alumni-into-grad-school-programs/

And then check out this article:

The children of professors are far more likely to attend liberal arts colleges than other parents. Children of university faculty are about twice as likely to select liberal arts college than children of parents earning more than $100,000 a year.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-professors-send-their-children-to-college/

So much wrong in this thread. If you are new to the college process, please disregard all the stupid comments here and do your own research.

I'm not new to the college process. However, I used to be in academia, my sister is in academia now, and my husband works in higher ed administration. So I know a little something about academic research.

Of course professors at LACs still do research; however, it's just a fact that, generally speaking, they have a higher teaching load and less time for research than most professors at R1 research universities.

Your claim is unsubstantiated by data; but even with the assumption that is true - the question is at which type of college is it easier for an undergraduate to get involved in research? The answer is: at a college where there are no graduate students to compete with.

Make no mistake, R1's are great undergrad choices for many students, and many get to do research at them (my son is one, FYI). And the LAC should be well-studied before choosing to ensure correlation of interests. But the idea that you need "access to graduate departments" or that LACs are not strong educational choices in the modern world is some flat-earth conspiracy level stupidity.

I believe the data shows LACs produce undergraduates that go on to earn STEM PHDs at a significantly higher rate than undergraduates from top research universities.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-50-schools-that-produce-science-phds/
https://www.collegetransitions.com/infographics/top-feeders-phd-programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you’re all saying about LACs and PhD programs is true more for humanities than science PhD programs.

No. See below. And there is also a government website where you can see PHD feeder schools by institution and subject.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-50-schools-that-produce-science-phds/
https://www.collegetransitions.com/infographics/top-feeders-phd-programs


https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/ids/#anchorAdd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you’re all saying about LACs and PhD programs is true more for humanities than science PhD programs.

No. See below. And there is also a government website where you can see PHD feeder schools by institution and subject.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-50-schools-that-produce-science-phds/
https://www.collegetransitions.com/infographics/top-feeders-phd-programs


https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/ids/#anchorAdd

It is Clearer in this blog post and list:

http://www.thecollegesolution.com/50-schools-that-produce-the-most-science-and-engineering-phds-2/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If LACs are so great for research then why do most PhDs wand a job at an R1? Answer: because of the research opportunities there.

A few questions:

Did you read the previous posts? The ones that said I understood that research happens at research universities? The one that said I disputed that R1 was necessary to do research, not that it had to be one or the other?

Did you read the link that most college professors send their kids to LACs?

Did you read the link that showed top LACs send a higher percentage of their kids to grad school than many R1s?

Do you know that not all PhDs want to teach -- but the ones that go to LACs know they must teach and go there because they love teaching? Is that a bad quality for the people teaching your kids?

I never said LACs don’t have research. Of course I think professor relationships with undergrads are important.

But it’s ridiculous to not see the benefits for some kids or having access to the resources of a research university. That’s why they’re called RESEARCH universities.

Your post would be incredibly salient — if anyone had said they don’t see the benefits of an R1.

Unfortunately for you, no one did.

However your first point accents the other position of the actual discussion - that LACs have research also, and are therefore valuable to students seeking that - so, thank you for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If LACs are so great for research then why do most PhDs wand a job at an R1? Answer: because of the research opportunities there.

A few questions:

Did you read the previous posts? The ones that said I understood that research happens at research universities? The one that said I disputed that R1 was necessary to do research, not that it had to be one or the other?

Did you read the link that most college professors send their kids to LACs?

Did you read the link that showed top LACs send a higher percentage of their kids to grad school than many R1s?

Do you know that not all PhDs want to teach -- but the ones that go to LACs know they must teach and go there because they love teaching? Is that a bad quality for the people teaching your kids?

I never said LACs don’t have research. Of course I think professor relationships with undergrads are important.

But it’s ridiculous to not see the benefits for some kids or having access to the resources of a research university. That’s why they’re called RESEARCH universities.

Your post would be incredibly salient — if anyone had said they don’t see the benefits of an R1.

Unfortunately for you, no one did.

However your first point accents the other position of the actual discussion - that LACs have research also, and are therefore valuable to students seeking that - so, thank you for that.

I'd argue that graduate students and researchers benefit the most from the "resources of a research university." Not undergraduates.

[Anonymous]

Many of the CTCL schools place an emphasis on the liberal arts and sciences. It’s an asset to have some popular CTCL choices in VA and MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If LACs are so great for research then why do most PhDs wand a job at an R1? Answer: because of the research opportunities there.

A few questions:

Did you read the previous posts? The ones that said I understood that research happens at research universities? The one that said I disputed that R1 was necessary to do research, not that it had to be one or the other?

Did you read the link that most college professors send their kids to LACs?

Did you read the link that showed top LACs send a higher percentage of their kids to grad school than many R1s?

Do you know that not all PhDs want to teach -- but the ones that go to LACs know they must teach and go there because they love teaching? Is that a bad quality for the people teaching your kids?

I never said LACs don’t have research. Of course I think professor relationships with undergrads are important.

But it’s ridiculous to not see the benefits for some kids or having access to the resources of a research university. That’s why they’re called RESEARCH universities.

Your post would be incredibly salient — if anyone had said they don’t see the benefits of an R1.

Unfortunately for you, no one did.

However your first point accents the other position of the actual discussion - that LACs have research also, and are therefore valuable to students seeking that - so, thank you for that.

You have been saying, though, that R1 universities offer essentially no benefit to students that LACs can't provide, which isn't true.

By the way, I never argued that the only reason an undergrad might want the resources of an R1 university is for them to get into a PhD program. There are many career paths that can benefit from undergrad education at a large university, so looking at matriculation into PhD programs doesn't establish that LACs are superior in any way other than feeding students into those programs.