Reply to Top ranked LACs vs top ranked universities

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Top ranked LACs vs top ranked universities"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]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10 years, most don't have any books written, and some of them have research emphasis which are now considered pretty outdated (cushy tenure job, perhaps)?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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics