Reply to Colleges to Look At Suggestions

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Colleges to Look At Suggestions - Biology major"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]But her recommendations (and observations) are more credible than the conclusions you’re drawing from bizarrely- aggregated data.

In terms of absolute numbers, significantly more PhDs earn their BAs or BSs at major research universities than at LACs.  NSF adopted the yield ratio (number of PhD recipients divided by number of BA recipients in the same (broadly defined) field) as a secondary measure because LACs weren’t showing up at all in the top 50 producers of S&E PHDs.  Which didn’t seem a fair representation of their role in science education.  Basically, you need both pieces of data (as well as more data about subfield representation at specific LACs) to make an intelligent choice as to where your DC should go to college if s/he hopes to pursue a science PhD.

And depth and breadth of research opportunities on campus is definitely something to focus on.  [/quote]

Why wouldn't it be a fair representation? Do you realize how tiny LACs are, yet how much of a weight they pack as a collective force?

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/ has absolute numbers listed. Let's compare UC Berkeley (30000 undergrads), which yielded 3406 bachelor's students who went onto receive STEM PhDs, to LACs in the top 20:

Harvey Mudd (800 undergrads, 359 recipients), Reed (1400, 374), Swarthmore (1600, 472), Carleton (2000, 555), Grinnell (1800, 366), Pomona (1650, 345), Haverford (1200, 269), Williams (2000, 451), Bryn Mawr (1700, 245). Collectively, this amounts to 3436 PhD recipients at a population of 14,150. These 9 LACs are producing more STEM PhDs on an [b]ABSOLUTE[/b] scale than UC Berkeley, which has more than double the undergraduate population. You can compare against Stanford + Harvard as well- 15500 undergraduates total, 3153 receiving PhDs. Do you see the issue? If your point is that these LACs are not significant, then your point is also that UC Berkeley or Harvard + Stanford are not significant for leading undergraduates to PhDs.

Your argument was:
1) Research is non-existent at LACs lacking research faculty (which isn't even a thing among the top LACs- virtually all science professors do some form of research). This is incorrect, LAC graduates are the most likely of all classifications of colleges to have done research with a faculty member- by far (the national average is 23%, no other classification comes close).
2) You are far more likely to get "real research" (whatever that means) at a larger school. Given that research experience/letters of references are one of the most important aspects of getting admitted to PhD programs, if these LACs  are disproportionately represented, their graduates seem to do just fine in obtaining the necessary experiences.

Is your point that LAC graduates aren't getting into the best PhD programs? What's your proof of that? At the top LACs, it seems that a significant cohort goes off to the top graduate schools each year. Williams lists Harvard, Yale, and Columbia as the top 3 destinations for students going onto a PhD program. Swarthmore lists UPenn, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Columbia, MIT, UChicago, Oxford, Stanford, and Princeton as its top 10, and the biggest percent of their alumni group is scientists at 18%. [/quote]I have no idea why you're fighting this point.  Are you even a science grad?  I have a PhD from a PI who later received a Nobel Prize.  I know how to get into top labs.  I also know who succeeds once they get into those labs.  I know how to get full funding for grad school so you don't have to rely on a PI.  All three require as much research experience as you can muster.  You want to use undergraduate years to get this experience.  You want to try out labs to see what kind of work you like.  You can't do this at small schools where the only "research" that is being done is into science education.  You want to go to a school with labs where you can contribute to peer reviewed publications in recognized journals.

I admitted in my very first post that the biggest schools likely don't give the best research opportunities because the professors are too disengaged from undergrads.  On the flip side, the smallest schools may have insufficient research opportunities.  The students who came into grad school with the best preparation went to mid-sized schools like Cornell, Case Western and CMU. [/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