Reply to The rigor of LACs

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "The rigor of LACs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think that most accredited colleges, LAC or otherwise, offer students more educational opportunities than they can take advantage of.  I think that the quality of education any student at any college receives is determined more by the extent to which they apply themselves and take advantage of those opportunities than by the name of the institution awarding their diploma.  Therefore, I think it is better to find the best college for a student, that will best motivate and facilitate that particular student, than to assume that some published ranking of “best” colleges will provide that particular student with the best outcome.[/quote]
What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.[/quote]

A better undergraduate education? Probably not. What would actually make you believe that you would get a better  education at either school? The faculty aren't superior for undergraduate teaching than at a top SLAC. The resources aren't superior to a top SLAC. The student bodies are basically identical to those at a top SLAC. The class sizes are smaller at a top SLAC. The access to professors is actually better at a top SLAC. The access to research opportunities that are actually appropriate to level of experience are typically higher at a top SLAC. Overall a top SLAC provides a superior educational environment for student outside of those looking to study CS or engineering. [/quote]
The student body - particularly the top 10% in any given major - are definitely not the same. They're drawn from a pool of the top couple dozen or so high school students in their respective fields - the ones who've already done most of the undergrad level curriculum (STEM) or are routinely engaging with primary sources, historiography, analysis, etc (humanities) and doing real, meaningful research (both).

Access to professors is just fine at Stanford and MIT - no top students are struggling to get research, and students have a greater range of areas to research within.

And since you left the door open for math, see the above comment. Other sciences are mostly the same.[/quote]

Grades are basically the same, rigor is basically the same, test scores are basically the same, pulled from the same top schools in the country and yet you persist in arguing that they kids at top R1s are some how "different" and "special". Your argument is the definition of delusion; refusing to accept what is staring you right in the face because you wish it were something other than what it is.

[/quote]
Please find me a SLAC with similar freshman math rigor to UChicago (math 20700), Harvard (math 55), Princeton (MAT 216), etc.

Shouldn't be hard since you claim the rigor is basically the same. Let's see you actually provide evidence for your baseless assertions.[/quote]
I don’t know about math 55, but honors analysis at Chicago isn’t some unique course. Really any lac with an analysis course has similar content. Maybe you know more details, but the syllabus content isn’t anything special. All math departments set up their sequence of how they teach linear algebra and analysis, it’s nothing new.[/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