Anonymous wrote:here's another anecdote from swat:
https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/mathematics-statistics/MathGradSchool.pdf

"Does this mean you should give up? Of course not. It does mean you have an uphill fight to get into the best places, and that you will have to apply to a variety of places to
ensure an acceptance with funding."

Note this is Swarthmore, the top 5 SLAC with the highest PhD productivity, telling its math students they basically have to do the reverse of a well-rounded liberal arts curriculum to do well for math graduate school placement.

Yes, by nature of being less specialized and research focused LAC attendees have to come in with a different approach. No, it's not impossible, and if anything, the results from schools like Swat/Pomona/Williams etc. indicates a good number of their students do attend T5 programs even in competitive fields like math. But most of those students will do REUs in research universities during the summers to strengthen their research credentials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

the only LACs I would consider top for physics are Reed, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Amherst (if you leverage the 5cc to take graduate courses at Amherst)

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

the only LACs I would consider top for physics are Reed, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Amherst (if you leverage the 5cc to take graduate courses at Amherst)

Amherst (who has not won an apker award) and Williams are interesting choices. By the way, Mudd and Pomona share a physics department…

Amherst College has produced an Apker recipient, and it is notable for having done so during the time when the Apker did not distinguish between colleges and universities. Only three other liberal arts colleges — Hamilton, Reed and Macalester — produced Apker recipients during this era.

Harvey Mudd and Pomona do not share a physics department.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

the only LACs I would consider top for physics are Reed, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Amherst (if you leverage the 5cc to take graduate courses at Amherst)

Amherst (who has not won an apker award) and Williams are interesting choices. By the way, Mudd and Pomona share a physics department…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

the only LACs I would consider top for physics are Reed, Harvey Mudd, Williams, Amherst (if you leverage the 5cc to take graduate courses at Amherst)

Anonymous wrote:From what I can see, it does seem there's an issue for lac grads to get into good grad programs. From Pomona, where 2 recent Apker award winners have come from:

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

If a top LAC is explaining that they're at a disadvantage, no reason to not believe them. It is an issue that your professors aren't well known researchers/advancing the field of physics.
Source: https://www.pomona.edu/academics/departments/physics-and-astronomy/physics-academics/plan-senior-year

Independent of the job market, if you want to consider graduate school you have to ask yourself three questions:
-Do I have the grades to get into a reasonable graduate school?
-What subfield of physics am I interested in, and what does this tell me about grad schools I should look at?
-Do I have the motivation to go to and stay in graduate school?
We can help you with the first two questions, but the third you have to answer for yourself. Coming from a small college with no Nobel laureates to write you letters of recommendation means that to get into the very top programs you will need both very good grades and a very good score on the GRE subject test. The “very top” programs are places like UC Berkeley, Stanford, CalTech, and Princeton. If your physics GPA isn’t a steady string of A’s and A-‘s, though, that doesn’t mean that you should start thinking about taking the LSAT. Many good graduate programs exist at schools other than the top ten; the “very top” programs have that ranking partly because they have excellent programs in essentially all subfields of physics. Especially if you have a pretty good idea of the subfield you might want to enter, you should look around at less well-known schools for strong programs in your particular area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call troll. The title says the OP studies history and STEM, but by the first line history is gone and now it's English. A real student wouldn't mix up their own major.

The LAC hater got creative this time - so weird though.

Ditto. I surprised at so many pages of commentary for a troll thread.

This is actually one of the more constructive threads I've read on DCUM -- perhaps because the OP was so obviously a troll. Because that first post was arrant nonsense, people interested in the issues confusedly raised there tried to make sense of them independently.

Op is 100% a troll, but they are talking about things that are real issues, which come up for lac grads. Course diversity and access to grad courses is an actual issue for some fields

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call troll. The title says the OP studies history and STEM, but by the first line history is gone and now it's English. A real student wouldn't mix up their own major.

The LAC hater got creative this time - so weird though.

Ditto. I surprised at so many pages of commentary for a troll thread.

This is actually one of the more constructive threads I've read on DCUM -- perhaps because the OP was so obviously a troll. Because that first post was arrant nonsense, people interested in the issues confusedly raised there tried to make sense of them independently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call troll. The title says the OP studies history and STEM, but by the first line history is gone and now it's English. A real student wouldn't mix up their own major.

The LAC hater got creative this time - so weird though.

Ditto. I surprised at so many pages of commentary for a troll thread.