Anonymous wrote:Based on survey-based information, the Princeton Review includes these LACs in "Colleges Where Students Study the Most":

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Gettysburg
Centre
Lafayette
Wellesley
College of the Atlantic
Reed
Bucknell
Williams
St. Olaf
Colby
Bowdoin
Amherst
Hamilton
Puget Sound

https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings/?rankings=students-study-most

Anonymous wrote:Based on survey-based information, the Princeton Review includes these LACs in "Colleges Where Students Study the Most":

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Gettysburg
Centre
Lafayette
Wellesley
College of the Atlantic
Reed
Bucknell
Williams
St. Olaf
Colby
Bowdoin
Amherst
Hamilton
Puget Sound

https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings/?rankings=students-study-most

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is critical thinking in the context of LAC exactly? See a lot of folks say this is important but not sure what they mean by it.

Alum of top research university for engineering and feel I do a lot of critical thinking, make a lot of decisions for other people, get paid a lot for it but maybe idk what critical Thinking even is. Lol.

Critical thinking is a bit of a cope when you can't find any other way to justify a style of education. Below is what I see as the actual value behind a LAC education. I have degrees from both an ivy and a large state school, and I have two kids at different top LACs.

1. In terms of reading volume, LAC > ivy > State u. LACs teach you to suggest larger quantities of textual information and spit out analysis. I think UChicago is the only research university that equals WASP in terms of reading load.

2. Emphasis on writing. Some LACs require multiple writing courses. Even the ones that don't, have smaller class sizes and professors give more feedback. I would venture that, controlling for verbal SAT score, LACs produce better writers than both ivies and state research universities.

3. ECs. LACs have drastically fewer students, but not that many fewer student government positions, sports teams, newspapers and literary journals, clubs, social events, etc. Accordingly, it's easier to acquire leadership experience, get your work published, get your feet wet organizing events, etc.

All of that is an elaborate way of saying that LACs build soft skills really well. Hard skills? Like engineering? Not so much. It's a trade-off, but one that can be worth it for careers like law, consulting, academia, journalism, entertainment, government and nonprofit work. It's not for everyone, but it works out for many.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is critical thinking in the context of LAC exactly? See a lot of folks say this is important but not sure what they mean by it.

Alum of top research university for engineering and feel I do a lot of critical thinking, make a lot of decisions for other people, get paid a lot for it but maybe idk what critical Thinking even is. Lol.

Critical thinking is a bit of a cope when you can't find any other way to justify a style of education. Below is what I see as the actual value behind a LAC education. I have degrees from both an ivy and a large state school, and I have two kids at different top LACs.

1. In terms of reading volume, LAC > ivy > State u. LACs teach you to suggest larger quantities of textual information and spit out analysis. I think UChicago is the only research university that equals WASP in terms of reading load.

2. Emphasis on writing. Some LACs require multiple writing courses. Even the ones that don't, have smaller class sizes and professors give more feedback. I would venture that, controlling for verbal SAT score, LACs produce better writers than both ivies and state research universities.

3. ECs. LACs have drastically fewer students, but not that many fewer student government positions, sports teams, newspapers and literary journals, clubs, social events, etc. Accordingly, it's easier to acquire leadership experience, get your work published, get your feet wet organizing events, etc.

All of that is an elaborate way of saying that LACs build soft skills really well. Hard skills? Like engineering? Not so much. It's a trade-off, but one that can be worth it for careers like law, consulting, academia, journalism, entertainment, government and nonprofit work. It's not for everyone, but it works out for many.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math 55, which cannot be less rigorous than UofC honors analysis, covers most of the undergraduate math curriculum (100 level courses at Harvard, already pretty hair raising stuff) but does not delve in any depth into graduate topics (200 level courses, the cliffs of insanity). There's just no way honors analysis is harder than that, so it's an exaggeration to say it would be a graduate class at most schools, unless you're thinking of schools like Montclair State.

HOWEVER, not a single LAC in the country offers the equivalent of Math 55 or honors analysis. They are extremely accelerated classes for a small sliver of the national undergrad population. Those kids didn't go to LACs. So UChicago booster is right in that respect.

They’re correct, but a student that strong in math, should just start in graduate courses. Math 55 makes sense, but the Uchicago class seems like a borderline incoherent offering when they have a graduate department in mathematics that would set up a precocious student in mathematics anyway.

+1, I don't really see the point. If a student is that advanced, move on?

Again, long experience of precocious freshmen who had eaten up all the advanced courses at Directional State U. that they took as dual enrollment in high school coming into Harvard grad courses with guns blazing, only to crash and burn - this is why Math 55 exists. If uchicago honors analysis doesn't have the same backstory, I will eat baby Rudin with a knife and fork. That's why vanishingly few precocious freshmen are allowed into grad courses immediately at those two schools.

Anonymous wrote:What is critical thinking in the context of LAC exactly? See a lot of folks say this is important but not sure what they mean by it.

Alum of top research university for engineering and feel I do a lot of critical thinking, make a lot of decisions for other people, get paid a lot for it but maybe idk what critical Thinking even is. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can you find a LAC whose freshman analysis sequence covers the topics listed I'm this comment, or similar?

https://old.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1gviqgo/differences_in_undergrad_math_programs/ly78zey/

I had a similar sequence at Maryland, College Park. They no longer offer this tiny honors sequence.

I'm pretty sure you could get something worthy at Harvey Mudd.

Professors disproportionately send their own kids to liberal arts colleges. Small schools are focused on undergrads, where professors aren't managing big labs and travelling to research conferences.

Most undergrads don't need highly specialized education at the cutting edge of research. They thrive with standard classes, good classmates, and attentive professors.

Analysis is not ordinarily offered to freshmen at Mudd.

Perhaps the primary reason is that Harvey Mudd has a strict core requirement.

Mudd also isn't interested in training pure mathematicians and they are small, so multiple tracks for math aren't as feasible.

Certainly. That being said, the "why" doesn't change the "what". And Mudd is about as good as it gets for SLACs in terms of math.

According to Who? They're great at CS, Physics, and Engineering, but Mudd's claim to fame is certainly not mathematics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Math 55, which cannot be less rigorous than UofC honors analysis, covers most of the undergraduate math curriculum (100 level courses at Harvard, already pretty hair raising stuff) but does not delve in any depth into graduate topics (200 level courses, the cliffs of insanity). There's just no way honors analysis is harder than that, so it's an exaggeration to say it would be a graduate class at most schools, unless you're thinking of schools like Montclair State.

HOWEVER, not a single LAC in the country offers the equivalent of Math 55 or honors analysis. They are extremely accelerated classes for a small sliver of the national undergrad population. Those kids didn't go to LACs. So UChicago booster is right in that respect.

They’re correct, but a student that strong in math, should just start in graduate courses. Math 55 makes sense, but the Uchicago class seems like a borderline incoherent offering when they have a graduate department in mathematics that would set up a precocious student in mathematics anyway.

+1, I don't really see the point. If a student is that advanced, move on?

Anonymous wrote:Why argue over extremely advanced math courses that are relevant to ~100 freshmen across the entire country per year? All of these schools provide a solid education in mathematics that will set their students up for success.