Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

I'm the LAC booster (with concerns about some LACs) from earlier in the thread. This comment codifies my core general worry about LACs: the small classes and tutorial-like nurturing atmosphere are great, but at some point the budding scientist or scholar has to make it on his or her own. I don't doubt that the first-year experience may be enormously better at a LAC, but I suspect that the student who really is a candidate for an eventual PhD may be in better long-term shape having gone through undergrad in a way that more resembles the research culture of grad school. (Of course, it depends on the individual student. But my kid's probably going to choose a research university over a highly PhD-productive LAC for this reason, among others.)

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

Anonymous wrote:I trust this Nobel prize winner more than anonymous trolls:
https://www.thecollegesolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cech_article2.pdf

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

Anonymous wrote:Ops statement for top phd placement is true for math and psychology, but not other disciplines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

+1

agree

Anonymous wrote:These discussions always focus on admit rates to PhD programs, rather than success in the PhD program. I'm a STEM prof at a research university and I have consistently seen the students from LACs, who had great transcripts, glowing letters, etc etc, struggle with the rigor and independence that is expected of a PhD student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"a complete lack of translation coursework"

why would an english department have "translation coursework"?

This is not a serious post.

Because English as a field has moved beyond literal English-only texts for decades now? Because liberal arts colleges typically don’t have comparative literature departments and hire inside the English department for that role? This is a silly response.

NP. If I want to major in English literature, I’m interested in studying texts written in English. If I’m interested in studying literature in general, or comparative literature, then that’s a different story, and I’d likely choose a school that has available majors that focus on those areas.

But English departments don’t need translation coursework. If a student wants that, they need to choose a more general literature major, not English literature.

Anonymous wrote:I trust this Nobel prize winner more than anonymous trolls:
https://www.thecollegesolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cech_article2.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"a complete lack of translation coursework"

why would an english department have "translation coursework"?

This is not a serious post.

Because English as a field has moved beyond literal English-only texts for decades now? Because liberal arts colleges typically don’t have comparative literature departments and hire inside the English department for that role? This is a silly response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A family member works in a top 5 worldwide school for STEM in a position where the topic of undergrad study of prof children comes up often. The topic 3 destinations amongst that group’s children are LACs.

Np, my spouse is a Hopkins professor. He definitely strongly feels R1 schools are better than lacs for stem majors.

Anonymous wrote:I am currently attending a well-ranked liberal arts college for a double major in English and Physics. The small course sizes sounded nice at first, but my English courses have not really evolved past discussions of the same handful of themes (patriarchy/sex or gender, racism/exclusion, identity/perception). The professors are fine, but they are typically not doing active research that invites students, so I have to get creative (aka go to research universities). The department holds a few modernists, a single professor in literary criticism, and a complete lack of translation coursework. I cannot really say the experience has been much beyond discussion with mostly sleepy students, who do not at all care about the text, often not reading it either. I am taking a tutorial next semester, but I won't be holding my breath on increased rigor and interest.
The physics resources and faculty are amazing, but the reality is that getting into a top physics program requires top research experience and heavily biases those with graduate coursework and years of research.
Look, I love small classes and learning in a small community within an idyll, bucolic campus, but I don't think it is worth it over going to a good research university, where you get support for research and have more opportunities with nicher subspecialties.