Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Have you been a grad student or worked on a research team? Most grad students catch a meeting with their research mentor once a month or maybe a few times a month if they have a very organized professor. Undergraduates need a lot of attention, because they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t have much technical background.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few LACs are anywhere near the rigor of top engineering universities. That's what happens when your school is mostly "soft" subjects.

Do you care to explain why when adjusted for size SLACs send a far higher percentage of their students to PhD programs than the schools which you obsessively adore?

The schools PP adores give their students the option to go into highly lucrative industry careers or grad school. With a LAC, there is pretty much no choice, so of course more go to grad school. That's not necessarily a success.

That is funny, wildly incorrect but funny.

Top SLACs place as well or better into highly lucrative careers as well or better than any top university major for major. Ironically many also place very well for CS and Swarthmore and Mudd engineering grads are highly sought after. The universities that they adore place a lot of engineers which skews their numbers.

nI can believe this for Mudd, but I'll need evidence for Swarthmore being a FAANG target

Is FAANG the benchmark now? The vast majority of engineering majors at a FAANG aren't from the school that you covet. I've posted many times here about FAANG engineers. The ones on my team were from MIT, CIT, Waterloo, and Toronto. But I also had SJSU, UCSC, CP SLO, NCstate, Missouri S&T, UN Reno, RIT. A Midd grad is VP Product for a Google group (not mine, mine is led by a Stanford grad), and I have a L8 (Director) peer from RIT. You just don't get it, these schools aren't "all that and a bag of chips" in our world.

If a FAANG was really your target I would go to SJSU and just try to crush it.

FAANG feeders tend to be schools that are very good at cs- Georgia tech, UT, Stanford, CMU, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few LACs are anywhere near the rigor of top engineering universities. That's what happens when your school is mostly "soft" subjects.

Do you care to explain why when adjusted for size SLACs send a far higher percentage of their students to PhD programs than the schools which you obsessively adore?

The schools PP adores give their students the option to go into highly lucrative industry careers or grad school. With a LAC, there is pretty much no choice, so of course more go to grad school. That's not necessarily a success.

That is funny, wildly incorrect but funny.

Top SLACs place as well or better into highly lucrative careers as well or better than any top university major for major. Ironically many also place very well for CS and Swarthmore and Mudd engineering grads are highly sought after. The universities that they adore place a lot of engineers which skews their numbers.

nI can believe this for Mudd, but I'll need evidence for Swarthmore being a FAANG target

Is FAANG the benchmark now? The vast majority of engineering majors at a FAANG aren't from the school that you covet. I've posted many times here about FAANG engineers. The ones on my team were from MIT, CIT, Waterloo, and Toronto. But I also had SJSU, UCSC, CP SLO, NCstate, Missouri S&T, UN Reno, RIT. A Midd grad is VP Product for a Google group (not mine, mine is led by a Stanford grad), and I have a L8 (Director) peer from RIT. You just don't get it, these schools aren't "all that and a bag of chips" in our world.

If a FAANG was really your target I would go to SJSU and just try to crush it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few LACs are anywhere near the rigor of top engineering universities. That's what happens when your school is mostly "soft" subjects.

Do you care to explain why when adjusted for size SLACs send a far higher percentage of their students to PhD programs than the schools which you obsessively adore?

The schools PP adores give their students the option to go into highly lucrative industry careers or grad school. With a LAC, there is pretty much no choice, so of course more go to grad school. That's not necessarily a success.

That is funny, wildly incorrect but funny.

Top SLACs place as well or better into highly lucrative careers as well or better than any top university major for major. Ironically many also place very well for CS and Swarthmore and Mudd engineering grads are highly sought after. The universities that they adore place a lot of engineers which skews their numbers.

nI can believe this for Mudd, but I'll need evidence for Swarthmore being a FAANG target

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about YOU. The difference is that at a SLAC you don't need to contend with the grad students who often get the most attention at the university labs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few LACs are anywhere near the rigor of top engineering universities. That's what happens when your school is mostly "soft" subjects.

Do you care to explain why when adjusted for size SLACs send a far higher percentage of their students to PhD programs than the schools which you obsessively adore?

The schools PP adores give their students the option to go into highly lucrative industry careers or grad school. With a LAC, there is pretty much no choice, so of course more go to grad school. That's not necessarily a success.

That is funny, wildly incorrect but funny.

Top SLACs place as well or better into highly lucrative careers as well or better than any top university major for major. Ironically many also place very well for CS and Swarthmore and Mudd engineering grads are highly sought after. The universities that they adore place a lot of engineers which skews their numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

The same is true for universities though. It’s so strange how you can’t see the intense biases you’re grasping onto.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

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.

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.

Do you mean the Reddit link? It doesn't say what you think it says. Actually part way down the thread there was a solid argument against your assertion. You obviously didn't go to one of those schools which you so adore. I did; though it was for grad school.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When did you last attend an HYPSM, the classes these days are TINY. You were just a generation behind. They also can hire the best teaching faculty because of the prestige.

They hire them, then fire them rather than giving them tenure. Not the best way to motivate them to teach.

Do you mean non-tenure track faculty? That is how all institutions work. You don’t accept a contract that says you will be at an institution for a short period if you want to be there long term.

No, I mean assistant professors on the tenure track:"Tenure at Harvard is very difficult to get, particularly promotion from within. From job offer to tenure offer, scholarship and teaching are intensely scrutinized. For young scholars hired into the tenure track and brought up from within, evaluation occurs in Harvard’s classrooms and among its academic circles. Of the 20 or 30 assistant professors who are hired into that track across the University each year, many will not make it through a full seven years to tenure review.

At the same time as junior faculty are moving up within the University, more senior scholars will be recruited from the outside. Though reputations and their own tenure positions have been earned elsewhere, ultimately these “stars from afar,” as Singer calls them, will compete with those closer to home for the same small number of positions."

Plus they're focusing more on research than teaching:

"Ideally, research and teaching go hand-in-hand—the great professor contributes to the scope of knowledge while at the same time dispensing it. But without a means to measure—and reward— teaching, students are often left with senior professors who conduct their classes with unconcealed distaste, rehashing old overheads compiled a generation ago, stifling the bothersome questions at office hours, and begrudging every minute stolen from the lab. There are, of course, the occasional geniuses whose level of research covers all defects and makes them essential hires even if their lectures are grunted and monotone. But geniuses pare rare even among Harvard’s professoriat. The lay-professors ought to be skilled at teaching and research, but the Harvard’s current tenuring process hardly allows it. “I’m told often that teaching really matters but I don’t see a lot of evidence that being an exceptional teacher will result in a real reward here,” says Cox."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-harvard/

Liberal arts college professors still need to do ample research to advance to tenure, especially at WASP.

Yes, and guess who actively participates with them in their research? Undergrads! This was the case with our Kid who got several scientific papers published from her undergrad SLAC research

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few LACs are anywhere near the rigor of top engineering universities. That's what happens when your school is mostly "soft" subjects.

Do you care to explain why when adjusted for size SLACs send a far higher percentage of their students to PhD programs than the schools which you obsessively adore?

The schools PP adores give their students the option to go into highly lucrative industry careers or grad school. With a LAC, there is pretty much no choice, so of course more go to grad school. That's not necessarily a success.