Anonymous wrote:Not really a problem since grad students are TAing intro courses and, by the time you're ready to apply for grad school, you've been working with profs directly for at least a year (probably at least two years, if you're planning on grad school) in your major. Also, even schools with grad student TAs in large survey courses typically have other seminar-style courses available to freshman and sophomores.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you're right, but the point still remains that it is graduates of LACs that are heavily represented for PhD production (http://www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-research/doctorates-awarded)

Keep in mind that that's the writing load of the average intro course, not upper-levels. I didn't go to Swarthmore, but a peer school, and I had comparable levels of writing at my intro courses and 25+ page papers in my later ones. My thesis was actually a little shorter than one of my papers for a seminar course (70 pages or so, and yes I got extensive feedback on it).

The point I wanted to highlight was more about Swarthmore vs. Drexel, not Swarthmore vs. Columbia. I think top LACs and top universities are equally rigorous. And I think they are more rigorous than other universities.

Anonymous wrote:10:14 re the coveted Princeton teaching award. How funny--I won that too, LOL! And took a job at a major research university rather than a LAC (true of all but one of the 4 winners I knew in grad school). I'd also point out that any winner of that award was one of those terrible grad student instructors who people send their kids to LACs to avoid! Basically, last year's grad student TA can be next year's prof. And grad students can be very effective undergrad teachers -- they're often highly motivated to do well, they are close enough in age (and were recently at a similar stage) to undergrads that their ability to diagnose what's going wrong (missing piece of info, mistaken assumption) can be much better than a tenured prof's. And some undergrads will find them more approachable, so seek help earlier. And they give undergrads a sense of where their studies can lead. I really valued some of the grad student TAs I had -- am still in touch wit ha couple of them (both tenured at major research universities).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was under the impression it was quite a distinctive recognition. Only 5 people get it each year, no? I'm referring to the one where every grad student is eligible, not the departmental ones, like this article: https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S36/99/20C52/

I'm not surprised most end up teaching at universities. Top LACs make up a super small group of all undergrad faculty, and most of them offer no more than 2-3 tenure track jobs a year.

Four a year when I went and, yes, it was university-wide. I'm not saying it wasn't a big deal. What was funny to me was we were both extrapolating from different sides of the same experience. FWIW, none of the four winners I knew were hoping specifically for a job at a LAC (including the one who took one). Too many other factors in the job search mix. And I'd argue I got a more teaching-friendly course load at my research U than my friend got at his LAC. Good teachers end up everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs have never been widely knowledged as a model of excellence.

Well, obviously not to a general audience. But to the well-off and elite, they're very well-known. There's a reason boarding schools represent nearly 30-50% of the population at most LACs, even though they only educate around 10% of all high school students.

This statistic is obviously garbage. If boarding school students are 30-50% of students at schools which educate 10% of all high school students, that suggests that 3-5% of colleg-bound high school students in the US are at boarding school. That seems totally wrong.

Anonymous wrote:I was under the impression it was quite a distinctive recognition. Only 5 people get it each year, no? I'm referring to the one where every grad student is eligible, not the departmental ones, like this article: https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S36/99/20C52/

I'm not surprised most end up teaching at universities. Top LACs make up a super small group of all undergrad faculty, and most of them offer no more than 2-3 tenure track jobs a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs have never been widely knowledged as a model of excellence.

Well, obviously not to a general audience. But to the well-off and elite, they're very well-known. There's a reason boarding schools represent nearly 30-50% of the population at most LACs, even though they only educate around 10% of all high school students.

Anonymous wrote:I'm 10:14. Thanks for clarifying you were referring to top universities; I was myself confused on that matter.

I think the challenge for all of us is that none of us can make broad generalizing remarks about the incredible diversity of colleges that are out there without being grossly inaccurate. I could lambaste Harvard for not providing a comparable education to Williams and generalize it to all LACs vs elite universities. But that's not fair, or characteristic, to those universities that do focus on their undergraduates, like Princeton. Even if I were to attend graduate school at Harvard, that doesn't entitle me to have personal experience about their undergraduate program; I simply don't have the personal experience to try to characterize them. I have no affiliations with Harvard as of now, so I would find it rather presumptuous to make any assumptions about them as an LAC grad. I could say the same for the state universities I described before- I know I should not let hearsay define those institutions. The only students who can really talk about differences are those who transfer from one to another, and even then, how characteristic are their views, when they may only be part of one major of dozens that are available?

Really, I just wanted to share my experience at a top LAC, one that I feel incredibly fortunate to have attended, and one which I don't think is accurately depicted by your comments. Is it the best choice for everyone? No, obviously not. Is it always better than the Ivies and elite universities? No. Is it identical to other top LACs? No. Did I have a transforming, robust experience? Absolutely.

I think one great thing about the American model of education is that there are so many great types of schools out there. Many of those fortunate enough to attend places like Exeter and Andover don't need that same system in college. They've amassed the critical thinking skills, seminar preparation, and in-depth writing that LACs and many top universities prepare their graduates for. The reality, however, is that the a good number of students do not come from places like those elite boarding schools, but rather underfunded, understaffed public schools which limit possibility for exploration. To me, attending an LAC felt like the opportunity that I never could find in high school, and that it was so starkly different was the whole appeal! Of course, I could see how someone from elite boarding schools would not find the LACs appealing. And there's the opposite scenario too- some like the larger, busier nature of high school and want that to a greater extent at a university. And the top LACs are saturated with kids from elite boarding schools- kids who could have easily gone to a larger U but liked their high school experience and wanted to continue it. And let's not forget the kids who don't have the resources to make it to an LAC, and end up enrolling at the local state U. As you rightfully pointed out, if one is determined and focused, one can find an intellectually fulfilling atmosphere at any decent college in the nation. No one is wrong! And I encourage those who think their way or the highway to realize that.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2014/11/06/20-most-rigorous-colleges-photos.html

9 of the top 25 hardest schools are LACs. No public IVY is in the list.

Cal grad