As many others have already noted, here is what I would suggest:

-Reed
-Kenyon
-Oberlin
-Grinnell
-Middlebury
-Wesleyan
-Colgate
-Union
-Hamilton
-Smith, Mount Holyoke, Hampshire and Amherst (part of the 5 college consortium, plus UMass Amherst)
-Knox
-Beloit
Have you heard of the organization Colleges That Change Lives? https://ctcl.org/college-map/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’ll be fine. English classrooms were in the basement at both my undergrad and grad schools but it doesn’t matter—still the strongest programs in the country. There’s nothing interesting to show on the tour, however. If the geology department has a cool display of rocks, that is where the tour will go.

The reality is few kids are majoring in humanities and peers will be in STEM. It doesn’t mean those peers won’t also be strong in humanities or have other interests.

Exactly! My econ major at Chicago was EIC of his student newspaper, got 780 on the Verbal SAT, and can write a top-notch formal literary essay.

Econ is a humanities/liberal arts, not STEM. /signed Econ major.

As an alternative opinion, I'd classify economics among the social sciences, not the humanities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’ll be fine. English classrooms were in the basement at both my undergrad and grad schools but it doesn’t matter—still the strongest programs in the country. There’s nothing interesting to show on the tour, however. If the geology department has a cool display of rocks, that is where the tour will go.

The reality is few kids are majoring in humanities and peers will be in STEM. It doesn’t mean those peers won’t also be strong in humanities or have other interests.

Exactly! My econ major at Chicago was EIC of his student newspaper, got 780 on the Verbal SAT, and can write a top-notch formal literary essay.

Econ is a humanities/liberal arts, not STEM. /signed Econ major.

Anonymous wrote:He’ll be fine. English classrooms were in the basement at both my undergrad and grad schools but it doesn’t matter—still the strongest programs in the country. There’s nothing interesting to show on the tour, however. If the geology department has a cool display of rocks, that is where the tour will go.

The reality is few kids are majoring in humanities and peers will be in STEM. It doesn’t mean those peers won’t also be strong in humanities or have other interests.

Exactly! My econ major at Chicago was EIC of his student newspaper, got 780 on the Verbal SAT, and can write a top-notch formal literary essay.

With respect to the contrast between universities and LACs, this Hamilton humanities professor, who has experience at both, was clear in his preference:

"As a grad student I taught at a big research institution, Stanford, and there are very smart students there as well, but they weren’t the ideal I had in mind, which was the engaged, enthusiastic liberal arts student who’s in it for the ideas, for the love of knowledge …."

https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/faculty-jason-cieply-russian-studies

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Univ of Chicago’s required core curriculum is intense and reminds me of philosophy classes I took in college. In one semester the first year, our daughter read Aristotle, Plato, St. Augustine, Durkheim, Arendt, and Freud. I’m sure I’ve forgotten many. https://college.uchicago.edu/academics/core-curriculum

A humanities kid having to take core classes with a bunch of Econ majors (30% of Chicago students major in Econ) and STEM kids sounds like a living hell to me…

Well I guess only St. John’s or a theological seminary would suit you, then. I hope your student, however, will survive a few classes with people who have perspectives and goals that differ from hers. The world would likely be in better shape if the econ kids and the STEM kids had studied philosophy and literature.

But not if the STEM kids are required to take "STEM for poets" courses before taking the real STEM courses, which is why they don't. So why should humanities majors have to take "humanities for STEM majors" before getting to the real humanities courses

It’s a stupid comparison. It’s not like intro English classes read Dr. Seuss. The humanities are not linear. A student with exceptional skills can write an exceptional paper even in an intro composition course.

Also, not that you asked, but literature courses in college were nothing like I expected, as a kid interested in literature. There was very little connection to anything we’d done in AP English in HS. It was hugely theory based and reading theory. Look through course catalogues for departments that interest you.

You were probably an undergrad in the early 2000s. But it is quite true that college-level study of literature and history (or similar) cannot and should not spend all of its time just analyzing content. Performing close reading and conducting historical or cultural research require careful training, and part of that training is learning about the work of other scholars, so that you know what is possible, observe how to do it, and can position your own work in dialogue with the work of others. Not everyone wants to do this, which is why there are _also_ degrees available in rhetoric/composition, creative writing, public humanities, great books, and other areas that allow for different levels and types of interaction with the primary sources vs. the scholarly tradition. Plenty of room for all - but I do agree that students should understand what they are getting into and have the chance to choose.

Anonymous wrote:I'd distance myself from pre-professional LACs like CMC or Williams. The move may be towards Oberlin, Bard, or Reed.

+1

I'd distance myself from pre-professional LACs like CMC or Williams. The move may be towards Oberlin, Bard, or Reed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC attends a university known for STEM, especially engineering. However, she is a humanities major and receiving what I consider a fabulous education. The liberal arts colleges in many "tech" schools are often excellent and have a wide breadth of majors and class choices, as opposed to small schools that have much narrower offerings. I attended a SLAC myself and the difference between the opportunities her school has offered and my own experience is night and day. I highly recommend a larger university for liberal arts majors.

So you think liberal arts colleges are useless?

You are swimming against the consensus here on DCUM. Most believe that an elite SLAC provides a better undergraduate experience.

I’m not making any argument at all, I was asking a comprehension question.

There’s very few- WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, and Mudd

But Harvey Mudd is very STEM. And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students.

I think if you're really fixated on humanities, the best options are universities with core curriculums like Chicago and Columbia. The higher level class options in literature, history, philosophy and so on at liberal arts colleges are far too limited.

+100
There's really no comparison.

Can you explain how Chicago or Columbia aren't worse? They're much more pre professional campuses.

I think the point is that many larger universities have a far wider variety of classes to choose from under the umbrella major, "English."

Then why bring up pre-professional students. Their comment: "And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students. "

Who are you responding to?

..You, who incorrectly summarized their point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC attends a university known for STEM, especially engineering. However, she is a humanities major and receiving what I consider a fabulous education. The liberal arts colleges in many "tech" schools are often excellent and have a wide breadth of majors and class choices, as opposed to small schools that have much narrower offerings. I attended a SLAC myself and the difference between the opportunities her school has offered and my own experience is night and day. I highly recommend a larger university for liberal arts majors.

So you think liberal arts colleges are useless?

You are swimming against the consensus here on DCUM. Most believe that an elite SLAC provides a better undergraduate experience.

I’m not making any argument at all, I was asking a comprehension question.

There’s very few- WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, and Mudd

But Harvey Mudd is very STEM. And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students.

I think if you're really fixated on humanities, the best options are universities with core curriculums like Chicago and Columbia. The higher level class options in literature, history, philosophy and so on at liberal arts colleges are far too limited.

+100
There's really no comparison.

Can you explain how Chicago or Columbia aren't worse? They're much more pre professional campuses.

I think the point is that many larger universities have a far wider variety of classes to choose from under the umbrella major, "English."

Then why bring up pre-professional students. Their comment: "And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students. "

Who are you responding to?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC attends a university known for STEM, especially engineering. However, she is a humanities major and receiving what I consider a fabulous education. The liberal arts colleges in many "tech" schools are often excellent and have a wide breadth of majors and class choices, as opposed to small schools that have much narrower offerings. I attended a SLAC myself and the difference between the opportunities her school has offered and my own experience is night and day. I highly recommend a larger university for liberal arts majors.

So you think liberal arts colleges are useless?

You are swimming against the consensus here on DCUM. Most believe that an elite SLAC provides a better undergraduate experience.

I’m not making any argument at all, I was asking a comprehension question.

There’s very few- WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, and Mudd

But Harvey Mudd is very STEM. And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students.

I think if you're really fixated on humanities, the best options are universities with core curriculums like Chicago and Columbia. The higher level class options in literature, history, philosophy and so on at liberal arts colleges are far too limited.

+100
There's really no comparison.

Can you explain how Chicago or Columbia aren't worse? They're much more pre professional campuses.

I think the point is that many larger universities have a far wider variety of classes to choose from under the umbrella major, "English."

I guess if you need specialization sure. For the average humanities major, heavily disagree.

I was referring more to which schools would have the most interesting classes to choose from. Even an "average humanities major" wants the ability to pick and choose what interests them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC attends a university known for STEM, especially engineering. However, she is a humanities major and receiving what I consider a fabulous education. The liberal arts colleges in many "tech" schools are often excellent and have a wide breadth of majors and class choices, as opposed to small schools that have much narrower offerings. I attended a SLAC myself and the difference between the opportunities her school has offered and my own experience is night and day. I highly recommend a larger university for liberal arts majors.

So you think liberal arts colleges are useless?

You are swimming against the consensus here on DCUM. Most believe that an elite SLAC provides a better undergraduate experience.

I’m not making any argument at all, I was asking a comprehension question.

There’s very few- WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, and Mudd

But Harvey Mudd is very STEM. And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students.

I think if you're really fixated on humanities, the best options are universities with core curriculums like Chicago and Columbia. The higher level class options in literature, history, philosophy and so on at liberal arts colleges are far too limited.

+100
There's really no comparison.

Can you explain how Chicago or Columbia aren't worse? They're much more pre professional campuses.

I think the point is that many larger universities have a far wider variety of classes to choose from under the umbrella major, "English."

Then why bring up pre-professional students. Their comment: "And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students. "

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC attends a university known for STEM, especially engineering. However, she is a humanities major and receiving what I consider a fabulous education. The liberal arts colleges in many "tech" schools are often excellent and have a wide breadth of majors and class choices, as opposed to small schools that have much narrower offerings. I attended a SLAC myself and the difference between the opportunities her school has offered and my own experience is night and day. I highly recommend a larger university for liberal arts majors.

So you think liberal arts colleges are useless?

You are swimming against the consensus here on DCUM. Most believe that an elite SLAC provides a better undergraduate experience.

I’m not making any argument at all, I was asking a comprehension question.

There’s very few- WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, and Mudd

But Harvey Mudd is very STEM. And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students.

I think if you're really fixated on humanities, the best options are universities with core curriculums like Chicago and Columbia. The higher level class options in literature, history, philosophy and so on at liberal arts colleges are far too limited.

+100
There's really no comparison.

Can you explain how Chicago or Columbia aren't worse? They're much more pre professional campuses.

I think the point is that many larger universities have a far wider variety of classes to choose from under the umbrella major, "English."

I guess if you need specialization sure. For the average humanities major, heavily disagree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC attends a university known for STEM, especially engineering. However, she is a humanities major and receiving what I consider a fabulous education. The liberal arts colleges in many "tech" schools are often excellent and have a wide breadth of majors and class choices, as opposed to small schools that have much narrower offerings. I attended a SLAC myself and the difference between the opportunities her school has offered and my own experience is night and day. I highly recommend a larger university for liberal arts majors.

So you think liberal arts colleges are useless?

You are swimming against the consensus here on DCUM. Most believe that an elite SLAC provides a better undergraduate experience.

I’m not making any argument at all, I was asking a comprehension question.

There’s very few- WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, and Mudd

But Harvey Mudd is very STEM. And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students.

I think if you're really fixated on humanities, the best options are universities with core curriculums like Chicago and Columbia. The higher level class options in literature, history, philosophy and so on at liberal arts colleges are far too limited.

+100
There's really no comparison.

Can you explain how Chicago or Columbia aren't worse? They're much more pre professional campuses.

I think the point is that many larger universities have a far wider variety of classes to choose from under the umbrella major, "English."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC attends a university known for STEM, especially engineering. However, she is a humanities major and receiving what I consider a fabulous education. The liberal arts colleges in many "tech" schools are often excellent and have a wide breadth of majors and class choices, as opposed to small schools that have much narrower offerings. I attended a SLAC myself and the difference between the opportunities her school has offered and my own experience is night and day. I highly recommend a larger university for liberal arts majors.

So you think liberal arts colleges are useless?

You are swimming against the consensus here on DCUM. Most believe that an elite SLAC provides a better undergraduate experience.

I’m not making any argument at all, I was asking a comprehension question.

There’s very few- WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, and Mudd

But Harvey Mudd is very STEM. And Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, and Wellesley will all have a sizable number of pre-professional students.

I think if you're really fixated on humanities, the best options are universities with core curriculums like Chicago and Columbia. The higher level class options in literature, history, philosophy and so on at liberal arts colleges are far too limited.

+100
There's really no comparison.

Can you explain how Chicago or Columbia aren't worse? They're much more pre professional campuses.