Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all should just read Frank Bruni's book. Where you go is not who you are. Its what you do with your education not where you go. Most ceos of top 100 schools went to non ranked schools.

Not disagreeing with the premise of his book, but I find it interesting/ironic that Frank Bruni is himself a grad of elite schools (Morehead Scholar at UNC, Columbia graduate school). Personally, I would find his advice more relevant if he went to non-elites schools and worked his way up to the coveted spot he has secured at the NYT. He knows however, that he will sell *many* more books if he targets the non-elite group. And I can't help but wonder, where he would send his own children?

+1 Well said.

Anonymous wrote:Y'all should just read Frank Bruni's book. Where you go is not who you are. Its what you do with your education not where you go. Most ceos of top 100 schools went to non ranked schools.

Not disagreeing with the premise of his book, but I find it interesting/ironic that Frank Bruni is himself a grad of elite schools (Morehead Scholar at UNC, Columbia graduate school). Personally, I would find his advice more relevant if he went to non-elites schools and worked his way up to the coveted spot he has secured at the NYT. He knows however, that he will sell *many* more books if he targets the non-elite group. And I can't help but wonder, where he would send his own children?

Sorry ceos of top ranked. companies not schools

Y'all should just read Frank Bruni's book. Where you go is not who you are. Its what you do with your education not where you go. Most ceos of top 100 schools went to non ranked schools.

Anonymous wrote:The teaching is usually much better at the LACs. Faculty can focus on teaching rather than research. For an undergrad, this works to their benefit. Much better to have a prof who cares about teaching. At a large research university, the faculty views teaching as a distraction.

This.

Anonymous wrote:Most end up going to grad school so it ends up working out. I recently read that the biggest feeder to Tuck is Middlebury, which doesn't surprise me. I'm a LAC grad and I'm going to encourage my kids to go to a LAC if they can get merit aid.They can save the ivy league experience for graduate school.

I think the biggest feeder to Tuck is still Dartmouth. After that it is spread out over tons of schools, although certainly Middlebury and Williams are very well represented. In my day there were way more Williams kids than Midd kids, but Midd has also gotten a lot bigger since then. Not surprisingly Tuck tends to be very popular with kids who went to remote LACs in cold places.

I did the LAC (no merit aid) to Ivy (tons of aid) route and it's a good one. But one of my kids goes to a top state flagship and is getting an excellent education and is taking advantage of the resources of a big university. I don't buy the LAC focus on undergrad teaching argument anymore - DCs profs and TAs are great and particularly in smaller upper level classes there is plenty of personal attention. While my intro classes were certainly smaller than DCs were, I didn't know my intro profs anymore than DC does, they were just lectures, and we didn't benefit from smaller discussion groups like DC has always had with the large lecture classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this repeat poster who keeps talking about AWS? It's Amherst and Williams. That's it. Swarthmore doesn't get nearly the same level of recruiting. Heck, the Claremont Colleges and Bowdoin/Middlebury do better.

Are you confusing Swarthmore with Skidmore? Because only someone with very little knowledge of LACs would exclude Swarthmore from the top 3.

I never denied that. But Swarthmore gets nowhere near the recruiting Amherst or Williams do. First off, it's small for a LAC. Secondly, most of their grads aren't pre-professional. Swarthmore is not recruited by the top consulting firms like Amherst, Williams, and Pomona are.

If you want to make an example about the best LACs for career prospects, it would not be AWS. It would be AW, maybe Bowdoin and Middlebury, and the Claremonts for West Coast recruiting.

Where are you getting your info? I hope its not from some random source like College Confidential. It strikes me that Swarthmore is a pretty easy recruiting place for many companies, given its easy proximity to NYC and DC. Also, if you look at the college counseling website, about 25% of the class ends up in consulting, business, or some other related field. Econ is a very popular major there. Anecdotally, when I was a student there, your usual consulting firms all visited Swat (McKinsey, E&Y, Bain, etc.), and a fair number of my classmates ended up at HBS or Stanford BS.

When did you go to swat? I can tell you as of Swat class of 2014, getting into BCG, McK, or Bain was extremely hard and took lots of leg work by kids that wanted to break in. It isn't the same pipeline that a dartmouth or even Brown kid would have.

My sister had to work the alum network hard to get stuff. It paid off (see my post from a few weeks ago about 'strong alum networks') because swatties look out for one another but there isn't the on campus formal linkages with the top firms that you find at Williams or Amherst.

Banking is a bit different - a number of swatties at GS for example from my sister's peer group but that's also a function of bulge brackets taking a lot more kids in general than MBB consulting.

I am a bit older, but I graduated in a very different (healthier) economy. So, I wouldn't necessarily pin it on Swat as not having a pipeline into major consulting firms. It's hard for anyone to get a gig a a top consulting firm, regardless of where they went to school. By numbers alone, you are going to have more undergrads from larger schools get offers from consulting firms, but not necessarily a higher *percentage* of students. And in many ways the Swat alum network is much more powerful--because you have a small group, you will stand out. When I get an email from a Swattie, I respond. When DH, who went to H, receives an email from a fellow H alum, he ignores it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also highly likely that a kid who goes to a college like Harvard or Chicago or Hopkins hoping to learn to write well and think critically will get to know at least a few professors well. Most professors are eager to share their intellectual passion with students who are interested in learning.

Actually, that's not what I hear from the students I know currently at Harvard and Chicago.

I guess we know different kids.

At any research university profs will focus on grad students.

Not true -- I've been the undergrad, the grad student, and the prof in a number of such universities and that's not what I've seen or experienced in any of them. It's not what I'm seeing as a parent either.

Nor, as a prof, have I seen anything that indicates that kids who go to LACs end up with better writing or critical thinking skills. Seems to depend more on the student than the school. And it's not the case that the best teachers gravitate to LACs. So many other factors determine which available job is most attractive one.

Yes, some good teachers (and some good researchers for that matter) get lost in the tenure process at major research universities. But by focussing less on research, LACs don't necessarily tenure better teachers. No one's measuring (and other faculty rarely observe) how well profs teach. They're looking at student reviews, and what students like in a course (or about a professor) may or may not involve learning to write well or think critically. So we're back to student satisfaction is the goal of LACs -- not a superior education.

As a fellow prof (at a Research I), I have to respectfully disagree. I think that some of your experience comes from your own abilities and trajectory. Most undergrads at universities are not going into academia, so they are not going to catch the attention of profs, nor are they particularly interested in getting to know faculty better. You were also probably a really good student, as most PhDs and professors were; we often went into academia because we were really good students. Also, as a parent, you have likely transferred skills--intentionally or not-- to your own children about how they can make full use of the faculty at the university. I would say that about 95% of my students never visit me during office hours; but, I am fairly confident that my own kids will very likely seek out their professors during office hours because they have believed since birth that this is what students are supposed to do. Having attended both a liberal arts college (AWS) and large research universities for my graduate degrees, I would strongly encourage my own children to at least look at LACs for undergrad.

No doubt that's part of it. Though I didn't go to college aspiring to (or even considering) academia. I was thinking JD, maybe MBA. Got talked into applyimg to PhD programs (in addition to law schools) by one of my profs. My spouse, who ended up a JD, had similar interactions (with different faculty) at our major research university.

I think your point about 95% of students never coming to office hours (or being particularly interested in getting to know profs) is key here. Profs are accessible to undergrads, but you have to take them up on open invites and you'll have more/better interactions if what typically brings you to them is interest in/questions about the material (vs your grade).

Fwiw, I'm the early poster who said either way works. Personally, I find (and have always found) research universities more intellectually exciting places than LACs. And, at every stage, I've experienced the presence of talented, ambitious grad students as a real plus. So I get annoyed when people try to steer intellectual kids away from research universities for their college educations. I'd show kids both and let them choose what's appealing, without making categorical claims about which provides the better education.