Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah so the LAC boosters have switched tack from "we're superior to all of you" to "well, we're just different." Taking notes.

You realize that it is likely different posters, right? And that post like yours are the reason for the former type?

Uh no. Simpleton doesn’t get that.

Truly no one cares about LACs except people who went to LACs. Give it up. If anyone from Williams or Davidson or Washington & Lee or Amherst went around claiming half of the things on this thread in real life, they wouldn't even merit a laugh - people would think you were just loony.

Sorry you’re so sad. Feel better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah so the LAC boosters have switched tack from "we're superior to all of you" to "well, we're just different." Taking notes.

You realize that it is likely different posters, right? And that post like yours are the reason for the former type?

Uh no. Simpleton doesn’t get that.

Truly no one cares about LACs except people who went to LACs. Give it up. If anyone from Williams or Davidson or Washington & Lee or Amherst went around claiming half of the things on this thread in real life, they wouldn't even merit a laugh - people would think you were just loony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah so the LAC boosters have switched tack from "we're superior to all of you" to "well, we're just different." Taking notes.

You realize that it is likely different posters, right? And that post like yours are the reason for the former type?

Uh no. Simpleton doesn’t get that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah so the LAC boosters have switched tack from "we're superior to all of you" to "well, we're just different." Taking notes.

You realize that it is likely different posters, right? And that post like yours are the reason for the former type?

You base your extreme egotism on what an anonymous internet poster writes. Lord you’re a moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

That's Dr. Anonymous to you, dipshit.

Anonymous wrote:Ah so the LAC boosters have switched tack from "we're superior to all of you" to "well, we're just different." Taking notes.

You realize that it is likely different posters, right? And that post like yours are the reason for the former type?

If there are still people reading this thread because their kids are interested in an LAC, know that even full pay kids get plenty of opportunities to make money. DC who's a STEM major at a SWAP school made over $10,000 last year between being a TA and doing research. He also spent 2 winter breaks traveling on the school's dime for fieldwork. He's applying to grad schools and already has been awarded a $5k fellowship from the school for graduate study. If your kid is interested in doing a STEM PhD, I can't imagine a better undergrad experience than an LAC.

Ah so the LAC boosters have switched tack from "we're superior to all of you" to "well, we're just different." Taking notes.

"It would have been a different education with different pros and cons."

This. I don't understand why some are so adamant that LACs are overrated or big Us are overrated. They are just DIFFERENT. And kids are different so it's great that there are options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

I have a bachelors degree in biochemistry and a PhD in chemistry. My bachelors was at a LAC and my PhD was at a well regarded flagship state university. I did my postdoc at Berkeley I am currently a professor at a large state school, although I have friends who work in biotech, big chemical companies like Dow, pharma, government labs like the NIH, national labs and research institutes, in IP law, in public policy, and at a range of academic institutions from places like Stanford to liberal arts colleges to community colleges. They went to a range of schools for undergrad.

I have zero regrets about my undergrad education. I know plenty of people who went to state schools or elite technical schools like MIT/Caltech for undergrad, and there are many roads to Rome. The advantage I had was really close relationships with faculty who were excellent teachers and mentors. My junior/senior level coursework was in very high detail, taught essentially at the level I teach our first year graduate students and my freshman/sophomore coursework was taught on average at a higher degree of rigor than it is taught at my current institution. Because there were no grad students, I had a lot of autonomy over my research directions (not being a pipette monkey for a postdoc), although there were some resource limitations and the pace of research was slower. There are certainly pros to going to research universities in terms of the sheer number of opportunities available for motivated students. But the pros to going to a SLAC are high as well, especially for a student interested in getting a PhD. My friends who have gone on to teach at SLACS--especially the more highly ranked ones--are very smart, driven people who would have succeeded at a range of paths but felt like they wanted a career where they would work more closely with students in the classroom and in terms of mentorship. I think a lot of people unfamiliar with LACs and higher education don't understand the depth of STEM curricula at most of the more highly ranked LACs.

I don't think Georgia Tech would have been the right fit for me at the time as an undergrad, nor do I think I would have gotten a better education. It would have been a different education with different pros and cons.

Uh, remember Harvey Mudd? It's a SLAC too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

Also, kids from MIT, Georgia Tech, UIUC, Caltech, Berkeley et al who are serious about getting a STEM PhD would be significantly better suited than one from the Swarthmores of the world. It's just that a much higher proportion of them choose to go into industry. It's a matter of choice, not aptitude.

It’s fun to make stuff up. I’ll wait while you don’t substantiate any of that.

If you’re the same person who posted about the “85% of all people you know with PhDs” this post is hilarious.

Nope, not me. Agree that the 85% comment was just more made-up stupidity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

Also, kids from MIT, Georgia Tech, UIUC, Caltech, Berkeley et al who are serious about getting a STEM PhD would be significantly better suited than one from the Swarthmores of the world. It's just that a much higher proportion of them choose to go into industry. It's a matter of choice, not aptitude.

My college BF who has a PhD from MIT would disagree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

Also, kids from MIT, Georgia Tech, UIUC, Caltech, Berkeley et al who are serious about getting a STEM PhD would be significantly better suited than one from the Swarthmores of the world. It's just that a much higher proportion of them choose to go into industry. It's a matter of choice, not aptitude.

It’s fun to make stuff up. I’ll wait while you don’t substantiate any of that.

If you’re the same person who posted about the “85% of all people you know with PhDs” this post is hilarious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

Here's a fact that's as good as your fact. I have a doctoral degree, have no regrets about my path, earn 300K and know a lot of DC based ppl with doctoral degrees who all make comfortable salaries, enjoy their careers and nice lives.

The stat you might be citing is that 85% of phds envisioned a career in the academy but only about 20% end up there.That said, we make a lot more out of the ivory tower than in it.