Liberal arts colleges and later science or engineering education

[american_mama]

My previous question made me think of this one. Does anyone know someone who graduated from a small liberal arts college and then went to graduate school in science or engineering? DH is an engineering professor and he said he has never once encountered a student who did this; his assumption is that they would not have enough math and thus would not get into engineering graduate school, although he acknowledges that this could be overcome if the student put a lot of forethought into their undergraduate courses.

Anyway, I am a little stunned by this. I know there are a few liberal arts colleges that have engineering programs of some sort - Smith College, for example, but I am wondering if these students are prepared/interested in graduate school, or generally go directly into the workplace, or what.

And what about the hard sciences.. chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, maybe computer science.... what are these like at small liberal arts colleges? Is the coursework deep enough to prepare a graduate for graduate school in that field? I'm excluding medical school, since I think a lot of liberal arts students get into medical school.

DD1 is interested in engineering in particular and hard sciences, and it's never occurred to me her interest would eliminate certain size colleges. But maybe it would. I wonder if a science or especially an engineering student at a liberal arts college would, paradoxically, need MORE initiative and motivation to forge their own path than their peers at a mega university with large science departments and an entire school of engineering.

Thoughts and experiences?

[egoldber]

So I went to a large public for undergrad and grad school. But there were many people from small liberal arts colleges in my grad program. Most of them were excellent students who did well.

On a percentage basis, small colleges tend to produce more PhDs. I think a lot of that is correlation because the typical students who chooses a SLAC is probably more likely to want to pursue a graduate degree than the typical student at Big State U.

Here are some statistics:

http://www.thecollegesolution.com/the-colleges-where-phds-get-their-start/

I wouldn't have any hesitation about older DD wanting to attend an SLAC on the path to grad school.

[annex]

But there were many people from small liberal arts colleges in my grad program. Most of them were excellent students who did well.

On a percentage basis, small colleges tend to produce more PhDs.

Yes - I went to top 10 ranked SLA and so many of my friends got into and got PhDs from top tier grad schools. Since I was bio, I mostly I hung out with science majors - many of my friends went on to get PhDs in sciences like geology, physics, biology, chemistry, etc, or went to med school. While some of my friends in the humanities also went onto grad school, more of them ended up ABD. Oddly though I think you may be onto something with engineering - I can't think of any friends who are engineering PhDs despite the many science and math classes offered. Perhaps because we didn't have the option to major in engineering?

[Snow mom]

I went to a top tier liberal arts college and have a B.A. in biology. I also have a M.S. and a Ph.D in a field of biology. Most of my friends from college have advanced degrees, although a lot of them went to med school or law school rather than the Ph.D. route. I definately have friends who went into geology/chemistry but I can't think of any that went on to engineering. My friend who was a math major went to law school.

[Simon]

Your Dh is quite mistaken, unless he is talking very specifically about engineering. In general, many of the top PhD producing schools are LACs (as a proportion of total student body). IME, I graduated from an LAC, not even top 50, and I can tell you my classmates went on to graduate school in the hard sciences (physics, chem., math, etc) at top graduate programs--major research universities and Ivy League schools. This list (http://www.thecollegesolution.com/50-schools-that-produce-the-most-science-and-engineering-phds-2/)is a few years old, but it shows he is clearly wrong. ETA: Students at LACs often chose it for the easier access to faculty and ability to do research/work in labs. Alumni are also often well networked and provide opportunities for students.

[american_mama]

Your Dh is quite mistaken, unless he is talking very specifically about engineering. ....This list [/URL]is a few years old, but it shows he is clearly wrong.

Maybe you didn't read my post closely, or maybe I didn't write it clearly enough. My DH has been an engineering professor at a research I institution for 12 years, in a comprehensive college of engineering. He *is* the person who sees all the applications and admits graduate students to his department, year after year. He is not aware of any students from liberal arts colleges who have entered graduate school in his engineering department. If it matters, his department only admits PhD graduate students, not studentx seeking masters degrees, so perhaps that changes the pool.

I am going to have to start asking this same question of all the other engineering professors I work with or know. I don't know many people in the natural sciences.

Neither DH and I would know about students from liberal arts entering grad program in natural sciences, which is why I asked here. Two other people on BBB are biology professors, I think.... maybe they will chime in. Although I tend to think of biology as being a field that somehow aligns more with liberal arts colleges than physics, chemistry, or astronomy.... not sure there is any validity to that. Maybe differences in equipment/lab costs for different fields?

eta: I read the two links and have questions. They do demonstrate that lots of liberal arts colleges produces natural science PhDs. Engineering is not mentioned in the lists. But one article is written from what, to me, sounds like the perspective of promoting a liberal arts education. I am wondering if the results are perhaps skewed by small number of graduates in certain fields, so if 3 students from one program at a school pursue PhDs, maybe that is 50% of the graduates. It seems odd to me that the top producing PhD colleges for chemistry would include such unfamiliar schools as University of Minnesota - Morris or Transylvania. Likewise, the list for Humanities (is that one field or a combined field?) includes such unfamiliar schools as Thomas, Mt. Aloysius, and University of Puerto Rico Aguadilla.

[abh5e8]

Well, at least at the large public state university I attended, bio chem physics astronomy, were all in college of arts and sciences. Engineering is college of engineering. So I would not be surprised that a LAC may not have a college of engineering. Does your dh admit anyone to the PhD program that does not have a BS in engineering?

[egoldber]

So just my personal observations here, but I think the typical person who wants to be an engineer may find less that appeals to them in a SLAC. My DH (computer engineering with a smattering of EE thrown in ;) ) would have considered an SLAC an outer ring of hell LOL!

Also, I know that some SLACs have 4/1 or 3/2 programs with other larger engineering schools. The two programs I already knew about are at Haverford and Franklin and Marshall. I just Googled a few others ("SLAC name + engineering") and they all have some sort of cooperative 3/2 or 4/1 engineering program. I looked at Bryn Mawr, Williams, Grinnell, and St. Olaf.

But at DD's magnet HS I know plenty of kids who have graduated the last couple years who plan to be engineers that go to SLACs. Mnay of these kids chose to go to SLACs because they were offered merit scholarships. SLACs can have very generous aid packages. For a kid who wants to leave their home state, but can't afford OOS tuition, this can be a very attractive option.

[georgiegirl]

Yes! BIL went to a small liberal arts college in MA. Then he got a PhD from MIT in microbiology.

[KrisM]

I only have a master's, but when I was in grad school, we all were from engineering colleges. I went to Michigan Tech and grad students were from there, Uof Michigan, Michigan State, etc. The handful of PhD engineers that I do know all received their undergrads at traditionally engineering schools, like those or MIT, RPI, etc.

[bcafe]

I am surrounded by engineers at my place of work. I don't know of any that graduated from a non-engineering school.

[jent]

Science: absolutely
Engineering: less common, but possible

I went to a small liberal arts college in New England & majored in biology. I went on to medical school, but a lot of my peers (in bio and the sciences) went on to grad school. Two of my close friends are physics professors.

The great thing about a small school is that you get more individual attention from the professors. In fact, many of my friends (including my now DH) were children of professors who encouraged them to go to our small college b/c they knew they'd get more attention than at a large university.

It is true though that you have to know what you are looking for and each school has its strengths and weaknesses. DH for example chose our school over its rival specifically bc the math program at ours was much stronger.

I think it's less common for people headed toward engineering careers to go to a LAC but that may be self-selection as Beth said. I only knew a few engineering-bound peers in college. I remember one of them saying he wished he'd gone to a school with an engineering program b/c it was a faster route to an engineering degree. I think our math/science courses were solid, but they were not at all engineering-specific.

[cuca_]

As Beth said, some liberal arts schools that have engineering programs in conjunction with larger engineering schools. I went to Haverford, and they have programs with Penn and Swathmore (a SLAC with an Engineering Department). Haverford also has very well regarded science Departments. While some of those who graduate with a BS go on to Med School, many go on to Grad School to get their Masters and/or PH.D. in Biology, Astronomy, Chemistry and Physics. I do not know anyone without an undergraduate engineering degree, who pursued graduate studies in engineering.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[octmom]

Off the top of my head, two of my classmates at a small, liberal arts college earned graduate degrees in engineering from the school where your DH works. One was a master's in computer science, IIRC, and other earned a PhD, but I can't recall which dept. It may also have been Computer Science.

ETA: we graduated college in '93, so they were probably enrolled before your DH's time-- both in the 90s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Simon]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I do know students who did a 3-2 program at our LAC and an R1 who later went onto a grad degree in engineering but they also had their BS.

[lfp2n]

I oversee admissions into a biomedical science PhD program at a large public university, while we do take students from small liberal arts schools and many are great and have had great education, the major hangup for them is that we won't take anyone who hasn't demonstrated that they have had research experience. Many of those schools do not have strong research programs of their own for undergrads to partake in, so the students have to be motivated to seek that experience out, many work during the summer at a research institute, or they take a year as a technician or do an NIH postbac. I think this may just be biology fields that operate like this.

[squimp]

Science and engineering are pretty different, I would not lump them together, although people love to say STEM, the paths are pretty varied. Many, many PhD scientists went to a SLAC, myself included. We did have a 3-2 program, but I can't remember anyone who did it from my small class. If someone wants to be an engineer, they go to a school with an engineering program, right?

Here's recent article on the benefits of the LAC to science education.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/18/we-dont-need-more-stem-majors-we-need-more-stem-majors-with-liberal-arts-training/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.bfc40e8ff41f

[o_mom]

DD1 is interested in engineering in particular and hard sciences, and it's never occurred to me her interest would eliminate certain size colleges.

Is your question about small colleges/universities or liberal arts colleges?

Also, what do you define as small?

The engineering school I went to had an undergrad enrollment at the time smaller than my kids' future high school. Many students went on to graduate school. I can think of two top engineering schools off the top of my head with enrollment of less than two thousand. I don't think interest in engineering or science means you have to go to a large school.

[StantonHyde]

I graduated from Haverford. It was full to the brim with graduates in Chemistry and Biology. Who went on to med school and PhD programs. The school does have a 3+2 (or something like that) Engineering program. My brother graduated from Stanford in ME, then got an MA from MIT and then a PhD from Stanford in ME. I can absolutely say I had the better undergraduate education. Small classes from professors with PhDs who spoke fluent English. My brother had 300 people in one of his science classes. The ongoing joke was "think of it not as a chance to fail Physics, but a chance to learn Mandarin". They were not guaranteed housing for all 4 years. And his tuition was much more than mine.

Now for Engineering--he has a dang good degree. But what if you want to change? DH started out in Engineering and then switched to Bio Chem. Very few people really know what they want to do when they are 18. That's why a LAC is such a good choice.

Frankly, I think more science people need LAC exposure--everybody needs to know how to write. And knowing history, economics, literature etc is important--it develops your education. See the article squimp linked to above.

[KpbS]

Our closest true LA college is more of a challenge for anyone who is seeking a post grad degree in hard sciences, engineering, biochem, etc. I have a close friend who made it work, but he was at a disadvantage when it came to his md/phd program because his classes were not as rigorous and he had to piece together various course offerings and form independent studies to obtain the experience he needed for admission, competitiveness, etc.

I would advise my DC to not go the LA route for undergrad if she was truly interested in Engineering or the like.

[DualvansMommy]

Yes! BIL went to a small liberal arts college in MA. Then he got a PhD from MIT in microbiology.

That's my DH. He got his BS in a small catholic SLC and MS in microbiology in another bigger school with larger science department.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KrisM]

Is your question about small colleges/universities or liberal arts colleges?

Also, what do you define as small?

The engineering school I went to had an undergrad enrollment at the time smaller than my kids' future high school. Many students went on to graduate school. I can think of two top engineering schools off the top of my head with enrollment of less than two thousand. I don't think interest in engineering or science means you have to go to a large school.

I was coming back to say something similar. My college was bigger than yours, but still only about 6000 when I was there. And in a small town (no traffic lights) as well. I did have a couple lecture classes with 50 to 60 people, but after the first year, I had maybe 25 kids in most of my classes. By senior year, some of them were 10 kids.

[MelissaTC]

My husband went to a Catholic, liberal arts commuter college and majored in electrical engineering. He has a MS from Columbia in EE.

[cilantromapuche]

We live close to a small liberal arts college that has one of the highest rates in the country for admittance to medical school. They have a fantastic science program. Basically you get a lot of time with professors, more so than at a big school.
I didn't realize how good it was until I was in NYC and met a college counselor for a high school and when I told her where I was from (small town, not thinking she would know where it is) and she said "that is where xxxx is!".
The college has a counselor dedicated to students interested in medical school and Fulbrights. They work with the students throughout their 4 years. It really shows and that is the benefit of a small liberal arts college.

[klwa]

I only have a master's, but when I was in grad school, we all were from engineering colleges. I went to Michigan Tech and grad students were from there, Uof Michigan, Michigan State, etc. The handful of PhD engineers that I do know all received their undergrads at traditionally engineering schools, like those or MIT, RPI, etc.

I could have written this exactly except for the Michigan part. I went to NC State. Our grad students came from engineering schools, mainly across the south. I can't think of any that came from smaller liberal arts schools. Duke, NCSU, Citadel, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, UNH, UNC-Charlotte, NC A&T, but no liberal arts schools.

[american_mama]

Is your question about small colleges/universities or liberal arts colleges?

Also, what do you define as small?

... I can think of two top engineering schools off the top of my head with enrollment of less than two thousand. I don't think interest in engineering or science means you have to go to a large school.

My question is about liberal arts colleges. I am thinking of small as 2,500 students or less and no or very low graduate program.
I forgot there are engineering programs at small technical schools, although I will have to look up the size of the schools I've heard of.

Rose Hulman in Indiana has 2,200 undergrads and 70 graduate students
Olin College of Engineering 334 undergrads, 0 grad (this is an fairly unique school)
Cooper Union 870 undergrads (half in engineering), 73 graduate students (this is also a fairly unique school)
Stevens Institute (NJ) has 3,000 undergrads and 3,600 graduate students.

So three of those fit the bill. FWIW the College of Engineerings where my DH teaches (not the whole university) has 2600 undergrad and 600 graduate students. I mention that to compare the engineering world at a big university vs. a small engineering institute.

[Philly Mom]

I think engineering may be different than any of the other sciences, which is a shame. SLAC are wonderful. The education/teaching is often far superior to large universities. I have been to both, one Ivy League, one top 3 liberal arts. Education better at smaller school but engineering would be hard. At the best liberal arts schools, there are definitely plenty of research opportunities.


Sent from my iPhone using Baby Bargains mobile app

[Globetrotter]

There's Harvey Mudd, part of the Claremont consortium. Very prestigious and rigorous..

[123LuckyMom]

Maybe you didn't read my post closely, or maybe I didn't write it clearly enough. My DH has been an engineering professor at a research I institution for 12 years, in a comprehensive college of engineering. He *is* the person who sees all the applications and admits graduate students to his department, year after year. He is not aware of any students from liberal arts colleges who have entered graduate school in his engineering department. If it matters, his department only admits PhD graduate students, not studentx seeking masters degrees, so perhaps that changes the pool.

I am going to have to start asking this same question of all the other engineering professors I work with or know. I don't know many people in the natural sciences.

Neither DH and I would know about students from liberal arts entering grad program in natural sciences, which is why I asked here. Two other people on BBB are biology professors, I think.... maybe they will chime in. Although I tend to think of biology as being a field that somehow aligns more with liberal arts colleges than physics, chemistry, or astronomy.... not sure there is any validity to that. Maybe differences in equipment/lab costs for different fields?

eta: I read the two links and have questions. They do demonstrate that lots of liberal arts colleges produces natural science PhDs. Engineering is not mentioned in the lists. But one article is written from what, to me, sounds like the perspective of promoting a liberal arts education. I am wondering if the results are perhaps skewed by small number of graduates in certain fields, so if 3 students from one program at a school pursue PhDs, maybe that is 50% of the graduates. It seems odd to me that the top producing PhD colleges for chemistry would include such unfamiliar schools as University of Minnesota - Morris or Transylvania. Likewise, the list for Humanities (is that one field or a combined field?) includes such unfamiliar schools as Thomas, Mt. Aloysius, and University of Puerto Rico Aguadilla.

The only thing I can think of to account for your husband's experience is that his school may not be attracting the very best students from the east coast. Here there are many excellent small liberal arts colleges like Williams, Amherst, Swathmore, etc. I can absolutely assure you from personal experience that these schools send many students on to the best science and engineering graduate programs in the country (and abroad, for that matter.) It's usually the case that these students tend to go on to the top universities for graduate studies, though. It may be that students who would be considering less prestigious schools at the undergraduate level may choose a more vocational track in the sciences and enroll in a specialized program at a large university and then choose a graduate program that values a liberal arts education less.


Sent from my iPhone using Baby Bargains mobile app

[o_mom]

My question is about liberal arts colleges. I am thinking of small as 2,500 students or less and no or very low graduate program.
I forgot there are engineering programs at small technical schools, although I will have to look up the size of the schools I've heard of.

Rose Hulman in Indiana has 2,200 undergrads and 70 graduate students
Olin College of Engineering 334 undergrads, 0 grad (this is an fairly unique school)
Cooper Union 870 undergrads (half in engineering), 73 graduate students (this is also a fairly unique school)
Stevens Institute (NJ) has 3,000 undergrads and 3,600 graduate students.

So three of those fit the bill. FWIW the College of Engineerings where my DH teaches (not the whole university) has 2600 undergrad and 600 graduate students. I mention that to compare the engineering world at a big university vs. a small engineering institute.

CIT is one I was thinking of with around 1000 under grad and 1500 grad.

If you go up a bit to 2000-7000 students there are many, many choices and still small enough, particularly within a department, to have small classes and be more than just a number.

So, I don't know that it limits school size too much. I would highly investigate any SLAC to make sure it is worth it for science degrees. I did an internship with another student from a SLAC and was shocked that she was able to earn a BS degree with no calculus ever. It could be just that program, but it would make me wary.

[american_mama]

The only thing I can think of to account for your husband's experience is that his school may not be attracting the very best students from the east coast. Here there are many excellent small liberal arts colleges like Williams, Amherst, Swathmore, etc. I can absolutely assure you from personal experience that these schools send many students on to the best science and engineering graduate programs in the country (and abroad, for that matter.) It's usually the case that these students tend to go on to the top universities for graduate studies, though. It may be that students who would be considering less prestigious schools at the undergraduate level may choose a more vocational track in the sciences and enroll in a specialized program at a large university and then choose a graduate program that values a liberal arts education less.

So, the implication is that my DH must work at a lower tier school? This is both inaccurate and a little insulting. His university is on the east coast, has a superb national reputation overall and is ranked in the 30's nationally for engineering graduate programs, both overall and for his particular department. It is a Research I institution (highest research activity among universities, just 115 universities in the country). Do you have an engineering or science degree, or know about graduate programs in STEM? If so, maybe you just guessed about my DH badly. If not, then why did you comment?

I think small liberal arts colleges are great and wish I'd gone to one, so this thread was not about the overall merits of a liberal arts education. But it doesn't mean they don't have weaknesses. I went to an Ivy League school and a #1 ranked graduate program, so I understand selectivity, and what it's taught me more than anything is to question a little deeper about what "best" means.

For instance, despite what people say here, I'd need to ask some hard questions about the research opportunities available and the faculty connections available in the hard sciences or engineering at a SLAC. Common sense and observing my DH's career tells me it will be hard for them to compete with what a research university can offer. On the pro side of SLAC for STEM, the idea that everything, even labs, are taught by professors is a great benefit. Not mentioned in this thread is another benefit of SLAC.... attracting STEM professors who truly enjoy and are good at teaching, which is not nearly as emphasized in STEM at a research university.

[o_mom]

Double post

[squimp]

For instance, despite what people say here, I'd need to ask some hard questions about the research opportunities available and the faculty connections available in the hard sciences or engineering at a SLAC. Common sense and observing my DH's career tells me it will be hard for them to compete with what a research university can offer. On the pro side of SLAC for STEM, the idea that everything, even labs, are taught by professors is a great benefit. Not mentioned in this thread is another benefit of SLAC.... attracting STEM professors who truly enjoy and are good at teaching, which is not nearly as emphasized in STEM at a research university.

Yes I also think you need to learn more about the pathways in science, because many liberal arts colleges provide excellent opportunities for research through directly working with professors on research projects, and valuable internships at national labs for example, both of which I did as an undergraduate at my tiny but strong school. My college had the second highest acceptance rate to med school at the time I graduated and two of my former roommates are MDs and several of us are PhD scientists. My graduate degree was from a large top tier university and I am so glad I didn't go there as an undergraduate, I would have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Many of the leaders in my field went to small liberal arts colleges. They learned to think creatively and broadly, and had direct interactions with their professors which shaped their career direction. My DH has two degrees in engineering, and he agrees that it is a very different path.

[jenmcadams]

Yes I also think you need to learn more about the pathways in science, because many liberal arts colleges provide excellent opportunities for research through directly working with professors on research projects, and valuable internships at national labs for example, both of which I did as an undergraduate at my tiny but strong school. My college had the second highest acceptance rate to med school at the time I graduated and two of my former roommates are MDs and several of us are PhD scientists. My graduate degree was from a large top tier university and I am so glad I didn't go there as an undergraduate, I would have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Many of the leaders in my field went to small liberal arts colleges. They learned to think creatively and broadly, and had direct interactions with their professors which shaped their career direction. My DH has two degrees in engineering, and he agrees that it is a very different path.

This was my experience as well - I worked with professors every semester starting Junior Year and spent 2 summers working on the Human Genome Project at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the early 90s (super cutting edge at the time) and even did my Senior Thesis with them. Engineering is different, but as far as pure sciences go, lots of people on this thread have linked to studies showing top liberal arts colleges produce more PhDs per capita in pure science than the undergrad populations at larger research institutions. At liberal arts colleges, professor have to use undergrads for research b/c there aren't any grad students.

There are very few small colleges that have strong engineering departments, but there are a number of small colleges with elite math and science offerings (my DH went to Harvey Mudd which is one of those elite small schools that does offer engineering, but he majored in Physics and ended up with a PhD in Physics from Caltech). My degree was a double major in Biology and Math and in my senior year, 100% of the students who applied to med school were accepted, two of my math classmates (out of a very small department) went on to get PhDs in Math at Stanford and MIT and even though I was 1 of only 2 students to graduate with department honors (out of a department of 40-50), I chose to leave science and head into business. That choice was mine to make though given I had been lucky enough to have some pretty in depth science experiences that allowed me to see I wasn't as interested in a career in research. Several of my classmates ended up with PhDs in Biology, Biochem, etc. from pretty elite programs (Dartmouth, Penn, Princeton, etc.).

[trales]

My DH went to the #1 small liberal arts college in the US, did a ton a research as an underaged and went on to a PhD in physics at one of the top universities in Boston. I was at a conference a few months ago and met a guy from Smith College, a small liberal arts college, and they are doing amazing mercury in lead research in ponds in New England. I think a lot of us in academia really get caught up in our college/ university type and forget what the other types have to offer. I went from one large state research university to another, so I can see how easy it is to think you need a grad program in order for undergrads to do research. Things have changed, research is happening at all levels of college, even the community college level. Everyone is doing research. The first things students ask me when they interview for my program at the community college is what type of research opportunities will I have, and we offer them internships/ placements, our faculty have research grants. My students are working directly for me, and not for a grad student. They work side by side with me and with people at federal and state agencies.

I absolutely think that engineering is a field of its own, with its own quirks and accredidations, and it hard to compare to bio, chem, physics, math etc.

[123LuckyMom]

So, the implication is that my DH must work at a lower tier school? This is both inaccurate and a little insulting. His university is on the east coast, has a superb national reputation overall and is ranked in the 30's nationally for engineering graduate programs, both overall and for his particular department. It is a Research I institution (highest research activity among universities, just 115 universities in the country). Do you have an engineering or science degree, or know about graduate programs in STEM? If so, maybe you just guessed about my DH badly. If not, then why did you comment?

I think small liberal arts colleges are great and wish I'd gone to one, so this thread was not about the overall merits of a liberal arts education. But it doesn't mean they don't have weaknesses. I went to an Ivy League school and a #1 ranked graduate program, so I understand selectivity, and what it's taught me more than anything is to question a little deeper about what "best" means.

For instance, despite what people say here, I'd need to ask some hard questions about the research opportunities available and the faculty connections available in the hard sciences or engineering at a SLAC. Common sense and observing my DH's career tells me it will be hard for them to compete with what a research university can offer. On the pro side of SLAC for STEM, the idea that everything, even labs, are taught by professors is a great benefit. Not mentioned in this thread is another benefit of SLAC.... attracting STEM professors who truly enjoy and are good at teaching, which is not nearly as emphasized in STEM at a research university.

I'm sorry I touched a nerve. I certainly didn't mean to offend. I know of no truly top notch engineering graduate programs in the northeast that have not accepted students from Williams College, for example, though perhaps not during your husband's tenure since there are many good graduate programs worldwide and not that many Williams students annually! I'm not terribly familiar with engineering PhD programs or with the field of engineering in general. I am familiar with graduate programs in other sciences, and I'm intimately familiar with the graduate education paths of undergraduates from the top SLACs in the northeast (and also those from big universities like Harvard and MIT). That's why I offered my opinion and hazarded a guess.

You stated that your husband's program has not accepted ANY students from ANY of the top notch SLACs. I honestly can't see how that's possible unless qualified students from those schools are not applying to his program. I do know there are qualified students from those schools, and they are being accepted to STEM graduate programs. If they're not being accepted to or are not choosing to attend your husband's program, there must be a reason why that is. I do know that it's not due to the quality of the students, the extent of their preparedness for graduate work, or their desire to enter STEM fields. I jumped to the conclusion that it might be that his program is not attracting them. If that's not the case, I don't know what is. I certainly wasn't trying to denigrate your husband. I was just trying to answer your question about whether SLACs produce STEM students who go on to graduate work in those fields. They do. I shouldn't have sought to answer the other side of that question which was why your husband's program doesn't have any of those students in it. I admit that I am completely at a loss as to why that might be.


Sent from my iPhone using Baby Bargains mobile app

[o_mom]

I'm sorry I touched a nerve. I certainly didn't mean to offend. I know of no truly top notch engineering graduate programs in the northeast that have not accepted students from Williams College, for example, though perhaps not during your husband's tenure since there are many good graduate programs worldwide and not that many Williams students annually! I'm not terribly familiar with engineering PhD programs or with the field of engineering in general. I am familiar with graduate programs in other sciences, and I'm intimately familiar with the graduate education paths of undergraduates from the top SLACs in the northeast (and also those from big universities like Harvard and MIT). That's why I offered my opinion and hazarded a guess.

You stated that your husband's program has not accepted ANY students from ANY of the top notch SLACs. I honestly can't see how that's possible unless qualified students from those schools are not applying to his program. I do know there are qualified students from those schools, and they are being accepted to STEM graduate programs. If they're not being accepted to or are not choosing to attend your husband's program, there must be a reason why that is. I do know that it's not due to the quality of the students, the extent of their preparedness for graduate work, or their desire to enter STEM fields. I jumped to the conclusion that it might be that his program is not attracting them. If that's not the case, I don't know what is. I certainly wasn't trying to denigrate your husband. I was just trying to answer your question about whether SLACs produce STEM students who go on to graduate work in those fields. They do. I shouldn't have sought to answer the other side of that question which was why your husband's program doesn't have any of those students in it. I admit that I am completely at a loss as to why that might be.


I am guessing some of it is that it is an engineering program. Out of curiosity I looked at a few engineering programs for graduate admission requirements (just a random sample going by their websites) and most require or strongly prefer an undergraduate engineering degree. I also looked at a few graduate programs in sciences from those same schools and many require a BS degree, so a SLAC which only offers BA programs will be a disadvantage there.

[StantonHyde]

How can you get a BA in Chemistry? My SLAC gave BAs and BSs.

[o_mom]

How can you get a BA in Chemistry? My SLAC gave BAs and BSs.


123LuckyMom's example of Williams College only does BAs and you can major in Chemistry. http://www.williams.edu/academics/areas-of-study/

The school I went to offered BAs in science subjects (biology, chemistry, etc.), but it was widely considered to be pre-med (read: easier to get the high GPA needed for med school admission). They did not take the same math and physics classes as the BS program and had fewer major subject classes (by about 1/3).

Some SLACs offer BS degrees, but not all.

[bcafe]

I imagine a student, who did not major in engineering for undergrad, would need so many leveling courses for grad school that it wouldn't make sense to get a graduate degree in engineering.

[legaleagle]

I think part of it is that many people who are set on engineering right out of high school have no desire to get a PhD vs. people who get a BA/BS in a "pure" science. At least for my husband (CS/EE) - he went to our large state school - he wanted a degree that allowed him to jump right into a job/on-the-job training, with not as much interest in the academic/theoretical side.

I went to Rice U which was an interesting hybrid type small university and was quite small when I was there 20 years ago - about 1500 undergrads, split among humanities/science/engineering + a significant music school & architecture school. I believe you could get either a BS or a BA in the engineering department.

[123LuckyMom]

Just as an example. Here's a link that shows the engineering graduate programs attended by Williams alums. Williams doesn't offer an undergraduate degree in engineering.

https://physics.williams.edu/pre-engineering/engineering-graduate-schools/


Sent from my iPhone using Baby Bargains mobile app

[almostmom]

I went to a small liberal arts Ivy. I had friends who were engineering majors, getting a BS. Some stayed for an extra year to get their masters. I'm sure people from that degree went on to get PhD's.

I majored in biology and did go on to get an MS somewhere else.

[StantonHyde]

123LuckyMom's example of Williams College only does BAs and you can major in Chemistry. http://www.williams.edu/academics/areas-of-study/

The school I went to offered BAs in science subjects (biology, chemistry, etc.), but it was widely considered to be pre-med (read: easier to get the high GPA needed for med school admission). They did not take the same math and physics classes as the BS program and had fewer major subject classes (by about 1/3).

Some SLACs offer BS degrees, but not all.

Huh, who knew? I went to Haverford. There was no separation of the sciences for BA or BS or premed etc. It was pure chemistry, biology etc. I knew several people who graduated from Williams, including one in Physics. Haverford had something like a 98% acceptance rate to med school and I don't know anybody who didn't get into grad school. I honestly didn't even know you could get a BA in Science subject--all we had were BS. (and I have a BA in Political Science but I dated a Chem major and my best friends were Bio majors)

[AnnieW625]

I think part of it is that many people who are set on engineering right out of high school have no desire to get a PhD vs. people who get a BA/BS in a "pure" science. At least for my husband (CS/EE) - he went to our large state school - he wanted a degree that allowed him to jump right into a job/on-the-job training, with not as much interest in the academic/theoretical side.

:yeahthat: DH went to a state university with a student population of 25k or so but had a smallish engineering department (and his section mechanical was the smallest division iirc, even construction management which at the time was in the engineering department was bigger!) of maybe 2000 students said the same thing as above. The bulk of the students were computer engineering majors and civil engineering majors. DH had zero interest in getting an MS or a PhD in engineering (and still doesn't have either), but had actually thought before he was laid off in 2002 about getting a law degree to do patent related law as it was related to his job as at a large internationally known electronics testing firm (which was actually much smaller than you would think because their logo is on everything!). He ended working up outside of engineering for two years (doing construction for a friend, and later food and beverage merchandising) post layoff, and then we had DD1 within 18 months of him being in engineering again (he is now in the environmental field, but still does a bit of mechanical) so he never did attend law school, but he said it was much more interesting than conducting lab research.

DH graduated with his BSME in 2000.

[o_mom]

Found this to be very interesting: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/

It looks like the vast majority of STEM PhDs are awarded to students not from SLACs, which does fit with OP's DH's observation. However, on a percentage basis, the number of SLAC grads earning STEM PhDs is somewhat lower, compared to larger research schools, but more than other categories of schools.

This report groups all "science" together, and not just the "hard" science that OP specified, so psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. You can dig into the original data on the site, and a preliminary run shows that while the overall percentage is around 10% of PhDs are from SLAC, they are more concentrated in those "soft" science vs. "hard" science and very low in engineering, in particular.

I am not sure what that means for OP. I personally would not send a child to a SLAC if they were interested in STEM fields (or really in general), but I know that is not a popular opinion for SLAC grads.

[legaleagle]

I am not sure what that means for OP. I personally would not send a child to a SLAC if they were interested in STEM fields (or really in general), but I know that is not a popular opinion for SLAC grads.

I'm curious as to why no SLAC in general? This was in the WaPo yesterday - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/07/21/liberal-arts-or-business-education-both-deans-say/

Also, do most parents really want their kids to get PhDs (in any field)? For many it seems to be somewhat of a waste of time/serious opportunity cost when the vast majority of jobs don't need them and academia is a pretty tough job track, if you can even get on it.

[o_mom]

I'm curious as to why no SLAC in general? This was in the WaPo yesterday - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/07/21/liberal-arts-or-business-education-both-deans-say/

Also, do most parents really want their kids to get PhDs (in any field)? For many it seems to be somewhat of a waste of time/serious opportunity cost when the vast majority of jobs don't need them and academia is a pretty tough job track, if you can even get on it.


I think the article pretty much reinforces to me my hesitation: "Students’ undergraduate years are a special time. It is possibly the one period in life when they have the opportunity to indulge in unfettered intellectual curiosity and self-exploration."

We (as a family) do not have the resources to support college as self-exploration. Also, as I said upthread, I don't find their STEM programs to be on par with the larger research-based universities, so even if a student is planning to pursue a higher degree, I don't think they will be as prepared.

In general, I agree with you that many PhD programs are a waste of time with high opportunity cost (same with many professional schools). In some fields, though, it is a highly desired qualification in industry (statistics, as one example) that likely would provide a net benefit long-term.

[squimp]

I think the article pretty much reinforces to me my hesitation: "Students’ undergraduate years are a special time. It is possibly the one period in life when they have the opportunity to indulge in unfettered intellectual curiosity and self-exploration."

We (as a family) do not have the resources to support college as self-exploration. Also, as I said upthread, I don't find their STEM programs to be on par with the larger research-based universities, so even if a student is planning to pursue a higher degree, I don't think they will be as prepared.

In general, I agree with you that many PhD programs are a waste of time with high opportunity cost (same with many professional schools). In some fields, though, it is a highly desired qualification in industry (statistics, as one example) that likely would provide a net benefit long-term.

Just curious whether you are in a STEM field. As a PhD scientist, I honestly think it is really important for kids to have the opportunity to explore! You have to find what you love, because you are going to work hard and if you don't love it, no amount of preparation or intelligence is going to help. I floated around a bit in college before I found my calling, and would have never found it if I had been stovepiped into a particular field and not allowed to explore. Better to drift a bit it in college as opposed to grad or med or professional school. Are people expecting kids to know their careers in high school? College is often the first time kids are exposed to new fields, new ideas and new possibilities, so I think having some ability to explore is important. But then I am just a huge a fan of the SLAC for the broader benefits. I interact with a lot of students and post docs in science and I see no huge benefit of kids coming from large universities vs. strong SLACS, in fact probably the opposite. We have been hiring people from Oberlin, Kenyon, Swarthmore, Smith, Reed, etc.

[legaleagle]

In general, I agree with you that many PhD programs are a waste of time with high opportunity cost (same with many professional schools). In some fields, though, it is a highly desired qualification in industry (statistics, as one example) that likely would provide a net benefit long-term.

Oh, for sure there are valuable ones, esp for the people who have their eye on their future career path! I just had quite a few friends drift into PhD/master's programs for lack of any strong idea of what kind of job they were even interested in. Subsidized PhDs seem especially enticing that way with people not really thinking about the 5-6-7 years of their life they're not earning real income. Same issue with law school too - I was amazed about how many of my classmates were there seemingly through lack of anything better to do.

[legaleagle]

In general, I agree with you that many PhD programs are a waste of time with high opportunity cost (same with many professional schools). In some fields, though, it is a highly desired qualification in industry (statistics, as one example) that likely would provide a net benefit long-term.

Oh, for sure there are valuable ones, esp for the people who have their eye on their future career path! I just had quite a few friends drift into PhD/master's programs for lack of any strong idea of what kind of job they were even interested in. Subsidized PhDs seem especially enticing that way with people not really thinking about the 5-6-7 years of their life they're not earning real income. Same issue with my (top-25) law school too - I was amazed about how many of my classmates were there seemingly through lack of anything better to do.

[bisous]

I think the article pretty much reinforces to me my hesitation: "Students’ undergraduate years are a special time. It is possibly the one period in life when they have the opportunity to indulge in unfettered intellectual curiosity and self-exploration."

We (as a family) do not have the resources to support college as self-exploration. Also, as I said upthread, I don't find their STEM programs to be on par with the larger research-based universities, so even if a student is planning to pursue a higher degree, I don't think they will be as prepared.

In general, I agree with you that many PhD programs are a waste of time with high opportunity cost (same with many professional schools). In some fields, though, it is a highly desired qualification in industry (statistics, as one example) that likely would provide a net benefit long-term.

This is such a fascinating subject. I just briefly scanned the article but will read it later when I have time. I guess our family is in a similar situation to o_mom. I don't think my kids will be able to afford SLAC educations. I haven't seriously inquired about it and I really hope I don't have to shut the door to the experience that would be the absolute best for them. I just really wonder if the "indulgence" that you quote here o_mom is really and truly what is best for our young adult children? I mean it sounds really nice but I think it is highly unrealistic for the majority of families. And for those that can afford it, is it really beneficial?

My experience was really different but also wonderful. I went to a huge university that is highly subsidized by my church. OK, I went to BYU, lol, hopefully that makes this all clearer. I paid $600 per semester for my education (I had a half tuition scholarship) AND I had to work about 16 hours a week to afford to go there after my freshman year. I honestly think it was the budgeting and the struggle that made the experience so life changing for me. I felt like I could do anything after handling that kind of course load and work schedule, etc. BYU is a pretty good school but I'm totally positive that kids at Haverford (a friend attended this college) get a more personalized and deeper academic experience. Kids at BYU can get a good education and access to professors but they have to really work for it. The school is very much run like a business. Classes can be enormous. I had a biology lecture with almost 1000 people in it! Still, I changed my major 4 times and ended up with something I love. I graduated from school debt free. Would I have enjoyed an education with world class professors that I knew personally? I'm totally sure I would have. But maybe it is more than I needed? Maybe my school was "good enough"?

FWIW, my sister was waitlisted at Harvard and Stanford. We really didn't know anything about SLAC when she was applying. She had tremendous test scores and was the valedictorian of our high school. She ended up attending BYU with an incredible scholarship (she paid nothing and did not have to work at all) and although she enjoyed it, she wishes now that she would have attended an SLAC. She's a high school teacher in the DC area right now. We talk about this a lot.

I guess I just wonder two things. First, is the indulgence that comes with college, is it really what is best for our kids? And two, if it is, is it okay that I'm not giving it to my kids!

[legaleagle]

We are years out from college (oldest DS is 3rd grade) but depending on income it doesn't seem that a SLAC is definitely more expensive, depending on aid package. So I guess if price is equal (or irrelevant), how to pick? And I presume it varies widely by child's personality & interests. And I know the multi-kid issue makes it harder. Our neighbors sent their older child to Tufts, I believe. The younger one got a full ride (with r&b and stipend even!) to UMD but wanted to go to Duke, for which her parents are paying full freight. So the public vs private divide, not the University vs SLAC divide. Of course, I fully expect this girl to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company and/or senator some day, she is beyond smart & driven so I'm sure she would have excelled anywhere.

[o_mom]

Just curious whether you are in a STEM field. As a PhD scientist, I honestly think it is really important for kids to have the opportunity to explore! You have to find what you love, because you are going to work hard and if you don't love it, no amount of preparation or intelligence is going to help. I floated around a bit in college before I found my calling, and would have never found it if I had been stovepiped into a particular field and not allowed to explore. Better to drift a bit it in college as opposed to grad or med or professional school. Are people expecting kids to know their careers in high school? College is often the first time kids are exposed to new fields, new ideas and new possibilities, so I think having some ability to explore is important. But then I am just a huge a fan of the SLAC for the broader benefits. I interact with a lot of students and post docs in science and I see no huge benefit of kids coming from large universities vs. strong SLACS, in fact probably the opposite. We have been hiring people from Oberlin, Kenyon, Swarthmore, Smith, Reed, etc.

Yes, I am in a STEM field. :) I have two STEM degrees. DH also works in STEM as do many of our friends.

I do expect my kids to have an idea going to college of what they want to do. Exploration and broader learning are fine to an extent, but they need to come out with skills that will allow them to earn a living in line with the investment. We don't have the luxury of funding 4+ years of exploration before they decide what they want to do (like friends paying $55k/year for their son to study Art History at a SLAC).

I don't think a "large" university is necessary, because there are small technical colleges (referenced upthread) with very strong STEM programs. There are also many mid-sized research universities which would be a better choice for someone interested in hard science or engineering, IMO.

[o_mom]

Oh, for sure there are valuable ones, esp for the people who have their eye on their future career path! I just had quite a few friends drift into PhD/master's programs for lack of any strong idea of what kind of job they were even interested in. Subsidized PhDs seem especially enticing that way with people not really thinking about the 5-6-7 years of their life they're not earning real income. Same issue with my (top-25) law school too - I was amazed about how many of my classmates were there seemingly through lack of anything better to do.

Yes - this is exactly what I was thinking. You said it much better.

[AnnieW625]

I'm curious as to why no SLAC in general? This was in the WaPo yesterday - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/07/21/liberal-arts-or-business-education-both-deans-say/

Also, do most parents really want their kids to get PhDs (in any field)? For many it seems to be somewhat of a waste of time/serious opportunity cost when the vast majority of jobs don't need them and academia is a pretty tough job track, if you can even get on it.

I think this can be very cultural at least from what I have seen in my area and also read here on the BBB. In real life I had a friend who applied to a bunch of Ivy League schools, plus some UC schools for pre medicine and ended up at Cal for pre ned and UCLA for med school and is now a surgeon. He knew from not long after I met him in 7th grade that he wanted to be a doctor and he did it. I think he was a rarity and one of the few I know who did exactly what he wanted to do. Granted his father was an OB and his older sister was in college studying pre med why he was in middle school and high school and then in med school when he was in college so he had great direction, but yeah I don't think that is normal at all.

My maternal grandfather was the only son of Austrian immigrants who somehow skipped two grades in elementary school so he graduated from high school at just 16 and worked his way through college to get a BS in mechanical engineering at Cal, then a masters in ME and later a PHD in mechanical engineering also at Cal, and later for a good portion of the 1960s-1980s was department chair and for part of that time was the dean of mechanical engineering at Cal. He even hired a future chancellor as his PhD grad student in the late 1950s. He and my grandmother (who had a masters in art and a teaching credential) did not require their kids or grandkids to get their PhDs at all, a college degree and happiness is what they wanted from their kids. My mom is the only one of the five kids who doesn't have a college degree, but they never really held it against her; although my mom at times has thought about finishing her degree. So far 11 of their 14 grandkids all have bachelors degrees (2 didn't graduate: one of those did become a certified Porsche mechanic, and one is still in college) and I believe about 5 of us cousins have advanced degrees and only one has a PhD (in mechanical engineering). With all of that said I am glad my parents and grandparents said to do what you want with your life and study what you want in college.

I do not have the plans to tell my girls that they need to work in X field and get an advanced degree because it is expected of them because everyone else is doing it. Dd1 already says she wants to be a nurse or pediatrician and that is admirable for a 10 yr. old, but I won't be disappointed if she does something else. I would be a failure as a parent if I was. Thankfully DH agrees with me as his parents said everyone should major in business and my BIL who would've been much happier studying the arts is an auditor and hates it and my ILs have never tried to understand why DH is a mechanical engineer.


....... Are people expecting kids to know their careers in high school? College is often the first time kids are exposed to new fields, new ideas and new possibilities, so I think having some ability to explore is important. But then I am just a huge a fan of the SLAC for the broader benefits. .......
I graduated from high school in 1995 and there was a lot of college and career research done at my school, however I had known from a young age that I wanted to be a news caster so I knew I was going to study journalism or communications somewhere. I ended up at one of the top public universities in my state for journalism, television, and film studies and while it was a great school and I loved my program I don't work in the field now because of lack of advising from my department and university. Thankfully for the better the whole program has been split and is more specific than it was when I was there. I also wish I would've expanded my search of careers to include sports management, but in high school I didn't know about that career path as it was pretty non existent especially for women; I figure I went to college about 10 years too early.


Oh, for sure there are valuable ones, esp for the people who have their eye on their future career path! I just had quite a few friends drift into PhD/master's programs for lack of any strong idea of what kind of job they were even interested in. Subsidized PhDs seem especially enticing that way with people not really thinking about the 5-6-7 years of their life they're not earning real income. Same issue with law school too - I was amazed about how many of my classmates were there seemingly through lack of anything better to do.

:yeahthat: When I graduated from college in 1999 law school was huge and so many people went to law school just because they had nothing better to do with their time and their parents said they needed to do something good with their degrees, not that they wanted to become a lawyer. I know a few teachers who got credentials just because as well and ended up hated teaching.

[StantonHyde]

First of all, going to a liberal arts college is not "wandering". In fact, I would say kids at SLAC wander much less than kids at big universities. DH went to a large state university and 50% of the freshman class flunked out the first semester. There are kids who are not prepared to go to college. If you get into a competitive SLAC, you are not going to flunk out. YOu may have some emotional issues but you can do the work. I didn't have time to wander--none of us did. We worked our butts off to keep our grades up--the library was full every Saturday night. If you weren't toeing the line, you got noticed immediately and had professors and all sorts of other people talking to you.

Second, the idea that a STEM career is the only valuable career is really, really sad. I am the only person in my family who has a BA vs a BS. Heck, I am the only person in my family who can't call myself doctor. I was raised to believe that only science careers were valuable. Well, I am not that good at math and I really don't like it. Plus, I really don't like chemistry or physics. Bio was fun but that's about it. I couldn't have majored in Science at my highly competitive SLAC. If I had gone to my state university, where Math started with Algebra vs. Calculus I could have pulled it off. The bottom line is that I chose a different path. I have been self supporting and have built up a good reputation and career for myself. My daughter is extremely artistic. I could see her working in animation or costume design. As long as she is self-sufficient and happy, that is fine.

The cool thing about going to a big state university would have been all the different departments or classes to take--like Human Resources or Parks and Rec or Physical Therapy etc. Most careers/jobs require a Masters Degree now anyway. So you can major in something interesting as long as you have all the base courses you need. Every MD I have ever known has said they wished they majored in Psychology or Sociology or Art History or something else besides science because you get all the science you need in Medical School and in the core pre-med classes. On the flip side, I am astonished that programs are still there for people to become "Wilderness Recreation Therapists". That's a ticket to a minimum wage job at best so you darn well better count on getting a Masters in something else-fast.

[AnnieW625]

First of all, going to a liberal arts college is not "wandering". In fact, I would say kids at SLAC wander much less than kids at big universities. DH went to a large state university and 50% of the freshman class flunked out the first semester. There are kids who are not prepared to go to college. If you get into a competitive SLAC, you are not going to flunk out. YOu may have some emotional issues but you can do the work. I didn't have time to wander--none of us did. We worked our butts off to keep our grades up--the library was full every Saturday night. If you weren't toeing the line, you got noticed immediately and had professors and all sorts of other people talking to you.

Second, the idea that a STEM career is the only valuable career is really, really sad. I am the only person in my family who has a BA vs a BS. Heck, I am the only person in my family who can't call myself doctor. I was raised to believe that only science careers were valuable. Well, I am not that good at math and I really don't like it. Plus, I really don't like chemistry or physics. Bio was fun but that's about it. I couldn't have majored in Science at my highly competitive SLAC. If I had gone to my state university, where Math started with Algebra vs. Calculus I could have pulled it off. The bottom line is that I chose a different path. I have been self supporting and have built up a good reputation and career for myself. My daughter is extremely artistic. I could see her working in animation or costume design. As long as she is self-sufficient and happy, that is fine.

The cool thing about going to a big state university would have been all the different departments or classes to take--like Human Resources or Parks and Rec or Physical Therapy etc. Most careers/jobs require a Masters Degree now anyway. So you can major in something interesting as long as you have all the base courses you need. Every MD I have ever known has said they wished they majored in Psychology or Sociology or Art History or something else besides science because you get all the science you need in Medical School and in the core pre-med classes. On the flip side, I am astonished that programs are still there for people to become "Wilderness Recreation Therapists". That's a ticket to a minimum wage job at best so you darn well better count on getting a Masters in something else-fast.

I agree with all of this as well. My dad went to a all male SLAC (it became coed his senior year) because after a year of junior college and thinking about being a cop he decided he didn't want to do that. He started researching college and settled on a few colleges and he decided on this small Catholic SLAC (St. Mary's College of CA) and had a wonderful time. My dad majored in business which he kind of regretted (he would have been a great probation officer had he gotten a psych degree), but my dad can sell anything to anyone so his business degree from a SLAC has done him well. He would've been lost at even a slightly bigger Catholic university like University of San Diego or his parents' alma mater USC. I applied to St. Mary's out of high school and didn't get in; I was absolutely crushed, but with the encouragement of my parents went to the local state university and never looked back because I finally realized at the medium sized state university I could do well and ended up transferring to another large state university and graduated from there. However there were many people I knew in college and then my one cousin who didn't finish college that would've done much better had they been at a small SLAC because it was just a better learning environment than the large university.

My daughters current pediatrician has a degree from Yale in psychology and was a teacher for a few years before medical school and a few of the other pediatricians there have BA degrees as well. (Love reading dr. Bios)

A good friend of mine has his BS in recreation and is a highway patrol officer. He initially worked for the United Way out of college.

[o_mom]

First of all, going to a liberal arts college is not "wandering". In fact, I would say kids at SLAC wander much less than kids at big universities. DH went to a large state university and 50% of the freshman class flunked out the first semester. There are kids who are not prepared to go to college. If you get into a competitive SLAC, you are not going to flunk out. YOu may have some emotional issues but you can do the work. I didn't have time to wander--none of us did. We worked our butts off to keep our grades up--the library was full every Saturday night. If you weren't toeing the line, you got noticed immediately and had professors and all sorts of other people talking to you.

Second, the idea that a STEM career is the only valuable career is really, really sad. I am the only person in my family who has a BA vs a BS. Heck, I am the only person in my family who can't call myself doctor. I was raised to believe that only science careers were valuable. Well, I am not that good at math and I really don't like it. Plus, I really don't like chemistry or physics. Bio was fun but that's about it. I couldn't have majored in Science at my highly competitive SLAC. If I had gone to my state university, where Math started with Algebra vs. Calculus I could have pulled it off. The bottom line is that I chose a different path. I have been self supporting and have built up a good reputation and career for myself. My daughter is extremely artistic. I could see her working in animation or costume design. As long as she is self-sufficient and happy, that is fine.

The cool thing about going to a big state university would have been all the different departments or classes to take--like Human Resources or Parks and Rec or Physical Therapy etc. Most careers/jobs require a Masters Degree now anyway. So you can major in something interesting as long as you have all the base courses you need. Every MD I have ever known has said they wished they majored in Psychology or Sociology or Art History or something else besides science because you get all the science you need in Medical School and in the core pre-med classes. On the flip side, I am astonished that programs are still there for people to become "Wilderness Recreation Therapists". That's a ticket to a minimum wage job at best so you darn well better count on getting a Masters in something else-fast.


OP specifically asked about STEM, so my answers have been mostly based on that.

I don't think that STEM is the only valuable career path, but I do think that many of the psychology/sociology/art history majors of the world are not working in that field - they went to grad school or professional school much like the wilderness recreation therapists. :) IMO, SLAC for pre-med is not a bad choice if you can afford it and know going in that med school is what you want. As I said upthread, the BA track in science (biology, mainly) at our school was considered pre-med. They got science classes enough to get in med school and mostly did a LA curriculum outside of that. Again, though, I'm not sure we would have the ability to pay SLAC prices for a pre-med program when there are other options out there. The wandering is what I hear a lot from SLAC folks - they say that is the beauty of it, that you can explore everything and find your passion, which does not endear it to me. ;) It does seem though that many times the alternative to SLAC is put out there as the "Big State University where you are just a number" as if that is the only other option out there, so I can see if those are the only two choices given how people would promote the SLAC.

Self-sufficient and happy are two great goals. I think you can't really have happy without self-sufficiency (at least I couldn't), so that is where the practical side of me says to look at the return on the dollars we are spending on education to make sure that self-sufficiency is possible (so, no, I will not pay for a wilderness recreation degree). There are certainly options for that outside of STEM, but I think there are options for those besides SLAC that make more sense for our family. Even with a full-ride scholarship, I would have to be convinced that the SLAC would provide a better return on the years invested over other options and not be limiting.

[american_mama]

... Also, do most parents really want their kids to get PhDs (in any field)? For many it seems to be somewhat of a waste of time/serious opportunity cost when the vast majority of jobs don't need them and academia is a pretty tough job track, if you can even get on it.

This makes me laugh a bit, because everyone lives in such different worlds. I've worked and lived around a lot of PhDs, so for me, it is something I could really see my children doing, especially DD1 (the one I mentioned in my OP). I live in a college town, a mile from the university where both my husband and I work in engineering (me in administation, him as faculty). I work with MS and PhD students every day. Our closest friends are mostly faculty at the university. So I see a constant flood of people getting or having these degrees.

Prior to knowing DH, I worked at a federal public health agency, where you had to have an MD or at least a PhD to lead a division, so there were lots. My dad also has a PhD and worked as an industrial chemist, and the church and the high school I grew up in had a good dose of faculty at our local university. So it's always been a part of my life to a small or large degree. Plus, I admire PhDs.

I do understand the opportunity cost and drifting into grad school mentality. And I've met a few faculty (not many) that feel that way about their jobs and are dissatisfied, or don't realize it but fall into the stereotype of myopic, overeducated, pretentious. I was asking one music professor I met socially about why he did something or thought something, and he said by way of explanation "well, I'm a medievalist..." What they hell does that mean to anyone outside his field and what does it have to do with music? Those downsides are probably one of the reasons why I wasn't interested in a doctoral program.... but I now think I would have been very good at it. I just didn't know that until my late 30's.

Back to the main topic.... in my world, a PhD is a necessary credential for fields (faculty or elsewhere) that I am very connected to, fields where you can do quite well and where the degree gives you status in the wider community. For those who live in Fortune 500, or BigLaw, or Silicon Valley, or entrepeneurs.... your worlds are unfamiliar to me.