Can I still be competitive at a small school?

[somefellasomewhere]

Long story short, this college in my hometown is the only place that's financially viable for me to go to school (at least for my first year, I may be able to get better transfer scholarships than I was as a freshman). It has a student population of 5000, and around here if you go there its generally seen as settling, as its not a very well known school. I want to go to school for either chemistry or biology (leaning more toward chemistry bc its a more "pure" science, and it seems to be a more flexible subject). The chemistry degree is ACS approved, does this speak to the program's legitimacy at all? or does the ACS cert not hold much value?

The two main things that concern me (apart from the depressing geography of my hometown, which I can get over). Is that 1. scrolling through the faculty directory, after faculty take a position at the university, their publishing frequency drops off a cliff. There is still research being conducted, but I think the professors are mostly hired to teach, rather than do research. I find this kind of concerning because all the advice for undergraduates I hear is very focused on getting research. The other thing 2. is that this university is mostly known (regionally, at best) as a premed school, which makes me think that maybe the coursework wouldn't be as rigorous as what would be found at a larger research institution, in order to help with premed student's GPAs.

So are these issues just in my head or would they take away from say a graduate school application in chemistry (or maybe biochem/mol biology)? I am somewhat reassured by hearing that some REUs prioritize students from universities that are not as research-intensive, which may be able to boost my application if I am able to get one. I guess the main thesis of this is whether or not going to a school that is smaller/less "prestigious" will negatively affect me after graduation.

I hear the job market and graduate school scene is a total wasteland and extremely competitive for STEM majors, so I want to put myself in the best situation I can. Right now I think I want to go to graduate school so I can participate in research, however this may change with time, but the issue of whether or not a STEM degree from a small school is valuable seems to be independent of my plans after graduation, since graduate schools, and industrial employers (science-orieted, ex: biotech/pharma) look like they value roughly the same things.

 

[hutchphd]

What exactly is your (tentative) alternative plan? Then we can make an evaluation.
If you are asking would it be better if you could go to Cornell then the answer is almost certainly yes. But that is not useful at the right now.

 

[somefellasomewhere]

What exactly is your (tentative) alternative plan? Then we can make an evaluation.
If you are asking would it be better if you could go to Cornell then the answer is almost certainly yes. But that is not useful at the right now.

Well right now I don't have much of an option. However I may consider transferring after my first year to a larger public institution. An example of a college that I may consider to transfer to is Texas A&M (not sure if I could swing getting admitted here) or somewhere like the University of Houston. I feel like STEM majors gravitate to larger colleges like these, but is it necessary? If I continued at the same school instead of transferring, I could graduate with less debt, but I fear my degree would hold less value.

I should also note that I am willing to concede on the financial side of things, since graduating with a degree that I cannot hope to ever use seems much more depressing than signing slightly higher student loan checks every month.

Edit: Its not really these schools in particular (except A&M, I'm a bit of a aggie fan), but rather schools of that caliber. ie. have 20k+ student population and departments that are actually recieving grant money.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's the short version? Oy vey...

You never said what the alternative is. If you don't get a degree from the small college, what happens? If that means you don't get a degree at all, from anywhere, this sounds like a bad plan.

I'm more concerned with your statement that you can't get into A&M, Getting a graduate degree is at least as competitive. Also, if you have a high GPA, good test scores and recss you can get a full ride at places like Bama. If you like, the small school may be more of a symptom than the problem.

You can ask the small school how many of their grads went to grad school, and it would tell you something. I am less sure whst you would do with this inofmration.

 

[somefellasomewhere]

That's the short version? Oy vey...

Yeah I blabbered on for a good bit there. Whoops

I'm more concerned with your statement that you can't get into A&M, Getting a graduate degree is at least as competitive. Also, if you have a high GPA, good test scores and recss you can get a full ride at places like Bama. If you like, the small school may be more of a symptom than the problem.

Okay I def was not being being very clear in the original post, so ill try to clear some stuff up.

I'm a senior in high school, and basically threw away my gpa during my freshman and sophomore years but these past two years I've picked things back up and started to develop interest and competency (not outstanding by any means though) in math/science subjects. This has made it difficult to get scholarships (and even admission to some places, like A&M), so for my freshman year of college this small college in my hometown is my only option.

I think I will excel more in college (however I wont know until I get there, I guess), which makes me think I could transfer somewhere and get some better scholarships since it would be based on my college performance, rather than my poor high school performance. Also I think that transfer admissions are much more competitive than freshmen admissions, which is where my concern for getting into A&M came from.

You never said what the alternative is.

My alternative is to transfer after a year to a larger state school that may have more opportunities, but I don't know how much of a benefit this will be when I could just stay and develop closer relations with my professors and maybe get some research experience relatively early (since its a very small department, often underclassmen can get some research experience).

My pro/cons list looks something like:

Stay pros - More attention from faculty, may get research opportunities sooner than I could otherwise at a larger school. Since these prof's focus is not solely research, maybe the quality of teaching is better? (This is a big talking point for the school)

Stay cons - Research experience and degree may not be as valuable as at a larger school

Leave pros/cons - pretty much above but the opposite

Another wall of text, I know. So sorry.

 

[hutchphd]

I'm a senior in high school, and basically threw away my gpa during my freshman and sophomore years but these past two I've picked things back up and started to develop an interest and competency (not outstanding by any means though) in math/science subjects.

Does this mean you did (and are doing) very well in junior and senior year? Why did you throw away two years? "Started to develop an interest" is pretty equivocal and you need to confront this head-on and show excellence and diligence to become outstanding both for yourself and for colleges. This year's grades will be equivalently important to freshman grades at local college when you try to transfer. The important time for you is now. Right now.

 

[somefellasomewhere]

Does this mean you did (and are doing) very well in junior and senior year? Why did you throw away two years? "Started to develop an interest" is pretty equivocal and you need to confront this head-on and show excellence and diligence to become outstanding both for yourself and for colleges. This year's grades will be equivalently important to freshman grades at local college when you try to transfer. The important time for you is now. Right now.

Yes, I'm doing very well academically right now. All A's (midway to sometimes low As), taking lots of college credit, good test scores, etc. However my GPA has placed me in only the top 50% of my class, which especially hurts me since I go to a very rural school with a level of rigor that is honestly laughable. I think this is what has hurt my applications the most since class rank is a heavily weighed metric in Texas (according to my teachers, so this is the most sure of all my "I think" statements).

I didn't care about my academics during fresh/soph years 1. because I was stupid and thought it was cool and 2. because I didn't even think I was going to college.

 

[hutchphd]

Good answer, thanks. Then you should be pleased with your performance, finish strong, and enroll in local college and continue to work hard. Equally important is to find an advisor there (or somewhere) who can guide your next step up. Take calculus and Physics and a good writing course. If possible try to choose courses that can transfer required credits to your next school, perhaps saving you tuition and time spent there. Hopefully whatever is really good at Local U. Your choice as to transferring will be clearer when you have the acceptances in hand. Maybe you stay Local.
Your graduate educaton will be paid for if you are thriving.
Good Luck.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's April. You graduate in six weeks. So while it's possible that you are waitlisted somewhere that will offer you a ton of aid, it is unlikely. So this is really a "take it or leave it" proposition.

As far as transferring to someplace that will give you a lot of aid, very, very few schools give transfers substantial aid. Very few. I woiuld not count on this.

Since this is take it or leave it, I';d take it and work as hard as I could. As stated earlier, your odds would be better at Cornell, but Cornell isn;'t an option, so there is no point on worrying about it.

Bloom where you're planted.

 

[gmax137]

You repeat "small" again and again. The number of students, by itself, really is not an indication of much. Some of the best schools in the country are far smaller, less than half your 5000.

What is important is what you do, at whatever school you attend.

 

[mathwonk]

Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but the main thing I wish to impress on you is that the reason you have no options, is that you have apparently never performed well. The thing you need to ask yourself is not what does your only school option have to offer, but when are you going to get serious. There is no value in weighing possible outcomes until you have accumulated at least one or two years of excellent work. Since you have only one option, the choice of school is moot. Perhaps you are asking whether going there and doing well would actually help you much, since it is not a prestigious school. But again, with the data I have, the question is more about you than about the school.

[I wrote all of this before you posted your current successes in #7, on which I congratulate you.]

In my experience, doing well anywhere is a plus, so if you really want this career, I suggest going to your only option, and busting the doors off their program. Then I suspect you will enjoy rather more options. But I warn you, (from personal experience), doing well even in a program you expect to be less challenging may well be harder than you thought. I myself went to a less well known (grad) program I thought I would dominate in and met a student clearly better than me the first day. The course work also was absolutely all I could handle, and the professors were excellent. On graduation I had several good job offers

gmax137 put it more succinctly, in his last sentence.

 

[CrysPhys]

You repeat "small" again and again. The number of students, by itself, really is not an indication of much. Some of the best schools in the country are far smaller, less than half your 5000.

What is important is what you do, at whatever school you attend.

^Yes. This.^ It's not a question of small schools vs large schools. It's a question of excellent schools vs. crappy schools. I served as an industry mentor to a physics major at Wellesley (enrollment ~2400) and a physics major at Carleton (enrollment ~2000). Both excellent schools. And, yeah, Cal Tech has an undergrad enrollment of ~1000, and a grad enrollment of ~1400. I won't bother listing examples of crappy large schools.

So you need to evaluate the excellence of the specific small school you are considering, and the excellence of the specific large schools you are considering.

 

[gmax137]

Undergrad chemistry, or physics, or math are standard courses of study, there's nothing cutting edge about them. So where you study the basics is not really important. It's how well you learn them. Which may be easier or harder depending on the school. At really competitive schools, you're surrounded by motivated students, which may motivate you. At a party school, everyone may be drinking and getting laid, which may unmotivate your studies. So it's up to you to take the initiative.

 

[somefellasomewhere]

^Yes. This.^ It's not a question of small schools vs large schools. It's a question of excellent schools vs. crappy schools. I served as an industry mentor to a physics major at Wellesley (enrollment ~2400) and a physics major at Carleton (enrollment ~2000). Both excellent schools. And, yeah, Cal Tech has an undergrad enrollment of ~1000, and a grad enrollment of ~1400. I won't bother listing examples of crappy large schools.

So you need to evaluate the excellence of the specific small school you are considering, and the excellence of the specific large schools you are considering.

Welllll.... This school is not exactly the most exclusive school. I know of only one person who has been turned down and he's... not the brightest.

In my experience, doing well anywhere is a plus, so if you really want this career, I suggest going to your only option, and busting the doors off their program.

I'm going to go in with this attitude, and try to get the most out of the program that I can. I will be humble about it though, like you said, no matter where I go, math and science will be hard.

Once I get there, it will become more clear what the best option is.

 

[jtbell]

Unlike you, I did well in high school, in a small steel-mill and factory city in the midwest, part of what is nowadays called the "rust belt." I finished second in my graduating class of about 300. However, I'm not a "competitive" type personality, and wasn't interested in trying for the best-ranked college/university that I could get into.

One summer, I had taken a course at a small liberal-arts college with about 1000 students and a three-faculty physics department, a short drive from my home town. I stayed on campus for six weeks, and liked it there, so I decided to go there for my bachelor's.

I enjoyed my four years there, even though it was pretty low on the totem pole by the standards of today's academic pecking order. (How's that for a mixed metaphor? ) Classes were small, and the professors were easily accessible. The physics majors were a tight-knit bunch. We hung out in the department's study room, socialized, and helped each other with homework

We pretty much had the run of the labs, the machine shop, and the computers, for our own projects. With me, it was computers. This was the early 1970s, so the computing environment was nothing like today's. In a formal course, I learned to program in Fortran with punched cards. On my own in the evenings, I learned to program in assembly language on two different computers that used punched paper tape. This general familiarity with programming helped me later on.

My graduating class had five physics majors, one of whom was really a math major who happened to take enough physics courses to get a double major. I did it the other way, taking enough math classes to get a double major.

All of us got into graduate school, mostly at various universities in the midwest. I got into U of Michigan, and ended up as a physics professor (now retired) at a small college in the southeast. One of my classmates got into U of Illinois and ended up as an engineering professor specializing in robotics. Another one (my roommate) got into U of Indiana, then Tufts, and ended up as a technical writer for tech companies in the Boston area. Another one got into Ohio State and ended up in engineering, working for a big aeronautical company in Phoenix. I don't know what happened to the fifth one (the one who was really a math person), except that she went to grad school at Washington U in St Louis.

But this was fifty years ago...

 

[TeethWhitener]

The chemistry degree is ACS approved, does this speak to the program's legitimacy at all? or does the ACS cert not hold much value?

The ACS certification by itself is not necessarily a strong indicator of a good program, but not having the ACS certification is certainly a strong indicator of a terrible program. It's like those old Nintendo seal of approval stamps from the '80s. Basically every game had one, and if you found one without a stamp, you knew it was going to be an absolute disaster.

scrolling through the faculty directory, after faculty take a position at the university, their publishing frequency drops off a cliff. There is still research being conducted, but I think the professors are mostly hired to teach, rather than do research.

Yeah probably. That's true even at very prestigious 4-year liberal arts colleges. It's widely understood by admissions committees that undergrads are less prolific than grad students when it comes to research, and it stands to reason that professors of mainly undergrad students are also going to be less prolific (compare the publication rates of professors at Amherst vs. Texas A&M, for example). If your goal is admission to grad school after undergrad, then you should capitalize upon whatever opportunities exist for research at your undergrad institution (and also consider extramural summer research internships).

 

[Muu9]

What's the cost per year of attending your current school and how does that compare to the cost per year of community college? How would your finances look with your current school for 4 years vs CC for 2 years and big uni for 2 years?

TAMU has guaranteed transfer agreements specifically with community colleges:
https://admissions.tamu.edu/getmedia/6c708d33-8b8d-45c0-b686-8c683d19f842/CHEM-22-23-PTA.pdf
https://admissions.tamu.edu/getmedia/e1356a8c-ad94-4ec1-bb76-6bc847587db2/BIOL-22-23-PTA.pdf

I suggest you contact Holly Gaede at the department of Chemistry and see how often they accept transfer students from outside the Texas Community College System.

If your only option is a UT campus, look here: https://admissions.utexas.edu/enroll/cap/prospective-students/enrollment-reqs

 

[gwnorth]

All of us got into graduate school, mostly at various universities in the midwest. I got into U of Michigan, and ended up as a physics professor (now retired) at a small college in the southeast. One of my classmates got into U of Illinois and ended up as an engineering professor specializing in robotics. Another one (my roommate) got into U of Indiana, then Tufts, and ended up as a technical writer for tech companies in the Boston area. Another one got into Ohio State and ended up in engineering, working for a big aeronautical company in Phoenix. I don't know what happened to the fifth one (the one who was really a math person), except that she went to grad school at Washington U in St Louis.

But this was fifty years ago...

My understanding is that the graduate school admissions landscape is far more competitive now. Far more students are targeting grad degrees than in the past.

 

[Vanadium 50]

the graduate school admissions landscape is far more competitive now.

But is it?

If you have 10 students applying, and Ada, Beth, Charlie, Denise and Ernie are accepted, if instead you have 100 students applying and the same five students are accepted, is it really more competitive? What if Ernie is replaced by Eddie? Now is it more competitive?

Things are changing for sure, but I don't think in such a simple way.

 

[jtbell]

Far more students are targeting grad degrees than in the past.

That may be true. I haven't seen statistics on that, particularly for physics.

It's almost certainly true that the mechanics of applying to grad schools is easier, because of online applications. In my day, people had to write application letters using a typewriter, and submit them via postal mail. It was so long ago, I don't remember whether I had to fill out application forms. If I did, I probably had to ask each department for them, again by postal mail.

I suspect that this enables students to apply to more schools nowadays, just like at the undergraduate level. I applied to five graduate schools. I wonder what the typical number is now.

[added]

A couple of charts from the AIP:

Physics Bachelors Degrees Awarded

Number of First Year Physics Graduate Students

I got my bachelor's degree in 1975. At that time, the number of first-year graduate students was about 1/2 the number of bachelor's degree recipients.

As of 2018, the ratio was about 1/3.

So one might conclude that there was about 50% more competition for grad school spots in 2018 versus 1975. This wouldn't take into account grad school applications from abroad. I wouldn't be surprised if those were higher now than they used to be, because of the internet.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What's changed over the last several decades?

The number of physics bachelors has gone up. However, this is also coincident with an increase in programs that do not feed into grad school: BA programs, physics-and-this-or-that programs, and so forth. So I don't think this is an increase in competition.

The quality of instruction has gone way up in flagship state schools and way way up in non-flagship state schools and SLACs. The number of people qualifies to go to grad school is way up. That probably is a real increase in competition.

The number of people taking the PGRE has grown from 2x the entering class size to 3x the entering class size. That probably is a real increase in competition too, but can be no more than 50%.

There is a near-infinite pool of foreign applicants, but there are various factors that limit how many will be accepted: federal rules (at the university level), need for good English skills for TAs, the tilt of foreign students towards theory, and probably more. Post-Mao the floodgates opened and things have hardly changed.

Entering students are maybe a bit better prepared than in decades past, which is a sign of more competition, but only a bit. Newly minted PhDs are about at the same level, which says something I'm sure - just not so sure what. What has taken a sharp and noticeable drop is the quality of the SOPs. Today's applicants think nothing of writing (summarizing) "I didn't have any better plan than to stay in school". My class wouldn't have dared write anything like that.

Expectations seem to have shifted as well. There are more than a few threads of the form "I got a poor GPA possibly from a school with rampant grade inflation and didn't even take the PGRE., Why shouldn't I go to grad school"? The echo chamber of the internet serves to amplify this. So perhaps it feels more competitive.

 

[gleem]

Here are some stats from the American Institute of Physics that might be useful

https://www.aip.org/statistics/data...-degrees-awarded-us-classes-1955-through-2014

https://www.aip.org/statistics/data-graphics/physics-phds-conferred-us-1900-through-2019

https://www.aip.org/statistics/data...cs-graduate-students-us-enrolled-phd-granting

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think these are the same data @jtbell poined us to. It's interesting that the number of entering students is much flatter than the number who finish. I'm sure that means something,.