Hello, world

  • I think too much and then I write about what I think.
  • Hello, world


First Book

  • First Book: Do You Remember the Magic of Your First Book?


On my shelves

Become a Fan


  • I post links to blogs I find interesting. I do not "swap links" and I do not post advertisements in any form. Please do not contact me about such services. Thank you.
  • This is my personal blog. The views expressed here are mine only and do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer, the National Science Foundation, or any other funding source.
  • I am not affiliated with toponlineengineeringdegree.com, sponsors4blogs.com, blogosphere-branding.com, or any other spam-type site that uses my blog address as part of a link on their site. Please do not sign up for any services offered through these sites.

Comment Policy

  • Comments are moderated. Inappropriate comments may be edited for content while respecting their author's intentions, but more often will not be published. Spam comments, including "generic praise spam" will not be published.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad

« Lehigh ISE graduate students continue to shine on national stage | Main | Back from Penn State »

September 14, 2010


A possible explanation is that students who are in contact with effective, dynamic research programs are inspired to pursue one. Students who have no research contact may idealize it and pursue the unknown, the gap in their education. On the other hand, students who have contact with mediocre research, in an environment in which researchers are existing but not prominent, are put off by it.

"How do colleges such as Harvey Mudd, Reed or Swarthmore, with no graduate research programs of their own, manage to interest so many undergraduates into cutting-edge research"

On this first half of the question I'd imagine a large part of that is due to selection bias--smart people who will end up getting advanced degrees anyway will end up attending these schools which attract smarter students (I know that's in-part the case for Carleton College--ranked #6--at the least). Perhaps that is in contrast with some public institutions which may attract students based on say, D-1 sports teams :).

In addition, some of the schools mentioned probably encourage a higher quality of undergraduate research as graduate RAs do not exist in droves so-to-speak.

"How do colleges such as Harvey Mudd, Reed or Swarthmore, with no graduate research programs of their own, manage to interest so many undergraduates into cutting-edge research (after all, that is what getting a PhD is about), while PhD-granting universities with more moderate research activity do not, by far, engage their own undergraduates to the same extent?" Which is cause, and which is effect? I suspect that schools like Harvey Mudd have an organizational culture that promotes activities which stimulate and encourage ambitions for more education on the part of the students. I also suspect that high school students who know, or think, that they want to pursue advanced degrees incline more toward those types of schools, while high school students who have no particular interest in graduate degrees (excluding professional school degrees) gravitate more toward better known schools, which may be in the RU/H category.

Thanks for the comments! You all make fantastic points.

Here's something interesting I noticed: a lot of the schools listed in the NSF study as sending off the most students to graduate school (to get PhDs) also appear in the Washington Monthly rankings of colleges and universities that contribute most to public good.
Coincidence? I don't think so.

The comments to this entry are closed.