Should LACs no longer be considered the model of excellence?

Anonymous
I have a friend who graduated from a well-regarded LAC. After inquiring about his experience there, he adamantly mentioned he would never send his children to an LAC. When I asked why, he gave these reasons, mentioning that while exceptions exist, this is a common theme. Are these sentiments accurate? Is it a waste of money to go to an LAC at this time?

Universities offer their own versions of LACs with Honors Programs, Colleges of Arts and Letters, and so forth, while providing an expansive course selection, a richer diversity of students, a greater selection of research opportunities, and a better social and athletic culture. LACs, by comparison, are limited. Things like greater faculty accessibility and small classes are no longer distinguishing factors, as many top universities like Yale and Notre Dame can flaunt them as well, as well as hiring a much more impressive and accomplished group of scholars. State U Honors provide the LAC experience at a quarter of the price. There is simply no reason to pay $60K for a no-name LAC when a well-regarded university can open so many doors- both in and out of college.


A large reason LACs were so excellent in the past was because of gender-separation in higher education. Because many universities were historically male-only, many co-ed/women-only LACs attracted the very best women in the country. Today, as all top universities are co-educational, this factor can no longer be attributed.


Many LACs have moved past taking the very best candidates- the ones with the most academic potential- in lieu of radically liberal students who care only about their identity politics, and not of the pedagogy, as they once did. They come to these colleges not to learn, but to try to force their views in a small population where administrators are under heavy pressure to respond to them. They're hostile to engaging with disagreement and viciously berate conservatives and white students. They're not the leading scientists, politicians, businessmen, artists, and educators their alumni were- those students are now attending universities. The admission committees are encouraging this, turning down students with better academic achievements for a token student of color or low income student.


A liberal arts education is not sought out as it one did- in fact, it is often considered a joke degree. Practical skills and experience are critical, and LACs do poorly in preparing their graduates for that. Many of them have no engineering or business programs, their computer science and math programs are lackluster, and their career services are non-existent on the whole. Employers and recruiters seldom visit LACs. Upon comparing post-grad prospects at a university vs a LAC, you will see how severe the difference is.


A comparison between universities and LACs shows that while most LACs have remained stagnant, if not on a decline, on their acceptance rates, yields, and SAT averages, most universities are becoming more and more selective and drawing stronger students. Take Northwestern and U'Chicago, with their 30-40% admit rates only a few years ago, who're now at 8-12% and whose yields have skyrocketed. Haverford, a top ten LAC, has, for the last 10 years, had the same admit rate of ~25%, and their yield hasn't ever increased. Actually, they have taken many more students via Early Decision, gaming their yield, so the applicants admitted through Regular Decision are enrolling less than they used to.
Anonymous
I agree with the first point, but none of the rest, with the possible partial exception of the point about womens' college (women did have access to co-education at public universities and at some privates -- but Seven Sisters were considered Ivy equivalents at the time and just aren't now. OTOH, Ivies were something different then too.)

You'll pay $60K+ a year to send your kid to most well-regarded universities (unless you live in a handful of states whose flagships are exceptional and your kid gets into the flagship), so cost isn't necessarily a voting issue.

Re recruiting, depends on the field. If your DC is law or med school-bound or headed to grad school, it's kind of irrelevant. If your kid wants to be an engineer, choose a school based on the engineering program, not whether it's a LAC vs. a well-regarded university. Harvey Mudd's probably a better choice than Harvard.

Paragraphs 2&3 make OP's friend sound like a conservative white guy who longs for the good old days when attending whatever LAC he attended meant being surrounded by guys just like him. He mistook systematic exclusions back in the day for meritocracy. Bottom line: if he can't have a privileged enclave, he's not shelling out the big bucks for his kids' education. Who cares? Not a guy whose advice I'd follow.
Anonymous
There is simply no reason to pay $60K for a no-name LAC when a well-regarded university can open so many doors- both in and out of college


Well, his LAC evidently didn't teach him anything about critical thinking. Or maybe it tried, and he just didn't learn.
Anonymous
Thanks for the insights. It does appear that many of the examples feel cherry-picked and exaggerated, though I wonder if there's a reason this perspective is attributed? In any case, this isn't the first time I've heard several of these perspectives.

For those wondering, I copied from a Facebook chat while removing personal identifying information.
Anonymous
LACs have never been widely knowledged as a model of excellence.
Anonymous
I like "knowledged" -- a cross between known and acknowledged, LOL!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I agree with the first point, but none of the rest, with the possible partial exception of the point about womens' college (women did have access to co-education at public universities and at some privates -- but Seven Sisters were considered Ivy equivalents at the time and just aren't now. OTOH, Ivies were something different then too.)

You'll pay $60K+ a year to send your kid to most well-regarded universities (unless you live in a handful of states whose flagships are exceptional and your kid gets into the flagship), so cost isn't necessarily a voting issue.

Re recruiting, depends on the field. If your DC is law or med school-bound or headed to grad school, it's kind of irrelevant. If your kid wants to be an engineer, choose a school based on the engineering program, not whether it's a LAC vs. a well-regarded university. Harvey Mudd's probably a better choice than Harvard.

Paragraphs 2&3 make OP's friend sound like a conservative white guy who longs for the good old days when attending whatever LAC he attended meant being surrounded by guys just like him. He mistook systematic exclusions back in the day for meritocracy. Bottom line: if he can't have a privileged enclave, he's not shelling out the big bucks for his kids' education. Who cares? Not a guy whose advice I'd follow.


+1
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:LACs have never been widely knowledged as a model of excellence.


Well, obviously not to a general audience. But to the well-off and elite, they're very well-known. There's a reason boarding schools represent nearly 30-50% of the population at most LACs, even though they only educate around 10% of all high school students.

Anonymous
Take Northwestern and U'Chicago, with their 30-40% admit rates only a few years ago, who're now at 8-12% and whose yields have skyrocketed.


This wasn't true for Northwestern or U Chicago, even 20-30 years ago.
Anonymous
He sounds like the kind of guy who hoped he'd find only socioeconomic elites at a LAC. I know the type. I went to a SLAC and was shocked at the number of upper class students who shun those of us who weren't paying sticker price. The only reason I would steer my child away from a LAC is because the elitist attitude is hard to escape when the student body is relatively small.
Anonymous
Surely any LA degree on its own is pretty worthless, its about the next, graduate degree focus that matters. And if your kid is at one of the most prestigious LACs and doing well, they are more likely to get into the best graduate programs.

Its a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Anonymous
Frankly, friend does not seem to "get" the culture or values of elite LACs. When I read complaints about how there is no business degree offered at a LAC, that's very telling. Tippy top LACs (e.g., AWS) don't offer business or finance or marketing degrees. Instead, students major in economics, and then go onto Wall St or McKinsey. It's a class and culture difference, not one of quality.
Anonymous
Perhaps the larger picture is that students at the top of the academic pool (top 5-10%) - whether at State Honors colleges or LACs - will have the best post graduate opportunities. Students selecting a reach LAC with limited/traditional offerings to graduate with a 3.2 vs. attending a State School with a wider range of programs of interest in which they can excel and graduate with honors, seems to be key in determining whether the LAC is worth the $$ and an excellent choice.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Take Northwestern and U'Chicago, with their 30-40% admit rates only a few years ago, who're now at 8-12% and whose yields have skyrocketed.


This wasn't true for Northwestern or U Chicago, even 20-30 years ago.


No, it is true. U'Chicago's acceptance rate was 40% in 2002 and 27% in 2009 (source: historical data at http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1152/University-of-Chicago)
Northwestern is similar: http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/ir/data-book/v45/2.01-undergraduate-admissions-statistics.pdf
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Take Northwestern and U'Chicago, with their 30-40% admit rates only a few years ago, who're now at 8-12% and whose yields have skyrocketed.


This wasn't true for Northwestern or U Chicago, even 20-30 years ago.


In 1997 UChicago's admissions rate was 61%. 40% in 2005. 7.9% last year.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: