T20 or T5 lacs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.

Couldn’t agree more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.

Couldn’t agree more!

PS: I hope the situation soon improves at your R1 (and for the rest of us!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

I'd like to have an adult conversation on this but you will need to find someone to speak for you.

Ah yes, your claiming that people going to universities are betting on a brand while people going to LACs are betting on and prioritizing themselves is such a mature point.

That wasn't me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.

Couldn’t agree more!

Yes, this is all very well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:cmon DCUM fawns over the SLACs big time - i had one kid go to a T5 SLAC and second kid at a T20. Number 3 is not even considering a SLAC - majority of kids are boarding school ivy rejects or wannabe ivy reject athletes - hard pass

Really? A place like Amherst is amazing. They place their kids in great graduate schools. If looking for a smaller school, and Brown and Dartmouth are not accessible its not bad at all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually look down on SLACs as playgrounds for private school kids who can't handle larger schools. I'd take a top Big Ten school over a SLAC any day. If you're really all that, go to Michigan and prove yourself.

My favorite DCUM LAC post was when someone unironically referred to Pomona as a "major school" in Southern California. Pomona is smaller than most high schools, and there are likely 100 colleges in Southern California with more students. It's barely a blip on the academic radar, though it does punch well above its weight on the pretentiousness scale.

That is incorrect if you look at their numbers and their interests. Have kids in our family in Ivys and SLAC's so really no bias here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.

Couldn’t agree more!

Yes, this is all very well said.

+3 Professors of all people know the quality of UG education does in fact matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

At least 50% of the public is composed of total morons whose recognition of your college is of zero concern.

Oh this is so true! DC goes to a T15 SLAC several states away. It's so interesting to see who has heard of it, and who has not. It's kind of a litmus test for level of education/class.

[Anonymous]

People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

I agree with most everything you say. But at the same time (for mainly all the wrong reasons, with the exception of the crazy athlete proportions at SLACs), there has been a moderate prestige shift in the past decade or two away from SLACs and towards national universities. The reality, unfortunately, is that a smaller proportion of kids at top SLACs chose it over the top Ivys than in your time. To be sure, nobody blinks an eye these days at someone choosing, say, Swarthmore over Penn, or Williams over Brown. But Amherst over Harvard? Not so sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

I agree with most everything you say. But at the same time (for mainly all the wrong reasons, with the exception of the crazy athlete proportions at SLACs), there has been a moderate prestige shift in the past decade or two away from SLACs and towards national universities. The reality, unfortunately, is that a smaller proportion of kids at top SLACs chose it over the top Ivys than in your time. To be sure, nobody blinks an eye these days at someone choosing, say, Swarthmore over Penn, or Williams over Brown. But Amherst over Harvard? Not so sure.

According to whom? Do you have a source? I think so much depends, as a PP alluded to above, on your social/class/economic circles. For better or for worse, in "elite" prep school circles there has been little if any change in perception of prestige that I've noticed over the last forty years. The only major shift that I can think that would affect changes in perception of prestige would be due to the masses who rely too heavily on social media for information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

At least 50% of the public is composed of total morons whose recognition of your college is of zero concern.

Oh this is so true! DC goes to a T15 SLAC several states away. It's so interesting to see who has heard of it, and who has not. It's kind of a litmus test for level of education/class.

There are classy people on here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

I agree with most everything you say. But at the same time (for mainly all the wrong reasons, with the exception of the crazy athlete proportions at SLACs), there has been a moderate prestige shift in the past decade or two away from SLACs and towards national universities. The reality, unfortunately, is that a smaller proportion of kids at top SLACs chose it over the top Ivys than in your time. To be sure, nobody blinks an eye these days at someone choosing, say, Swarthmore over Penn, or Williams over Brown. But Amherst over Harvard? Not so sure.

According to whom? Do you have a source? I think so much depends, as a PP alluded to above, on your social/class/economic circles. For better or for worse, in "elite" prep school circles there has been little if any change in perception of prestige that I've noticed over the last forty years. The only major shift that I can think that would affect changes in perception of prestige would be due to the masses who rely too heavily on social media for information.

Well, that is a larger issue. The "elite prep school circle" is becoming a ghetto. It's a tiny little bubble with rapidly declining relevance. I'm an outsider looking in. Not my world. But good golly, the prep school SLAC parents are delulu about the modern world. I'll give them Williams, Harvey Mudd, Pomona, Swarthmore, Bowdoin. But beyond that, it's all very precious and the decline in respect for the old liberal arts colleges is precipitous.

Which is too bad. SLACS are a good space some students. But...perception. D3 lax bros and delicate flowers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

I agree with most everything you say. But at the same time (for mainly all the wrong reasons, with the exception of the crazy athlete proportions at SLACs), there has been a moderate prestige shift in the past decade or two away from SLACs and towards national universities. The reality, unfortunately, is that a smaller proportion of kids at top SLACs chose it over the top Ivys than in your time. To be sure, nobody blinks an eye these days at someone choosing, say, Swarthmore over Penn, or Williams over Brown. But Amherst over Harvard? Not so sure.

According to whom? Do you have a source? I think so much depends, as a PP alluded to above, on your social/class/economic circles. For better or for worse, in "elite" prep school circles there has been little if any change in perception of prestige that I've noticed over the last forty years. The only major shift that I can think that would affect changes in perception of prestige would be due to the masses who rely too heavily on social media for information.

This is not complicated: top kids — from all social strata — are voting with their feet in the direction of universities (relative to before; not all, certainly). This is common knowledge in admissions circles. Rest assured, WASP still has kids who chose them over the Ivys; but far fewer than you may remember. Go ahead, ask someone from your circles attending these schools (who will know where their peers were admitted), and compare and contrast to your day: you will find a marked difference. And, no, I am not talking about first gen kids or kids receiving financial aid (who tend to be even more university focused), nor am I talking about ED-applying athletes.

As for elite prep school circles, you are clearly out of touch. You may likely encountering parents from certain circles rationalizing “lesser” choices (not objectively, but as their kids define them) as equally desirable. Of course, in your time, they were; but you are missing the nuance here: these parents don’t really believe it — even if their parents did.

[Anonymous]

Top kids from local schools are applying early in big numbers, so plenty are not "choosing with their feet" either way.

There was a big move toward certain STEM subjects recently, which helped larger schools.
T20 schools are mixed on how their CS and adjacent departments are too though. With Chamath Palihapitiya, Zuck and others warning people about too much focus on coding and CS for the careers of the future, I'd expect more shifts to happen.

I'd also say that the Ivy League has lost some luster with the CS and comp eng shift. People here worry about schools like Yale and Brown because the CS programs may not be "good enough." Stanford and MIT have become known as "the schools" for these shifts.