CTCL schools

[Anonymous]

Why aren't Sewanee and Furman CTCL schools but Rhodes and Centre are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren't Sewanee and Furman CTCL schools but Rhodes and Centre are?

Because they’re less desperate to market themselves. I’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect a lot of the anti-CTCL sentiment comes from graduates of (or folks who sent their kids to) more expensive and selective schools. They are unable to come to grips with the fact that there is a collection of lesser-known colleges that provide a great education, college experience and outcomes for a lower cost.

Lower cost? Only if you qualify for merit aid and compromise your education for the money. Most CTCL schools are private and expensive, and if you're good enough to qualify for merit aid to attend one then you're likely qualified for admission at a better school that folks have actually heard of.

When I went to college, I had to go to the one which provided the most aid and that was at a (yet to be called) CTCL. Fortunately my DCs are able to be full pay and that may help them in admissions to any need aware school, especially DS.

So yeah, not many folks "have actually heard of" where I went to undergrad, but folks around the world know the university where I attended grad school. Perhaps the admissions team found the "compromise" marginal or maybe even additive for my application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't this whole debate come down to whether you think a liberal arts education has value separate and distinct from the prestige accompanies a degree from a highly selective LAC? I have one early HS kid who is a mediocre student, has multiple tutors, ADHD, etc. I went to a a selective LAC myself and I do value that experience and education. I can afford an LAC, and I don't know that my kid will thrive in a large State University (although my other child will likely go that route and thrive). The CTTL list is a helpful starting point for kids like mine as well as stronger students looking for merit aid.

Well said. I'd much rather have my kid attend a CTCL school with substantial merit aid (which makes the cost comparable to a state school), compared to if they attended a highly selective LAC and would graduate with student loan debt.

Agreed. I don't know why these nasty posters have such an issue with the classification. Sure, it's a marketing thing but it also has helped open the eyes of potential students to a different type of education experience that they might not have considered. B students have more options than just the regional big state U and might be better served by a LAC that accepts a wide range of students. I like the write ups about the colleges in the CTCL book because it's clear that the author(s) actually spent substantial amount of time talking with students and faculty at the school and they convey a clear impression of what the school is like. DD will apply to a couple schools that happen to be members of the CTCL organization but also others that have similar characteristics at a range of selectivity.

But the schools who are in it did not self-organize and come up with a name to market themselves. It is really tiring to have to explain this constantly. A NY Times Education editor anointed a small group of LAC's "Colleges that Change Lives." And he had to be cajoled into sharing the private list he had been keeping on hidden gem sort of schools. So while it may give them a marketing advantage, this designation DID NOT come about for marketing purposes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp is still hurting.

This response makes no sense.

Hmmm, not necessarily so. There is at least one poster on here with an obsession in hating on CTCLs.

The reality is that there is a market for (1) students who want a LAC experience but can only afford public. Some of them qualify for merit aid and that helps them attend a LAC. (2) there are students who had a rough start to high school and even with 4 or so semesters with all or close to all As cannot raise their GPA to 3.5 and up. Even a top ACT/SAT score may not be sufficient for them to be considered at more selective schools. Finally, there are (3) kids who are consistent 3.0-3.5 students with families who can afford for them to attend a CTCL or a similar institution. Pope's book may help them find a match or likely school for college.

I just don't get why folks care. If you hate the branding and your DCs are a lock at schools with admit rates of 30% or less, then congrats. But why twist yourself into a petulant pretzel about a group of schools which admit students every year with families who may have previously been unaware of their existence? That does seem like some kind of hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't this whole debate come down to whether you think a liberal arts education has value separate and distinct from the prestige accompanies a degree from a highly selective LAC? I have one early HS kid who is a mediocre student, has multiple tutors, ADHD, etc. I went to a a selective LAC myself and I do value that experience and education. I can afford an LAC, and I don't know that my kid will thrive in a large State University (although my other child will likely go that route and thrive). The CTTL list is a helpful starting point for kids like mine as well as stronger students looking for merit aid.

Well said. I'd much rather have my kid attend a CTCL school with substantial merit aid (which makes the cost comparable to a state school), compared to if they attended a highly selective LAC and would graduate with student loan debt.

Agreed. I don't know why these nasty posters have such an issue with the classification. Sure, it's a marketing thing but it also has helped open the eyes of potential students to a different type of education experience that they might not have considered. B students have more options than just the regional big state U and might be better served by a LAC that accepts a wide range of students. I like the write ups about the colleges in the CTCL book because it's clear that the author(s) actually spent substantial amount of time talking with students and faculty at the school and they convey a clear impression of what the school is like. DD will apply to a couple schools that happen to be members of the CTCL organization but also others that have similar characteristics at a range of selectivity.

But the schools who are in it did not self-organize and come up with a name to market themselves. It is really tiring to have to explain this constantly. A NY Times Education editor anointed a small group of LAC's "Colleges that Change Lives." And he had to be cajoled into sharing the private list he had been keeping on hidden gem sort of schools. So while it may give them a marketing advantage, this designation DID NOT come about for marketing purposes

My guess is that some of these haters here either have older kids who dodged the tightening college admissions market over the last ten years (including the convergence of COVID and BLM in the most recent cycle) or attended exclusive schools and are not yet aware of what is in store for their younger children. For example, my Ivy BFF and her top NESCAC DH were jolted into reality when their high-achieving DS (perfect SAT and subject test scores, etc) was outright rejected at his Ivy ED1 and WLed @ his ED2. Legacy still matters but it is not a lock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect a lot of the anti-CTCL sentiment comes from graduates of (or folks who sent their kids to) more expensive and selective schools. They are unable to come to grips with the fact that there is a collection of lesser-known colleges that provide a great education, college experience and outcomes for a lower cost.

Ah, yes, everyone is so envious of these so-called CTCL schools.

DP: The above poster wasn't saying they were envious, just that the level of obsessive irritation about concept of CTCL schools is probably explained by something deeper than feeling like people are falling for a branding exercise.

Personally, I agree that it can be a smart path to attend one of these schools whereas full-pay into the most competitive school you can get into often isn't. I think my story is not atypical: I was admitted to several much more selective SLACs but went to one of the CTCL (though I didn't know it was called that at the time) for the merit aid/closeness to home. I had strong SAT scores, good extracurriculars and ok grades. Our family was one of the donut-hole types--didn't qualify for much financial aid but didn't have a lot of extra money to pay for college. I wanted a SLAC and I was able to go to a CTCL for less than the cost of going to a regional in-state public. I also got a paid research internship so I essentially made money by going to school at times. Afterwards I got into the top graduate program in my field for a fully funded MS + PhD. Many of my undergrad cohort in other fields went to strong graduate programs also. I felt I had excellent preparation and was considered one of the stronger students in my grad program (though many of them came from far more elite undergrad schools). I don't know if I would have had the same luck at other less selective LACs--my undergrad had a lot of rigor and innovative approaches without a lot of pressure and competition. There were also other very smart students there, but I probably wouldn't have stood out as strong at one of the more selective schools I was admitted to as I was a bit more wild and less studious at the time. I feel like I saved money, had more fun than I would have had at a more competitive school and still had a great outcome for both learning and career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect a lot of the anti-CTCL sentiment comes from graduates of (or folks who sent their kids to) more expensive and selective schools. They are unable to come to grips with the fact that there is a collection of lesser-known colleges that provide a great education, college experience and outcomes for a lower cost.

Ah, yes, everyone is so envious of these so-called CTCL schools.

PP, no one is claiming that "everyone is so envious of these so-called CTCL schools." The other PP is speculating that there may be some buyers' remorse for folks who attended more selective schools under loans, etc, and now may be more limited in their options going forward due to debt, etc.

Every day folks have to make decisions based on their circumstances. What does it matter to you if a student/family decides that attending one of the CTCL is their best option? How are you threatened by this reality?

[Anonymous]

I’m less annoyed by the CTCL schools themselves than I am by DCUM parents who are convinced the schools are “special.” They’re just not. They’re fine, sure. A few may even be better than fine, sure. Reed is a great school. But beyond that, no CTCL school is remotely special, and collectively they’re just average.

It’s ok for your kids to be average, DCUM.

[Anonymous]

My kid is mostly average for this area and we've been looking at mostly average schools. We've toured a few CTCL in the past few months and while my teen thinks they may be too small to end up at, they offered a lot of teacher interaction, school spirit and nice walkable campuses. I can see kids who need extra attention and who might get lost at a large school, doesn't want a monstrous social scene, or hopes to be in mid-scale athletics/clubs/art groups, doing well at one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is mostly average for this area and we've been looking at mostly average schools. We've toured a few CTCL in the past few months and while my teen thinks they may be too small to end up at, they offered a lot of teacher interaction, school spirit and nice walkable campuses. I can see kids who need extra attention and who might get lost at a large school, doesn't want a monstrous social scene, or hopes to be in mid-scale athletics/clubs/art groups, doing well at one of them.

Or doing equally well at hundreds of other schools just like them. Which is the point - they’re not special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m less annoyed by the CTCL schools themselves than I am by DCUM parents who are convinced the schools are “special.” They’re just not. They’re fine, sure. A few may even be better than fine, sure. Reed is a great school. But beyond that, no CTCL school is remotely special, and collectively they’re just average.

It’s ok for your kids to be average, DCUM.

I think the point they are making then is that the more selective SLACs are also just average--or in my view just as special. Selectivity is not what makes a great school. I actually believe that some of these schools really are "hidden gems" and are better than other schools of similar selectivity. Particularly the ones that focus on experiential education or unique pedagogical methods. For instance, a few of the CTCL schools outperform their expected gains in critical thinking, writing, argument skills etc. on the collegiate learning assessment even controlling for students' entry scores--and have done so reliably for decades. A number of schools that are higher ranked show less gains than expected.

Overall, I think one of the most delightful thing about US higher education is the variety of options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m less annoyed by the CTCL schools themselves than I am by DCUM parents who are convinced the schools are “special.” They’re just not. They’re fine, sure. A few may even be better than fine, sure. Reed is a great school. But beyond that, no CTCL school is remotely special, and collectively they’re just average.

It’s ok for your kids to be average, DCUM.

I think the point they are making then is that the more selective SLACs are also just average--or in my view just as special. Selectivity is not what makes a great school. I actually believe that some of these schools really are "hidden gems" and are better than other schools of similar selectivity. Particularly the ones that focus on experiential education or unique pedagogical methods. For instance, a few of the CTCL schools outperform their expected gains in critical thinking, writing, argument skills etc. on the collegiate learning assessment even controlling for students' entry scores--and have done so reliably for decades. A number of schools that are higher ranked show less gains than expected.

Overall, I think one of the most delightful thing about US higher education is the variety of options.

Oh please. Never in my life have I seen a bigger bunch of 50-cent words meaninglessly strung together to say nothing of substance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m less annoyed by the CTCL schools themselves than I am by DCUM parents who are convinced the schools are “special.” They’re just not. They’re fine, sure. A few may even be better than fine, sure. Reed is a great school. But beyond that, no CTCL school is remotely special, and collectively they’re just average.

It’s ok for your kids to be average, DCUM.

I think the point they are making then is that the more selective SLACs are also just average--or in my view just as special. Selectivity is not what makes a great school. I actually believe that some of these schools really are "hidden gems" and are better than other schools of similar selectivity. Particularly the ones that focus on experiential education or unique pedagogical methods. For instance, a few of the CTCL schools outperform their expected gains in critical thinking, writing, argument skills etc. on the collegiate learning assessment even controlling for students' entry scores--and have done so reliably for decades. A number of schools that are higher ranked show less gains than expected.

Overall, I think one of the most delightful thing about US higher education is the variety of options.

This is really going to burst “it’s okay for your kids to be average” poster’s raison d’être to hate on any LAC not in top 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m less annoyed by the CTCL schools themselves than I am by DCUM parents who are convinced the schools are “special.” They’re just not. They’re fine, sure. A few may even be better than fine, sure. Reed is a great school. But beyond that, no CTCL school is remotely special, and collectively they’re just average.

It’s ok for your kids to be average, DCUM.

I think the point they are making then is that the more selective SLACs are also just average--or in my view just as special. Selectivity is not what makes a great school. I actually believe that some of these schools really are "hidden gems" and are better than other schools of similar selectivity. Particularly the ones that focus on experiential education or unique pedagogical methods. For instance, a few of the CTCL schools outperform their expected gains in critical thinking, writing, argument skills etc. on the collegiate learning assessment even controlling for students' entry scores--and have done so reliably for decades. A number of schools that are higher ranked show less gains than expected.

Overall, I think one of the most delightful thing about US higher education is the variety of options.

This is really going to burst “it’s okay for your kids to be average” poster’s raison d’être to hate on any LAC not in top 50.

No, actually it doesn’t. Not only does it not say anything with any real substance, it says nothing to justify treating or considering any CTCL school as any more or less “special” than any other school simply by virtue of it being included on the CTCL list. In other words, it’s a totally irrelevant comment.