What is the appeal of SLACs for non-1%ers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP's (and society's) devaluation of the humanities is sad and, in large part, why we have the society we have today. The humanities are nuclear subjects that give us direct access to knowledge on what is fundamentally human. Studying the humanities gives us comprehensive knowledge, skills and mindsets that come with studying the field, which are not easily outdated. The study of humanities allows us to question and reflect, maintain a global vision, acknowledge differences, communicate effectively, etc. These mindsets and skillsets are not emphasized in the study of science and math.

This is typical cope from humanities majors. You absolutely get all those "skills and mindsets" from a STEM major. In fact you get better skills and mindsets because in STEM the results of your questioning and reflection can be verified in the real world, and are not merely a matter of opinion as it is in the humanities.

The "mindsets" you get from humanities are very much "easily outdated" - every humanities major field is subject to ever-changing intellectual fads. What's hip this year will be obsolete next year. The laws of physics and mathematics are not easily outdated... they don't change at all.

Clearly written by someone who doesn’t do any high-level STEM professionally. My goodness the ignorance is profound.

30+ years as an aerospace engineer. Try again.

That's unfortunate.
- an engineer

+1

Seriously embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spending a week doing college tours with my rising junior. Honestly, I’m unsure of differences between SLAC and a public uni other than size.

[b]A BA from HYPS (all slacs)[/ or even a school like Williams//Amherst/Pamona vs a BA from a state school - the BA from the SLACS are likely more prestigious (with possible exceptions of UC Berkeley/UCLA/UMich/UVA in some cases)

And in terms of post grad income, depends on major, job or research experience, and grad degree (if any) more than the school itself.

& to get the job / research experience in college, that depends on opportunity while at school which is based on location and which employers recruit on campus and what faculty are doing research.

For some state U vs SLAC match ups the SLAC is better. For others it’s the state U or engineering school.

So it’s very silly to say all SLACS are useless.

HYPS are universities not SLACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids who want to be taught by professors and not TAs go. Not 1 %ers

Why would you actually care abt the quality of education? College is mostly about job prospects, plain and simple.

No it isn’t. Its about achieving your dreams, which for most SLAC students means grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SLACs offer a smaller environment and a more personalized education, don't they? You're not jostling with 100s for the attention of a professor. This is just going to suit some students better than others.

Exactly. You pay for the handholding, like in pre-K

Ah, I see what you did there

I went to a large state school, did well and enjoyed myself, but I can see the appeal of what PP described. It's someone actually caring (being paid to care?) about the student's experience. Sounds nice.

At a SLAC you as an undergraduate are paying for faculty who teach. At a research university, as an undergraduate, you are to a significant extent, paying for faculty to do research (or work with graduate students).

Yes. It is a very different job for professors at both. Research university is definitely more prestigious but teaching can often be of little to no relevance in hiring/tenure decisions. SLACs are teaching gigs.

Have to take exception to this. It’s not the state vs SLAC that dictates this at all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP's (and society's) devaluation of the humanities is sad and, in large part, why we have the society we have today. The humanities are nuclear subjects that give us direct access to knowledge on what is fundamentally human. Studying the humanities gives us comprehensive knowledge, skills and mindsets that come with studying the field, which are not easily outdated. The study of humanities allows us to question and reflect, maintain a global vision, acknowledge differences, communicate effectively, etc. These mindsets and skillsets are not emphasized in the study of science and math.

This is typical cope from humanities majors. You absolutely get all those "skills and mindsets" from a STEM major. In fact you get better skills and mindsets because in STEM the results of your questioning and reflection can be verified in the real world, and are not merely a matter of opinion as it is in the humanities.

The "mindsets" you get from humanities are very much "easily outdated" - every humanities major field is subject to ever-changing intellectual fads. What's hip this year will be obsolete next year. The laws of physics and mathematics are not easily outdated... they don't change at all.

You have little to no understanding of the humanities. The study of humanities has, as an underlying basis, the desire to understand human nature, to understand yourself, society, relationships, etc. - the more significant questions that cannot (and should not) be verified in the "real world." In fact, the humanities search for the essence of WHY we study STEM. Stick with STEM if that's what you like, but simply being dismissive suggests that you have much to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spending a week doing college tours with my rising junior. Honestly, I’m unsure of differences between SLAC and a public uni other than size.

[b]A BA from HYPS (all slacs)[/ or even a school like Williams//Amherst/Pamona vs a BA from a state school - the BA from the SLACS are likely more prestigious (with possible exceptions of UC Berkeley/UCLA/UMich/UVA in some cases)

And in terms of post grad income, depends on major, job or research experience, and grad degree (if any) more than the school itself.

& to get the job / research experience in college, that depends on opportunity while at school which is based on location and which employers recruit on campus and what faculty are doing research.

For some state U vs SLAC match ups the SLAC is better. For others it’s the state U or engineering school.

So it’s very silly to say all SLACS are useless.

HYPS are universities not SLACs

?? Undergraduates would be going to a college within the university. Isn’t that a SLAC within the university? For example, I went to Barnard and received a liberal arts education. It’s a college within Columbia University. I would consider Barnard a SLAC.

A stand-alone SLAC maybe is what is meant?

The terminology here seems silly to me. You need to look at each school and assess school to school. You can’t make blanket assumptions that all universities are better than all SLACS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spending a week doing college tours with my rising junior. Honestly, I’m unsure of differences between SLAC and a public uni other than size.

A BA from HYPS (all slacs)[/ or even a school like Williams//Amherst/Pamona vs a BA from a state school - the BA from the SLACS are likely more prestigious (with possible exceptions of UC Berkeley/UCLA/UMich/UVA in some cases)

And in terms of post grad income, depends on major, job or research experience, and grad degree (if any) more than the school itself.

& to get the job / research experience in college, that depends on opportunity while at school which is based on location and which employers recruit on campus and what faculty are doing research.

For some state U vs SLAC match ups the SLAC is better. For others it’s the state U or engineering school.

So it’s very silly to say all SLACS are useless.

HYPS are universities not SLACs

?? Undergraduates would be going to a college within the university. Isn’t that a SLAC within the university? For example, I went to Barnard and received a liberal arts education. It’s a college within Columbia University. I would consider Barnard a SLAC.

A stand-alone SLAC maybe is what is meant?

T[b]he terminology here seems silly to me. You need to look at each school and assess school to school. You can’t make blanket assumptions that all universities are better than all SLACS.




Nevertheless, most students and parents use the term SLAC when discussing a freestanding small liberal arts college like Colby or Pomona. I put Brandeis in a different category because at 3,000 students its larger and also because its a seven sister school affiliated with a much larger university they way Radcliffe once was to Harvard.

[Anonymous]

To OP,, why the 1%? SLACs and top universities are about the same cost. My family was MC and I was first generation when I went to a SLAC. I don't consider it a 1% benefit at all and have never before seen it discussed that way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP's (and society's) devaluation of the humanities is sad and, in large part, why we have the society we have today. The humanities are nuclear subjects that give us direct access to knowledge on what is fundamentally human. Studying the humanities gives us comprehensive knowledge, skills and mindsets that come with studying the field, which are not easily outdated. The study of humanities allows us to question and reflect, maintain a global vision, acknowledge differences, communicate effectively, etc. These mindsets and skillsets are not emphasized in the study of science and math.

All of these don't really matter if you end up as a tech writer. If you go on to grad school, then yes. However, a STEM grad (typically smarter than the average non-STEM) can pick up on these things quite easily as well and do well in life and society. Look at the leadership at all the SV companies (at any level) and you will be floored at how many have zero liberal arts education.

My spouse who manages STEM employees would beg to differ with the bold. They haven't "picked up on" how to communicate clearly and effectively with clients, how to write well or how to deal with colleagues or clients who are different from them. If you think all STEM grads will magically pick up those kinds of work and life skills, you really are naive, PP. And tossing in "Look at the leadership at all the SV companies" is just nonsense; that's a tiny fraction of your vaunted STEM grads. Far more are working like my spouse's employees, and showing the lack of learning when it comes to anything beyond grinding out their tech responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To OP,, why the 1%? SLACs and top universities are about the same cost. My family was MC and I was first generation when I went to a SLAC. I don't consider it a 1% benefit at all and have never before seen it discussed that way

Using the term "the 1 percent" in the title was OP's attempt to bait people into talking about how (in OP's view) only the 1 percent can afford "useless" SLAC educations. It's the kind of thread title that telegraphs an OP's social, educational and political biases, and the OP uses it to gin up the ire of pro-SLAC posters. Because OP wants to preen himself or herself on the supposed superiority of anyplace but SLACS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To OP,, why the 1%? SLACs and top universities are about the same cost. My family was MC and I was first generation when I went to a SLAC. I don't consider it a 1% benefit at all and have never before seen it discussed that way

Using the term "the 1 percent" in the title was OP's attempt to bait people into talking about how (in OP's view) only the 1 percent can afford "useless" SLAC educations. It's the kind of thread title that telegraphs an OP's social, educational and political biases, and the OP uses it to gin up the ire of pro-SLAC posters. Because OP wants to preen himself or herself on the supposed superiority of anyplace but SLACS.

My sentiments exactly. Its kind of pathetic though if you think about it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To OP,, why the 1%? SLACs and top universities are about the same cost. My family was MC and I was first generation when I went to a SLAC. I don't consider it a 1% benefit at all and have never before seen it discussed that way

Using the term "the 1 percent" in the title was OP's attempt to bait people into talking about how (in OP's view) only the 1 percent can afford "useless" SLAC educations. It's the kind of thread title that telegraphs an OP's social, educational and political biases, and the OP uses it to gin up the ire of pro-SLAC posters. Because OP wants to preen himself or herself on the supposed superiority of anyplace but SLACS.

Oooo. Thank you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that if a student needs hand-holding that a small more intimate atmosphere might be better.

And if a student doesn't want to be called upon to participate in class discussions because of apathy or fear that they will be unmasked as an imposter, wants to be able to skip class or go to class without even skimming the reading without worry that they'll even fall behind since the lectures will be dumbed down by grad students in recitation sections, and wants to have a curriculum that allows them to avoid having to do any meaningful research or writing over their four years if they plan it right, a big school might be a better option for them.

(see, both sides can damn with faint praise)

As it turns out, there are pros and cons to both types of schools. Some folks won't admit that because they are oddly jealous of SLACs, which I think they associate with wealth (and the associated benefits of privilege/elitism etc). Whether that is accurate for the type of school as a group is highly questionable, but these critics view wealth/privilege/elitism negatively. That's kind of ironic, though, because these are the same posters whose whole college search for their kids is focused on what will make their kids the most money so their kids get to access the privilege/elitism they associate with that money (and maybe never had themselves).

Again, you engage in a self-serving, gross over-simplification of reality in your first paragraph.

The bolded statement is accurate and a first step toward sobriety. Congratulations.

I think you missed that this post was mimicking the "self-serving, gross over-simplification of reality" in the post that it was responding to. The paragraph you bolded was where it stopped mimicking and started talking like an adult (unlike the original post)