Atlantic article on LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

Some kids prefer not to be in huge lecture classes and dealing heavily with grad student TAs (like in the Canadian unis you list). To each their own!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two of my kids attend SLACs, and I really love the education and individual attention they gett. My youngest is leaning toward a flagship, and after seeing the SLAC experience, it feels like they’ll be missing out in some ways. I agree with the argument that these schools are somewhat insulated from attacks on universities because they aren’t as dependent on federal research funding, but the reality is that most families just can’t afford them. At $90k+ per year, the cost puts these schools out of reach for the vast majority of students, which results in largely wealthy student bodies. I wish more SLACs offered meaningful merit aid to a broader range of families, because as it stands, once again it’s wealthier families who are insulated from the consequences of Republican policies and the Trump administration.

Except some of the SLACS offer more generous need-based aid. Our HHI is $330K and we received $21K in aid, while other equally pricey universities would have given us nothing per their NPCs. That was one of several factors in our decision to apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

[Anonymous]

Seems like the writer is romanticizing LACs from the outside looking in?

[Anonymous]

Will applications to the large research powerhouse colleges in Canada go way UP this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

As a professor at a research university, I am amused by parents who accept their 18-year old, high schooler's assessment of SLACs as an extension of summer camp or boarding school. If anything SLACs require young adults to be accountable for their education because they cannot hide. Students are much more likely "to learn in a bubble" at large universities, especially in large majors, because there is little need, if any, to speak up in class, to meet with faculty, and to share one's work with fellow classmates. You can go through 4 years at a state flagship without ever having spoken with a professor face-to-face. This would be impossible at a SLAC. At a SLAC you have to show up to class at least somewhat regularly, you have to submit work that will be discussed, and you have to form relationships with students who are not like you.
To be fair, there are SLACs that are notoriously for the wealthy (you can look these up--the NYT had a great article on this a couple of years ago), but many SLACs are committed to racial and economic diversity.
I plan on encouraging my children to take a seriously look at SLACs when it is time for them to apply to colleges. I expect that they will go onto graduate school, and the NSF data consistently show that SLACs have superior outcomes for graduate school admission across the board. This is not surprising, given the close relationships students at SLACs form with their faculty.
If your child does not seem to be included towards graduate school and wants to major in a pre-professional degree (like accounting), then there are SLACs out there as well as, of course, large universities that will offer that. But it seems that students who are academically strong are doing themselves a disservice by not seriously considering SLACs for their undergraduate education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

With all due respect, your DS is making a lot of assumptions. I, too, could come up with a lot of analogies maligning larger universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

As a professor at a research university, I am amused by parents who accept their 18-year old, high schooler's assessment of SLACs as an extension of summer camp or boarding school. If anything SLACs require young adults to be accountable for their education because they cannot hide. Students are much more likely "to learn in a bubble" at large universities, especially in large majors, because there is little need, if any, to speak up in class, to meet with faculty, and to share one's work with fellow classmates. You can go through 4 years at a state flagship without ever having spoken with a professor face-to-face. This would be impossible at a SLAC. At a SLAC you have to show up to class at least somewhat regularly, you have to submit work that will be discussed, and you have to form relationships with students who are not like you.
To be fair, there are SLACs that are notoriously for the wealthy (you can look these up--the NYT had a great article on this a couple of years ago), but many SLACs are committed to racial and economic diversity.
I plan on encouraging my children to take a seriously look at SLACs when it is time for them to apply to colleges. I expect that they will go onto graduate school, and the NSF data consistently show that SLACs have superior outcomes for graduate school admission across the board. This is not surprising, given the close relationships students at SLACs form with their faculty.
If your child does not seem to be included towards graduate school and wants to major in a pre-professional degree (like accounting), then there are SLACs out there as well as, of course, large universities that will offer that. But it seems that students who are academically strong are doing themselves a disservice by not seriously considering SLACs for their undergraduate education.

I could not agree more! I went to HYP and am happily sending my kids to SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Go to CMC or Bucknell or… just do some research.

Point is that students who don't know what they want and choose an LAC for just this reason may unknowingly be cutting off possible career paths.

This is true of any school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Go to CMC or Bucknell or… just do some research.

Point is that students who don't know what they want and choose an LAC for just this reason may unknowingly be cutting off possible career paths.

This is true of any school.

+1, true of any decision. Also your kids life doesn’t end at 22. You can go into accounting if you decide that’s your dream after some years exploring jobs.

[Anonymous]

The author appears to be frustrated by the funding cut. "With so much funding endangered all at once, targeted universities had little choice but to negotiate—which is to say, to accede to some portion of the Trump administration’s demands."

Then he pointed out that, in liberal arts colleges, "faculty must focus on education."

Wouldn't funding cut be a good thing for undergraduate students in research universities? So that faculties would now shift their focus to education? Wouldn't the undergraduate students in research universities be the "accidental winners of the war on higher ed?"

What is the author's point? If all the funding is restored to research universities, would he still write this article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Holy Cross does…

[Anonymous]

A number of LACs offer business majors and even more offer business/finance opportunities within the Econ major.

[Anonymous]

yes Holy Cross does have an accounting major and probably explains why they do so well in placing grads in C Suite corporate jobs. Amazed more top LACs don’t offer accounting or business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes Holy Cross does have an accounting major and probably explains why they do so well in placing grads in C Suite corporate jobs. Amazed more top LACs don’t offer accounting or business.

Isn't accounting one of the majors severely impacted by AI?