The students who get into top SLACs and top universities don't seem to be picking the former

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have worked at multiple big name consulting firms and we prefer SLAC graduates over big universities including Ivies. SLAC kids tend to have better writing and communication/storytelling skills - not for every industry but certainly preferred in our line of work.

So you prefer LAC kids over Ivy League graduates because the LAC kids are better bs artists. LAC kids are better bs artists because they lack hard skills as humanities majors.

The above post is total bs as anyone can view the school backgrounds of management consulting firms.

Ignorant much? SLACs offer degrees in CS, math, physics, chem, bio, econ, etc. Their graduates just have a much broader education than their counterparts. And, these students typically enjoy much closer relationships with their professors because the class sizes are limited to approx. 30 students.

+1

But that PP to whom you're responding is just a knee-jerk SLAC-basher who keeps coming back to naysay any positive post about SLACs on this (old) thread. Like another person above, I'm puzzled by the need in some people to bash SLACs while talking up large universities, especially as those people seem to have little or no personal experience with SLACs.

I am the PP you referenced. The thing is that the anti-SLAC obsessives don’t realize that they sound so weird that their comments have the opposite impact than they intend. I had no ties to SLACs before I started reading DCUM; I went to HYPS and large state schools myself, as did my spouse and siblings.

But now I think very positively of them. Thanks to the weirdo comments over the past several years, I started looking at them much more closely for my own kids. I’ve now reached the point where I would be delighted if they decided to attend a SLAC. So thanks, I guess, to the DCUM anti-SLAC weirdos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are kids even applying to SLACS then?

Colgate had something like 22000 applicants this year. A few years ago it was 9000.

Imagine believing any admissions “data”. It’s all a big scam. They all manufacture those numbers because they benefit the rankings. Same for “diversity”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have worked at multiple big name consulting firms and we prefer SLAC graduates over big universities including Ivies. SLAC kids tend to have better writing and communication/storytelling skills - not for every industry but certainly preferred in our line of work.

So you prefer LAC kids over Ivy League graduates because the LAC kids are better bs artists. LAC kids are better bs artists because they lack hard skills as humanities majors.

The above post is total bs as anyone can view the school backgrounds of management consulting firms.

Ignorant much? SLACs offer degrees in CS, math, physics, chem, bio, econ, etc. Their graduates just have a much broader education than their counterparts. And, these students typically enjoy much closer relationships with their professors because the class sizes are limited to approx. 30 students.

+1

But that PP to whom you're responding is just a knee-jerk SLAC-basher who keeps coming back to naysay any positive post about SLACs on this (old) thread. Like another person above, I'm puzzled by the need in some people to bash SLACs while talking up large universities, especially as those people seem to have little or no personal experience with SLACs.

I am the PP you referenced. The thing is that the anti-SLAC obsessives don’t realize that they sound so weird that their comments have the opposite impact than they intend. I had no ties to SLACs before I started reading DCUM; I went to HYPS and large state schools myself, as did my spouse and siblings.

But now I think very positively of them. Thanks to the weirdo comments over the past several years, I started looking at them much more closely for my own kids. I’ve now reached the point where I would be delighted if they decided to attend a SLAC. So thanks, I guess, to the DCUM anti-SLAC weirdos?

Give it a rest and get a life. You are not an Ivy graduate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have worked at multiple big name consulting firms and we prefer SLAC graduates over big universities including Ivies. SLAC kids tend to have better writing and communication/storytelling skills - not for every industry but certainly preferred in our line of work.

So you prefer LAC kids over Ivy League graduates because the LAC kids are better bs artists. LAC kids are better bs artists because they lack hard skills as humanities majors.

The above post is total bs as anyone can view the school backgrounds of management consulting firms.

Ignorant much? SLACs offer degrees in CS, math, physics, chem, bio, econ, etc. Their graduates just have a much broader education than their counterparts. And, these students typically enjoy much closer relationships with their professors because the class sizes are limited to approx. 30 students.

+1

But that PP to whom you're responding is just a knee-jerk SLAC-basher who keeps coming back to naysay any positive post about SLACs on this (old) thread. Like another person above, I'm puzzled by the need in some people to bash SLACs while talking up large universities, especially as those people seem to have little or no personal experience with SLACs.

I am the PP you referenced. The thing is that the anti-SLAC obsessives don’t realize that they sound so weird that their comments have the opposite impact than they intend. I had no ties to SLACs before I started reading DCUM; I went to HYPS and large state schools myself, as did my spouse and siblings.

But now I think very positively of them. Thanks to the weirdo comments over the past several years, I started looking at them much more closely for my own kids. I’ve now reached the point where I would be delighted if they decided to attend a SLAC. So thanks, I guess, to the DCUM anti-SLAC weirdos?

Give it a rest and get a life. You are not an Ivy graduate.

You people are so weird. So very, very weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC who graduated from a NESCAC had a far superior education than my DC who will graduate shortly from an Ivy. The access to professors and research opportunities at LACs is objectively better. And I can’t even imagine attending some soulless public university where students are just a number and the majority of students come from a single state.

I went to a NESCAC and my brother went to an Ivy. He thought that I received a better education.

My daughter went to a NESCAC and her husband went to Harvard. He is absolutely convinced that she got a better college education than he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just personal experience, but I know of at least six students this year who had an acceptance from a top 5 SLAC but are turning them down for top universities.

It seems like students these days want to be in major metropolitan areas. and they prefer the university social life. A number of the admits above raised the concern that the LAC social life would feel "dead" by comparison. It seems sad that the hallmark academic and collaborative strengths of LACs seem to be ignored these days. I'm not saying a LAC experience is good for everyone, but I feel like they're admitting students in RD who have no real interest in going to one.

Are they STEM majors?

My BIL is a STEM prof at an Ivy. He is encouraging his own STEM-oriented kids to go to a SLAC.

SLACs are well-stocked with the children of professors at large research universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC who graduated from a NESCAC had a far superior education than my DC who will graduate shortly from an Ivy. The access to professors and research opportunities at LACs is objectively better. And I can’t even imagine attending some soulless public university where students are just a number and the majority of students come from a single state.

I went to a NESCAC and my brother went to an Ivy. He thought that I received a better education.

My daughter went to a NESCAC and her husband went to Harvard. He is absolutely convinced that she got a better college education than he did.

Let us know when he deletes Harvard from his work bio, resume and LinkedIn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC who graduated from a NESCAC had a far superior education than my DC who will graduate shortly from an Ivy. The access to professors and research opportunities at LACs is objectively better. And I can’t even imagine attending some soulless public university where students are just a number and the majority of students come from a single state.

I went to a NESCAC and my brother went to an Ivy. He thought that I received a better education.

My daughter went to a NESCAC and her husband went to Harvard. He is absolutely convinced that she got a better college education than he did.

Let us know when he deletes Harvard from his work bio, resume and LinkedIn

Logical reasoning isn’t your strong suit, I take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regular Decision Yields (% of students admitted RD who choose to attend) of top 5 SLACs:

Pomona- 43.4%
Williams- 39%
Wellesley- 31.8%
Amherst- 29.7%
Swarthmore- 28.2%

Regular Decision Yields (% of students admitted RD who choose to attend) of selected top universities:

Dartmouth- 51.7%
Brown- 46.5%
Carnegie Mellon- 33.8%
Vanderbilt- 29.4%
Emory- 18.7%

So the Ivies do better but the yields are similar to other top 30 universities?

I wouldn't take these numbers too literally; they may be out of date. For example, from the most recent common data set, the RD yield for Williams is 31%, for Pomona is 36%, and for Vanderbilt is 33%. As a rule of thumb (for the last few years), the RD yield for the Ivy+ universities is above 50%, for the elite SLACs is about 30%, and for the other private universities in the USNWR top 25 is about 30%. Amongst the SLACs, the only real exceptions to this rule with higher yields are Bowdoin, Pomona, and a couple of the women's colleges. Some may want to use the RD yield as a proxy for relative prestige, desirability, etc. between different institutions, but that only makes sense to the extent that they have strongly overlapping applicant pools. This may not really be true for different types of institutions, e.g. SLACs vs Ivy+ schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have worked at multiple big name consulting firms and we prefer SLAC graduates over big universities including Ivies. SLAC kids tend to have better writing and communication/storytelling skills - not for every industry but certainly preferred in our line of work.

So you prefer LAC kids over Ivy League graduates because the LAC kids are better bs artists. LAC kids are better bs artists because they lack hard skills as humanities majors.

What about the STEM grads of LACs? Who've often had more undergraduate research opportunities than undergrads at bigger universities, where grad student research is prioritized?

Or are you one of those confused people who think liberal arts schools don't teach STEM subjects?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look it’s not a shocker that more students attend LARGE universities than SMALL liberal arts colleges. Duh.

But there are plenty of kids who have no interest in gigantic schools. I know one who just chose a tiny rural LAC over a top 15 flagship that he decided was just too big.

Both of mine were like this. The largest school either applied to was ~6000, but the majority were under 2K.

[Anonymous]

Overall, very few attend LACs.

Odd that LAC supporters are so defensive that they resort to childish name calling.

If you prefer a small school, then fine, but why not understand what you're getting into ?

The desperation of LAC supporters is getting tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Overall, very few attend LACs.

Odd that LAC supporters are so defensive that they resort to childish name calling.

If you prefer a small school, then fine, but why not understand what you're getting into ?

The desperation of LAC supporters is getting tiresome.

I have no kids at a LAC, but some of those who attack LACs on this board are equally equally childish and spiteful. And like you said, if you prefer a big public school, fine, but you should also understand what you're getting into (e.g., classes taught by TAs, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Overall, very few attend LACs.

Odd that LAC supporters are so defensive that they resort to childish name calling.

If you prefer a small school, then fine, but why not understand what you're getting into ?

The desperation of LAC supporters is getting tiresome.

I have no ties to LACs and in this thread the worst behavior by far has objectively been from posters attacking LACs. Perhaps it is you who are defensive, given that you can’t see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just personal experience, but I know of at least six students this year who had an acceptance from a top 5 SLAC but are turning them down for top universities.

It seems like students these days want to be in major metropolitan areas. and they prefer the university social life. A number of the admits above raised the concern that the LAC social life would feel "dead" by comparison. It seems sad that the hallmark academic and collaborative strengths of LACs seem to be ignored these days. I'm not saying a LAC experience is good for everyone, but I feel like they're admitting students in RD who have no real interest in going to one.

Are they STEM majors?

My BIL is a STEM prof at an Ivy. He is encouraging his own STEM-oriented kids to go to a SLAC.

SLACs are well-stocked with the children of professors at large research universities.

Proof please!