Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SLACs, even the best, are relatively easier admits compared to selective national universities. Personally, I agree that SLACs provide a great education, but I can understand why some consider them bastions of privilege for smart kids who couldn’t get into comparably good national universities. I understand that student preferences and fit are different for each student. I’m just saying that this is the “dig” that some parents would make to parents of SLAC admits. Essentially, they want to say that Harvard is better than Williams, any day.

Admit rates and test score ranges for the best SLACs are much higher and somewhat lower, respectively, compared to the best national universities. Thus, from an admissions prestige perspective, getting into Williams is like getting into a top 15-30 national university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLACs, even the best, are relatively easier admits compared to selective national universities. Personally, I agree that SLACs provide a great education, but I can understand why some consider them bastions of privilege for smart kids who couldn’t get into comparably good national universities. I understand that student preferences and fit are different for each student. I’m just saying that this is the “dig” that some parents would make to parents of SLAC admits. Essentially, they want to say that Harvard is better than Williams, any day.

Admit rates and test score ranges for the best SLACs are much higher and somewhat lower, respectively, compared to the best national universities. Thus, from an admissions prestige perspective, getting into Williams is like getting into a top 15-30 national university.

You can't really compare them unless you compare the applicant pools. Everybody's heard of Harvard, and everyone throws in their ring. Not everyone's heard of Williams, and the people who are applying to Williams are overall going to be a more competitive bunch than Harvard. A professor of mine compared the student body at top liberal arts colleges vs top universities by saying that the former had a higher floor and the latter had a higher ceiling. In other words, your average SLAC student is going to be academically stronger than your average university student, but there are likely to be more super stars at universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLACs, even the best, are relatively easier admits compared to selective national universities. Personally, I agree that SLACs provide a great education, but I can understand why some consider them bastions of privilege for smart kids who couldn’t get into comparably good national universities. I understand that student preferences and fit are different for each student. I’m just saying that this is the “dig” that some parents would make to parents of SLAC admits. Essentially, they want to say that Harvard is better than Williams, any day.

Admit rates and test score ranges for the best SLACs are much higher and somewhat lower, respectively, compared to the best national universities. Thus, from an admissions prestige perspective, getting into Williams is like getting into a top 15-30 national university.

You can't really compare them unless you compare the applicant pools. Everybody's heard of Harvard, and everyone throws in their ring. Not everyone's heard of Williams, and the people who are applying to Williams are overall going to be a more competitive bunch than Harvard. A professor of mine compared the student body at top liberal arts colleges vs top universities by saying that the former had a higher floor and the latter had a higher ceiling. In other words, your average SLAC student is going to be academically stronger than your average university student, but there are likely to be more super stars at universities.

Agreed. Parents that knock SLACs are focused on those national university super stars, better known as famous, and oftentimes, wealthy alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLACs, even the best, are relatively easier admits compared to selective national universities. Personally, I agree that SLACs provide a great education, but I can understand why some consider them bastions of privilege for smart kids who couldn’t get into comparably good national universities. I understand that student preferences and fit are different for each student. I’m just saying that this is the “dig” that some parents would make to parents of SLAC admits. Essentially, they want to say that Harvard is better than Williams, any day.

Admit rates and test score ranges for the best SLACs are much higher and somewhat lower, respectively, compared to the best national universities. Thus, from an admissions prestige perspective, getting into Williams is like getting into a top 15-30 national university.

You can't really compare them unless you compare the applicant pools. Everybody's heard of Harvard, and everyone throws in their ring. Not everyone's heard of Williams, and the people who are applying to Williams are overall going to be a more competitive bunch than Harvard. A professor of mine compared the student body at top liberal arts colleges vs top universities by saying that the former had a higher floor and the latter had a higher ceiling. In other words, your average SLAC student is going to be academically stronger than your average university student, but there are likely to be more super stars at universities.

Agreed. Parents that knock SLACs are focused on those national university super stars, better known as famous, and oftentimes, wealthy alumni.

SLAC students are smart and interesting. They are the professor archetype. HPY students are smart and ambitious/competitive. They are the CEO archetype. Because Americans adore the rich and famous, which do you think they will allot more prestige?

[Anonymous]

I have a kid who graduated from Grinnell about a decade ago who is making about the average being reported here for ten years out and is married to another Grinnellian making slightly more. So combined they're making close to 200k. That's a lot less than I make, but unlike me they're in jobs that they love. All of their friends are also gainfully employed and some are making lots and lots of money but that's not the norm. Grinnell isn't the kind of school that attracts students whose sole interest is making money. Only on DCUM is it considered more desirable to be rich and miserable than comfortable and happy.

As for the poster who claims Grinnell gives big money to students who can't even get into UVA, while admissions at this level has a crap shoot element to it I'd be real surprised if this were common. US News has Grinnell in the "most elective" category, its admission rate is lower than UVA, and its average SAT score is higher than UVA. What is true is that Grinnell has a huge endowment and is very generous with financial and merit aid with the students it does decide to admit. My student chose Grinnell over William & Mary in state because, among other reasons, with merit aid the cost wasn't much different.

One more thing: it's not accurate that most Grinnell students stay in the midwest. They're from everywhere, and they go everywhere. Most of my kid's friends are on the east and west coasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid who graduated from Grinnell about a decade ago who is making about the average being reported here for ten years out and is married to another Grinnellian making slightly more. So combined they're making close to 200k. That's a lot less than I make, but unlike me they're in jobs that they love. All of their friends are also gainfully employed and some are making lots and lots of money but that's not the norm. Grinnell isn't the kind of school that attracts students whose sole interest is making money. Only on DCUM is it considered more desirable to be rich and miserable than comfortable and happy.

As for the poster who claims Grinnell gives big money to students who can't even get into UVA, while admissions at this level has a crap shoot element to it I'd be real surprised if this were common. US News has Grinnell in the "most elective" category, its admission rate is lower than UVA, and its average SAT score is higher than UVA. What is true is that Grinnell has a huge endowment and is very generous with financial and merit aid with the students it does decide to admit. My student chose Grinnell over William & Mary in state because, among other reasons, with merit aid the cost wasn't much different.

One more thing: it's not accurate that most Grinnell students stay in the midwest. They're from everywhere, and they go everywhere. Most of my kid's friends are on the east and west coasts.

That's very common in general, not a function of where you went school. Old parents who hate their jobs, young people who love their jobs. I used to love my job too, now I hate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t read the whole thread, sorry, but my guess is that a fair amount of people in this area went to a SLAC, had a great time, and make a reasonable salary. And they want other parents to realize the benefits of a liberal arts education.

I went to Wesleyan in CT and my spouse went to a huge UC school, so we’ve seen both sides. Both of us were STEM majors and we got STEM PhDs from the same grad school. My spouse is constantly startled at how much I learned and retained in my really amazing non-science classes - I’ll happily expound for hours on American art from 1865-1945, social psychology, government (political action committees, gerrymandering), John Stuart Mill, etc. I actually think I enjoy life more because of this liberal arts education. We do fine financially as well - I made 3x what my spouse makes; however, his job is a labor of love and “good for the world”- which is made possible by my salary.

+1

I went to a NESCAC school and DH went to UDM-CP. He has the same reaction to my broad-based general knowledge of history, the world, government, philosophy, foreign languages. I make 3x what he does and like PP, make his lower-paid work possible.

Our kids both attended/attend LACs.

[Anonymous]

SLACs offer a much higher quality undergraduate experience than most state flagships and even, in my opinion, than most of the top-20 National universities. My wife and I both attended top-10 universities, medium size (4-5k undergrads), world-famous research institutions.
Yes, our peers were smart and driven and were mostly very successful by DCUM standards. But the lived college experience was poor, in retrospect. The model of the research university - Ivies, State Flagships, whatever - is really substandard as to undergraduates. Particularly the first two years.

Our oldest child was a hs superstar by every measure. One of the top debaters in the country, near-perfect grades and test scores, 12 APS (5s) - the standard resume for an Ivy-bound kid. Who very deliberately chose to apply to no Ivies, and to attend a SLAC (one of the AWS schools). It worked out quite well, by all measures. First, a $120k job for two years at an Econ consulting firm, for a humanities major who had never taken an econ course. Then, a top-3 law school, editor-in-chief of law review, top law firm, federal clerkships etc. My point is that there are many such students who value the substance and approach of an excellent LAC more than they do the broadly recognized name-brand value of even the top-ranked Ivies. Number two kid went to a NESCAC as a recruited athlete, went into finance, got an Ivy MBA, now works in M&A. Number three is also likely to attend an SLAC.

My kids didn't choose SLACs because they couldn't get into large universities. And as for the "dumb rich kid" factor - more at some places than at others. You'll find plenty of them at the flagships, too, hiding in the back of 400-person lecture halls and starting their weekends on Wednesday. And another bunch at the Ivies, tucked away on the Lacrosse team.

[Anonymous]

Okay, I'm the obtuse pedant on here but doesn't SLAC stand for "Selective Liberal Arts Colleges" not "Small Liberal Arts Colleges?"

Also, the PP who compared the admit rates and test score stats of SLAC admitted and too national universities, which is true, is different than OP's argument of LACs (not even SLACs) compared to state universities.

I went to a top research university and my spouse went to an Ivy, and we are very happy that our oldest is headed off to a SLAC that really suits their interests. I think our younger one will be more open to state universities but perhaps on the smaller end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most graduates of SLACs have pretty dismal earnings compared to their Ivy/Public University peers. So why are SLACs throw around here so often? I see a lot of people recommend random schools like Grinnell but why would you send your kid there for a pretty hefty sum when they could go to a state flagship and be in either a better or similar position?

Source:

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

This is stupid. It totally depends on the kid.

My kid's college is a liberal arts SLAC, yet my kid is earning nearly $200K 1 year out, in tech. CS major, top grades, top of the class. Geeze.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for contributing to a fruitful conversation. It's refreshing!

I’ll bite.

And will use this thread as an example.

I saw title and looked forward to reading it this quiet morning.

It is not an engaging discussion regarding the merits of differing educational models.

It has a derogatory, judgmental tone dare I say ignorant. For my kids, I want them to develop an open mind to discuss things they don’t understand - not close minded and derogatory in attacking things they don’t.

I have 3 kids - one in a SLAC mentioned in this thread, one at a State Flagship, and one applying this year.

My DS at the SLAC has benefited from a small, tight knit college environment. It is the right environment for him. And he a legitimate interest in learning, is very aware of world affairs, the political environment, and some of the underlying causes. He spends his time reading. He is growing into an informed young adult.

He is not primarily focused on securing employment. He has spend four years learning. And throughout history that has been the true luxury of the wealthy. And he gets it.

My DD at a state university is potentially pre-med. it’s a large school. Digesting material - not for the sake of learning - but to get through it while ensuring she maintains her 4.0. The goal is not an education - the education is a means to the end - med school admission. The level of intellectual curiosity is clearly different. Career paths are more pragmatic. Engineering, nursing, business. Grinding to get a degree to get employment. I realize that these students exist at a SLACs and there are gunners everywhere. And ironically I think the competition at the flagship is greater because the student body doesn’t have the luxury of assuming life is opportunity rich. But you can feel the difference. For my DD the flagship is the right environment - it fits her personality. But for my other two children, the SLACs are the way to go.

That all said I would say that the reason DCUM folks are obsessed with SLACs is that it is inherently a luxury product - high touch education - while socially signialling to peers, employers, etc. Want to go into Investment banking, Williams, Middlebury, Amherst are goin to signal that you went to the right day school an$ have the right family connections. U Pitt, Penn State, UVA, etc.not so much.

And last yes the SLACs like Denison, Hobart, etc.were historically were the gentlemen ‘c’ students went from prep school. They would not have survived at the flagships so their parents had the money to send them to a nurturing environment.

But that all said, folks are obsessed with SLACs because they are from a SES that understands the value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some kids don't want to go to a huge school and will do better in a school with close access to professors and smaller classes.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for contributing to a fruitful conversation. It's refreshing!

I’ll bite.

And will use this thread as an example.

I saw title and looked forward to reading it this quiet morning.

It is not an engaging discussion regarding the merits of differing educational models.

It has a derogatory, judgmental tone dare I say ignorant. For my kids, I want them to develop an open mind to discuss things they don’t understand - not close minded and derogatory in attacking things they don’t.

I have 3 kids - one in a SLAC mentioned in this thread, one at a State Flagship, and one applying this year.

My DS at the SLAC has benefited from a small, tight knit college environment. It is the right environment for him. And he a legitimate interest in learning, is very aware of world affairs, the political environment, and some of the underlying causes. He spends his time reading. He is growing into an informed young adult.

He is not primarily focused on securing employment. He has spend four years learning. And throughout history that has been the true luxury of the wealthy. And he gets it.

My DD at a state university is potentially pre-med. it’s a large school. Digesting material - not for the sake of learning - but to get through it while ensuring she maintains her 4.0. The goal is not an education - the education is a means to the end - med school admission. The level of intellectual curiosity is clearly different. Career paths are more pragmatic. Engineering, nursing, business. Grinding to get a degree to get employment. I realize that these students exist at a SLACs and there are gunners everywhere. And ironically I think the competition at the flagship is greater because the student body doesn’t have the luxury of assuming life is opportunity rich. But you can feel the difference. For my DD the flagship is the right environment - it fits her personality. But for my other two children, the SLACs are the way to go.

That all said I would say that the reason DCUM folks are obsessed with SLACs is that it is inherently a luxury product - high touch education - while socially signialling to peers, employers, etc. Want to go into Investment banking, Williams, Middlebury, Amherst are goin to signal that you went to the right day school an$ have the right family connections. U Pitt, Penn State, UVA, etc.not so much.

And last yes the SLACs like Denison, Hobart, etc.were historically were the gentlemen ‘c’ students went from prep school. They would not have survived at the flagships so their parents had the money to send them to a nurturing environment.

But that all said, folks are obsessed with SLACs because they are from a SES that understands the value.

Why are you reposting a response from page 4 in full?

[Anonymous]

Privilege reigns at SLACs

[Anonymous]

My student at a larger university spends a lot of time at course selection tine trying to access all the smaller, seminar style classes. DC is managing to get many of them with perseverance but at a SLAC, are not almost all the classes like this?