LACs are overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For premed I would rather my DC go to LACs. Big Us have tons of resources, true. But the big U professors don't give a fxxk about their undergraduate students, or teaching undergraduate in general. This is generally okay if you are engineering major, getting a couple Cs and Ds here and there won't preclude you from getting a job. For premed, entirely another story. They love to weed you out at the introductory courses as the Big U can support all the premed-interested kids.

Unless you are 100% certain you will always be that top 10% kid, and never will have an exam on a sick day and getting an F. LACs are a better bet for parents' investment in the kid's medical career.

If you remain dependent on professors even in college for learning , you would remain so for the rest of your career. This is being truly handicapped. Elite kids (25%) in T10 colleges need no such mollycoddling.

LAC boosters are delusional and lost cause.

They are more annoying than UVA boosters which is an achievement.

[Anonymous]

Hey, you can't use the absolute number no, no, no.

You have to get the "per capita" value - that is the only relevant number and there is no need to even consider the absolute number.

Wherefore, the real "boosting" is clearly higher for small LACs compared to UVA boosting per parent and thereby LACs are great places of higher learning that the western civilization has ever created and, you cannot get a greater undergraduate education at any other non-LAC schools.

[Anonymous]

Extending this thread into year five to shit on LACs (and UVA now?). The desire to gatekeep prestige is strong!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LACs are community colleges for the affluent class.

Well said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs are community colleges for the affluent class.

Well said!

Stupid comment. Stupid response. You both must have gone to Podunk State U.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs are community colleges for the affluent class.

Well said!

Only a truly insecure person would write such a dumb post, much less sockpuppet it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, you can't use the absolute number no, no, no.

You have to get the "per capita" value - that is the only relevant number and there is no need to even consider the absolute number.

Wherefore, the real "boosting" is clearly higher for small LACs compared to UVA boosting per parent and thereby LACs are great places of higher learning that the western civilization has ever created and, you cannot get a greater undergraduate education at any other non-LAC schools.

Dude, you can’t write. On behalf of SLAC and university-educated readers alike, please stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For premed I would rather my DC go to LACs. Big Us have tons of resources, true. But the big U professors don't give a fxxk about their undergraduate students, or teaching undergraduate in general. This is generally okay if you are engineering major, getting a couple Cs and Ds here and there won't preclude you from getting a job. For premed, entirely another story. They love to weed you out at the introductory courses as the Big U can support all the premed-interested kids.

Unless you are 100% certain you will always be that top 10% kid, and never will have an exam on a sick day and getting an F. LACs are a better bet for parents' investment in the kid's medical career.

If you remain dependent on professors even in college for learning , you would remain so for the rest of your career. This is being truly handicapped. Elite kids (25%) in T10 colleges need no such mollycoddling.

That is some nonsensical stupid shit……pure copium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For premed I would rather my DC go to LACs. Big Us have tons of resources, true. But the big U professors don't give a fxxk about their undergraduate students, or teaching undergraduate in general. This is generally okay if you are engineering major, getting a couple Cs and Ds here and there won't preclude you from getting a job. For premed, entirely another story. They love to weed you out at the introductory courses as the Big U can support all the premed-interested kids.

Unless you are 100% certain you will always be that top 10% kid, and never will have an exam on a sick day and getting an F. LACs are a better bet for parents' investment in the kid's medical career.

If you remain dependent on professors even in college for learning , you would remain so for the rest of your career. This is being truly handicapped. Elite kids (25%) in T10 colleges need no such mollycoddling.

LAC boosters are delusional and lost cause.

They are more annoying than UVA boosters which is an achievement.

Actually we’re just smarter and better informed than you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, you can't use the absolute number no, no, no.

You have to get the "per capita" value - that is the only relevant number and there is no need to even consider the absolute number.

Wherefore, the real "boosting" is clearly higher for small LACs compared to UVA boosting per parent and thereby LACs are great places of higher learning that the western civilization has ever created and, you cannot get a greater undergraduate education at any other non-LAC schools.

Spare us this gobbledygook writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Extending this thread into year five to shit on LACs (and UVA now?). The desire to gatekeep prestige is strong!

That gate never existed among those who matter.

The Ivies and some others have long been respected along with top SLACs and regionally some other schools while most of us went to nearby public schools. Rankings were something to be mildly amused by but nothing more. Things didn’t really jump the shark until large quantities of immigrants from very hierarchical societies started pouring into the US and then college admissions. We are now living an example of “when you don’t know but you think you know” otherwise known as Dunning-Kruger effect in it’s purest form.

[Anonymous]

I had to look this up. Not a good advertisement for the academe. Something tells me the name won’t stick in common parlance. How about “out of your depth,” a phrase that existed long before 1999?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had to look this up. Not a good advertisement for the academe. Something tells me the name won’t stick in common parlance. How about “out of your depth,” a phrase that existed long before 1999?

Or “a little knowledge is dangerous”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

I can only share my experience of having a kid who went to Grinnell. They became friends with faculty, received an education of unusual breadth and depth, explored several different disciplines, learned to thoughtfully consider and evaluate a wide spectrum of ideas, grew up immensely, became exponentially more articulate, got a fantastic research job straight out of school where their research skills and job performance led supervisors to say they wanted to hire more Grinnell grads, and got into a prestigious PhD program. More importantly, they became an extraordinarily kind and caring person. This was a kid who used to be a little abrasive. Would it have happened at a good public or large private research university? Perhaps, but I don't they'd have received the same level of nurture and adult attention, which I think drove intellectual, academic, personal, and professional growth. There are many great options out there. Sometimes LACs are an excellent fit that can transform your child. No disrespect to any other institution, but I am very grateful for the transformative effect an outstanding LAC had on my kid.

So, your kid couldn't make it to the top 50. I understand.

My kid is now doing a PhD at a Top 10 university. Grinnell got them there. Funnily enough, they seem better prepared than some of the other students who did their undergrad educations at top research universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

Amazing you wrote this four years ago yet liberal arts colleges have become even more relevant today.