CTCL schools

[Anonymous]

How many of these schools are financially solvent? How many will go bankrupt or close their doors in the next couple of decades?

And more importantly, what sets these CTCL schools apart from other liberal arts colleges? Why not just say "liberal arts colleges", which is the more universally understood term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as the weirdo who says no one knows what CTCL means, except that it is an acronym for a type of cancer (!)

You need to get out more because we are not all oncologists.

CTCL is the official acronym for a type of cancer. Just search it on Google.

If you're really insisting that people know or care what "CTCL schools" mean, you're only doing yourself a disservice. Please, I invite you to continue your CTCL boosterism in real life and see how that goes for you.

Like anyone would take life coaching advice from you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The haters, as you call us, have nothing against non top 20 schools. Our issue is with parents who insist that being a CTCL school somehow makes these schools special or above the many hundreds of schools with similar standards and students and faculty and sizes and program etc etc etc that aren’t participating in their joint marketing efforts.

And, cmon: this is DCUM. The overwhelming majority of posters and lurkers on this board absolutely positively would rather send their kid to a top 20 school than to a CTCL school. They just would, and everybody knows it. They’re settling for a CTCL school by labeling it a “good fit” when what they really mean is “it’s the best fit that took my kid.” And, really, that’s ok. You don’t need to justify your choices on an anonymous forum.

Sorry, but you don't know what the overwhelming majority of posters want, and you sure as hell don't know what lurkers want. I don't understand why you'd be so offended that someone would consider any school a good fit for their kid, such that you'd repeatedly post here that these people must be dishonest. Apparently you do need do justify your choices on an anonymous forum.

Keep telling yourself that. I’ve been on this forum long enough to have a pretty good feel for who else is on it. By and large we’re not a pretty group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We visited a bunch of LACs. Some were NESCACs. Some were CTCL. some were other things. Among the colleges we saw, the CTCLs generally seemed warmer/more friendly and generally less selective/less anxious. The eye opener for me was that the CTCLs still seemed intellectual and focused on the world, even though the students weren't especially competitive. That's why I'm a fan.

"CTCL" does convey something informative. While I would not have chosen a CTCL for myself, I am really glad one of my kids did. My kid has learned a ton and received a lot of attention in a collaborative, low stress environment.

Your kid didn't get into better schools. And you know it. That's why your kid "chose" it.

I just don't get this. Why does it matter to you?

Sometimes finances choose the college. Both my VA cousins got into Duke yet their parents indicated that they could only attend if Duke offered them the difference between Duke and UVA. That didn't happen, so go Cavs for them.

I have one DC with the stats for a couple of Ivies and top NESCACs. After this DC saw what happened to senior friends this cycle, my guess is that a number of CTCL-type schools will be on DC's list. I have another DC where some CTCLs may still be reaches when that DC gets to app time. I don't blow off the latter kid just because the former kid might get into "better schools." Fit is fit.

It matters because it’s a dishonest response. Had the poster’s kid got into one of the NESCAC schools visited, the kid would’ve ended up there and the poster wouldn’t be posting how glad they were that the kid went to a CTCL school. Instead they’d be on a thread about that NESCAC school praising it.

The Duke/UVA analogy is ridiculous. They are essentially peer institutions. Yes, Duke is higher ranked by US News and somewhat more selective, but Duke/UVA is not Bowdoin/Juniata for example. Not even close. It makes heaps of sense for in state VA students to turn down schools in Duke’s class for UVA.

What? You know this, how?

Do you think everyone chooses a college based on its ranking? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The haters, as you call us, have nothing against non top 20 schools. Our issue is with parents who insist that being a CTCL school somehow makes these schools special or above the many hundreds of schools with similar standards and students and faculty and sizes and program etc etc etc that aren’t participating in their joint marketing efforts.

And, cmon: this is DCUM. The overwhelming majority of posters and lurkers on this board absolutely positively would rather send their kid to a top 20 school than to a CTCL school. They just would, and everybody knows it. They’re settling for a CTCL school by labeling it a “good fit” when what they really mean is “it’s the best fit that took my kid.” And, really, that’s ok. You don’t need to justify your choices on an anonymous forum.

I do not now and have never thought of choosing a college in these terms.

I'm glad I don't know you IRL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of these schools are financially solvent? How many will go bankrupt or close their doors in the next couple of decades?

And more importantly, what sets these CTCL schools apart from other liberal arts colleges? Why not just say "liberal arts colleges", which is the more universally understood term?

If you read the book, you would have the answer to this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of these schools are financially solvent? How many will go bankrupt or close their doors in the next couple of decades?

And more importantly, what sets these CTCL schools apart from other liberal arts colleges? Why not just say "liberal arts colleges", which is the more universally understood term?

If you read the book, you would have the answer to this question.

So the insistence and self-anointing of these schools as "special" and "set apart" from their other LAC peers is an additional turn-off. No thanks. Sounds like a poorly thought out marketing scam. I'm not confident all of these schools will even survive the turbulence of the next couple of decades in higher ed. Why would I send my kid to a school that very well might not exist in ten, twenty years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We visited a bunch of LACs. Some were NESCACs. Some were CTCL. some were other things. Among the colleges we saw, the CTCLs generally seemed warmer/more friendly and generally less selective/less anxious. The eye opener for me was that the CTCLs still seemed intellectual and focused on the world, even though the students weren't especially competitive. That's why I'm a fan.

"CTCL" does convey something informative. While I would not have chosen a CTCL for myself, I am really glad one of my kids did. My kid has learned a ton and received a lot of attention in a collaborative, low stress environment.

Your kid didn't get into better schools. And you know it. That's why your kid "chose" it.

I just don't get this. Why does it matter to you?

Sometimes finances choose the college. Both my VA cousins got into Duke yet their parents indicated that they could only attend if Duke offered them the difference between Duke and UVA. That didn't happen, so go Cavs for them.

I have one DC with the stats for a couple of Ivies and top NESCACs. After this DC saw what happened to senior friends this cycle, my guess is that a number of CTCL-type schools will be on DC's list. I have another DC where some CTCLs may still be reaches when that DC gets to app time. I don't blow off the latter kid just because the former kid might get into "better schools." Fit is fit.

It matters because it’s a dishonest response. Had the poster’s kid got into one of the NESCAC schools visited, the kid would’ve ended up there and the poster wouldn’t be posting how glad they were that the kid went to a CTCL school. Instead they’d be on a thread about that NESCAC school praising it.

The Duke/UVA analogy is ridiculous. They are essentially peer institutions. Yes, Duke is higher ranked by US News and somewhat more selective, but Duke/UVA is not Bowdoin/Juniata for example. Not even close. It makes heaps of sense for in state VA students to turn down schools in Duke’s class for UVA.

Or perhaps they'd be on the CTCL thread saying how much they liked that college and were glad it was an option as a safety.

It seems like the haters' issue is that people who can't afford or whose kids can't get into a highly ranked LAC have the audacity to assert that their kids are getting a good educational experience at a lower ranked school. They think if your kid can't go to one of 10ish LACs then they don't deserve to have a LAC experience and should slink off in shame to a regional large state school and, really, probably not even bother with college because they are doomed to failure and their parents should cut them off for being so mediocre.

The issue isn't the CTCL label but that a group of lower-ranked LACs have to gall to share the positive things about their schools in a way that gets more attention than working individually. Juniata should just not let people know about their very high med school admissions rate. Wooster shouldn't tell people they have a unique approach to undergrad research. Because they can never be as awesome as Amherst or Williams they should just shut up and go out of business.

Are there crappy LACs out there who probably should go out of business, absolutely. There are a LOT of LACs to sort through so the CTCL list and the info in the book which emphasizes what are the factors you should be looking at for a good school are helpful in figuring out which ones might be worth your time and money. I realize that may not seem worthwhile to someone whose only qualification for picking where to apply is the US News list.

I really hope I don't know these people IRL and I feel very sorry for your children that all you care about is the ranking of the school one goes to.

I'm a DP from the person you're responding to, but the majority of people have no issue with the schools themselves. It's the weird branding/grouping/labeling of "CTCL" that comes off as very try-hard and fake. CTCL is a type of cancer, not an official grouping of colleges.

OMG, who cares???? Other than athletic conferences what makes something an "official grouping of colleges"? Is the USNews "Top 10" an "official grouping of colleges"? It can be a helpful list -- like the Sierra Club list of colleges or the Money Magazine Best Value Colleges, or great colleges for X major on College Xpress, or Princeton Review lists of colleges that are good for different things. If a school promotes that they are on one of those lists or does a college fair together related to some commonality is that "try-hard/fake"? I'm really just baffled by this position. It really seems to come down to a disdain that a lower ranked school could possibly provide a good education experience. Is it that you paid a lot for a higher-ranked school and are insecure that maybe you didn't get your money's worth? The haters seem to be very invested in protecting the dubious ranking system of USNews over any other way of considering colleges.

The key difference, you blathering rube, is that people don't go around boasting about how they went to an SCLOC school or an MMBVC school.

I have never met a parent or alumnus who bragged that they went to "a College That Changed Lives." Never. You're making a complete straw man argument.

+1
People on DCUM who say they went to a school on the CTCL list on an anonymous forum are giving people a narrower category than "a liberal arts college" but not "outing" themselves or their child on an anonymous forum when maybe a small handful of kids from the DMV goes to their particular small school (esp the further away ones).

When they talk about what they like about this "CTCL school," it's not that they are bragging about going to a CTCL, more that they are sharing with other parents who are struggling with the same pressures of finances and selectivity, that it turns out that many of the schools suggested by the CTCL are a viable path for strong/ambitious students. There are some LACs outside the top 20 that have fantastic grad school admissions rates, great merit aid, or some other feature you are looking for. It also can be simultaneously true that they are really happy with their CTCL school AND that if they could afford it and/or their kid got in they would go to a more highly ranked school given how much the DMV context emphasizes that. Doesn't make them dishonest to talk about how happy they are with the way things worked out and appreciative to the CTCL presentation that alerted them to the school and are suggesting to other parents to check out the organization for guidance.

I don't think schools on the CTCL list are unequivocally better than all other LACs outside the top tier --and I do think you have to do due diligence on schools on their list that they meet what you want. But it can be overwhelming to search once you move away from in-state publics and well-known schools. There a ton of LACs that might look fine on the surface, but offer tired curricula, the faculty aren't well-supported, they lack some key resources like access to databases, aren't favored by grad schools etc. CTCL offers a way of looking at schools, some compiled data, and a list of schools that they have reviewed. It's more manageable than going through the 320+ in other guides and is targeted on liberal arts colleges in particular.

[Anonymous]

Looks like one of these supposed colleges that change lives, Marlboro College, has already shuttered due to bankruptcy last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlboro_College

Wonder which ones will come next.

Generally don't think it's wise to uphold a college list from 25 years ago as gospel. 25 years is a long time for things to have changed, and while I don't doubt many of these schools were fine at the time of publication, why would you expect the same list of obscure schools to uphold the same level of quality through the decades?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of these schools are financially solvent? How many will go bankrupt or close their doors in the next couple of decades?

And more importantly, what sets these CTCL schools apart from other liberal arts colleges? Why not just say "liberal arts colleges", which is the more universally understood term?

If you read the book, you would have the answer to this question.

So the insistence and self-anointing of these schools as "special" and "set apart" from their other LAC peers is an additional turn-off. No thanks. Sounds like a poorly thought out marketing scam. I'm not confident all of these schools will even survive the turbulence of the next couple of decades in higher ed. Why would I send my kid to a school that very well might not exist in ten, twenty years?

I'm going to venture a guess that you haven't read the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1
People on DCUM who say they went to a school on the CTCL list on an anonymous forum are giving people a narrower category than "a liberal arts college" but not "outing" themselves or their child on an anonymous forum when maybe a small handful of kids from the DMV goes to their particular small school (esp the further away ones).

When they talk about what they like about this "CTCL school," it's not that they are bragging about going to a CTCL, more that they are sharing with other parents who are struggling with the same pressures of finances and selectivity, that it turns out that many of the schools suggested by the CTCL are a viable path for strong/ambitious students. There are some LACs outside the top 20 that have fantastic grad school admissions rates, great merit aid, or some other feature you are looking for. It also can be simultaneously true that they are really happy with their CTCL school AND that if they could afford it and/or their kid got in they would go to a more highly ranked school given how much the DMV context emphasizes that. Doesn't make them dishonest to talk about how happy they are with the way things worked out and appreciative to the CTCL presentation that alerted them to the school and are suggesting to other parents to check out the organization for guidance.

I don't think schools on the CTCL list are unequivocally better than all other LACs outside the top tier --and I do think you have to do due diligence on schools on their list that they meet what you want. But it can be overwhelming to search once you move away from in-state publics and well-known schools. There a ton of LACs that might look fine on the surface, but offer tired curricula, the faculty aren't well-supported, they lack some key resources like access to databases, aren't favored by grad schools etc. CTCL offers a way of looking at schools, some compiled data, and a list of schools that they have reviewed. It's more manageable than going through the 320+ in other guides and is targeted on liberal arts colleges in particular.

Good points, PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of these schools are financially solvent? How many will go bankrupt or close their doors in the next couple of decades?

And more importantly, what sets these CTCL schools apart from other liberal arts colleges? Why not just say "liberal arts colleges", which is the more universally understood term?

If you read the book, you would have the answer to this question.

So the insistence and self-anointing of these schools as "special" and "set apart" from their other LAC peers is an additional turn-off. No thanks. Sounds like a poorly thought out marketing scam. I'm not confident all of these schools will even survive the turbulence of the next couple of decades in higher ed. Why would I send my kid to a school that very well might not exist in ten, twenty years?

I'm going to venture a guess that you haven't read the book.

And I'm going to venture a guess and say that you don't actually have a decent answer or rebuttal to any of my questions or points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of these schools are financially solvent? How many will go bankrupt or close their doors in the next couple of decades?

And more importantly, what sets these CTCL schools apart from other liberal arts colleges? Why not just say "liberal arts colleges", which is the more universally understood term?

If you read the book, you would have the answer to this question.

So the insistence and self-anointing of these schools as "special" and "set apart" from their other LAC peers is an additional turn-off. No thanks. Sounds like a poorly thought out marketing scam. I'm not confident all of these schools will even survive the turbulence of the next couple of decades in higher ed. Why would I send my kid to a school that very well might not exist in ten, twenty years?

So don't. You do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like one of these supposed colleges that change lives, Marlboro College, has already shuttered due to bankruptcy last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlboro_College

Wonder which ones will come next.

Generally don't think it's wise to uphold a college list from 25 years ago as gospel. 25 years is a long time for things to have changed, and while I don't doubt many of these schools were fine at the time of publication, why would you expect the same list of obscure schools to uphold the same level of quality through the decades?

Sounds like you don't want to consider any of these schools for your kid. Fine. So move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like one of these supposed colleges that change lives, Marlboro College, has already shuttered due to bankruptcy last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlboro_College

Wonder which ones will come next.

Generally don't think it's wise to uphold a college list from 25 years ago as gospel. 25 years is a long time for things to have changed, and while I don't doubt many of these schools were fine at the time of publication, why would you expect the same list of obscure schools to uphold the same level of quality through the decades?

I honestly do not know why a poster would be SO committed to this particular line of argument. Building a straw man, arguing against the straw man, jumping in every time the opportunity presents itself, it's bizarre.