Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

I believe SLAC graduates are better educated on average than graduates of research universities of similar selectivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about all of DCUM, but I’m hoping my kids will choose an SLAC for the small class sizes, to be taught by the actual professors with Ph.Ds rather than the graduate assistants, for great alumni networks and a real sense of community. Also many of them are beautiful campuses without the unwanted distractions of city life.

Yup. My child just started at a large university and, while it’s been fine, a couple of things recently are upsetting me, things that would never happen at a SLAC. She’s supposed to register for spring classes next week and meet with an advisor first but all of her advisor’s time slots are full and classes fill up fast so she can’t just pick any classes then transfer into the ones she needs later. The health center is fully booked and she’s sick so she’s not getting the care she needs. Finally, there’s been a lot of crime around her urban campus. I’m really wishing she were in the small NE school where I went and where these things would not occur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe SLAC graduates are better educated on average than graduates of research universities of similar selectivity.

I believe that. For four years, a student at a SLAC is held accountable by professors and classmates. There's no hiding. My Intro to Bio class had 60 students - it was the largest class I ever took in college. My language lab had 3; linear algebra 18; my philosophy seminar 6 or 8? I read on average one book a day for four days a week and wrote a paper every weekend. Many of these papers were read and critiqued in class not only by my professor but my fellow seminar mates. If you think about that kind of intellectual training over the course of four years, that's a lot of practice spent reading hard texts, talking about them, and writing about them. FWIW, I'm now a professor at an R1, and my students really only get that kind of attention maybe for the last two or three semesters of college, and certainly not for most classes. If you think about the 10,000 hour rule - the amount of "practice" time it takes to become fairly good at a skill - SLAC students put in a lot more hours doing this kind of work than students at larger universities where they aren't put on the spot or held personally accountable for their academic work day in and day out from week 1 of freshman year.

[Anonymous]

I think my kid would flourish at a SLAC but her options are W&M or something that would be outside of our budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think my kid would flourish at a SLAC but her options are W&M or something that would be outside of our budget.

Tell us your budget and we will give you some suggestions. W&M is, I think, the most expensive in state option so if you can cover that you should be able to get close at a SLAC with good merit aid.

[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

It is better for parents to say their kid attends no name/unfamiliar LAC than say something like GMU or JMU. The difference in response would be 'I am not familiar with that school' v. politely uttered 'Oh'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe SLAC graduates are better educated on average than graduates of research universities of similar selectivity.

This above is not a reasonable statement.

For the class which entered Fall of 2020, the acceptance rate at the top ranked LAC was 15%, while the #14 ranked National University--WashUStL--had an acceptance rate of 16%.

Understandable that one may prefer one over the other, but the education is outstanding at both schools.

Another example based on a PP poster's comment: Emory University and Grinnell College both had acceptance rates of 19%. Highly unlikely that one receives a better education at Grinnell than at Emory.

Some students may be more comfortable at a small school without the presence of graduate schools and some may prefer the larger, more diverse environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe SLAC graduates are better educated on average than graduates of research universities of similar selectivity.

This above is not a reasonable statement.

For the class which entered Fall of 2020, the acceptance rate at the top ranked LAC was 15%, while the #14 ranked National University--WashUStL--had an acceptance rate of 16%.

Understandable that one may prefer one over the other, but the education is outstanding at both schools.

Another example based on a PP poster's comment: Emory University and Grinnell College both had acceptance rates of 19%. Highly unlikely that one receives a better education at Grinnell than at Emory.

Some students may be more comfortable at a small school without the presence of graduate schools and some may prefer the larger, more diverse environment.

That there is some seriously muddled thinking. Acceptance rates tell you nothing about the quality of the educational experience once a student arrives.

[Anonymous]

I have one kid at top 5 LAC and another at top 15 national university. Each ED'd there respective college. They are both happy at their school. The first is a non-STEM major on the premed track and enjoys the small classes and getting to know the professors well. The premed committee is wonderful and gives very personalized attention and has conditional guarantee to medical school. The other is a STEM major at larger school and also likes the size and breadth of engineering/STEM classes. I guess the bottom line is that fit is important, where your child would likely thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe SLAC graduates are better educated on average than graduates of research universities of similar selectivity.

This above is not a reasonable statement.

For the class which entered Fall of 2020, the acceptance rate at the top ranked LAC was 15%, while the #14 ranked National University--WashUStL--had an acceptance rate of 16%.

Understandable that one may prefer one over the other, but the education is outstanding at both schools.

Another example based on a PP poster's comment: Emory University and Grinnell College both had acceptance rates of 19%. Highly unlikely that one receives a better education at Grinnell than at Emory.

Some students may be more comfortable at a small school without the presence of graduate schools and some may prefer the larger, more diverse environment.

That there is some seriously muddled thinking. Acceptance rates tell you nothing about the quality of the educational experience once a student arrives.

The "muddled thinking" was contained in the post to which I was responding. My point is that the other poster at 21:16 was making an unreasonable statement.

Constantly surprised at the lengths to which LAC supporters go to justify their choice of what are typically small, rural schools with limited choices. It is just a personal decision.

[Anonymous]

The instruction from professors is better at SLACs.

But academic education is not entirely based on instruction from professors.

Research universities have better instruction from TA's (graduate students with more availability than any SLAC professor can reasonably provide), better academic research opportunities, more rigorous courses, especially graduate-level courses that undergrads can take.

Ultimately SLACs are a plaything for the generationally wealthy. There's not much worth in it for the children of upper middle class dual-income professionals. They are not geared towards careers, but rather graduate, law, and (some) medical schools.

[Anonymous]

This thread prompted me to look at the undergraduate school attended by the 43 associates of what is arguably the most impressive law firm in the country (41 of the 43 associates did federal clerkships after law school with most having done 2 clerkships and the associates graduated from the top US law schools (most from Harvard Law, followed by Yale Law, then Chicago, Stanford, and U Penn law schools).

Of the 43 associates, 37 went to universities (34 US universities) and 6 went to LACs (2 from Pomona, 2 attended Vassar, 1 from Bard, and 1 from Dickinson).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread prompted me to look at the undergraduate school attended by the 43 associates of what is arguably the most impressive law firm in the country (41 of the 43 associates did federal clerkships after law school with most having done 2 clerkships and the associates graduated from the top US law schools (most from Harvard Law, followed by Yale Law, then Chicago, Stanford, and U Penn law schools).

Of the 43 associates, 37 went to universities (34 US universities) and 6 went to LACs (2 from Pomona, 2 attended Vassar, 1 from Bard, and 1 from Dickinson).

Is it possible that biglaw isn’t the goal of all SLAC grads? (Yes. Yes it is.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread prompted me to look at the undergraduate school attended by the 43 associates of what is arguably the most impressive law firm in the country (41 of the 43 associates did federal clerkships after law school with most having done 2 clerkships and the associates graduated from the top US law schools (most from Harvard Law, followed by Yale Law, then Chicago, Stanford, and U Penn law schools).

Of the 43 associates, 37 went to universities (34 US universities) and 6 went to LACs (2 from Pomona, 2 attended Vassar, 1 from Bard, and 1 from Dickinson).

Is it possible that biglaw isn’t the goal of all SLAC grads? (Yes. Yes it is.)

A law firm of 90 or fewer attorneys is not considered to be "biglaw". (Biglaw is most commonly defined as law firms with 500 or more attorneys.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread prompted me to look at the undergraduate school attended by the 43 associates of what is arguably the most impressive law firm in the country (41 of the 43 associates did federal clerkships after law school with most having done 2 clerkships and the associates graduated from the top US law schools (most from Harvard Law, followed by Yale Law, then Chicago, Stanford, and U Penn law schools).

Of the 43 associates, 37 went to universities (34 US universities) and 6 went to LACs (2 from Pomona, 2 attended Vassar, 1 from Bard, and 1 from Dickinson).

Is it possible that biglaw isn’t the goal of all SLAC grads? (Yes. Yes it is.)

So about 15% of associates attended SLACs, and 85% attended universities? Given that only 5% of college students attend SLACs, SLACs are over-represented by 300%. This pretty much is in line with the disproportionately high percentage of SLACs grads who go onto graduate school compared to graduates of universities.