Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Almost 14% (6 of 43) associates attended LACs. The law firm has a total of 90 lawyers (43 associates, 34 partners, and 3 of counsel) 9 of which (10%) attended LACs.

Many students at National Universities are in business school or are majoring in engineering, education, nursing, or other pre-professional training that typically does not lead one to apply to law school, while those attending LACs typically need to attend graduate school because they lack training in a profession or occupation. Assuming that your numbers are correct and that only 5% of all college students attend LACs, then the basis of your assertion needs to be refined as a much higher percentage of LAC students apply to and attend law school than do graduates of National Universities.

Nice attempt at a diving save after your original lack of statistical competence was neatly shown, but this is a failed attempt.

Not a "failed attempt". You just refuse to acknowledge the realities. My post was in response to another who framed his or her argument in terms of percentages and i responded accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, if LACs are so great, why do so few students--just 5%--attend LACs and why are so many LACs struggling financially and desperate for students ?

Of course, the most elite LACs--SLACs--are fine, but the remaining 90% are not.

That’s simply not true.

https://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/TCZ/Commentaries%20Collection/2021%20Commentaries/Are%20liberal%20arts%20colleges%20in%20trouble_-1650325574.pdf

Have you read this article ? It is nothing article that points out--correctly--that one can obtain a liberal arts education at a National University if one so desires. The article does not address the financial health and declining enrollment numbers at the 223 LACs.



If one desires a liberal arts education, it can be obtained at almost any and every National University.

Nice of you to cherry pick. A liberal arts education is quite different between a LAC and a large NU. Not saying one is better than the other as it depends on the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Almost 14% (6 of 43) associates attended LACs. The law firm has a total of 90 lawyers (43 associates, 34 partners, and 3 of counsel) 9 of which (10%) attended LACs.

Many students at National Universities are in business school or are majoring in engineering, education, nursing, or other pre-professional training that typically does not lead one to apply to law school, while those attending LACs typically need to attend graduate school because they lack training in a profession or occupation. Assuming that your numbers are correct and that only 5% of all college students attend LACs, then the basis of your assertion needs to be refined as a much higher percentage of LAC students apply to and attend law school than do graduates of National Universities.

Nice attempt at a diving save after your original lack of statistical competence was neatly shown, but this is a failed attempt.

Not a "failed attempt". You just refuse to acknowledge the realities. My post was in response to another who framed his or her argument in terms of percentages and i responded accordingly.

I can do math. You clearly can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, if LACs are so great, why do so few students--just 5%--attend LACs and why are so many LACs struggling financially and desperate for students ?

Of course, the most elite LACs--SLACs--are fine, but the remaining 90% are not.

Humanities majors have fallen 25% from 2012 to 2020.

https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-the-number-of-college-graduates-in-the-humanities-drops-for-the-eighth-consecutive-year/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, if LACs are so great, why do so few students--just 5%--attend LACs and why are so many LACs struggling financially and desperate for students ?

Of course, the most elite LACs--SLACs--are fine, but the remaining 90% are not.

Humanities majors have fallen 25% from 2012 to 2020.

https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-the-number-of-college-graduates-in-the-humanities-drops-for-the-eighth-consecutive-year/

Not sure what your point is but the liberal arts is not simply humanities

[Anonymous]

Additionally, even many elite SLACs have had to resort to a second round of binding ED admissions in order to secure students.

Some of those LACs are: Bowdoin, Bates, Colby, Carleton, Colgate, Colorado College, Connecticut College, Davidson, Denison, Grinnell, Hamilton, Kenyon, Lafayette, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Macalester, Mount Holyoke, Pomona, Pitzer, Oberlin, Rhodes, Reed, Sarah Lawrence, Smith, Scripps, University of the South, Skidmore, St. Olaf, Swarthmore, Trinity College, Union, U Richmond, Vassar, Wash & Lee, Wellesley, Wesleyan, Whitman College, Bryn Mawr, Claremont McKenna, College of Wooster, Dickinson, Franklin & Marshall, Gettysburg, Haverford, Occidental.

Without a second round of binding ED admissions, these SLACs might no longer qualify as selective LACs.

[Anonymous]

Including Bucknell & Holy Cross, at least 36 of the top 40 ranked LACs have had to resort to a second round of binding ED admissions in order to secure students and in order to appear to be selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main reason why DCUM posters are “obsessed” with liberal arts colleges is that the website skews white and wealthy and white and wealthy folks whose kids can’t get into top public schools like UVA or top 20 private universities think their kids are too good for second tier publics so they send them to no-name liberal arts colleges and tell themselves that’ the schools are better and more exclusive when the facts say otherwise.

There’s really nothing else to all of this.

You sound triggered.

Just telling it like it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Additionally, even many elite SLACs have had to resort to a second round of binding ED admissions in order to secure students.

Some of those LACs are: Bowdoin, Bates, Colby, Carleton, Colgate, Colorado College, Connecticut College, Davidson, Denison, Grinnell, Hamilton, Kenyon, Lafayette, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Macalester, Mount Holyoke, Pomona, Pitzer, Oberlin, Rhodes, Reed, Sarah Lawrence, Smith, Scripps, University of the South, Skidmore, St. Olaf, Swarthmore, Trinity College, Union, U Richmond, Vassar, Wash & Lee, Wellesley, Wesleyan, Whitman College, Bryn Mawr, Claremont McKenna, College of Wooster, Dickinson, Franklin & Marshall, Gettysburg, Haverford, Occidental.

Without a second round of binding ED admissions, these SLACs might no longer qualify as selective LACs.

You don't seem to understand the history or purpose of ED. It is used by highly selective colleges and universities because of institutional priorities (donors, athletes, URMs), financial aid planning, and to increase yield. There are many top National Universities that offer ED2 including University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, NYU, Tufts etc. I know off the top of my head that Williams and Amherst do not have ED2. What you seem to fail to understand is that ONLY brand name schools can use ED (1 or 2).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Including Bucknell & Holy Cross, at least 36 of the top 40 ranked LACs have had to resort to a second round of binding ED admissions in order to secure students and in order to appear to be selective.

You are entitled to your own opinion, just now your own facts.

[Anonymous]

I have no problem with attending a top 20 liberal arts college. They’re clearly very strong schools. It’s the silly CTCL schools that are a rip off and a con job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with attending a top 20 liberal arts college. They’re clearly very strong schools. It’s the silly CTCL schools that are a rip off and a con job.

Absurd.

[Anonymous]

Eh, my child that graduated a NESCAC received a far better education than my child that graduated an ivy.

[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.

Selectivity and admissions rates are not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with attending a top 20 liberal arts college. They’re clearly very strong schools. It’s the silly CTCL schools that are a rip off and a con job.

How is a CTCL school any worse than a lower ranking State U? Not everyone has the same capabilities and same needs. CTCL is good for some folks and not fair to compare the T20. They don’t claim to be T20.