Atlantic article on LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

Pretty condescending post with a lot of incorrect assumptions and projections.

The great thing about having so many types of colleges and universities is that it allows people to choose based on their own preferences.

There’s no reason to continually imply that small schools are “less than” the larger urban ones. People like different things.

[Anonymous]

URuchmond also offers accounting major but agree Holy Cross grads seem more visible in top positions. Maybe closer to Boston and New York.

[Anonymous]

URichmond.

[Anonymous]

SLAC professor here. I did not understand the point of this article. It seemed like the author was discovering SLACs for the first time? It's true that SLACs as a whole are not dependent on research funding, which is an advantage in the current moment, but relatively few can say they are not dependent on tuition, either. Those that are totally endowment-driven (like the ones the author visited) are doing fine. But the tuition dependent SLACs (most of them) are really suffering -- lots of layoffs, including of tenured faculty at two colleges I know. The next decade is going to be brutal in the sector. My institution is facing the most difficult market conditions seen in decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LAC app numbers are often propped up by international apps.

Not true outside of Amherst, Bowdoin, Swat, and Pomona. Also not true for any of them relative to most T30s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC app numbers are often propped up by international apps.

Not true outside of Amherst, Bowdoin, Swat, and Pomona. Also not true for any of them relative to most T30s

Swat and Pomona are random additions. Only A and B are international friendly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/01/liberal-arts-college-war-higher-ed/685800/

Written by a WashU professor trying to make the case for LACs, especially in the Trump era. Specifically highlights Amherst and Davidson

Have you read Jeff Selingo’s “Dream Schools”? Amherst has a clear bias towards recruited athletes, who comprise 50% of the class. It makes life harder for regular students.

My NARP kid is happy as a clam at Amherst. There aren't many athletes in his classes (not doing Econ) but said the ones he's met have been fine. I'm sure the dynamic varies by class but he's not aware of any particular problems.

Is Amherst a school for athletes?

[Anonymous]

Williams and Holy Cross have an athletic vibe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

As a professor at a research university, I am amused by parents who accept their 18-year old, high schooler's assessment of SLACs as an extension of summer camp or boarding school. If anything SLACs require young adults to be accountable for their education because they cannot hide. Students are much more likely "to learn in a bubble" at large universities, especially in large majors, because there is little need, if any, to speak up in class, to meet with faculty, and to share one's work with fellow classmates. You can go through 4 years at a state flagship without ever having spoken with a professor face-to-face. This would be impossible at a SLAC. At a SLAC you have to show up to class at least somewhat regularly, you have to submit work that will be discussed, and you have to form relationships with students who are not like you.
To be fair, there are SLACs that are notoriously for the wealthy (you can look these up--the NYT had a great article on this a couple of years ago), but many SLACs are committed to racial and economic diversity.
I plan on encouraging my children to take a seriously look at SLACs when it is time for them to apply to colleges. I expect that they will go onto graduate school, and the NSF data consistently show that SLACs have superior outcomes for graduate school admission across the board. This is not surprising, given the close relationships students at SLACs form with their faculty.
If your child does not seem to be included towards graduate school and wants to major in a pre-professional degree (like accounting), then there are SLACs out there as well as, of course, large universities that will offer that. But it seems that students who are academically strong are doing themselves a disservice by not seriously considering SLACs for their undergraduate education.

I could not agree more! I went to HYP and am happily sending my kids to SLACs.

+2!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

Resorting to a SLAC, people don't resort to SLACs, they are conscious choices for most attending. Kids wanting a different experience is fine; just understand what is given up in terms of education. Most of life is a group of compromises.

When you have to fall back on to "learn in a bubble" you are saying that you actually have nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/01/liberal-arts-college-war-higher-ed/685800/

Written by a WashU professor trying to make the case for LACs, especially in the Trump era. Specifically highlights Amherst and Davidson

Have you read Jeff Selingo’s “Dream Schools”? Amherst has a clear bias towards recruited athletes, who comprise 50% of the class. It makes life harder for regular students.

My NARP kid is happy as a clam at Amherst. There aren't many athletes in his classes (not doing Econ) but said the ones he's met have been fine. I'm sure the dynamic varies by class but he's not aware of any particular problems.

Is Amherst a school for athletes?

35% recruited athletes, so to a point. But that leaves 65% who aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the writer is romanticizing LACs from the outside looking in?

The author is an expert in higher education and is discussing the reality that in today's environment there might be a better path than the traditional R1. He then discussed his exploration of the hypothesis and conclusion that wealthy SLACs are likely a better option in his view. His is only one view, but one that comes from a level of expertise that is far higher than most on this board

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The author appears to be frustrated by the funding cut. "With so much funding endangered all at once, targeted universities had little choice but to negotiate—which is to say, to accede to some portion of the Trump administration’s demands."

Then he pointed out that, in liberal arts colleges, "faculty must focus on education."

Wouldn't funding cut be a good thing for undergraduate students in research universities? So that faculties would now shift their focus to education? Wouldn't the undergraduate students in research universities be the "accidental winners of the war on higher ed?"

What is the author's point? If all the funding is restored to research universities, would he still write this article?

He's not acting out of frustration. He's a thinker across disciplines and is acting out of observation of the moment and introspection. He's a very interesting being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SLAC professor here. I did not understand the point of this article. It seemed like the author was discovering SLACs for the first time? It's true that SLACs as a whole are not dependent on research funding, which is an advantage in the current moment, but relatively few can say they are not dependent on tuition, either. Those that are totally endowment-driven (like the ones the author visited) are doing fine. But the tuition dependent SLACs (most of them) are really suffering -- lots of layoffs, including of tenured faculty at two colleges I know. The next decade is going to be brutal in the sector. My institution is facing the most difficult market conditions seen in decades.

The author specially pointed out "wealthy" SLACs have big advantages. SLACs are a better educational model but scale has economic advantages. I hope that your school gets through this and thrives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SLAC professor here. I did not understand the point of this article. It seemed like the author was discovering SLACs for the first time? It's true that SLACs as a whole are not dependent on research funding, which is an advantage in the current moment, but relatively few can say they are not dependent on tuition, either. Those that are totally endowment-driven (like the ones the author visited) are doing fine. But the tuition dependent SLACs (most of them) are really suffering -- lots of layoffs, including of tenured faculty at two colleges I know. The next decade is going to be brutal in the sector. My institution is facing the most difficult market conditions seen in decades.

+100