LACs are overrated.

[Anonymous]

Just plain trolling.

[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.

Thanks for your opinion. Stay warm under that bridge today!

[Anonymous]

Poor Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams, with but ten applicants for every available spot. So irrelevant!

[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.

Op - seriously curious why the grudge? I think everyone would agree that most private colleges colleges cost more than they should - including OOS flagships. Why the extra hate for these schools? If your argument is that a liberal arts education lacks relevance, that is a different argument.

[Anonymous]

I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

OK - fair answer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

[Anonymous]

The OP is a jerk but often so are the LAC-booster posters. There is value in most colleges - not sure why so many on this board feel the need to diss other colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

[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.

Translation:

1. I'm poor and full of envy and insecurity.
2. I was "educated" at mediocre public schools all my life.
3. I've literally never stepped foot on Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore.
4. My poverty lifestyle is so depressing that I troll during a workday on the college sub-forum of a DC mom website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

[Anonymous]

When money is no object you let your children go where ever they wish. When you're poor, you get defensive and disparage things that cost more (even things you don't fully comprehend).

Most kids who go to LACs typically were lifer private schoolers if not boarding school. Somewhat uncommon for a public schooler to randomly seek out a top LAC unless they're rich or play a niche sport.

[Anonymous]

Uh, people who can’t afford 160K on a liberal arts degree are not necessarily poor. People who can are just very rich, and likely hopelessly out of touch.

But I think liberal arts colleges are impressive. I wouldn’t pay for my kid to go to one even with our 525 HHI but they sound dreamy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

I mean did you miss all of the stuff about drunkenness, obesity, teen pregnancy, good at nothing but sports...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7