CTCL schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An assessment based on this year's Ipeds data would really be most helpful. I guess we'll have to wait. Of course someone is going to publish a "sky is falling" assessment at the beginning of a pandemic.

The trend of small under-funded private colleges facing financial difficulties is not new in the slightest, and has accelerated due to the pandemic. Particularly those colleges that already have trouble attracting students, this does not bode well, however you want to cut it. Many of these so-called CTCLs will be among the first on the chopping block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have kids with varying levels of academic ability/achievement so I've visited LACs ranging from the most selective in America (in New England, the mid Atlantic and West--you know, a bunch of famous small colleges in the USNWR top 10) to the almost but not quite most selective in America (in the Midwest and West--basically, a bunch in the USNWR top 30 but mostly not in the top 10) to the not especially selective (in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and West--many of them being CTCLs). Most of the LACs seemed pretty warm and friendly, even if a few were surprisingly cold. To me, the CTCLs stood out as especially warm and friendly.

Yes, one of my kids who could get into an extremely selective college chose to go to an extremely selective college (after seriously considering a CTCL). And my kid who did choose to go to a CTCL was not a good candidate for any of the most selective ones, and didn't apply to any.

None of that changes the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of people who use the term CTCL and value the CTCL advice a lot. And none of that changes the fact that CTCLs tend to offer a style of education that most other colleges don't.

Hooray CTCL!

The posts from parents who have visited CTCL or have kids who attended one always sound so grounded and healthy. That may be one of their biggest selling points.

As opposed to the tone/froth/obsession that is conveyed by the army of one.

Ha ha my reaction was the opposite. This post simply proves that the kid who got into the top LAC went, as predicted, and the one who didn’t/couldn’t has parents who need to justify things by claiming that CTCL schools are somehow special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have kids with varying levels of academic ability/achievement so I've visited LACs ranging from the most selective in America (in New England, the mid Atlantic and West--you know, a bunch of famous small colleges in the USNWR top 10) to the almost but not quite most selective in America (in the Midwest and West--basically, a bunch in the USNWR top 30 but mostly not in the top 10) to the not especially selective (in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and West--many of them being CTCLs). Most of the LACs seemed pretty warm and friendly, even if a few were surprisingly cold. To me, the CTCLs stood out as especially warm and friendly.

Yes, one of my kids who could get into an extremely selective college chose to go to an extremely selective college (after seriously considering a CTCL). And my kid who did choose to go to a CTCL was not a good candidate for any of the most selective ones, and didn't apply to any.

None of that changes the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of people who use the term CTCL and value the CTCL advice a lot. And none of that changes the fact that CTCLs tend to offer a style of education that most other colleges don't.

Hooray CTCL!

The posts from parents who have visited CTCL or have kids who attended one always sound so grounded and healthy. That may be one of their biggest selling points.

As opposed to the tone/froth/obsession that is conveyed by the army of one.

Ha ha my reaction was the opposite. This post simply proves that the kid who got into the top LAC went, as predicted, and the one who didn’t/couldn’t has parents who need to justify things by claiming that CTCL schools are somehow special.

For the love of pete, who hurt you? Surely, there’s some interesting back story to this person (oh, wait, ‘PEOPLE’) who keeps this going.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand this thread. The message seems to be, "your loser kids couldn't get into better schools, so they'll just have to make do with underperforming, in danger of going bankrupt schools"?

Why? Are people in this metro area so miserable that they actually care about other people's choices that much? I agree, it's a cringeworthy name, but I liked their college fair. And the kids attending these schools are probably not in any danger of turning into competitive jerks, like some people on this forum.

[Anonymous]

I'm one of the CTCL boosters but I agree that the financial stability concern is a very real one. Some of the CTCLs will disappear, along with many other LACs and many private schools for elementary, middle, and high school students. The demographic-economic problem won't be limited to Marlboro.

But I think most CTCLs will probably survive because they offer something special and valuable. Most CTCLs are really improving their career services offices and trying to increase the emphasis on practical skills. Even at the artsier ones, you see a lot more double majors--theater and econ or women's studies and bio--than you did before. They aren't as flakey as some people think.

Many CTCLs were way ahead of the curve on the importance of collaborative learning. Since collaboration matters a lot in the real world, that also gives CTCL grads a small leg up.

CTCLs don't send nearly as many graduates to Wall Street, management consulting firms, and professional schools, so barring a near miracle--like an alum running Intel or Apple--most CTCLs aren't going to thrive financially the way the NESCAC colleges do.

In case you didn't get the reference, graduates of Grinnell (which used to be a CTCL) and Reed (which still is a CTCL) became billionaires at Intel and Apple.

Anyway, if you're considering Beloit, yeah, maybe you should worry a bit about its finances. But you'll get a lot more individual attention at Beloit than you'll get up the road at the University of Wisconsin, and the financial situation in Madison isn't so great either. And if you are choosing between Beloit and Bowdoin, I agree that Bowdoin's stronger financial condition is one of many reasons to prefer Bowdoin. I still like Beloit a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the CTCL boosters but I agree that the financial stability concern is a very real one. Some of the CTCLs will disappear, along with many other LACs and many private schools for elementary, middle, and high school students. The demographic-economic problem won't be limited to Marlboro.

But I think most CTCLs will probably survive because they offer something special and valuable. Most CTCLs are really improving their career services offices and trying to increase the emphasis on practical skills. Even at the artsier ones, you see a lot more double majors--theater and econ or women's studies and bio--than you did before. They aren't as flakey as some people think.

Many CTCLs were way ahead of the curve on the importance of collaborative learning. Since collaboration matters a lot in the real world, that also gives CTCL grads a small leg up.

CTCLs don't send nearly as many graduates to Wall Street, management consulting firms, and professional schools, so barring a near miracle--like an alum running Intel or Apple--most CTCLs aren't going to thrive financially the way the NESCAC colleges do.

In case you didn't get the reference, graduates of Grinnell (which used to be a CTCL) and Reed (which still is a CTCL) became billionaires at Intel and Apple.

Anyway, if you're considering Beloit, yeah, maybe you should worry a bit about its finances. But you'll get a lot more individual attention at Beloit than you'll get up the road at the University of Wisconsin, and the financial situation in Madison isn't so great either. And if you are choosing between Beloit and Bowdoin, I agree that Bowdoin's stronger financial condition is one of many reasons to prefer Bowdoin. I still like Beloit a lot.

Tot-a-ly. And it’s an evolving state of play. Marlboro, Antioch… those were super small colleges. Beloit? Denison? Enrollment may be up or down but it’s still fairly stable, and when you’re looking at a class of 300 it’s very different from looking at a *college* of 300.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not looking pretty. Almost every single one of the "CTCL" schools is marked as "struggle" in Scott Galloway's assessment of colleges that was published and widely reported last year. You may remember that when that study first came out, the category was actually "perish" but it looks like they renamed the categories (probably due to pushback).

One of the colleges in that study that was already marked as "perish"/"struggle" has already closed: Marlboro College.

The next couple of decades are going to be a bloodbath for smaller, poorly funded colleges throughout the country.

I should include the spreadsheet so you can take a look for yourself: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CUs3HrqstC2oV3CF3_di4yW6Y4K_CIrUJNEEHCCKo7A/edit#gid=0

I generally agree that smaller/poorly-funded colleges - including some of the CTCLs - are going to have serious problems/go out of business. And, I agree that Galloway's multi-dimensional approach - include financial, selectivity, general outcomes, etc. criteria - appears reasonable.

That said, his detailed methodology is/was horrifically bad.

"Ron" - one of the commenters on his website played around with the spreadsheet...

No matter how many colleges are included, the overall formulas require that about 25% end up in each category. So... Include just the NESACS... Conn College... you're perishing (er... challenged)... Include just the Ivies... Brown? Dartmouth? Add dummy rows representing the other 3000 colleges in the country, nearly all of Galloway's current list of colleges (USNews' National Universities/LACs) end up "thriving"...

Other commenters mentioned "struggling/challenged/perishing" colleges with significant endowments - Dennison, etc. - and DCUM'ers have mentioned Grinnell... How could these be "struggling" given their endowments... Galloway's spreadsheet includes the real world's highly skewed endowment per-capita distribution, but its formula uses strict percentile rank-ordering when computing likely outcomes. So...300K per student might get .90, 100K .80 , 50K .70, 15K .50 ...

Near the category boundaries, trivial differences in the overall category section formula change the category outcome - at the intersection of vertical/horizontal axes, tiny differences place a college in any of the categories, near just one of the axes, in either.

...

[Anonymous]

CTCL schools make me want to barf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this thread. The message seems to be, "your loser kids couldn't get into better schools, so they'll just have to make do with underperforming, in danger of going bankrupt schools"?

Why? Are people in this metro area so miserable that they actually care about other people's choices that much? I agree, it's a cringeworthy name, but I liked their college fair. And the kids attending these schools are probably not in any danger of turning into competitive jerks, like some people on this forum.

DP but I just find the label a little awkward and forced, and think it's a little cringey that the CTCL boosters are trying really hard to push the CTCL brand (and then loudly repeating over and over again that there is only one person...). But I don't have any issues with the schools themselves.

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP. It’s odd to see posters insist on the one hand that the name and brand of a college shouldn’t matter (as they poo poo the top 20) while on the other hand get off on labeling their kids’ school as a CTCL school and that somehow that makes it special. They’re contradicting themselves big time and it reeks of desperation in my view.

[Anonymous]

This thread is ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is ridiculous

Thanks for your insightful addition to it. Really helpful.

[Anonymous]

DD looked at a couple CTCL schools primarily as safeties where she thought she’d likely get considerable merit aid, but in the end she got into two top ten LACs and selected one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is ridiculous

Thanks for your insightful addition to it. Really helpful.

Right back at you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is ridiculous

Thanks for your insightful addition to it. Really helpful.

Right back at you

You must have gone to a CTCL school to have developed such keen analytical skills.