Favorite College that changes lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evergreen State College is the poster child for what’s wrong with the CTCL list. It accepts virtually everyone who applies, a full one-third of its students are gone after freshman year, and only 1/3 of an entering class graduates in four years. Why on earth would that school be selected out of hundreds if not thousands of no name state colleges as being a college that “changes lives?” It’s just nuts, and it calls into question the entire list.

Every one of these schools needs to be judged on its own merits, and the list as a whole or as an aggregate needs to be thrown out the window.

This may come as a shock to PP, but some in higher education believe in offering opportunity to as many students as possible. By definition, that means that many won’t make it. Complaining about this makes PP seem really bad at math.

I don’t disagree with any of that, my point is that none of that makes this particular school special enough to be included in any book about colleges that “change lives.” It is no different than hundreds of other schools in exactly the same category.

Agree.

The author of CTCL could have thrown darts at a long list of relatively unknown, obscure schools in order to find a list of "special, caring schools".

Yup, but they didn’t throw darts. They researched many schools and came up with this list along with reasons for including these schools. You’ve failed to point out any weaknesses with the methodology, I expect because you’re to lazy to have understood it.

You mean “too” lazy. I suspect you know that but are too lazy to proofread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A bit ironic that the anti-CTCL poster keeps denigrating what they are pleased to refer to as “second tier schools” because that poster (erroneously) claims that their graduates don’t find “good paying” jobs. Did they not teach adverbs at PP’s first tier school?

There is more than one CTCL skeptic on this thread. I am one of them and I never said anything about job prospects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evergreen State College is the poster child for what’s wrong with the CTCL list. It accepts virtually everyone who applies, a full one-third of its students are gone after freshman year, and only 1/3 of an entering class graduates in four years. Why on earth would that school be selected out of hundreds if not thousands of no name state colleges as being a college that “changes lives?” It’s just nuts, and it calls into question the entire list.

Every one of these schools needs to be judged on its own merits, and the list as a whole or as an aggregate needs to be thrown out the window.

This may come as a shock to PP, but some in higher education believe in offering opportunity to as many students as possible. By definition, that means that many won’t make it. Complaining about this makes PP seem really bad at math.

I don’t disagree with any of that, my point is that none of that makes this particular school special enough to be included in any book about colleges that “change lives.” It is no different than hundreds of other schools in exactly the same category.

Sigh… except that the NYT editor that wrote the book looked into it and felt it was special, for reasons that I suspect both of us are entirely ignorant of.

If you want to denigrate its inclusion, you need to do better than pointing to its retention rate, because casting a wide net and trying to support kids who would be rejected elsewhere — some of whom won’t make it — is a reasonable and arguably admirable strategy (and one also pursued by many state university systems at many of their campuses).

Did the author visit the other couple hundred if not thousands of state schools? Somehow I doubt it

The author deliberately included only schools whose focus was 100% on undergraduate teaching. So most wouldn't have qualified by those standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evergreen State College is the poster child for what’s wrong with the CTCL list. It accepts virtually everyone who applies, a full one-third of its students are gone after freshman year, and only 1/3 of an entering class graduates in four years. Why on earth would that school be selected out of hundreds if not thousands of no name state colleges as being a college that “changes lives?” It’s just nuts, and it calls into question the entire list.

Every one of these schools needs to be judged on its own merits, and the list as a whole or as an aggregate needs to be thrown out the window.

This may come as a shock to PP, but some in higher education believe in offering opportunity to as many students as possible. By definition, that means that many won’t make it. Complaining about this makes PP seem really bad at math.

I don’t disagree with any of that, my point is that none of that makes this particular school special enough to be included in any book about colleges that “change lives.” It is no different than hundreds of other schools in exactly the same category.

Sigh… except that the NYT editor that wrote the book looked into it and felt it was special, for reasons that I suspect both of us are entirely ignorant of.

If you want to denigrate its inclusion, you need to do better than pointing to its retention rate, because casting a wide net and trying to support kids who would be rejected elsewhere — some of whom won’t make it — is a reasonable and arguably admirable strategy (and one also pursued by many state university systems at many of their campuses).

Did the author visit the other couple hundred if not thousands of state schools? Somehow I doubt it

The author deliberately included only schools whose focus was 100% on undergraduate teaching. So most wouldn't have qualified by those standards.

Bro, it’s not the Bible. Really, it’s ok to be a skeptic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evergreen State College is the poster child for what’s wrong with the CTCL list. It accepts virtually everyone who applies, a full one-third of its students are gone after freshman year, and only 1/3 of an entering class graduates in four years. Why on earth would that school be selected out of hundreds if not thousands of no name state colleges as being a college that “changes lives?” It’s just nuts, and it calls into question the entire list.

Every one of these schools needs to be judged on its own merits, and the list as a whole or as an aggregate needs to be thrown out the window.

This may come as a shock to PP, but some in higher education believe in offering opportunity to as many students as possible. By definition, that means that many won’t make it. Complaining about this makes PP seem really bad at math.

I don’t disagree with any of that, my point is that none of that makes this particular school special enough to be included in any book about colleges that “change lives.” It is no different than hundreds of other schools in exactly the same category.

Sigh… except that the NYT editor that wrote the book looked into it and felt it was special, for reasons that I suspect both of us are entirely ignorant of.

If you want to denigrate its inclusion, you need to do better than pointing to its retention rate, because casting a wide net and trying to support kids who would be rejected elsewhere — some of whom won’t make it — is a reasonable and arguably admirable strategy (and one also pursued by many state university systems at many of their campuses).

Did the author visit the other couple hundred if not thousands of state schools? Somehow I doubt it

The author deliberately included only schools whose focus was 100% on undergraduate teaching. So most wouldn't have qualified by those standards.

Bro, it’s not the Bible. Really, it’s ok to be a skeptic.

Oh, I don't think it's the bible at all. I think there are a lot of great schools not on the list, for example. But you posed a question, and there's actually an answer to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the main attraction for many to CTCL schools may be merit scholarship awards for above average--as opposed to superior--students.

A concern might be internship & employment opportunities.

The low interest rates of a couple of years ago helped some of these schools to raise their financial ratings along with cost-cutting of low enrollment majors & streamlining administrative payrolls.

Again, would be wise to check retention rates (percent of students who return for the sophomore year) and 6 year graduation rates for any school--not just CTCL schools--of interest.

Superior students may also fall into the "donut hole" category. Simply because they are superior doesn't mean the $ spigots open at non-merit schools.

You misunderstood my point & I was not as clear as I should have been. Superior students can get merit scholarships at better schools and can automatically qualify for substantial merit scholarship awards at several state flagship universities and their respective honors colleges.

Schools like Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin, etc do not give merit scholarships. Period. You get need based aid, or pay full price. If a superior student can't afford 80k/year, they go down the list and find the best schools that will give them merit aid such as Denison and some of the other CTCL schools mentioned here. You will find superior students at that level.

Williams, Amherst, & Bowdoin are a totally different class of schools than those written about in CTCL.

That is my point. The poster I was responding to was saying that the superior students could get merit at better schools than CTLCs. The better schools don't actually give merit aid.

You are confusing the word "better" with "best". The best schools may not award merit scholarships, but many better schools do.

Genuine question: what small schools do people recommend that offer merit scholarships of 25-45K? That's what many people are looking for (and finding) from the CTCL list: small school, low student-faculty ratio, good merit.

Posters are 100% correct that some of the CTCLs have low graduation rates (Evergreen State, Guilford for example), and/or very worrisome financial resources (Antioch, Birmingham Southern, for example). So CTCL-curious folks will be wise to do their homework. That said, many of the CTCLs do quite well on these metrics, while offering substantial merit. For example, Whitman, St. Olaf, Denison, Centre, Rhodes, all have higher graduation rates than several DCUM favorites (I won't name them, bc people seem to find comparisons triggering -- even as they make them! -- but you can find a list here: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate)...and these schools so do while getting A or A+ ratings from Forbes and while offering incredible merit aid.

I don't think anyone here is married to CTCL as a concept -- we're looking for decent, affordable, small-school options. It is very nice that one can attend one fair and see a bunch of such schools in person, even if it means walking past a few tables.

So what do people actually recommend in this category?

Exactly. I'm practical and not swayed by the marketing crud. My experience for this in my mind is that CTCL stands for Colleges that Cost Less for those of us with kids who want a LAC. You can be an A+ student with perfect SATs and there are very few colleges "ranked above" (which I don't care that much about) these that will bring the cost down to 30-40k/yr. When DC gets 0 at Carleton, 10K/yr merit at Macalester and 30k merit at St Olaf, I can look at all the metrics and see there is 0 reason to spend 120k more for Carleton or 40k more for Macalester than St. Olaf. This organization helps you find the liberal arts colleges that offer you merit aid and lets you meet them in person.

Exactly. Sure, the list could be updated and expanded. And on page one of this thread (that *I* started) someone offered a link to several schools that fit. (Who was not me.)

So, we who are discussing, what are good SLACs that don't cost 80k are all on the same page, here. The way you repetitively argue with us about it is actually making me wonder if we're training an AI. If so, you're not a convincing human. You keep repeating yourself. If you are human, you may need to consider why you're repeating yourself. To what end?

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I didn't edit that and was writing in between making dinner. It's terribly written, but I am not an AI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evergreen State College is the poster child for what’s wrong with the CTCL list. It accepts virtually everyone who applies, a full one-third of its students are gone after freshman year, and only 1/3 of an entering class graduates in four years. Why on earth would that school be selected out of hundreds if not thousands of no name state colleges as being a college that “changes lives?” It’s just nuts, and it calls into question the entire list.

Every one of these schools needs to be judged on its own merits, and the list as a whole or as an aggregate needs to be thrown out the window.

This may come as a shock to PP, but some in higher education believe in offering opportunity to as many students as possible. By definition, that means that many won’t make it. Complaining about this makes PP seem really bad at math.

I don’t disagree with any of that, my point is that none of that makes this particular school special enough to be included in any book about colleges that “change lives.” It is no different than hundreds of other schools in exactly the same category.

Sigh… except that the NYT editor that wrote the book looked into it and felt it was special, for reasons that I suspect both of us are entirely ignorant of.

If you want to denigrate its inclusion, you need to do better than pointing to its retention rate, because casting a wide net and trying to support kids who would be rejected elsewhere — some of whom won’t make it — is a reasonable and arguably admirable strategy (and one also pursued by many state university systems at many of their campuses).

Did the author visit the other couple hundred if not thousands of state schools? Somehow I doubt it

In addition to serving as the education editor for the NYT, Loren Pope founded an independent college advisory company and had run it for 30 years when he wrote the first edition of CTCL. He literally spent a full career carefully evaluating colleges. He's not the clown in the room.

[Anonymous]

So is the answer to PP's question yes or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evergreen State College is the poster child for what’s wrong with the CTCL list. It accepts virtually everyone who applies, a full one-third of its students are gone after freshman year, and only 1/3 of an entering class graduates in four years. Why on earth would that school be selected out of hundreds if not thousands of no name state colleges as being a college that “changes lives?” It’s just nuts, and it calls into question the entire list.

Every one of these schools needs to be judged on its own merits, and the list as a whole or as an aggregate needs to be thrown out the window.

This may come as a shock to PP, but some in higher education believe in offering opportunity to as many students as possible. By definition, that means that many won’t make it. Complaining about this makes PP seem really bad at math.

I don’t disagree with any of that, my point is that none of that makes this particular school special enough to be included in any book about colleges that “change lives.” It is no different than hundreds of other schools in exactly the same category.

Sigh… except that the NYT editor that wrote the book looked into it and felt it was special, for reasons that I suspect both of us are entirely ignorant of.

If you want to denigrate its inclusion, you need to do better than pointing to its retention rate, because casting a wide net and trying to support kids who would be rejected elsewhere — some of whom won’t make it — is a reasonable and arguably admirable strategy (and one also pursued by many state university systems at many of their campuses).

Did the author visit the other couple hundred if not thousands of state schools? Somehow I doubt it

In addition to serving as the education editor for the NYT, Loren Pope founded an independent college advisory company and had run it for 30 years when he wrote the first edition of CTCL. He literally spent a full career carefully evaluating colleges. He's not the clown in the room.

Your “clown in the room” response is getting repetitive

[Anonymous]

We visited Kalamazoo a year ago because a coach there was heavily recruiting my son and they offered him enough merit aid to make the cost less than attending our state flagship.

While he liked the academic side of it, after spending a few days with the boys on the team he would be playing with he absolutely did not want to attend. While they do have a long list of impressive alumni, the students he met did not seem particularly motivated compared to his friends at home and found the landscape to be dreary. Most of the former team players the coach mentioned as successful were working at large corporations which was kind of a turnoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evergreen State College is the poster child for what’s wrong with the CTCL list. It accepts virtually everyone who applies, a full one-third of its students are gone after freshman year, and only 1/3 of an entering class graduates in four years. Why on earth would that school be selected out of hundreds if not thousands of no name state colleges as being a college that “changes lives?” It’s just nuts, and it calls into question the entire list.

Every one of these schools needs to be judged on its own merits, and the list as a whole or as an aggregate needs to be thrown out the window.

This may come as a shock to PP, but some in higher education believe in offering opportunity to as many students as possible. By definition, that means that many won’t make it. Complaining about this makes PP seem really bad at math.

I don’t disagree with any of that, my point is that none of that makes this particular school special enough to be included in any book about colleges that “change lives.” It is no different than hundreds of other schools in exactly the same category.

Sigh… except that the NYT editor that wrote the book looked into it and felt it was special, for reasons that I suspect both of us are entirely ignorant of.

If you want to denigrate its inclusion, you need to do better than pointing to its retention rate, because casting a wide net and trying to support kids who would be rejected elsewhere — some of whom won’t make it — is a reasonable and arguably admirable strategy (and one also pursued by many state university systems at many of their campuses).

Did the author visit the other couple hundred if not thousands of state schools? Somehow I doubt it

In addition to serving as the education editor for the NYT, Loren Pope founded an independent college advisory company and had run it for 30 years when he wrote the first edition of CTCL. He literally spent a full career carefully evaluating colleges. He's not the clown in the room.

Your “clown in the room” response is getting repetitive

Not as repetitive as the actual clown(s) in the room!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the main attraction for many to CTCL schools may be merit scholarship awards for above average--as opposed to superior--students.

A concern might be internship & employment opportunities.

The low interest rates of a couple of years ago helped some of these schools to raise their financial ratings along with cost-cutting of low enrollment majors & streamlining administrative payrolls.

Again, would be wise to check retention rates (percent of students who return for the sophomore year) and 6 year graduation rates for any school--not just CTCL schools--of interest.

Superior students may also fall into the "donut hole" category. Simply because they are superior doesn't mean the $ spigots open at non-merit schools.

You misunderstood my point & I was not as clear as I should have been. Superior students can get merit scholarships at better schools and can automatically qualify for substantial merit scholarship awards at several state flagship universities and their respective honors colleges.

I didn't misunderstand you. What are the "better" schools where the superior students can land merit scholarships? Not the flagships as some students do not want to attend large schools, schools in the south, etc. What are these better schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

You run at this point from so many angles yet are not able to offer any back up for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the main attraction for many to CTCL schools may be merit scholarship awards for above average--as opposed to superior--students.

A concern might be internship & employment opportunities.

The low interest rates of a couple of years ago helped some of these schools to raise their financial ratings along with cost-cutting of low enrollment majors & streamlining administrative payrolls.

Again, would be wise to check retention rates (percent of students who return for the sophomore year) and 6 year graduation rates for any school--not just CTCL schools--of interest.

Superior students may also fall into the "donut hole" category. Simply because they are superior doesn't mean the $ spigots open at non-merit schools.

You misunderstood my point & I was not as clear as I should have been. Superior students can get merit scholarships at better schools and can automatically qualify for substantial merit scholarship awards at several state flagship universities and their respective honors colleges.

Schools like Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin, etc do not give merit scholarships. Period. You get need based aid, or pay full price. If a superior student can't afford 80k/year, they go down the list and find the best schools that will give them merit aid such as Denison and some of the other CTCL schools mentioned here. You will find superior students at that level.

Williams, Amherst, & Bowdoin are a totally different class of schools than those written about in CTCL.

PP, excuse me, but how dumb are you? No one is conflating the two groups. The PP to you is pointing out that these schools DO NOT OFFER MERIT. If you go onto many other threads here, parents will post that they cannot swing these schools for their kids so they are seeking advice on options. Many of the schools discussed in this thread comprise some of the options.