Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They claim to be special, but they’re not. They’re average schools at best, at an above average price.

So what? If people like them and can afford them (many give good merit aid), why do you care? It seems you think there is only one path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is DCUM obsessed with SLACs? Easy answer. Because DCUM is full of wealthy and highly educated people who value education. This is not a hard question.

Because DCUM is full of wealthy and highly educated people who value education with average or above average kids. This is not a hard question

What’s wrong with average or above average kids? Most people are average or above average. Snob. Or are you from a country where college is limited to a small percentage of kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

LOL "ONLY brand name schools can use ED (1 or 2)."

I think that you misunderstand the purpose of ED; it is to lock-in applicants to increase yield percentages and to artificially lower rates of admission.

Brand names ? Hopefully, you are joking.

Per data from College Board, only about 12% of four year colleges reported receiving any early decision applications and, guess what, those are the top (brand name) colleges. https://allaccess.collegeboard.org/just-how-big-early-decision

[Anonymous]

I thought early decision was primarily used to secure D3 athletes for team slots (since they don't get scholarship money like D1 athletes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought early decision was primarily used to secure D3 athletes for team slots (since they don't get scholarship money like D1 athletes).

I think that is changing. Several schools are now filling large parts of their class with ED.

[Anonymous]

No, all ED schools are not "brand name colleges". Look at the list among the top 40 ranked LACs. Is Occidental a brand name college ? Dickinson ? Scripps ? Pitzer ? University of the South ? Union ? Conn College ? St. Olaf ? Whitman ? Skidmore ? Oberlin ? Etc.

Of course they are not brand name colleges. LACs use multiple ED rounds to secure and lock-in students to enhace yield rates and to artificially lower acceptance rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought early decision was primarily used to secure D3 athletes for team slots (since they don't get scholarship money like D1 athletes).

I think that is changing. Several schools are now filling large parts of their class with ED.

Couldn't this be due to increased applications, and therefore, more competitive candidates to accept early? Locking in candidates from lower yield demographics or unicorn states (WY, WV, etc) to ensure a diverse entering class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They claim to be special, but they’re not. They’re average schools at best, at an above average price.

So what? If people like them and can afford them (many give good merit aid), why do you care? It seems you think there is only one path.

So we agree then. They’re not special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, all ED schools are not "brand name colleges". Look at the list among the top 40 ranked LACs. Is Occidental a brand name college ? Dickinson ? Scripps ? Pitzer ? University of the South ? Union ? Conn College ? St. Olaf ? Whitman ? Skidmore ? Oberlin ? Etc.

Of course they are not brand name colleges. LACs use multiple ED rounds to secure and lock-in students to enhace yield rates and to artificially lower acceptance rates.

You aren’t even trolling very well at this point. So stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They claim to be special, but they’re not. They’re average schools at best, at an above average price.

So what? If people like them and can afford them (many give good merit aid), why do you care? It seems you think there is only one path.

So we agree then. They’re not special.

NP. I don’t think there anything special about HYS and I went there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They claim to be special, but they’re not. They’re average schools at best, at an above average price.

So what? If people like them and can afford them (many give good merit aid), why do you care? It seems you think there is only one path.

So we agree then. They’re not special.

NP. I don’t think there anything special about HYS and I went there.

Job prospects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, all ED schools are not "brand name colleges". Look at the list among the top 40 ranked LACs. Is Occidental a brand name college ? Dickinson ? Scripps ? Pitzer ? University of the South ? Union ? Conn College ? St. Olaf ? Whitman ? Skidmore ? Oberlin ? Etc.

Of course they are not brand name colleges. LACs use multiple ED rounds to secure and lock-in students to enhace yield rates and to artificially lower acceptance rates.

That may be YOUR opinion but yes, Occidental (where Obama went for two years) is considered a brand name college. That is one reason why so few public universities have early decision (most of them being in Virginia). And btw, many top NUs (the ones most would consider brand names) do use "multiple" ED rounds to lock in students.

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing some of the anti-LAC posters here were frat boys or sorority girls who couldn't wait for their next high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

How do you know? Did you go to class with them?

New poster here. I went to a SLAC. A couple years after graduating, I went to Harvard Law School. As a 3L, I took an undergrad class I was interested in. (Classic SLAC grad behavior--being interested in learning for its own sake.) I can directly compare my experience in classes at my SLAC to my experience in a Harvard undergrad class.

There is no comparison. The Harvard kids undoubtedly were smart, though not as smart as they thought they were. But the class conducted with the professor was almost pure lecture--something I never really experienced in undergrad. Our discussion sections, led by a grad student "TF" (what other schools call TAs), made clear that none of my classmates were actually doing the (interesting!) reading assigned to us. There was plenty of "discussion," but it featured these students bloviating on with their takes on something they hadn't read, so it was fairly shallow. My undergrad professors would never have allowed this.

Harvard is undoubtedly superior to my college at giving kids connections (outside of finance, at which my school also does quite well). And its leaps and bounds better at making the students think highly of themselves. But as far as an actual educational experience--learning to critically attack text, back of arguments with evidence, engage in true back and forth discussions with professors--it was not as strong. (And grad school placements are largely equivalent.) I'm definitely not saying that Harvard undergrads get a bad education, but I got a better one. If you value education for its own sake, strongly consider a SLAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

How do you know? Did you go to class with them?

New poster here. I went to a SLAC. A couple years after graduating, I went to Harvard Law School. As a 3L, I took an undergrad class I was interested in. (Classic SLAC grad behavior--being interested in learning for its own sake.) I can directly compare my experience in classes at my SLAC to my experience in a Harvard undergrad class.

There is no comparison. The Harvard kids undoubtedly were smart, though not as smart as they thought they were. But the class conducted with the professor was almost pure lecture--something I never really experienced in undergrad. Our discussion sections, led by a grad student "TF" (what other schools call TAs), made clear that none of my classmates were actually doing the (interesting!) reading assigned to us. There was plenty of "discussion," but it featured these students bloviating on with their takes on something they hadn't read, so it was fairly shallow. My undergrad professors would never have allowed this.

Harvard is undoubtedly superior to my college at giving kids connections (outside of finance, at which my school also does quite well). And its leaps and bounds better at making the students think highly of themselves. But as far as an actual educational experience--learning to critically attack text, back of arguments with evidence, engage in true back and forth discussions with professors--it was not as strong. (And grad school placements are largely equivalent.) I'm definitely not saying that Harvard undergrads get a bad education, but I got a better one. If you value education for its own sake, strongly consider a SLAC.

It's great that you could learn for learning's sake at college. That appears to be anathema to many on this thread who believe that education must be goal oriented.