CTCL schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CTCL schools make me want to barf.

You should probably see your doctor about that.

[Anonymous]

There are some good schools included in the book. Some seem less desirable though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even more helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Michael Eisner is a Denison grad.

http://www.michaeleisner.com/bio

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Loudly?

Do you often hear voices when you read DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Loudly?

Do you often hear voices when you read DCUM?

When they don't actually have something intelligent or substantive to counter the critiques with, the CTCL boosters resort to erratic ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Loudly?

Do you often hear voices when you read DCUM?

When they don't actually have something intelligent or substantive to counter the critiques with, the CTCL boosters resort to erratic ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

I've actually found the comments of several "boosters" very substantive, and I don't think anyone is "trying really hard to push the CTCL brand." The critics on this thread seem like the ones creating straw man arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Loudly?

Do you often hear voices when you read DCUM?

When they don't actually have something intelligent or substantive to counter the critiques with, the CTCL boosters resort to erratic ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

I've actually found the comments of several "boosters" very substantive, and I don't think anyone is "trying really hard to push the CTCL brand." The critics on this thread seem like the ones creating straw man arguments.

No one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question, but did anyone adequately respond to the note about financial insolvency? It sounds like many of these schools may go bankrupt in the next couple of decades. Anyone have the pulse on the situation? Is that why the CTCL branding is being pushed so hard?

Go to the CDS for the schools as I do whenever DC mentions a possibility. The schools on the CTCL as do many institutions range in their financial health. No different than if I were looking to buy a coop or condo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Loudly?

Do you often hear voices when you read DCUM?

When they don't actually have something intelligent or substantive to counter the critiques with, the CTCL boosters resort to erratic ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

I've actually found the comments of several "boosters" very substantive, and I don't think anyone is "trying really hard to push the CTCL brand." The critics on this thread seem like the ones creating straw man arguments.

No one cares.

Well argued.

[Anonymous]

What is a CTCL school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is a CTCL school?

CTCL is most commonly known as the abbreviation for cutaneous c-tell lymphoma, a type of cancer.

[Anonymous]

Colleges that Change Lives. Originally a book by Loren Pope, CTCL is now an organization.

CTCL.org

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is a CTCL school?

CTCL is most commonly known as the abbreviation for cutaneous c-tell lymphoma, a type of cancer.

Is it also confusing to you that M.S. can represent both a graduate degree and a degenerative disease?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges that Change Lives. Originally a book by Loren Pope, CTCL is now an organization.

CTCL.org

This is the right answer. Many on the list are decent second or third tier LACs that are good options for kids interested in that route, but many more are questionable in quality and financial health and very well may go bankrupt in the near- to mid-future. As with any college list, I would do due diligence when researching. Also, the list is positively unknown outside of those who are affiliated with the organization or have attended one of the associated schools, so it's not much use using the term outside of DCUM.