Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[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.

Special in what sense? Are they like Harvard? Absolutely not, but for a kid who wants or needs extra attention or a certain type of learning or sense of community, they are probably special. Maybe your kid is perfect and doesn’t want or need that type of environment. Good for you. For some kids, the excel and get a great education whereas they might in a larger, less personal environment. For some kids, it’s the difference between getting a degree or not. I’d say that’s pretty special for those kids.

But of course, your kid is perfect so they are not for you. God forbid DCUM talk about good schools for kids that don’t take 10+ APs or score 1500+ on the SAT. I pity your child if your view of education is really this narrow minded, but I suspect you are a troll.

[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.

That’s an excellent answer to a question that NO ONE ASKED.

[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.

You took ONE class. Means nothing.

[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.

Special in what sense? Are they like Harvard? Absolutely not, but for a kid who wants or needs extra attention or a certain type of learning or sense of community, they are probably special. Maybe your kid is perfect and doesn’t want or need that type of environment. Good for you. For some kids, the excel and get a great education whereas they might in a larger, less personal environment. For some kids, it’s the difference between getting a degree or not. I’d say that’s pretty special for those kids.

But of course, your kid is perfect so they are not for you. God forbid DCUM talk about good schools for kids that don’t take 10+ APs or score 1500+ on the SAT. I pity your child if your view of education is really this narrow minded, but I suspect you are a troll.

The problem with your argument, which I have seen time and again on this website, is that you’re making it only after your kid wasn’t good enough to get in to one of the top schools. Had they been, you would be making a completely different argument.

Own it.

[Anonymous]

Many are obsessed with a school like Harvard and I get it. But as great as Harvard is, it isn't always the best fit for all top students. My nephew just graduated from Harvard but sadly didn't enjoy his college years. He actually wanted to go to a top LAC that he felt was a better fit for his personality but his parents vetoed that. He did well at Harvard, graduating magna cum laude with honors, so academics was not the issue. However, as we all know (or should know), college is not only about academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah, so we get to the heart of the matter. The obsessed anti-SLAC poster is a parent who is just now figuring out that paying for a big college doesn’t give her child the ticket into wealth that she had assumed she’d get. And she is freaking out, so rather pathetically hopes that denigrating SLACs in an anonymous forum will stop hiring managers from valuing SLAC degrees because she correctly understands that hiring managers don’t value big name degrees the same way any more. She also doesn’t understand that SLAC alumni networks are much, much tighter than what I had from HYS.

I have to say that I adore how petty she is in that she continually drops the S from SLAC in her posts because sometimes it stands for “selective” and that makes her blood pressure skyrocket. Very entertaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Special in what sense? Are they like Harvard? Absolutely not, but for a kid who wants or needs extra attention or a certain type of learning or sense of community, they are probably special. Maybe your kid is perfect and doesn’t want or need that type of environment. Good for you. For some kids, the excel and get a great education whereas they might in a larger, less personal environment. For some kids, it’s the difference between getting a degree or not. I’d say that’s pretty special for those kids.

But of course, your kid is perfect so they are not for you. God forbid DCUM talk about good schools for kids that don’t take 10+ APs or score 1500+ on the SAT. I pity your child if your view of education is really this narrow minded, but I suspect you are a troll.

The problem with your argument, which I have seen time and again on this website, is that you’re making it only after your kid wasn’t good enough to get in to one of the top schools. Had they been, you would be making a completely different argument.

Own it.

NP. You are such a sad, sad person. I turned down a top ten school for one outside of the top 200. I have never once regretted that choice. I’d make it again tomorrow. There are plenty of people in the world who find your way of thinking to be horrifying and reductive.

Anecdotally I am hearing of more very top students turning their backs on the highest-ranked schools because they are now filled with people like you. They want brilliance and intellectual freedom, not grubby strivers.

[Anonymous]

I have one child at a top 10 USNWR ranked National University and one at a top Liberal Arts College. Each has its benefits and drawback. We are fortunate that students have these options in the US. It all depends on what works best for the particular student. There's no need to denigrate one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The instruction from professors is better at SLACs.

But academic education is not entirely based on instruction from professors.

Research universities have better instruction from TA's (graduate students with more availability than any SLAC professor can reasonably provide), better academic research opportunities, more rigorous courses, especially graduate-level courses that undergrads can take.

Ultimately SLACs are a plaything for the generationally wealthy. There's not much worth in it for the children of upper middle class dual-income professionals. They are not geared towards careers, but rather graduate, law, and (some) medical schools.

1) Upper-middle class dual income professionals are generational wealthy are not mutually exclusive. Many doctors, lawyers, professors, etc., have benefited from generational wealth.
2) Graduate, law, and medical school ARE career-oriented. Unless by "career" you mean jobs that don't require graduate degrees.

1) And? Unless the children have a trust fund set up by their grandparents/uncles/aunts, they are not generationally wealthy. If the parents are paying for school out of pocket and through college savings plans, they are not generationally wealthy.
2) You have to be purposefully obtuse to not understand the distinction between colleges geared towards getting students employed right out of college (in engineering, nursing, business, counseling, etc.) and SLACs.

You don't seem to understand what generational wealth, or even what a trust fund, is. Also what a SLAC does. Did you attend a university? Did you go to graduate school? Or is this your first time sending a child to college? Because from your statements, it's pretty clear that this world of wealth and liberal arts education seems new to you.

You clearly suffer from mental impairment as you cannot make the distinction between generational wealth and upper-middle-income wage earners. Here's a hint - inheriting a shabby 100 year old home from grandpa is not generational wealth.

Not only do I come from generational wealth, I attended a SLAC. So go on and and describe what a SLAC does to me. You sound like the exact type of middle-income striver that goes to SLACs and comes out with a barista job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah, so we get to the heart of the matter. The obsessed anti-SLAC poster is a parent who is just now figuring out that paying for a big college doesn’t give her child the ticket into wealth that she had assumed she’d get. And she is freaking out, so rather pathetically hopes that denigrating SLACs in an anonymous forum will stop hiring managers from valuing SLAC degrees because she correctly understands that hiring managers don’t value big name degrees the same way any more. She also doesn’t understand that SLAC alumni networks are much, much tighter than what I had from HYS.

I have to say that I adore how petty she is in that she continually drops the S from SLAC in her posts because sometimes it stands for “selective” and that makes her blood pressure skyrocket. Very entertaining.

There is more than one “anti” poster. Just so you know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Special in what sense? Are they like Harvard? Absolutely not, but for a kid who wants or needs extra attention or a certain type of learning or sense of community, they are probably special. Maybe your kid is perfect and doesn’t want or need that type of environment. Good for you. For some kids, the excel and get a great education whereas they might in a larger, less personal environment. For some kids, it’s the difference between getting a degree or not. I’d say that’s pretty special for those kids.

But of course, your kid is perfect so they are not for you. God forbid DCUM talk about good schools for kids that don’t take 10+ APs or score 1500+ on the SAT. I pity your child if your view of education is really this narrow minded, but I suspect you are a troll.

The problem with your argument, which I have seen time and again on this website, is that you’re making it only after your kid wasn’t good enough to get in to one of the top schools. Had they been, you would be making a completely different argument.

Own it.

NP. You are such a sad, sad person. I turned down a top ten school for one outside of the top 200. I have never once regretted that choice. I’d make it again tomorrow. There are plenty of people in the world who find your way of thinking to be horrifying and reductive.

Anecdotally I am hearing of more very top students turning their backs on the highest-ranked schools because they are now filled with people like you. They want brilliance and intellectual freedom, not grubby strivers.

No, you didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many are obsessed with a school like Harvard and I get it. But as great as Harvard is, it isn't always the best fit for all top students. My nephew just graduated from Harvard but sadly didn't enjoy his college years. He actually wanted to go to a top LAC that he felt was a better fit for his personality but his parents vetoed that. He did well at Harvard, graduating magna cum laude with honors, so academics was not the issue. However, as we all know (or should know), college is not only about academics.

As the PP stated (attended SLAC undergrad and Harvard Law), not all schools are a fit. SLAC are filled with kids who want to learn and are not just at college as a "goal oriented task". Many kids are miserable at top universities. IMO, kids should attend where they fit the best---smart kids will do well anywhere, but will go much further in life if they are happy and thriving and it's hard to do that if you are miserable/don't fit in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Special in what sense? Are they like Harvard? Absolutely not, but for a kid who wants or needs extra attention or a certain type of learning or sense of community, they are probably special. Maybe your kid is perfect and doesn’t want or need that type of environment. Good for you. For some kids, the excel and get a great education whereas they might in a larger, less personal environment. For some kids, it’s the difference between getting a degree or not. I’d say that’s pretty special for those kids.

But of course, your kid is perfect so they are not for you. God forbid DCUM talk about good schools for kids that don’t take 10+ APs or score 1500+ on the SAT. I pity your child if your view of education is really this narrow minded, but I suspect you are a troll.

The problem with your argument, which I have seen time and again on this website, is that you’re making it only after your kid wasn’t good enough to get in to one of the top schools. Had they been, you would be making a completely different argument.

Own it.

NP. You are such a sad, sad person. I turned down a top ten school for one outside of the top 200. I have never once regretted that choice. I’d make it again tomorrow. There are plenty of people in the world who find your way of thinking to be horrifying and reductive.

Anecdotally I am hearing of more very top students turning their backs on the highest-ranked schools because they are now filled with people like you. They want brilliance and intellectual freedom, not grubby strivers.

No, you didn’t.

In fact, I did. I am also precisely correct that you are terribly sad person. I truly hope you do not have children.

[Anonymous]

It would be refreshing to have the parent of a liberal arts college student post on here words to the effect of “I really wanted my kid to get into a top-ranked school, but it wasn’t to be. Having said that, I think they are happy at the school they are attending and seem to be getting a solid education. And that’s all that matters to me.”

That is so much better than “my kid did not get into a top ranked school, but went somewhere else and they’re getting a better education and I wouldn’t trade it for anything.” Because that’s just BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah, so we get to the heart of the matter. The obsessed anti-SLAC poster is a parent who is just now figuring out that paying for a big college doesn’t give her child the ticket into wealth that she had assumed she’d get. And she is freaking out, so rather pathetically hopes that denigrating SLACs in an anonymous forum will stop hiring managers from valuing SLAC degrees because she correctly understands that hiring managers don’t value big name degrees the same way any more. She also doesn’t understand that SLAC alumni networks are much, much tighter than what I had from HYS.

I have to say that I adore how petty she is in that she continually drops the S from SLAC in her posts because sometimes it stands for “selective” and that makes her blood pressure skyrocket. Very entertaining.

There is more than one “anti” poster. Just so you know that.

Sure, there are two of them, and they are both equally unhinged. But the one who can’t bring herself to type SLAC is particularly entertaining.