Favorite College that changes lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

[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?

A lot really is particular to your DC, but here are my suggestions based on visits/friends' DCs' experiences:

Bard
Beloit
Denison
Earlham
Kalamazoo
Kenyon
Lawrence
Reed
St Olaf
Puget Sound
Whitman
Willamette

Friends liked when their kids got merit, but that was not the decisive factor in their DC choosing the school.

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

Oh come on. It’s transparently wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

[Anonymous]

And admissions at top schools these days is basically a lottery. Not every student is going to get into T10 or 20 schools/LACs. Does this mean they simply should not attend college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

It's at least more than one, because I've added data links and have appreciated those added by others.

[Anonymous]

Several years ago my daughter applied to 3 or 4 CTCL schools (all in the midwest) and 3 top 20 schools. At the end, she was debating between Northwestern and a CTCL school. She chose the CTCL school. She liked the vibe, class sizes and teaching focus at the CTCL school. Plus, they offered a significant amount of merit aid. The money she had left over in the 529 made it much easier to go to law school. Currently, she is clerking for a federal judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

I have been on DCUM long enough to know that there is one regular (and very weird) poster who is absolutely obsessed with trashing CTCL colleges. I think they must have an alert set for the phase or something; it can be used in a thread that has nothing to do with CTCL and that poster comes swooping in immediately to derail the conversation with nasty and useless posts. Jeff knows the poster because he has to remove her posts regularly and has even talked about it in his blog.

Yes, it’s sad, and before she freaks out, no, I have no kids at CTCL schools and I went to HYS. I guess I can thank the poster in a weird way because that poster’s angry obsession introduced me to the concept of CTCL and now I’m a fan of the schools and recommend them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several years ago my daughter applied to 3 or 4 CTCL schools (all in the midwest) and 3 top 20 schools. At the end, she was debating between Northwestern and a CTCL school. She chose the CTCL school. She liked the vibe, class sizes and teaching focus at the CTCL school. Plus, they offered a significant amount of merit aid. The money she had left over in the 529 made it much easier to go to law school. Currently, she is clerking for a federal judge.

Why can’t you just name the school already? That’s what I find so annoying about this whole thing. Was your kid choosing between, say, Evergreen State and Northwestern or Reed and Northwestern? There’s a huge difference between those two schools. To group all of these schools together and suggest that they are all so special and unique and interchangeable that you don’t even have to name the school is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

Where have you seen hate/bashing? I'm really curious because that hasn't be the vibe to me at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

Given this claim, are you able to provide links, even just the time stamp, for posters in this thread who "bash[ed] state schools and top private schools...."?

Look, some people are not happy that top privates do not provide merit aid, but I hardly think that qualifies as bashing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several years ago my daughter applied to 3 or 4 CTCL schools (all in the midwest) and 3 top 20 schools. At the end, she was debating between Northwestern and a CTCL school. She chose the CTCL school. She liked the vibe, class sizes and teaching focus at the CTCL school. Plus, they offered a significant amount of merit aid. The money she had left over in the 529 made it much easier to go to law school. Currently, she is clerking for a federal judge.

This is going to infuriate the CTCL obsessive hater. She might try to track down current clerks of all federal district and appellate court judges to try to find her, as a warning.

Congratulations to your daughter. That is an accomplishment.

[Anonymous]

“I'm so confused. Some poster cries out, consistently, that CTCL grads don't land jobs or need to go to grad school to do so. Then someone points out that a lot of players on one sports team now work at large corporations - what many parents would say is a good ROI - and that's damning.”

I’m a CTCL grad (Lawrence - great education and the merit aid made a difference). My classmates do really awesome things that are incredibly important for our culture and society. Like run zoos and museums (and be zookeepers and museum curators). Like teach music and direct high school bands and be school principals. Like be professional musicians (from opera singers to jazz musicians to world class orchestra members). Like be your child’s college professor who is going to give them research opportunities and write great recommendations to get them into grad school. Like serve as the only family practice physician in a rural area.

And, yeah, they don’t get paid much, especially in DCUM land. But you know what? They’re happy, productive members of society. Often times, they are the people that a community relies upon to run the PTA and volunteer at the church. So when Negative CTCL Nelly comes on here, I just shrug. We all pretty content with our school choice.