Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Name the schools. You can easily do that without outing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Goodness you are pathetic. No wonder the truly brilliant students are avoiding the Ivies in increasing numbers these days. Who wants to be surrounded like people like you who so desperately crave validation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Goodness you are pathetic. No wonder the truly brilliant students are avoiding the Ivies in increasing numbers these days. Who wants to be surrounded like people like you who so desperately crave validation?

Why are you so triggered? Aren’t you happy with your kid’s college choice?

[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.

I think I went to the same SLAC and would have totally taken a class for learning sake, so you have a kindred spirit here.
To bolster your argument, a few things:1) out of my class of 450, two went on to become Supreme Court clerks. 2) I visited friends at Harvard when I was an undergrad. We compared work loads and I definitely worked harder than they did. Sure, they had access to famous profs but they had to apply to get into those classes. I wouldn’t have traded my experience for theirs in a million years.

[Anonymous]

I attended Harvard and was educated primarily by TAs until senior year. No thanks.

[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.

Some are just way too obsessed with "Top schools" as defined by USNWR. For decades, many SLAC have sent very high percentages of their students to Med school (on the first try) and on to top grad programs (where "rankings" actually matter a bit more----getting your PHD somewhere is important to have it top ranked/top research much more than undergrad rankings). And most of those SLAC are not considered "elite". But they achieve this with smart kids, small classes and encouraging learning (not just checking boxes for graduation). For example: St Olaf sends 84% of competitive applicants to medical school (Defined as 3.7+ GPA and 510+ MCAT). FYI--they send 67% of the rest who apply to medical school---still fairly high for kids with less than 3.7 gpa. They rank 8th in number of grads who go onto earn doctoral degrees. Yet, the avg SAT is only 1300 and GPA 3.67 for admission. So smart kids, but not "elite" standards. These are smart kids who put in the effort to actually learn in college and the learning is made easier by small classes that encourage critical thinking and actual learning, not just passing the class. The professors tend to be better at teaching when teaching is their Core job, not research. They also will have amazing recommendations from professors because it's much easier to cultivate that in a small environment, especially with professors who love to actually teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Goodness you are pathetic. No wonder the truly brilliant students are avoiding the Ivies in increasing numbers these days. Who wants to be surrounded like people like you who so desperately crave validation?

Why are you so triggered? Aren’t you happy with your kid’s college choice?

I went to HYS and am really sad to see the decline in student quality. My kid has excellent choices, but I’m just sad that people like you are filling up a school I loved. I wouldn’t send a kid there now and told my own kids not to apply. The environment is terrible now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think I went to the same SLAC and would have totally taken a class for learning sake, so you have a kindred spirit here.
To bolster your argument, a few things:1) out of my class of 450, two went on to become Supreme Court clerks. 2) I visited friends at Harvard when I was an undergrad. We compared work loads and I definitely worked harder than they did. Sure, they had access to famous profs but they had to apply to get into those classes. I wouldn’t have traded my experience for theirs in a million years.

It’s time that you got over being rejected from Harvard already. Really. It’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended Harvard and was educated primarily by TAs until senior year. No thanks.

Yet if you could get your kid in you’d send them in a heartbeat. Who are you kidding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Name the schools. You can easily do that without outing yourself.

Actually I probably can’t because my undergrad was small enough that it is identifying. Besides, it’s more fun to imagine you stewing away. Stay mad, honey.

[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.

You clearly did not go to Harvard. You are so dense. Of course the target market for CTCL schools and Ivy League are not the same. I’be never heard anyone say that. But they are the same for Williams, Amherst, etc. And there are kids who choose those over Ivies. Maybe because you are Status obsessed you can’t understand that.

My point was that you said CTCL schools are nothing special and you are wrong. They have their market. It’s just not you and your apparently perfect child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Goodness you are pathetic. No wonder the truly brilliant students are avoiding the Ivies in increasing numbers these days. Who wants to be surrounded like people like you who so desperately crave validation?

Why are you so triggered? Aren’t you happy with your kid’s college choice?

I went to HYS and am really sad to see the decline in student quality. My kid has excellent choices, but I’m just sad that people like you are filling up a school I loved. I wouldn’t send a kid there now and told my own kids not to apply. The environment is terrible now.

Because your kid couldn’t get in. C’mon. This is an anonymous forum. It’s ok to be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think I went to the same SLAC and would have totally taken a class for learning sake, so you have a kindred spirit here.
To bolster your argument, a few things:1) out of my class of 450, two went on to become Supreme Court clerks. 2) I visited friends at Harvard when I was an undergrad. We compared work loads and I definitely worked harder than they did. Sure, they had access to famous profs but they had to apply to get into those classes. I wouldn’t have traded my experience for theirs in a million years.

It’s time that you got over being rejected from Harvard already. Really. It’s ok.

NP. What is wrong with you? Are all Ivy students like this these days? You are doing an excellent if unintentional job advertising for SLACs.

[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.

You clearly did not go to Harvard. You are so dense. Of course the target market for CTCL schools and Ivy League are not the same. I’be never heard anyone say that. But they are the same for Williams, Amherst, etc. And there are kids who choose those over Ivies. Maybe because you are Status obsessed you can’t understand that.

My point was that you said CTCL schools are nothing special and you are wrong. They have their market. It’s just not you and your apparently perfect child.

Lol yea they have their market: non-special kids whose parents have money and a fear of their kids going to college with the masses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think I went to the same SLAC and would have totally taken a class for learning sake, so you have a kindred spirit here.
To bolster your argument, a few things:1) out of my class of 450, two went on to become Supreme Court clerks. 2) I visited friends at Harvard when I was an undergrad. We compared work loads and I definitely worked harder than they did. Sure, they had access to famous profs but they had to apply to get into those classes. I wouldn’t have traded my experience for theirs in a million years.

It’s time that you got over being rejected from Harvard already. Really. It’s ok.

NP. What is wrong with you? Are all Ivy students like this these days? You are doing an excellent if unintentional job advertising for SLACs.

I’m not an Ivy League graduate. I don’t think you need to go to an Ivy League school to get a good education or be successful either. But unlike you, I’m honest enough to admit that if my kid could get into an Ivy I’d sure as hell want them to go. You’re lying to yourself.