Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually I am a tenured professor who is quite invested in quality education, but thanks for playing. Sorry you didn't attend an Ivy and can't tell the difference between undergraduate vs. graduate.

Yes, one of the interesting features of the ant-SLAC posters is that they don’t seem to have much knowledge of education and particularly undergraduate versus graduate education.

Agreed, they're very...limited in their thought processes and would certainly benefit from the engaged teaching and critical thinking skills SLACs offer.

Wow You folks really drink the LAC Kool-Aid.

So you believe that those who don't worship LACs are "limited in their thought process" and that LACs have a monopoly on "engaged teaching and critical thinking skills" ?

My impression of the ardent LAC advocates on this thread is that their posts make them appear arrogant and closed-minded suggesting that LACs are "small schools for the small-minded".

There, SLAC fanatics, I have come down to your level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually I am a tenured professor who is quite invested in quality education, but thanks for playing. Sorry you didn't attend an Ivy and can't tell the difference between undergraduate vs. graduate.

Yes, one of the interesting features of the ant-SLAC posters is that they don’t seem to have much knowledge of education and particularly undergraduate versus graduate education.

Agreed, they're very...limited in their thought processes and would certainly benefit from the engaged teaching and critical thinking skills SLACs offer.

Wow You folks really drink the LAC Kool-Aid.

So you believe that those who don't worship LACs are "limited in their thought process" and that LACs have a monopoly on "engaged teaching and critical thinking skills" ?

My impression of the ardent LAC advocates on this thread is that their posts make them appear arrogant and closed-minded suggesting that LACs are "small schools for the small-minded".

There, SLAC fanatics, I have come down to your level.

I feel sorry for your spouse and your kids. You are both stubborn and stupid. A terrible combination.
Realize that at this point, no one is taking your comments seriously, but many of us are questioning your mental state and social skills.

Don't waste your time arguing with idiots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually I am a tenured professor who is quite invested in quality education, but thanks for playing. Sorry you didn't attend an Ivy and can't tell the difference between undergraduate vs. graduate.

Yes, one of the interesting features of the ant-SLAC posters is that they don’t seem to have much knowledge of education and particularly undergraduate versus graduate education.

Agreed, they're very...limited in their thought processes and would certainly benefit from the engaged teaching and critical thinking skills SLACs offer.

Wow You folks really drink the LAC Kool-Aid.

So you believe that those who don't worship LACs are "limited in their thought process" and that LACs have a monopoly on "engaged teaching and critical thinking skills" ?

My impression of the ardent LAC advocates on this thread is that their posts make them appear arrogant and closed-minded suggesting that LACs are "small schools for the small-minded".

There, SLAC fanatics, I have come down to your level.

I feel sorry for your spouse and your kids. You are both stubborn and stupid. A terrible combination.
Realize that at this point, no one is taking your comments seriously, but many of us are questioning your mental state and social skills.

Don't waste your time arguing with idiots

What is the difference between LAC strivers and UVA boosters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually I am a tenured professor who is quite invested in quality education, but thanks for playing. Sorry you didn't attend an Ivy and can't tell the difference between undergraduate vs. graduate.

Yes, one of the interesting features of the ant-SLAC posters is that they don’t seem to have much knowledge of education and particularly undergraduate versus graduate education.

Agreed, they're very...limited in their thought processes and would certainly benefit from the engaged teaching and critical thinking skills SLACs offer.

Wow You folks really drink the LAC Kool-Aid.

So you believe that those who don't worship LACs are "limited in their thought process" and that LACs have a monopoly on "engaged teaching and critical thinking skills" ?

My impression of the ardent LAC advocates on this thread is that their posts make them appear arrogant and closed-minded suggesting that LACs are "small schools for the small-minded".

There, SLAC fanatics, I have come down to your level.

I feel sorry for your spouse and your kids. You are both stubborn and stupid. A terrible combination.
Realize that at this point, no one is taking your comments seriously, but many of us are questioning your mental state and social skills.

Don't waste your time arguing with idiots

This, what a dense poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most graduates of SLACs have pretty dismal earnings compared to their Ivy/Public University peers. So why are SLACs throw around here so often? I see a lot of people recommend random schools like Grinnell but why would you send your kid there for a pretty hefty sum when they could go to a state flagship and be in either a better or similar position?

Source:

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

The DC area and DCUM in particular is chock full of lawyers/consultants. Many of them turn into SAHPs and want to toot their alma mater's horn in these forums. Have you noticed the prickly response whenever SLACs are criticized and how the comments look down on large publics as "trade schools"?

SLACs are likely great places if your intended career requires grad school (medicine, law, teaching, etc.). For engineering/CS, avoid them at all cost and head to a large public.

Why? DS went to a SLAC. Now he makes over 300K/year in a tech firm 2 years after graduating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the same reason people love micro-brands...they seem cool at first glance than realize it's over priced and not quality even with the "discount" then they defend it like it's gold. A 380Z looks a lot like a 911 but c'mon it is no Porsche.

They can afford it. Why do you care?

[Anonymous]

I have made several posts in this thread.

Again, as I wrote earlier in this or another related thread:

This discussion should differentiate among:

SLACs = selective LACs

Other LACs

Private National Universities

Public National Universities

Public National University Honors Colleges / Honors Programs

Broadly speaking, I prefer National Universities over LACs. I do so in large part for the breadth and depth of options both academically and socially. I do not like being in a small school (less than 2,500 students) in an isolated, rural environment. I like variety, diversity, privacy, and the option for a bit of anonymity. These are quality of life factors that, due to all types of diversity, enhance the educational experience. Nevertheless, one can receive an outstanding education at a small school--especially SLACs (selective liberal arts colleges). Some students may thrive in a smaller, isolated environment.

Those who maintain that small classes and personalized relationships with faculty members can only be found at SLACs are wrong. Private National Universities and Public National University Honors Colleges offer both within a large school setting while offering more diversity as well as more academic options. Additionally, many--probably most--Public National University Honors Colleges award substantial merit scholarships.

As a parent, I understand the appeal of SLACs. Most want their child to receive personalized attention in an intimate setting. The belief, an incorrect belief in my view and experience, is that small schools foster stronger personal relationships. True or not, I do believe that graduate schools--which are typically small--do foster close relationships since all are entering a similar profession and studying similar or identical subject matter / courses.

Having options is healthy as different individuals have varying preferences = different strokes for different folks.

[Anonymous]

CLARIFICATION: Meant to write: The belief that ONLY small schools foster close relationships is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My private school kid, who has worked hard but not done well, will likely only have SLACs as his choice. Already deferred at one state university and will likely get rejected from the other three he's applying to. Our local pressure cooker privates have a direct line to the SLACs for the bottom of the class kids who can't get into the large universities. For my kid with a severe executive function disorder, he would have a difficult time navigating a large state university anyway. Though I have no stress about him navigating life once he graduates. He's smarter than 99% of the world.

Ok, got it. So places like Denison are for dumb rich kids like your son who can’t hack it at a state school. And I’m sure he’ll be fine once he graduates considering his parents are wealthy and well-connected enough to send him to a competitive private despite his “executive function disorder.” Genuinely curious, why did you even bother sending your kid to an ultra-competitive private school if that’s the case? Seems like a recipe for burnout.

NP wowwww- you are an a$$----

what the hell do you care, are they spending your money? I dont understand your rage, you know what maybe someone is dumb and well connected-- look at the trumps/kushners- if this is how they choose to educate and raise their offspring, what do you care? How is it hurting you? I say this as an immigrant, child of refugees who's parents were gifted with brilliance and struggled hard. what do you want- a communist utopia? You sound like like someone raised in communist china, ii say this b/c I have direct personal experience of people raised within that culture. If you agree with that mind set I have news for you.. the culture here is the complete opposite and nothing anyone does here will make sense to you- this society is "bad fit" for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the same reason people love micro-brands...they seem cool at first glance than realize it's over priced and not quality even with the "discount" then they defend it like it's gold. A 380Z looks a lot like a 911 but c'mon it is no Porsche.

They can afford it. Why do you care?

Looks like PP were giving their opinion as OP asked, why so triggered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Actually I am a tenured professor who is quite invested in quality education, but thanks for playing. Sorry you didn't attend an Ivy and can't tell the difference between undergraduate vs. graduate.

Yes, one of the interesting features of the ant-SLAC posters is that they don’t seem to have much knowledge of education and particularly undergraduate versus graduate education.

Agreed, they're very...limited in their thought processes and would certainly benefit from the engaged teaching and critical thinking skills SLACs offer.

Wow You folks really drink the LAC Kool-Aid.

So you believe that those who don't worship LACs are "limited in their thought process" and that LACs have a monopoly on "engaged teaching and critical thinking skills" ?

My impression of the ardent LAC advocates on this thread is that their posts make them appear arrogant and closed-minded suggesting that LACs are "small schools for the small-minded".

There, SLAC fanatics, I have come down to your level.

No one here “worships” LACs, we are just trying to open your closed mind to the fact that many are great schools where a kid can get an excellent education. A great education can also be had at a large national university. It’s not a zero sum game.

[Anonymous]

What in the world is wrong with diversity in undergraduate choices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most graduates of SLACs have pretty dismal earnings compared to their Ivy/Public University peers. So why are SLACs throw around here so often? I see a lot of people recommend random schools like Grinnell but why would you send your kid there for a pretty hefty sum when they could go to a state flagship and be in either a better or similar position?

Source:

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

The DC area and DCUM in particular is chock full of lawyers/consultants. Many of them turn into SAHPs and want to toot their alma mater's horn in these forums. Have you noticed the prickly response whenever SLACs are criticized and how the comments look down on large publics as "trade schools"?

SLACs are likely great places if your intended career requires grad school (medicine, law, teaching, etc.). For engineering/CS, avoid them at all cost and head to a large public.

Why? DS went to a SLAC. Now he makes over 300K/year in a tech firm 2 years after graduating.

This information will make the already-high blood pressure of the insane SLAC-haters skyrocket further.

[Anonymous]

Reading this thread, I'm pretty glad I went to a State U for undergrad, because some of the SLAC and Ivy league posters on this thread are beyond insufferable.

I freely admit that my fondest memories from college were football games and trying to pick up attractive members of the opposite sex. Classes were secondary.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, the anti-slac poster seems totally normal.