Favorite College that changes lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

Those are three wildly different institutions. Along what axis are you comparing them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a four year college that doesn't change lives ?

The book CTCL is really just a marketing tool highlighting what initially--in 1996--were relatively unknown small schools. CTCL is a feel good marketing organization. Nothing wrong with this approach at selling schools. But these are not miracle schools. In fact, most have to offer substantial scholarship grants in order to attract students. Nothing wrong with this either. But how many return and stay to graduate and how do these small schools do with respect to internships and job placement in one's desired field ?

Based on the anecdata and stats shared here, sounds pretty good.

Regarding if someone remains after they graduated, how is that a useful info point? Is Cornell weak because most of their grads leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the quibble. We now have a poster who is so proud to have a kid clerking for a federal judge who happened to graduate from one school happens to be included in some decades-old silly book. That the school happened to be in the book has nothing to do with anything, and you can’t generalize and say that that kid would have been just as successfully had they gone to ANY other school in the silly book.

It’s like me saying that because the University of Vermont or Miami of Ohio once appeared in a book on so-called “Public Ivies” that they’re peers of UVA, Berkeley and Michigan. They’re clearly not.

So then don’t read the thread and spare your blood pressure, which is clearly through the roof. Obviously some people find value in the list. You don’t. That is okay. I realize this is a shock to you but people don’t think exactly like you on all topics.

Weak.

It’s truth but you live in distorted reality so can’t see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Congratulations to your daughter!

There is a SCOTUS judge who graduated from a CTCL school. She must have been an underachieving child of affluent parents.

She’s a Justice, not a Judge, and she’s a lunatic. Is that the best you can do?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Anonymous]

I'm the poster with the daughter who is a current law clerk. There is no way in hell I'm going to share the name of the college due to privacy concerns. It wouldn't be very difficult to connect the dots.

A couple of the schools she really liked were Cornell College and Denison. We toured both and she liked them for different reasons. The school she ended up at just felt right. It was a very good fit for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

What's your experience with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

Those are three wildly different institutions. Along what axis are you comparing them?

EXACTLY. You’ve just hit on the whole fallacy of the CTCL book without even knowing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“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.

This is a great post, a good reminder that our communities and their institutions rise and fall based on a range of diverse members with myriad interests and talents.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

Those are three wildly different institutions. Along what axis are you comparing them?

EXACTLY. You’ve just hit on the whole fallacy of the CTCL book without even knowing it.

That might be the clumsiest dodge of this whole chain. Congrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

Those are three wildly different institutions. Along what axis are you comparing them?

EXACTLY. You’ve just hit on the whole fallacy of the CTCL book without even knowing it.

DP: How so? The category is that these schools provide a solid education and a more personalized experience. That there are diverse and idiosyncratic approaches to that education actually reflects the fact that the individuals who seek it our going to have diverse needs, goals and values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a four year college that doesn't change lives ?

The book CTCL is really just a marketing tool highlighting what initially--in 1996--were relatively unknown small schools. CTCL is a feel good marketing organization. Nothing wrong with this approach at selling schools. But these are not miracle schools. In fact, most have to offer substantial scholarship grants in order to attract students. Nothing wrong with this either. But how many return and stay to graduate and how do these small schools do with respect to internships and job placement in one's desired field ?

Based on the anecdata and stats shared here, sounds pretty good.

Regarding if someone remains after they graduated, how is that a useful info point? Is Cornell weak because most of their grads leave?

You misunderstand. I think that you misread what I wrote. College retention rates and 4 year graduation rates--as well as 6 year graduation rates--are important measures of a school's value in the experience of its current students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a four year college that doesn't change lives ?

The book CTCL is really just a marketing tool highlighting what initially--in 1996--were relatively unknown small schools. CTCL is a feel good marketing organization. Nothing wrong with this approach at selling schools. But these are not miracle schools. In fact, most have to offer substantial scholarship grants in order to attract students. Nothing wrong with this either. But how many return and stay to graduate and how do these small schools do with respect to internships and job placement in one's desired field ?

That's true. When you start from the bottom, most colleges will change your life.

That was me. I went to a no name B/C rated state university out west. It changed my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

What's your experience with them?

Other than Reed, they all have student body profiles well below my kids, and my kids wanted to be challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

What's your experience with them?

Other than Reed, they all have student body profiles well below my kids, and my kids wanted to be challenged.

So you have no experience with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

What's your experience with them?

Other than Reed, they all have student body profiles well below my kids, and my kids wanted to be challenged.

So you have no experience with them.

Not true. More than one of my kids took a look at more than one of the schools that appear on this list - but not because they were in the dumb book. They were looking for safeties when considering top tier LACs.

Your experience with the vast majority of the schools in the book can’t be much greater than that unless you’re omnipresent.