Favorite College that changes lives?

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.


That would have been the more responsive answer.
Anonymous
The anti-CTCL made us take a closer look and like the book more. Secure people don’t feel compelled to disrespect others.
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?


Exactly. I'm practical and not swayed by the marketing crud. My experience for this in my mind is that CTCL stands for Colleges that Cost Less for those of us with kids who want a LAC. You can be an A+ student with perfect SATs and there are very few colleges "ranked above" (which I don't care that much about) these that will bring the cost down to 30-40k/yr. When DC gets 0 at Carleton, 10K/yr merit at Macalester and 30k merit at St Olaf, I can look at all the metrics and see there is 0 reason to spend 120k more for Carleton or 40k more for Macalester than St. Olaf. This organization helps you find the liberal arts colleges that offer you merit aid and lets you meet them in person.


+1, especially as the quality of education is similar. One of my best friends is a math professor and says kids at different colleges and universities generally follow a similar curriculum, use the same books, and have very similar opportunities to learn. One of my kids took a geology class at community college in high school, while her friend took geology at U Penn. They used the same textbook and covered the same material. My DC had more field trips and learned a great deal through an open-ended independent project she had to do (she spent a lot of time on it, had an absolute blast, and did some very deep learning). When they talked about what they had learned, my kid was much more knowledgeable. Geology was a major interest for her while her friend was ticking a box, so this explains some of it, but if you want to learn, you will be able to learn abundantly and thoroughly virtually wherever you go.
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.


It’s pretty clear that the PP you are responding to had very little professional or life experience whatsoever, let alone with any specific schools.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.


It’s pretty clear that the PP you are responding to had very little professional or life experience whatsoever, let alone with any specific schools.


I answered the question. You just don’t like the answer. So you get all snippy and nasty. Not a good look.
Anonymous
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.


What schools are you referring to?

My superior student goes to Denison with $$$ merit aid. 1580 SAT, 4.0 UW GPA. 9 APs, varsity sport. There are lots of similarly qualified students there.


Those are great stats. In terms of average SAT, your kid is way above the average for any school in the nation, including Harvard and Caltech. Smart kid made a smart choice. Denison Rocks and many of the CTCLs are similarly good schools for bright kids who want merit aid and perhaps a slightly more comfortable, down-to-earth environment than one might find at a more prestigious-conscious school.

I think there are schools not on the CTCL list that really could be. Maybe St. Lawrence, Gustavus Adolphus, Muhlenburg, Lewis & Clark, and Hobart & William Smith.
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.


You write in the past tense. So your kids are no longer in school? Perhaps were in college in a completely different era? Were full pay so merit wasn't part of the equation?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the GPNW and know the schools on this list from that region pretty well--have had friends attend all of them. They're all great places for kids who dig their respective ethos. In alpha order:

Evergreen State is super hippie. Like a left coast version of UNC-Asheville only more so. Or a mini UC Santa Cruz. More intellectual than academic, if that makes sense.

Reed is intense. Like a less selective but no less ambitious Swarthmore--but with lots of black eyeliner and hard drugs. If you're not both brilliant and cynical, it's not your spot.

UPS is kind of like a miniaturized flagship. Solid for business, music, and liberal arts and sciences. Wide range of kids there, almost all of them happy.

Whitman is like west coast Middlebury but in a bigger, better town (but also way further from anything else). For kids who check the "intellectual," "outdoorsy," and "at least somewhat preppy" boxes, it's heaven.

Willamette is right next to the state capital and is a school for go-getters, across a decent range of raw intellectual firepower levels.


Which of these schools would work for a moderately conservative student who is interested in that area of the country?


For god's sake . . . just send your snowflake to school and let them figure out their beliefs once there and exposed to different view points. So sick of conservatives acting like thy're some sort of oppressed minority when, in reality, they just don't seem to mix well with others. Maybe Liberty is more to your liking.
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.


You write in the past tense. So your kids are no longer in school? Perhaps were in college in a completely different era? Were full pay so merit wasn't part of the equation?


Why is any of that relevant?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the GPNW and know the schools on this list from that region pretty well--have had friends attend all of them. They're all great places for kids who dig their respective ethos. In alpha order:

Evergreen State is super hippie. Like a left coast version of UNC-Asheville only more so. Or a mini UC Santa Cruz. More intellectual than academic, if that makes sense.

Reed is intense. Like a less selective but no less ambitious Swarthmore--but with lots of black eyeliner and hard drugs. If you're not both brilliant and cynical, it's not your spot.

UPS is kind of like a miniaturized flagship. Solid for business, music, and liberal arts and sciences. Wide range of kids there, almost all of them happy.

Whitman is like west coast Middlebury but in a bigger, better town (but also way further from anything else). For kids who check the "intellectual," "outdoorsy," and "at least somewhat preppy" boxes, it's heaven.

Willamette is right next to the state capital and is a school for go-getters, across a decent range of raw intellectual firepower levels.


Which of these schools would work for a moderately conservative student who is interested in that area of the country?


For god's sake . . . just send your snowflake to school and let them figure out their beliefs once there and exposed to different view points. So sick of conservatives acting like thy're some sort of oppressed minority when, in reality, they just don't seem to mix well with others. Maybe Liberty is more to your liking.


Sure, why don't I send her to Reed or Oberlin so the purple-haired they/them crowd can turn her into a social pariah the first time she respectfully offers an opinion that isn't far left wing, such as that she's fully pro choice for the first trimester but believes 15 weeks is a reasonable limit on abortion.
Anonymous
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.


I don't think it's helpful to create these rigid categories. These three are, of course, wonderful schools and very highly regarded, and yes, of course, they are more selective, but have you seen the stats of some of the kids going to CTCL schools? The average will be lower, but some top students choose them and do very well. Some students at CTCLs (not most but some) will be smarter, better served by their schools, and ultimately more successful than some students who choose more prestigious schools. This is not a dig at the schools you mention. They are great choices. It's just a reminder that who you are matters more than where you go to school, and one really needs to look at a multitude of factors when picking a school.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.


You write in the past tense. So your kids are no longer in school? Perhaps were in college in a completely different era? Were full pay so merit wasn't part of the equation?


Why is any of that relevant?


Because a lot has changed in the admissions world. This person may not grasp that simply because a student's stats may have them in the 75% percentile for a school doesn't change that they are still holding a lottery ticket.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the GPNW and know the schools on this list from that region pretty well--have had friends attend all of them. They're all great places for kids who dig their respective ethos. In alpha order:

Evergreen State is super hippie. Like a left coast version of UNC-Asheville only more so. Or a mini UC Santa Cruz. More intellectual than academic, if that makes sense.

Reed is intense. Like a less selective but no less ambitious Swarthmore--but with lots of black eyeliner and hard drugs. If you're not both brilliant and cynical, it's not your spot.

UPS is kind of like a miniaturized flagship. Solid for business, music, and liberal arts and sciences. Wide range of kids there, almost all of them happy.

Whitman is like west coast Middlebury but in a bigger, better town (but also way further from anything else). For kids who check the "intellectual," "outdoorsy," and "at least somewhat preppy" boxes, it's heaven.

Willamette is right next to the state capital and is a school for go-getters, across a decent range of raw intellectual firepower levels.


Which of these schools would work for a moderately conservative student who is interested in that area of the country?


For god's sake . . . just send your snowflake to school and let them figure out their beliefs once there and exposed to different view points. So sick of conservatives acting like thy're some sort of oppressed minority when, in reality, they just don't seem to mix well with others. Maybe Liberty is more to your liking.


Sure, why don't I send her to Reed or Oberlin so the purple-haired they/them crowd can turn her into a social pariah the first time she respectfully offers an opinion that isn't far left wing, such as that she's fully pro choice for the first trimester but believes 15 weeks is a reasonable limit on abortion.


If she wants to argue for the new GOP standard, then she has to be prepared to defend it. That's how life works. I go into my office with a proposal of changing precedent at our work, my boss expects me to rigorously defend it. And he doesn't have purple hair.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


You write in the past tense. So your kids are no longer in school? Perhaps were in college in a completely different era? Were full pay so merit wasn't part of the equation?


Why is any of that relevant?


Because a lot has changed in the admissions world. This person may not grasp that simply because a student's stats may have them in the 75% percentile for a school doesn't change that they are still holding a lottery ticket.


Things have not changed that much. Then and now and generally speaking the top students don’t end up at CTCL schools.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


You write in the past tense. So your kids are no longer in school? Perhaps were in college in a completely different era? Were full pay so merit wasn't part of the equation?


Why is any of that relevant?


Because a lot has changed in the admissions world. This person may not grasp that simply because a student's stats may have them in the 75% percentile for a school doesn't change that they are still holding a lottery ticket.


Things have not changed that much. Then and now and generally speaking the top students don’t end up at CTCL schools.


Whoa Nelly. So all the top kids who cannot afford full pay are no longer top students as they are at a CTCL?
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: