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:

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?

Just stop it already. The numbers - GPAs, test scores, admit rates, graduation rates, etc - don’t lie. CTCL schools are not bursting the seams with the highest achieving students. Those students still end up in the top tier. The top tier is also more generous with financial aid for qualifying students while also being need blind in admissions. Sure, some top students will choose to take the money offered by a CTCL school, but most won’t - which, by the way, is why I qualified my post by saying “generally speaking.”

[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.

I understand you qualified your statement with "generally speaking," but I can tell you that a surprising number of profoundly gifted students end up at CTCL and similar schools. I know some of them. Often, these kids are a little quirky and follow non-traditional educational paths that don't necessarily prepare them for "top schools." Some of them homeschool, some underachieve, some leave high school and go to community college, etc. In small classes at CTCL schools with professors dedicated primarily to teaching, they sometimes blossom. I think you're right -- we should stress that "generally speaking" part. I would stress, though, that a CTCL may be a very good fit for an unusually talented student, late bloomer, or bright kid who didn't necessarily excel in high school.

[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.

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.

It would be nice to attend a fair where Whitman, Denison, Reed, Wooster, St Olaf, etc., co-mingle with these. Maybe Oxy too?

[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.

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.

The answer is that you have no experience, but you lashed out when you were called out on that fact.

[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:

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?

I read on another thread that a kid with very high stats (1580 SAT, 4.0/almost 5 GPA, magnet school, etc.) was denied at U of MI and deferred at U of WI. Meanwhile, of some recruited athletes I know, one went to MIT with an SAT in the low 1400s, another to a certain Ivy with "the lowest SAT ever accepted there," and a third went to a prestigious SLAC with an SAT way below the 25th percentile. The word is that some of the kids of mega-donors accepted to "top schools" may not be in the same category by a fair stretch as the kid mentioned in my first sentence. Frankly, I would think a lot of unhooked "top students" could end up at CTCLs, and why not? If I were a kid, I would sell my soul to attend one of these lovely schools. What a privilege!

[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.

What they have in common is a focus on undergraduate teaching, a pedagogy that’s student-centered (small classes, low student-faculty ratio, etc), and a reputation that’s a little off-the-radar relative to other 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.

Anyone who can write this plainly idiotic statement about college admissions over the past few years is too brain dead to be having a conversation. There have been literally volumes written by admissions experts about how college admissions has changed tremendously in the past few years but this PP thinks they haven’t changed that much? I mean, at a certain point this has to be a troll, right? Nobody can actually be this dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

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

PP ain't wrong though.

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

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

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

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

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

Right back atcha’!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be nice to attend a fair where Whitman, Denison, Reed, Wooster, St Olaf, etc., co-mingle with these. Maybe Oxy too?

Yes! Definitely Oxy! Perhaps Lake Forest, too.

[Anonymous]

Connecticut College

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be nice to attend a fair where Whitman, Denison, Reed, Wooster, St Olaf, etc., co-mingle with these. Maybe Oxy too?

+1 I generally agree with Pope's idea of highlighting lesser known, not highly selective, liberal arts colleges where a student can get a great education at a reasonable price. I know kids getting a great experience at Gustavus Adolphus, Muhlenberg, L&C, Ursinus, Juniata, UPS and that, plus actually reading the text part of the CTCL book (not just looking at a list) was helpful in figuring out the right search for DD.

Problem is the list hasn't been updated in over 10 years and the colleges currently on the list do not all fit the requirements. If I were running the list I'd update to include places like PP listed and the list posted early on with other options. And cut out the schools that are not doing as well anymore. That would certainly make it more useful. I have no issues with the listed colleges using it for marketing -- all colleges do marketing! But by forming this marketing group they kind of locked themselves in and aren't likely to kick out the schools that really shouldn't be highlighted now.

[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 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.

It would be nice to attend a fair where Whitman, Denison, Reed, Wooster, St Olaf, etc., co-mingle with these. Maybe Oxy too?

+1 I generally agree with Pope's idea of highlighting lesser known, not highly selective, liberal arts colleges where a student can get a great education at a reasonable price. I know kids getting a great experience at Gustavus Adolphus, Muhlenberg, L&C, Ursinus, Juniata, UPS and that, plus actually reading the text part of the CTCL book (not just looking at a list) was helpful in figuring out the right search for DD.

Problem is the list hasn't been updated in over 10 years and the colleges currently on the list do not all fit the requirements. If I were running the list I'd update to include places like PP listed and the list posted early on with other options. And cut out the schools that are not doing as well anymore. That would certainly make it more useful. I have no issues with the listed colleges using it for marketing -- all colleges do marketing! But by forming this marketing group they kind of locked themselves in and aren't likely to kick out the schools that really shouldn't be highlighted now.

Agree.

[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.

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.

The answer is that you have no experience, but you lashed out when you were called out on that fact.

What’s YOUR answer? How deep and how broad is your personal experience with each of the dozens of schools on the list?

Two can play this game.

[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:

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.

Anyone who can write this plainly idiotic statement about college admissions over the past few years is too brain dead to be having a conversation. There have been literally volumes written by admissions experts about how college admissions has changed tremendously in the past few years but this PP thinks they haven’t changed that much? I mean, at a certain point this has to be a troll, right? Nobody can actually be this dumb?

I will repeat: by every quantifiable measure (GPA, class rank, test scores, admit rates, retention rates, graduation rates, etc.) the CTCL schools by and large do not come close to measuring up to the top 15 or so liberal arts colleges. That much has NOT changed.

[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:

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.

The answer is that you have no experience, but you lashed out when you were called out on that fact.

What’s YOUR answer? How deep and how broad is your personal experience with each of the dozens of schools on the list?

Two can play this game.

DP. Collectively, there are a fair amount of people in this thread who have attended, sent a child to, or toured these schools. Not all of them, but a decent number.