Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is used primarily to increase yield. Then it issued to lock in students while making a school appear more selective by artificially lowering interest rates. Nothing has changed.

You view is not incorrect; you are describing the weeds, while I am portraying the forest.

Wrong again. And just repeating yourself multiple times doesn’t make what you say true.

Good lord. Just let it go already. At least you have stopped with the personal attacks.

At this point, no one cares and it doesn't matter. We are not far apart. Just relax & move on.

I wish you well !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ED is used primarily to increase yield. Then it issued to lock in students while making a school appear more selective by artificially lowering interest rates. Nothing has changed.

You view is not incorrect; you are describing the weeds, while I am portraying the forest.

And to be clear, not saying you are not completely wrong about why so many great colleges and universities use ED. Just saying that you are only seeing part of the reason (the weeds instead of the forest as you argue). Your argument has shifted over the past few posts to the point where you are are beginning to agree with my initial points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ED is used primarily to increase yield. Then it issued to lock in students while making a school appear more selective by artificially lowering interest rates. Nothing has changed.

You view is not incorrect; you are describing the weeds, while I am portraying the forest.

Wrong again. And just repeating yourself multiple times doesn’t make what you say true.

Good lord. Just let it go already. At least you have stopped with the personal attacks.

At this point, no one cares and it doesn't matter. We are not far apart. Just relax & move on.

I wish you well !

I am very relaxed, but thank you kindly!

[Anonymous]

Rich folks and private school lifers generally look down on public universities for undergrad. They are not swayed by US News rankings. If you can't afford a private high school, let alone a private college, you frankly don't comprehend what you're missing out on. It's over your head. And then you build up this coping mechanism that they're a waste of money.

[Anonymous]

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

Source:

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

For some families, it’s about the quality of education - smaller classes, better access to professors (which bodes well if grad schools are on the horizon), more research opportunities with professors instead of grad students. There’s also the type of community. We are not a ra ra ra bug football family. We don’t care about sports. We do care about the liberal arts and we also want our kid to feel a sense of belonging to a tight knit community, much like the one we’ve been a part of with his private school.

For some families, and I say this to be earnest rather than snarky, it’s about class. I think some parents see SLACs as country clubs where their affluent kids will be surrounded with other kids who grew up with the same kinds of privileges. Our private sends about 90% of kids to private SLACs and I think it’s because they feel like a good fit, or familiar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Source:

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

For some families, it’s about the quality of education - smaller classes, better access to professors (which bodes well if grad schools are on the horizon), more research opportunities with professors instead of grad students. There’s also the type of community. We are not a ra ra ra bug football family. We don’t care about sports. We do care about the liberal arts and we also want our kid to feel a sense of belonging to a tight knit community, much like the one we’ve been a part of with his private school.

For some families, and I say this to be earnest rather than snarky, it’s about class. I think some parents see SLACs as country clubs where their affluent kids will be surrounded with other kids who grew up with the same kinds of privileges. Our private sends about 90% of kids to private SLACs and I think it’s because they feel like a good fit, or familiar.

Highly unlikely that PP from 3.5 years ago is reading your response.

[Anonymous]

My fellow LAC people, please don’t take the bait. Someone revived an almost 4 year old thread just to talk sh*t. No need to defend your choices to the Ivy+ or bust set. They likely didn’t get into the WASP of their choice and now they want the world to know they never liked her anyway.