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:

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.

So? I don't think anyone is saying that they do. Do you really think only students who can 1) get into and 2) afford the T15 LACs should get a LAC-style education? That seems to be the attitude from the anti-CTCL posters. If you aren't rich and a stellar student, you should just settle for your regional public U and be happy with that. There's no point in seeking a better educational experience. Which is a pretty crappy POV.

[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:

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.

Fair. But:

(a) as PPs have mentioned, most of the top 15 schools do not give merit aid. See PP’s consideration of whether a BA from Carleton is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than an equivalent degree from St Olaf.

(b) stats-wise, a few of these schools do actually measure up to where some of those top LACs were a generation ago. So a graduate of Carleton or Midd who wants their kid to have an equivalent experience to their own, and dares to visit one of the stronger CTCLs, might be pleasantly surprised by what they find if they visit.

[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:

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.

I’m not asking about collectively. And I fall into the “toured” group by the way.

[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:

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.

So? I don't think anyone is saying that they do. Do you really think only students who can 1) get into and 2) afford the T15 LACs should get a LAC-style education? That seems to be the attitude from the anti-CTCL posters. If you aren't rich and a stellar student, you should just settle for your regional public U and be happy with that. There's no point in seeking a better educational experience. Which is a pretty crappy POV.

DP. I agree with your main point, but I’d be cautious about using the word “better.” As always, the relevant question is “better for whom? And for what?”

[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.

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.

As do hundreds of other schools that aren’t in the book.

[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.

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.

As do hundreds of other schools that aren’t in the book.

And if you knew of any of them, you would surely name them, but you do not, so you continue to whine.

[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:

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.

I’m not asking about collectively. And I fall into the “toured” group by the way.

I understand what you’re asking for, but collectively does matter.

- firsthand experience + firsthand experience + firsthand experience…and so on = value

- no experience + no experience + no experience = zero value

[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:

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.

So? I don't think anyone is saying that they do. Do you really think only students who can 1) get into and 2) afford the T15 LACs should get a LAC-style education? That seems to be the attitude from the anti-CTCL posters. If you aren't rich and a stellar student, you should just settle for your regional public U and be happy with that. There's no point in seeking a better educational experience. Which is a pretty crappy POV.

And there you have it. You’re labeling public schools as something you “settle” for and say these schools are “better,” then get all worked up you’re accused of bashing public colleges.

[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.

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.

As do hundreds of other schools that aren’t in the book.

Some of which have been mentioned here. As has been repeated, the particular list is just a set of *examples* from the original writer. I think he'd be surprised that people take it as gospel vs. the first step on an exploration process.

[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.

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.

As do hundreds of other schools that aren’t in the book.

And if you knew of any of them, you would surely name them, but you do not, so you continue to whine.

Oh just stop. Many are being named right here on this very thread.

[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.

I'm glad you like my alma mater.

Btw, they accepted me with a C average and a 480 math SAT, 700 verbal.

[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:

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.

So? I don't think anyone is saying that they do. Do you really think only students who can 1) get into and 2) afford the T15 LACs should get a LAC-style education? That seems to be the attitude from the anti-CTCL posters. If you aren't rich and a stellar student, you should just settle for your regional public U and be happy with that. There's no point in seeking a better educational experience. Which is a pretty crappy POV.

And there you have it. You’re labeling public schools as something you “settle” for and say these schools are “better,” then get all worked up you’re accused of bashing public colleges.

As a PP said it's about "better" for who? Not bashing public colleges. I have one kid at a regional public U (he wanted the big, rah-rah, college sports, college town experience and loves it) and one kid who wanted the smaller, intimate LAC experience at a CTCL-similar school and she's happy there. If we didn't understand how merit aid works and just ruled these schools out as expensive she'd have missed out on an experience that is better for her. The one in-state public that was kind of a fit did not appeal to her at all and didn't have the same resources and specific ECs she was looking for that she found at a mid-range LAC w/ a lot of merit aid. Why should I force her to go there vs a similar-price better fit school?

[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:

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.

Fair. But:

(a) as PPs have mentioned, most of the top 15 schools do not give merit aid. See PP’s consideration of whether a BA from Carleton is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than an equivalent degree from St Olaf.

(b) stats-wise, a few of these schools do actually measure up to where some of those top LACs were a generation ago. So a graduate of Carleton or Midd who wants their kid to have an equivalent experience to their own, and dares to visit one of the stronger CTCLs, might be pleasantly surprised by what they find if they visit.

Not sure what your second “but” is for, considering that I again QUALIFIED what I said (this time with “by and large”).

[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:

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.

So? I don't think anyone is saying that they do. Do you really think only students who can 1) get into and 2) afford the T15 LACs should get a LAC-style education? That seems to be the attitude from the anti-CTCL posters. If you aren't rich and a stellar student, you should just settle for your regional public U and be happy with that. There's no point in seeking a better educational experience. Which is a pretty crappy POV.

And there you have it. You’re labeling public schools as something you “settle” for and say these schools are “better,” then get all worked up you’re accused of bashing public colleges.

DP. I don’t like the stuff that surrounded the question either. But the question itself seems fair:

“Do you really think only students who can 1) get into and 2) afford the T15 LACs should get a LAC-style education?”

For me, that’s the question at the heart of this whole conversation.

[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.

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.

As do hundreds of other schools that aren’t in the book.

And if you knew of any of them, you would surely name them, but you do not, so you continue to whine.

Oh just stop. Many are being named right here on this very thread.

Right. And no one has disagreed about including Muhlenberg, Hobart, Gustavas, etc. So what pissed in your cheerios? One of those colleges? Are you made that CTCL doesn't update its rankings like Fiske? We've all agreed it should.

Are you just here to tell us your children went to a superior school? Great! We know that you did not, because you can't form a coherent argument.