Do professors really send their kids to LACs at higher rates? And why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those comments are based on this study.

https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/items/d93ad09f-b3ac-42e8-a22c-b024f47558e3

And it shows that professors send kids to the kind of school they teach at. Shocking.

It states quite a bit more than that. Research extensive university faculty send their kids to LACs at about 800% the rate of the general population. Compare their 23% rate to national rate of 3% mentioned on top of p19. Also, the authors note that LAC profs have necessarily spent time at both kinds of institutions, so would be the most informed. When LAC profs own employers are excluded the rate to LACs is 44%; when included it’s 49%. Again, LACs only account for 3% percent of undergrads nationally.

That 3% is actually a superset of baccalaureate colleges that also includes schools with primarily regional draws, because the number of students at what USNWR calls “National Liberal Arts Colleges” is closer to just 1-2% of total, about an order of magnitude fewer undergrads than at R1s.

Except when you control for geography, research faculty barely send their kids to LACs at higher rates than the general population.

Northeasterners like LACs. It isn’t exactly news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those comments are based on this study.

https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/items/d93ad09f-b3ac-42e8-a22c-b024f47558e3

And it shows that professors send kids to the kind of school they teach at. Shocking.

It states quite a bit more than that. Research extensive university faculty send their kids to LACs at about 800% the rate of the general population. Compare their 23% rate to national rate of 3% mentioned on top of p19. Also, the authors note that LAC profs have necessarily spent time at both kinds of institutions, so would be the most informed. When LAC profs own employers are excluded the rate to LACs is 44%; when included it’s 49%. Again, LACs only account for 3% percent of undergrads nationally.

That 3% is actually a superset of baccalaureate colleges that also includes schools with primarily regional draws, because the number of students at what USNWR calls “National Liberal Arts Colleges” is closer to just 1-2% of total, about an order of magnitude fewer undergrads than at R1s.

Except when you control for geography, research faculty barely send their kids to LACs at higher rates than the general population.

Northeasterners like LACs. It isn’t exactly news.

LACs are a Northeastern US thing. No one else gives a hoot about LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those comments are based on this study.

https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/items/d93ad09f-b3ac-42e8-a22c-b024f47558e3

And it shows that professors send kids to the kind of school they teach at. Shocking.

It states quite a bit more than that. Research extensive university faculty send their kids to LACs at about 800% the rate of the general population. Compare their 23% rate to national rate of 3% mentioned on top of p19. Also, the authors note that LAC profs have necessarily spent time at both kinds of institutions, so would be the most informed. When LAC profs own employers are excluded the rate to LACs is 44%; when included it’s 49%. Again, LACs only account for 3% percent of undergrads nationally.

That 3% is actually a superset of baccalaureate colleges that also includes schools with primarily regional draws, because the number of students at what USNWR calls “National Liberal Arts Colleges” is closer to just 1-2% of total, about an order of magnitude fewer undergrads than at R1s.

Except when you control for geography, research faculty barely send their kids to LACs at higher rates than the general population.

No. You have to add high income to advanced degrees to living in an area with a high concentration of LACs to then get to a population (informed enough to be) within 10% of the rate of university faculty but still less than half the rate of (the most informed group) the LAC faculty that necessarily also attended universities. In fact, the authors even say in regards to table 12 “The differences in patterns noted in each of the earlier comparisons persist, albeit with somewhat less intensity.”

Also, if looking at geographically controlled but low income staff, their rate is actually lower than when just low income, suggesting it’s not region alone giving any boost.

Also, per the authors, “With and without regional weights, the children of staff display a different pattern of college choice than the NELS comparison group.”

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, a family member that works at Caltech told me LACs are far more common destinations for their faculty’s children than for the general population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those comments are based on this study.

https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/items/d93ad09f-b3ac-42e8-a22c-b024f47558e3

And it shows that professors send kids to the kind of school they teach at. Shocking.

It states quite a bit more than that. Research extensive university faculty send their kids to LACs at about 800% the rate of the general population. Compare their 23% rate to national rate of 3% mentioned on top of p19. Also, the authors note that LAC profs have necessarily spent time at both kinds of institutions, so would be the most informed. When LAC profs own employers are excluded the rate to LACs is 44%; when included it’s 49%. Again, LACs only account for 3% percent of undergrads nationally.

That 3% is actually a superset of baccalaureate colleges that also includes schools with primarily regional draws, because the number of students at what USNWR calls “National Liberal Arts Colleges” is closer to just 1-2% of total, about an order of magnitude fewer undergrads than at R1s.

Except when you control for geography, research faculty barely send their kids to LACs at higher rates than the general population.

No. You have to add high income to advanced degrees to living in an area with a high concentration of LACs to then get to a population (informed enough to be) within 10% of the rate of university faculty but still less than half the rate of (the most informed group) the LAC faculty that necessarily also attended universities. In fact, the authors even say in regards to table 12 “The differences in patterns noted in each of the earlier comparisons persist, albeit with somewhat less intensity.”

Also, if looking at geographically controlled but low income staff, their rate is actually lower than when just low income, suggesting it’s not region alone giving any boost.

Also, per the authors, “With and without regional weights, the children of staff display a different pattern of college choice than the NELS comparison group.”

Yes, sorry, meant the high income, high education group not general population. But no, you can’t just dismiss the regional impact. If you look at the numbers it substantially reduces the impact, especially among research faculty. There is a huge geographic component to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think those comments are based on this study.

https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/items/d93ad09f-b3ac-42e8-a22c-b024f47558e3

And it shows that professors send kids to the kind of school they teach at. Shocking.

It states quite a bit more than that. Research extensive university faculty send their kids to LACs at about 800% the rate of the general population. Compare their 23% rate to national rate of 3% mentioned on top of p19. Also, the authors note that LAC profs have necessarily spent time at both kinds of institutions, so would be the most informed. When LAC profs own employers are excluded the rate to LACs is 44%; when included it’s 49%. Again, LACs only account for 3% percent of undergrads nationally.

That 3% is actually a superset of baccalaureate colleges that also includes schools with primarily regional draws, because the number of students at what USNWR calls “National Liberal Arts Colleges” is closer to just 1-2% of total, about an order of magnitude fewer undergrads than at R1s.

Except when you control for geography, research faculty barely send their kids to LACs at higher rates than the general population.

No. You have to add high income to advanced degrees to living in an area with a high concentration of LACs to then get to a population (informed enough to be) within 10% of the rate of university faculty but still less than half the rate of (the most informed group) the LAC faculty that necessarily also attended universities. In fact, the authors even say in regards to table 12 “The differences in patterns noted in each of the earlier comparisons persist, albeit with somewhat less intensity.”

Also, if looking at geographically controlled but low income staff, their rate is actually lower than when just low income, suggesting it’s not region alone giving any boost.

Also, per the authors, “With and without regional weights, the children of staff display a different pattern of college choice than the NELS comparison group.”

DP. I read this several times but don’t understand what you are saying.

I get high income + advanced degree + geography w/high concentration of LACs = something…

…but I don’t understand “within 10% of the rate of university faculty but still less than half the rate of (the most informed group) the LAC faculty that necessarily also attended universities.”

Is this saying that *non-academics* who are upper-income, have advanced degrees, and live in an area with lots of LACs (so, like, not the southwest) are the only ones who come close to demonstrating a preference for LACs that’s even close to that of research faculty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Made up story by SLAC bosters.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

My dad was a professor at a SLAC. He thought I should go to an Ivy. He agreed the classroom experience would be better at a SLAC but thought Ivies had a better overall experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Made up story by SLAC bosters.

Exactly.

Based on a peer reviewed article, published in an economics journal.

Do you understand the difference between anecdote and opinion and data? Maybe you should have gone to a SLAC

[Anonymous]

Meh, there are a lot of professors in my life - I both work in higher Ed admin and married into a family of professors - and I don't really care what they think. They generally make very little money, are always in battles of some sort with their department or the dean, or stressed out because their funding is in danger.

I don't think professors generally give good life advice for anyone outside of academia. Their worlds are very small and most don't have much real life or real work experience.

[Anonymous]

So, to sum up this thread:

- yes, according to the only hard data that exist, a disproportionate number do
- not all do (seems obvious)
- there are regional differences in the extent to which this is true, but the trend seems to transcend geography
- the data aren’t explanatory, so any attempts to explain the reasons behind the trend are speculative
- this fact doesn’t matter to everyone, and some actively dismiss professors’ preferences

Correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, to sum up this thread:

- yes, according to the only hard data that exist, a disproportionate number do
- not all do (seems obvious)
- there are regional differences in the extent to which this is true, but the trend seems to transcend geography
- the data aren’t explanatory, so any attempts to explain the reasons behind the trend are speculative
- this fact doesn’t matter to everyone, and some actively dismiss professors’ preferences

Correct?

Yeah pretty much. Would maybe add a bullet in there that there seems to be a home bias for university type as well based on the data. Research professors more likely to also send their kids to research universities than other population metrics, especially when controlling for geography.