Atlantic article on LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

+1

I'm sorry so many others who go to LACs feel defensive ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLAC professor here. I did not understand the point of this article. It seemed like the author was discovering SLACs for the first time? It's true that SLACs as a whole are not dependent on research funding, which is an advantage in the current moment, but relatively few can say they are not dependent on tuition, either. Those that are totally endowment-driven (like the ones the author visited) are doing fine. But the tuition dependent SLACs (most of them) are really suffering -- lots of layoffs, including of tenured faculty at two colleges I know. The next decade is going to be brutal in the sector. My institution is facing the most difficult market conditions seen in decades.

The author specially pointed out "wealthy" SLACs have big advantages. SLACs are a better educational model but scale has economic advantages. I hope that your school gets through this and thrives.

Yes, there's a reason he focused on Amherst and Davidson not, say Wooster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

+1

I'm sorry so many others who go to LACs feel defensive ...

Pretty sure that they're not defensive. It's funny hearing that because without fail an expert writes like the one in the Atlantic or a professor at an R1 drops into a thread and points out the advantages of a SLAC education relative to their institution and then people like yourself come out of the woodwork to gaslight, lie, or distort because you just cannot accept the reality that a large number of highly educated people recognize that the type of education that you so badly desire isn't the best one available. That's fine, you be you. We recognize you for what you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Go to CMC or Bucknell or… just do some research.

Point is that students who don't know what they want and choose an LAC for just this reason may unknowingly be cutting off possible career paths.

+1 this is the good thing about large state flagships. About 50% of students change their major at some point while in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLAC professor here. I did not understand the point of this article. It seemed like the author was discovering SLACs for the first time? It's true that SLACs as a whole are not dependent on research funding, which is an advantage in the current moment, but relatively few can say they are not dependent on tuition, either. Those that are totally endowment-driven (like the ones the author visited) are doing fine. But the tuition dependent SLACs (most of them) are really suffering -- lots of layoffs, including of tenured faculty at two colleges I know. The next decade is going to be brutal in the sector. My institution is facing the most difficult market conditions seen in decades.

The author specially pointed out "wealthy" SLACs have big advantages. SLACs are a better educational model but scale has economic advantages. I hope that your school gets through this and thrives.

I think many of us who desire a liberal arts college education for DCs is facing this dilemma.

Yes, the top LACs are a better educational model but at the same time highly selective. They are tiny schools also with a strong emphasis on institutional priorities. When you are middle class unhooked, especially from a public high school, chances are really small for DCs.

The lower tier LACs with smaller endowment will not be able to provide the same experience as Williams or Amherst, but they charge the same. Middleclass parents often feel that is a scam. But some still are willing to send their DCs when they give merit to high stats kids.

It's not that complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLAC professor here. I did not understand the point of this article. It seemed like the author was discovering SLACs for the first time? It's true that SLACs as a whole are not dependent on research funding, which is an advantage in the current moment, but relatively few can say they are not dependent on tuition, either. Those that are totally endowment-driven (like the ones the author visited) are doing fine. But the tuition dependent SLACs (most of them) are really suffering -- lots of layoffs, including of tenured faculty at two colleges I know. The next decade is going to be brutal in the sector. My institution is facing the most difficult market conditions seen in decades.

The author specially pointed out "wealthy" SLACs have big advantages. SLACs are a better educational model but scale has economic advantages. I hope that your school gets through this and thrives.

Yes, there's a reason he focused on Amherst and Davidson not, say Wooster.

Wooster markets so aggressively. They sent an email with “we already filled out our Early Decision application with your child’s name” … just complete the rest.

[Anonymous]

I harbor some disdain for LACs because of the number of athletes they recruit. At this point, they almost serve as athletic training camps rather than educational institutions. ~40% of LACs are varsity athletes compared to ~15% of research universities. And all of this just to mostly recruit the middle-of-the-pack athletes when they could have more space for world-class, talented, and intellectual students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Go to CMC or Bucknell or… just do some research.

Point is that students who don't know what they want and choose an LAC for just this reason may unknowingly be cutting off possible career paths.

+1 this is the good thing about large state flagships. About 50% of students change their major at some point while in college.

And many flagships make it hellishly difficult to transfer majors!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

+1

I'm sorry so many others who go to LACs feel defensive ...

Pretty sure that they're not defensive. It's funny hearing that because without fail an expert writes like the one in the Atlantic or a professor at an R1 drops into a thread and points out the advantages of a SLAC education relative to their institution and then people like yourself come out of the woodwork to gaslight, lie, or distort because you just cannot accept the reality that a large number of highly educated people recognize that the type of education that you so badly desire isn't the best one available. That's fine, you be you. We recognize you for what you are.

“the type of education that you so badly desire isn’t the best one available”

Tell me again how that kid who said that SLACs give off boarding school vibes was wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I harbor some disdain for LACs because of the number of athletes they recruit. At this point, they almost serve as athletic training camps rather than educational institutions. ~40% of LACs are varsity athletes compared to ~15% of research universities. And all of this just to mostly recruit the middle-of-the-pack athletes when they could have more space for world-class, talented, and intellectual students.

I think that you are talking about the Ivies. Athletes at a NESCAC or a school like Swat have an academic bar that is much higher with the majority athletes being above the mean for the school itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

As a professor at a research university, I am amused by parents who accept their 18-year old, high schooler's assessment of SLACs as an extension of summer camp or boarding school. If anything SLACs require young adults to be accountable for their education because they cannot hide. Students are much more likely "to learn in a bubble" at large universities, especially in large majors, because there is little need, if any, to speak up in class, to meet with faculty, and to share one's work with fellow classmates. You can go through 4 years at a state flagship without ever having spoken with a professor face-to-face. This would be impossible at a SLAC. At a SLAC you have to show up to class at least somewhat regularly, you have to submit work that will be discussed, and you have to form relationships with students who are not like you.
To be fair, there are SLACs that are notoriously for the wealthy (you can look these up--the NYT had a great article on this a couple of years ago), but many SLACs are committed to racial and economic diversity.
I plan on encouraging my children to take a seriously look at SLACs when it is time for them to apply to colleges. I expect that they will go onto graduate school, and the NSF data consistently show that SLACs have superior outcomes for graduate school admission across the board. This is not surprising, given the close relationships students at SLACs form with their faculty.
If your child does not seem to be included towards graduate school and wants to major in a pre-professional degree (like accounting), then there are SLACs out there as well as, of course, large universities that will offer that. But it seems that students who are academically strong are doing themselves a disservice by not seriously considering SLACs for their undergraduate education.

I too am a prof at a research university, and I too wanted my PhD-aspiring DC to matriculate last year at a SLAC. We were thrilled that DC got into Mudd and Williams and pushed hard in that direction, since those two schools are especially wonderful and have amazing PhD placement in DC's field. But DC was determined to attend the opposite of a SLAC, is now a first-year at U of T, and we all couldn't be happier.

One less obvious advantage of U of T over a SLAC: doing a specialist degree instead of a major. See, e.g., here: https://future.utoronto.ca/build-your-degree. A more obvious advantage is that an undergrad who wants to get a PhD will figure out how to take advantage of the greater academic resources of a research university. My kid, for example, goes to all the talks in his field (as I did as an undergrad) and is now enrolled in a small first-year seminar designed to support students who want to take that dive right into the deep end.

I'm a huge fan of SLACs like the Claremonts and Williams, but I'm now convinced that my PhD-bound kid is getting a better education at this research university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

+1

I'm sorry so many others who go to LACs feel defensive ...

Pretty sure that they're not defensive. It's funny hearing that because without fail an expert writes like the one in the Atlantic or a professor at an R1 drops into a thread and points out the advantages of a SLAC education relative to their institution and then people like yourself come out of the woodwork to gaslight, lie, or distort because you just cannot accept the reality that a large number of highly educated people recognize that the type of education that you so badly desire isn't the best one available. That's fine, you be you. We recognize you for what you are.

“the type of education that you so badly desire isn’t the best one available”

Tell me again how that kid who said that SLACs give off boarding school vibes was wrong

Why are you deflecting? The poster was replying to the last comment, not the one before it.

[Anonymous]

it really depends on how much your kid wants to do research at a university.

my STEM kids wanted to do zero. They were fully against working for no pay -- not even no pay but you had to pay the school - at institutions that took ownership of all student IP. they did internships in for pay, off-site, in industry. and benefitted from real work experience and job offers.

I feel like the days of unpaid student research may be coming to an end. just like unpaid student internships are mostly a thing of the past. i

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that the author is frustrated by his university (WUSTL)'s reliance on federal funding ($731 million from NIH funds alone). But why not consider a thriving research university just north of the border instead (UofT or McGill or UBC or Waterloo or Queen's or Western) instead of resorting to a SLAC.

Many kids want more. Larger student population, location in a thriving city or larger college town and a population that is not 30-50% recruited D3 athletes.

SLACs are lovely for a certain kind of person who wants to learn in a bubble. My DS rejected it as secluded "summer camp" or "boarding school" vibes and not like a real university experience he is seeking.

As a professor at a research university, I am amused by parents who accept their 18-year old, high schooler's assessment of SLACs as an extension of summer camp or boarding school. If anything SLACs require young adults to be accountable for their education because they cannot hide. Students are much more likely "to learn in a bubble" at large universities, especially in large majors, because there is little need, if any, to speak up in class, to meet with faculty, and to share one's work with fellow classmates. You can go through 4 years at a state flagship without ever having spoken with a professor face-to-face. This would be impossible at a SLAC. At a SLAC you have to show up to class at least somewhat regularly, you have to submit work that will be discussed, and you have to form relationships with students who are not like you.
To be fair, there are SLACs that are notoriously for the wealthy (you can look these up--the NYT had a great article on this a couple of years ago), but many SLACs are committed to racial and economic diversity.
I plan on encouraging my children to take a seriously look at SLACs when it is time for them to apply to colleges. I expect that they will go onto graduate school, and the NSF data consistently show that SLACs have superior outcomes for graduate school admission across the board. This is not surprising, given the close relationships students at SLACs form with their faculty.
If your child does not seem to be included towards graduate school and wants to major in a pre-professional degree (like accounting), then there are SLACs out there as well as, of course, large universities that will offer that. But it seems that students who are academically strong are doing themselves a disservice by not seriously considering SLACs for their undergraduate education.

I too am a prof at a research university, and I too wanted my PhD-aspiring DC to matriculate last year at a SLAC. We were thrilled that DC got into Mudd and Williams and pushed hard in that direction, since those two schools are especially wonderful and have amazing PhD placement in DC's field. But DC was determined to attend the opposite of a SLAC, is now a first-year at U of T, and we all couldn't be happier.

One less obvious advantage of U of T over a SLAC: doing a specialist degree instead of a major. See, e.g., here: https://future.utoronto.ca/build-your-degree. A more obvious advantage is that an undergrad who wants to get a PhD will figure out how to take advantage of the greater academic resources of a research university. My kid, for example, goes to all the talks in his field (as I did as an undergrad) and is now enrolled in a small first-year seminar designed to support students who want to take that dive right into the deep end.

I'm a huge fan of SLACs like the Claremonts and Williams, but I'm now convinced that my PhD-bound kid is getting a better education at this research university.

is the future bright for PhDs these days? feels not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I harbor some disdain for LACs because of the number of athletes they recruit. At this point, they almost serve as athletic training camps rather than educational institutions. ~40% of LACs are varsity athletes compared to ~15% of research universities. And all of this just to mostly recruit the middle-of-the-pack athletes when they could have more space for world-class, talented, and intellectual students.

I think that you are talking about the Ivies. Athletes at a NESCAC or a school like Swat have an academic bar that is much higher with the majority athletes being above the mean for the school itself.

Yes, but my point is that LACs do not benefit from having so many athletes. It just hurts their academic reputation.