Pros and Cons of Top 10 SLAC vs State Flagship Honors Program

[Anonymous]

You're better off going to the school with better name recognition. No one will know or care that you did honors at UMD. They'll be impressed that you went to Williams though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - many of the comments here are not comparing SLACs to honors colleges as you requested. Honors colleges offer small classes, internship, research, conference and scholarship opportunities as well as close working relationships with professors. They are also exempt from many core classes so that they can pursue their studies at a higher level starting Freshman Year. Let’s not also forget close association with a network representing the top 2-5 percent of the Flagship admits. Finally , all attending are by no means financially “strapped” as suggested. People that are financially sound and successful tend to teach their children the value of good strategic decisions and long term thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're better off going to the school with better name recognition. No one will know or care that you did honors at UMD. They'll be impressed that you went to Williams though.

Most people, including employers in NOVA, have heard more about UMD than Williams. Sorry, but it's true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - many of the comments here are not comparing SLACs to honors colleges as you requested. Honors colleges offer small classes, internship, research, conference and scholarship opportunities as well as close working relationships with professors. They are also exempt from many core classes so that they can pursue their studies at a higher level starting Freshman Year. Let’s not also forget close association with a network representing the top 2-5 percent of the Flagship admits. Finally , all attending are by no means financially “strapped” as suggested. People that are financially sound and successful tend to teach their children the value of good strategic decisions and long term thinking.

My D received full tuition scholarship to UC campuses including with honors and chancellor's. We send her to an out of state slac for many of the reasons already stated on here for slacs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think people on this thread who are dismissing slacs never really went to a slac or has a kid in a slac. You have to really know how slacs differ in order to compare. Otherwise, whatever traits slacs might have, the state supporter will always find some element in a state school that could potentially satisfied that element to some degree. Top slacs cost approximately $75,000 per year. There are reasons for their existence.

And I think people who went (or send their kids) to SLACs often fervently believe that their educational experiences are unique to SLACs. But seminars, accessible faculty, mentorship, liberal arts curricula, undergrad lab opportunities, attention to writing skills, etc. are all available at major research universities. One difference may be that students generally have to opt in to/seek out these things at universities whereas they are more of a default at LACs.

Personally, I agree with the PP who suggested looking at major universities with colleges in the 4-6K student range. They can be a best of both worlds scenario (lots of courses, many of them small; motivated student body with real diversity; faculty who are lifelong learners as well as teachers and who aren’t stuck teaching the same intro courses year after year).

Their might be similar courses at state schools and SLACs but that’s where the similarities end. The small class sizes and relationships built with professors (not some TA) at SLACs simply are unique. You’re also never goin to get real diversity at a state school given that 50%+ come from one geography and most states are pretty homogenous. LACs aren’t for every child but in my field I e had far greater success with their grads than state school grads.

And in my (non-STEM) field, some of the worst-educated students came from top 10 LACs. Those “unique” relationships with profs, coupled with a general atmosphere of grade inflation, means it’s pretty easy to BS your way through. Meanwhile, kids who aren’t inclined to do that are often placed in a situation where they aren’t exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view on their own field. They deal with one or two profs who, in turn, are teaching students who only know what they’ve learned in their own small department. One big plus of having grad students in the mix is there’s a continual influx of new blood and different perspectives into the department.

This doesn't really make sense. LACs actively encourage students to explore across disciplines. Students absolutely are "exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view". It might not be specialized to one specific field, but to me, that's a good thing. Get the specialization at work or in graduate school. At a LAC, the point is learning for its own sake.

Or the point is having a good time in a country clubby environment for 4 years on your parents’ dime without having to spend much effort on schoolwork once you’ve figured out which profs hand out As for papers that sound good but say nothing. Depends on the kid. Seriously, I’ve encountered smart kids with shockingly poor research and analytical skills who graduated from top LACs with excellent GPAs and glowing recommendations. Haven’t encountered that from flagship state school kids. Have seen kids from every type of school that have had close relationships with faculty who acted as intellectual mentors. And that have clearly spent lots of time in small group seminars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think people on this thread who are dismissing slacs never really went to a slac or has a kid in a slac. You have to really know how slacs differ in order to compare. Otherwise, whatever traits slacs might have, the state supporter will always find some element in a state school that could potentially satisfied that element to some degree. Top slacs cost approximately $75,000 per year. There are reasons for their existence.

And I think people who went (or send their kids) to SLACs often fervently believe that their educational experiences are unique to SLACs. But seminars, accessible faculty, mentorship, liberal arts curricula, undergrad lab opportunities, attention to writing skills, etc. are all available at major research universities. One difference may be that students generally have to opt in to/seek out these things at universities whereas they are more of a default at LACs.

Personally, I agree with the PP who suggested looking at major universities with colleges in the 4-6K student range. They can be a best of both worlds scenario (lots of courses, many of them small; motivated student body with real diversity; faculty who are lifelong learners as well as teachers and who aren’t stuck teaching the same intro courses year after year).

Their might be similar courses at state schools and SLACs but that’s where the similarities end. The small class sizes and relationships built with professors (not some TA) at SLACs simply are unique. You’re also never goin to get real diversity at a state school given that 50%+ come from one geography and most states are pretty homogenous. LACs aren’t for every child but in my field I e had far greater success with their grads than state school grads.

And in my (non-STEM) field, some of the worst-educated students came from top 10 LACs. Those “unique” relationships with profs, coupled with a general atmosphere of grade inflation, means it’s pretty easy to BS your way through. Meanwhile, kids who aren’t inclined to do that are often placed in a situation where they aren’t exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view on their own field. They deal with one or two profs who, in turn, are teaching students who only know what they’ve learned in their own small department. One big plus of having grad students in the mix is there’s a continual influx of new blood and different perspectives into the department.

This doesn't really make sense. LACs actively encourage students to explore across disciplines. Students absolutely are "exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view". It might not be specialized to one specific field, but to me, that's a good thing. Get the specialization at work or in graduate school. At a LAC, the point is learning for its own sake.

Or the point is having a good time in a country clubby environment for 4 years on your parents’ dime without having to spend much effort on schoolwork once you’ve figured out which profs hand out As for papers that sound good but say nothing. Depends on the kid. Seriously, I’ve encountered smart kids with shockingly poor research and analytical skills who graduated from top LACs with excellent GPAs and glowing recommendations. Haven’t encountered that from flagship state school kids. Have seen kids from every type of school that have had close relationships with faculty who acted as intellectual mentors. And that have clearly spent lots of time in small group seminars.

We know this poster graduated from Podunk University. If she knew slac, s/he wouldn't be talking this way.

[Anonymous]

It's clear people who have negative things to say about SLACs have no idea what slacs are.

[Anonymous]

I'm not going to refute your experience, but the reality is that many of the top LACs are producing academics to a high extent. According to NSF data, the top PhD producing schools per capita largely consist of LACs and liberal art emphasizing universities, even in STEM fields: https://www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-research/doctorates-awarded There is absolutely no hand-holding at the PhD level and I know that at the top LACs, the graduate destinations do tend to overwhelmingly be top graduate programs like the Ivies, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. That would seem to suggest that their grads have gotten the analytical and research skills.

I think what you might be referring to is that some LACs are a bit wishy washy with requirements. Hamilton, Vassar, and Amherst have no core requirements at all, and their majors only entail 8-10 courses, so a student could get by with doing the minimum work and not doing the 16-20 courses a state school kid might be doing for their major. I do feel LACs give students more choices to shape their education, and sometimes it can be for the worse. I prefer LACs that have core requirements and heavy major components and required senior exercise, such as Harvey Mudd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to refute your experience, but the reality is that many of the top LACs are producing academics to a high extent. According to NSF data, the top PhD producing schools per capita largely consist of LACs and liberal art emphasizing universities, even in STEM fields: https://www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-research/doctorates-awarded There is absolutely no hand-holding at the PhD level and I know that at the top LACs, the graduate destinations do tend to overwhelmingly be top graduate programs like the Ivies, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. That would seem to suggest that their grads have gotten the analytical and research skills.

I think what you might be referring to is that some LACs are a bit wishy washy with requirements. Hamilton, Vassar, and Amherst have no core requirements at all, and their majors only entail 8-10 courses, so a student could get by with doing the minimum work and not doing the 16-20 courses a state school kid might be doing for their major. I do feel LACs give students more choices to shape their education, and sometimes it can be for the worse. I prefer LACs that have core requirements and heavy major components and required senior exercise, such as Harvey Mudd.

I’m not anti-LAC. I’m just really skeptical of the notion that LACs are inherently or uniquely intellectual places. And I’m probably most dismissive of that claim in contexts where UMC people are talking about “top” LACs as if they were all the same. I have a lot of respect for Mudd. I think Swarthmore avoids the problems I'm pointing out. I know well-educated graduates of a bunch of different Midwestern LACs.

It was in the context of teaching in a top PhD program that I developed some of these impressions of LACs. We consistently admitted their grads but they all had essentially the same credentials and some were great and others were just terrible. Even the great ones had a more narrow/skewed perspective on the field than people who came from major research universities, but they had the skills to fill in the gaps. A kid with the same credentials from a flagship public university would be a much more reliable bet.

[Anonymous]

Seems more State U supporters on here than SLAC supporters. At this time of the day, read between the lines. They are either unemployed or they are home with their sick kids so they have free time to write long treatises railing against the "privileged" few. Ivys and top SLACs educate approxately 1-2% of the populations. You don't see many of them here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the honors program is significantly cheaper, definitely that, unless you want to go into something where name brand matters like finance in which the few LACs who are finance feeders can help you land a job

But top LACs give great financial aid. If they're equal (or sometimes, the LAC can be cheaper!), it's worth noting they attract a stronger, more diverse group of students, professors who are fully engaged with undergrads, and have considerably more resources to fund research, opportunities, internships, and whatnot. I believe Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams, and Pomona spend well over 100,000 dollars on each student per year due to how resource heavy they are (they have endowments larger than most universities even absolutely). So even the full pay students are getting a hefty chunk waived.

Here are some average net prices from a government website (https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/)

Pomona: $14908
Amherst: $18848
Davidson: $19981
Bowdoin: $19901
Vassar: $21858
Swarthmore: $21858
Middlebury: $23303
Williams: $23924

University of Virginia: $19430
UMD College Park: $15634
College of William and Mary: $18300
Virginia Tech; $20172

Donut hole families need not apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich people with kids who can afford to study anything in college regardless of[b] ROI (daddy's company has an opening for junior VP) = SLAC

Everyone else that is worried about getting a job and making a living-wage = STATE COLLEGE

I do not look at undergrad education as a ROI endeavor.

But YMMV.

Again, that is a sign of your privilege. Which is fine, but recognizing your privilege is important.

True that.

And yet, SLAC grads go on to become employable, high-functioning contributors to society, as a group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it entirely depends not the LAC. And not all LACs are SLACS. There are really only a handful that are really nationally known and highly regarded. There are quite a few private schools that are not SLACS that are Universities instead (Duke, Lehigh come to mind) and you don't seem to include that as an option. And there are lots of wanna-be SLACs that are really just LACs. So once you really identify if you are talking the very few true SLACs (Amherst, Williams, Vassar) versus Universities (NYU, Lehigh) versus LACs (e.g. Denison or Union), then you can make a solid decision about the value of one versus the other. So in a head to head, Amherst v Maryland Honors --probably Amherst for liberal arts but probably Maryland for Engineering. Lehigh versus Maryland for any subject is Lehigh. Maryland versus Denison for every subject is Maryland.[b]

How is Denison, a liberal arts college with a student population of fewer than 2400, not a SLAC?

Your last statement is a matter of your opinion, not a matter of fact.

The "S" stands for Selective, not Small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it entirely depends not the LAC. And not all LACs are SLACS. There are really only a handful that are really nationally known and highly regarded. There are quite a few private schools that are not SLACS that are Universities instead (Duke, Lehigh come to mind) and you don't seem to include that as an option. And there are lots of wanna-be SLACs that are really just LACs. So once you really identify if you are talking the very few true SLACs (Amherst, Williams, Vassar) versus Universities (NYU, Lehigh) versus LACs (e.g. Denison or Union), then you can make a solid decision about the value of one versus the other. So in a head to head, Amherst v Maryland Honors --probably Amherst for liberal arts but probably Maryland for Engineering. Lehigh versus Maryland for any subject is Lehigh. Maryland versus Denison for every subject is Maryland.[b]

How is Denison, a liberal arts college with a student population of fewer than 2400, not a SLAC?

Your last statement is a matter of your opinion, not a matter of fact.

The "S" stands for Selective, not Small.

What do you mean by "the very few true SLACs"? Almost all the LACs ranked in the top 30 have less than a 30% acceptance rate. Union and Denison at 35-40% aren't far behind. They are selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it entirely depends not the LAC. And not all LACs are SLACS. There are really only a handful that are really nationally known and highly regarded. There are quite a few private schools that are not SLACS that are Universities instead (Duke, Lehigh come to mind) and you don't seem to include that as an option. And there are lots of wanna-be SLACs that are really just LACs. So once you really identify if you are talking the very few true SLACs (Amherst, Williams, Vassar) versus Universities (NYU, Lehigh) versus LACs (e.g. Denison or Union), then you can make a solid decision about the value of one versus the other. So in a head to head, Amherst v Maryland Honors --probably Amherst for liberal arts but probably Maryland for Engineering. Lehigh versus Maryland for any subject is Lehigh. Maryland versus Denison for every subject is Maryland.[b]

How is Denison, a liberal arts college with a student population of fewer than 2400, not a SLAC?

Your last statement is a matter of your opinion, not a matter of fact.

The "S" stands for Selective, not Small.

What do you mean by "the very few true SLACs"? Almost all the LACs ranked in the top 30 have less than a 30% acceptance rate. Union and Denison at 35-40% aren't far behind. They are selective.

+1