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:

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. Wait, what? That’s your definition of “bashing”? My God. I’m not sure how you function in the world at all with that level of hyper-reactivity. Absolutely nuts.

[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.

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.

"Wahh, you resort to insults because you can't disprove what I say!" (This is me. Doing you.)

Us: "You haven't said anything "

You: "insults! You put down public colleges! My kids went to better schools! Some of these schools are bad."

Us: "and you've said this several times already."

This is an excellent summation of this thread.

[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.

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.

100 years ago

And it changed my life.

Yeah? So it’s true that the drugs there are that good then?

I'm not sure you can still get MDA AND MDMA anymore. Probably just the one. (Don't ask me which, I wasn't a chem major.)

[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.

I know, right? It would be nice if: 1) they could accept that parents and their kids can actually evaluate the options and make these decisions without their dogmatic orders and instructions, and 2) they didn't need the buzz of satisfaction they so clearly want by having posters prostrate themselves and humbly acknowledge that Williams has better stats than their CTCL of choice, so neh-nah-neh-nah-neh-neh. It's really quite funny, but unfortunately, it distracts from the OP's request for information about CTCLs.

To get back to the topic of CTCLs, we loved Lawrence, Beloit, Wooster, St. Olaf, and Denison, along with Gustavus, Muhlenberg, and Oberlin (which might be considered peer CTCLs). We focused on the Midwest and didn't check out the PNW schools as we felt they were too far away, but they look fabulous too. I'm so glad that my kid can consider these options.

[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.

Yes, absolutely. The idea is that they take in students with potential who might not have been top students in high school (although some are) and then provide the scaffolding that allows them to graduate college as high achievers. They were originally chosen as colleges that *change lives" because they supposedly provide the care, attention, and support that radically fosters growth. People who went to CTCLs are disproportionately represented in Ph.D. programs, so I'm guessing this process is effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic, but “pissed in your Cheerios,” is a terrific phrase, and I plan to use it.

If you think it’s original, you don’t get out much.

Charlie Sheen said it (using peed instead of pissed) in the movie “Wall Street.”

In 1987.

[Anonymous]

Because I like data, I went to the National Science Foundation's list of top 50 undergraduate institutions whose alumni go on to earn Ph.D.s in science and engineering (adjusted for school size).

By my count, CTCLs make up 10% of the top 50 schools, which is actually pretty impressive considering how many truly great schools don't make the list at all.

I won't note which schools aren't on the list, or name the schools that, having made the list, fall below CTCLs. (Comparison, after all, is the thief of joy.)

I also, for the record, don't think a STEM Ph.D. should be a goal for everyone. But hopefully we can agree earning a Ph.D. in a STEM subject is no cakewalk. So if 5/50 top-producing schools, are CTCL schools, that's meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic, but “pissed in your Cheerios,” is a terrific phrase, and I plan to use it.

If you think it’s original, you don’t get out much.

Charlie Sheen said it (using peed instead of pissed) in the movie “Wall Street.”

In 1987.

I think we're allowed to compliment phrases that aren't original. I like the phrase, and I'm gonna' start using it, and I hope that you won't piss in my cheerios about it. (THERE, I USED IT!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because I like data, I went to the National Science Foundation's list of top 50 undergraduate institutions whose alumni go on to earn Ph.D.s in science and engineering (adjusted for school size).

By my count, CTCLs make up 10% of the top 50 schools, which is actually pretty impressive considering how many truly great schools don't make the list at all.

I won't note which schools aren't on the list, or name the schools that, having made the list, fall below CTCLs. (Comparison, after all, is the thief of joy.)

I also, for the record, don't think a STEM Ph.D. should be a goal for everyone. But hopefully we can agree earning a Ph.D. in a STEM subject is no cakewalk. So if 5/50 top-producing schools, are CTCL schools, that's meaningful.

I’m sure the anti-CTCL poster will be along soon to tell us how the NSF is second-tier.

[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.

I know, right? It would be nice if: 1) they could accept that parents and their kids can actually evaluate the options and make these decisions without their dogmatic orders and instructions, and 2) they didn't need the buzz of satisfaction they so clearly want by having posters prostrate themselves and humbly acknowledge that Williams has better stats than their CTCL of choice, so neh-nah-neh-nah-neh-neh. It's really quite funny, but unfortunately, it distracts from the OP's request for information about CTCLs.

To get back to the topic of CTCLs, we loved Lawrence, Beloit, Wooster, St. Olaf, and Denison, along with Gustavus, Muhlenberg, and Oberlin (which might be considered peer CTCLs). We focused on the Midwest and didn't check out the PNW schools as we felt they were too far away, but they look fabulous too. I'm so glad that my kid can consider these options.

Having read the whole thread, I actually think this is a lot of what's going on. For whatever reason, the detractors don't feel seen when we talk about some of these other schools.

But I see you, parents of high-achieving students! I see you, and I salute you! I salute you and your high stats kids, too! I truly wish you all very happy and successful lives! Be well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because I like data, I went to the National Science Foundation's list of top 50 undergraduate institutions whose alumni go on to earn Ph.D.s in science and engineering (adjusted for school size).

By my count, CTCLs make up 10% of the top 50 schools, which is actually pretty impressive considering how many truly great schools don't make the list at all.

I won't note which schools aren't on the list, or name the schools that, having made the list, fall below CTCLs. (Comparison, after all, is the thief of joy.)

I also, for the record, don't think a STEM Ph.D. should be a goal for everyone. But hopefully we can agree earning a Ph.D. in a STEM subject is no cakewalk. So if 5/50 top-producing schools, are CTCL schools, that's meaningful.

Whoops, forgot to post the link: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22321 It's table 6 if anyone's interested.

[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.

I know, right? It would be nice if: 1) they could accept that parents and their kids can actually evaluate the options and make these decisions without their dogmatic orders and instructions, and 2) they didn't need the buzz of satisfaction they so clearly want by having posters prostrate themselves and humbly acknowledge that Williams has better stats than their CTCL of choice, so neh-nah-neh-nah-neh-neh. It's really quite funny, but unfortunately, it distracts from the OP's request for information about CTCLs.

To get back to the topic of CTCLs, we loved Lawrence, Beloit, Wooster, St. Olaf, and Denison, along with Gustavus, Muhlenberg, and Oberlin (which might be considered peer CTCLs). We focused on the Midwest and didn't check out the PNW schools as we felt they were too far away, but they look fabulous too. I'm so glad that my kid can consider these options.

Did your kid apply this year? Mine applied/was accepted to the bolded four. All are pretty strongly in the running. Have yet to see Lawrence and St. Olaf in person, though -- next month, I hope. Have a friend who teaches at Lawrence. They love it, and Appleton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I like data, I went to the National Science Foundation's list of top 50 undergraduate institutions whose alumni go on to earn Ph.D.s in science and engineering (adjusted for school size).

By my count, CTCLs make up 10% of the top 50 schools, which is actually pretty impressive considering how many truly great schools don't make the list at all.

I won't note which schools aren't on the list, or name the schools that, having made the list, fall below CTCLs. (Comparison, after all, is the thief of joy.)

I also, for the record, don't think a STEM Ph.D. should be a goal for everyone. But hopefully we can agree earning a Ph.D. in a STEM subject is no cakewalk. So if 5/50 top-producing schools, are CTCL schools, that's meaningful.

Whoops, forgot to post the link: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22321 It's table 6 if anyone's interested.

….and even more broadly, for the haters, roughly 20 of the top 50 in this list are LACs. To my mind that speaks volumes to the quality of the education that can be gotten through this approach to education.

[Anonymous]

It might not be in the book, but Bucknell is another LAC that absolutely changes lives. Any student who makes the most of the academic and social opportunities on campus (read: join a frat and NETWORK) has a guaranteed pipeline to The Street or a high-paying management consulting gig. And it's not impossible to get into like most incubators of the 1%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the GPNW and know the schools on this list from that region pretty well--have had friends attend all of them. They're all great places for kids who dig their respective ethos. In alpha order:

Evergreen State is super hippie. Like a left coast version of UNC-Asheville only more so. Or a mini UC Santa Cruz. More intellectual than academic, if that makes sense.

Reed is intense. Like a less selective but no less ambitious Swarthmore--but with lots of black eyeliner and hard drugs. If you're not both brilliant and cynical, it's not your spot.

UPS is kind of like a miniaturized flagship. Solid for business, music, and liberal arts and sciences. Wide range of kids there, almost all of them happy.

Whitman is like west coast Middlebury but in a bigger, better town (but also way further from anything else). For kids who check the "intellectual," "outdoorsy," and "at least somewhat preppy" boxes, it's heaven.

Willamette is right next to the state capital and is a school for go-getters, across a decent range of raw intellectual firepower levels.

Which of these schools would work for a moderately conservative student who is interested in that area of the country?

UPS or Willamette for sure. Probably Whitman, too. Definitely not Reed or Evergreen State.

I second UPS for this description. Work in Seattle in non-profit adjacent to people in finance annd investment management work and the its littered with UPS grads who are down to earth, slightly conservative for this area, sporty into adulthood, and a bit more “East Coast” than my other colleagues.

Which one of those schools is UPS? I don't understand the abbreviation.

University of Puget Sound

As an East Coaster, I can say that UPS is much more laid back than East Coast equivalents. It also has some very unusual qualities. The large number of business students make it feel a little like a conservative East Coast college but the large number of public interest minded people and the large number of musicians make it feel like Macalaster or Wesleyan or Oberlin. It's also one of very few LACs in a city. It's in a nice part of Tacoma.