Favorite College that changes lives?

[Anonymous]

Everyone in my family loved Lawrence in Appleton, Wisconsin. Appleton is a nice small city. The art and music scenes are great. There's plenty of school spirit. Many students seem very serious but it doesn't seem crazy competitive. People interested in Macalester, Carleton, Grinnell and Oberlin in the Midwest, or Vassar or Wesleyan on the East Coast, should check it out. (Also some of the ones mentioned by others in the PNW.) Beloit is also in Wisconsin and seems similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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%.

This is my understanding, too: that a kid bound for finance or consulting, especially on the east coast, would do very well at Bucknell. The one kid I knew who went recently was smart, laid back, charismatic, athletic, and practical. He joined a fraternity and I think was happy as a clam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I thought the campus was lovely, too. Maybe bc it was in a city I expected less of a campus vibe, but it was really nice, in a quiet neighborhood. Classic college feel. Brick and ivy and open spaces, tall old trees. Kids seemed…happy? Or at least more relaxed than on some campuses? It’s definitely worth a look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!)

You are embarrassing yourself

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

What's your experience with them?

Other than Reed, they all have student body profiles well below my kids, and my kids wanted to be challenged.

So you have no experience with them.

It’s pretty clear that the PP you are responding to had very little professional or life experience whatsoever, let alone with any specific schools.

I answered the question. You just don’t like the answer. So you get all snippy and nasty. Not a good look.

The answer is that you have no experience, but you lashed out when you were called out on that fact.

What’s YOUR answer? How deep and how broad is your personal experience with each of the dozens of schools on the list?

Two can play this game.

DP. Collectively, there are a fair amount of people in this thread who have attended, sent a child to, or toured these schools. Not all of them, but a decent number.

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

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

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

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

So you have no more experience and knowledge than I do. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that.

My dude, as I said, I’m a DP. Not sure what you’re trying to win here? I’m sure your high stats kids found a really nice place to be. I hope they’re happy. I hope you’re happy. Have a great life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

Those are three wildly different institutions. Along what axis are you comparing them?

EXACTLY. You’ve just hit on the whole fallacy of the CTCL book without even knowing it.

What they have in common is a focus on undergraduate teaching, a pedagogy that’s student-centered (small classes, low student-faculty ratio, etc), and a reputation that’s a little off-the-radar relative to other schools.

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.

Would be interesting to see if someone could/would take up Pope's mantle with an edition of "CTCLS @ 30." What might be an obstacle is the demographic cliff and the perceptions on what will be the effect on college admissions. Two factors that may still augur for an update: (a) demand for T20 colleges/LACs will continue to outstrip the supply of seats and (b) tuition costs will continue to exceed bank accounts for MC/UMC families seeking LAC-style educations for their DCs who cannot afford AWBS, etc.

[Anonymous]

St. John's College, Annapolis.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

What's your experience with them?

Other than Reed, they all have student body profiles well below my kids, and my kids wanted to be challenged.

So you have no experience with them.

It’s pretty clear that the PP you are responding to had very little professional or life experience whatsoever, let alone with any specific schools.

I answered the question. You just don’t like the answer. So you get all snippy and nasty. Not a good look.

The answer is that you have no experience, but you lashed out when you were called out on that fact.

What’s YOUR answer? How deep and how broad is your personal experience with each of the dozens of schools on the list?

Two can play this game.

DP. Collectively, there are a fair amount of people in this thread who have attended, sent a child to, or toured these schools. Not all of them, but a decent number.

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

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

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

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

So you have no more experience and knowledge than I do. Got it. Thanks for clarifying that.

My dude, as I said, I’m a DP. Not sure what you’re trying to win here? I’m sure your high stats kids found a really nice place to be. I hope they’re happy. I hope you’re happy. Have a great life.

I was asked a question, I answered it, and I had a follow up question. Not trying to win anything at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

Those are three wildly different institutions. Along what axis are you comparing them?

EXACTLY. You’ve just hit on the whole fallacy of the CTCL book without even knowing it.

What they have in common is a focus on undergraduate teaching, a pedagogy that’s student-centered (small classes, low student-faculty ratio, etc), and a reputation that’s a little off-the-radar relative to other schools.

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.

Would be interesting to see if someone could/would take up Pope's mantle with an edition of "CTCLS @ 30." What might be an obstacle is the demographic cliff and the perceptions on what will be the effect on college admissions. Two factors that may still augur for an update: (a) demand for T20 colleges/LACs will continue to outstrip the supply of seats and (b) tuition costs will continue to exceed bank accounts for MC/UMC families seeking LAC-style educations for their DCs who cannot afford AWBS, etc.

That so many “MC/UMC” families “cannot afford AWBS, etc.” is a myth. It’s more that they don’t WANT to pay for them.

With a combination of the financial aid generously provided by these schools (which have much higher endowments than even the wealthiest CTCL schools and award aid to families who by almost any definition are closer to the top economically than the bottom) and greater sacrifice on the part of the families (the best things often do come at higher prices) these schools are doable.

After all, most students accepted by the top schools DO enroll and eschew the CTCL schools they used as safeties. Yes, you will find a few students at, say, Beloit who turned down Williams because of merit aid, but you’re not going to find many.

Pope’s book said little about the cost of CTCL schools in 1996. He focused on the education provided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

Those are three wildly different institutions. Along what axis are you comparing them?

EXACTLY. You’ve just hit on the whole fallacy of the CTCL book without even knowing it.

What they have in common is a focus on undergraduate teaching, a pedagogy that’s student-centered (small classes, low student-faculty ratio, etc), and a reputation that’s a little off-the-radar relative to other schools.

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.

Would be interesting to see if someone could/would take up Pope's mantle with an edition of "CTCLS @ 30." What might be an obstacle is the demographic cliff and the perceptions on what will be the effect on college admissions. Two factors that may still augur for an update: (a) demand for T20 colleges/LACs will continue to outstrip the supply of seats and (b) tuition costs will continue to exceed bank accounts for MC/UMC families seeking LAC-style educations for their DCs who cannot afford AWBS, etc.

That so many “MC/UMC” families “cannot afford AWBS, etc.” is a myth. It’s more that they don’t WANT to pay for them.

With a combination of the financial aid generously provided by these schools (which have much higher endowments than even the wealthiest CTCL schools and award aid to families who by almost any definition are closer to the top economically than the bottom) and greater sacrifice on the part of the families (the best things often do come at higher prices) these schools are doable.

After all, most students accepted by the top schools DO enroll and eschew the CTCL schools they used as safeties. Yes, you will find a few students at, say, Beloit who turned down Williams because of merit aid, but you’re not going to find many.

Pope’s book said little about the cost of CTCL schools in 1996. He focused on the education provided.

Many families prefer the merit awards at lower tier LACs. This is especially true if yearly incomes are variable. Nothing is guaranteed year to year with need based aid. Would mine have gone to Amherst if he'd gotten off the waitlist? Not sure. But we are all pretty happy with his 30K in merit at St. Olaf. Coursework is challenging. He's found his people. He is thriving and leading a very balanced life. He never thinks, oh, too bad I'm not at Carleton down the street, except to say their food is better. He didn't apply there because the NPC number was way too high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

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.

Would be interesting to see if someone could/would take up Pope's mantle with an edition of "CTCLS @ 30." What might be an obstacle is the demographic cliff and the perceptions on what will be the effect on college admissions. Two factors that may still augur for an update: (a) demand for T20 colleges/LACs will continue to outstrip the supply of seats and (b) tuition costs will continue to exceed bank accounts for MC/UMC families seeking LAC-style educations for their DCs who cannot afford AWBS, etc.

That so many “MC/UMC” families “cannot afford AWBS, etc.” is a myth. It’s more that they don’t WANT to pay for them.

With a combination of the financial aid generously provided by these schools (which have much higher endowments than even the wealthiest CTCL schools and award aid to families who by almost any definition are closer to the top economically than the bottom) and greater sacrifice on the part of the families (the best things often do come at higher prices) these schools are doable.

After all, most students accepted by the top schools DO enroll and eschew the CTCL schools they used as safeties. Yes, you will find a few students at, say, Beloit who turned down Williams because of merit aid, but you’re not going to find many.

Pope’s book said little about the cost of CTCL schools in 1996. He focused on the education provided.

Many families prefer the merit awards at lower tier LACs. This is especially true if yearly incomes are variable. Nothing is guaranteed year to year with need based aid. Would mine have gone to Amherst if he'd gotten off the waitlist? Not sure. But we are all pretty happy with his 30K in merit at St. Olaf. Coursework is challenging. He's found his people. He is thriving and leading a very balanced life. He never thinks, oh, too bad I'm not at Carleton down the street, except to say their food is better. He didn't apply there because the NPC number was way too high.

This is definitely a consideration. I was eye opening to run the NPCs for some reachy LACs DD might have considered. With her older brother in college, we got an NPC that we could stretch to make work for freshman year but then ran it without the sibling and it turned into full pay @$80K+. That would have been a very unhappy surprise. For her goals, I didn't see the highly-ranked LACs as really offering the ROI on that. She's not aiming for big finance, consulting jobs where the prestige can matter. A solid school with a strong program in her STEM interest, ranks well on the PhD feeders etc. that's the same price as our in-state schools was the right choice for her.

[Anonymous]

I wish I could've gotten kid to consider Beloit or Lawrence. They both looked really good on paper. DD met Lawrence rep at a college fair, and said the rep was raving about the music program... "I'm not a music person," DD told me. And for her, that was that.

You know I was looking at Jeff's summary of this thread, (I didn't realize he did that), and it's depressing. The summary is all about our stupid troll and how tiresome we all are. But I think we've been able to exchange some great information. I know I appreciate what I've learned, and this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could've gotten kid to consider Beloit or Lawrence. They both looked really good on paper. DD met Lawrence rep at a college fair, and said the rep was raving about the music program... "I'm not a music person," DD told me. And for her, that was that.

You know I was looking at Jeff's summary of this thread, (I didn't realize he did that), and it's depressing. The summary is all about our stupid troll and how tiresome we all are. But I think we've been able to exchange some great information. I know I appreciate what I've learned, and this discussion.

Where did you find a thread summary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I could've gotten kid to consider Beloit or Lawrence. They both looked really good on paper. DD met Lawrence rep at a college fair, and said the rep was raving about the music program... "I'm not a music person," DD told me. And for her, that was that.

You know I was looking at Jeff's summary of this thread, (I didn't realize he did that), and it's depressing. The summary is all about our stupid troll and how tiresome we all are. But I think we've been able to exchange some great information. I know I appreciate what I've learned, and this discussion.

Where did you find a thread summary?

Home page - most active threads
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

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.

Would be interesting to see if someone could/would take up Pope's mantle with an edition of "CTCLS @ 30." What might be an obstacle is the demographic cliff and the perceptions on what will be the effect on college admissions. Two factors that may still augur for an update: (a) demand for T20 colleges/LACs will continue to outstrip the supply of seats and (b) tuition costs will continue to exceed bank accounts for MC/UMC families seeking LAC-style educations for their DCs who cannot afford AWBS, etc.

That so many “MC/UMC” families “cannot afford AWBS, etc.” is a myth. It’s more that they don’t WANT to pay for them.

With a combination of the financial aid generously provided by these schools (which have much higher endowments than even the wealthiest CTCL schools and award aid to families who by almost any definition are closer to the top economically than the bottom) and greater sacrifice on the part of the families (the best things often do come at higher prices) these schools are doable.

After all, most students accepted by the top schools DO enroll and eschew the CTCL schools they used as safeties. Yes, you will find a few students at, say, Beloit who turned down Williams because of merit aid, but you’re not going to find many.

Pope’s book said little about the cost of CTCL schools in 1996. He focused on the education provided.

Many families prefer the merit awards at lower tier LACs. This is especially true if yearly incomes are variable. Nothing is guaranteed year to year with need based aid. Would mine have gone to Amherst if he'd gotten off the waitlist? Not sure. But we are all pretty happy with his 30K in merit at St. Olaf. Coursework is challenging. He's found his people. He is thriving and leading a very balanced life. He never thinks, oh, too bad I'm not at Carleton down the street, except to say their food is better. He didn't apply there because the NPC number was way too high.

He didn’t get into Amherst, so he wasn’t in the position to make the choice.