What is the appeal of SLACs for non-1%ers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLACs have very low ROI compared to state schools:

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

They seem like a total scam except for the 1%. Much better for your future to go to UMD or Ohio State or Indians or Purdue or VA Tech to study engineering or business while enjoying college sports.

SLACs seem like a waste for all but the wealthy 1%era who don’t have to worry about finding a job after graduation. Many of them don’t have big college sports or Greek Life to generate alumni loyalty. What’s the point of them?

Greek Life . . . College Sports . . . Engineering/business/hard sciences . . . all things that would completely turn my kid off of a college.

The notion that SLACs don’t have alumni loyalty because of a lack of Greek life or big sports is stupid. Many SLACs have a very avid alumni base. My SLAC has a great one and I have leaned on the network many times for jobs. Reunions are also a good indicator of alumni loyalty. I have gone to every one. At my 25th reunion, 70% of my class came, that’s huge compared with most schools, esp. big state schools.

Maybe that’s your case. I went to a SLAC ranked currently in the high 20s, and the alumni network has been useless and most don’t come to reunions or city-based alumni meetups.

I will definitely be encouraging my kids to attend a flagship state school with big time college sports. College sports are a good way to connect students with alumni. No such thing exists at SLACs except for being a varsity athlete yourself.

I have several colleagues who went to LACs and even ‘lesser’ Ivy League schools and they are not pleased with their alumni experiences & outcomes at all. Some of them even mentioned that they should have gone to big state schools instead. They don’t feel any connections to their respective alma maters. That’s why bigtime college athletics is so important to many people.

I think prospective students should not solely select schools based on education and expected on-campus experiences but also consider what these schools could do for them in the future (and networking is just one factor here).

I went to HYSP and the alumni experience is useless FWIW.

[Anonymous]

I really want to know OPs story. Why such an obsession? OP is relentless in this forum and it is bizarre. It seems rather quixotic to me, especially given that I think OP has managed nothing more than to raise interest in SLACs here on DCUM. People always want to know more about what sets off the crazies.

What is your story OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really want to know OPs story. Why such an obsession? OP is relentless in this forum and it is bizarre. It seems rather quixotic to me, especially given that I think OP has managed nothing more than to raise interest in SLACs here on DCUM. People always want to know more about what sets off the crazies.

What is your story OP?

You're not going to get a reply from OP, even on an anonymous board, but here are a few possible reasons:
1) Narrow-mindedness
2) Uneducated, ignorant
3) Unwilling to grow, change mind or to learn something new. Unwillingness to ever admit they may be wrong
4) Envy
5) Mental illness (including obsession, sociopathic. OP may enjoy riling up people on this board and does not mind being insulted)

[Anonymous]

Not OP, but I do prefer larger universities to LACs, yet I agree that OP's thread is a bit weird & narrow-minded.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SLACs offer a smaller environment and a more personalized education, don't they? You're not jostling with 100s for the attention of a professor. This is just going to suit some students better than others.

Exactly. You pay for the handholding, like in pre-K

Ah, I see what you did there

I went to a large state school, did well and enjoyed myself, but I can see the appeal of what PP described. It's someone actually caring (being paid to care?) about the student's experience. Sounds nice.

At a SLAC you as an undergraduate are paying for faculty who teach. At a research university, as an undergraduate, you are to a significant extent, paying for faculty to do research (or work with graduate students).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SLACs offer a smaller environment and a more personalized education, don't they? You're not jostling with 100s for the attention of a professor. This is just going to suit some students better than others.

Exactly. You pay for the handholding, like in pre-K

Ah, I see what you did there

I went to a large state school, did well and enjoyed myself, but I can see the appeal of what PP described. It's someone actually caring (being paid to care?) about the student's experience. Sounds nice.

At a SLAC you as an undergraduate are paying for faculty who teach. At a research university, as an undergraduate, you are to a significant extent, paying for faculty to do research (or work with graduate students).

Yes. It is a very different job for professors at both. Research university is definitely more prestigious but teaching can often be of little to no relevance in hiring/tenure decisions. SLACs are teaching gigs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SLACs offer a smaller environment and a more personalized education, don't they? You're not jostling with 100s for the attention of a professor. This is just going to suit some students better than others.

Exactly. You pay for the handholding, like in pre-K

Ah, I see what you did there

I went to a large state school, did well and enjoyed myself, but I can see the appeal of what PP described. It's someone actually caring (being paid to care?) about the student's experience. Sounds nice.

At a SLAC you as an undergraduate are paying for faculty who teach. At a research university, as an undergraduate, you are to a significant extent, paying for faculty to do research (or work with graduate students).

The above post is inaccurate and overly simplistic.

Professors at National Universities are brilliant & accomplished and still involved in their discipline.

LAC profs have been put out to pasture as they are no longer productive and have no other choices than to teach at small rural schools or work at Starbucks dispensing coffee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SLACs offer a smaller environment and a more personalized education, don't they? You're not jostling with 100s for the attention of a professor. This is just going to suit some students better than others.

Exactly. You pay for the handholding, like in pre-K

Ah, I see what you did there

I went to a large state school, did well and enjoyed myself, but I can see the appeal of what PP described. It's someone actually caring (being paid to care?) about the student's experience. Sounds nice.

At a SLAC you as an undergraduate are paying for faculty who teach. At a research university, as an undergraduate, you are to a significant extent, paying for faculty to do research (or work with graduate students).

The above post is inaccurate and overly simplistic.

Professors at National Universities are brilliant & accomplished and still involved in their discipline.

LAC profs have been put out to pasture as they are no longer productive and have no other choices than to teach at small rural schools or work at Starbucks dispensing coffee.

Wooowwwwwwww. You think the previous is overly simplistic and you correct it with *that*?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SLACs offer a smaller environment and a more personalized education, don't they? You're not jostling with 100s for the attention of a professor. This is just going to suit some students better than others.

Exactly. You pay for the handholding, like in pre-K

Ah, I see what you did there

I went to a large state school, did well and enjoyed myself, but I can see the appeal of what PP described. It's someone actually caring (being paid to care?) about the student's experience. Sounds nice.

At a SLAC you as an undergraduate are paying for faculty who teach. At a research university, as an undergraduate, you are to a significant extent, paying for faculty to do research (or work with graduate students).

The above post is inaccurate and overly simplistic.

Professors at National Universities are brilliant & accomplished and still involved in their discipline.

LAC profs have been put out to pasture as they are no longer productive and have no other choices than to teach at small rural schools or work at Starbucks dispensing coffee.

Wooowwwwwwww. You think the previous is overly simplistic and you correct it with *that*?

Impressive. I see that you caught on, but find it a touch disturbing that you think that your "insight' is a revelation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLACs have very low ROI compared to state schools:

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

They seem like a total scam except for the 1%. Much better for your future to go to UMD or Ohio State or Indians or Purdue or VA Tech to study engineering or business while enjoying college sports.

SLACs seem like a waste for all but the wealthy 1%era who don’t have to worry about finding a job after graduation. Many of them don’t have big college sports or Greek Life to generate alumni loyalty. What’s the point of them?

Greek Life . . . College Sports . . . Engineering/business/hard sciences . . . all things that would completely turn my kid off of a college.

The notion that SLACs don’t have alumni loyalty because of a lack of Greek life or big sports is stupid. Many SLACs have a very avid alumni base. My SLAC has a great one and I have leaned on the network many times for jobs. Reunions are also a good indicator of alumni loyalty. I have gone to every one. At my 25th reunion, 70% of my class came, that’s huge compared with most schools, esp. big state schools.

Maybe that’s your case. I went to a SLAC ranked currently in the high 20s, and the alumni network has been useless and most don’t come to reunions or city-based alumni meetups.

I will definitely be encouraging my kids to attend a flagship state school with big time college sports. College sports are a good way to connect students with alumni. No such thing exists at SLACs except for being a varsity athlete yourself.

I have several colleagues who went to LACs and even ‘lesser’ Ivy League schools and they are not pleased with their alumni experiences & outcomes at all. Some of them even mentioned that they should have gone to big state schools instead. They don’t feel any connections to their respective alma maters. That’s why bigtime college athletics is so important to many people.

I think prospective students should not solely select schools based on education and expected on-campus experiences but also consider what these schools could do for them in the future (and networking is just one factor here).

A very good indicator of whether alumni feel a strong connection to their respective alma maters is the % who give money to the school (versus just pay lip service to it or buy a sweatshirt). And using that metric, many SLACs do much better than big state schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want to know OPs story. Why such an obsession? OP is relentless in this forum and it is bizarre. It seems rather quixotic to me, especially given that I think OP has managed nothing more than to raise interest in SLACs here on DCUM. People always want to know more about what sets off the crazies.

What is your story OP?

You're not going to get a reply from OP, even on an anonymous board, but here are a few possible reasons:
1) Narrow-mindedness
2) Uneducated, ignorant
3) Unwilling to grow, change mind or to learn something new. Unwillingness to ever admit they may be wrong
4) Envy
5) Mental illness (including obsession, sociopathic. OP may enjoy riling up people on this board and does not mind being insulted)

ouch! SLAC attack! Told ya, OP! SAH SLACists have a lot of time and energy to keep this up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLACs have very low ROI compared to state schools:

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

They seem like a total scam except for the 1%. Much better for your future to go to UMD or Ohio State or Indians or Purdue or VA Tech to study engineering or business while enjoying college sports.

SLACs seem like a waste for all but the wealthy 1%era who don’t have to worry about finding a job after graduation. Many of them don’t have big college sports or Greek Life to generate alumni loyalty. What’s the point of them?

Greek Life . . . College Sports . . . Engineering/business/hard sciences . . . all things that would completely turn my kid off of a college.

The notion that SLACs don’t have alumni loyalty because of a lack of Greek life or big sports is stupid. Many SLACs have a very avid alumni base. My SLAC has a great one and I have leaned on the network many times for jobs. Reunions are also a good indicator of alumni loyalty. I have gone to every one. At my 25th reunion, 70% of my class came, that’s huge compared with most schools, esp. big state schools.

Maybe that’s your case. I went to a SLAC ranked currently in the high 20s, and the alumni network has been useless and most don’t come to reunions or city-based alumni meetups.

I will definitely be encouraging my kids to attend a flagship state school with big time college sports. College sports are a good way to connect students with alumni. No such thing exists at SLACs except for being a varsity athlete yourself.

I have several colleagues who went to LACs and even ‘lesser’ Ivy League schools and they are not pleased with their alumni experiences & outcomes at all. Some of them even mentioned that they should have gone to big state schools instead. They don’t feel any connections to their respective alma maters. That’s why bigtime college athletics is so important to many people.

I think prospective students should not solely select schools based on education and expected on-campus experiences but also consider what these schools could do for them in the future (and networking is just one factor here).

A very good indicator of whether alumni feel a strong connection to their respective alma maters is the % who give money to the school (versus just pay lip service to it or buy a sweatshirt). And using that metric, many SLACs do much better than big state schools.

Small private schools need to raise funds to survive; large public universities do not need to do so as they are publicly funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SLACs offer a smaller environment and a more personalized education, don't they? You're not jostling with 100s for the attention of a professor. This is just going to suit some students better than others.

Exactly. You pay for the handholding, like in pre-K

Handholding? It's called better quality of education to actually be able to learn, hold discussions easily with professors, engage in discussions in actual "lecture/class time" because it's only 20 students vs 400. To be taught by professors, not grad students. Ideally it is how everyone should be learning---but many give that up to attend a large state U with greek life, sports, etc. (or simply because it is more affordable)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the SLACs offer a smaller environment and a more personalized education, don't they? You're not jostling with 100s for the attention of a professor. This is just going to suit some students better than others.

Exactly. You pay for the handholding, like in pre-K

Ah, I see what you did there

I went to a large state school, did well and enjoyed myself, but I can see the appeal of what PP described. It's someone actually caring (being paid to care?) about the student's experience. Sounds nice.

+1

They are just jealous they couldn't afford to attend or get into a SLAC. My kid's wanted slightly larger (and one is an engineer, so major not available at SLAC) and both attended schools with 5-8K undergrads. That means majority of classes are under 40 students, once you get out of the initial Chem sequences---but even for those it's only 200 at most and they have labs (20 students) and discussion sections (12 students), so you get the small experience with the discussion sections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SLACs have very low ROI compared to state schools:

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

They seem like a total scam except for the 1%. Much better for your future to go to UMD or Ohio State or Indians or Purdue or VA Tech to study engineering or business while enjoying college sports.

SLACs seem like a waste for all but the wealthy 1%era who don’t have to worry about finding a job after graduation. Many of them don’t have big college sports or Greek Life to generate alumni loyalty. What’s the point of them?

Greek Life . . . College Sports . . . Engineering/business/hard sciences . . . all things that would completely turn my kid off of a college.

The notion that SLACs don’t have alumni loyalty because of a lack of Greek life or big sports is stupid. Many SLACs have a very avid alumni base. My SLAC has a great one and I have leaned on the network many times for jobs. Reunions are also a good indicator of alumni loyalty. I have gone to every one. At my 25th reunion, 70% of my class came, that’s huge compared with most schools, esp. big state schools.

Maybe that’s your case. I went to a SLAC ranked currently in the high 20s, and the alumni network has been useless and most don’t come to reunions or city-based alumni meetups.

I will definitely be encouraging my kids to attend a flagship state school with big time college sports. College sports are a good way to connect students with alumni. No such thing exists at SLACs except for being a varsity athlete yourself.

I have several colleagues who went to LACs and even ‘lesser’ Ivy League schools and they are not pleased with their alumni experiences & outcomes at all. Some of them even mentioned that they should have gone to big state schools instead. They don’t feel any connections to their respective alma maters. That’s why bigtime college athletics is so important to many people.

I think prospective students should not solely select schools based on education and expected on-campus experiences but also consider what these schools could do for them in the future (and networking is just one factor here).

A very good indicator of whether alumni feel a strong connection to their respective alma maters is the % who give money to the school (versus just pay lip service to it or buy a sweatshirt). And using that metric, many SLACs do much better than big state schools.

Small private schools need to raise funds to survive; large public universities do not need to do so as they are publicly funded.

LOL. No. I graduated from Michigan (OP's apparent dream school - sports! greek life! large! CS! business! ROI!). A few years ago, it raised over $5 billion in an endowment campaign. FWIW, both of my DC go to SLACs.