T20 or T5 lacs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

You forgot to add: And has better medical and law school placement.

Congratulations. Which are you? Both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Because reality is more complex than these simplistic, ignorant takes and anecdotes.

You talk about TAs, but the reality in modern universities is that lecturers, instructors, and adjuncts handle a lot of the entry level teaching. These people are well-qualified and have as much incentive as a LAC professor to focus on teaching. But notice how they never get mentioned, because the people here are ignorant and didn’t have these types of teaching staff when they were in college 30 years ago. And 300 and 400 level courses (and even some 200, especially for honors versions of courses) are mostly taught by professors.

Reality is that teaching is more of a focus at LACs, but plenty of professors check out after getting tenure or hang around too long and become dinosaurs.

Reality is that your teaching-focused professor is less well-known and regarded in his/her field, so their recommendation will carry less weight than someone top of their field.

Reality is that you can’t both talk about how great LACs are for going on and getting PhDs and how they aren’t as pre-professional and then claim that their alumni networks are as or even more valuable, or jump to the defense of their engineering and CS programs.

There are pros and cons to all types of universities. It’s weird to imply that it’s all pros, or somehow objectively the best.

Your reality doesn’t align with reality.

Regarding adjuncts; my wife is an adjunct at a west coast school which appears on DCUM frequently and my SIL is one at a selective east coast LAC. Both love it and I’m sure are pretty good but neither pretends the be a substitute for a professor. They are instructors and there is a big difference.

Reality is the HYPSM professor who I sat with at volleyball practice earlier this evening who hasn’t taught an undergraduate class in many years.

Reality is that you have no idea how the LAC professor is regarded, you are just reaching.

Reality is that a LAC can be great for grad school and pre professional programs. Of course they can be both.

Your entire comment was a mix of some small bits of truth and large quantities of unsupported simplistic, ignorant drivel. It’s ok, we understand.

[Anonymous]

I read some of these posts before DD selected a T5 (WASP) LAC and not sure why I opened this site and read another. These are odd debates and the reality of my kids education is amazing. Plus, I find that almost everyone knows the school in educated circles… so this fear that the board puts out that your kid will go to an “unknown” school just is not true… Go with what your kid wants … I am so happy that one of my kids chose a SLAC but lots of good schools. There are real advantages to a small school and to big schools.. Visit. See what fits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read some of these posts before DD selected a T5 (WASP) LAC and not sure why I opened this site and read another. These are odd debates and the reality of my kids education is amazing. Plus, I find that almost everyone knows the school in educated circles… so this fear that the board puts out that your kid will go to an “unknown” school just is not true… Go with what your kid wants … I am so happy that one of my kids chose a SLAC but lots of good schools. There are real advantages to a small school and to big schools.. Visit. See what fits.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Because reality is more complex than these simplistic, ignorant takes and anecdotes.

You talk about TAs, but the reality in modern universities is that lecturers, instructors, and adjuncts handle a lot of the entry level teaching. These people are well-qualified and have as much incentive as a LAC professor to focus on teaching. But notice how they never get mentioned, because the people here are ignorant and didn’t have these types of teaching staff when they were in college 30 years ago. And 300 and 400 level courses (and even some 200, especially for honors versions of courses) are mostly taught by professors.

Reality is that teaching is more of a focus at LACs, but plenty of professors check out after getting tenure or hang around too long and become dinosaurs.

Reality is that your teaching-focused professor is less well-known and regarded in his/her field, so their recommendation will carry less weight than someone top of their field.

Reality is that you can’t both talk about how great LACs are for going on and getting PhDs and how they aren’t as pre-professional and then claim that their alumni networks are as or even more valuable, or jump to the defense of their engineering and CS programs.

There are pros and cons to all types of universities. It’s weird to imply that it’s all pros, or somehow objectively the best.

Your reality doesn’t align with reality.

Regarding adjuncts; my wife is an adjunct at a west coast school which appears on DCUM frequently and my SIL is one at a selective east coast LAC. Both love it and I’m sure are pretty good but neither pretends the be a substitute for a professor. They are instructors and there is a big difference.

Reality is the HYPSM professor who I sat with at volleyball practice earlier this evening who hasn’t taught an undergraduate class in many years.

Reality is that you have no idea how the LAC professor is regarded, you are just reaching.

Reality is that a LAC can be great for grad school and pre professional programs. Of course they can be both.

Your entire comment was a mix of some small bits of truth and large quantities of unsupported simplistic, ignorant drivel. It’s ok, we understand.

Lol my entire comment was based on the broad reality, not reliant on two anecdotes. It’s ok, you’re not familiar with academia, we understand.

If LAC boosters think the only way they can push LACs is tell you that LACs are the bestest at everything ever! Then you should probably be skeptical.

LACs are great at certain things. There are also downsides. Research universities are great at certain things. There are also downsides. You don’t need to make stuff up, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the T5 Lacs?

Exactly which ones??
You know they won't agree with the top 5 list but let's read 'em.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Because reality is more complex than these simplistic, ignorant takes and anecdotes.

You talk about TAs, but the reality in modern universities is that lecturers, instructors, and adjuncts handle a lot of the entry level teaching. These people are well-qualified and have as much incentive as a LAC professor to focus on teaching. But notice how they never get mentioned, because the people here are ignorant and didn’t have these types of teaching staff when they were in college 30 years ago. And 300 and 400 level courses (and even some 200, especially for honors versions of courses) are mostly taught by professors.

Reality is that teaching is more of a focus at LACs, but plenty of professors check out after getting tenure or hang around too long and become dinosaurs.

Reality is that your teaching-focused professor is less well-known and regarded in his/her field, so their recommendation will carry less weight than someone top of their field.

Reality is that you can’t both talk about how great LACs are for going on and getting PhDs and how they aren’t as pre-professional and then claim that their alumni networks are as or even more valuable, or jump to the defense of their engineering and CS programs.

There are pros and cons to all types of universities. It’s weird to imply that it’s all pros, or somehow objectively the best.

Your reality doesn’t align with reality.

Regarding adjuncts; my wife is an adjunct at a west coast school which appears on DCUM frequently and my SIL is one at a selective east coast LAC. Both love it and I’m sure are pretty good but neither pretends the be a substitute for a professor. They are instructors and there is a big difference.

Reality is the HYPSM professor who I sat with at volleyball practice earlier this evening who hasn’t taught an undergraduate class in many years.

Reality is that you have no idea how the LAC professor is regarded, you are just reaching.

Reality is that a LAC can be great for grad school and pre professional programs. Of course they can be both.

Your entire comment was a mix of some small bits of truth and large quantities of unsupported simplistic, ignorant drivel. It’s ok, we understand.

Lol my entire comment was based on the broad reality, not reliant on two anecdotes. It’s ok, you’re not familiar with academia, we understand.

If LAC boosters think the only way they can push LACs is tell you that LACs are the bestest at everything ever! Then you should probably be skeptical.

LACs are great at certain things. There are also downsides. Research universities are great at certain things. There are also downsides. You don’t need to make stuff up, though.

You think that you are witty; but you are actually quite dim. My wife and my SIL would be quite amused that they are ‘made up’. You’ve said nothing and continue to say nothing of substance. Pretty typical type on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Because reality is more complex than these simplistic, ignorant takes and anecdotes.

You talk about TAs, but the reality in modern universities is that lecturers, instructors, and adjuncts handle a lot of the entry level teaching. These people are well-qualified and have as much incentive as a LAC professor to focus on teaching. But notice how they never get mentioned, because the people here are ignorant and didn’t have these types of teaching staff when they were in college 30 years ago. And 300 and 400 level courses (and even some 200, especially for honors versions of courses) are mostly taught by professors.

Reality is that teaching is more of a focus at LACs, but plenty of professors check out after getting tenure or hang around too long and become dinosaurs.

Reality is that your teaching-focused professor is less well-known and regarded in his/her field, so their recommendation will carry less weight than someone top of their field.

Reality is that you can’t both talk about how great LACs are for going on and getting PhDs and how they aren’t as pre-professional and then claim that their alumni networks are as or even more valuable, or jump to the defense of their engineering and CS programs.

There are pros and cons to all types of universities. It’s weird to imply that it’s all pros, or somehow objectively the best.

Your reality doesn’t align with reality.

Regarding adjuncts; my wife is an adjunct at a west coast school which appears on DCUM frequently and my SIL is one at a selective east coast LAC. Both love it and I’m sure are pretty good but neither pretends the be a substitute for a professor. They are instructors and there is a big difference.

Reality is the HYPSM professor who I sat with at volleyball practice earlier this evening who hasn’t taught an undergraduate class in many years.

Reality is that you have no idea how the LAC professor is regarded, you are just reaching.

Reality is that a LAC can be great for grad school and pre professional programs. Of course they can be both.

Your entire comment was a mix of some small bits of truth and large quantities of unsupported simplistic, ignorant drivel. It’s ok, we understand.

Lol my entire comment was based on the broad reality, not reliant on two anecdotes. It’s ok, you’re not familiar with academia, we understand.

If LAC boosters think the only way they can push LACs is tell you that LACs are the bestest at everything ever! Then you should probably be skeptical.

LACs are great at certain things. There are also downsides. Research universities are great at certain things. There are also downsides. You don’t need to make stuff up, though.

You think that you are witty; but you are actually quite dim. My wife and my SIL would be quite amused that they are ‘made up’. You’ve said nothing and continue to say nothing of substance. Pretty typical type on DCUM.

I said plenty in my original comment, including correcting some rampant misinformation, none of which you could actually address. I even said nice things about LACs. I said there are pros and cons to all types of schools. That this triggers some of you so much says a lot about an earlier poster’s comment about LAC boosters and their inferiority complexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the T5 Lacs?

in no particular order
swarthmore
williams
bowdoin
pomona
amherst
wellesley

yes, there are 6 not 5

There are 5, Bowdoin should be taken off the list.

Bowdoin is currently outranking Pomona and Wellesley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is at one and chose it over Brown. I have yet to run into anyone in real life who looks down on her choice, and she's doing just fine.

My dd made the same choice - a WASP school over Brown. Honestly, she didn't care what others thought, though there were many who were shocked she didn't go to an Ivy League school. But then we are at a pretty much Ivy+ or bust mentality HS.

Our Val last year chose Williams over Stanford, UCB, and an Ivy. It caused 'talk' because she is Asian.

Our valedictorian last year also chose Williams over several ivies, coming from a famous boarding school - so it was also a bit scandalous. I hope they’ve met each other (I suspect they have).

Assuming well educated parents that is surprising

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:T10 Ivy Parent. DC regrets not going to the T3 LAC she was admitted to. Do do we (parents). What a difference a year makes.

What changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually look down on SLACs as playgrounds for private school kids who can't handle larger schools. I'd take a top Big Ten school over a SLAC any day. If you're really all that, go to Michigan and prove yourself.

My favorite DCUM LAC post was when someone unironically referred to Pomona as a "major school" in Southern California. Pomona is smaller than most high schools, and there are likely 100 colleges in Southern California with more students. It's barely a blip on the academic radar, though it does punch well above its weight on the pretentiousness scale.

What is the rush?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the T5 Lacs?

in no particular order
swarthmore
williams
bowdoin
pomona
amherst
wellesley

yes, there are 6 not 5

There are 5, Bowdoin should be taken off the list.

Actually there are 9 (with SAT medians above 1500)

Amherst
Bowdoin
Claremont McKenna
Harvey Mudd
Middlebury
Pomona
Swarthmore
Wellesley
Williams

With another cluster right behind them (1480+)
Carleton
Colgate
Davidson
Hamilton
Haverford
Vassar
Washington & Lee

Wesleyan way better than Washington & Lee and others. Most LAC are similar actually. Wes, with Williams & Amherst considered little 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the T5 Lacs?

in no particular order
swarthmore
williams
bowdoin
pomona
amherst
wellesley

yes, there are 6 not 5

There are 5, Bowdoin should be taken off the list.

Actually there are 9 (with SAT medians above 1500)

Amherst
Bowdoin
Claremont McKenna
Harvey Mudd
Middlebury
Pomona
Swarthmore
Wellesley
Williams

With another cluster right behind them (1480+)
Carleton
Colgate
Davidson
Hamilton
Haverford
Vassar
Washington & Lee

Kinda meaningless if not looking also at reporting rate. CMC is just 39%, for example. (And that assumes everyone who submitted an SAT score didn’t submit an ACT score, which isn’t completely true.) Midd is at 42% and Bowdoin at 48%. Meanwhile Carleton is at 60% with a 1490 mean, so that grouping is dubious at best. Maybe go with USNWR ranks.