Atlantic article on LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two of my kids attend SLACs, and I really love the education and individual attention they gett. My youngest is leaning toward a flagship, and after seeing the SLAC experience, it feels like they’ll be missing out in some ways. I agree with the argument that these schools are somewhat insulated from attacks on universities because they aren’t as dependent on federal research funding, but the reality is that most families just can’t afford them. At $90k+ per year, the cost puts these schools out of reach for the vast majority of students, which results in largely wealthy student bodies. I wish more SLACs offered meaningful merit aid to a broader range of families, because as it stands, once again it’s wealthier families who are insulated from the consequences of Republican policies and the Trump administration.

100% agree.
My kid is a freshman at a T10, and I'm still regretting that DC did not take the Davidson spot.

[Anonymous]

Hardly. Athletics has been a part of SLACs for over 125 years. A lot of former athletes at these schools are their respective donors. Like the performing arts, athletics enhance the campus experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two of my kids attend SLACs, and I really love the education and individual attention they gett. My youngest is leaning toward a flagship, and after seeing the SLAC experience, it feels like they’ll be missing out in some ways. I agree with the argument that these schools are somewhat insulated from attacks on universities because they aren’t as dependent on federal research funding, but the reality is that most families just can’t afford them. At $90k+ per year, the cost puts these schools out of reach for the vast majority of students, which results in largely wealthy student bodies. I wish more SLACs offered meaningful merit aid to a broader range of families, because as it stands, once again it’s wealthier families who are insulated from the consequences of Republican policies and the Trump administration.

100% agree.
My kid is a freshman at a T10, and I'm still regretting that DC did not take the Davidson spot.

I attended HYP and had regrets about turning down Pomona. I laid out the pros and cons for DC (perfect stats) and she decided she wanted to apply only to SLACs. Now at a WASP and thriving. We're classic donut hole but did get aid (22%). Younger DC will want a larger school, which is fine, even if I prefer the SLAC educational model for UG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I harbor some disdain for LACs because of the number of athletes they recruit. At this point, they almost serve as athletic training camps rather than educational institutions. ~40% of LACs are varsity athletes compared to ~15% of research universities. And all of this just to mostly recruit the middle-of-the-pack athletes when they could have more space for world-class, talented, and intellectual students.

I think that you are talking about the Ivies. Athletes at a NESCAC or a school like Swat have an academic bar that is much higher with the majority athletes being above the mean for the school itself.

Yes, but my point is that LACs do not benefit from having so many athletes. It just hurts their academic reputation.

No, it doesn't, except in the eyes of parents of non-athletic children who resent the advantages given to high athletic, high academic applicants.

You seem to carry with you the idea that a person cannot do both but I assure you that they can. Athletes have long been know to have advantages in IB and MBB recruiting but they also have advantages in Med School admissions as well which isn't an area which forgives academic weakness. Research has shown that all things academic being equal (GPA/MCAT) athletes have both higher acceptance rates for medical school and perform better once in medical school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Go to CMC or Bucknell or… just do some research.

Point is that students who don't know what they want and choose an LAC for just this reason may unknowingly be cutting off possible career paths.

+1 this is the good thing about large state flagships. About 50% of students change their major at some point while in college.

80%!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two of my kids attend SLACs, and I really love the education and individual attention they gett. My youngest is leaning toward a flagship, and after seeing the SLAC experience, it feels like they’ll be missing out in some ways. I agree with the argument that these schools are somewhat insulated from attacks on universities because they aren’t as dependent on federal research funding, but the reality is that most families just can’t afford them. At $90k+ per year, the cost puts these schools out of reach for the vast majority of students, which results in largely wealthy student bodies. I wish more SLACs offered meaningful merit aid to a broader range of families, because as it stands, once again it’s wealthier families who are insulated from the consequences of Republican policies and the Trump administration.

100% agree.
My kid is a freshman at a T10, and I'm still regretting that DC did not take the Davidson spot.

I attended HYP and had regrets about turning down Pomona. I laid out the pros and cons for DC (perfect stats) and she decided she wanted to apply only to SLACs. Now at a WASP and thriving. We're classic donut hole but did get aid (22%). Younger DC will want a larger school, which is fine, even if I prefer the SLAC educational model for UG.

Sounds great - from a parent who chose Pomona over an Ivy. Technically speaking, though, you are not “classic donut hole,” which is defined as ineligibility for financial aid (probably due to high cost of living area). Not to say it does not hurt you financially…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Go to CMC or Bucknell or… just do some research.

Point is that students who don't know what they want and choose an LAC for just this reason may unknowingly be cutting off possible career paths.

+1 this is the good thing about large state flagships. About 50% of students change their major at some point while in college.

80%!

Pshaw. Usually only slight, related-major changes or a major change to the usual suspects (the orientation towards which was likely pre-existing).
As for state flagships, well, nursing, that’s a major you would need to transfer for, and maybe engineering. That’s about it. Business majors are gauche. In other words, this whole thing is overblown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I harbor some disdain for LACs because of the number of athletes they recruit. At this point, they almost serve as athletic training camps rather than educational institutions. ~40% of LACs are varsity athletes compared to ~15% of research universities. And all of this just to mostly recruit the middle-of-the-pack athletes when they could have more space for world-class, talented, and intellectual students.

I think that you are talking about the Ivies. Athletes at a NESCAC or a school like Swat have an academic bar that is much higher with the majority athletes being above the mean for the school itself.

Yes, but my point is that LACs do not benefit from having so many athletes. It just hurts their academic reputation.

No, it doesn't, except in the eyes of parents of non-athletic children who resent the advantages given to high athletic, high academic applicants.

You seem to carry with you the idea that a person cannot do both but I assure you that they can. Athletes have long been know to have advantages in IB and MBB recruiting but they also have advantages in Med School admissions as well which isn't an area which forgives academic weakness. Research has shown that all things academic being equal (GPA/MCAT) athletes have both higher acceptance rates for medical school and perform better once in medical school.

SYBAU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two of my kids attend SLACs, and I really love the education and individual attention they gett. My youngest is leaning toward a flagship, and after seeing the SLAC experience, it feels like they’ll be missing out in some ways. I agree with the argument that these schools are somewhat insulated from attacks on universities because they aren’t as dependent on federal research funding, but the reality is that most families just can’t afford them. At $90k+ per year, the cost puts these schools out of reach for the vast majority of students, which results in largely wealthy student bodies. I wish more SLACs offered meaningful merit aid to a broader range of families, because as it stands, once again it’s wealthier families who are insulated from the consequences of Republican policies and the Trump administration.

100% agree.
My kid is a freshman at a T10, and I'm still regretting that DC did not take the Davidson spot.

I attended HYP and had regrets about turning down Pomona. I laid out the pros and cons for DC (perfect stats) and she decided she wanted to apply only to SLACs. Now at a WASP and thriving. We're classic donut hole but did get aid (22%). Younger DC will want a larger school, which is fine, even if I prefer the SLAC educational model for UG.

Sounds great - from a parent who chose Pomona over an Ivy. Technically speaking, though, you are not “classic donut hole,” which is defined as ineligibility for financial aid (probably due to high cost of living area). Not to say it does not hurt you financially…

Yes, we're donut hole. Ineligible for aid per the majority of NPCs checked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I harbor some disdain for LACs because of the number of athletes they recruit. At this point, they almost serve as athletic training camps rather than educational institutions. ~40% of LACs are varsity athletes compared to ~15% of research universities. And all of this just to mostly recruit the middle-of-the-pack athletes when they could have more space for world-class, talented, and intellectual students.

I think that you are talking about the Ivies. Athletes at a NESCAC or a school like Swat have an academic bar that is much higher with the majority athletes being above the mean for the school itself.

Yes, but my point is that LACs do not benefit from having so many athletes. It just hurts their academic reputation.

No, it doesn't, except in the eyes of parents of non-athletic children who resent the advantages given to high athletic, high academic applicants.

You seem to carry with you the idea that a person cannot do both but I assure you that they can. Athletes have long been know to have advantages in IB and MBB recruiting but they also have advantages in Med School admissions as well which isn't an area which forgives academic weakness. Research has shown that all things academic being equal (GPA/MCAT) athletes have both higher acceptance rates for medical school and perform better once in medical school.

SYBAU.

As an outsider, what are your views on intelligence?

[Anonymous]

Insufferable thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Go to CMC or Bucknell or… just do some research.

Point is that students who don't know what they want and choose an LAC for just this reason may unknowingly be cutting off possible career paths.

+1 this is the good thing about large state flagships. About 50% of students change their major at some point while in college.

80%!

Pshaw. Usually only slight, related-major changes or a major change to the usual suspects (the orientation towards which was likely pre-existing).
As for state flagships, well, nursing, that’s a major you would need to transfer for, and maybe engineering. That’s about it. Business majors are gauche. In other words, this whole thing is overblown.

Business is a very popular major and much more employable than a lot of liberal arts type majors.

Most people go to college to get a good paying job, not to navel gaze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Insufferable thread.

I really despise that word now. Overused on this forum.

[Anonymous]

I have three kids: two NARPs, one athletic recruit. Each chose a different educational path.

The athletic advantage is earned. I also think it is why employers and graduate programs value athletes who also maintain academic excellence.

It boils down to this: they develop an exceptional discipline practice and pair it with vigorous health. Most also have a nuanced understanding of how to best operate within a team at any given moment/situation. That is the trifecta. It can be applied to all areas of life. Being highly disciplined and high energy is a powerful combination.

If this is not your path, find one of the many others. But there is little point in disparaging the success and good fortune of others. Become competitive in your own way. There are many roads to success, but resentment won’t get you there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students interested in engineering and undergrad business look elsewhere.

Engineering yes, other than Mudd and Swarthmore. But plenty of LAC grads majored in Econ, secured high-level internships etc.

Yes. But, most LACs don't offer accounting. Which is fine, of course, just limiting in exposure.

Go to CMC or Bucknell or… just do some research.

Point is that students who don't know what they want and choose an LAC for just this reason may unknowingly be cutting off possible career paths.

+1 this is the good thing about large state flagships. About 50% of students change their major at some point while in college.

80%!

Pshaw. Usually only slight, related-major changes or a major change to the usual suspects (the orientation towards which was likely pre-existing).
As for state flagships, well, nursing, that’s a major you would need to transfer for, and maybe engineering. That’s about it. Business majors are gauche. In other words, this whole thing is overblown.

Business is a very popular major and much more employable than a lot of liberal arts type majors.

Most people go to college to get a good paying job, not to navel gaze.

Business majors end up getting paid less than econ majors. Business (and accounting) degrees are pre-professional programs. Econ majors are hired by a different type of employer that is looking not for someone who has learned a trade, but for someone with the ability to think critically.