College acceptances - small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a definite trend towards urban schools and big state universities.

One of my kids goes to a liberal arts college and the other a huge rah-rah football university. They both have their pros and cons.

I also have a kid at a SLAC and another at a big state school. My SLAC kid graduated HS a few years ago, and there were quite a few kids going to SLACs that year. It does seem like the last couple of years the trend has been toward publics.

I think it’s primarily economic; DCTAG at all but the most expensive state schools really does make a difference, and that’s meaningful to a lot of DCPS parents. And things really do feel more economically precarious overall the last couple of years. Although in my younger kid’s case, they just really wanted the big school environment; we could afford private, but this kid applied almost exclusively to big state schools.

I was coming to say the same. OOS publics have been popular since DCTAG was passed and I imagine interest will only increase in this economy plus the increased grant. I have a HS junior and we have added a bunch of public universities to our list of college tours.

[Anonymous]

I have one DC at Swarthmore and another headed to Carleton. They were raised in NYC, and both wanted a change in environment for a few years. That being said, though, the educational environments aren't all that different from their private high schools. I was a little surprised that my younger one didn't even consider any larger schools.

[Anonymous]

It’s just too hard to justify paying over 100K year for those schools - regardless of your income. Nobody wants to be a sucker. In this economy - with AI taking entry level jobs, it’s just throwing money away!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Davidson would love more DCPS and DCPCS but preferences matter, and they just don’t apply. Plenty of private applicants, plenty of athletes. Not a lot of kids from JR, Walls, or Banneker let alone DCI or BASIS. Honestly Dartmouth and Brown feel the same way.

I’ve never heard of Davidson.

Without judgment, I’d just say that is an indicator of your socioeconomic class.

PP, I hadn't heard of it either until a couple years ago, when an NC friend's daughter went there and now their second will be going. (They love it.) I don't think it's as well known as a place like Wake, for example.

Davidson is a fantastic place for a not so bright very rich kid.

Average SAT is 1460, WSJ #1 liberal arts college, #13 USNWR, 12% admission rate, lest someone get the wrong idea (as for the rich kid part… true)

Wow. The Wall Street journal!!!!!! Omg so so so impressive. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a definite trend towards urban schools and big state universities.

One of my kids goes to a liberal arts college and the other a huge rah-rah football university. They both have their pros and cons.

I also have a kid at a SLAC and another at a big state school. My SLAC kid graduated HS a few years ago, and there were quite a few kids going to SLACs that year. It does seem like the last couple of years the trend has been toward publics.

I think it’s primarily economic; DCTAG at all but the most expensive state schools really does make a difference, and that’s meaningful to a lot of DCPS parents. And things really do feel more economically precarious overall the last couple of years. Although in my younger kid’s case, they just really wanted the big school environment; we could afford private, but this kid applied almost exclusively to big state schools.

I was coming to say the same. OOS publics have been popular since DCTAG was passed and I imagine interest will only increase in this economy plus the increased grant. I have a HS junior and we have added a bunch of public universities to our list of college tours.

Does anyone happen to know whether DCTAG is treated the same as a scholarship or other grant for the purpose of eliminating the 10% non-qualified withdrawal penalty under 529 for the amount of the grant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your post just reveals the world you grew up in, which is not generally applicable.

Where I "came from" (UMC suburb public school) everyone aimed for top 10 universities or state schools. I think we had one person in our top 10 percent who went to a SLAC.

When I see a SLAC on a resume I immediately assume you came from a privileged background and won’t try very hard. Sorry!

That makes no sense at all. They are small schools, so you can't hide or skip classes; you have to work hard and be accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your post just reveals the world you grew up in, which is not generally applicable.

Where I "came from" (UMC suburb public school) everyone aimed for top 10 universities or state schools. I think we had one person in our top 10 percent who went to a SLAC.

When I see a SLAC on a resume I immediately assume you came from a privileged background and won’t try very hard. Sorry!

That makes no sense at all. They are small schools, so you can't hide or skip classes; you have to work hard and be accountable.

This is super hilarious. In a big school you sink or swim- no one cares if you show up or not. You’re only accountable to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing that these small schools offer that a big state flagship won’t have at half the price.

They are apples and oranges. I'm not saying either is better but to say the education is the same is simply not true.

[Anonymous]

This thread is so off the mark. The top students in my kid's school attend SLACs. They are intellectually curious and are very hardworking. They are willing to develop their critical thinking skills and not get stuck in pre-professional paths too early in their academic careers.

I don't see the privilege and I agree with PP that the education is not the same (in fact, it's more rigorous) than what is offered at big flagships.

[Anonymous]

It is much more rigorous than at big flagships, I agree - I think people making those statements don’t have any experience at SLACs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so off the mark. The top students in my kid's school attend SLACs. They are intellectually curious and are very hardworking. They are willing to develop their critical thinking skills and not get stuck in pre-professional paths too early in their academic careers.

I don't see the privilege and I agree with PP that the education is not the same (in fact, it's more rigorous) than what is offered at big flagships.

You don’t see the privilege in selective schools that cost 2x as much as public schools but which have names that only “the right people” recognize? Tell me again about your rigorous critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your post just reveals the world you grew up in, which is not generally applicable.

Where I "came from" (UMC suburb public school) everyone aimed for top 10 universities or state schools. I think we had one person in our top 10 percent who went to a SLAC.

Agreed. SLACs are an older, traditional college model from a time when these rural areas weren't much different from anywhere else people lived that wasn't an East Coast major port.

I'm a Gen-X Phi Beta Kappa. Few people I work with would have any idea what that is or why it means something to me.

The East Coast WASP establishment is no longer the primary source of norms for the UMC. The SLAC model largely started there and spread as America grew. Back then any college educated man was pretty likely to do well. Now college is fairly ubiquitous.

The world has changed. And keeps changing. Most single sex schools have changed. Our public high school has sent 1 grad a year to women's colleges the past 2 years. That seems noteworthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so off the mark. The top students in my kid's school attend SLACs. They are intellectually curious and are very hardworking. They are willing to develop their critical thinking skills and not get stuck in pre-professional paths too early in their academic careers.

I don't see the privilege and I agree with PP that the education is not the same (in fact, it's more rigorous) than what is offered at big flagships.

You don’t see the privilege in selective schools that cost 2x as much as public schools but which have names that only “the right people” recognize? Tell me again about your rigorous critical thinking skills.

Clearly, you have no critical thinking skills of your own. If you can read, the point was that people in SLAC are there to learn broadly and not get stuck in vocational training. The students are not there for the school names, DUH.

I disagree that SLAC are 2X more expensive than state schools across the board, especially with generous financial aid.
Then again, I'm sure you realize "you get what you pay for" may be a factor if big public schools are sooooo much cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is much more rigorous than at big flagships, I agree - I think people making those statements don’t have any experience at SLACs?

I did undergrad at a SLAC, grad (and taught) at an Ivy, teach at an R1 state school now… and the thing is in terms of rigor and access the offerings at the state school for the absolute top students are on par with the Ivy, especially since SLACs just don’t have much in the way of serious research going (yes they have undergrad research opportunities, they’re very cute, and it is a leg up in grad school but it’s rarely hitting journals that would count for my tenure).

The problem is you can only offer those things to so many kids- about as many as go to a SLAC. If you’re not in the top 50 or so in a major or school you’ll be locked out (and heaven forbid you don’t know you need to apply into a lab the day you get on campus, otherwise you’ll be locked out)- I can only hire a couple RAs. Honors colleges have done a good job of raising the floor for the kids that qualify, but it’s not on the same level of attention for kids who are strong but not the absolute elite. Those kids get challenged and a lot of focus at SLACs.

I do think anything outside of the top 20 or so for SLACs is a waste of money. I feel that way about large private schools too- it boggles my mind anyone goes to GW or BC- and state schools dominate those on basically every axis. But a top SLAC is “worth it” for the rigor and resources spent on smart but not, like, IMO level kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those schools are just too expensive.

Lots of SLACs have generous aid. They can often be cheaper than attending a state school OOS, even after DC TAG funds.

Not in our case. Especially now that TAG is $15k. My DD applied to equal parts private and state schools and in every scenario, even the most expensive state school (Penn State for her) was $10-25k lower than the privates after giving $30-50k in merit.

Put another way, our CHEAPEST private after merit ($28k) was $45k all in.

After small merit and TAG, Penn State, VT, Rutgers, South Carolina, LSU, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Alabama were cheaper. Compared to the higher SLACs, we're talking $25-45k difference.

This was the case for our senior. VT was $36k after small merit and tag. Penn State $40k. LSU $25k. These are prices most in state kids are paying. I'm convinced now that DC Tag is better than living in state and being forced to go in-state. These schools are giving OOS kids small merit so with DC Tag at $15k, the world is now our oyster and can choose any public nationwide.