Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only ones “obsessed” with the LACs are those that will only pay for public school education. Why do you need justification? I don’t care what kind of car you purchase or where you go on vacation. No one cares where young Larlo attends college either. Move on.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Question for 11:40
Isn’t SLAC better for potential medical school students because of small classes and easier access to professors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most graduates of SLACs have pretty dismal earnings compared to their Ivy/Public University peers. So why are SLACs throw around here so often? I see a lot of people recommend random schools like Grinnell but why would you send your kid there for a pretty hefty sum when they could go to a state flagship and be in either a better or similar position?

Source:

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

The mid career salaries on your chart make liberal arts look a lot better than you imply

Mid career liberal arts colleges do tend to do well. See summary here:

"ROI of Liberal Arts Colleges: Value Adds Up Over Time finds that the median ROI of liberal arts colleges is nearly $200,000 higher than the median for all colleges. Further, the 40-year median ROI of liberal arts institutions ($918,000) is close to those of four-year engineering and technology-related schools ($917,000), and four-year business and management schools ($913,000)."

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/collegeroi/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ones “obsessed” with the LACs are those that will only pay for public school education. Why do you need justification? I don’t care what kind of car you purchase or where you go on vacation. No one cares where young Larlo attends college either. Move on.

Exactly.

The ones obsessed with putting down LACs are the ones that did not attend them.

[Anonymous]

Since Grinnell has bee n singled out as white and high income, I thought I would provide some data. Grinnell offers great financial and merit aid, 18% of student body is international and 26% are domestic students of color. Only 13% of Grinnell students pay full tuition, 17 million a year is spent of low income students.

In terms of income after 10 years, two issues are at play. A significant percentage of grads want to improve the world, become teachers, activists, social workers and share their passion for education. Also, 20% of grads go straight to grad school and are usually fully funded because of the excellent education / reputation of Grinnell. Also, CS major is growing and students end up at high paying jobs every year so there is a place for all types of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earnings in that link don't look dismal. What are you seeing?

OP here, Grinnell’s average salary ten years out from graduation is around $77K which is quite concerning. Same thing with Skidmore and other selective, but not too selective, LACs.

Stop right there.

You are massively misinterpreting the $77k data point.

How about Yale grads 10 years out? $83k. Princeton? $80k. CalTech? $74k. UChicago? $65k.

Averages include students who are still medical residents, PhD candidates, postdocs, etc. 10 years after graduation. You absolutely cannot criticize Grinnell and Skidmore for this unless you’re also criticizing Yale and Princeton.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/06/how-much-alums-of-americas-top-colleges-earn-10-years-later.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earnings in that link don't look dismal. What are you seeing?

OP here, Grinnell’s average salary ten years out from graduation is around $77K which is quite concerning. Same thing with Skidmore and other selective, but not too selective, LACs.

Stop right there.

You are massively misinterpreting the $77k data point.

How about Yale grads 10 years out? $83k. Princeton? $80k. CalTech? $74k. UChicago? $65k.

Averages include students who are still medical residents, PhD candidates, postdocs, etc. 10 years after graduation. You absolutely cannot criticize Grinnell and Skidmore for this unless you’re also criticizing Yale and Princeton.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/06/how-much-alums-of-americas-top-colleges-earn-10-years-later.html

You’re comparing two different charts though. If you just use the WSJ chart, the $77 Grinnell number corresponds to at least a mid $120 for Yale and Princeton. It doesn’t make sense to compare across two different reports.

[Anonymous]

I would also add that most of us are comfortable with what we know, and it is likely that a higher than average number of DCUM posters also attended a SLAC and assume that their kids are likely to follow a similar course including both attendance at a SLAC or a highly ranked private university followed, potentially after a year or two of working, by graduate school.

Also keep in mind that unless your state has a true national-level flagship in an area that interests your child, which applies to only a few states, the cost of sending your DC to an OOS university that is more highly ranked than your own state’s options is likely to approach or be higher than the cost of a SLAC.

All of this goes hand in hand with the likelihood that the average DCUM poster has a higher HHI than the national average...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earnings in that link don't look dismal. What are you seeing?

OP here, Grinnell’s average salary ten years out from graduation is around $77K which is quite concerning. Same thing with Skidmore and other selective, but not too selective, LACs.

Stop right there.

You are massively misinterpreting the $77k data point.

How about Yale grads 10 years out? $83k. Princeton? $80k. CalTech? $74k. UChicago? $65k.

Averages include students who are still medical residents, PhD candidates, postdocs, etc. 10 years after graduation. You absolutely cannot criticize Grinnell and Skidmore for this unless you’re also criticizing Yale and Princeton.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/06/how-much-alums-of-americas-top-colleges-earn-10-years-later.html

You’re comparing two different charts though. If you just use the WSJ chart, the $77 Grinnell number corresponds to at least a mid $120 for Yale and Princeton. It doesn’t make sense to compare across two different reports.

Exactly. Clearly data analysis is not a strong point of LACs.

[Anonymous]

I was interested to see that the mid-career median of the SLAC I attended, Carleton, is the same as UVA’s—both $103,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since Grinnell has bee n singled out as white and high income, I thought I would provide some data. Grinnell offers great financial and merit aid, 18% of student body is international and 26% are domestic students of color. Only 13% of Grinnell students pay full tuition, 17 million a year is spent of low income students.

In terms of income after 10 years, two issues are at play. A significant percentage of grads want to improve the world, become teachers, activists, social workers and share their passion for education. Also, 20% of grads go straight to grad school and are usually fully funded because of the excellent education / reputation of Grinnell. Also, CS major is growing and students end up at high paying jobs every year so there is a place for all types of students.

This just goes to show how absurd LACs are, and the fact that you don’t know it is a sign of the weakness of their graduates. 26% students of color means the school is overwhelmingly (3/4ths) white. And if LACs encourage graduates to pursue low-paying SJW careers, that’s a blight on the school. And CS majors make a lot everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was interested to see that the mid-career median of the SLAC I attended, Carleton, is the same as UVA’s—both $103,000.

That makes sense, as both student bodies tend to be academically similar (don’t say that to the UVA boosters on here though!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better question might be “Why are some people so obsessed with what others choose to do with their money”?

No clue. Ask OP.

If OP must know about my expenses, the small private college my kid is likely to end up at costs the same, after merit aid, as a popular in-state option. Yes it’s still a bit more than the flagship, but DCs stats are just under the typical accepted student from our area so that’s not likely to be an option anyway (plus it’s not really a good fit for my kid and price is the ONLY reason DC even applied, which when you have other affordable options is, IMO, almost as dumb as picking a school solely for the campus).

These LAC offer merit aids to students not accepted to in-state flagship?

Again, (hate to single our Grinnell so many times), yes. It’s their way of attracting kinda-smart but not that smart students. I know someone whose kid got a huge merit scholarship at Grinnell but was rejected from UVA

[Anonymous]

The main takeaway from the chart is that going to an Ivy League university is worth it.

[Anonymous]

The focus on LACs is misplaced if you are looking at career earnings and ROI. Size per se is not a major factor. Harvey Mudd has 900 undergraduates but has a 40 year NPV (income - cost with time factored in) of $1.851M. That is higher than Penn, Yale, Columbia, Duke, Princeton, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown, etc.

What matters most through near to mid-term in particular is choice of major. Engineering majors in particular earn more than the average major during this period. (Over their entire career, engineers make over 1.5X as much as the average and it can be higher depending on on specialty See chart in https://www.businessinsider.com/college-majors-biggest-lifetime-earnings-2014-9 .) Harvey Mudd has a very high percentage of STEM majors.