Are top liberal arts colleges for my son?

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of gay, vegan, theatrical, social justice types at Hamilton and Middlebury. Don't be misled by the stereotypes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter did well in the small setting, because it was less intimidating and required her to step up.

Having said that, you are falling into the trap of only discussing very selective schools. Remember to visit and praise some less elite schools also, or we may be hearing you lament one year from now like many who have come before you.

(Check out St Olaf’s for example)

I think that friendly big schools can be as good for shy kids as small schools are, but I think any small school that has good science programs will be better for STEM kids (with the S being defined so as to exclude social sciences majors) than most big selective schools.

The problem is that (after adjusting for socioeconomic status, test-taking anxiety, etc.), a kid with 1510 on the SATs is just OK in terms of academic readiness when compared with typical STEM student at a T40 school or in the honors college at a solid state flagship. A big school will be focusing on turning the kid into an economics or poli sci major.

I think that a small school that’s fine with STEM kids staying in STEM is a lot more likely to let regular bright kids stay in STEM.

If a kid likes geography and likes STEM, maybe one approach would be to major in logistics or agribusiness at a big, friendly state school. My guess would be that those programs are easy to get into, attract many shy students, tend to require scientific literacy, and lead to fun, useful, lucrative jobs.

WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With a 1510, OP’s kid can be selective. The only reason to move down the list would be if they need merit aid

DD with 1550 and similar other academic stats was WL at Middlebury. Williams is a tougher admit. So unless applying ED from a private or recruited athlete I’d consider most of OP’s list as reaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With a 1510, OP’s kid can be selective. The only reason to move down the list would be if they need merit aid

DD with 1550 and similar other academic stats was WL at Middlebury. Williams is a tougher admit. So unless applying ED from a private or recruited athlete I’d consider most of OP’s list as reaches.

I agree with the second poster and strongly disagree with the first. The super selective SLACs are not sure things for anyone, and certainly not for without a hook. Also, some people PREFER less selective options like Reed, Oberlin, Lawrence and Whitman.

[Anonymous]

OP seems to be the perfect student for Rice. My DD went to Rice and it was a fabulous experience for quirky, science-oriented students (and others who are less science-oriented, like her). Its student body is divided into residential colleges, which provides SLAC-like camaraderie with access to the resources of a larger university. Wonderful place and people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP seems to be the perfect student for Rice. My DD went to Rice and it was a fabulous experience for quirky, science-oriented students (and others who are less science-oriented, like her). Its student body is divided into residential colleges, which provides SLAC-like camaraderie with access to the resources of a larger university. Wonderful place and people!

My son is a recent Rice engineering grad and also had a great experience. Rice is best known as a STEM school, but also has strong programs in other areas of the liberal arts, particularly music, architecture, English, and sociology. The residential colleges do nurture a lot of camaraderie, but as a graduate of a SLAC and as the parent of another child who is currently a student at a SLAC, there is a world of different in the culture of even a mid-sized school like Rice (6800 undergrads + grad students) compared to a SLAC (e.g., 2000 students) where you really know everyone. I'm not saying one is better than another, but these schools have very different vibes. (Also, for athletes, almost all SLAC teams are D3 while Rice is D1.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter did well in the small setting, because it was less intimidating and required her to step up.

Having said that, you are falling into the trap of only discussing very selective schools. Remember to visit and praise some less elite schools also, or we may be hearing you lament one year from now like many who have come before you.

(Check out St Olaf’s for example)

I think that friendly big schools can be as good for shy kids as small schools are, but I think any small school that has good science programs will be better for STEM kids (with the S being defined so as to exclude social sciences majors) than most big selective schools.

The problem is that (after adjusting for socioeconomic status, test-taking anxiety, etc.), a kid with 1510 on the SATs is just OK in terms of academic readiness when compared with typical STEM student at a T40 school or in the honors college at a solid state flagship. A big school will be focusing on turning the kid into an economics or poli sci major.

I think that a small school that’s fine with STEM kids staying in STEM is a lot more likely to let regular bright kids stay in STEM.

If a kid likes geography and likes STEM, maybe one approach would be to major in logistics or agribusiness at a big, friendly state school. My guess would be that those programs are easy to get into, attract many shy students, tend to require scientific literacy, and lead to fun, useful, lucrative jobs.

WTF?

Well, to shorten that: a 1510 for a STEM major at a top research university is weak. Affluent kids who go to a good high school, prep and have no
problems with test taking, then get a 1510, are going to have trouble getting a bachelor’s in physics or engineering from
a place like MIT or Cornell, because, all things considered, they’re way below average by MIT or Cornell standards.

And an engineering class at MIT, Cornell, etc. may be the worst possible environment for a kid who ends up with a 1510 because of test-taking anxiety. Programs like that breed a lot of terror.

[Anonymous]

OP step away from DCUM. 1510 is a great score. Relax and apply wherever you want. Do not let these snobs tell you your STEM loving kid has to go into... “agribusiness” (?!) bc they ONLY scored a 1510. This is head slapping. Your kid will excel, you will be fine. Only piece of advice- please do choose safeties carefully and find something to really like about them. The times are different from when we went to college and it really is much harder to get in. So just be prepared to have lots of options. Good luck. Also- get off DCUM! 😊

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP step away from DCUM. 1510 is a great score. Relax and apply wherever you want. Do not let these snobs tell you your STEM loving kid has to go into... “agribusiness” (?!) bc they ONLY scored a 1510. This is head slapping. Your kid will excel, you will be fine. Only piece of advice- please do choose safeties carefully and find something to really like about them. The times are different from when we went to college and it really is much harder to get in. So just be prepared to have lots of options. Good luck. Also- get off DCUM! 😊

Zero lies detected.

[Anonymous]

There are a few liberal arts colleges with strong engineering programs - three of them in Pennsylvania: Swarthmore, Lafayette, and Bucknell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a few liberal arts colleges with strong engineering programs - three of them in Pennsylvania: Swarthmore, Lafayette, and Bucknell.

Doesn’t sound like this is his interest area and these schools are not a good fit for his personality and preferences. I wonder why this was bumped.

[Anonymous]

SMALL Liberal Arts colleges are even more selective than they appear - especially in NESCAC - because 1/3 or more of their slots are given away to athletes before they even get to the regular pool. Throw other hooks into the mix and the # of slits left for other kids even more. My GD with a perfect 36 ACT, straight A’s, and good ECs was waitlisted at both Williams & Amherst although she did get into other NESCACs - Middlebury, Colby, Wesleyan, and Tufts. The larger the enrollment, then the significance of the number of athletes and hooks becomes - although still a factor. In light of that I would encourage the OP to look at the largest NESCACs, Wesleyan and also Tufts, which is still a liberal arts college at its core. Both are excellent for STEM. Like Tufts, Wesleyan even offers doctoral programs in Math and the sciences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SMALL Liberal Arts colleges are even more selective than they appear - especially in NESCAC - because 1/3 or more of their slots are given away to athletes before they even get to the regular pool. Throw other hooks into the mix and the # of slots left for other kids decreases even more. My GD with a perfect 36 ACT, straight A’s, and good ECs was waitlisted at both Williams & Amherst although she did get into other NESCACs - Middlebury, Colby, Wesleyan, and Tufts. The larger the enrollment, then the significance of the number of athletes and hooks becomes - although still a factor. In light of that I would encourage the OP to look at the largest NESCACs, Wesleyan and also Tufts, which is still a liberal arts college at its core. Both are excellent for STEM. Like Tufts, Wesleyan even offers doctoral programs in Math and the sciences.

Edited for a couple of typos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter did well in the small setting, because it was less intimidating and required her to step up.

Having said that, you are falling into the trap of only discussing very selective schools. Remember to visit and praise some less elite schools also, or we may be hearing you lament one year from now like many who have come before you.

(Check out St Olaf’s for example)

I think that friendly big schools can be as good for shy kids as small schools are, but I think any small school that has good science programs will be better for STEM kids (with the S being defined so as to exclude social sciences majors) than most big selective schools.

The problem is that (after adjusting for socioeconomic status, test-taking anxiety, etc.), a kid with 1510 on the SATs is just OK in terms of academic readiness when compared with typical STEM student at a T40 school or in the honors college at a solid state flagship. A big school will be focusing on turning the kid into an economics or poli sci major.

I think that a small school that’s fine with STEM kids staying in STEM is a lot more likely to let regular bright kids stay in STEM.

If a kid likes geography and likes STEM, maybe one approach would be to major in logistics or agribusiness at a big, friendly state school. My guess would be that those programs are easy to get into, attract many shy students, tend to require scientific literacy, and lead to fun, useful, lucrative jobs.

WTF?

Well, to shorten that: a 1510 for a STEM major at a top research university is weak. Affluent kids who go to a good high school, prep and have no
problems with test taking, then get a 1510, are going to have trouble getting a bachelor’s in physics or engineering from
a place like MIT or Cornell, because, all things considered, they’re way below average by MIT or Cornell standards.

And an engineering class at MIT, Cornell, etc. may be the worst possible environment for a kid who ends up with a 1510 because of test-taking anxiety. Programs like that breed a lot of terror.

+1 on the WTF

[Anonymous]

Here's my order (not USNWR): Swarthmore, Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Haverford, Pomona, Middlebury, Vassar, Bates, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Skidmore, Trinity, Connecticut College, Dickinson, Colgate, Colby, Davidson

your kid will get a great education at any of these schools. If you are full pay, you'll have a slight edge at some of them because they are not all need blind, except for the three or four at the top of the list, but those schools are extremely selective, just as hard to get into as many of the Ivies.

My kid is very shy, and she went to a SLAC (not on the list above, although she got into some of them) instead of a big university. It made a huge difference for her, and I'm sure it was the right choice, even though the school didn't offer as much research opportunity as she would have gotten at a larger university. But we couldn't afford a selective private (none offer merit aid), so she went to a lower-ranked college.

She graduated at the top of her class, and she got a lot of recognition from her professors, which would not have happened at a larger school. She really stood out, and that helped her self-confidence a lot. She made a handful of nice friends, but there weren't a lot of kids at her intellectual level, which was one drawback of her SLAC.