CTCL schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many CTCL boosters on this thread have their kids in non-public schools? Taking a poll . . .

I like the CTCL concept/presentation and my kids went to public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many CTCL boosters on this thread have their kids in non-public schools? Taking a poll . . .

I like the CTCL concept/presentation and my kids went to public school.

Lol what "concept" exactly? That CTCL schools are a group of lesser ranked LACs that banded together to market themselves collectively to students who can't get into top ranked colleges and whose parents are afraid they're too fragile for State U?

Serious question.

Can someone as Jeff to lock this thread? PP is deranged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many CTCL boosters on this thread have their kids in non-public schools? Taking a poll . . .

I like the CTCL concept/presentation and my kids went to public school.

Lol what "concept" exactly? That CTCL schools are a group of lesser ranked LACs that banded together to market themselves collectively to students who can't get into top ranked colleges and whose parents are afraid they're too fragile for State U?

Serious question.

The presentation gives a series of criteria to look at in schools, how to think about good schools for your particular student beyond ranking. That's the overall concept. I care about quality of faculty-student interaction, graduate school placement and research and internship opportunities. They are better for most students at these LACs than most state Us. And the cost is comparable for us. That's the basic concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many CTCL boosters on this thread have their kids in non-public schools? Taking a poll . . .

I like the CTCL concept/presentation and my kids went to public school.

Lol what "concept" exactly? That CTCL schools are a group of lesser ranked LACs that banded together to market themselves collectively to students who can't get into top ranked colleges and whose parents are afraid they're too fragile for State U?

Serious question.

Can someone as Jeff to lock this thread? PP is deranged.

Meh. No need. My point is made so I'm done. Of course, I'm not the only one so no guarantees this thread won't keep breathing.

And, you know, you can lock yourself out of the thread if you don't like it. No one's forcing you to be here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many CTCL boosters on this thread have their kids in non-public schools? Taking a poll . . .

I like the CTCL concept/presentation and my kids went to public school.

Lol what "concept" exactly? That CTCL schools are a group of lesser ranked LACs that banded together to market themselves collectively to students who can't get into top ranked colleges and whose parents are afraid they're too fragile for State U?

Serious question.

Can someone as Jeff to lock this thread? PP is deranged.

I tried in the feedback forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many CTCL boosters on this thread have their kids in non-public schools? Taking a poll . . .

I like the CTCL concept/presentation and my kids went to public school.

Lol what "concept" exactly? That CTCL schools are a group of lesser ranked LACs that banded together to market themselves collectively to students who can't get into top ranked colleges and whose parents are afraid they're too fragile for State U?

Serious question.

For the 1900th time. Schools on the CTCL list tend to be appeal to students who:

-Cannot get into W&M or UVA (and that’s okay)
-Cannot get financial aid but can’t afford full price at other schools
-Want small class sizes that state schools analogous to CTCLs like JMU and Towson don’t provide
-Want to be around high ses students than would be at a school like Towson
-Want to play a sport in college
-Want to major in what they want without cutthroat “limited enrollment majors”
-Want a rural setting

I could go on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of you in academia who proudly tout your kids attending CTCLs, we know why. Either they didn’t perform a at the level needed to get admitted to better schools, or being in academia you couldn’t afford the tuition and chased the money. And that’s fine. Not special, just fine.

Why is it so shameful for someone to say that their kid goes to a “worse” school? I don’t understand. My dc would be the first to admit that that there is no way that they could have gotten into UVA or W&M. And my DC isn’t a bad student. Most kids who apply to W&M and UVA get rejected. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t going to go to college. You basically need a college degree to do anything these days so people hav to go somewhere.

By "worse" you mean a school that ranks lower on the USNWR list, right? The people so upset by the CTCL designation seem totally fine with the pretty arbitrary US News grouping of schools as some definitive label.

Yes, less selective LACs have a student population with lower GPAs and SAT scores than more highly selective LACs. That fact alone tells me very little about the educational experience once you get there. If you buy into the idea that there are benefits to a LAC education, it can be really hard to figure out which ones are worth deeper investigation. That takes some actual thought and research vs. just drawing a line on the USNWR rankings and saying above this line = good / below this line = bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of you in academia who proudly tout your kids attending CTCLs, we know why. Either they didn’t perform a at the level needed to get admitted to better schools, or being in academia you couldn’t afford the tuition and chased the money. And that’s fine. Not special, just fine.

Why is it so shameful for someone to say that their kid goes to a “worse” school? I don’t understand. My dc would be the first to admit that that there is no way that they could have gotten into UVA or W&M. And my DC isn’t a bad student. Most kids who apply to W&M and UVA get rejected. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t going to go to college. You basically need a college degree to do anything these days so people hav to go somewhere.

By "worse" you mean a school that ranks lower on the USNWR list, right? The people so upset by the CTCL designation seem totally fine with the pretty arbitrary US News grouping of schools as some definitive label.

Yes, less selective LACs have a student population with lower GPAs and SAT scores than more highly selective LACs. That fact alone tells me very little about the educational experience once you get there. If you buy into the idea that there are benefits to a LAC education, it can be really hard to figure out which ones are worth deeper investigation. That takes some actual thought and research vs. just drawing a line on the USNWR rankings and saying above this line = good / below this line = bad.

I’m the pp who wrote “worse.” I am in complete agreement with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many CTCL boosters on this thread have their kids in non-public schools? Taking a poll . . .

I like the CTCL concept/presentation and my kids went to public school.

Lol what "concept" exactly? That CTCL schools are a group of lesser ranked LACs that banded together to market themselves collectively to students who can't get into top ranked colleges and whose parents are afraid they're too fragile for State U?

Serious question.

Can someone as Jeff to lock this thread? PP is deranged.

I've already reported a few of the posts and asked Jeff to ban those posters for a while. I expect this thread to be cleaned up of their lunatic ranting.

This thread has the potential to be a good discussion between parents to identify promising schools, but the last 20+ pages from the ranting freaks really make this thread useless. It's a real shame.

[Anonymous]

Why not just say you went to an LAC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many CTCL boosters on this thread have their kids in non-public schools? Taking a poll . . .

I like the CTCL concept/presentation and my kids went to public school.

Lol what "concept" exactly? That CTCL schools are a group of lesser ranked LACs that banded together to market themselves collectively to students who can't get into top ranked colleges and whose parents are afraid they're too fragile for State U?

Serious question.

Why would anyone go to Field over Wilson? Same reasons apply here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not just say you went to an LAC?

That would be fine too. But it's a more general designation, whereas CTCL refers to a specific group of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of you in academia who proudly tout your kids attending CTCLs, we know why. Either they didn’t perform a at the level needed to get admitted to better schools, or being in academia you couldn’t afford the tuition and chased the money. And that’s fine. Not special, just fine.

Why is it so shameful for someone to say that their kid goes to a “worse” school? I don’t understand. My dc would be the first to admit that that there is no way that they could have gotten into UVA or W&M. And my DC isn’t a bad student. Most kids who apply to W&M and UVA get rejected. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t going to go to college. You basically need a college degree to do anything these days so people hav to go somewhere.

By "worse" you mean a school that ranks lower on the USNWR list, right? The people so upset by the CTCL designation seem totally fine with the pretty arbitrary US News grouping of schools as some definitive label.

Yes, less selective LACs have a student population with lower GPAs and SAT scores than more highly selective LACs. That fact alone tells me very little about the educational experience once you get there. If you buy into the idea that there are benefits to a LAC education, it can be really hard to figure out which ones are worth deeper investigation. That takes some actual thought and research vs. just drawing a line on the USNWR rankings and saying above this line = good / below this line = bad.

Except they're not arbitrary at all. US News ranks school by a specific formula, one that you might not agree with but who criteria is crystal clear. CTCL schools are not grouped together by any objective formula at all. What do Evergreen State and Reed have in common other than they're both in Oregon, for example?

[Anonymous]

That the chose to self-identify should tell all but the most obtuse something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of you in academia who proudly tout your kids attending CTCLs, we know why. Either they didn’t perform a at the level needed to get admitted to better schools, or being in academia you couldn’t afford the tuition and chased the money. And that’s fine. Not special, just fine.

Why is it so shameful for someone to say that their kid goes to a “worse” school? I don’t understand. My dc would be the first to admit that that there is no way that they could have gotten into UVA or W&M. And my DC isn’t a bad student. Most kids who apply to W&M and UVA get rejected. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t going to go to college. You basically need a college degree to do anything these days so people hav to go somewhere.

By "worse" you mean a school that ranks lower on the USNWR list, right? The people so upset by the CTCL designation seem totally fine with the pretty arbitrary US News grouping of schools as some definitive label.

Yes, less selective LACs have a student population with lower GPAs and SAT scores than more highly selective LACs. That fact alone tells me very little about the educational experience once you get there. If you buy into the idea that there are benefits to a LAC education, it can be really hard to figure out which ones are worth deeper investigation. That takes some actual thought and research vs. just drawing a line on the USNWR rankings and saying above this line = good / below this line = bad.

Except they're not arbitrary at all. US News ranks school by a specific formula, one that you might not agree with but who criteria is crystal clear. CTCL schools are not grouped together by any objective formula at all. What do Evergreen State and Reed have in common other than they're both in Oregon, for example?

For one, Evergreen State isn’t in Oregon. And two, they both appeal to people who like nature and a small student body.