CTCL schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The desire to self-designate as CTCL belies a desire to feel more special and outstanding. That's what chafes people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s seriously just a designation from a book written by a late college counselor. Why does it trigger people so much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The desire to self-designate as CTCL belies a desire to feel more special and outstanding. That's what chafes people.

God forbid a school desire to appear more special or outstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, I stand corrected. Evergreen State is in Washington. What does either have in common with Clark University -- which is in an urban setting and is twice the size of Reed? And what does Clark have in common with Wabash College? Etc. etc.

Bowdoin students LOVE nature. Why isn't it on the CTCL list?

One could go on.

The point is that it's a pretty arbitrary grouping. A public school with a 98 percent acceptance rate in the same group as an extremely rigorous and selective private school, and what they have in common is their students love nature?

Sorry, not compelling.