Is 'fit' overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

Such as... And what are the LACs not providing. Would you say the same about small universities? Dartmouth is practically an LAC, what would it lose if it committed to being an LAC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

*"No LACs have all of them and some have none of them."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how they are able to sell SLAC's as this mythical 'fit' for some students.

Nothing against SLAC's they do serve a role but it is just marketing.

If you believe that most students would graduate and be happy at a place like Reed, knock yourself out, but I do think fit matters heavily there. Same with places like Williams, HWCs, Colby/Bates, W&L, etc. If you like liberal arts colleges, landing at a random one can be a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Some kids would be miserable at a SLAC and plenty would be miserable at a large state school. Pros and cons to both. Glad we have choices.

[Anonymous]

Former professor here: in my experience “fit” does matter in terms of geography (urban, rural, college town), weather, and distance/proximity to hometown. I advised first year students as part of my role…transfer students almost always had an issue with one of those three.

Students will need prompting to get past the other stuff (namebrand of university, where their friends want to go, etc), but I recommend you question them: hey, you’ve never lived in a city before and you drive a car everywhere. What do you think it would be like to live in NYC and walking everywhere? Riding busses? Do you like walking? Do you mind sleeping with noise? What would your social life look like while you’re underage? NYC won’t be as lax on fake ID’s as Madison, WI. Where would you hang out?

Teens often don’t really think this kind of stuff through and it can make a massive difference for their quality of life. A kid who grew up in Miami is going to have a tough time getting through a Chicago winter…legitimately. Some kids—those who decided to go up north on purpose, or had a lot of good reasons for making their choice so they can overlook the one uncomfortable thing—adjust and will be fine. But there are always a few who simply can’t—their preferences are too strong, the reality is a surprise, or are linked to their mental health, etc.

So I’d talk through this basic lifestyle stuff beforehand and make sure they’ve at least attempted to sort out their preferences so they know what they’re getting into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

And this is where I don't agree.
Diverse peer groups-many LACs lead in the most diverse colleges in the country. Pre-AA Pomona was the most diverse college in America with Amherst leading behind.
Huge Sporting Events-This is not what a college education is about. This is how state schools avoid bankruptcy lmao.

Career offices-Most LACs have had these since the early 2000s. They realized if they want to attract people to a liberal arts curriculum, they needed to give appropriate career services. CMC had the highest salary of any graduating economics major in the entire country just this year.
Libraries-Depends on the college. My alma mater has a massive one that rivals state universities. Also most libraries have shared book agreements, so you don't need a book to physically be in the catalog to find it (and many kids have stopped reading outside of the course syllabi)

Specialized majors- Depends on the LAC, but also you don't need to specialize as an undergrad and LACs have proven it. You are not a professional getting an undergraduate degree, and, in most careers, you should NOT specialize for a four year degree. Breadth is more important.
State of the art labs-My favorite point to argue! STEM facilities at LACs often give you better use of equipment and more exposure than large colleges. It's great that UT has some of the best labs in the world, but most of its undergrad STEM students will never touch it. Having shiny things around you that you never use isn't a "pro" for your education.

[Anonymous]

Those above things aren't as all important to everyone.

My daughter's small school is in a major metro area and has access to professional sports teams and a train just steps from campus to one of the two cities it is near.

As for career services, they build this directly into their curriculum through the 4 years and each student works with a career counselor from day one. Internships are required. Also, 2 people who work in the career field she is most interested in work right on campus and she will get to meet them and probably intern with them (how convenient, right?)

I'm not particularly worried about libraries - most of them have subscription services and consortiums, etc. Her school is also literally across the street from a lovely historic public library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

State of the art labs-My favorite point to argue! STEM facilities at LACs often give you better use of equipment and more exposure than large colleges. It's great that UT has some of the best labs in the world, but most of its undergrad STEM students will never touch it. Having shiny things around you that you never use isn't a "pro" for your education.

100% agree. My alma mater is UCLA. I loved my time there, but getting a physics degree from there basically meant I could find someone with old exam solutions and
could occasionally add something productive in lab group. The upper division courses got better, but I shouldn't have had to wait for half my friends and 90% of students to drop the major, so we can get a quality education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

We've toured a ton of LACs this year, and they have everything you list except Huge sporting events. Big events for the school and fun for the kids and full of school spirit, but not on national-TV huge. That isn't something that appeals to my kids anyway (their high school didn't even have a football team), so not a loss.

[Anonymous]

Your kid is doing something that feels scary.

It is a sign of respect and confidence (in their judgement) to care whether they can picture themselves at a certain college. It will be their home for four years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We've toured a ton of LACs this year, and they have everything you list except Huge sporting events. Big events for the school and fun for the kids and full of school spirit, but not on national-TV huge. That isn't something that appeals to my kids anyway (their high school didn't even have a football team), so not a loss.

Due to sheer math, I don't think you can compare the kind of diversity at LACs to the diversity at somewhat larger private universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

We've toured a ton of LACs this year, and they have everything you list except Huge sporting events. Big events for the school and fun for the kids and full of school spirit, but not on national-TV huge. That isn't something that appeals to my kids anyway (their high school didn't even have a football team), so not a loss.

Just curious for an example, because I haven't found a single one for a top academic LAC...only ones that come close are Richmond and Davidson (but those are in fact D1 sports schools and sometimes they are on TV). All the other D3 academic SLACs you won't find anyone caring or attending a sporting event other than the players, and some cross-cheering from other athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

And this is where I don't agree.
Diverse peer groups-many LACs lead in the most diverse colleges in the country. Pre-AA Pomona was the most diverse college in America with Amherst leading behind.
Huge Sporting Events-This is not what a college education is about. This is how state schools avoid bankruptcy lmao.

Career offices-Most LACs have had these since the early 2000s. They realized if they want to attract people to a liberal arts curriculum, they needed to give appropriate career services. CMC had the highest salary of any graduating economics major in the entire country just this year.
Libraries-Depends on the college. My alma mater has a massive one that rivals state universities. Also most libraries have shared book agreements, so you don't need a book to physically be in the catalog to find it (and many kids have stopped reading outside of the course syllabi)

Specialized majors- Depends on the LAC, but also you don't need to specialize as an undergrad and LACs have proven it. You are not a professional getting an undergraduate degree, and, in most careers, you should NOT specialize for a four year degree. Breadth is more important.
State of the art labs-My favorite point to argue! STEM facilities at LACs often give you better use of equipment and more exposure than large colleges. It's great that UT has some of the best labs in the world, but most of its undergrad STEM students will never touch it. Having shiny things around you that you never use isn't a "pro" for your education.

This is 30 percent cherry picking (CMC does have a great career office, Bard and Juniata don't; most LACs don't have extensive OCR, only a few); 30 percent exaggeration (some LACs have okay libraries, but none has the Widener stacks) and 40 percent pure cope (no one needs football games! outdated equipment is good because no one uses it!)

LACs are a great choice for a significant minority of students, but the way you're promoting them beggars credulity.

[Anonymous]

The D3 school my daughter is attending apparently has big turnout for the homecoming football game. That's about it. But she honestly doesn't care that much - she's more excited about the program she will be part of and the possibility of weekend rides into the city to explore.