Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Opposite. I did not and think they sound amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll bite.

And will use this thread as an example.

I saw title and looked forward to reading it this quiet morning.

It is not an engaging discussion regarding the merits of differing educational models.

It has a derogatory, judgmental tone dare I say ignorant. For my kids, I want them to develop an open mind to discuss things they don’t understand - not close minded and derogatory in attacking things they don’t.

I have 3 kids - one in a SLAC mentioned in this thread, one at a State Flagship, and one applying this year.

My DS at the SLAC has benefited from a small, tight knit college environment. It is the right environment for him. And he a legitimate interest in learning, is very aware of world affairs, the political environment, and some of the underlying causes. He spends his time reading. He is growing into an informed young adult.

He is not primarily focused on securing employment. He has spend four years learning. And throughout history that has been the true luxury of the wealthy. And he gets it.

My DD at a state university is potentially pre-med. it’s a large school. Digesting material - not for the sake of learning - but to get through it while ensuring she maintains her 4.0. The goal is not an education - the education is a means to the end - med school admission. The level of intellectual curiosity is clearly different. Career paths are more pragmatic. Engineering, nursing, business. Grinding to get a degree to get employment. I realize that these students exist at a SLACs and there are gunners everywhere. And ironically I think the competition at the flagship is greater because the student body doesn’t have the luxury of assuming life is opportunity rich. But you can feel the difference. For my DD the flagship is the right environment - it fits her personality. But for my other two children, the SLACs are the way to go.

That all said I would say that the reason DCUM folks are obsessed with SLACs is that it is inherently a luxury product - high touch education - while socially signialling to peers, employers, etc. Want to go into Investment banking, Williams, Middlebury, Amherst are goin to signal that you went to the right day school an$ have the right family connections. U Pitt, Penn State, UVA, etc.not so much.

And last yes the SLACs like Denison, Hobart, etc.were historically were the gentlemen ‘c’ students went from prep school. They would not have survived at the flagships so their parents had the money to send them to a nurturing environment.

But that all said, folks are obsessed with SLACs because they are from a SES that understands the value.

OP here, thank you for this write-up. Makes sense. But then my question would be: why do typical “upper-middle” class folks (i.e. mom is a lawyer, dad is an MD) send their kids to these SLACs? Because then the parents probably don’t have the connections to secure a decent job for their kids after graduation (since most UMC folks are in merit-based careers) and their kids probably aren’t well-connected enough to get into banking? Also just an FYI: I wasn’t referring to the Amherst or Williams of the SLAC world when I started this thread. More like the Denisons and Hobarts. And ironic you mention UVA and Penn State as bad for investment banking, as they both place pretty well in that field (no, for the record, I have no connection to either school)

Families living in a doctor/lawyer income are not typical. They are wealthy. Get that straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Here is where the ROI data came from: https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/collegeroi/

Again, a large percentage of the differences in ROI are explained by the mix of majors at each school. Take Georgia Tech, for instance. It has a 40 year NPV of $1.729M, which is actually higher than Princeton at $1.642M. But Georgia Tech has about 70% of students majoring in engineering vs 17% at Princeton. Georgia Tech is a great school, but it would not surprise me if majors in the same subjects at Princeton make more than Georgia Tech graduates in most majors. The difference again is mix of majors. Chemical, Aerospace, Energy, Computer, and Electrical engineering graduates make about 2X as much or more as the average major in median lifetime earnings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Opposite. I did not and think they sound amazing!

If you think LACs sound amazing, you are not obsessed with putting them down.

[Anonymous]

Because there are a lot of people who can't cut it in engineering, math and the hard sciences. They can type lots of paragraphs about why a SLAC education is superior though, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because there are a lot of people who can't cut it in engineering, math and the hard sciences. They can type lots of paragraphs about why a SLAC education is superior though, lol.

Math and science are among the liberal arts. The fact you don’t know that shows how limited your understanding is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because there are a lot of people who can't cut it in engineering, math and the hard sciences. They can type lots of paragraphs about why a SLAC education is superior though, lol.

According to the common data set of my son’s SLAC, roughly half the students major in math, comp sci, or one of the physical sciences. (Another 20 percent or so major in social science, mostly Econ and poly sci). The 25th to 75th percentile range on the math SAT was 690 to 790. Of course, those kids will also graduate with the ability to write coherent paragraphs, which many of their peers won’t be able to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there are a lot of people who can't cut it in engineering, math and the hard sciences. They can type lots of paragraphs about why a SLAC education is superior though, lol.

Math and science are among the liberal arts. The fact you don’t know that shows how limited your understanding is.

+1. You would think people wouldn’t be so fast to comment on something they so clearly don’t understand at all, and haven’t taken the time to investigate. 2 minutes spent looking at an LACs website would have helped PP not look like such a buffoon. But I guess that is too much to ask - ironic given the “can’t cut it” nature of the comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because there are a lot of people who can't cut it in engineering, math and the hard sciences. They can type lots of paragraphs about why a SLAC education is superior though, lol.

As others have indicated, math and sciences are majors as LACs. I can't help but think that much of this criticism of LACs is a big misunderstanding about what an LAC is. Some people seem to think LAC students study nothing but poetry and art.

Compare Amherst, an LAC, and UVA, a state university, for percentage of majors.

Amherst

Computer Science: 7%
Math/Statistics: 13%
Physical Sciences: 3.9%
Biological/Life Sciences: 9.9%
Total M + S = 35%

UVA

Computer Science: 4.15%
Math/Statistics: 1.54%
Physical Sciences: 2.8%
Biological/Life Sciences: 6.58%
Total M + S = 15%

[Anonymous]

The salary differences are presumably because of major/fields chosen. People who go go Grinnell don’t major in engineering etc and are more likely to choose lower paying professions. But not everyone wants the same jobs.

I received a much better education at the SLAC I attended than I would have at my state flagship (which I was very familiar with as my parents were professors there). (Of course, not all SLACs and state flagships are the same, just speaking to the school I went to and the one my parents taught at).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because there are a lot of people who can't cut it in engineering, math and the hard sciences. They can type lots of paragraphs about why a SLAC education is superior though, lol.

What an idiot.

[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.

I see your point but let’s blame the OP for that. She’s the one who brought up the 10-year post graduation data point. Evidently she was wrong because that was actually the “mid-career” data point on the WSJ chart.

[Anonymous]

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

From what I have read, medical school admissions is all about GPA and MCAT scores. So, yes, the flagship route is in some ways riskier because of the grading and the weeder courses. And I also believe the competition is tougher in classes that are graded on a curve because of the nature of the student body. That all said, I figure medical school is a $400,000.00 commitment so my DD would need to basically come out of undergraduate debt free. And given her HS stats, she had numerous Flagship offers that basically were priced at room and board. So, if money was not an object she might have considered alternatives, that's not our case. And at some level my DD thrives on the competition. We will see how things turn out. She is a second semester junior and still carrying a 4.0. But she is also thinking through going straight to another four years of (medical) school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll bite.

And will use this thread as an example.

I saw title and looked forward to reading it this quiet morning.

It is not an engaging discussion regarding the merits of differing educational models.

It has a derogatory, judgmental tone dare I say ignorant. For my kids, I want them to develop an open mind to discuss things they don’t understand - not close minded and derogatory in attacking things they don’t.

I have 3 kids - one in a SLAC mentioned in this thread, one at a State Flagship, and one applying this year.

My DS at the SLAC has benefited from a small, tight knit college environment. It is the right environment for him. And he a legitimate interest in learning, is very aware of world affairs, the political environment, and some of the underlying causes. He spends his time reading. He is growing into an informed young adult.

He is not primarily focused on securing employment. He has spend four years learning. And throughout history that has been the true luxury of the wealthy. And he gets it.

My DD at a state university is potentially pre-med. it’s a large school. Digesting material - not for the sake of learning - but to get through it while ensuring she maintains her 4.0. The goal is not an education - the education is a means to the end - med school admission. The level of intellectual curiosity is clearly different. Career paths are more pragmatic. Engineering, nursing, business. Grinding to get a degree to get employment. I realize that these students exist at a SLACs and there are gunners everywhere. And ironically I think the competition at the flagship is greater because the student body doesn’t have the luxury of assuming life is opportunity rich. But you can feel the difference. For my DD the flagship is the right environment - it fits her personality. But for my other two children, the SLACs are the way to go.

That all said I would say that the reason DCUM folks are obsessed with SLACs is that it is inherently a luxury product - high touch education - while socially signialling to peers, employers, etc. Want to go into Investment banking, Williams, Middlebury, Amherst are goin to signal that you went to the right day school an$ have the right family connections. U Pitt, Penn State, UVA, etc.not so much.

And last yes the SLACs like Denison, Hobart, etc.were historically were the gentlemen ‘c’ students went from prep school. They would not have survived at the flagships so their parents had the money to send them to a nurturing environment.

But that all said, folks are obsessed with SLACs because they are from a SES that understands the value.

The difference is that now you cannot get into schools like Denison, Hobart, etc. with a C average. They have become more competitive and have many students who 20-30 years ago would have been accepted to a higher tier school but due to more applicants, etc. are not getting accepted. Just as the applicants at the next tier up are not getting accepted to their preferred schools. But back to Op's original question, the reason that people send their kids to a small LAC is fit. For some students the fit is best at one of these schools and it has nothing to do with needing to be coddled or not being ready for the real world or anything like that. My dd had no desire to go to a large school and sit in lectures and then have small classes with a TA (full disclosure: I went to a big 10 school). She wanted professors from day 1 and small classes. She has a love of learning and is going to major in something like history or political science. She will likely go to graduate school in something more practical but plans to work after graduation to find a field that she likes. She is developing excellent writing and critical thinking skills. I'm sure that she could have developed these skills at a larger school but this environment is where she wanted to be. In terms of dollars, she got merit aid which brought the cost down to a couple thousand dollars more than our state flagship which would not have been a good fit (and she likely would not have been accepted). I'm not sure why the Op is making these general (disparaging) statements when a college decision is so individual to each student and each family's circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll bite.

And will use this thread as an example.

I saw title and looked forward to reading it this quiet morning.

It is not an engaging discussion regarding the merits of differing educational models.

It has a derogatory, judgmental tone dare I say ignorant. For my kids, I want them to develop an open mind to discuss things they don’t understand - not close minded and derogatory in attacking things they don’t.

I have 3 kids - one in a SLAC mentioned in this thread, one at a State Flagship, and one applying this year.

My DS at the SLAC has benefited from a small, tight knit college environment. It is the right environment for him. And he a legitimate interest in learning, is very aware of world affairs, the political environment, and some of the underlying causes. He spends his time reading. He is growing into an informed young adult.

He is not primarily focused on securing employment. He has spend four years learning. And throughout history that has been the true luxury of the wealthy. And he gets it.

My DD at a state university is potentially pre-med. it’s a large school. Digesting material - not for the sake of learning - but to get through it while ensuring she maintains her 4.0. The goal is not an education - the education is a means to the end - med school admission. The level of intellectual curiosity is clearly different. Career paths are more pragmatic. Engineering, nursing, business. Grinding to get a degree to get employment. I realize that these students exist at a SLACs and there are gunners everywhere. And ironically I think the competition at the flagship is greater because the student body doesn’t have the luxury of assuming life is opportunity rich. But you can feel the difference. For my DD the flagship is the right environment - it fits her personality. But for my other two children, the SLACs are the way to go.

That all said I would say that the reason DCUM folks are obsessed with SLACs is that it is inherently a luxury product - high touch education - while socially signialling to peers, employers, etc. Want to go into Investment banking, Williams, Middlebury, Amherst are goin to signal that you went to the right day school an$ have the right family connections. U Pitt, Penn State, UVA, etc.not so much.

And last yes the SLACs like Denison, Hobart, etc.were historically were the gentlemen ‘c’ students went from prep school. They would not have survived at the flagships so their parents had the money to send them to a nurturing environment.

But that all said, folks are obsessed with SLACs because they are from a SES that understands the value.

Agree this is a good post, and I’ll add another thought to the mix. Both my kids had the luxury prep school experience. My oldest wanted something entirely different for college and is at a huge school. She finds the less-precious student body refreshing and has benefited from having to make her own way and fend for herself. I might not have chosen that for her (and I did in fact encourage her to apply to SLACs.) But she chose well for herself. My younger child is graduating this year and also didn’t choose the SLAC I might have preferred—his choice is a mid sized university...and we’re hoping he’ll find the best of both worlds there. Time will tell.

I'm the PP poster. And you make a great point and all the more power to your children. Sounds like you did a great job raising them. And I think it raises a great point - which is we should celebrate that our kids are all different and we are fortunate that different models of schooling exist. So, for some a SLAC would be stifling, and for others nurturing. For others a flagship would provide anonymity and others would get lost in the crowd. I think the trick is to know your kids. And if you are smart about it, the price/cost doesn't have to be that much of a difference.