LACs are overrated.

[Anonymous]

My DS got offered >$30K merit aid at 4 different SLACS, while the public schools offered <$10K. Being from DC, even with TAG, this made it very easy to pick an SLAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS got offered >$30K merit aid at 4 different SLACS, while the public schools offered <$10K. Being from DC, even with TAG, this made it very easy to pick an SLAC.

Private schools, in general, will offer you more than public schools. They have more resources and they know how expensive they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

Not really, graduates of the three schools you mentioned will have the same grad school and employment opportunities of an HYPS grad

Keep hyping. They are not worth $80,000 per year in this age.

Of all the schools that charge that much per year, I'd argue that LACs are the only ones worth the price tag.

That's laughably untrue. If anything, technical schools (the MITs, Georgia Techs, Caltechs of the world) would be able to justify the price tag. The LAC boosters truly live in a world of their own.

The technical schools do well in overall ROI, but that is due to the concentration of students in majors with high ROI, at least through early career. You can major in STEM at other schools and get a similar return.

I would not argue that colleges are worth what they are charging these days, but I think I understand what they PP was saying. Many colleges use undergraduate tuition to subsidize other things like graduate study and research activities. LACs don't have those competing uses. (I'm sure they suffer from administration bloat just like other schools, though.)

On the Niche website, they publish responses on survey questions, and one of those is the "percentage of students that feel like they are getting their money's worth out of their program." LACs seem to perform noticeably better on average on that question than many larger universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

Not really, graduates of the three schools you mentioned will have the same grad school and employment opportunities of an HYPS grad

Keep hyping. They are not worth $80,000 per year in this age.

Of all the schools that charge that much per year, I'd argue that LACs are the only ones worth the price tag.

That's laughably untrue. If anything, technical schools (the MITs, Georgia Techs, Caltechs of the world) would be able to justify the price tag. The LAC boosters truly live in a world of their own.

Or maybe SLAC boosters know that not everyone wants a carrier in STEM and that different kids like different types of schools and that’s ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

Not really, graduates of the three schools you mentioned will have the same grad school and employment opportunities of an HYPS grad

Keep hyping. They are not worth $80,000 per year in this age.

Of all the schools that charge that much per year, I'd argue that LACs are the only ones worth the price tag.

That's laughably untrue. If anything, technical schools (the MITs, Georgia Techs, Caltechs of the world) would be able to justify the price tag. The LAC boosters truly live in a world of their own.

Or maybe SLAC boosters know that not everyone wants a carrier in STEM and that different kids like different types of schools and that’s ok

"carrier in STEM" lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

Not really, graduates of the three schools you mentioned will have the same grad school and employment opportunities of an HYPS grad

Keep hyping. They are not worth $80,000 per year in this age.

Of all the schools that charge that much per year, I'd argue that LACs are the only ones worth the price tag.

That's laughably untrue. If anything, technical schools (the MITs, Georgia Techs, Caltechs of the world) would be able to justify the price tag. The LAC boosters truly live in a world of their own.

Or maybe SLAC boosters know that not everyone wants a carrier in STEM and that different kids like different types of schools and that’s ok

*career, obviously. Autocorrect ruined that sentence.

[Anonymous]

Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

PP, yours is an Incredibly biased, narrow minded opinion. It’s about the journey and SLAC give a great alternative path with exceptional academic and student life experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

PP, yours is an Incredibly biased, narrow minded opinion. It’s about the journey and SLAC give a great alternative path with exceptional academic and student life experiences.

The thing that is so self-congratulatory about LACs is that -gasp- you can also have exceptional academic and student life experiences at larger research universities. Sometimes, it can even be better than at an LAC. Wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

Also, kids from MIT, Georgia Tech, UIUC, Caltech, Berkeley et al who are serious about getting a STEM PhD would be significantly better suited than one from the Swarthmores of the world. It's just that a much higher proportion of them choose to go into industry. It's a matter of choice, not aptitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

Also, kids from MIT, Georgia Tech, UIUC, Caltech, Berkeley et al who are serious about getting a STEM PhD would be significantly better suited than one from the Swarthmores of the world. It's just that a much higher proportion of them choose to go into industry. It's a matter of choice, not aptitude.

It’s fun to make stuff up. I’ll wait while you don’t substantiate any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of people at
SLACs are STEM
majors. Swarthmore has an engineering program, and Amherst has a dual engineering program with Dartmouth. In other words, SLACs are not just for humanities.

Very, very few who are serious about a career in STEM would choose an LAC over, say, Georgia Tech. And they'd regret it immensely about 5 years post-grad and into their careers when they realize the head start that their peers at research unis and technical schools have over them.

Of course the top producers of math and science PhDs on a per capita basis are LACs, but let's not quibble with mere trifles like facts.

About 85% of all of the people I know with PhDs have major regrets about their chosen path, so the point still stands. There's an incredible amount of salary envy among even the highest-performing PhDs. This is something you would know if you actually knew any PhDs, which of course you don't. The self-deprecatory second thoughts come with the territory.

Also, kids from MIT, Georgia Tech, UIUC, Caltech, Berkeley et al who are serious about getting a STEM PhD would be significantly better suited than one from the Swarthmores of the world. It's just that a much higher proportion of them choose to go into industry. It's a matter of choice, not aptitude.

First of all, STEM is not all equal. Are most people who want to major in engineering probably better off at a tech school than a LAC? Probably. But that is not necessarily true for bio, chem, or math majors. As for the PP's comment about choosing to go into industry over getting a PhD, that's true for some I am sure. But many students who choose tech schools are more practically focused and many of those who choose LACs are more intellectually focused, so not surprising that the former would tend toward industry over PhD programs.