Middle class family being bamboozled with large "scholarships" from tier 5 LACs

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why is this any of your business OP? Take care of your own kids.


That is the problem. They want to live a very comfortable lifestyle, not save and have someone else pay for college for their kids.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Which schools do you mean? I'm not familiar with this and am curious if tier 5 LACs are names we'd know


Tier-5 LACs must be T5 LACs - Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona,


No. Tier 5 as in bottom tier, no-name private colleges most people have never heard of.


There are 200 LACs. Tier 5 is the middle.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why is this any of your business OP? Take care of your own kids.


She is too busy being miserable, but at least her kids got a "top tier" education! Now they can be miserable sad people, too.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why is this any of your business OP? Take care of your own kids.


Let your naive middle class family get scammed and go into massive debt! Who cares!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Which schools do you mean? I'm not familiar with this and am curious if tier 5 LACs are names we'd know


Tier-5 LACs must be T5 LACs - Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona,


No. Tier 5 as in bottom tier, no-name private colleges most people have never heard of.


There are 200 LACs. Tier 5 is the middle.


There are a lot more than 200 private colleges.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Which schools do you mean? I'm not familiar with this and am curious if tier 5 LACs are names we'd know


Tier-5 LACs must be T5 LACs - Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona,


No. Tier 5 as in bottom tier, no-name private colleges most people have never heard of.


There are 200 LACs. Tier 5 is the middle.


+1 There is a big range in LACs. Looking at a bunch of colleges in the 1000-2500 student size, 60%+ acceptance rate, there are schools with 80%+ freshman retention rates & 75%+ graduation rates but there are also schools with <50% retention, <40% graduation. Schools in the first category can definitely be worth looking at as alternatives to mid-range state colleges but I'd stay away from the 2nd category regardless of price. I'd say the same about regional public Us with poor retention/graduation rates.

For example, just in VA & MD...Ferrum College has a 49% retention rate and 29% graduation rate vs. Washington College's 84% retention and 73% graduation rate. Those are going to be very different experiences.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why is this any of your business OP? Take care of your own kids.


That is the problem. They want to live a very comfortable lifestyle, not save and have someone else pay for college for their kids.


Middle class incomes are not kicking off so much money. Many people save but it is not keeping up with higher ed inflation.
Anonymous
So I was just looking at the National Science Foundation report on the 50 colleges and universities with the highest rate of alums earning Ph.D.s in science and engineering. There are plenty middle-of-nowhere merit-aid LACs on that list, including a bunch that many DCUMers would dismiss as "no-name."

For example, Kalamazoo and Hendrix both rank higher on the list of S&E doctorates than Dartmouth, Columbia, Bowdoin, RPI, Rose-Hulman, and WUSTL. (Plenty of DCUM faves don't make the list at all.)

Meanwhile, over the last three years alone, Kalamazoo produced more student Fulbright scholars than several NESCACS, CMC, Caltech, Georgia Tech, and Case Western, among others. In the last 4 years, Hendrix appears to have produced more Watson Fellows than Bates, Williams, or Middlebury. Meanwhile, a kid can go to either of these schools for (literally) a third-to-half the cost of east coast LACs.

For the record, I don't have a kid at either of these schools, nor am I an alum. But I'm definitely paying attention. And if my LAC-inclined kid should wind up at either, I'd be delighted. Not because we've been "bamboozled," either.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:So I was just looking at the National Science Foundation report on the 50 colleges and universities with the highest rate of alums earning Ph.D.s in science and engineering. There are plenty middle-of-nowhere merit-aid LACs on that list, including a bunch that many DCUMers would dismiss as "no-name."

For example, Kalamazoo and Hendrix both rank higher on the list of S&E doctorates than Dartmouth, Columbia, Bowdoin, RPI, Rose-Hulman, and WUSTL. (Plenty of DCUM faves don't make the list at all.)

Meanwhile, over the last three years alone, Kalamazoo produced more student Fulbright scholars than several NESCACS, CMC, Caltech, Georgia Tech, and Case Western, among others. In the last 4 years, Hendrix appears to have produced more Watson Fellows than Bates, Williams, or Middlebury. Meanwhile, a kid can go to either of these schools for (literally) a third-to-half the cost of east coast LACs.

For the record, I don't have a kid at either of these schools, nor am I an alum. But I'm definitely paying attention. And if my LAC-inclined kid should wind up at either, I'd be delighted. Not because we've been "bamboozled," either.


I think the Tiers need to be defined...I would actually look at the total universe of LACs (let's just use the USNews universe) and then divide by 5. That probably puts 50 colleges into each Tier.

I know Kalamazoo and have heard good things about it. Is it really ranked say 200+? I will admit I have not heard of Hendrix (is it named after Jimi?).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP:

Two reasons it might make sense:

1. Scholarship brings the cost down equivalent to in-state public options.

2. If the kid needs a really small environment and lots of hand-holding. Think: a kid with ADHD, mildly ASD, executive functioning issues, or has some mental health issues. Such a kid will fall through the cracks in a large public college or university and can probably cope a bit more easily in a small LAC setting.


I understand but how does Option 2 in this example look like a "deal" to any family? We are not talking about Williams or Amherst.

Option 1: Globally-recognized UVA or UMD are $30K before any scholarships, merit or means-based aid.

Option 2: No-name LAC is $60K minus $30K "scholarship" makes it $30K out of pocket (read student and parent loans, refi house, sell assets).


A lot of kids getting these mailers are not getting into UVA or UMD. Maybe JMU or St Marys or UMBC. So a regional public college vs. small no-name LAC. Small environment will usually win out for kids who needs extra hand-holding.
agree and btw UMD is not globally recognized! Haha not even nationally, really.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I find it so interesting that so many kids from my DC's public MCPS high school go to these no name D3 colleges to play a sport. It's not like they are getting a full scholarship. Just seems so short sighted to pick a school with low return on investment for the privilege of playing in a mediocre league for 4 years. Some of these kids could clearly get better educations for the same price.


Kid not good enough, huh? Sorry. So many benefits to college sports, playing at the next level, being a part of something and seeing it through. Don’t worry about these kids, they will go to great grad programs and have a sport community for a lifetime.

so, they have to spend even more money to get a good paying job? Even more bamboozling.


Most kids at LACs / SLACs go to grad school.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So I was just looking at the National Science Foundation report on the 50 colleges and universities with the highest rate of alums earning Ph.D.s in science and engineering. There are plenty middle-of-nowhere merit-aid LACs on that list, including a bunch that many DCUMers would dismiss as "no-name."

For example, Kalamazoo and Hendrix both rank higher on the list of S&E doctorates than Dartmouth, Columbia, Bowdoin, RPI, Rose-Hulman, and WUSTL. (Plenty of DCUM faves don't make the list at all.)

Meanwhile, over the last three years alone, Kalamazoo produced more student Fulbright scholars than several NESCACS, CMC, Caltech, Georgia Tech, and Case Western, among others. In the last 4 years, Hendrix appears to have produced more Watson Fellows than Bates, Williams, or Middlebury. Meanwhile, a kid can go to either of these schools for (literally) a third-to-half the cost of east coast LACs.

For the record, I don't have a kid at either of these schools, nor am I an alum. But I'm definitely paying attention. And if my LAC-inclined kid should wind up at either, I'd be delighted. Not because we've been "bamboozled," either.


I think the Tiers need to be defined...I would actually look at the total universe of LACs (let's just use the USNews universe) and then divide by 5. That probably puts 50 colleges into each Tier.

I know Kalamazoo and have heard good things about it. Is it really ranked say 200+? I will admit I have not heard of Hendrix (is it named after Jimi?).


Kalamazoo is in the 50-100 ranking tier of National Liberal Arts colleges. It's long been regarded as a solid LAC with an experiential bent.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The best HS/Travel coaches giving advice will always say "it's a 40-year decision not a 4-year decision".

This is Stanford's strategy when pursuing top recruits in football and basketball, despite being outgunned by the big-time programs. It usually doesn't change anything but sometimes works.
Anonymous
NSF list if anyone is interested -- you'll find the list of top 50 adjusted for institutional size in Table 6:

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22321
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I find it so interesting that so many kids from my DC's public MCPS high school go to these no name D3 colleges to play a sport. It's not like they are getting a full scholarship. Just seems so short sighted to pick a school with low return on investment for the privilege of playing in a mediocre league for 4 years. Some of these kids could clearly get better educations for the same price.


Kid not good enough, huh? Sorry. So many benefits to college sports, playing at the next level, being a part of something and seeing it through. Don’t worry about these kids, they will go to great grad programs and have a sport community for a lifetime.

so, they have to spend even more money to get a good paying job? Even more bamboozling.


Most kids at LACs / SLACs go to grad school.



That is simply not true.
Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Go to: