T20 or T5 lacs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

[Anonymous]

Why just top 5 LACS? The top 10 all seem competitive to me with the top 20-25 universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

Far more likely to do independent projects at an LAC, because the faculty have more bandwidth to evaluate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why just top 5 LACS? The top 10 all seem competitive to me with the top 20-25 universities.

That would be about right. There are about 40 schools with SAT medians of 1500 and above. About 10 of those schools are SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

I'd like to have an adult conversation on this but you will need to find someone to speak for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why just top 5 LACS? The top 10 all seem competitive to me with the top 20-25 universities.

That would be about right. There are about 40 schools with SAT medians of 1500 and above. About 10 of those schools are SLACs.

Scores might tell you something about preparation coming in, but little about the experience while there. The work for boosting SAT scores 100 points is orders of magnitude less than the work done in a decent 4 year program. Besides, comparing scores across schools with large differences in reporting rates can reward the institutions with applicants more likely to withhold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

I'd like to have an adult conversation on this but you will need to find someone to speak for you.

Ah yes, your claiming that people going to universities are betting on a brand while people going to LACs are betting on and prioritizing themselves is such a mature point.

[Anonymous]

To reiterate:

The LAC boosters who bash universities are annoying dolts.

The LAC-bashers are even more annoying dolts.

And the people who finely slice top LACs into to precise tiers of quality are as annoyingly doltish as the people who do the same thing with top universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

I'd like to have an adult conversation on this but you will need to find someone to speak for you.

Ah yes, your claiming that people going to universities are betting on a brand while people going to LACs are betting on and prioritizing themselves is such a mature point.

It’s true though. Every time an LAC basher says LACs are less known or have fewer applicants they are speaking to brand awareness, not quality. A better question than why spend 360k on undergrad at an LAC is why spend that at a university where the profs openly want to minimize their time doing so. Other than the existence of a major that might not be available at an LAC like engineering (which throws off earnings comparisons), it’s pretty counter intuitive. (That said, even LACs that don’t offer engineering send alumni into it, just less frequently.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

I'd like to have an adult conversation on this but you will need to find someone to speak for you.

Ah yes, your claiming that people going to universities are betting on a brand while people going to LACs are betting on and prioritizing themselves is such a mature point.

It’s true though. Every time an LAC basher says LACs are less known or have fewer applicants they are speaking to brand awareness, not quality. A better question than why spend 360k on undergrad at an LAC is why spend that at a university where the profs openly want to minimize their time doing so. Other than the existence of a major that might not be available at an LAC like engineering (which throws off earnings comparisons), it’s pretty counter intuitive. (That said, even LACs that don’t offer engineering send alumni into it, just less frequently.)

Openly want to spend their time teaching undergrads, that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

I'd like to have an adult conversation on this but you will need to find someone to speak for you.

Ah yes, your claiming that people going to universities are betting on a brand while people going to LACs are betting on and prioritizing themselves is such a mature point.

It’s true though. Every time an LAC basher says LACs are less known or have fewer applicants they are speaking to brand awareness, not quality. A better question than why spend 360k on undergrad at an LAC is why spend that at a university where the profs openly want to minimize their time doing so. Other than the existence of a major that might not be available at an LAC like engineering (which throws off earnings comparisons), it’s pretty counter intuitive. (That said, even LACs that don’t offer engineering send alumni into it, just less frequently.)

There are like 50 reasons that people choose a given university that isn’t just “the brand.” I’m not sure what adult conversation you want to have when you don’t seem very aware of any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

I'd like to have an adult conversation on this but you will need to find someone to speak for you.

Ah yes, your claiming that people going to universities are betting on a brand while people going to LACs are betting on and prioritizing themselves is such a mature point.

It’s true though. Every time an LAC basher says LACs are less known or have fewer applicants they are speaking to brand awareness, not quality. A better question than why spend 360k on undergrad at an LAC is why spend that at a university where the profs openly want to minimize their time doing so. Other than the existence of a major that might not be available at an LAC like engineering (which throws off earnings comparisons), it’s pretty counter intuitive. (That said, even LACs that don’t offer engineering send alumni into it, just less frequently.)

There are like 50 reasons that people choose a given university that isn’t just “the brand.” I’m not sure what adult conversation you want to have when you don’t seem very aware of any of this.

That’s nice, but the one I hear about most on this site is branding in the form of prestige. But you didn’t read carefully if you think I said I think that’s the only reason.

[Anonymous]

Just a note for the two of you: By now it's impossible for either of you to be both correct and not utterly insufferable.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.