This is an interesting article on why some LACs are struggling with enrollment, most LACs lag R1s on yield

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising. You can't blame it all on geography, though. The selective national R1 colleges in disparate locations like Univ of Michigan, Univ of Georgia, USC, Northeastern, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, etc. are all seeing record applications. A mix of urban, rural, etc.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs and it isn't just geography.

Something deeper going on at SLACs? Social media, reality tv and the attention economy are definitely influencing many kids and adults to gravitate towards mediocre large public schools. Thankfully there is still a group of thoughtful places for people focused on learning rather than Greek life.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs…..low acceptance rates and outstanding outcomes is what is going on.

Many LACs are "mediocre" while many flagship state universities are excellent. The very tippety top of LACs seem to be doing just fine, as illustrated on this thread, but the rest are starting to struggle to recruit and admit students and it's absolutely worthwhile discussing why. And I do think it's a combination of the following reasons:

1. enrollment cliff due to declining college age cohort sizes
2. wokification of private college culture and curriculums turning off conservative and centrist students, especially boys, who see the flagships as more apolitical and enjoyable.
3. Massive tuition disparity between expensive private colleges and flagships making people question the ROI. Even out of state flagships tend to be 2/3s the cost of a private LAC.

Not every LAC is going to be affected equally. But many are.

Some valid points. The wokification comment is a bit foolish but the left did over rotate hard. The right has now done the same and will be paying the price in the fall. Kids are influenced by social media which is playing up the party culture of Southern schools and driving their popularity among average kids. I come from a UMC area and nobody from our area goes "south" except for kids who weren't ever in the running for a selective school. There is an exception now and then but there is no move South. Nobody is avoiding Bucknell, HWS, and St. Lawrence because they are "woke".

Your cost comment is likely incorrect for all except the very top SLACs, with merit I'd expect that most are about equal to OOS flagships in many states (cheaper and more expensive for others). I would be as concerned about non-selective publics, the schools that most kids today attend. They are suffering as bad a typical SLACs but nobody talks about them. As they get hit it might actually help improve the stats for the relatively non-selective R1s and R2s but it isn't because those schools are becoming more attractive, they'll just be standing. Small less selective schools in general are going to struggle, not just SLACs. Wealthy, prestigious schools are going to thrive no matter what.

You are clearly resistant to the notion of cultural changes and cultural divides playing a role in what people look for in colleges and why many are turning their backs to LACs in favor of different kinds of colleges. I am in the Baltimore suburbs, which is hardly MAGA territory, and in the private school world where fully pay is more typical tha not, there's been a significant shift towards favoring both southern LACs and flagships over northern ones, with the flagships winning out. And this is the same cohort of kids who in my day would have never looked at public schools outside UVA or Michigan or Chapel Hill, and flocked north for liberal arts colleges.

There are absolutely conservative and centrist and even apolitical lean Democrat students, which is typical of most of the kids around me. The flag waving queer supporting allies are a minority. The latter is the one that embraces the liberal LAC culture, not only for the bubble environment, but because curriculum, administration and faculty are strongly attuned to their ideological beliefs. Like most people who embrace the preacher, your particular choir doesn't realize how off putting the same can be to other students. Add to it the high costs of attending a LAC sans merit or scholarships, it's hard to justify spending the money at a place you don't feel welcome at. And one can also question the seriousness of the scholarship and teaching at many LACs these days.

Kids don’t want to go to a liberal arts college, because they’re off put by gay people existing? You think the next generation is deeply homophobic? That seems a bit…depressing for our future.

Why is that the only small aspect of PP's longer comment you focused on?

I will say my liberal/progressive son also noted the larger per cent of gay vs straight men at numerous LACs we toured, including in a q&a with tour guides on the social dynamic. some LACS were described by guides as majority queer or sometimes two-thirds queer identifying. DS's school is about 1/4-1/3 gay identifying, so he's very comfortable wiht a mix, just seemed from our personal exp touring that it was a higher representation of queer students flocking more to LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising. You can't blame it all on geography, though. The selective national R1 colleges in disparate locations like Univ of Michigan, Univ of Georgia, USC, Northeastern, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, etc. are all seeing record applications. A mix of urban, rural, etc.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs and it isn't just geography.

Something deeper going on at SLACs? Social media, reality tv and the attention economy are definitely influencing many kids and adults to gravitate towards mediocre large public schools. Thankfully there is still a group of thoughtful places for people focused on learning rather than Greek life.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs…..low acceptance rates and outstanding outcomes is what is going on.

Many LACs are "mediocre" while many flagship state universities are excellent. The very tippety top of LACs seem to be doing just fine, as illustrated on this thread, but the rest are starting to struggle to recruit and admit students and it's absolutely worthwhile discussing why. And I do think it's a combination of the following reasons:

1. enrollment cliff due to declining college age cohort sizes
2. wokification of private college culture and curriculums turning off conservative and centrist students, especially boys, who see the flagships as more apolitical and enjoyable.
3. Massive tuition disparity between expensive private colleges and flagships making people question the ROI. Even out of state flagships tend to be 2/3s the cost of a private LAC.

Not every LAC is going to be affected equally. But many are.

Some valid points. The wokification comment is a bit foolish but the left did over rotate hard. The right has now done the same and will be paying the price in the fall. Kids are influenced by social media which is playing up the party culture of Southern schools and driving their popularity among average kids. I come from a UMC area and nobody from our area goes "south" except for kids who weren't ever in the running for a selective school. There is an exception now and then but there is no move South. Nobody is avoiding Bucknell, HWS, and St. Lawrence because they are "woke".

Your cost comment is likely incorrect for all except the very top SLACs, with merit I'd expect that most are about equal to OOS flagships in many states (cheaper and more expensive for others). I would be as concerned about non-selective publics, the schools that most kids today attend. They are suffering as bad a typical SLACs but nobody talks about them. As they get hit it might actually help improve the stats for the relatively non-selective R1s and R2s but it isn't because those schools are becoming more attractive, they'll just be standing. Small less selective schools in general are going to struggle, not just SLACs. Wealthy, prestigious schools are going to thrive no matter what.

You are clearly resistant to the notion of cultural changes and cultural divides playing a role in what people look for in colleges and why many are turning their backs to LACs in favor of different kinds of colleges. I am in the Baltimore suburbs, which is hardly MAGA territory, and in the private school world where fully pay is more typical tha not, there's been a significant shift towards favoring both southern LACs and flagships over northern ones, with the flagships winning out. And this is the same cohort of kids who in my day would have never looked at public schools outside UVA or Michigan or Chapel Hill, and flocked north for liberal arts colleges.

There are absolutely conservative and centrist and even apolitical lean Democrat students, which is typical of most of the kids around me. The flag waving queer supporting allies are a minority. The latter is the one that embraces the liberal LAC culture, not only for the bubble environment, but because curriculum, administration and faculty are strongly attuned to their ideological beliefs. Like most people who embrace the preacher, your particular choir doesn't realize how off putting the same can be to other students. Add to it the high costs of attending a LAC sans merit or scholarships, it's hard to justify spending the money at a place you don't feel welcome at. And one can also question the seriousness of the scholarship and teaching at many LACs these days.

Kids don’t want to go to a liberal arts college, because they’re off put by gay people existing? You think the next generation is deeply homophobic? That seems a bit…depressing for our future.

Gen Z is not remotely homophobic. The thing with liberal arts colleges is that they are small and often in fairly remote locations. So the school community is incredibly important. The recruited D3 athletes seem to keep to themselves, and at schools like Williams and Amherst that's about 30-40 percent of the student body. Add in the general angst people feel about the future. LACs generally don't offer engineering or CS or business or the "practical" degrees. It becomes self-selecting very quickly. So you do get a lot of wealthy theater and poetry majors plus D3 athletes who don't have what it takes for D1. And they are all in the middle of nowhere.

Liberal Arts colleges are in trouble. Lots of supply but not much demand. The highest ranked schools will of course do fine. But the viability of many is going to be an issue in the years to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising. You can't blame it all on geography, though. The selective national R1 colleges in disparate locations like Univ of Michigan, Univ of Georgia, USC, Northeastern, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, etc. are all seeing record applications. A mix of urban, rural, etc.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs and it isn't just geography.

Something deeper going on at SLACs? Social media, reality tv and the attention economy are definitely influencing many kids and adults to gravitate towards mediocre large public schools. Thankfully there is still a group of thoughtful places for people focused on learning rather than Greek life.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs…..low acceptance rates and outstanding outcomes is what is going on.

Many LACs are "mediocre" while many flagship state universities are excellent. The very tippety top of LACs seem to be doing just fine, as illustrated on this thread, but the rest are starting to struggle to recruit and admit students and it's absolutely worthwhile discussing why. And I do think it's a combination of the following reasons:

1. enrollment cliff due to declining college age cohort sizes
2. wokification of private college culture and curriculums turning off conservative and centrist students, especially boys, who see the flagships as more apolitical and enjoyable.
3. Massive tuition disparity between expensive private colleges and flagships making people question the ROI. Even out of state flagships tend to be 2/3s the cost of a private LAC.

Not every LAC is going to be affected equally. But many are.

Some valid points. The wokification comment is a bit foolish but the left did over rotate hard. The right has now done the same and will be paying the price in the fall. Kids are influenced by social media which is playing up the party culture of Southern schools and driving their popularity among average kids. I come from a UMC area and nobody from our area goes "south" except for kids who weren't ever in the running for a selective school. There is an exception now and then but there is no move South. Nobody is avoiding Bucknell, HWS, and St. Lawrence because they are "woke".

Your cost comment is likely incorrect for all except the very top SLACs, with merit I'd expect that most are about equal to OOS flagships in many states (cheaper and more expensive for others). I would be as concerned about non-selective publics, the schools that most kids today attend. They are suffering as bad a typical SLACs but nobody talks about them. As they get hit it might actually help improve the stats for the relatively non-selective R1s and R2s but it isn't because those schools are becoming more attractive, they'll just be standing. Small less selective schools in general are going to struggle, not just SLACs. Wealthy, prestigious schools are going to thrive no matter what.

You are clearly resistant to the notion of cultural changes and cultural divides playing a role in what people look for in colleges and why many are turning their backs to LACs in favor of different kinds of colleges. I am in the Baltimore suburbs, which is hardly MAGA territory, and in the private school world where fully pay is more typical tha not, there's been a significant shift towards favoring both southern LACs and flagships over northern ones, with the flagships winning out. And this is the same cohort of kids who in my day would have never looked at public schools outside UVA or Michigan or Chapel Hill, and flocked north for liberal arts colleges.

There are absolutely conservative and centrist and even apolitical lean Democrat students, which is typical of most of the kids around me. The flag waving queer supporting allies are a minority. The latter is the one that embraces the liberal LAC culture, not only for the bubble environment, but because curriculum, administration and faculty are strongly attuned to their ideological beliefs. Like most people who embrace the preacher, your particular choir doesn't realize how off putting the same can be to other students. Add to it the high costs of attending a LAC sans merit or scholarships, it's hard to justify spending the money at a place you don't feel welcome at. And one can also question the seriousness of the scholarship and teaching at many LACs these days.

I'm a republican from an upstate NY suburb, I'm curious about these cultural changes of which I am resistant. Your description of SLACs highlights the extent of your ignorance. You out yourself as a bigot and a fool. I have been on the campuses of both flagships (which I attended), elite R1s (also attended) and SLACs in the past few years which it is pretty obvious that you have not done. You describe the environment of SLACs in a manner which frankly doesn't exist. You are stunningly stupid and the South is welcome to you and yours if that is where you prefer to go. They will accept you because most in the South are wonderful people but they will be diminished by having you among them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Add some others -

1. Too small
2. Doesn't have name recognition
3. Remote Locations

My '26 DD - who had no interest in the rah rah state flagship experience - also had no interest in a SLAC.

They are a "normie" but their concerns were:
1. Social divide between athletes and the quirky students - she wasn't going to be an athlete and was worried that would limit her friend group especially if athletes mainly stick to other athletes.

2. She wanted something a larger than her high school.

3. She wanted a cute town that was within walkable distance.

4. She felt the SLACs just didn't have the name recognition

She is going to a mid-sized university in the fall. I do think the mid-sized schools will be getting more students that are like my daughter.

I see some of the SLACs that would probably be put in the struggling category and I am seeing a lot more "diner goth" type students than at other schools. The more "diner goth" type students, the more "normal" type students wouldn't find that school to be a good social fit and the death spiral continues.

OMG that's what's been so off-putting for us when touring or going to admitted days at so many LACs. It's the very noticeable diner-goth aesthetic that was weirding my kid out at Wes, Vassar, Amherst, Claremont colleges, Haverford, Bryn Mawr, Smith etc.

Medium schools like Northwestern, Tufts, WashU had a better mix of normies from my kid's perspective.



+1

We’re talking about the same Claremont colleges where most students wear clothes for the sun if they aren’t in a suit?

yes, lots of pierced septums and blue hair at pitzer, lots of goth girls at scripps, mix of all types at pomona

Absolute lying nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising. You can't blame it all on geography, though. The selective national R1 colleges in disparate locations like Univ of Michigan, Univ of Georgia, USC, Northeastern, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, etc. are all seeing record applications. A mix of urban, rural, etc.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs and it isn't just geography.

Something deeper going on at SLACs? Social media, reality tv and the attention economy are definitely influencing many kids and adults to gravitate towards mediocre large public schools. Thankfully there is still a group of thoughtful places for people focused on learning rather than Greek life.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs…..low acceptance rates and outstanding outcomes is what is going on.

Many LACs are "mediocre" while many flagship state universities are excellent. The very tippety top of LACs seem to be doing just fine, as illustrated on this thread, but the rest are starting to struggle to recruit and admit students and it's absolutely worthwhile discussing why. And I do think it's a combination of the following reasons:

1. enrollment cliff due to declining college age cohort sizes
2. wokification of private college culture and curriculums turning off conservative and centrist students, especially boys, who see the flagships as more apolitical and enjoyable.
3. Massive tuition disparity between expensive private colleges and flagships making people question the ROI. Even out of state flagships tend to be 2/3s the cost of a private LAC.

Not every LAC is going to be affected equally. But many are.

Some valid points. The wokification comment is a bit foolish but the left did over rotate hard. The right has now done the same and will be paying the price in the fall. Kids are influenced by social media which is playing up the party culture of Southern schools and driving their popularity among average kids. I come from a UMC area and nobody from our area goes "south" except for kids who weren't ever in the running for a selective school. There is an exception now and then but there is no move South. Nobody is avoiding Bucknell, HWS, and St. Lawrence because they are "woke".

Your cost comment is likely incorrect for all except the very top SLACs, with merit I'd expect that most are about equal to OOS flagships in many states (cheaper and more expensive for others). I would be as concerned about non-selective publics, the schools that most kids today attend. They are suffering as bad a typical SLACs but nobody talks about them. As they get hit it might actually help improve the stats for the relatively non-selective R1s and R2s but it isn't because those schools are becoming more attractive, they'll just be standing. Small less selective schools in general are going to struggle, not just SLACs. Wealthy, prestigious schools are going to thrive no matter what.

You are clearly resistant to the notion of cultural changes and cultural divides playing a role in what people look for in colleges and why many are turning their backs to LACs in favor of different kinds of colleges. I am in the Baltimore suburbs, which is hardly MAGA territory, and in the private school world where fully pay is more typical tha not, there's been a significant shift towards favoring both southern LACs and flagships over northern ones, with the flagships winning out. And this is the same cohort of kids who in my day would have never looked at public schools outside UVA or Michigan or Chapel Hill, and flocked north for liberal arts colleges.

There are absolutely conservative and centrist and even apolitical lean Democrat students, which is typical of most of the kids around me. The flag waving queer supporting allies are a minority. The latter is the one that embraces the liberal LAC culture, not only for the bubble environment, but because curriculum, administration and faculty are strongly attuned to their ideological beliefs. Like most people who embrace the preacher, your particular choir doesn't realize how off putting the same can be to other students. Add to it the high costs of attending a LAC sans merit or scholarships, it's hard to justify spending the money at a place you don't feel welcome at. And one can also question the seriousness of the scholarship and teaching at many LACs these days.

Kids don’t want to go to a liberal arts college, because they’re off put by gay people existing? You think the next generation is deeply homophobic? That seems a bit…depressing for our future.

Why is that the only small aspect of PP's longer comment you focused on?

I will say my liberal/progressive son also noted the larger per cent of gay vs straight men at numerous LACs we toured, including in a q&a with tour guides on the social dynamic. some LACS were described by guides as majority queer or sometimes two-thirds queer identifying. DS's school is about 1/4-1/3 gay identifying, so he's very comfortable wiht a mix, just seemed from our personal exp touring that it was a higher representation of queer students flocking more to LACs.

This is complete fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising. You can't blame it all on geography, though. The selective national R1 colleges in disparate locations like Univ of Michigan, Univ of Georgia, USC, Northeastern, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, etc. are all seeing record applications. A mix of urban, rural, etc.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs and it isn't just geography.

Something deeper going on at SLACs? Social media, reality tv and the attention economy are definitely influencing many kids and adults to gravitate towards mediocre large public schools. Thankfully there is still a group of thoughtful places for people focused on learning rather than Greek life.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs…..low acceptance rates and outstanding outcomes is what is going on.

Many LACs are "mediocre" while many flagship state universities are excellent. The very tippety top of LACs seem to be doing just fine, as illustrated on this thread, but the rest are starting to struggle to recruit and admit students and it's absolutely worthwhile discussing why. And I do think it's a combination of the following reasons:

1. enrollment cliff due to declining college age cohort sizes
2. wokification of private college culture and curriculums turning off conservative and centrist students, especially boys, who see the flagships as more apolitical and enjoyable.
3. Massive tuition disparity between expensive private colleges and flagships making people question the ROI. Even out of state flagships tend to be 2/3s the cost of a private LAC.

Not every LAC is going to be affected equally. But many are.

Some valid points. The wokification comment is a bit foolish but the left did over rotate hard. The right has now done the same and will be paying the price in the fall. Kids are influenced by social media which is playing up the party culture of Southern schools and driving their popularity among average kids. I come from a UMC area and nobody from our area goes "south" except for kids who weren't ever in the running for a selective school. There is an exception now and then but there is no move South. Nobody is avoiding Bucknell, HWS, and St. Lawrence because they are "woke".

Your cost comment is likely incorrect for all except the very top SLACs, with merit I'd expect that most are about equal to OOS flagships in many states (cheaper and more expensive for others). I would be as concerned about non-selective publics, the schools that most kids today attend. They are suffering as bad a typical SLACs but nobody talks about them. As they get hit it might actually help improve the stats for the relatively non-selective R1s and R2s but it isn't because those schools are becoming more attractive, they'll just be standing. Small less selective schools in general are going to struggle, not just SLACs. Wealthy, prestigious schools are going to thrive no matter what.

You are clearly resistant to the notion of cultural changes and cultural divides playing a role in what people look for in colleges and why many are turning their backs to LACs in favor of different kinds of colleges. I am in the Baltimore suburbs, which is hardly MAGA territory, and in the private school world where fully pay is more typical tha not, there's been a significant shift towards favoring both southern LACs and flagships over northern ones, with the flagships winning out. And this is the same cohort of kids who in my day would have never looked at public schools outside UVA or Michigan or Chapel Hill, and flocked north for liberal arts colleges.

There are absolutely conservative and centrist and even apolitical lean Democrat students, which is typical of most of the kids around me. The flag waving queer supporting allies are a minority. The latter is the one that embraces the liberal LAC culture, not only for the bubble environment, but because curriculum, administration and faculty are strongly attuned to their ideological beliefs. Like most people who embrace the preacher, your particular choir doesn't realize how off putting the same can be to other students. Add to it the high costs of attending a LAC sans merit or scholarships, it's hard to justify spending the money at a place you don't feel welcome at. And one can also question the seriousness of the scholarship and teaching at many LACs these days.

Kids don’t want to go to a liberal arts college, because they’re off put by gay people existing? You think the next generation is deeply homophobic? That seems a bit…depressing for our future.

Gen Z is not remotely homophobic. The thing with liberal arts colleges is that they are small and often in fairly remote locations. So the school community is incredibly important. The recruited D3 athletes seem to keep to themselves, and at schools like Williams and Amherst that's about 30-40 percent of the student body. Add in the general angst people feel about the future. LACs generally don't offer engineering or CS or business or the "practical" degrees. It becomes self-selecting very quickly. So you do get a lot of wealthy theater and poetry majors plus D3 athletes who don't have what it takes for D1. And they are all in the middle of nowhere.

Liberal Arts colleges are in trouble. Lots of supply but not much demand. The highest ranked schools will of course do fine. But the viability of many is going to be an issue in the years to come.

Huge amounts of stereotyping in this one.

[Anonymous]

Typical DCUM — discussion has completely devolved from the original point of the article. No one cares about your observations from admitted student days at schools not mentioned. The strong, popular SLACs continue to thrive, while others may struggle. Keep your prejudices to yourself.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a (small?) group of DCUM folks who would defend SLACs at all cost at every turn. They love to explain away every perceived weakness of SLACs using whataboutism. I've learned. SLACs are indeed the best thing since sliced bread, perfect in every way.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain what’s so bad about seeing a few students with piercings and dyed hair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what’s so bad about seeing a few students with piercings and dyed hair?

Doesn't bother me at all, but understand why it makes some folks uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what’s so bad about seeing a few students with piercings and dyed hair?

Doesn't bother me at all, but understand why it makes some folks uncomfortable.

Why? Are they hurting someone? Or are those who are uncomfortable just struggling with their own issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a (small?) group of DCUM folks who would defend SLACs at all cost at every turn. They love to explain away every perceived weakness of SLACs using whataboutism. I've learned. SLACs are indeed the best thing since sliced bread, perfect in every way.

Pretty sure that your learnings are substandard. Your insecurities are shining through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what’s so bad about seeing a few students with piercings and dyed hair?

Doesn't bother me at all, but understand why it makes some folks uncomfortable.

Why? Are they hurting someone? Or are those who are uncomfortable just struggling with their own issues?

PP. Because all humans have their own sets of prejudices that they don't like to admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising. You can't blame it all on geography, though. The selective national R1 colleges in disparate locations like Univ of Michigan, Univ of Georgia, USC, Northeastern, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, etc. are all seeing record applications. A mix of urban, rural, etc.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs and it isn't just geography.

Something deeper going on at SLACs? Social media, reality tv and the attention economy are definitely influencing many kids and adults to gravitate towards mediocre large public schools. Thankfully there is still a group of thoughtful places for people focused on learning rather than Greek life.

Something deeper is going on at SLACs…..low acceptance rates and outstanding outcomes is what is going on.

Many LACs are "mediocre" while many flagship state universities are excellent. The very tippety top of LACs seem to be doing just fine, as illustrated on this thread, but the rest are starting to struggle to recruit and admit students and it's absolutely worthwhile discussing why. And I do think it's a combination of the following reasons:

1. enrollment cliff due to declining college age cohort sizes
2. wokification of private college culture and curriculums turning off conservative and centrist students, especially boys, who see the flagships as more apolitical and enjoyable.
3. Massive tuition disparity between expensive private colleges and flagships making people question the ROI. Even out of state flagships tend to be 2/3s the cost of a private LAC.

Not every LAC is going to be affected equally. But many are.

Some valid points. The wokification comment is a bit foolish but the left did over rotate hard. The right has now done the same and will be paying the price in the fall. Kids are influenced by social media which is playing up the party culture of Southern schools and driving their popularity among average kids. I come from a UMC area and nobody from our area goes "south" except for kids who weren't ever in the running for a selective school. There is an exception now and then but there is no move South. Nobody is avoiding Bucknell, HWS, and St. Lawrence because they are "woke".

Your cost comment is likely incorrect for all except the very top SLACs, with merit I'd expect that most are about equal to OOS flagships in many states (cheaper and more expensive for others). I would be as concerned about non-selective publics, the schools that most kids today attend. They are suffering as bad a typical SLACs but nobody talks about them. As they get hit it might actually help improve the stats for the relatively non-selective R1s and R2s but it isn't because those schools are becoming more attractive, they'll just be standing. Small less selective schools in general are going to struggle, not just SLACs. Wealthy, prestigious schools are going to thrive no matter what.

You are clearly resistant to the notion of cultural changes and cultural divides playing a role in what people look for in colleges and why many are turning their backs to LACs in favor of different kinds of colleges. I am in the Baltimore suburbs, which is hardly MAGA territory, and in the private school world where fully pay is more typical tha not, there's been a significant shift towards favoring both southern LACs and flagships over northern ones, with the flagships winning out. And this is the same cohort of kids who in my day would have never looked at public schools outside UVA or Michigan or Chapel Hill, and flocked north for liberal arts colleges.

There are absolutely conservative and centrist and even apolitical lean Democrat students, which is typical of most of the kids around me. The flag waving queer supporting allies are a minority. The latter is the one that embraces the liberal LAC culture, not only for the bubble environment, but because curriculum, administration and faculty are strongly attuned to their ideological beliefs. Like most people who embrace the preacher, your particular choir doesn't realize how off putting the same can be to other students. Add to it the high costs of attending a LAC sans merit or scholarships, it's hard to justify spending the money at a place you don't feel welcome at. And one can also question the seriousness of the scholarship and teaching at many LACs these days.

I'm a republican from an upstate NY suburb, I'm curious about these cultural changes of which I am resistant. Your description of SLACs highlights the extent of your ignorance. You out yourself as a bigot and a fool. I have been on the campuses of both flagships (which I attended), elite R1s (also attended) and SLACs in the past few years which it is pretty obvious that you have not done. You describe the environment of SLACs in a manner which frankly doesn't exist. You are stunningly stupid and the South is welcome to you and yours if that is where you prefer to go. They will accept you because most in the South are wonderful people but they will be diminished by having you among them.

What are you so offended about, "republican upstate New york suburb"? That there are college bound kids who don't want to spend four years at a small school dominated by left wing campus activism? What I find more intriguing is how deeply personal some people are taking any criticism of small liberal LACs. They are not, as no school is, exempt from having differing opinions and experiences. This isn't about being gay or lesbian, it's about a distinct type of progressive culture and cultural politics, which will be much more evident at some schools over others. Everyone knows Oberlin and Hampshire are very different places from Bucknell or Washington & Lee and will attract widely different types of students and applicants. But the bulk of the LACs, especially in the top 50 or so, will fall into the more liberal side of the spectrum these days.

But there is also a sense of ownership being threatened here, which is what some posters are feeling when, say, the topic of queer comes up, without acknowledging that many gays and lesbians don't see themselves as belonging to a "queer" political-cultural identity and resent that the activists act as if they are owed fealty simply due to sexuality. There are plenty of gay Republicans, for example. And we could also talk about how the mushrooming in queer-identifying zoomers was most acute at, you got it, LACs and other expensive private colleges, and yet it's also starting to fall noticeably among the latest generation heading for college. Different topic, but you are getting distracted by your biases and prejudices with the immediate lurching to homophobia without any evidence.

Large flagships, at the end of the day, are very large schools, which means they have everyone including the queer activists along with the preppy fraternities. And there's going to be large pools of everyone. Which means you end up with a pretty neutral environment compared to many smaller schools where it's much easier for one type to dominate the campus culture. Or a weird binary as others have alluded to, a 30% jock cohort existing separately from the progressives.

As for the other topic, academic quality, this is certainly something that exists in the eye of the beholder. But there's no shortage of observations of higher education trends and changes, and it's still clearly a factor (along with the others) of the sorting and separating via self selection and changing popularity, as well as respect, of colleges.

Last but not least, cost is the big elephant in the room. On top of everything else, it's not surprising why many are saying no to LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what’s so bad about seeing a few students with piercings and dyed hair?

Doesn't bother me at all, but understand why it makes some folks uncomfortable.

Why? Are they hurting someone? Or are those who are uncomfortable just struggling with their own issues?

How many times have we heard that SLACs are all about fit and finding your people? Finding the campus that has a vibe that you mesh with?

For many normies, a campus full of diner-goths just isn't their vibe. They aren't their people. They aren't uncomfortable or struggling with their own issues.

Just like having a diner-goth take a tour of a college full of normies ...that diner-goth will probably look around and say "these aren't my people" and that is fine!

A gay kid I know passed on many fine schools because they weren't "gay enough". S/he ended up at a school that had a large LGBTQ+ population (think along the lines of Oberlin) because that kid wanted to be around a larger and louder LGBTQ population than a school that was filled with more normies.