Why is DCUM so obsessed with small liberal arts colleges?

[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)

I am a lawyer and DH is a social worker. Both of our kids studied/study at SLACs (not first-tier ones) because they preferred the environment, because both schools provide an excellent, personal, inspiring education, and because we can afford it.

We do not have “connections” to banking or any other industries.

The goal for our kids’ college experience is for them to become educated, aware, informed citizens. They are just that. The older one (economics/computer science double major) has an excellent, well-paying job, and the second (math/physics double major) is doing very well, building her resume, and will be prepared for work or graduate school in the next few years.

OP, it sounds like you are not confident in your kids’ ability to work to succeed. Is that the case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who wants to pay to have their kid be a number in giant lecture halls?

+1

Being taught by graduate students? No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My private school kid, who has worked hard but not done well, will likely only have SLACs as his choice. Already deferred at one state university and will likely get rejected from the other three he's applying to. Our local pressure cooker privates have a direct line to the SLACs for the bottom of the class kids who can't get into the large universities. For my kid with a severe executive function disorder, he would have a difficult time navigating a large state university anyway. Though I have no stress about him navigating life once he graduates. He's smarter than 99% of the world.

My DS sounds similar. I wish you could share the names of the SLACs?

Not PP, but look at Colleges That Change Lives schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

I am a lawyer and DH is a social worker. Both of our kids studied/study at SLACs (not first-tier ones) because they preferred the environment, because both schools provide an excellent, personal, inspiring education, and because we can afford it.

We do not have “connections” to banking or any other industries.

The goal for our kids’ college experience is for them to become educated, aware, informed citizens. They are just that. The older one (economics/computer science double major) has an excellent, well-paying job, and the second (math/physics double major) is doing very well, building her resume, and will be prepared for work or graduate school in the next few years.

OP, it sounds like you are not confident in your kids’ ability to work to succeed. Is that the case?

Actually, my daughter is thriving as a senior at UC Berkeley, so I’m completely confident in her ability to succeed. A lot of the wealthy white families in our area that sent their kids to SLACs would use subtly coded racist dogwhistling to steer their kids away from the “big bad scary competitive” UC schools. Sayings like “all the immigrant striver kids at UCLA/Berkeley make it too competitive” (which is a sentiment that I hear often on here as well regarding magnet high schools). The lengths to which wealthy parents want to coddle their kids is mind-boggling. My white daughter appreciates the sense of competition and motivation her diverse college environment gives her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

I am a lawyer and DH is a social worker. Both of our kids studied/study at SLACs (not first-tier ones) because they preferred the environment, because both schools provide an excellent, personal, inspiring education, and because we can afford it.

We do not have “connections” to banking or any other industries.

The goal for our kids’ college experience is for them to become educated, aware, informed citizens. They are just that. The older one (economics/computer science double major) has an excellent, well-paying job, and the second (math/physics double major) is doing very well, building her resume, and will be prepared for work or graduate school in the next few years.

OP, it sounds like you are not confident in your kids’ ability to work to succeed. Is that the case?

Actually, my daughter is thriving as a senior at UC Berkeley, so I’m completely confident in her ability to succeed. A lot of the wealthy white families in our area that sent their kids to SLACs would use subtly coded racist dogwhistling to steer their kids away from the “big bad scary competitive” UC schools. Sayings like “all the immigrant striver kids at UCLA/Berkeley make it too competitive” (which is a sentiment that I hear often on here as well regarding magnet high schools). The lengths to which wealthy parents want to coddle their kids is mind-boggling. My white daughter appreciates the sense of competition and motivation her diverse college environment gives her.

PP here. That is wonderful that your daughter is so successful.

I explained our rationale for choosing SLACs. If you think people’s rationale is “racist dogwhistling to steer our kids away from” large public universities, then why did you post your question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

I am a lawyer and DH is a social worker. Both of our kids studied/study at SLACs (not first-tier ones) because they preferred the environment, because both schools provide an excellent, personal, inspiring education, and because we can afford it.

We do not have “connections” to banking or any other industries.

The goal for our kids’ college experience is for them to become educated, aware, informed citizens. They are just that. The older one (economics/computer science double major) has an excellent, well-paying job, and the second (math/physics double major) is doing very well, building her resume, and will be prepared for work or graduate school in the next few years.

OP, it sounds like you are not confident in your kids’ ability to work to succeed. Is that the case?

Actually, my daughter is thriving as a senior at UC Berkeley, so I’m completely confident in her ability to succeed. A lot of the wealthy white families in our area that sent their kids to SLACs would use subtly coded racist dogwhistling to steer their kids away from the “big bad scary competitive” UC schools. Sayings like “all the immigrant striver kids at UCLA/Berkeley make it too competitive” (which is a sentiment that I hear often on here as well regarding magnet high schools). The lengths to which wealthy parents want to coddle their kids is mind-boggling. My white daughter appreciates the sense of competition and motivation her diverse college environment gives her.

I’m an NP to this thread and a product of a SLAC (and graduate school, and with a job OP likely would find acceptable). I’m really just enjoying sitting back and watching the show here on this lazy New Year’s Day, seeing how angsty OP is and observing my SLAC brethren trying to engage in meaningful discourse with OP and understand her POV. That’s what the SLAC education model is all about. Brava PPs!

[Anonymous]

Actor Kumail Nanjiani, a Grinnell grad and one of the stars of HBO’s Silicon Valley, had some interesting observations after meetings with tech folks in SV while doing research for the show. He remarked how the tech folks were so eager to show them what they could do, but had given absolutely zero thought to whether they should do it or not. The had given no consideration to the ethical implications of their work. They didn’t even have a glib, PR response approved response when asked.

Liberal arts schools ask their students these questions. They challenge their students to not just think about how to code to develop a product, but to consider how that product will be used in the world, who it will help of harm, and so on.

I’m sure this is discussed at big universities as well, but this kind of inquiry is built into the DNA of a liberal arts education.

[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.

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%

Interesting. This is probably part of why SLACs have a higher % of students going on to complete science PhDs. DH and I both went to big public Us and that's what DS preferred but DD wants to pursue science research and the advice has generally been to go to a SLAC. She's still a junior but thinks W&M will be her first choice in-state but the rest of her list are SLACs where she will likely get merit $.

[Anonymous]

I have tried to encourage my DS (a 12th grader) to consider small LACs, but he is pretty opposed. Same for his friends. I'm not sure why, as they are students at an independent school in DC that really encourages students to consider the small LACs. For my DS, he wants to go to a big school because his K-12 experience was "small" in his opinion.

[Anonymous]

Most of the students are pre professional. So their first year salaries are low because they are in grad 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.

I agree. I have one in SLAC and one in State school.

[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.

What an idiot.

Nice... when everything else fails...

Np

[Anonymous]

I think it’s ridiculous that you lump Ivies with State schools in your calculations. Haha. Very different. Needed Ivies to boost your average ?

[Anonymous]

Because SLACs have huge endowments and are actually cheaper than State schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most graduates of SLACs have pretty dismal earnings compared to their Ivy/Public University peers. So why are SLACs throw around here so often? I see a lot of people recommend random schools like Grinnell but why would you send your kid there for a pretty hefty sum when they could go to a state flagship and be in either a better or similar position?

Source:

https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

DCUM is the only place where I see this. In the real world I don’t know anyone who has sent their kid to any of these schools.