Reply to Favorite College that changes lives?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Favorite College that changes lives? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.  [/quote]

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever. [/quote]

PP ain't wrong though.[/quote]

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago? [/quote]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?[/quote]

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on. [/quote]

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges.  My kid attended one.  Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.  [/quote]Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.[/quote]Those are three wildly different institutions. Along what axis are you comparing them?[/quote]

EXACTLY.  You’ve just hit on the whole fallacy of the CTCL book without even knowing it. [/quote]

What they have in common is a focus on undergraduate teaching, a pedagogy that’s student-centered (small classes, low student-faculty ratio, etc), and a reputation that’s a little off-the-radar relative to other schools.[/quote]

Yes, absolutely. The idea is that they take in students with potential who might not have been top students in high school (although some are) and then provide the scaffolding that allows them to graduate college as high achievers. They were originally chosen as colleges that *change lives" because they supposedly provide the care, attention, and support that radically fosters growth. People who went to CTCLs are disproportionately represented in Ph.D. programs, so I'm guessing this process is effective. 
[/quote]

Would be interesting to see if someone could/would take up Pope's mantle with an edition of "CTCLS @ 30." What might be an obstacle is the demographic cliff and the perceptions on what will be the effect on college admissions. Two factors that may still augur for an update: (a) demand for T20 colleges/LACs will continue to outstrip the supply of seats and (b) tuition costs will continue to exceed bank accounts for MC/UMC families seeking LAC-style educations for their DCs who cannot afford AWBS, etc. [/quote]

That so many “MC/UMC” families “cannot afford AWBS, etc.” is a myth.  It’s more that they don’t WANT to pay for them.

With a combination of the financial aid generously provided by these schools (which have much higher endowments than even the wealthiest CTCL schools and award aid to families who by almost any definition are closer to the top economically than the bottom) and greater sacrifice on the part of the families (the best things often do come at higher prices) these schools are doable.

After all, most students accepted by the top schools DO enroll and eschew the CTCL schools they used as safeties.  Yes, you will find a few students at, say, Beloit who turned down Williams because of merit aid, but you’re not going to find many.

Pope’s book said little about the cost of CTCL schools in 1996.  He focused on the education provided.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics