Reply to 100k+ COA is here

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "100k+ COA is here"

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]Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same [/quote]

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same.  These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.[/quote]
Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not. [/quote]

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.[/quote]
Princeton is much better than Amherst and Williams for undergraduate education. Same with Yale. And Brown. And frankly, Columbia.[/quote]

Princeton can play, not better but can play so I will give you that. A close friends kid is at Brown now while their oldest went to a top SLAC. They are pretty open that the SLAC was a better education. Frankly (I can fit that in too) I cannot imagine Columbia being better.[/quote]
I don’t see your point. Top ivies have tiny courses, rigorous academics, and real research. [/quote]

I've been in both places as someone who started out at a premier LAC and transferred to an Ivy. The Ivy had more resources and a bigger and more impressive student body, but the LAC had better teachers and classroom experience. The Ivy wasn't bad, certainly, and had some great professors. But the small classes at the LACs are just enough of a different experience that I still remember it fondly despite transferring. This was almost 30 years ago but not surprised if it's still the same case today. [/quote]

I've taught at both a SLAC and a T10 university (so, not Ivy, but ranked higher than several Ivies).  I would say that overall, the faculty are slightly better at the T10, but students get more attention from and interaction with the faculty at the SLAC.  The gap in the quality of faculty is more pronounced in the lab sciences than in the humanities or math.  Obviously, there are also more serious research lab opportunities at the T10.  OTOH, all the faculty at the SLAC are good teachers.  Some of the faculty at the T10 are excellent researchers but mediocre teachers.

As a faculty member, I am happier at the T10, but will strongly encourage my kids to go to a SLAC unless they have a specific interest in the lab sciences.  
[/quote]
Can you explain how there's a massive STEM gap but LACs are still dominating the Grad school admissions process for these subjects? Does it really matter that a professor is really great at giving millions of dollars in grants if the undergrads just have projects advised by grad students and often of little significance.[/quote]

The simple answer is that they aren't "dominating" grad school admission when you compare apples to apples -- high school students of similar wealth and entry credentials and major of interest [/quote]
Can you show data on that? I’ve not seen a single source show that liberal arts college students aren’t very successful in graduate admissions per capita, even in STEM subjects that aren’t engineering (for obvious reasons).[/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