Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are thousands of posts on CTCL, Most people think it's just a clever marketing scheme that the lesser stats SLACs join and then they tour together. I've been to their presentations. The claim is just a marketing title. Each college that pays to belong is different.

Yes, it's marketing. Every communication any college puts out is marketing. Including the oh-so-worshippped USNWR rankings. This raises the profile of this set of schools but more broadly can encourage families to think beyond big state U's and the benefits of a smaller college experience. I don't understand why some people of DCUM get so dang pissed off about that.

I'm not pissed off. I actually don't care. But newbies to college admissions hear it and are moved to ask. IT's only second-rate SLACs. you know that. And they pay big fees to "belong" to that constorium. Parents new to the process need to know that. The title means nothing.

My kid is at St. Olaf and loves it. It's been an excellent fit. They have been doing research in two different labs this past year. Had a choice of two prestigious internships for summer. Get a lot of support from mentors. There's a special office that helps out applying for fellowships when the time comes. Price was right, too, lots of merit.

No doubt my kid could have thrived at other schools too. But they are very happy. Tight group of friends from freshman year on. I went to a large public flagship, so had my doubts, but I'm convinced. I think the CTCL label works well as a marketing tool, to increase awareness of schools. But it's not why my kid applied. It really is all about fit

I knew some people in my PhD program who went to such colleges. Their lives didn't turn out well, but that was probably more an effect of the PhD program (mine didn't either, and I went to HYP.)

I went to one. It is what you make it. I graduated at the top of my class, went to a top law school and am a big law partner. I have a number of friends who have done ok to well. But I have an equal number of friends who can be described as a classic failure to launch scenarios and are living hand to mouth three decades later. The whole "follow your passion" thing did not work out for them.

Anonymous wrote:There are thousands of posts on CTCL, Most people think it's just a clever marketing scheme that the lesser stats SLACs join and then they tour together. I've been to their presentations. The claim is just a marketing title. Each college that pays to belong is different.

Incorrect. The colleges did not pay to be in the book and the CTCL college fair tour is run by a non-profit organization.

Anonymous wrote:I think you have to look past the marketing slogan and look at each of these schools on their own. I’ve heard really good things about Wooster and Kalamazoo mentioned above and my DC is taking a close look at Clark which is really strong in an area of interest.

I guess what I’m saying is ignore the CTCL designation and just look individually at the schools based on what they offer.

+1 My DD wanted a small school with a great environmental science program and ended up with a list that included some CTCLs and others with similar characteristics. She was an A-/B+ student. We didn't care about the CTCL label but evaluated a bunch of schools for the specific things she was looking for. It happens that she is going to a CTCL (Juniata) because it has most of what she wanted at a price we can afford.

I think you have to look past the marketing slogan and look at each of these schools on their own. I’ve heard really good things about Wooster and Kalamazoo mentioned above and my DC is taking a close look at Clark which is really strong in an area of interest.

I guess what I’m saying is ignore the CTCL designation and just look individually at the schools based on what they offer.

My need blind liberal arts college changed my life. I come from a very lower socio-economic immigrant background. One of my siblings also attained nearly full ride and Ivy phd. Less talented sibling paid almost fully for her degree, that is, our parents paid (they didn't for me nor my Ivy sibling, not even for pencils, books, paper).

While I deeply appreciate the lift up, I have to admit that college and life thereafter was a permanent rift from my natal family. My parents were toxic - always fighting, pitting the kids against each other for the paucity of resources, manipulation, triangulation, you name it. The kids were a buffer against the world and the kids had to get out of there. I wouldn't be surprised if many poor kids had this sort of family dynamic (it's the kind of behavior that keeps people down there). However, given how some of the siblings turned out, I would NOT say that college is a golden ticket to a balanced, productive life. People from toxic families will compulsively make toxic emotional decisions. It's all they know. Being a good student or, eventually, worker doesn't mean that person is capable of making healthy emotional decisions in their personal life.

It took 4 years of being away at college to help me recognize that (finally in my senior year). And another few decades to unpack more of that. The only way to do this was to keep a distance from the crazy of my family. I was in a state of depression for 3 of my college years. It was in my 4th year that I realized I was depressed - because I no longer was. G-d, I would have been a better student if I wasn't in that depression fog. I still feel rotten about not maximizing my amazing educational opportunities.

The less talented sibling stayed close to my parents. She never got married, has a middling admin job. Has a live in boyfriend of 3+ decades she uses as a buffer to my parents who live across the street. No kids, my parents are basically her kids - they've infantalized themselves to her. There is some unsaid resentment there. College didn't really change her life like it did for me.

Anonymous wrote:Well forget about New College now that DeSantis has his claws in it. New College will probably still change lives, but on decidedly different and arguably worse ways.

New College is on the list of schools still taking applications. What a shame.

Anonymous wrote:There are thousands of posts on CTCL, Most people think it's just a clever marketing scheme that the lesser stats SLACs join and then they tour together. I've been to their presentations. The claim is just a marketing title. Each college that pays to belong is different.

Yes, it's marketing. Every communication any college puts out is marketing. Including the oh-so-worshippped USNWR rankings. This raises the profile of this set of schools but more broadly can encourage families to think beyond big state U's and the benefits of a smaller college experience. I don't understand why some people of DCUM get so dang pissed off about that.

There are thousands of posts on CTCL, Most people think it's just a clever marketing scheme that the lesser stats SLACs join and then they tour together. I've been to their presentations. The claim is just a marketing title. Each college that pays to belong is different.

Not my kid, but I attended Kalamazoo and enjoyed my experience. Made lifelong friends and prepared me well for graduate school. DS wanted a large school, so didn’t apply, but I still donate.

A friends kid attends Wooster. Doesn’t love it, doesn’t hate it. Very “it’s fine” vibe. they are pretty up front about the fact that she is there because she needs a small school and they made it financially possible. Her sibling attends a different school at about the level of prestige, but not CTCL. They are much more enthusiastic about that school.

I mean, it’s rural Ohio, so I kind of get it (my kid is at Kenyon. The surrounding community has been a culture shock).

Well forget about New College now that DeSantis has his claws in it. New College will probably still change lives, but on decidedly different and arguably worse ways.

If you have/had a kid who attends one of these schools, what has their experience been? Which school was it?