I too find the question odd. The implication seems to be that for Big 3 grads, either (a) only pre-professional degrees will do, maybe Wharton undergrad for business, or MIT for STEM, or (b) only Ivies or Stanford will do.

Yet, there are many very happy Big 3 grads at the top and even 2nd-tier SLACs. It's not "go big or go home" at all.

The reason is that the teaching quality at these SLACs is just as good at the Ivies, sometimes better, depending on the subject or the Ivy. Plus, the SLACs have a much wider range of liberal arts offerings than even the Big 3 can offer. I have no dog in this fight because my kid is at an Ivy. But I'm happy to acknowledge that the SLACs provide great educations even for the for kids who were challenged in great private schools. The choice comes down to preferences about college size and location, among other things.

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a very odd question. At my SLAC (top 3), we had small classes, challenging material, and professors who were engaged. If you can't learn and challenge yourself in that environment, when you can chat with profs about whatever you're reading, then you're lazy. Unless there are just no new thoughts to be had in those topic areas (obviously not the case), then you are in a perfectly fertile environment to have them. I can't imagine anything better, in fact.

+1 another thing to keep in mind is that because the classes tend to be on the small side you are kept in check by the profs. No hiding out in the back row of a 500 person lecture.

DS is an Alpha School grad and a recruited athlete. Doing very well (3.7+) at a Top 5 SLAC. High School curriculum prepared him very well, but it's not easy (especially as a NESCAC athlete).

This seems like a very odd question. At my SLAC (top 3), we had small classes, challenging material, and professors who were engaged. If you can't learn and challenge yourself in that environment, when you can chat with profs about whatever you're reading, then you're lazy. Unless there are just no new thoughts to be had in those topic areas (obviously not the case), then you are in a perfectly fertile environment to have them. I can't imagine anything better, in fact.

I was a bit bored my first semester at a top-30 SLAC coming from a top-10 private school. But it went away fast after that.

Short answer - yes.

Basically at the top SLACs you're taking students who were in the top 5 percent (or better) of their high school, many of whom we Valedictorians, etc., and spreading them out over an A-F range.

Private schools also don't have the kind of weeding courses that major tracks have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC’s private curriculum is every bit as comprehensive as the liberal arts curriculum that I pursued in college.

Interesting. OP, I think you'd need to give a lot more information if you want people to understand what you mean by this statement.

Where did you go, because I went to one of the best high schools in my state, and an elite college and have to say my liberal arts training for that BA was pretty rigorous.

I think high school almost everywhere is more challenging than it was in our day. Elite private school, other private school, well-regarded public schools. If you're on the AP/IB/competitive private school track, you are working your butt off wherever you go to school, simply because you have to pass the same AP/IB tests that everyone else is taking. When I compare my kid's STEM classes, in particular, to the Calculus, Bio and Chem classes I took back in the day, I'm amazed at how much harder things are today.

IMO upper level classes at SLACs are pretty challenging, even for someone with a strong background. I felt like my junior and senior level classes were harder than my grad school classes.

I went to one of the area's top schools and did well. I earned my first C EVER first semester at a SLAC. It was a wake-up call.

My DC is a recent grad of a SLAC and found it definitely more rigorous than the final two years of private school (Big 3). DC expected to cruise straight through college after the rigorous education received from private school, but experienced a reality check by the first few days of school. The intelligence level and talent of the peers was exceptional, many were from boarding and top private schools.

Granted this was 20 years ago but I went to a private school more highly regarded than any in DC and then on to a top SLAC and it was definitely challenging. Sure, I knew how to study better than most of my friends and was used to the large workload, but it was still a challenge. And, writing both a junior and senior thesis was no walk in the park.

Can't dc just take higher level courses? Is the high school really covering 200 or 300 level material? I truly doubt it.

Anonymous wrote:My DC’s private curriculum is every bit as comprehensive as the liberal arts curriculum that I pursued in college.

Interesting. OP, I think you'd need to give a lot more information if you want people to understand what you mean by this statement.

Does a graduate of an elite private school really need to pursue a liberal arts curriculum? My DC’s private curriculum is every bit as comprehensive as the liberal arts curriculum that I pursued in college. Since I came from a public school background, the college subject matter was new and useful. I wonder whether the same material would be redundant and boring for my DC? I often hear parents of children rave about how DC's private school prepared their DC for college and some even say college was “easy” compared to DC's private school. But is college supposed to be easy? If DC wants to be challenged, should DC look into pre-professional programs – which would necessarily lead away from SLAC’s. In the end, DC will make the call, but are SLAC’s challenging for private school grads?