The professor time is really valuable because you really have the time to talk concepts through in more depth, if you’re the kind of kid who likes that. Most of my classes were under 25 people, and I had a few classes under 5 people. Even my class that was 100 people the professor knew every kid, had read their files and was famous for randomly saying something about where you were from. Professors just really cared about getting to know you. It matters are far as helping you feel engaged and feeding your interests, but on a practical level it’s very helpful for graduate school recommendations as well as for writing your honors thesis research paper. The school really stresses that they expect this level of engagement from professors and the professors who teach there mostly do so because they want that environment.
I’d also note that I never had any problem getting into any classes I wanted to take or changing majors. My friends that went to large schools spent a lot of mental energy figuring out how to get the classes they needed for their majors because classes closed out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a mid sized Ivy head sending DC to SLAC, I really do think you are getting the best undergraduate education available (excluding specialized programs only available at larger schools). The more time you can spend with professors, individually or in small groups, the better. Is it worth the money? Are there many other more important variables? That’s up to the customer to figure out but at least you are indeed getting a lot of valuable personalized attention for all those hundreds of thousands.

But really, how much time do you need with professors? Is this really going to be life changing? It's nice, sure. But even at the largest state schools you'll get this in junior and senior year classes. And if you're a motivated student you can often get this in the first/second year courses too (the thing is that most kids don't even try).

I feel like this (professor time) is a a selling point of liberal arts colleges that we all recognize without really thinking if there is actually any measurable value to it. It's the same with private high school. I'm guilty of paying a ton for private high school. Sure, my kids are now in classes of 12-15 kids instead of 30. But is there really any value add to this? They were doing just fine in the 30 kid classes too (they came from public). There were plenty of teachers in the public school that were available for after hours time, individual time, etc. They (the kids) just had to be more proactive to get it and most kids were not.

Maybe it’s not professor time per se but the general idea that the kid is going to be more engaged, more academic advising, etc. Look, at the end of the day, it’s a credential but to the extent anyone actually believes in the idea that our kids are actually there to be educated, grow intellectually, become better thinkers and writers, etc, I tend to think these smaller more attentive environments are better.

Anonymous wrote:As a mid sized Ivy head sending DC to SLAC, I really do think you are getting the best undergraduate education available (excluding specialized programs only available at larger schools). The more time you can spend with professors, individually or in small groups, the better. Is it worth the money? Are there many other more important variables? That’s up to the customer to figure out but at least you are indeed getting a lot of valuable personalized attention for all those hundreds of thousands.

But really, how much time do you need with professors? Is this really going to be life changing? It's nice, sure. But even at the largest state schools you'll get this in junior and senior year classes. And if you're a motivated student you can often get this in the first/second year courses too (the thing is that most kids don't even try).

I feel like this (professor time) is a a selling point of liberal arts colleges that we all recognize without really thinking if there is actually any measurable value to it. It's the same with private high school. I'm guilty of paying a ton for private high school. Sure, my kids are now in classes of 12-15 kids instead of 30. But is there really any value add to this? They were doing just fine in the 30 kid classes too (they came from public). There were plenty of teachers in the public school that were available for after hours time, individual time, etc. They (the kids) just had to be more proactive to get it and most kids were not.

Anonymous wrote:As a mid sized Ivy head sending DC to SLAC, I really do think you are getting the best undergraduate education available (excluding specialized programs only available at larger schools). The more time you can spend with professors, individually or in small groups, the better. Is it worth the money? Are there many other more important variables? That’s up to the customer to figure out but at least you are indeed getting a lot of valuable personalized attention for all those hundreds of thousands.

^ oops grad not head

As a mid sized Ivy head sending DC to SLAC, I really do think you are getting the best undergraduate education available (excluding specialized programs only available at larger schools). The more time you can spend with professors, individually or in small groups, the better. Is it worth the money? Are there many other more important variables? That’s up to the customer to figure out but at least you are indeed getting a lot of valuable personalized attention for all those hundreds of thousands.

Sorry, at 00:25 ^^I mentioned OP but I meant person/people who were strongly backing Amherst. I bet Amherst grads don’t make stupid mistakes like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having to attend grad school after LAC isn’t the flex you think it is.

lol, true! I am always amused when people are like "LACs have the best representations in PhD programs!!!"...umm, that's not the flex you think it is.

I don’t think it’s a flex. It’s just about what you want out of college. If you want to go to Yale Law or get a Chem PhD from Stanford or get into the Kennedy Schoo l you’re better off with an Amherst degree than a degree from Ohio State or someplace. Not everyone wants to do that and that’s as it should be. I’m not saying that’s a fun or desirable path in life — but if that is the path you want, then going to Amherst or one of the few SLACs like it is a definite plus. Not everyone wants the same thing, which is good. This whole fight started because someone said Amherst is third tier. That’s just ignorant.

Kennedy school actually loves those military history grads from OSU. Best in the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the focus on Amherst. Every top private costs about this much nowadays. And Amherst is among the best of them.

No LAC is a top school.

+1 third tier

This is simply not true. The quality of UG education is often far superior. Grad school admissions committees adore LACs.

NP. That’s the insane LAC hater, who also doubles as the crazy Ivy mom whose threads get deleted. You will not get her to see reason.

“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having to attend grad school after LAC isn’t the flex you think it is.

lol, true! I am always amused when people are like "LACs have the best representations in PhD programs!!!"...umm, that's not the flex you think it is.

I don’t think it’s a flex. It’s just about what you want out of college. If you want to go to Yale Law or get a Chem PhD from Stanford or get into the Kennedy Schoo l you’re better off with an Amherst degree than a degree from Ohio State or someplace. Not everyone wants to do that and that’s as it should be. I’m not saying that’s a fun or desirable path in life — but if that is the path you want, then going to Amherst or one of the few SLACs like it is a definite plus. Not everyone wants the same thing, which is good. This whole fight started because someone said Amherst is third tier. That’s just ignorant.

For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.

Programming for an insurance company, they're probably even odds, an interesting STEM job, Amherst grad has a better shot.

Cite?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having to attend grad school after LAC isn’t the flex you think it is.

lol, true! I am always amused when people are like "LACs have the best representations in PhD programs!!!"...umm, that's not the flex you think it is.

I don’t think it’s a flex. It’s just about what you want out of college. If you want to go to Yale Law or get a Chem PhD from Stanford or get into the Kennedy Schoo l you’re better off with an Amherst degree than a degree from Ohio State or someplace. Not everyone wants to do that and that’s as it should be. I’m not saying that’s a fun or desirable path in life — but if that is the path you want, then going to Amherst or one of the few SLACs like it is a definite plus. Not everyone wants the same thing, which is good. This whole fight started because someone said Amherst is third tier. That’s just ignorant.

For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.

Programming for an insurance company, they're probably even odds, an interesting STEM job, Amherst grad has a better shot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welcome to Wake Forest.

A bargain at 87k!

Boston College, Georgetown, Swarthmore…they are all up there w/room&board.

It’s crazy.

Isn't the only number that really matters the one your family pays? The true cost of Amherst varies by family. If someone wants to go full pay and pay that amount, who cares? All I care is that the aid package my student receives (if admitted) is one I/we are OK with.

The sticker prices only matter to the few who will not qualify for aid. And with over 1000 four-year colleges to choose from, this one hardly matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having to attend grad school after LAC isn’t the flex you think it is.

lol, true! I am always amused when people are like "LACs have the best representations in PhD programs!!!"...umm, that's not the flex you think it is.

I don’t think it’s a flex. It’s just about what you want out of college. If you want to go to Yale Law or get a Chem PhD from Stanford or get into the Kennedy Schoo l you’re better off with an Amherst degree than a degree from Ohio State or someplace. Not everyone wants to do that and that’s as it should be. I’m not saying that’s a fun or desirable path in life — but if that is the path you want, then going to Amherst or one of the few SLACs like it is a definite plus. Not everyone wants the same thing, which is good. This whole fight started because someone said Amherst is third tier. That’s just ignorant.

For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having to attend grad school after LAC isn’t the flex you think it is.

lol, true! I am always amused when people are like "LACs have the best representations in PhD programs!!!"...umm, that's not the flex you think it is.

I don’t think it’s a flex. It’s just about what you want out of college. If you want to go to Yale Law or get a Chem PhD from Stanford or get into the Kennedy Schoo l you’re better off with an Amherst degree than a degree from Ohio State or someplace. Not everyone wants to do that and that’s as it should be. I’m not saying that’s a fun or desirable path in life — but if that is the path you want, then going to Amherst or one of the few SLACs like it is a definite plus. Not everyone wants the same thing, which is good. This whole fight started because someone said Amherst is third tier. That’s just ignorant.