Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

I agree with most everything you say. But at the same time (for mainly all the wrong reasons, with the exception of the crazy athlete proportions at SLACs), there has been a moderate prestige shift in the past decade or two away from SLACs and towards national universities. The reality, unfortunately, is that a smaller proportion of kids at top SLACs chose it over the top Ivys than in your time. To be sure, nobody blinks an eye these days at someone choosing, say, Swarthmore over Penn, or Williams over Brown. But Amherst over Harvard? Not so sure.

According to whom? Do you have a source? I think so much depends, as a PP alluded to above, on your social/class/economic circles. For better or for worse, in "elite" prep school circles there has been little if any change in perception of prestige that I've noticed over the last forty years. The only major shift that I can think that would affect changes in perception of prestige would be due to the masses who rely too heavily on social media for information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

I agree with most everything you say. But at the same time (for mainly all the wrong reasons, with the exception of the crazy athlete proportions at SLACs), there has been a moderate prestige shift in the past decade or two away from SLACs and towards national universities. The reality, unfortunately, is that a smaller proportion of kids at top SLACs chose it over the top Ivys than in your time. To be sure, nobody blinks an eye these days at someone choosing, say, Swarthmore over Penn, or Williams over Brown. But Amherst over Harvard? Not so sure.

According to whom? Do you have a source? I think so much depends, as a PP alluded to above, on your social/class/economic circles. For better or for worse, in "elite" prep school circles there has been little if any change in perception of prestige that I've noticed over the last forty years. The only major shift that I can think that would affect changes in perception of prestige would be due to the masses who rely too heavily on social media for information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

At least 50% of the public is composed of total morons whose recognition of your college is of zero concern.

Oh this is so true! DC goes to a T15 SLAC several states away. It's so interesting to see who has heard of it, and who has not. It's kind of a litmus test for level of education/class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

I agree with most everything you say. But at the same time (for mainly all the wrong reasons, with the exception of the crazy athlete proportions at SLACs), there has been a moderate prestige shift in the past decade or two away from SLACs and towards national universities. The reality, unfortunately, is that a smaller proportion of kids at top SLACs chose it over the top Ivys than in your time. To be sure, nobody blinks an eye these days at someone choosing, say, Swarthmore over Penn, or Williams over Brown. But Amherst over Harvard? Not so sure.

Anonymous wrote:People who insist upon situating LACs in opposition to universities reveal their ignorance and/or lack of intelligence. No one--neither classmates, nor parents nor faculty--at my Ivy feeder alma mater would have blinked an eye at anyone choosing, say, Williams over Yale (and some of my classmates ended up at an Ivy precisely because they didn't get accepted to, say, Amherst or Swarthmore), in no small part because they were wise enough to understand that the value of these schools is in the quality of education and opportunities they offer and that on those grounds, any differences between them were negligible because anyone "worth" impressing would recognize the value of all of these schools. Plenty of students at my LAC chose it over an Ivy or Stanford. Those in my social circles--people who by and large have attended "top" schools--would think very poorly of anyone who insisted that WUSTL was better than Bowdoin just because the former is a university ranked in the top 20. More than a few of my friends who graduated from Ivies have observed that, as with any school, fit matters for those who have the luxury of choosing where to matriculate based upon metrics other than finances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

At least 50% of the public is composed of total morons whose recognition of your college is of zero concern.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.

Couldn’t agree more!

Yes, this is all very well said.

Anonymous wrote:I actually look down on SLACs as playgrounds for private school kids who can't handle larger schools. I'd take a top Big Ten school over a SLAC any day. If you're really all that, go to Michigan and prove yourself.

My favorite DCUM LAC post was when someone unironically referred to Pomona as a "major school" in Southern California. Pomona is smaller than most high schools, and there are likely 100 colleges in Southern California with more students. It's barely a blip on the academic radar, though it does punch well above its weight on the pretentiousness scale.

Anonymous wrote:cmon DCUM fawns over the SLACs big time - i had one kid go to a T5 SLAC and second kid at a T20. Number 3 is not even considering a SLAC - majority of kids are boarding school ivy rejects or wannabe ivy reject athletes - hard pass

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.

Couldn’t agree more!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

University boosters prioritize brand recognition over education quality because they are less likely to rely on actual academic merit. Cheating is way more rampant in a room with 300 students and a different grader for each assignment than a room with 30 students and a single prof.

“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school.

“Most people” are content to be the third priority at a university because they are betting on a brand. Those who value being a first priority at an LAC are betting on themselves.

Or they just lack the independence and emotional maturity to handle anything on their own, but you do you.

I'd like to have an adult conversation on this but you will need to find someone to speak for you.

Ah yes, your claiming that people going to universities are betting on a brand while people going to LACs are betting on and prioritizing themselves is such a mature point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.

Couldn’t agree more!

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am a tenured professor at an R1 who attended Swarthmore as an undergraduate. I have been in academia now for over 30 years, served on multiple university committees, chaired a department, presided over tenure cases, etc., etc.

A lot of posters don't have full knowledge of colleges and universities, or they make assumptions based upon their very limited personal experiences.

My take, and one that many other faculty would take, is to choose a college where your child will thrive and be happy. My preference for ambitious kids is to have them go to a top SLAC for undergraduate, and then a major university for graduate school. But, that is cancelled out if your child would really be happiest at a large school that offers a niche program or has big-time sports or is in a specific location. You really need to prioritize the needs and desires of the child that you have, and not whether your neighbor knows what an excellent school Amherst is.

One thing that no one here is bringing up, but highly relevant, is that the most well endowed SLACs are not going to be suffering from Trump's threats to cut federal funding. Because there is no major medical center or hundreds of science labs that rely on federal funds, day to day life at SLACs will not change much. OTOH, larger research universities, like mine, are terrified about our future. We are already cutting doctoral programs (because no funding), shutting down labs, stopping research, and not hiring even replacement faculty. If your child is looking to do STEM at a large university, think twice.