I had twins attend two different top privates (top 30) and one kid attend a top SLAC (top 5). The top SLAC had the smallest classes and most individual attention; that kid still stays in touch with professors, attends alumni events. However, the ones who attended top universities had more flexibility with classes (there were courses at SLAC that were only offered once every two years), more majors to choose from and, once they graduated, more name recognition. One of the private universities also had a much better career placement program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends. If your kid is self motivated they'll find a good peer group anywhere. If they're a slacker they'll find other slackers even at Yale.

I had a friend who got into Harvard. She took the easiest classes and graduated w a C average and barely earns anything. I don't understand how her ambition switched off as soon as she got in, but she had a group of friends just like herself.

Meanwhile I know many people earning 300k+ who went to low ranked schools, but are widely read, ambitious and hard workers. I know which group of rather my kids be in

I love it.

Where you go is not who you'll be.
- Frank Bruni

Yet he has an Ivy League graduate degree.

Exactly. And elite boarding school alum, plus went to UNC for free on a prestigious full-ride scholarship. It's akin to Bill Gates boasting about not needing college because he dropped out (of Harvard).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've had kids at JMU, W&M and a top 5 private college. The level of academics and quality of professors is light-years ahead at W&M vs. JMU. The difference is smaller between W&M and the private college, but is magnified by the fact that the classes at the private are smaller and the average student at the private college is brighter than the average student at W&M, so the classes can be taught at a little higher level, with more attention from the professor. Also, the writing instruction at the private is much, much better, again because classes are smaller.

Was the "top 5" a national university or a SLAC?

Must be the latter. None of top 5 is called a college.

🙄🙄

Not sure what this means. In the U.S. we generally say an undergraduate kid is "going to college" even if they are going to say Stanford University.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really depends. If your kid is self motivated they'll find a good peer group anywhere. If they're a slacker they'll find other slackers even at Yale.

I had a friend who got into Harvard. She took the easiest classes and graduated w a C average and barely earns anything. I don't understand how her ambition switched off as soon as she got in, but she had a group of friends just like herself.

Meanwhile I know many people earning 300k+ who went to low ranked schools, but are widely read, ambitious and hard workers. I know which group of rather my kids be in

I love it.

Where you go is not who you'll be.
- Frank Bruni

Yet he has an Ivy League graduate degree.

Anonymous wrote:It really depends. If your kid is self motivated they'll find a good peer group anywhere. If they're a slacker they'll find other slackers even at Yale.

I had a friend who got into Harvard. She took the easiest classes and graduated w a C average and barely earns anything. I don't understand how her ambition switched off as soon as she got in, but she had a group of friends just like herself.

Meanwhile I know many people earning 300k+ who went to low ranked schools, but are widely read, ambitious and hard workers. I know which group of rather my kids be in

I love it.

Where you go is not who you'll be.
- Frank Bruni

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason that R1 professors disproportionately send their children to SLACs.

Regression to the mean?

There is a reason that R1 professors disproportionately send their children to SLACs.

Anonymous wrote:Admissions standards really impact the bottom quartile. Even UVA's bottom quartile is fairly unimpressive, so consider what's at the average regional public university. $25K a year seems like a good value until you're sitting next to burnouts and pit bull mommies.

I also think this is a hard place for a kid to be.

Their self esteem must take a blow, which is not good in the formative years.

It looks like the same crowd that debated how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle is back.

Admissions standards really impact the bottom quartile. Even UVA's bottom quartile is fairly unimpressive, so consider what's at the average regional public university. $25K a year seems like a good value until you're sitting next to burnouts and pit bull mommies.

Lifelong prestige, network, and dating pool — if we're being 100% honest.

About $40K .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless your teen is a battle tested hyper-aggressive go-getter, huge public universities are awful places for an undergrad "education." Sure, everyone can cite doctors, lawyers and rich execs who went to public U -- but what's the average alum up to? The average grad probably took 5 years to finish a BA and goes onto live a mediocre provincial life. A shocking number of public U students never actually graduate.

There's a reason smart well-adjusted UMC parents spend obscene sums of time and money cultivating their child for highly ranked private colleges. If Alcoholic State universities were on par with top 30 private colleges, nobody in their right mind would be this obsessed over K-12 prep, extra curriculars, travel sports, and college admissions.

Okay. If you say so. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/where-the-top-fortune-500-ceos-attended-college

This is as disingenuous as folks citing Yale and Harvard Law admitting a handful of podunk college grads -- see, anyone can go to YLS! -- then you dig a little deeper and they were URMs.

There are more public universities and some have 50,000+ undergrads enrolled, so of course there are some successful alums. And the other issue with this sort of spin is it's boomer based. Things were very different 40 and 50 years ago. The world is global now, a BA is basically a high school diploma, so you better differentiate yourself.

I'm a tenured professor at a research university (humanities), and have either been a student and/or taught a top SLAC, top private research university, middle ranked researched university, and top public university. The biggest difference for undergraduates is, as everyone says, the commitment of the student body to academics. At a top SLAC, the students are uniformly excellent and care about their work. Students can't hide from professors because classes are small. Relationships with faculty are strong and can last a lifetime. Don't discount this. Peer groups at this age are everything. You will, of course, find excellent students at any college, but they are much more diffuse at larger institutions.
Faculty across the board are pretty strong because the job market in academic stinks. There are very few jobs available, and there are a ton of highly qualified PhDs. However, at the better schools, the faculty tend to be better connected professionally bc they have the funds to go to conferences, take sabbaticals, and publish, so if your child wants to go onto graduate school, having support from a faculty member at a top SLAC or university will help. I don't think this matters as much for law schools as it does for PhD programs.
I'd also argue that at the very tippy top colleges and universities, you may have more diversity because they can afford to accept students need blind. Once you start getting to colleges that offer a lot of merit scholarships, you'll see a heavy concentration of UMC families that fall into the donut hole of financial aid.

Anonymous wrote:If you have direct experience (you are/were a student, professor, parent of a student) with a top 25 national university or SLAC liberal arts program, how does the education materially differ from a run-of-the-mill college experience? I’m not talking about the school’s “network,” but the education itself. For example, how will the “product” of an English major educated at Princeton or Williams be different from that of a student at a US News 50-200 school. Put another way, if students at these different programs read the same books, how will their educations be different at the end of four years?

There was a big difference in my experience. I went from a well-regarded state school (got in as an out-of-state resident), and then transferred to a top 3 SLAC. The difference in the student body was night and day, really. I had to work much harder to get the grades I got at the state school. I also appreciated the much smaller class sizes at the SLAC. I'm sure I would've gotten a good education at the state school, but I feel I received a superior education at the SLAC.