Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except they were chosen by an objective journalist (from The NY Times), who put them in that category because he thought they WERE special.

That origin is objective fact.

But some loser on here has made it his hobby to claim that moniker is just a marketing gimmick.

And? What makes that journalist's opinion, objective or not, special? Isn't everyone's opinion on colleges objective? Why should anyone care what one person's opinion is?

I consider the opinions of the former education editor of the NYT to be more worthwhile than opinions of random people on the internet.

Well you finally got it! We are talking about someone’s opinion, not objective fact (all rankings are subjective, not just CTCL).

DP. You should read more carefully. The "objective fact" the PP mentioned was describing the origins of the CTCL list. No one is saying that it's a "fact" that these colleges are "special." But it is a fact that a journalist with expertise in the field compiled the list.

Maybe take your own advice, said poster also referred to author as “objective journalist.”

So? Objective journalists can have opinions too. And their opinions are often quite valuable for a subject they've researched and written about.

Anonymous wrote:Warning: the anti-CTCL poster will wear you out if you engage with him.

Maybe we should take up a collection to send him to therapy, so he can explore his inexplicable disdain for all things CTCL.

Remember, the OP simply asked which of the schools on that list people liked. Still, he has to jump in to dispute their underlying premise. What a sad sack he must be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except they were chosen by an objective journalist (from The NY Times), who put them in that category because he thought they WERE special.

That origin is objective fact.

But some loser on here has made it his hobby to claim that moniker is just a marketing gimmick.

And? What makes that journalist's opinion, objective or not, special? Isn't everyone's opinion on colleges objective? Why should anyone care what one person's opinion is?

I consider the opinions of the former education editor of the NYT to be more worthwhile than opinions of random people on the internet.

Well you finally got it! We are talking about someone’s opinion, not objective fact (all rankings are subjective, not just CTCL).

DP. You should read more carefully. The "objective fact" the PP mentioned was describing the origins of the CTCL list. No one is saying that it's a "fact" that these colleges are "special." But it is a fact that a journalist with expertise in the field compiled the list.

Maybe take your own advice, said poster also referred to author as “objective journalist.”

Anonymous wrote:We never did get to visit Rhodes. One of my son's friends has it at the top of his list and just recently visited. I can't wait to hear what his thoughts are, and I'm happy to share here when I do. The boy's twin brother has committed to Eckerd. (I'm also very excited to hear about his experience next year.) I have a younger son who will probably be interested in these schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except they were chosen by an objective journalist (from The NY Times), who put them in that category because he thought they WERE special.

That origin is objective fact.

But some loser on here has made it his hobby to claim that moniker is just a marketing gimmick.

And? What makes that journalist's opinion, objective or not, special? Isn't everyone's opinion on colleges objective? Why should anyone care what one person's opinion is?

I consider the opinions of the former education editor of the NYT to be more worthwhile than opinions of random people on the internet.

Well you finally got it! We are talking about someone’s opinion, not objective fact (all rankings are subjective, not just CTCL).

DP. You should read more carefully. The "objective fact" the PP mentioned was describing the origins of the CTCL list. No one is saying that it's a "fact" that these colleges are "special." But it is a fact that a journalist with expertise in the field compiled the list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except they were chosen by an objective journalist (from The NY Times), who put them in that category because he thought they WERE special.

That origin is objective fact.

But some loser on here has made it his hobby to claim that moniker is just a marketing gimmick.

And? What makes that journalist's opinion, objective or not, special? Isn't everyone's opinion on colleges objective? Why should anyone care what one person's opinion is?

I consider the opinions of the former education editor of the NYT to be more worthwhile than opinions of random people on the internet.

Well you finally got it! We are talking about someone’s opinion, not objective fact (all rankings are subjective, not just CTCL).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except they were chosen by an objective journalist (from The NY Times), who put them in that category because he thought they WERE special.

That origin is objective fact.

But some loser on here has made it his hobby to claim that moniker is just a marketing gimmick.

And? What makes that journalist's opinion, objective or not, special? Isn't everyone's opinion on colleges objective? Why should anyone care what one person's opinion is?

I consider the opinions of the former education editor of the NYT to be more worthwhile than opinions of random people on the internet.

Anonymous wrote:My son knew he wanted an LAC and initially targeted some highly selective colleges, such as Hamilton, Bates and Colorado College. In the end, he was more drawn to some of the CTCL schools, including Eckerd, St. Olaf, Rhodes and Puget Sound. He will be attending Whitman College, which he felt was his best fit, but he would have been happy to attend any of the others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except they were chosen by an objective journalist (from The NY Times), who put them in that category because he thought they WERE special.

That origin is objective fact.

But some loser on here has made it his hobby to claim that moniker is just a marketing gimmick.

And? What makes that journalist's opinion, objective or not, special? Isn't everyone's opinion on colleges objective? Why should anyone care what one person's opinion is?

Anonymous wrote:My son knew he wanted an LAC and initially targeted some highly selective colleges, such as Hamilton, Bates and Colorado College. In the end, he was more drawn to some of the CTCL schools, including Eckerd, St. Olaf, Rhodes and Puget Sound. He will be attending Whitman College, which he felt was his best fit, but he would have been happy to attend any of the others.

Anonymous wrote:Except they were chosen by an objective journalist (from The NY Times), who put them in that category because he thought they WERE special.

That origin is objective fact.

But some loser on here has made it his hobby to claim that moniker is just a marketing gimmick.