Anonymous wrote:Is Union College in upstate NY like a CTCL?

Looks like it to me. Smallish, undergrad only, diverse liberal arts ed requirements, mediumly selective.
I don't know much about Union's "culture" but it definitely checks some CTCL boxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Stop coddling your kid. The global economy is competitive. They have to learn to compete and will continue to compete for the rest of their lives.

+1

I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

So...you're not allowing them to compete? And you're going to coddle the non-SLAC kids by giving them preference?

Seriously what moron makes business decisions like this?

A troll. A troll makes decisions like this. Honestly I cannot imagine working for a company that bases hiring preferences on where you went to college. Law school? Sure, maybe. Undergrad? Please.

I mean, yeah, I might groan when I see a "Harvard" resume come through (will this person be insufferable? Or are they actually incredible?) but even for the positions I hire that are entry-level I look for other things, like work experience, before diving too much into the applicants college experience.

Is Union College in upstate NY like a CTCL?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who worked in admissions at UC Berkeley, who highly recommended that DC look at CTCL schools (even though DC had the states for UCB). He really felt the quality of the education was excellent and for students like my introverted DC, the environment is excellent. DC ended up at a similarly nurturing LAC for other reasons. My other DC will most likely end up at a CTCL.

It's one thing to say he had the stats. It's another thing to say he actually applied, got in, and turned it down. Which we both know he didn't.

What is wrong with you? It happens! I had the stats and was admitted to Cornell, Vassar, and a handful of other “brand name” colleges and I choose my school bc it was a better fit.

Also, some people harp on exorbitant costs, but my CTLC is a public institution.

After a pressurized HS career, my high stats DD didn't want to be surrounded by "Type A's" at a name brand school, so she chose to be a big fish in a small pond at a CTCL-like college. Very happy there, lots of opportunities.

Stop coddling your kid. The global economy is competitive. They have to learn to compete and will continue to compete for the rest of their lives.

+1

I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

Meh. People who have such black and white rules generally are not very bright or good to work for anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was near top of kid's class and almost went to CTCL but didn't. Kid got into very selective SLAC with a vibe similar to CTCL. Most applicants don't get into that SLAC. Kid was really happy about having a fantastic backup plan and seriously considered the backup as possible first choice.

But, in the end, he went to the name school. That says it all.

You again. It is so bizarre how you put so much effort and energy into disparaging CTCLs.

DS was accepted at Beloit and several NESCAC schools. Visited all, liked Beloit best and that is where he attended and got a fabulous education. He is now at a top tier research university getting paid to teach and go to grad school. We did not care about the "name" or the "prestige" of his undergrad school. Beloit was the right fit for him - he had plenty of peers, professors who helped provide get opportunities outside the classroom, really got to know him and are still a part of his academic life, and a wonderful (if a bit too liberal for his tastes) community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who worked in admissions at UC Berkeley, who highly recommended that DC look at CTCL schools (even though DC had the states for UCB). He really felt the quality of the education was excellent and for students like my introverted DC, the environment is excellent. DC ended up at a similarly nurturing LAC for other reasons. My other DC will most likely end up at a CTCL.

It's one thing to say he had the stats. It's another thing to say he actually applied, got in, and turned it down. Which we both know he didn't.

What is wrong with you? It happens! I had the stats and was admitted to Cornell, Vassar, and a handful of other “brand name” colleges and I choose my school bc it was a better fit.

Also, some people harp on exorbitant costs, but my CTLC is a public institution.

After a pressurized HS career, my high stats DD didn't want to be surrounded by "Type A's" at a name brand school, so she chose to be a big fish in a small pond at a CTCL-like college. Very happy there, lots of opportunities.

Stop coddling your kid. The global economy is competitive. They have to learn to compete and will continue to compete for the rest of their lives.

+1

I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

Hilarious! I actually worked for a global company that removed the college names from resumes (you could still see grade point and major, etc.)

The idea was to prevent cronyism and preference to your alma mater. I left a couple years ago, so I’m not sure how successful it has been. College name was never a big deciding factor on our team. We did hire someone with a degree from Harvard (it was actually Harvard Extension) but he flamed out pretty quickly. (I don’t judge all Harvard Grad la by one Harvard Extension alum).

I like the anti-cronyism angle but preserving the GPA and blinding the institution is pretty dumb. You think a 3.8 at Salisbury is better than a 3.7 at MIT or Swarthmore?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who worked in admissions at UC Berkeley, who highly recommended that DC look at CTCL schools (even though DC had the states for UCB). He really felt the quality of the education was excellent and for students like my introverted DC, the environment is excellent. DC ended up at a similarly nurturing LAC for other reasons. My other DC will most likely end up at a CTCL.

It's one thing to say he had the stats. It's another thing to say he actually applied, got in, and turned it down. Which we both know he didn't.

What is wrong with you? It happens! I had the stats and was admitted to Cornell, Vassar, and a handful of other “brand name” colleges and I choose my school bc it was a better fit.

Also, some people harp on exorbitant costs, but my CTLC is a public institution.

After a pressurized HS career, my high stats DD didn't want to be surrounded by "Type A's" at a name brand school, so she chose to be a big fish in a small pond at a CTCL-like college. Very happy there, lots of opportunities.

Stop coddling your kid. The global economy is competitive. They have to learn to compete and will continue to compete for the rest of their lives.

+1

I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

Hilarious! I actually worked for a global company that removed the college names from resumes (you could still see grade point and major, etc.)

The idea was to prevent cronyism and preference to your alma mater. I left a couple years ago, so I’m not sure how successful it has been. College name was never a big deciding factor on our team. We did hire someone with a degree from Harvard (it was actually Harvard Extension) but he flamed out pretty quickly. (I don’t judge all Harvard Grad la by one Harvard Extension alum).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who worked in admissions at UC Berkeley, who highly recommended that DC look at CTCL schools (even though DC had the states for UCB). He really felt the quality of the education was excellent and for students like my introverted DC, the environment is excellent. DC ended up at a similarly nurturing LAC for other reasons. My other DC will most likely end up at a CTCL.

It's one thing to say he had the stats. It's another thing to say he actually applied, got in, and turned it down. Which we both know he didn't.

I’m the person you quoted. You are correct. He did not apply, get accepted and turn it down. Why would he? It’s not the environment he wanted. My child doesn’t feel the need to apply to a school he doesn’t want just to satisfy random people on DCUM. Being in the accepted student stat range (which was confirmed off the record by someone with knowledge is enough for me to feel comfortable with the statement I made.

Go ahead and push your agenda. It doesn’t sway me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Stop coddling your kid. The global economy is competitive. They have to learn to compete and will continue to compete for the rest of their lives.

+1

I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

So...you're not allowing them to compete? And you're going to coddle the non-SLAC kids by giving them preference?

Seriously what moron makes business decisions like this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Stop coddling your kid. The global economy is competitive. They have to learn to compete and will continue to compete for the rest of their lives.

+1

I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

So...you're not allowing them to compete? And you're going to coddle the non-SLAC kids by giving them preference?

Anonymous wrote:
I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

Looks like that's a minority view among your peers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/col...B9olLc_QyE07eDvhgRHkEk2C_SNpxM

"The hiring officials were asked to rank eight factors in their decisions. On average they gave the most importance to the nature of student internships. That was followed in descending order by what jobs applicants had in college, their college majors, volunteer experiences, extracurricular activities, relevance of coursework and grade-point averages.

What happened to college reputation, the factor that leads so many students to apply to the most selective schools? It was on average at the very bottom of the hiring executives’ priority lists."

Anonymous wrote:CTCL schools aren't worth anything close to sticker price. But if you're good enough to get a lot of merit aid from them, you can get into a much better college that actually has a name. Therein lies the rub.

Please my brothers went to St. Olaf... very successful

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who worked in admissions at UC Berkeley, who highly recommended that DC look at CTCL schools (even though DC had the states for UCB). He really felt the quality of the education was excellent and for students like my introverted DC, the environment is excellent. DC ended up at a similarly nurturing LAC for other reasons. My other DC will most likely end up at a CTCL.

It's one thing to say he had the stats. It's another thing to say he actually applied, got in, and turned it down. Which we both know he didn't.

What is wrong with you? It happens! I had the stats and was admitted to Cornell, Vassar, and a handful of other “brand name” colleges and I choose my school bc it was a better fit.

Also, some people harp on exorbitant costs, but my CTLC is a public institution.

After a pressurized HS career, my high stats DD didn't want to be surrounded by "Type A's" at a name brand school, so she chose to be a big fish in a small pond at a CTCL-like college. Very happy there, lots of opportunities.

Stop coddling your kid. The global economy is competitive. They have to learn to compete and will continue to compete for the rest of their lives.

+1

I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

*yawn*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who worked in admissions at UC Berkeley, who highly recommended that DC look at CTCL schools (even though DC had the states for UCB). He really felt the quality of the education was excellent and for students like my introverted DC, the environment is excellent. DC ended up at a similarly nurturing LAC for other reasons. My other DC will most likely end up at a CTCL.

It's one thing to say he had the stats. It's another thing to say he actually applied, got in, and turned it down. Which we both know he didn't.

What is wrong with you? It happens! I had the stats and was admitted to Cornell, Vassar, and a handful of other “brand name” colleges and I choose my school bc it was a better fit.

Also, some people harp on exorbitant costs, but my CTLC is a public institution.

After a pressurized HS career, my high stats DD didn't want to be surrounded by "Type A's" at a name brand school, so she chose to be a big fish in a small pond at a CTCL-like college. Very happy there, lots of opportunities.

Stop coddling your kid. The global economy is competitive. They have to learn to compete and will continue to compete for the rest of their lives.

+1

I'm an employer and I've long ago decided not to hire kids from SLACs (except for the top few).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who worked in admissions at UC Berkeley, who highly recommended that DC look at CTCL schools (even though DC had the states for UCB). He really felt the quality of the education was excellent and for students like my introverted DC, the environment is excellent. DC ended up at a similarly nurturing LAC for other reasons. My other DC will most likely end up at a CTCL.

It's one thing to say he had the stats. It's another thing to say he actually applied, got in, and turned it down. Which we both know he didn't.

Ok.

it's just that, c'mon, you hear this all the time. "My kid had the stats for this or that, honestly!. But didn't even apply because he didn't want to go to a place like that."

Uh huh. Sure.

My kid had the stats for top-tier schools (4.8 WGPA at MCPS magnet, 1580 SAT) but did not apply - not because he didn't want to go, but because we couldn't pay for them. DC is at a LAC with $$$ merit aid. (They did turn down the UMD-CP Honors program.)

Happens all the time.