They are realistic about academia and their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children of faculty are much more likely to want a PhD. LACs are more appealing to this group.

Because they don't know the world of private business. Earning a PhD is likely to result in long-term unemployment if seeking a teaching position at a university.

Why do people care where professors send their kids to college ? Professors are just professional students with scant,if any, real world experience.

Kids at LACs continue on to grad school at higher rates because their humanities degrees often make them undesirable to employers. Grad school is an easy out.

Professors often work and collaborate in industry. This is a dodo bird brain dead take.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s simply not true across the board.

Yup, I was a Chemistry professor (retired now). If you want to "science", don't get a BA in it, unless your goal is to teach HS.

? This puzzles me as a physicist. Undergraduate physics has all but been standardized and a BA or BS has no difference if the school doesn’t have a BS degree. Did you take upper div E&M, Quantum, Mech, and Stat Mech? Congrats, you’re a real physics major.

Anonymous wrote:Children of faculty are much more likely to want a PhD. LACs are more appealing to this group.

Because they don't know the world of private business. Earning a PhD is likely to result in long-term unemployment if seeking a teaching position at a university.

Why do people care where professors send their kids to college ? Professors are just professional students with scant,if any, real world experience.

Kids at LACs continue on to grad school at higher rates because their humanities degrees often make them undesirable to employers. Grad school is an easy out.

Children of faculty are much more likely to want a PhD. LACs are more appealing to this group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many SLACs offer generous (or even full) tuition assistance for the dependents of faculty who also teach at SLACs. Children of Wooster faculty, for example, can get a full ride at Oberlin, Grinnell, or other schools in the Great Lakes tuition exchange, and most of the schools in the national tuition exchange are SLACs. There is a strong academic case, but a lot of it comes down to finances too. A lot of faculty couldn’t actually save enough to send their kids to the SLACs they teach at, so the tuition exchanges are a huge perk.

This is a good point.

True but isn't the national tuition exchange pretty much a moonshot? From what I hear among my colleagues it's nowhere near guaranteed.

Our kids are going to large state universities (R1) for undergrad. The obsession with Ivy schools in the metro DMV is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:Many SLACs offer generous (or even full) tuition assistance for the dependents of faculty who also teach at SLACs. Children of Wooster faculty, for example, can get a full ride at Oberlin, Grinnell, or other schools in the Great Lakes tuition exchange, and most of the schools in the national tuition exchange are SLACs. There is a strong academic case, but a lot of it comes down to finances too. A lot of faculty couldn’t actually save enough to send their kids to the SLACs they teach at, so the tuition exchanges are a huge perk.

This is a good point.

Professor here with a high schooler. LAC, not sure. But the types of schools I'd be cautious about for any kid are gigantic state schools (too easy to get lost for so many), too tiny not well known or endowed privates that are under-resourced and perhaps at risk of closing (obvious issues), being an athlete at a school where athletes aren't given special treatment (it's too hard to do school and sports without special meals, transit, sometimes tutoring because your classes are compromised...furthermore the professors don't really value sports because the culture isn't sports so when you miss class or are late due to practice no one cares and they just dismiss you as unserious).

There are also fit issues individual to a kid, but the above are some of my generalized red flags.

My kid is attracted to T-20 private schools in the 5,000-10,000 range, which feels just right yet is too ambitious. So we need to work to expand that range down to T-50s to hope for actual admission and perhaps some merit.

I also look for professional advising (not faculty advising) with a small enough undergraduate-focused teaching faculty that students also have formalized mentor relationships in their major.

True for us. Professor here, but due to spouse’s income in another field, we didn’t have to factor in cost, so despite a very big discount at our top-50 private, our kid goes to a SLAC.

It's true in our family.

I’m a prof at a research university. The offspring of my colleagues attend LACs at what seem to be much higher rates than in the general population. (I say ‘seem’ because I don’t know what the rates actually are; these are just my impressions.) I’m gently pushing my own kid in that direction right now.

The Vanderbilt study is why people claim this. Indeed, it found that professors send their kids to LACs at higher rate than the general population, and also at a higher rate than educated, wealthy non-academics.

Of course, there are some caveats to this. One, the effect was greater amongst LAC professors than research university professors, likely indicating that there is some “home” bias (you go with what you know). In fact, research professor kids were also more likely to go to research universities than the general population, with the difference being a lower share of kids going to community college, regional schools, etc.

Two, they oversurveyed professors in the northeast, and when they adjusted for regional differences the higher rate for research professor kids nearly evaporated (the LAC professor kids’ number shrunk too, but not as much). And when controlling for region, the rate of research professor kids going to research universities actually went up while the LAC number was going down.

In short, it’s complicated and people make decisions about college based on a lot of factors.

Anonymous wrote:I attended a no-name, catholic arts college and would not recommend attending a liberal arts college. There was little learning - the curriculum was on level with my high-ranked middle school. The requirements to attend anything ranked less than top the 50 are having a pulse and breathing. My friends at R1 got stronger educations, even with 600 students in a class.

Why are you comparing a private community college to a public university?

That makes no sense. Public community colleges will be like your school.

Anonymous wrote:I think those comments are based on this study.

https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/items/d93ad09f-b3ac-42e8-a22c-b024f47558e3

And it shows that professors send kids to the kind of school they teach at. Shocking.