Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they lowered the price tag people would see more of the value in LACs. (this goes for larger colleges also)It is like anything. You can only spend so much on a house or a car. If the price point becomes too high, people walk away and look for better deals in their price range. We can't all live in the Hamptons as nice as it is!

Sorry but plenty of people can afford it. That's why applications are up at competitive LAC's. The full-pay parents are also enabling many students with limited means to attend. What applies to you doesn't apply to all. Don't kid yourself.

That is right. They are more like boarding schools now. They are for the very rich and the scholarship students. They are not priced for the average family.

I don't disagree with that. There are many things not priced for the average family. Same as it ever was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they lowered the price tag people would see more of the value in LACs. (this goes for larger colleges also)It is like anything. You can only spend so much on a house or a car. If the price point becomes too high, people walk away and look for better deals in their price range. We can't all live in the Hamptons as nice as it is!

Sorry but plenty of people can afford it. That's why applications are up at competitive LAC's. The full-pay parents are also enabling many students with limited means to attend. What applies to you doesn't apply to all. Don't kid yourself.

That is right. They are more like boarding schools now. They are for the very rich and the scholarship students. They are not priced for the average family.

Anonymous wrote:If they lowered the price tag people would see more of the value in LACs. (this goes for larger colleges also)It is like anything. You can only spend so much on a house or a car. If the price point becomes too high, people walk away and look for better deals in their price range. We can't all live in the Hamptons as nice as it is!

Sorry but plenty of people can afford it. That's why applications are up at competitive LAC's. The full-pay parents are also enabling many students with limited means to attend. What applies to you doesn't apply to all. Don't kid yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure the academics are good at these schools. But they are now more like extensions of overpriced boarding schools. Send your kid off to the woods for 4 more years of an overpriced education where they can party to their hearts content. Like boarding schools only exist for the super rich and a few scholarship kids. Most "normal" people now will be aiming for their big instate flagships with strong research opportunities and a better price.

I have one at each right now and there is a place for both, although agree that the SLACs really don't offer the same opportunities as the flagships. One of the things the SLACs used to offer is great teaching and focus on undergraduates but my DC at a SLAC has had some pretty crappy profs, many of whom have been visiting profs. Plus if you are in a narrow field of study you probably will have a department of 2-3 profs at most. If you don't like one you are screwed. My DC at Big State U (not instate unfortunately) can basically find a top 10 program in any field DC chooses. Yes the lectures might have 300 people in them, but the discussion groups are small, and the overall learning seems to be as robust, if not better, than the SLAC.

Back to the OP - I thought Hamilton was a lot more like Middlebury than Colgate based on our visits (2x to all those schools).

MY BIL, who teaches in a STEM field at a flagship state university (always on the list of "Public Ivies", is urging his kids to look at top SLACs for undergrad. His reasoning is that he knows how little involvement he has with teaching undergrads beyond those huge lectures, and he knows his grad students, who lead the discussion sections, are not as good as faculty at a strong SLAC.

But that's my point. We are finding that teaching strength of the SLACs isn't so good anymore, and as fields become more specialized they simply can't offer the same depth as schools with more students. I went to a top SLAC and it's changed. Hopefully your experience will be better but I am not convinced we are getting our $63k worth of teaching. There are certainly lots of other pluses of SLACs though.

Actually, I think you misunderstood the post you quoted, which presents a very different view from yours: that undergrads at large public universities are taught by grad students, whose ability to teach and commitment to teaching vary considerably.

I understood the quote (I went to a top SLAC so I can at least read). I have kids in both kinds of schools right now - both very good ones. There is variable teaching at both but as I have said I don't think the SLAC, at least the one my DC attends, has a lock on great teaching. And my DC at a big school has had smaller classes as well - it's not all the 300 person lectures. Maybe our big university experience is better than most, maybe our SLAC experience is worse than most, who knows. My point is that one of the selling points of SLACs has been the focus on undergraduate teaching. We have not found that to be as good as expected.

If they lowered the price tag people would see more of the value in LACs. (this goes for larger colleges also)It is like anything. You can only spend so much on a house or a car. If the price point becomes too high, people walk away and look for better deals in their price range. We can't all live in the Hamptons as nice as it is!

I don't understand the ragging on SLACs. I went to one of HYP and my DD goes to a SLAC and I am amazed and jealous at the attention and interaction she has with professors. She is very academic to begin with and is being pushed so she is getting an enormous amount out of her education. She doesn't have the breadth of options I had but she was already focused on one area, which is strong at her school, and there is no question in my mind that she is getting a better education than I received. I look at what she is receiving and wonder why everyone isn't trying to get that kind of education.

As for SLACs changing, so have major universities. I don't even recognize the students at my old ivy. They are much more pre-professional, much more into competition and careers in finance, than we were. There is far less of the learning for learning's sake (that, BTW, in no way precludes a successful career) that I saw in my day.

Money is an issue, of course. Its an issue everywhere. DD has a merit scholarship so fortunately its not an issue for us. But thats another way in which things have changed since my day -- far more schools are offering merit scholarships.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure the academics are good at these schools. But they are now more like extensions of overpriced boarding schools. Send your kid off to the woods for 4 more years of an overpriced education where they can party to their hearts content. Like boarding schools only exist for the super rich and a few scholarship kids. Most "normal" people now will be aiming for their big instate flagships with strong research opportunities and a better price.

I have one at each right now and there is a place for both, although agree that the SLACs really don't offer the same opportunities as the flagships. One of the things the SLACs used to offer is great teaching and focus on undergraduates but my DC at a SLAC has had some pretty crappy profs, many of whom have been visiting profs. Plus if you are in a narrow field of study you probably will have a department of 2-3 profs at most. If you don't like one you are screwed. My DC at Big State U (not instate unfortunately) can basically find a top 10 program in any field DC chooses. Yes the lectures might have 300 people in them, but the discussion groups are small, and the overall learning seems to be as robust, if not better, than the SLAC.

Back to the OP - I thought Hamilton was a lot more like Middlebury than Colgate based on our visits (2x to all those schools).

MY BIL, who teaches in a STEM field at a flagship state university (always on the list of "Public Ivies", is urging his kids to look at top SLACs for undergrad. His reasoning is that he knows how little involvement he has with teaching undergrads beyond those huge lectures, and he knows his grad students, who lead the discussion sections, are not as good as faculty at a strong SLAC.

But that's my point. We are finding that teaching strength of the SLACs isn't so good anymore, and as fields become more specialized they simply can't offer the same depth as schools with more students. I went to a top SLAC and it's changed. Hopefully your experience will be better but I am not convinced we are getting our $63k worth of teaching. There are certainly lots of other pluses of SLACs though.

Actually, I think you misunderstood the post you quoted, which presents a very different view from yours: that undergrads at large public universities are taught by grad students, whose ability to teach and commitment to teaching vary considerably.

Schools might claim to be need blind but it's often just rhetoric. You don't always need financial disclosures to make pretty safe assumptions about SES.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like its hard to beat the more personalized teaching one can receive at the SLAC. 17 kids in a class v. 300? It just is hard to be convinced that large classes are good. Found pp interesting that a professor is urging HIS/HER kids to go SLAC!

But, the drawback is the price. We visited a few for applications next year. They are preaching that financial aid "flows". Note, however, that Colgate is NOT need blind.....go figure.

Yes. The problem is the price! People can go on for hours and talk about how wonderful LACs are but in a few years it will be $70,000 a year. That is nuts. Most students will be better off at Flagships where there is plenty of opportunity to be had.

Seems like its hard to beat the more personalized teaching one can receive at the SLAC. 17 kids in a class v. 300? It just is hard to be convinced that large classes are good. Found pp interesting that a professor is urging HIS/HER kids to go SLAC!

But, the drawback is the price. We visited a few for applications next year. They are preaching that financial aid "flows". Note, however, that Colgate is NOT need blind.....go figure.

Anonymous wrote:I am sure the academics are good at these schools. But they are now more like extensions of overpriced boarding schools. Send your kid off to the woods for 4 more years of an overpriced education where they can party to their hearts content. Like boarding schools only exist for the super rich and a few scholarship kids. Most "normal" people now will be aiming for their big instate flagships with strong research opportunities and a better price.

I have no idea about Colgate but the big management consulting firms recruit at Midd. None of the top SLACs are hurting for applicants - it has become more competitive to get into any of the top LACs, not less. Any my second statement applies to both Colgate and Midd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure the academics are good at these schools. But they are now more like extensions of overpriced boarding schools. Send your kid off to the woods for 4 more years of an overpriced education where they can party to their hearts content. Like boarding schools only exist for the super rich and a few scholarship kids. Most "normal" people now will be aiming for their big instate flagships with strong research opportunities and a better price.

I have one at each right now and there is a place for both, although agree that the SLACs really don't offer the same opportunities as the flagships. One of the things the SLACs used to offer is great teaching and focus on undergraduates but my DC at a SLAC has had some pretty crappy profs, many of whom have been visiting profs. Plus if you are in a narrow field of study you probably will have a department of 2-3 profs at most. If you don't like one you are screwed. My DC at Big State U (not instate unfortunately) can basically find a top 10 program in any field DC chooses. Yes the lectures might have 300 people in them, but the discussion groups are small, and the overall learning seems to be as robust, if not better, than the SLAC.

Back to the OP - I thought Hamilton was a lot more like Middlebury than Colgate based on our visits (2x to all those schools).

MY BIL, who teaches in a STEM field at a flagship state university (always on the list of "Public Ivies", is urging his kids to look at top SLACs for undergrad. His reasoning is that he knows how little involvement he has with teaching undergrads beyond those huge lectures, and he knows his grad students, who lead the discussion sections, are not as good as faculty at a strong SLAC.

But that's my point. We are finding that teaching strength of the SLACs isn't so good anymore, and as fields become more specialized they simply can't offer the same depth as schools with more students. I went to a top SLAC and it's changed. Hopefully your experience will be better but I am not convinced we are getting our $63k worth of teaching. There are certainly lots of other pluses of SLACs though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure the academics are good at these schools. But they are now more like extensions of overpriced boarding schools. Send your kid off to the woods for 4 more years of an overpriced education where they can party to their hearts content. Like boarding schools only exist for the super rich and a few scholarship kids. Most "normal" people now will be aiming for their big instate flagships with strong research opportunities and a better price.

I have one at each right now and there is a place for both, although agree that the SLACs really don't offer the same opportunities as the flagships. One of the things the SLACs used to offer is great teaching and focus on undergraduates but my DC at a SLAC has had some pretty crappy profs, many of whom have been visiting profs. Plus if you are in a narrow field of study you probably will have a department of 2-3 profs at most. If you don't like one you are screwed. My DC at Big State U (not instate unfortunately) can basically find a top 10 program in any field DC chooses. Yes the lectures might have 300 people in them, but the discussion groups are small, and the overall learning seems to be as robust, if not better, than the SLAC.

Back to the OP - I thought Hamilton was a lot more like Middlebury than Colgate based on our visits (2x to all those schools).

MY BIL, who teaches in a STEM field at a flagship state university (always on the list of "Public Ivies", is urging his kids to look at top SLACs for undergrad. His reasoning is that he knows how little involvement he has with teaching undergrads beyond those huge lectures, and he knows his grad students, who lead the discussion sections, are not as good as faculty at a strong SLAC.

Most people would never consider sending their kids to Deerfield or Exeter and this is how people are starting to view overpriced privates for college. It is their own fault for raising the price of college tuition to something out of reach for a normal family.

Anonymous wrote:I am sure the academics are good at these schools. But they are now more like extensions of overpriced boarding schools. Send your kid off to the woods for 4 more years of an overpriced education where they can party to their hearts content. Like boarding schools only exist for the super rich and a few scholarship kids. Most "normal" people now will be aiming for their big instate flagships with strong research opportunities and a better price.

I have one at each right now and there is a place for both, although agree that the SLACs really don't offer the same opportunities as the flagships. One of the things the SLACs used to offer is great teaching and focus on undergraduates but my DC at a SLAC has had some pretty crappy profs, many of whom have been visiting profs. Plus if you are in a narrow field of study you probably will have a department of 2-3 profs at most. If you don't like one you are screwed. My DC at Big State U (not instate unfortunately) can basically find a top 10 program in any field DC chooses. Yes the lectures might have 300 people in them, but the discussion groups are small, and the overall learning seems to be as robust, if not better, than the SLAC.

Back to the OP - I thought Hamilton was a lot more like Middlebury than Colgate based on our visits (2x to all those schools).