Anonymous wrote:Asking genuinely. They just seem so large and impersonal. The credential may be great but is the educational experience comparable to what one might have at a top private school? I attended a midsized elite private and suspect the educational experience I had is more similar to a smaller LAC. But when you go to Michigan or Florida or Wisconsin, is anyone really cultivating your abilities? Evaluating your written work carefully? Small seminars? Or is it more like watching good Ted talks and then handing something in (and then getting an A because most of the kids are in staters producing high school level work). Interested in perspectives on this from state u grads.

I'm afraid you're confusing learning and teaching with handholding.

By college students are actual adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

This asks of my own personal experience and the experiences of my kids. We all went to a "Sidwell" type school and we all went to different state flagships. I guess the only way to explain it is that you want to provide a strong foundational educational experience, learn how to think and how to write in ways that many large public high schools simply can't do as well. Also, if you like extracurriculars but aren't a superstar (ie future olympic athlete or whatever) a small independent school affords the opportunity to do things like play football or be in a play, or whatever - lots of opportunities to explore without the stakes being too high - no state championship or future Tonay ward winners to compete with...but then having had those experiences, you are able to attend a large university where literally anything you want to study or explore is at your fingertips, and you don;t have to worry too much about the base academics, because the high school foundation was strong enough to be able to put you in a place where you can use those skills to get through the huge freshman weedout classes without too much stress.

This sounds like basically you got the LAC experience in HS so that's why you were prepared to take on the big U. So why is it surprising to people that a student who did NOT get that experience in high school would want to get it in college? Or, at minimum, figure out how to get a LAC-like experience through a honors program or some other program that makes a big school feel small.

On that point...Interesting that so many people think small colleges are bad but then emphasize that you can make a big college feel small. If feeling small is not a virtue, why do big colleges so often emphasize that?

DP. It's emphasized because you get the best of both worlds with a large university. Some want the ability to have smaller classes and more ability to interact with professors while also having all of the amenities that a large school offers.

So I guess Ohio State is the best school in the history of the world. Has it all.

This is the type of retort that someone gives when they have can't counter with a substantive response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

This asks of my own personal experience and the experiences of my kids. We all went to a "Sidwell" type school and we all went to different state flagships. I guess the only way to explain it is that you want to provide a strong foundational educational experience, learn how to think and how to write in ways that many large public high schools simply can't do as well. Also, if you like extracurriculars but aren't a superstar (ie future olympic athlete or whatever) a small independent school affords the opportunity to do things like play football or be in a play, or whatever - lots of opportunities to explore without the stakes being too high - no state championship or future Tonay ward winners to compete with...but then having had those experiences, you are able to attend a large university where literally anything you want to study or explore is at your fingertips, and you don;t have to worry too much about the base academics, because the high school foundation was strong enough to be able to put you in a place where you can use those skills to get through the huge freshman weedout classes without too much stress.

This sounds like basically you got the LAC experience in HS so that's why you were prepared to take on the big U. So why is it surprising to people that a student who did NOT get that experience in high school would want to get it in college? Or, at minimum, figure out how to get a LAC-like experience through a honors program or some other program that makes a big school feel small.

On that point...Interesting that so many people think small colleges are bad but then emphasize that you can make a big college feel small. If feeling small is not a virtue, why do big colleges so often emphasize that?

DP. It's emphasized because you get the best of both worlds with a large university. Some want the ability to have smaller classes and more ability to interact with professors while also having all of the amenities that a large school offers.

So I guess Ohio State is the best school in the history of the world. Has it all.

It can accomodate the needs of a greater number of college students than an LAC can, sure. LAC's exist to serve a fairly small percentage of the college student demographic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

This asks of my own personal experience and the experiences of my kids. We all went to a "Sidwell" type school and we all went to different state flagships. I guess the only way to explain it is that you want to provide a strong foundational educational experience, learn how to think and how to write in ways that many large public high schools simply can't do as well. Also, if you like extracurriculars but aren't a superstar (ie future olympic athlete or whatever) a small independent school affords the opportunity to do things like play football or be in a play, or whatever - lots of opportunities to explore without the stakes being too high - no state championship or future Tonay ward winners to compete with...but then having had those experiences, you are able to attend a large university where literally anything you want to study or explore is at your fingertips, and you don;t have to worry too much about the base academics, because the high school foundation was strong enough to be able to put you in a place where you can use those skills to get through the huge freshman weedout classes without too much stress.

This sounds like basically you got the LAC experience in HS so that's why you were prepared to take on the big U. So why is it surprising to people that a student who did NOT get that experience in high school would want to get it in college? Or, at minimum, figure out how to get a LAC-like experience through a honors program or some other program that makes a big school feel small.

On that point...Interesting that so many people think small colleges are bad but then emphasize that you can make a big college feel small. If feeling small is not a virtue, why do big colleges so often emphasize that?

DP. It's emphasized because you get the best of both worlds with a large university. Some want the ability to have smaller classes and more ability to interact with professors while also having all of the amenities that a large school offers.

So I guess Ohio State is the best school in the history of the world. Has it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

This asks of my own personal experience and the experiences of my kids. We all went to a "Sidwell" type school and we all went to different state flagships. I guess the only way to explain it is that you want to provide a strong foundational educational experience, learn how to think and how to write in ways that many large public high schools simply can't do as well. Also, if you like extracurriculars but aren't a superstar (ie future olympic athlete or whatever) a small independent school affords the opportunity to do things like play football or be in a play, or whatever - lots of opportunities to explore without the stakes being too high - no state championship or future Tonay ward winners to compete with...but then having had those experiences, you are able to attend a large university where literally anything you want to study or explore is at your fingertips, and you don;t have to worry too much about the base academics, because the high school foundation was strong enough to be able to put you in a place where you can use those skills to get through the huge freshman weedout classes without too much stress.

This sounds like basically you got the LAC experience in HS so that's why you were prepared to take on the big U. So why is it surprising to people that a student who did NOT get that experience in high school would want to get it in college? Or, at minimum, figure out how to get a LAC-like experience through a honors program or some other program that makes a big school feel small.

On that point...Interesting that so many people think small colleges are bad but then emphasize that you can make a big college feel small. If feeling small is not a virtue, why do big colleges so often emphasize that?

DP. It's emphasized because you get the best of both worlds with a large university. Some want the ability to have smaller classes and more ability to interact with professors while also having all of the amenities that a large school offers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

This asks of my own personal experience and the experiences of my kids. We all went to a "Sidwell" type school and we all went to different state flagships. I guess the only way to explain it is that you want to provide a strong foundational educational experience, learn how to think and how to write in ways that many large public high schools simply can't do as well. Also, if you like extracurriculars but aren't a superstar (ie future olympic athlete or whatever) a small independent school affords the opportunity to do things like play football or be in a play, or whatever - lots of opportunities to explore without the stakes being too high - no state championship or future Tonay ward winners to compete with...but then having had those experiences, you are able to attend a large university where literally anything you want to study or explore is at your fingertips, and you don;t have to worry too much about the base academics, because the high school foundation was strong enough to be able to put you in a place where you can use those skills to get through the huge freshman weedout classes without too much stress.

This sounds like basically you got the LAC experience in HS so that's why you were prepared to take on the big U. So why is it surprising to people that a student who did NOT get that experience in high school would want to get it in college? Or, at minimum, figure out how to get a LAC-like experience through a honors program or some other program that makes a big school feel small.

On that point...Interesting that so many people think small colleges are bad but then emphasize that you can make a big college feel small. If feeling small is not a virtue, why do big colleges so often emphasize that?

Because there is an assumption that schools with over 20,000 undergrads would seem large and impersonal, and they really aren't.

I attended a big land grant university, and then TA'd at an elite liberal arts college while doing my graduate work.

Both experiences had their benefits, but the benefits of LACs are well-understood (and perhaps over-valued) on this thread, so I'll focus on my experience at Big State U.

The teaching was superb, in many ways better than the instruction I got in my "elite" graduate program or in the classes where I TA'd. I don't know if I just got lucky, or if my chosen majors just attracted rock stars, but my professors had stellar academic credentials and were right in the mix of the academic discourse in their fields.

Part of me wonders if some of them had chosen a "quality of life" position instead of chasing endless upgrades in academic institutions, because the college town was a genuinely lovely place to live if you valued hiking, snow sports, mountain biking, etc.

I absolutely had access to high quality mentoring, and in fact had several professors take an active interest in me as a first-generation college graduate and second-generation American. They helped me navigate internships, and gave incredible advice about next steps after undergrad.

I guess the point is that I feel like a got a great education, including strong mentorship. I'm aware I was lucky, but I was also willing to hustle. If a kid is willing to do the work, they are going to have opportunities anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:Of course students at big state universities study, learn and make valuable contacts. My UVA student majored in the same subject I did at a prestigious SLAC. His experience was FAR better than mine. The reading requirements were better, the professors FAR better, the many seminars were demanding yet thoughtful and his contacts and letters of recommendation were superior to mine. Look at all the state universities on this list of 30 feeders to the Rhodes Scholar program. UVA has had 55 Rhodes Scholarship winners. That’s the most of any college or university in the South, the eighth most of any school overall, and the third most of any non-Ivy League university. https://www.collegevaluesonline.com/features/colleges-future-rhodes-scholars/

Too bad UVA is so mediocre in STEM.

I went to UNC-Chapel Hill and it depends on the major, and also classes get much smaller as you progress. Intro classes are ginormous and anonymous.

I can speak to three majors: anthropology, psychology and biology. All followed this trajectory:

First two years, I took a handful of huge classes with excellent and brilliant professors, seminars with TAs that are soso and usually have a slightly different focus.

Then the last two years, I took a larger handful of smaller, higher level classes with professors who I got to know well, who I saw socially later on.

Anth classes got smaller soon, bio classes stayed kind of large, psych classes somewhere in the middle. The professors I got to now the best were my Anthropology professors.

My boyfriend was a drama major and knew everyone --- fellow classmates, all the professors -- extremely well.

You do need to advocate for yourself, find your own path, etc, at such a large school. People can get lost. But there were definitely tons of intellectuals there who knew their professors very well. The professors at big research universities are also AWESOME because they arent just teaching, they are actively engaged in creating new research and are full of that kind of energy.

I think if you match up culturally and socially with your classmates at a LAC, it is probably a very positive experience. But, if you don't, it seems like it would be a miserable 4 years. I got accepted to a well-known LAC, but my the students and alumni I met during the application process left me very cold, so I picked a large public school instead. But, I was the type of person that didn't really want or need to be known by all my classmates and professors. I was comfortable being more of a face in the crowd.

A larger school (state or private) offers a student many more choices, whether academic or social. That has its upsides and downsides.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

This asks of my own personal experience and the experiences of my kids. We all went to a "Sidwell" type school and we all went to different state flagships. I guess the only way to explain it is that you want to provide a strong foundational educational experience, learn how to think and how to write in ways that many large public high schools simply can't do as well. Also, if you like extracurriculars but aren't a superstar (ie future olympic athlete or whatever) a small independent school affords the opportunity to do things like play football or be in a play, or whatever - lots of opportunities to explore without the stakes being too high - no state championship or future Tonay ward winners to compete with...but then having had those experiences, you are able to attend a large university where literally anything you want to study or explore is at your fingertips, and you don;t have to worry too much about the base academics, because the high school foundation was strong enough to be able to put you in a place where you can use those skills to get through the huge freshman weedout classes without too much stress.

This sounds like basically you got the LAC experience in HS so that's why you were prepared to take on the big U. So why is it surprising to people that a student who did NOT get that experience in high school would want to get it in college? Or, at minimum, figure out how to get a LAC-like experience through a honors program or some other program that makes a big school feel small.

On that point...Interesting that so many people think small colleges are bad but then emphasize that you can make a big college feel small. If feeling small is not a virtue, why do big colleges so often emphasize that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

At some point they need to enter something closer to the real world

NP - is the real world 6x week drinking, lecture style classrooms, being in a community the size of a small city? What about the UMD experience is better prep for the real world than going to a smaller school?

The real world is having to fend for yourself when no body cares whether or not you even exist.

But once again, in the "real world" one can choose to work for a smaller company (ie Not Google or Microsoft or Facebook, etc) where you actually have mentors and bosses who care about nurturing you and helping you develop into a top performer. I've worked for both places and the smaller companies are definately better at helping your grow.

I also think a small school resembles the real world in that in the real world one tends to work with a small group of people, who you didn’t necessarily pick, year after year. As opposed to a new cast of characters every semester.

Students in Big10 schools are definitely given group assignments where they do not pick their partners. This isn't a small-school phenomenon.

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

This asks of my own personal experience and the experiences of my kids. We all went to a "Sidwell" type school and we all went to different state flagships. I guess the only way to explain it is that you want to provide a strong foundational educational experience, learn how to think and how to write in ways that many large public high schools simply can't do as well. Also, if you like extracurriculars but aren't a superstar (ie future olympic athlete or whatever) a small independent school affords the opportunity to do things like play football or be in a play, or whatever - lots of opportunities to explore without the stakes being too high - no state championship or future Tonay ward winners to compete with...but then having had those experiences, you are able to attend a large university where literally anything you want to study or explore is at your fingertips, and you don;t have to worry too much about the base academics, because the high school foundation was strong enough to be able to put you in a place where you can use those skills to get through the huge freshman weedout classes without too much stress.

Anonymous wrote:I think I have a unique perspective, as I spent the first two years of college at a small elite private college (I won't name it but it has been mentioned on this thread several times) and then transferred to a Big 10 school that has also been mentioned, so I saw both up close. I transferred because I wanted to major in an area that my small school did not have a department in. I could have designed an independent study program at my first college, but I think there is real value in being part of a community all studying the same thing, so I transferred to a school that had a spectacular department.

It was great being at a small school the first two years, because the classes were small and there was lots of opportunity for direct student/teacher contact. It was nurturing in a way that was helpful to me, a small-town girl living away from home for the first time. But by the end of my sophomore year I was much more independent, and didn't need the hand-holding. At my Big 10 school, there was much more breadth of classes. Since I was transferring as an upperclassman, I went directly into seminars and upper level classes, so I kind of missed the big gut classes that there undoubtedly are in a large school. I definitely had to be more proactive and self-directed about making contact with professors and advocating for myself at my Big 10 school, just because there are so many more students, but I think that was kind of a good experience. And after college, because there were so many grads from my Big 10 school, I was able to tap into a huge network professionally.

So there are pros and cons of both types of school, it really depends on your student and what you want out of your college experience.

+100 I don't get why some on DCUM are so black-and-white in their thinking about this topic, from both sides. There are pros and cons for all types of colleges and, regardless of size, most of college comes down to the efforts of the student to make the most of the opportunities available.

I went to a largeish public university. I had a good experience there, found mentors, mostly had smaller classes as it was a more undergrad focused U. But I also never even considered a LAC and in retrospect wonder if I'd have enjoyed that more? I was a 1st gen student and college was very much about what was affordable and nearby and what major had a clear path to a job.

Now I have one kid at a huge public U and another headed to a LAC. The public U kid really wanted the huge sports rah-rah culture but I think he ended up a bit intimidated by the environment and his close friends are still a group from high school. He hasn't pursued any clubs after a few forays in freshman year didn't connect but is involved in an undergrad research project, finds his major challenging, and will be well positioned for his career when he's done. I wish he would engage more with the out-of-the-classroom opportunities but ultimately it's his life and he never was a joiner in HS so I guess I should not be surprised.

The LAC kid has always been very different from her brother. Wants a small, close-knit community. Hates her huge HS. Put a big priority on faculty mentoring and research opportunities. She felt more at-home at the LACs we visited and found the big schools a real turn off for this next step. But she also plans to study abroad for a year and her career will require a master's degree, which will likely be at one of those big universities so she will certainly be exposed to a range of environments. As the complete opposite of #1, she was adamant that she would not go to any college a friend was going to and the final choice between schools came down to specific ECs she wants to be involved in. I think she's the kind of student who will take full advantage of what the LAC offers but is not the sharp-elbowed, competitive student who would push to get everything possible out of a big U. I do wonder if the LAC will feel too small after a while but again, it's her life, not mine.

Anonymous wrote:Not OP but curious - for folks sending their DCs to private schools in part because of the small class sizes, close relationships with classmates/teachers, tight knit community, focus on academics etc, what is the thought process behind sending that same DC to a massive instate university? leaving the anecdotal evidence to the side for a second, as I'm sure we all know someone who went to U- wherever and is now setting the world on fire, how do you reconcile the criteria you had for a certain hs experience with the complete opposite end of the spectrum that you're seeking for undergrad? Before any one comes at me, I'm not saying that large state Unis don't have solid academics - but why are you spending $$$ to send little Johnny to Sidwell for a "certain experience" if you're turning around and sending him to a school like UMD?

Because what's appropriate for a child may not be appropriate for an adult.