Anonymous wrote:Hey, you can't use the absolute number no, no, no.

You have to get the "per capita" value - that is the only relevant number and there is no need to even consider the absolute number.

Wherefore, the real "boosting" is clearly higher for small LACs compared to UVA boosting per parent and thereby LACs are great places of higher learning that the western civilization has ever created and, you cannot get a greater undergraduate education at any other non-LAC schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For premed I would rather my DC go to LACs. Big Us have tons of resources, true. But the big U professors don't give a fxxk about their undergraduate students, or teaching undergraduate in general. This is generally okay if you are engineering major, getting a couple Cs and Ds here and there won't preclude you from getting a job. For premed, entirely another story. They love to weed you out at the introductory courses as the Big U can support all the premed-interested kids.

Unless you are 100% certain you will always be that top 10% kid, and never will have an exam on a sick day and getting an F. LACs are a better bet for parents' investment in the kid's medical career.

If you remain dependent on professors even in college for learning , you would remain so for the rest of your career. This is being truly handicapped. Elite kids (25%) in T10 colleges need no such mollycoddling.

LAC boosters are delusional and lost cause.

They are more annoying than UVA boosters which is an achievement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For premed I would rather my DC go to LACs. Big Us have tons of resources, true. But the big U professors don't give a fxxk about their undergraduate students, or teaching undergraduate in general. This is generally okay if you are engineering major, getting a couple Cs and Ds here and there won't preclude you from getting a job. For premed, entirely another story. They love to weed you out at the introductory courses as the Big U can support all the premed-interested kids.

Unless you are 100% certain you will always be that top 10% kid, and never will have an exam on a sick day and getting an F. LACs are a better bet for parents' investment in the kid's medical career.

If you remain dependent on professors even in college for learning , you would remain so for the rest of your career. This is being truly handicapped. Elite kids (25%) in T10 colleges need no such mollycoddling.

Anonymous wrote:Hey, you can't use the absolute number no, no, no.

You have to get the "per capita" value - that is the only relevant number and there is no need to even consider the absolute number.

Wherefore, the real "boosting" is clearly higher for small LACs compared to UVA boosting per parent and thereby LACs are great places of higher learning that the western civilization has ever created and, you cannot get a greater undergraduate education at any other non-LAC schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs are community colleges for the affluent class.

Well said!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs are community colleges for the affluent class.

Well said!

Anonymous wrote:LACs are community colleges for the affluent class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For premed I would rather my DC go to LACs. Big Us have tons of resources, true. But the big U professors don't give a fxxk about their undergraduate students, or teaching undergraduate in general. This is generally okay if you are engineering major, getting a couple Cs and Ds here and there won't preclude you from getting a job. For premed, entirely another story. They love to weed you out at the introductory courses as the Big U can support all the premed-interested kids.

Unless you are 100% certain you will always be that top 10% kid, and never will have an exam on a sick day and getting an F. LACs are a better bet for parents' investment in the kid's medical career.

If you remain dependent on professors even in college for learning , you would remain so for the rest of your career. This is being truly handicapped. Elite kids (25%) in T10 colleges need no such mollycoddling.

Anonymous wrote:For premed I would rather my DC go to LACs. Big Us have tons of resources, true. But the big U professors don't give a fxxk about their undergraduate students, or teaching undergraduate in general. This is generally okay if you are engineering major, getting a couple Cs and Ds here and there won't preclude you from getting a job. For premed, entirely another story. They love to weed you out at the introductory courses as the Big U can support all the premed-interested kids.

Unless you are 100% certain you will always be that top 10% kid, and never will have an exam on a sick day and getting an F. LACs are a better bet for parents' investment in the kid's medical career.

Anonymous wrote:I have been on these boards for a bit and my hypothesis is that what really bothers people about LACs is that they are a bit outside the standard ranking system. The hierarchy (in their minds) is supposed be clear: HSYMP> Cornell/Columbia > Vandy/Emory, etc. but Williams or Swat etc. doesn’t fit tidily anywhere in there. I think to people who care a lot about sharply defined hierarchy, these schools feel like a workaround, like some sort of cheat.

But whatever. Who cares. Someday we’re all going to be corpses, every last one of us, and sometime after that the earth will crash into the sun, after that the sun will cool into a white dwarf, and no one will remember anything about our having been here. Just live your lives, people. Enjoy them. Think cool thoughts, listen to great music. Read a line of poetry, pet a dog, maybe dance a bit. We are but a blip.

Anonymous wrote:If you have 80k a year to spend, why not? The trouble is, most people don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sit in that odd in-between where they're lesser-known by the general populace, but are incredibly overhyped by those in the know.

No one cares about your Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore, and they're slowly but surely becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's higher ed landscape.

I can only share my experience of having a kid who went to Grinnell. They became friends with faculty, received an education of unusual breadth and depth, explored several different disciplines, learned to thoughtfully consider and evaluate a wide spectrum of ideas, grew up immensely, became exponentially more articulate, got a fantastic research job straight out of school where their research skills and job performance led supervisors to say they wanted to hire more Grinnell grads, and got into a prestigious PhD program. More importantly, they became an extraordinarily kind and caring person. This was a kid who used to be a little abrasive. Would it have happened at a good public or large private research university? Perhaps, but I don't they'd have received the same level of nurture and adult attention, which I think drove intellectual, academic, personal, and professional growth. There are many great options out there. Sometimes LACs are an excellent fit that can transform your child. No disrespect to any other institution, but I am very grateful for the transformative effect an outstanding LAC had on my kid.

So, your kid couldn't make it to the top 50. I understand.