Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread prompted me to look at the undergraduate school attended by the 43 associates of what is arguably the most impressive law firm in the country (41 of the 43 associates did federal clerkships after law school with most having done 2 clerkships and the associates graduated from the top US law schools (most from Harvard Law, followed by Yale Law, then Chicago, Stanford, and U Penn law schools).

Of the 43 associates, 37 went to universities (34 US universities) and 6 went to LACs (2 from Pomona, 2 attended Vassar, 1 from Bard, and 1 from Dickinson).

Is it possible that biglaw isn’t the goal of all SLAC grads? (Yes. Yes it is.)

So about 15% of associates attended SLACs, and 85% attended universities? Given that only 5% of college students attend SLACs, SLACs are over-represented by 300%. This pretty much is in line with the disproportionately high percentage of SLACs grads who go onto graduate school compared to graduates of universities.

Yes, I think those numbers do not make the point the original PP thought she was making. SLACs are disproportionately represented in those numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe SLAC graduates are better educated on average than graduates of research universities of similar selectivity.

This above is not a reasonable statement.

For the class which entered Fall of 2020, the acceptance rate at the top ranked LAC was 15%, while the #14 ranked National University--WashUStL--had an acceptance rate of 16%.

Understandable that one may prefer one over the other, but the education is outstanding at both schools.

Another example based on a PP poster's comment: Emory University and Grinnell College both had acceptance rates of 19%. Highly unlikely that one receives a better education at Grinnell than at Emory.

Some students may be more comfortable at a small school without the presence of graduate schools and some may prefer the larger, more diverse environment.

The reality is exactly the opposite: it is highly unlikely that a student receives a better education at Emory than Grinnell.

Anonymous wrote:Students who like SLACs tend to be more introverted and academic. They want a small, friendly, nurturing environment where they can explore their intellectual curiosities. Close relationships with professors can help guide that personal journey and provide a path toward graduate school.

As for parents supporting such a choice, some of it is best fit for their child, but it is also a worldview and likely next steps to a career. If the parents work in the humanities or something related to them, they’re likely proud that their child finds value in them too. But, many of these parents are very successful lawyers, doctors, and business or government executives. For them, undergraduate school was a time of life discovery that manifested as a degree in philosophy, religion, English, anthropology, political economy, etc. A SLAC expanded their intellectual horizons and encouraged them to be interesting people. Of course, they subsequently attended a selective graduate program and have done well since. In sum, these parents differ from the average successful person in their curiosity and interestingness. They are not just their money, but people you want to spend time with.

Of course, there are some parents who view a top-ranked SLAC as a consolation prize for no Ivy, but given that so many SLACs take a majority of their class ED, I don’t think this is the majority view.

Finally, there are parents who want private, but can’t afford it. They’re willing to accept a lower-ranked LAC to get merit aid. I’m not sure that makes sense, but to each their own.

There will always be intellectually lazy people who think Ivy League colleges are the be all end all of college education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a "you never heard of" small liberal arts school where the classes were very small and my professors got to know me after having transferred from a community college. We were immigrants and didn't have any money for college.

I would not have had the opportunities I got if I went to a bigger school. I would have blended in the crowd, would have been lost, and would have left it at that.

I instead got the best support, guidance and recommendations to get into a full-pay + stipend graduate program.

That education in the small school secured my future and shaped who I am.

Both my kids are interested only in small schools as well.

Your assumptions about larger schools is not accurate.

Elite private National Universities offer many small classes--especially after one's freshman year.

Large public state flagship universities offers honors colleges or honors programs which grant many privileges to these students who typically receive substantial scholarships. Mentoring from professors, small honors only classes including first year introductory courses, special housing with other honors students, and priority class registration among other perks (sometimes includes study abroad during, internships, special on-campus events, etc.).

As a professor who works at a large public state flagship who went to a SLAC for undergrad, I think the PP is right that her SLAC experience probably importantly shaped her in ways that don't typically happen at a large school, even in the honors college. I love the college I teach at, think it's an excellent education, but I do not have the personalized relationships with undergrad students the ways that SLAC profs do. It's just not possible and it's not the culture. Maybe 1 or 2 here and there (and, yes, usually through the honors college because they are doing undergrad research project) I will know a bit more but it's not anywhere near the same. I have stayed in touch with 4 professors from my undergrad and it's been nearly 40 years since I went. There are upsides and downsides to all kinds of schools, but the biggest upside to a SLAC is many undergrads develop sustained relationships with faculty.

Normalizing close relationships with faculty is not necessarily a great thing. My undergrad advisor came on to me repeatedly and when I declined, he became very punitive. He was one of 3 professors in my major and made my life hell. I wouldn't send a daughter to a small LAC for that reason.

+100%
Hopefully a student today would feel comfortable reporting that, and would be treated with respect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a "you never heard of" small liberal arts school where the classes were very small and my professors got to know me after having transferred from a community college. We were immigrants and didn't have any money for college.

I would not have had the opportunities I got if I went to a bigger school. I would have blended in the crowd, would have been lost, and would have left it at that.

I instead got the best support, guidance and recommendations to get into a full-pay + stipend graduate program.

That education in the small school secured my future and shaped who I am.

Both my kids are interested only in small schools as well.

Your assumptions about larger schools is not accurate.

Elite private National Universities offer many small classes--especially after one's freshman year.

Large public state flagship universities offers honors colleges or honors programs which grant many privileges to these students who typically receive substantial scholarships. Mentoring from professors, small honors only classes including first year introductory courses, special housing with other honors students, and priority class registration among other perks (sometimes includes study abroad during, internships, special on-campus events, etc.).

As a professor who works at a large public state flagship who went to a SLAC for undergrad, I think the PP is right that her SLAC experience probably importantly shaped her in ways that don't typically happen at a large school, even in the honors college. I love the college I teach at, think it's an excellent education, but I do not have the personalized relationships with undergrad students the ways that SLAC profs do. It's just not possible and it's not the culture. Maybe 1 or 2 here and there (and, yes, usually through the honors college because they are doing undergrad research project) I will know a bit more but it's not anywhere near the same. I have stayed in touch with 4 professors from my undergrad and it's been nearly 40 years since I went. There are upsides and downsides to all kinds of schools, but the biggest upside to a SLAC is many undergrads develop sustained relationships with faculty.

Normalizing close relationships with faculty is not necessarily a great thing. My undergrad advisor came on to me repeatedly and when I declined, he became very punitive. He was one of 3 professors in my major and made my life hell. I wouldn't send a daughter to a small LAC for that reason.

This comment makes no sense. It’s a completely different issue. Sexual harassment can occur anywhere.

Students who like SLACs tend to be more introverted and academic. They want a small, friendly, nurturing environment where they can explore their intellectual curiosities. Close relationships with professors can help guide that personal journey and provide a path toward graduate school.

As for parents supporting such a choice, some of it is best fit for their child, but it is also a worldview and likely next steps to a career. If the parents work in the humanities or something related to them, they’re likely proud that their child finds value in them too. But, many of these parents are very successful lawyers, doctors, and business or government executives. For them, undergraduate school was a time of life discovery that manifested as a degree in philosophy, religion, English, anthropology, political economy, etc. A SLAC expanded their intellectual horizons and encouraged them to be interesting people. Of course, they subsequently attended a selective graduate program and have done well since. In sum, these parents differ from the average successful person in their curiosity and interestingness. They are not just their money, but people you want to spend time with.

Of course, there are some parents who view a top-ranked SLAC as a consolation prize for no Ivy, but given that so many SLACs take a majority of their class ED, I don’t think this is the majority view.

Finally, there are parents who want private, but can’t afford it. They’re willing to accept a lower-ranked LAC to get merit aid. I’m not sure that makes sense, but to each their own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a "you never heard of" small liberal arts school where the classes were very small and my professors got to know me after having transferred from a community college. We were immigrants and didn't have any money for college.

I would not have had the opportunities I got if I went to a bigger school. I would have blended in the crowd, would have been lost, and would have left it at that.

I instead got the best support, guidance and recommendations to get into a full-pay + stipend graduate program.

That education in the small school secured my future and shaped who I am.

Both my kids are interested only in small schools as well.

Your assumptions about larger schools is not accurate.

Elite private National Universities offer many small classes--especially after one's freshman year.

Large public state flagship universities offers honors colleges or honors programs which grant many privileges to these students who typically receive substantial scholarships. Mentoring from professors, small honors only classes including first year introductory courses, special housing with other honors students, and priority class registration among other perks (sometimes includes study abroad during, internships, special on-campus events, etc.).

As a professor who works at a large public state flagship who went to a SLAC for undergrad, I think the PP is right that her SLAC experience probably importantly shaped her in ways that don't typically happen at a large school, even in the honors college. I love the college I teach at, think it's an excellent education, but I do not have the personalized relationships with undergrad students the ways that SLAC profs do. It's just not possible and it's not the culture. Maybe 1 or 2 here and there (and, yes, usually through the honors college because they are doing undergrad research project) I will know a bit more but it's not anywhere near the same. I have stayed in touch with 4 professors from my undergrad and it's been nearly 40 years since I went. There are upsides and downsides to all kinds of schools, but the biggest upside to a SLAC is many undergrads develop sustained relationships with faculty.

Normalizing close relationships with faculty is not necessarily a great thing. My undergrad advisor came on to me repeatedly and when I declined, he became very punitive. He was one of 3 professors in my major and made my life hell. I wouldn't send a daughter to a small LAC for that reason.

A low life professor can be found at any size college or university. That is about having a scummy character more than anything about the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The earnings in that link don't look dismal. What are you seeing?

OP here, Grinnell’s average salary ten years out from graduation is around $77K which is quite concerning. Same thing with Skidmore and other selective, but not too selective, LACs.

DS graduated from Grinnell in 2020 with degrees in Poli Sci and History. He makes 80k as a data analyst and starting his MBA program. He works for a non-profit. His SO also graduated from Grinnell and is in a neuroscience PhD program and makes about 50K. I think the Grinnell numbers may be low as a lot of those grads work in non-profit, govt, NGO, etc. Not every student wants to work on Wall Street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a "you never heard of" small liberal arts school where the classes were very small and my professors got to know me after having transferred from a community college. We were immigrants and didn't have any money for college.

I would not have had the opportunities I got if I went to a bigger school. I would have blended in the crowd, would have been lost, and would have left it at that.

I instead got the best support, guidance and recommendations to get into a full-pay + stipend graduate program.

That education in the small school secured my future and shaped who I am.

Both my kids are interested only in small schools as well.

Your assumptions about larger schools is not accurate.

Elite private National Universities offer many small classes--especially after one's freshman year.

Large public state flagship universities offers honors colleges or honors programs which grant many privileges to these students who typically receive substantial scholarships. Mentoring from professors, small honors only classes including first year introductory courses, special housing with other honors students, and priority class registration among other perks (sometimes includes study abroad during, internships, special on-campus events, etc.).

As a professor who works at a large public state flagship who went to a SLAC for undergrad, I think the PP is right that her SLAC experience probably importantly shaped her in ways that don't typically happen at a large school, even in the honors college. I love the college I teach at, think it's an excellent education, but I do not have the personalized relationships with undergrad students the ways that SLAC profs do. It's just not possible and it's not the culture. Maybe 1 or 2 here and there (and, yes, usually through the honors college because they are doing undergrad research project) I will know a bit more but it's not anywhere near the same. I have stayed in touch with 4 professors from my undergrad and it's been nearly 40 years since I went. There are upsides and downsides to all kinds of schools, but the biggest upside to a SLAC is many undergrads develop sustained relationships with faculty.

Normalizing close relationships with faculty is not necessarily a great thing. My undergrad advisor came on to me repeatedly and when I declined, he became very punitive. He was one of 3 professors in my major and made my life hell. I wouldn't send a daughter to a small LAC for that reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a "you never heard of" small liberal arts school where the classes were very small and my professors got to know me after having transferred from a community college. We were immigrants and didn't have any money for college.

I would not have had the opportunities I got if I went to a bigger school. I would have blended in the crowd, would have been lost, and would have left it at that.

I instead got the best support, guidance and recommendations to get into a full-pay + stipend graduate program.

That education in the small school secured my future and shaped who I am.

Both my kids are interested only in small schools as well.

Your assumptions about larger schools is not accurate.

Elite private National Universities offer many small classes--especially after one's freshman year.

Large public state flagship universities offers honors colleges or honors programs which grant many privileges to these students who typically receive substantial scholarships. Mentoring from professors, small honors only classes including first year introductory courses, special housing with other honors students, and priority class registration among other perks (sometimes includes study abroad during, internships, special on-campus events, etc.).

As a professor who works at a large public state flagship who went to a SLAC for undergrad, I think the PP is right that her SLAC experience probably importantly shaped her in ways that don't typically happen at a large school, even in the honors college. I love the college I teach at, think it's an excellent education, but I do not have the personalized relationships with undergrad students the ways that SLAC profs do. It's just not possible and it's not the culture. Maybe 1 or 2 here and there (and, yes, usually through the honors college because they are doing undergrad research project) I will know a bit more but it's not anywhere near the same. I have stayed in touch with 4 professors from my undergrad and it's been nearly 40 years since I went. There are upsides and downsides to all kinds of schools, but the biggest upside to a SLAC is many undergrads develop sustained relationships with faculty.

Anonymous wrote:I went to a "you never heard of" small liberal arts school where the classes were very small and my professors got to know me after having transferred from a community college. We were immigrants and didn't have any money for college.

I would not have had the opportunities I got if I went to a bigger school. I would have blended in the crowd, would have been lost, and would have left it at that.

I instead got the best support, guidance and recommendations to get into a full-pay + stipend graduate program.

That education in the small school secured my future and shaped who I am.

Both my kids are interested only in small schools as well.

Your assumptions about larger schools is not accurate.

Elite private National Universities offer many small classes--especially after one's freshman year.

Large public state flagship universities offers honors colleges or honors programs which grant many privileges to these students who typically receive substantial scholarships. Mentoring from professors, small honors only classes including first year introductory courses, special housing with other honors students, and priority class registration among other perks (sometimes includes study abroad during, internships, special on-campus events, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread prompted me to look at the undergraduate school attended by the 43 associates of what is arguably the most impressive law firm in the country (41 of the 43 associates did federal clerkships after law school with most having done 2 clerkships and the associates graduated from the top US law schools (most from Harvard Law, followed by Yale Law, then Chicago, Stanford, and U Penn law schools).

Of the 43 associates, 37 went to universities (34 US universities) and 6 went to LACs (2 from Pomona, 2 attended Vassar, 1 from Bard, and 1 from Dickinson).

Is it possible that biglaw isn’t the goal of all SLAC grads? (Yes. Yes it is.)

A law firm of 90 or fewer attorneys is not considered to be "biglaw". (Biglaw is most commonly defined as law firms with 500 or more attorneys.)

Whatever. I wasn't interested in Biglaw OR being employed by "the most impressive law firm in the country." I have different goals in life.

I went to a "you never heard of" small liberal arts school where the classes were very small and my professors got to know me after having transferred from a community college. We were immigrants and didn't have any money for college.

I would not have had the opportunities I got if I went to a bigger school. I would have blended in the crowd, would have been lost, and would have left it at that.

I instead got the best support, guidance and recommendations to get into a full-pay + stipend graduate program.

That education in the small school secured my future and shaped who I am.

Both my kids are interested only in small schools as well.

Anonymous wrote:This thread prompted me to look at the undergraduate school attended by the 43 associates of what is arguably the most impressive law firm in the country (41 of the 43 associates did federal clerkships after law school with most having done 2 clerkships and the associates graduated from the top US law schools (most from Harvard Law, followed by Yale Law, then Chicago, Stanford, and U Penn law schools).

Of the 43 associates, 37 went to universities (34 US universities) and 6 went to LACs (2 from Pomona, 2 attended Vassar, 1 from Bard, and 1 from Dickinson).

This same prominent law firm has 34 partners in addition to 3 of counsel and 43 associates.

Among the 34 partners, 30 graduated from US National Universities, while 3 are LAC graduates (one each from Middlebury, Gettysburg, and a 1978 graduate of Kenyon). One graduated from Berklee College of Music.

Of the 3 "of counsel", two graduate from National Universities, zero from LACs, and one from Berklee College of Music.

This is an East Coast law firm (Wash DC).

Anonymous wrote:The instruction from professors is better at SLACs.

But academic education is not entirely based on instruction from professors.

Research universities have better instruction from TA's (graduate students with more availability than any SLAC professor can reasonably provide), better academic research opportunities, more rigorous courses, especially graduate-level courses that undergrads can take.

Ultimately SLACs are a plaything for the generationally wealthy. There's not much worth in it for the children of upper middle class dual-income professionals. They are not geared towards careers, but rather graduate, law, and (some) medical schools.

1) Upper-middle class dual income professionals are generational wealthy are not mutually exclusive. Many doctors, lawyers, professors, etc., have benefited from generational wealth.
2) Graduate, law, and medical school ARE career-oriented. Unless by "career" you mean jobs that don't require graduate degrees.