Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, one of the most appealing aspects of going to an SLAC , apart from the superior educational experience and entirely comparable career prospects, is to get away from ignorant families that are ‘obsessed’ with so-called ‘national universities,’ obviously understand little about US higher education system, cherry pick data, and like to ridicule and pick fights with ‘obtuse’ people who have had the nerve to make choices that are different from theirs.

It’s almost as if some commenters here are trying to project attitudes that come from foreign educational environments onto a different and unique US system. Which raises legitimate issues of whether the dismissal of US SLACs that some foolish DCUM commenters engage in stems from their coming from a society without any educational analogue to US SLACs (which are fairly unique, internationally, in providing an educational experience that rivals the top ‘national universities.’). Families should and will choose the college or university they like best, but DCUM readers should be careful about allowing their perceptions of excellent centuries-old colleges to be shaped by a few noisy, opinionated people who are fundamentally ignorant of those schools’ strengths, for a number of reasons one of which may be that they hail from a background where quality SLACs are unknown — and who believe the ‘data’ in USNWR can be interpreted to affirm selecting the kind of educational environment they’re more comfortable with.

+1. As the child of first generation Asian immigrants who attended and greatly benefited from a SLAC education, I am so grateful that my parents allowed me to choose my AWS (Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore) college over a comparably ranked national university. My experience with my parents was so different than many of my peers, whose parents basically forced their children to attend a college whose name their families back home would have recognized. The irony is that those children, my high school friends, are now strongly pushing their own children to apply to SLACs because now they are parents who are "in the know." They attended HYPS+ schools, went to graduate school, and are sending their kids to SLACs with the expectation that their children will also attend graduate school, but having had a better quality undergraduate experience than they did.

This has to be a joke. I'm an Asian HYPS alum and most of my Asian friends want our kids to attend our alma maters, not schools like Amherst or Grinnell.

You didn’t go to HYPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, one of the most appealing aspects of going to an SLAC , apart from the superior educational experience and entirely comparable career prospects, is to get away from ignorant families that are ‘obsessed’ with so-called ‘national universities,’ obviously understand little about US higher education system, cherry pick data, and like to ridicule and pick fights with ‘obtuse’ people who have had the nerve to make choices that are different from theirs.

It’s almost as if some commenters here are trying to project attitudes that come from foreign educational environments onto a different and unique US system. Which raises legitimate issues of whether the dismissal of US SLACs that some foolish DCUM commenters engage in stems from their coming from a society without any educational analogue to US SLACs (which are fairly unique, internationally, in providing an educational experience that rivals the top ‘national universities.’). Families should and will choose the college or university they like best, but DCUM readers should be careful about allowing their perceptions of excellent centuries-old colleges to be shaped by a few noisy, opinionated people who are fundamentally ignorant of those schools’ strengths, for a number of reasons one of which may be that they hail from a background where quality SLACs are unknown — and who believe the ‘data’ in USNWR can be interpreted to affirm selecting the kind of educational environment they’re more comfortable with.

+1. As the child of first generation Asian immigrants who attended and greatly benefited from a SLAC education, I am so grateful that my parents allowed me to choose my AWS (Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore) college over a comparably ranked national university. My experience with my parents was so different than many of my peers, whose parents basically forced their children to attend a college whose name their families back home would have recognized. The irony is that those children, my high school friends, are now strongly pushing their own children to apply to SLACs because now they are parents who are "in the know." They attended HYPS+ schools, went to graduate school, and are sending their kids to SLACs with the expectation that their children will also attend graduate school, but having had a better quality undergraduate experience than they did.

This has to be a joke. I'm an Asian HYPS alum and most of my Asian friends want our kids to attend our alma maters, not schools like Amherst or Grinnell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, one of the most appealing aspects of going to an SLAC , apart from the superior educational experience and entirely comparable career prospects, is to get away from ignorant families that are ‘obsessed’ with so-called ‘national universities,’ obviously understand little about US higher education system, cherry pick data, and like to ridicule and pick fights with ‘obtuse’ people who have had the nerve to make choices that are different from theirs.

It’s almost as if some commenters here are trying to project attitudes that come from foreign educational environments onto a different and unique US system. Which raises legitimate issues of whether the dismissal of US SLACs that some foolish DCUM commenters engage in stems from their coming from a society without any educational analogue to US SLACs (which are fairly unique, internationally, in providing an educational experience that rivals the top ‘national universities.’). Families should and will choose the college or university they like best, but DCUM readers should be careful about allowing their perceptions of excellent centuries-old colleges to be shaped by a few noisy, opinionated people who are fundamentally ignorant of those schools’ strengths, for a number of reasons one of which may be that they hail from a background where quality SLACs are unknown — and who believe the ‘data’ in USNWR can be interpreted to affirm selecting the kind of educational environment they’re more comfortable with.

+1. As the child of first generation Asian immigrants who attended and greatly benefited from a SLAC education, I am so grateful that my parents allowed me to choose my AWS (Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore) college over a comparably ranked national university. My experience with my parents was so different than many of my peers, whose parents basically forced their children to attend a college whose name their families back home would have recognized. The irony is that those children, my high school friends, are now strongly pushing their own children to apply to SLACs because now they are parents who are "in the know." They attended HYPS+ schools, went to graduate school, and are sending their kids to SLACs with the expectation that their children will also attend graduate school, but having had a better quality undergraduate experience than they did.

This has to be a joke. I'm an Asian HYPS alum and most of my Asian friends want our kids to attend our alma maters, not schools like Amherst or Grinnell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, one of the most appealing aspects of going to an SLAC , apart from the superior educational experience and entirely comparable career prospects, is to get away from ignorant families that are ‘obsessed’ with so-called ‘national universities,’ obviously understand little about US higher education system, cherry pick data, and like to ridicule and pick fights with ‘obtuse’ people who have had the nerve to make choices that are different from theirs.

It’s almost as if some commenters here are trying to project attitudes that come from foreign educational environments onto a different and unique US system. Which raises legitimate issues of whether the dismissal of US SLACs that some foolish DCUM commenters engage in stems from their coming from a society without any educational analogue to US SLACs (which are fairly unique, internationally, in providing an educational experience that rivals the top ‘national universities.’). Families should and will choose the college or university they like best, but DCUM readers should be careful about allowing their perceptions of excellent centuries-old colleges to be shaped by a few noisy, opinionated people who are fundamentally ignorant of those schools’ strengths, for a number of reasons one of which may be that they hail from a background where quality SLACs are unknown — and who believe the ‘data’ in USNWR can be interpreted to affirm selecting the kind of educational environment they’re more comfortable with.

+1. As the child of first generation Asian immigrants who attended and greatly benefited from a SLAC education, I am so grateful that my parents allowed me to choose my AWS (Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore) college over a comparably ranked national university. My experience with my parents was so different than many of my peers, whose parents basically forced their children to attend a college whose name their families back home would have recognized. The irony is that those children, my high school friends, are now strongly pushing their own children to apply to SLACs because now they are parents who are "in the know." They attended HYPS+ schools, went to graduate school, and are sending their kids to SLACs with the expectation that their children will also attend graduate school, but having had a better quality undergraduate experience than they did.

This has to be a joke. I'm an Asian HYPS alum and most of my Asian friends want our kids to attend our alma maters, not schools like Amherst or Grinnell.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, one of the most appealing aspects of going to an SLAC , apart from the superior educational experience and entirely comparable career prospects, is to get away from ignorant families that are ‘obsessed’ with so-called ‘national universities,’ obviously understand little about US higher education system, cherry pick data, and like to ridicule and pick fights with ‘obtuse’ people who have had the nerve to make choices that are different from theirs.

It’s almost as if some commenters here are trying to project attitudes that come from foreign educational environments onto a different and unique US system. Which raises legitimate issues of whether the dismissal of US SLACs that some foolish DCUM commenters engage in stems from their coming from a society without any educational analogue to US SLACs (which are fairly unique, internationally, in providing an educational experience that rivals the top ‘national universities.’). Families should and will choose the college or university they like best, but DCUM readers should be careful about allowing their perceptions of excellent centuries-old colleges to be shaped by a few noisy, opinionated people who are fundamentally ignorant of those schools’ strengths, for a number of reasons one of which may be that they hail from a background where quality SLACs are unknown — and who believe the ‘data’ in USNWR can be interpreted to affirm selecting the kind of educational environment they’re more comfortable with.

+1. As the child of first generation Asian immigrants who attended and greatly benefited from a SLAC education, I am so grateful that my parents allowed me to choose my AWS (Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore) college over a comparably ranked national university. My experience with my parents was so different than many of my peers, whose parents basically forced their children to attend a college whose name their families back home would have recognized. The irony is that those children, my high school friends, are now strongly pushing their own children to apply to SLACs because now they are parents who are "in the know." They attended HYPS+ schools, went to graduate school, and are sending their kids to SLACs with the expectation that their children will also attend graduate school, but having had a better quality undergraduate experience than they did.

This has to be a joke. I'm an Asian HYPS alum and most of my Asian friends want our kids to attend our alma maters, not schools like Amherst or Grinnell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, one of the most appealing aspects of going to an SLAC , apart from the superior educational experience and entirely comparable career prospects, is to get away from ignorant families that are ‘obsessed’ with so-called ‘national universities,’ obviously understand little about US higher education system, cherry pick data, and like to ridicule and pick fights with ‘obtuse’ people who have had the nerve to make choices that are different from theirs.

It’s almost as if some commenters here are trying to project attitudes that come from foreign educational environments onto a different and unique US system. Which raises legitimate issues of whether the dismissal of US SLACs that some foolish DCUM commenters engage in stems from their coming from a society without any educational analogue to US SLACs (which are fairly unique, internationally, in providing an educational experience that rivals the top ‘national universities.’). Families should and will choose the college or university they like best, but DCUM readers should be careful about allowing their perceptions of excellent centuries-old colleges to be shaped by a few noisy, opinionated people who are fundamentally ignorant of those schools’ strengths, for a number of reasons one of which may be that they hail from a background where quality SLACs are unknown — and who believe the ‘data’ in USNWR can be interpreted to affirm selecting the kind of educational environment they’re more comfortable with.

+1. As the child of first generation Asian immigrants who attended and greatly benefited from a SLAC education, I am so grateful that my parents allowed me to choose my AWS (Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore) college over a comparably ranked national university. My experience with my parents was so different than many of my peers, whose parents basically forced their children to attend a college whose name their families back home would have recognized. The irony is that those children, my high school friends, are now strongly pushing their own children to apply to SLACs because now they are parents who are "in the know." They attended HYPS+ schools, went to graduate school, and are sending their kids to SLACs with the expectation that their children will also attend graduate school, but having had a better quality undergraduate experience than they did.

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, one of the most appealing aspects of going to an SLAC , apart from the superior educational experience and entirely comparable career prospects, is to get away from ignorant families that are ‘obsessed’ with so-called ‘national universities,’ obviously understand little about US higher education system, cherry pick data, and like to ridicule and pick fights with ‘obtuse’ people who have had the nerve to make choices that are different from theirs.

It’s almost as if some commenters here are trying to project attitudes that come from foreign educational environments onto a different and unique US system. Which raises legitimate issues of whether the dismissal of US SLACs that some foolish DCUM commenters engage in stems from their coming from a society without any educational analogue to US SLACs (which are fairly unique, internationally, in providing an educational experience that rivals the top ‘national universities.’). Families should and will choose the college or university they like best, but DCUM readers should be careful about allowing their perceptions of excellent centuries-old colleges to be shaped by a few noisy, opinionated people who are fundamentally ignorant of those schools’ strengths, for a number of reasons one of which may be that they hail from a background where quality SLACs are unknown — and who believe the ‘data’ in USNWR can be interpreted to affirm selecting the kind of educational environment they’re more comfortable with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) And? Unless the children have a trust fund set up by their grandparents/uncles/aunts, they are not generationally wealthy. If the parents are paying for school out of pocket and through college savings plans, they are not generationally wealthy.
2) You have to be purposefully obtuse to not understand the distinction between colleges geared towards getting students employed right out of college (in engineering, nursing, business, counseling, etc.) and SLACs.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.