The Ugly is strong in this thread...

Anonymous wrote:Forget about the job one gets one or two years following graduation and focus on the long term. That's where SLACs shine. The SLAC grad ends up supervising the STEM worker bee.

Keep parroting the line about SLAC graduates' superior prospects down the line. We have tens of thousands of humanities graduates who are unemployed or underemployed thinking there would be that pot of gold down the line based on the line that those like you have sought to hold out as what awaits them down the line. Whether you like it or not today's economy is not kindly disposed towards SLAC graduates - unless they major in a STEM.

Anonymous wrote:People, you can major in other things besides humanities at SLACs. Tons of people major in the humanities at Ivies and state universities. We need some SLAC slack.

Your point is well made about SLAC's offering more than merely the humanities but most who advocate SLACs focus on the humanties majors. Humanities graduates who do reasonably well in one of the Ivies or some of the other well regarded state schools do have promising job prospects but they constitute a relatively small proportion of these graduates.

As a general rule, if you major in one of the humanities, you better plan on going to law school, med school, business school or some other graduate progam that offers the promise of reasonably lucrative employment.

People, you can major in other things besides humanities at SLACs. Tons of people major in the humanities at Ivies and state universities. We need some SLAC slack.

Forget about the job one gets one or two years following graduation and focus on the long term. That's where SLACs shine. The SLAC grad ends up supervising the STEM worker bee.

SLACs' are under pressure for good reason. They have rested on their laurels even as the economy has changed.

It makes no sense to spend $240,000 to earn an undergraduate degree with a major in one of the humanities and then be unemployable or paid a meager salary. It would be sheer insanity unless one comes from a wealthy family that can throw that sort of money towards a degree that will not enable the holder to earn a decent income.

Forget what used to work in years gone by and focus on what the economy needs today.

if you look at people who are going into graduate programs, SLACs do an excellent job of preparing for that (PhD, but also law and medicine). Also, I know this blows people's mind, but a lot of people study science at SLACs, and because the resources are all dedicated to undergraduates, have more direct mentorship, and more independent research experience especially if they do a senior thesis. Some of the top STEM PhD program feeders include Reed, Carleton, Swarthmore, Grinnell, and Haverford.

http://www.thecollegesolution.com/the-colleges-where-phds-get-their-start/

Many SLACs have the highest percentage of grads going to graduate school. Business, law, medical school. Popular majors at some (maybe many) SLACs include biology, psychology. DC is headed to a SLAC and we are all over the moon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's silly to think that the most valuable thing in the job market is going to be any subject that can be taught in a semester or two at college. A engineer's knowledge has a half life of what, 4 years maybe? You need to learn to learn skills-- writing, working with people, creative thinking, analysis.

Instead of those STEM courses that become obsolete so soon, Wesleyan offers "unforgettable" courses like “The Biology of Sex” (the textbook is a sex manual), “Key Issues in Black Feminism,” and “Queer Literature and Studies.”

Most people defending SLACS have no idea how much they have changed.

You say it like these are the only types of courses offered at Wesleyan. We all know that's not true.

And anyway, what's so bad about taking 1-2 of these courses during four years in which you will take a total of 32 semesters' worth of courses? There is plenty of time to also take programming 100 through programming 450 and also Physics 100 through Physics 475 if you want.

Plenty of time for those courses at Wesleyan since Shakespeare is optional for English majors, as is study of the American founding and Civil War for history majors. That might be considered rigorous compared to Amherst, which no longer maintains a core curriculum or even distribution requirements. Apart from completing a major, students need only take a First-Year Seminar on a topic such as “Reading Gender,” or “Eros and Insight.” Everything else—including math, science, foreign languages, American history, and all of Western civ—is optional. English majors can skip the history of the language, Shakespeare, even all of British or American literature—instead mastering film, creative writing, or cultural and gender studies

What is your issue, PP? Why do you keep posting this stuff? It's not useful information for anyone. Brown University, which we can all agree is one of the hardest schools to get into, has had no distribution requirements for decades, probably since the 1970s. That has not dimmed its popularity, its prestige or the rigor of its curriculum. Most Brown graduates have no trouble finding employment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's silly to think that the most valuable thing in the job market is going to be any subject that can be taught in a semester or two at college. A engineer's knowledge has a half life of what, 4 years maybe? You need to learn to learn skills-- writing, working with people, creative thinking, analysis.

Instead of those STEM courses that become obsolete so soon, Wesleyan offers "unforgettable" courses like “The Biology of Sex” (the textbook is a sex manual), “Key Issues in Black Feminism,” and “Queer Literature and Studies.”

Most people defending SLACS have no idea how much they have changed.

This poster has something against Wesleyan. She keeps posting the same thing on many different threads. Whether or not it's true, I don't know and don't care.

Wesleyan is one of the "pottied Ivies" -- Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan -- all very fine SLACs, all of which are very hard to get into, in many cases harder than getting into Ivies.

If you look at any SLAC curriculum, you will find some unusual course titles. But you'll also find biochem, physics, 20th century architecture (is that too lightweight for you, PP?), music theory, etc. etc.

OP, it's all about motivation. Kids who are not self-directed will be in trouble, no matter where they go to school. I know Ivy League grads who are seriously underemployed in their 40s. And graduates of no-name SLACS, who are making seven figures.

Anonymous wrote:


I'm guessing you're an expert in film or queer studies since you plainly missed out on basic rhetoric training. Carry on.

You seem to have missed the day in Troll School where they taught that deflections in the form of ad hominem attacks have become too transparent to be effective. Nowadays the better trolls try to include some actual wit in their retorts. So ... don't carry on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's silly to think that the most valuable thing in the job market is going to be any subject that can be taught in a semester or two at college. A engineer's knowledge has a half life of what, 4 years maybe? You need to learn to learn skills-- writing, working with people, creative thinking, analysis.

Instead of those STEM courses that become obsolete so soon, Wesleyan offers "unforgettable" courses like “The Biology of Sex” (the textbook is a sex manual), “Key Issues in Black Feminism,” and “Queer Literature and Studies.”

Most people defending SLACS have no idea how much they have changed.

You say it like these are the only types of courses offered at Wesleyan. We all know that's not true.

And anyway, what's so bad about taking 1-2 of these courses during four years in which you will take a total of 32 semesters' worth of courses? There is plenty of time to also take programming 100 through programming 450 and also Physics 100 through Physics 475 if you want.

Plenty of time for those courses at Wesleyan since Shakespeare is optional for English majors, as is study of the American founding and Civil War for history majors. That might be considered rigorous compared to Amherst, which no longer maintains a core curriculum or even distribution requirements. Apart from completing a major, students need only take a First-Year Seminar on a topic such as “Reading Gender,” or “Eros and Insight.” Everything else—including math, science, foreign languages, American history, and all of Western civ—is optional. English majors can skip the history of the language, Shakespeare, even all of British or American literature—instead mastering film, creative writing, or cultural and gender studies

You seem to have problems with the entire concept of liberal arts. The purpose of an LAC education is exactly this type of exploration. Those are excellent universities which offer a broad range of rigorous courses. Students can take pretty much anything there and learn something, develop their thinking, reading and writing skills. Both Wesleyn and Amherst does have requirements for their majors, which are typical of any university. Students can chose to create their own plan of study, but if they do, they aren't majoring in English or Biology or whatever.

And what is your gripe with film or writing as a major? Both of them lead to jobs. Writing and film are major industries in the US. Gender studies doesn't lead straight to a job, but would be fine for anyone who is planning on going to professional school or grad school (law, medicine, history, English)

You're pretty ignorant about this subject. You should stop talking now.

I'm guessing you're an expert in film or queer studies since you plainly missed out on basic rhetoric training. Carry on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, as a Swarthmore grad, I definitely think you shouldn't send your kid there. More room for mine.

i'm the pp with the youngest sister at swat. she hated it there though it did open up doors for her. not every alum loves it to be honest.

Surely true, but irrelevant. Not every alum loves any school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with going to grad school? I went to a SLAC and then went to grad school for an MBA. I've been very successful.

As an executive at a consulting company, I wish my company would stop hiring "newly minted" MBAs who went straight from undergrad. Even from a top school like Harvard, Wharton, Kellogg, Sloan, etc. I think people get much more out of an MBA degree if they have 3-5 years of real world work experience between undergrad and grad school.

When I see a resume where someone went right to B school, I wonder why they couldn't get a job.

When I went to Harvard Law, the B school required at least a year off before attending. Not true anymore? I deferred a year and HLS immediately agreed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's silly to think that the most valuable thing in the job market is going to be any subject that can be taught in a semester or two at college. A engineer's knowledge has a half life of what, 4 years maybe? You need to learn to learn skills-- writing, working with people, creative thinking, analysis.

Instead of those STEM courses that become obsolete so soon, Wesleyan offers "unforgettable" courses like “The Biology of Sex” (the textbook is a sex manual), “Key Issues in Black Feminism,” and “Queer Literature and Studies.”

Most people defending SLACS have no idea how much they have changed.

Too true! My SLAC has embarassed itself nationally over some of its ridiculous offerings. I would never send DCs there (and it's now a whopping $60K a year). Not worth it at all. My cousin just graduated from a SLAC frequently discussed here. He has $160,000 in student loans, credit card debt and his major got him a job working tables at IHOP. Parents really need to think this through before following the herd to SLACs. They charge what they charge because they can get away with it - and so long as the Chinese and other foreign students are willing to pay full freight, they will continue to do so. But you have to ask why the tuition has outpaced inflation and is it really worth it to send DC to a SLAC for $240,000 plus travel costs to study courses mentioned above. I don't think so. Go State!

Anonymous wrote:Yep, as a Swarthmore grad, I definitely think you shouldn't send your kid there. More room for mine.

i'm the pp with the youngest sister at swat. she hated it there though it did open up doors for her. not every alum loves it to be honest.