OP - many of the comments here are not comparing SLACs to honors colleges as you requested. Honors colleges offer small classes, internship, research, conference and scholarship opportunities as well as close working relationships with professors. They are also exempt from many core classes so that they can pursue their studies at a higher level starting Freshman Year. Let’s not also forget close association with a network representing the top 2-5 percent of the Flagship admits. Finally , all attending are by no means financially “strapped” as suggested. People that are financially sound and successful tend to teach their children the value of good strategic decisions and long term thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think people on this thread who are dismissing slacs never really went to a slac or has a kid in a slac. You have to really know how slacs differ in order to compare. Otherwise, whatever traits slacs might have, the state supporter will always find some element in a state school that could potentially satisfied that element to some degree. Top slacs cost approximately $75,000 per year. There are reasons for their existence.

And I think people who went (or send their kids) to SLACs often fervently believe that their educational experiences are unique to SLACs. But seminars, accessible faculty, mentorship, liberal arts curricula, undergrad lab opportunities, attention to writing skills, etc. are all available at major research universities. One difference may be that students generally have to opt in to/seek out these things at universities whereas they are more of a default at LACs.

Personally, I agree with the PP who suggested looking at major universities with colleges in the 4-6K student range. They can be a best of both worlds scenario (lots of courses, many of them small; motivated student body with real diversity; faculty who are lifelong learners as well as teachers and who aren’t stuck teaching the same intro courses year after year).

Their might be similar courses at state schools and SLACs but that’s where the similarities end. The small class sizes and relationships built with professors (not some TA) at SLACs simply are unique. You’re also never goin to get real diversity at a state school given that 50%+ come from one geography and most states are pretty homogenous. LACs aren’t for every child but in my field I e had far greater success with their grads than state school grads.

And in my (non-STEM) field, some of the worst-educated students came from top 10 LACs. Those “unique” relationships with profs, coupled with a general atmosphere of grade inflation, means it’s pretty easy to BS your way through. Meanwhile, kids who aren’t inclined to do that are often placed in a situation where they aren’t exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view on their own field. They deal with one or two profs who, in turn, are teaching students who only know what they’ve learned in their own small department. One big plus of having grad students in the mix is there’s a continual influx of new blood and different perspectives into the department.

This doesn't really make sense. LACs actively encourage students to explore across disciplines. Students absolutely are "exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view". It might not be specialized to one specific field, but to me, that's a good thing. Get the specialization at work or in graduate school. At a LAC, the point is learning for its own sake.

Most state supporters on here are state grads, not SLAC grads. They tend to send their kids to state. Their comments indicate they really don't know slacs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think people on this thread who are dismissing slacs never really went to a slac or has a kid in a slac. You have to really know how slacs differ in order to compare. Otherwise, whatever traits slacs might have, the state supporter will always find some element in a state school that could potentially satisfied that element to some degree. Top slacs cost approximately $75,000 per year. There are reasons for their existence.

And I think people who went (or send their kids) to SLACs often fervently believe that their educational experiences are unique to SLACs. But seminars, accessible faculty, mentorship, liberal arts curricula, undergrad lab opportunities, attention to writing skills, etc. are all available at major research universities. One difference may be that students generally have to opt in to/seek out these things at universities whereas they are more of a default at LACs.

Personally, I agree with the PP who suggested looking at major universities with colleges in the 4-6K student range. They can be a best of both worlds scenario (lots of courses, many of them small; motivated student body with real diversity; faculty who are lifelong learners as well as teachers and who aren’t stuck teaching the same intro courses year after year).

Their might be similar courses at state schools and SLACs but that’s where the similarities end. The small class sizes and relationships built with professors (not some TA) at SLACs simply are unique. You’re also never goin to get real diversity at a state school given that 50%+ come from one geography and most states are pretty homogenous. LACs aren’t for every child but in my field I e had far greater success with their grads than state school grads.

And in my (non-STEM) field, some of the worst-educated students came from top 10 LACs. Those “unique” relationships with profs, coupled with a general atmosphere of grade inflation, means it’s pretty easy to BS your way through. Meanwhile, kids who aren’t inclined to do that are often placed in a situation where they aren’t exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view on their own field. They deal with one or two profs who, in turn, are teaching students who only know what they’ve learned in their own small department. One big plus of having grad students in the mix is there’s a continual influx of new blood and different perspectives into the department.

This doesn't really make sense. LACs actively encourage students to explore across disciplines. Students absolutely are "exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view". It might not be specialized to one specific field, but to me, that's a good thing. Get the specialization at work or in graduate school. At a LAC, the point is learning for its own sake.

If the honors program is significantly cheaper, definitely that, unless you want to go into something where name brand matters like finance in which the few LACs who are finance feeders can help you land a job

But top LACs give great financial aid. If they're equal (or sometimes, the LAC can be cheaper!), it's worth noting they attract a stronger, more diverse group of students, professors who are fully engaged with undergrads, and have considerably more resources to fund research, opportunities, internships, and whatnot. I believe Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams, and Pomona spend well over 100,000 dollars on each student per year due to how resource heavy they are (they have endowments larger than most universities even absolutely). So even the full pay students are getting a hefty chunk waived.

Here are some average net prices from a government website (https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/)

Pomona: $14908
Amherst: $18848
Davidson: $19981
Bowdoin: $19901
Vassar: $21858
Swarthmore: $21858
Middlebury: $23303
Williams: $23924

University of Virginia: $19430
UMD College Park: $15634
College of William and Mary: $18300
Virginia Tech; $20172

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think people on this thread who are dismissing slacs never really went to a slac or has a kid in a slac. You have to really know how slacs differ in order to compare. Otherwise, whatever traits slacs might have, the state supporter will always find some element in a state school that could potentially satisfied that element to some degree. Top slacs cost approximately $75,000 per year. There are reasons for their existence.

And I think people who went (or send their kids) to SLACs often fervently believe that their educational experiences are unique to SLACs. But seminars, accessible faculty, mentorship, liberal arts curricula, undergrad lab opportunities, attention to writing skills, etc. are all available at major research universities. One difference may be that students generally have to opt in to/seek out these things at universities whereas they are more of a default at LACs.

Personally, I agree with the PP who suggested looking at major universities with colleges in the 4-6K student range. They can be a best of both worlds scenario (lots of courses, many of them small; motivated student body with real diversity; faculty who are lifelong learners as well as teachers and who aren’t stuck teaching the same intro courses year after year).

Their might be similar courses at state schools and SLACs but that’s where the similarities end. The small class sizes and relationships built with professors (not some TA) at SLACs simply are unique. You’re also never goin to get real diversity at a state school given that 50%+ come from one geography and most states are pretty homogenous. LACs aren’t for every child but in my field I e had far greater success with their grads than state school grads.

And in my (non-STEM) field, some of the worst-educated students came from top 10 LACs. Those “unique” relationships with profs, coupled with a general atmosphere of grade inflation, means it’s pretty easy to BS your way through. Meanwhile, kids who aren’t inclined to do that are often placed in a situation where they aren’t exposed to a variety of different approaches, standards, points of view on their own field. They deal with one or two profs who, in turn, are teaching students who only know what they’ve learned in their own small department. One big plus of having grad students in the mix is there’s a continual influx of new blood and different perspectives into the department.

Obviously, Ivy grads will root for and pull one of their own.
State flagship grads will root for and pull one of their own. Community College grads will root for and pull one of their own. It doesn't mean slacs are only for the privileged few.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich people with kids who can afford to study anything in college regardless of[b] ROI (daddy's company has an opening for junior VP) = SLAC

Everyone else that is worried about getting a job and making a living-wage = STATE COLLEGE

I do not look at undergrad education as a ROI endeavor.

But YMMV.

Again, that is a sign of your privilege. Which is fine, but recognizing your privilege is important.

OP - again, you need to know your student. And I suggest you research state schools and slacs on your own to decide for yourself which schools better fit your kid. At my D's HS, most people opt for Ivys or state unis. Further research in Naviance, however, shows many indeed apply to SLACs - and in 95% cases, they are rejected. The reality is, most people are state unis or Ivy grads with occasional slac grads sprinkled here and there. Most people pull their own for obvious reasons. (I remember hearing Oxford and Cambridge grads don't do well. One story I hear was Oxford and Cambridge grads are few and far between. There aren't enough of them to pull for each other.)

Anonymous wrote:Rich people with kids who can afford to study anything in college regardless of[b] ROI (daddy's company has an opening for junior VP) = SLAC

Everyone else that is worried about getting a job and making a living-wage = STATE COLLEGE

I do not look at undergrad education as a ROI endeavor.

But YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think people on this thread who are dismissing slacs never really went to a slac or has a kid in a slac. You have to really know how slacs differ in order to compare. Otherwise, whatever traits slacs might have, the state supporter will always find some element in a state school that could potentially satisfied that element to some degree. Top slacs cost approximately $75,000 per year. There are reasons for their existence.

And I think people who went (or send their kids) to SLACs often fervently believe that their educational experiences are unique to SLACs. But seminars, accessible faculty, mentorship, liberal arts curricula, undergrad lab opportunities, attention to writing skills, etc. are all available at major research universities. One difference may be that students generally have to opt in to/seek out these things at universities whereas they are more of a default at LACs.

Personally, I agree with the PP who suggested looking at major universities with colleges in the 4-6K student range. They can be a best of both worlds scenario (lots of courses, many of them small; motivated student body with real diversity; faculty who are lifelong learners as well as teachers and who aren’t stuck teaching the same intro courses year after year).

Their might be similar courses at state schools and SLACs but that’s where the similarities end. The small class sizes and relationships built with professors (not some TA) at SLACs simply are unique. You’re also never goin to get real diversity at a state school given that 50%+ come from one geography and most states are pretty homogenous. LACs aren’t for every child but in my field I e had far greater success with their grads than state school grads.

Anonymous wrote: I think people on this thread who are dismissing slacs never really went to a slac or has a kid in a slac. You have to really know how slacs differ in order to compare. Otherwise, whatever traits slacs might have, the state supporter will always find some element in a state school that could potentially satisfied that element to some degree. Top slacs cost approximately $75,000 per year. There are reasons for their existence.

And I think people who went (or send their kids) to SLACs often fervently believe that their educational experiences are unique to SLACs. But seminars, accessible faculty, mentorship, liberal arts curricula, undergrad lab opportunities, attention to writing skills, etc. are all available at major research universities. One difference may be that students generally have to opt in to/seek out these things at universities whereas they are more of a default at LACs.

Personally, I agree with the PP who suggested looking at major universities with colleges in the 4-6K student range. They can be a best of both worlds scenario (lots of courses, many of them small; motivated student body with real diversity; faculty who are lifelong learners as well as teachers and who aren’t stuck teaching the same intro courses year after year).

In our organization which routinely hires new graduates the natural leaders and innovators are by far from the larger universities. They just seem more socially seasoned and savvy.

I think you really have to know your student first including what the student wants to study before you can decide. OP's question is too general. As an example, if the student is more a spectator who wants to hide out in a lecture hall, then a state uni would be a better option. Without additional info, it's hard to decide. A slac is not inherently better than a state uni outside the context of what the student is seeking and his or her learning personality.

Generally I have a bias in favor of a slac for various reasons e.g. smaller classes, access to profs, no TAs, tight-knit group of students living in a residential college, research and internship opportunities, alumni network, etc. There are some of the reasons why slacs exist. No state unis or even Ivys can replace slacs.

Anonymous wrote:Wondering about the long term outcomes of selecting a top 10 SLAC vs going to a highly regarded State Flagship Honors program.

I see benefits to both. My perception is on the SLAC side you have access to a social-economic networks and on the State Flagship side I see kids that are regarded as smart and hard working that likely didn't have the funds for the SLAC or the financials at the state school were too compelling.

In my life experience, both have the potential to be excellent employees although I will admit that the SLAC grad likely has an easier time getting his resume onto my desk.

From a life perspective, I wonder if the State school grad is not better grounded having not viewed the world from such a lofty perch and perhaps has developed more empathy.

I realize I am making generalizations and that all students are different but I do wonder about what is best for the student from both a career perspective but also from a life perspective.

This is not meant to be incendiary - just trying to think thru the pros-cons of both.

Please share your thoughts.

And I find the exact opposite. In our field, we look for students who are comfortable navigating large organizations and are also self-starters. At the risk of also generalizing, we've found the new hires from large colleges tend to need less "shepherding" through tasks.

I've been impressed by graduates of state schools. Many seem to go on to open up their own businesses. I feel like these kids tend to be more entrepreneurial because no one's giving them any breaks, while the top 10 college graduates are happy chasing recognition and reputation - working for a brand name consulting/banking/law firm, bragging about signing bonuses (but at the end of the day you're just working for someone else). By the way, I'm an Ivy League grad.