Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several years ago my daughter applied to 3 or 4 CTCL schools (all in the midwest) and 3 top 20 schools. At the end, she was debating between Northwestern and a CTCL school. She chose the CTCL school. She liked the vibe, class sizes and teaching focus at the CTCL school. Plus, they offered a significant amount of merit aid. The money she had left over in the 529 made it much easier to go to law school. Currently, she is clerking for a federal judge.

This is going to infuriate the CTCL obsessive hater. She might try to track down current clerks of all federal district and appellate court judges to try to find her, as a warning.

Congratulations to your daughter. That is an accomplishment.

Meh. Depends on the judge and the court. Some are much more “tremendous” and harder to get than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I'm so confused. Some poster cries out, consistently, that CTCL grads don't land jobs or need to go to grad school to do so. Then someone points out that a lot of players on one sports team now work at large corporations - what many parents would say is a good ROI - and that's damning.”

I’m a CTCL grad (Lawrence - great education and the merit aid made a difference). My classmates do really awesome things that are incredibly important for our culture and society. Like run zoos and museums (and be zookeepers and museum curators). Like teach music and direct high school bands and be school principals. Like be professional musicians (from opera singers to jazz musicians to world class orchestra members). Like be your child’s college professor who is going to give them research opportunities and write great recommendations to get them into grad school. Like serve as the only family practice physician in a rural area.

And, yeah, they don’t get paid much, especially in DCUM land. But you know what? They’re happy, productive members of society. Often times, they are the people that a community relies upon to run the PTA and volunteer at the church. So when Negative CTCL Nelly comes on here, I just shrug. We all pretty content with our school choice.

Running the PTA? If that’s what CTCL graduates do, all the more reason to avoid those schools.

Anonymous wrote:“I'm so confused. Some poster cries out, consistently, that CTCL grads don't land jobs or need to go to grad school to do so. Then someone points out that a lot of players on one sports team now work at large corporations - what many parents would say is a good ROI - and that's damning.”

I’m a CTCL grad (Lawrence - great education and the merit aid made a difference). My classmates do really awesome things that are incredibly important for our culture and society. Like run zoos and museums (and be zookeepers and museum curators). Like teach music and direct high school bands and be school principals. Like be professional musicians (from opera singers to jazz musicians to world class orchestra members). Like be your child’s college professor who is going to give them research opportunities and write great recommendations to get them into grad school. Like serve as the only family practice physician in a rural area.

And, yeah, they don’t get paid much, especially in DCUM land. But you know what? They’re happy, productive members of society. Often times, they are the people that a community relies upon to run the PTA and volunteer at the church. So when Negative CTCL Nelly comes on here, I just shrug. We all pretty content with our school choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several years ago my daughter applied to 3 or 4 CTCL schools (all in the midwest) and 3 top 20 schools. At the end, she was debating between Northwestern and a CTCL school. She chose the CTCL school. She liked the vibe, class sizes and teaching focus at the CTCL school. Plus, they offered a significant amount of merit aid. The money she had left over in the 529 made it much easier to go to law school. Currently, she is clerking for a federal judge.

This is going to infuriate the CTCL obsessive hater. She might try to track down current clerks of all federal district and appellate court judges to try to find her, as a warning.

Congratulations to your daughter. That is an accomplishment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

You are crazier than I thought. I’m fascinated by your angry imaginary world.

It is intriguing that someone who has such disdain for these schools and clearly has DCs who would never attend schools that are not "better" or "best" even bothers to read/post in this thread. Seems that even clicking on the link would compromise their highly held standards.

I think she has an alert set on the phrase, no kidding. You can mention it in a thread that’s entirely unrelated and she shows up. Yes, it is weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

You are crazier than I thought. I’m fascinated by your angry imaginary world.

It is intriguing that someone who has such disdain for these schools and clearly has DCs who would never attend schools that are not "better" or "best" even bothers to read/post in this thread. Seems that even clicking on the link would compromise their highly held standards.

Anonymous wrote:“I'm so confused. Some poster cries out, consistently, that CTCL grads don't land jobs or need to go to grad school to do so. Then someone points out that a lot of players on one sports team now work at large corporations - what many parents would say is a good ROI - and that's damning.”

I’m a CTCL grad (Lawrence - great education and the merit aid made a difference). My classmates do really awesome things that are incredibly important for our culture and society. Like run zoos and museums (and be zookeepers and museum curators). Like teach music and direct high school bands and be school principals. Like be professional musicians (from opera singers to jazz musicians to world class orchestra members). Like be your child’s college professor who is going to give them research opportunities and write great recommendations to get them into grad school. Like serve as the only family practice physician in a rural area.

And, yeah, they don’t get paid much, especially in DCUM land. But you know what? They’re happy, productive members of society. Often times, they are the people that a community relies upon to run the PTA and volunteer at the church. So when Negative CTCL Nelly comes on here, I just shrug. We all pretty content with our school choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

No. This is disordered thinking on your part. Every school, as another poster said, has advantages and disadvantages. It's not me "bashing" a state school when I say DD would be lost in a large environment, or, in the case of St Mary's, I'm worried it might be too local. It's not me "bashing" a top ten school when I say: 1.) Dd wouldn't get in, 2.) We can't afford it and they dont give merit, or even 3.) I don't think my child or my family has the temperament or patience to deal with the fanbase those schools attract, the kind of competitive students who actually care that the school is ranked 7 or whatever.

So you don't like small liberal arts colleges. That's okay. You've pretty much humiliated yourself by proving your ignorance on the topic. Maybe take the loss and move on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

You are crazier than I thought. I’m fascinated by your angry imaginary world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several years ago my daughter applied to 3 or 4 CTCL schools (all in the midwest) and 3 top 20 schools. At the end, she was debating between Northwestern and a CTCL school. She chose the CTCL school. She liked the vibe, class sizes and teaching focus at the CTCL school. Plus, they offered a significant amount of merit aid. The money she had left over in the 529 made it much easier to go to law school. Currently, she is clerking for a federal judge.

Why can’t you just name the school already? That’s what I find so annoying about this whole thing. Was your kid choosing between, say, Evergreen State and Northwestern or Reed and Northwestern? There’s a huge difference between those two schools. To group all of these schools together and suggest that they are all so special and unique and interchangeable that you don’t even have to name the school is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main attraction for CTCL schools is parents and kids who do not have the goods for the top goals, but somehow think they are too good for state schools, so they fall for the hype that the book generates.

I honestly hope I never, ever become the kind of person who would feel good posting something like this, and I have no CTCL connection whatsoever.

PP ain't wrong though.

How are they right? What are some examples of where this person is right?

From what I can tell, there are one or two posters who've been great about analyzing some of the allegations with data and providing links for the rest of us here to read (e.g., affluence, retention, etc). Then there is one (or more according to some posters) who makes charges, but never cycles back to answer questions or provide links to their claims. For example, there are "better" schools than CTCLs providing merit but never answers what those better schools are.

In a related vein, college admissions nearly always involves trade-offs. A prime example is the need for students to draw up lists of reaches, targets, and safeties for a range of reasons, including academic and financial. Not every student is full pay. Not every student wants to attend their state flagship, possibly because they know that setting might not be the best for their temperment and learning style. Alas, one (possibly more) poster here is adamant that these students are always the spawn of affluent families who want to protect their child from the perceived horrors of public schools.

Mystifies me why these folks care - it's not their kid, they are not being asked to pay for these choices, so why are they bothered about a group of schools that a NYT reporter wrote about in a book nearly thirty years ago?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The CTCL boosters always bash state schools and top private schools, so what’s the difference? You’re allowed to hate, so I can’t we?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several years ago my daughter applied to 3 or 4 CTCL schools (all in the midwest) and 3 top 20 schools. At the end, she was debating between Northwestern and a CTCL school. She chose the CTCL school. She liked the vibe, class sizes and teaching focus at the CTCL school. Plus, they offered a significant amount of merit aid. The money she had left over in the 529 made it much easier to go to law school. Currently, she is clerking for a federal judge.

Why can’t you just name the school already? That’s what I find so annoying about this whole thing. Was your kid choosing between, say, Evergreen State and Northwestern or Reed and Northwestern? There’s a huge difference between those two schools. To group all of these schools together and suggest that they are all so special and unique and interchangeable that you don’t even have to name the school is ridiculous.