Is there a four year college that doesn't change lives ?

The book CTCL is really just a marketing tool highlighting what initially--in 1996--were relatively unknown small schools. CTCL is a feel good marketing organization. Nothing wrong with this approach at selling schools. But these are not miracle schools. In fact, most have to offer substantial scholarship grants in order to attract students. Nothing wrong with this either. But how many return and stay to graduate and how do these small schools do with respect to internships and job placement in one's desired field ?

For folks wanting a little more texture, here is what I've got:

Bard: Great for arts, but don't expect that your DC will be excused from keeping up with their other classes when in production. Some like that it is close to but not in NYC, though not as easy to get to the city as it is from Marist/Vassar.
Beloit: Can't say much other than a HS friend attended, loved it, and remained in the area after college. DC has a camp friend there who also loves it. Wanted a school outside the east coast.
Denison: Know the president from one of their prior posts. School really lucky to have him on board - very talented. Good endowment, good location. Possibly a little preppy for some, but that emphasis may not be as great in coming years.
Earlham: Have never been on site, but every grad I know is smart, rigorous, and employed in a range of fields, from Big Law to investigative journalism.
Kalamazoo: Unlike some of the schools here in more rural locales, the college is based in a medium-sized town in Midwest on an Amtrak line running between Chicago and Detroit. It's a college town with a regional university. Lots of health care/pharma, so not surprising that students go onto med school and grad research in STEM fields. And they seem to have a knack for turning out artists and actors.
Kenyon: Not sure this is CTCL. Good merit, great writing program, and attractive to kids who want rigor yet not on East coast.
Lawrence: Have not been but a couple posters here have been quite complimentary of their programs. HS friend attended and loved it.
Reed: Our DC was intrigued, but a little worried about the drug rap. Good friend's son is now there and loves it, largely because they love to go deep in their interests and sounds like profs respect and dig that in their students. Friend says it doesn't sound like there are any more drugs there than at other schools.
St Olaf: Former colleague attended along with all their siblings though not from Minnesota. All were devoted Oles!
Puget Sound: Another friend's daughter just graduated. She is fairly hippy-ish, so I was surprised to read the description in this thread as they loved it.
Whitman: Smart, sharp colleague from PNW attended. Now working at a senior level in diplomatic circles.
Willamette: IDK anyone who has attended, but a great prof I had in college took a post there and recently retired. She was amazing, loved her!

Wish I had more, but HTH.

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.

+1

Congratulations to your daughter!

There is a SCOTUS judge who graduated from a CTCL school. She must have been an underachieving child of affluent parents.

She’s a Justice, not a Judge, and she’s a lunatic. Is that the best you can do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the quibble. We now have a poster who is so proud to have a kid clerking for a federal judge who happened to graduate from one school happens to be included in some decades-old silly book. That the school happened to be in the book has nothing to do with anything, and you can’t generalize and say that that kid would have been just as successfully had they gone to ANY other school in the silly book.

It’s like me saying that because the University of Vermont or Miami of Ohio once appeared in a book on so-called “Public Ivies” that they’re peers of UVA, Berkeley and Michigan. They’re clearly not.

So then don’t read the thread and spare your blood pressure, which is clearly through the roof. Obviously some people find value in the list. You don’t. That is okay. I realize this is a shock to you but people don’t think exactly like you on all topics.

Weak.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the main attraction for many to CTCL schools may be merit scholarship awards for above average--as opposed to superior--students.

A concern might be internship & employment opportunities.

The low interest rates of a couple of years ago helped some of these schools to raise their financial ratings along with cost-cutting of low enrollment majors & streamlining administrative payrolls.

Again, would be wise to check retention rates (percent of students who return for the sophomore year) and 6 year graduation rates for any school--not just CTCL schools--of interest.

Superior students may also fall into the "donut hole" category. Simply because they are superior doesn't mean the $ spigots open at non-merit schools.

You misunderstood my point & I was not as clear as I should have been. Superior students can get merit scholarships at better schools and can automatically qualify for substantial merit scholarship awards at several state flagship universities and their respective honors colleges.

Schools like Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin, etc do not give merit scholarships. Period. You get need based aid, or pay full price. If a superior student can't afford 80k/year, they go down the list and find the best schools that will give them merit aid such as Denison and some of the other CTCL schools mentioned here. You will find superior students at that level.

Williams, Amherst, & Bowdoin are a totally different class of schools than those written about in CTCL.

That is my point. The poster I was responding to was saying that the superior students could get merit at better schools than CTLCs. The better schools don't actually give merit aid.

You are confusing the word "better" with "best". The best schools may not award merit scholarships, but many better schools do.

What schools are you referring to?

My superior student goes to Denison with $$$ merit aid. 1580 SAT, 4.0 UW GPA. 9 APs, varsity sport. There are lots of similarly qualified students there.

I suspect that PP will not answer your question. Or will try to move the goal post on what defines a "superior" student.

Hope your DC is enjoying Denison. What do they think of the Greek scene? That was a thumb on the "no" scale for my DC and not much we could do about that.

DC loves it and is doing well academically and otherwise. Not involved in the Greek scene at all, but seems to have an active social life and a tight-knit group of friends.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

D.e.n.i.s.o.n.

DeNison.

Regardless of whether you spell it with one or two n's, it has far surpassed Reed.

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?

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.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

D.e.n.i.s.o.n.

DeNison.

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: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.

+1

Congratulations to your daughter!

There is a SCOTUS judge who graduated from a CTCL school. She must have been an underachieving child of affluent parents.

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?

NP with no dog in this fight (...yet at least, kids are still a few years away from college applications) but based on my general reading of this forum your characterization of CTCL boosters is pretty far off. There might be one or two who take this approach, but most are just open to a broader range of considerations than prestige (i.e., looking beyond just the "top X" schools) and recognize that not all school environments are right fits for all students. As for myself, I think top privates, UVA, and CTCL schools will all be in the mix of consideration for my kids when it comes to apply.

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?

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.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Dennison and Hillsdale are better than Reid these days.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the quibble. We now have a poster who is so proud to have a kid clerking for a federal judge who happened to graduate from one school happens to be included in some decades-old silly book. That the school happened to be in the book has nothing to do with anything, and you can’t generalize and say that that kid would have been just as successfully had they gone to ANY other school in the silly book.

It’s like me saying that because the University of Vermont or Miami of Ohio once appeared in a book on so-called “Public Ivies” that they’re peers of UVA, Berkeley and Michigan. They’re clearly not.

So then don’t read the thread and spare your blood pressure, which is clearly through the roof. Obviously some people find value in the list. You don’t. That is okay. I realize this is a shock to you but people don’t think exactly like you on all topics.

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?

That is not a thing that has happened.

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.

I have a lot of respect for top tier liberal arts colleges. My kid attended one. Other than Reed, none of the liberal arts colleges in the book come close.

Here’s the quibble. We now have a poster who is so proud to have a kid clerking for a federal judge who happened to graduate from one school happens to be included in some decades-old silly book. That the school happened to be in the book has nothing to do with anything, and you can’t generalize and say that that kid would have been just as successfully had they gone to ANY other school in the silly book.

It’s like me saying that because the University of Vermont or Miami of Ohio once appeared in a book on so-called “Public Ivies” that they’re peers of UVA, Berkeley and Michigan. They’re clearly not.