Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enrollment isn't down in the selective colleges, say T100-150.

However, there are hundreds of local and regional schools that are hemmoraging students. It will be a serious issue as these things ebb and flow, and having an educated populace is critical for an operational democracy.

This is what the GOP wants. Uneducated, dumb populace that lacks critical thinking skills. Not how some of the most repugnant politicans went to Ivy League schools. This is all a game to them.

No. I think people are realizing what a scam it can be in some situations. I think we have allowed higher ed to sell something people don't need in every situation. You don't need college to be a administrative assistant. Just look at how expensive it is to hire truly qualified trades people to work on your house. They have an advantage because so few people go into the trade

We need more vocational schools.

Yet I would not hire an administrative assitant without a 4 year college degree. Needed for the job at a law firm. Maybe not at a paper supply company but probably needed there too.

Why is this “needed”?

It's not needed but it's the only way to filter for a basic level of conscientiousness and literacy so it is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:10 again. It also feels like I'm being overly critical. All these schools offered interesting courses and had beautifully laid out campuses (no A/C in a lot of dorms though). I can't put my finger on WHY none of us were enthused. For us parents, perhaps it was the price sinking in. We'd rather pay just for the courses, you know? Seems like the manicured grounds, athletic complex and all the extras are weighing down the budget here DS was looking for small classes and a particular program, and he'd rather go to a less selective school that has that program than these beautiful SLACs, even if the classes are bigger. His preferred school is *even more expensive*, but since it's less selective, he's hoping for merit aid and the school did say that they offered some at his range of stats.


We really should be moving towards a European-style, subsidized post-secondary education, with just the academics, no frills. That way, more people will have the opportunity to receive a better education, and we might avoid election pitfalls such as our ongoing political saga.

As someone with one of these European educations you idealize, I really hope the US doesn’t go that way. I think it would be a terrible loss.

PP you replied to. I actually am European, and studied in my home country. I think it's a much more equitable system that delivers rigorous education to the most students for truly rock-bottom costs. However, it requires students to specialize early. There is no exploring in undergrad. And the facilities are bare-bones compared to lush American campuses. DS is American, and prefers to look at colleges here, Canada and possibly the UK (not my home country).

But if the point is to deliver a good education at low cost, then EU or Asian-style education is the way to go. You know, Christian Nationalism and political divisions are rising everywhere in the western hemisphere. I attribute its greater rise in the US to a much more unequal society. Access to a post-secondary education is part of the problem. And before that, a fragmented and often very low set of standards for K-12 is an even greater part of the problem. And before that, scraping the bottom of the barrel for adults with two neurons to rub together to teach K-12 is an even greater part of the problem. Unlike in certain other countries, the USA has very low quality education degrees, because it has difficulty recruiting top candidates who prefer to do other work. And now some states do not even require an education degree or teaching certificate to provide instruction to children. Education is the cornerstone of building independent and critical thinkers in a world that reacts faster than it can process news. The USA has to bring down the barriers to education at all levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

The best hiring managers know how to recognize actual talent, rather than rely on school reputations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:10 again. It also feels like I'm being overly critical. All these schools offered interesting courses and had beautifully laid out campuses (no A/C in a lot of dorms though). I can't put my finger on WHY none of us were enthused. For us parents, perhaps it was the price sinking in. We'd rather pay just for the courses, you know? Seems like the manicured grounds, athletic complex and all the extras are weighing down the budget here DS was looking for small classes and a particular program, and he'd rather go to a less selective school that has that program than these beautiful SLACs, even if the classes are bigger. His preferred school is *even more expensive*, but since it's less selective, he's hoping for merit aid and the school did say that they offered some at his range of stats.


We really should be moving towards a European-style, subsidized post-secondary education, with just the academics, no frills. That way, more people will have the opportunity to receive a better education, and we might avoid election pitfalls such as our ongoing political saga.

As someone with one of these European educations you idealize, I really hope the US doesn’t go that way. I think it would be a terrible loss.

PP you replied to. I actually am European, and studied in my home country. I think it's a much more equitable system that delivers rigorous education to the most students for truly rock-bottom costs. However, it requires students to specialize early. There is no exploring in undergrad. And the facilities are bare-bones compared to lush American campuses. DS is American, and prefers to look at colleges here, Canada and possibly the UK (not my home country).

But if the point is to deliver a good education at low cost, then EU or Asian-style education is the way to go. You know, Christian Nationalism and political divisions are rising everywhere in the western hemisphere. I attribute its greater rise in the US to a much more unequal society. Access to a post-secondary education is part of the problem. And before that, a fragmented and often very low set of standards for K-12 is an even greater part of the problem. And before that, scraping the bottom of the barrel for adults with two neurons to rub together to teach K-12 is an even greater part of the problem. Unlike in certain other countries, the USA has very low quality education degrees, because it has difficulty recruiting top candidates who prefer to do other work. And now some states do not even require an education degree or teaching certificate to provide instruction to children. Education is the cornerstone of building independent and critical thinkers in a world that reacts faster than it can process news. The USA has to bring down the barriers to education at all levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

A hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job absolutely does. They regard school pedigree as a proxy for qualifications and personal qualities. And let's face it, a new grad doesn't have a lot of "actual qualifications" they can demonstrate, so it's not completely wrong to sort by school prestige.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

So hiring managers care more about whether an applicant went to a brand name school than an individual's actual qualifications and personal qualities? Uh, okay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:10 again. It also feels like I'm being overly critical. All these schools offered interesting courses and had beautifully laid out campuses (no A/C in a lot of dorms though). I can't put my finger on WHY none of us were enthused. For us parents, perhaps it was the price sinking in. We'd rather pay just for the courses, you know? Seems like the manicured grounds, athletic complex and all the extras are weighing down the budget here DS was looking for small classes and a particular program, and he'd rather go to a less selective school that has that program than these beautiful SLACs, even if the classes are bigger. His preferred school is *even more expensive*, but since it's less selective, he's hoping for merit aid and the school did say that they offered some at his range of stats.


We really should be moving towards a European-style, subsidized post-secondary education, with just the academics, no frills. That way, more people will have the opportunity to receive a better education, and we might avoid election pitfalls such as our ongoing political saga.

As someone with one of these European educations you idealize, I really hope the US doesn’t go that way. I think it would be a terrible loss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prof here. College enrollments are set to drop off a cliff, but the elite schools will be just as hard to get in as ever. It's already a great time to get deals on lower-profile colleges, though. Your kid can get a fantastic and cheap(er) education at a smaller SLAC, and you can bargain for tuition breaks, too. Just apply to several and then pit them against each other. They are so desperate right now because they are tuition-dependent. Ask me how I know...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-shrinking-of-higher-ed

This is behind the paywall so I can't read it. But those "smaller SLACs with a tuition break" - what type of college are we talking about? I presume this is not the Amherst / Williams / Pomona highly selective college but is it a place you'd actually want your kid to attend?

Seriously? Folks roll their eyes when they hear of the "no name" SLAC I attended then occasionally say "I've never heard of that." From that college, which offered merit for this working class kid, I attended an Ivy for grad. No one there seemed super focused on where anyone went to undergrad.

Frankly, it is a little sad when someone cleaves onto their UG Ivy or Little Ivy degree decades later. You worked, had a family, etc, but you still need to invoke that UG degree for status.

I went to a school that has been T30 for the past 25+ years and still gets a lot of “never heard of it”

People truly aren’t too bright out there in the real world

You don't care what some average not-too-bright person in the real world thinks about it, you care what a hiring manager for a prestigious / rewarding / upwardly mobile job thinks about it. That hiring manager will have heard of Williams or Amherst, but if that manager has not heard of Bates or Carleton then that decision isn't going to go well if your kid went there and is competing against the "brand name" grads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enrollment isn't down in the selective colleges, say T100-150.

However, there are hundreds of local and regional schools that are hemmoraging students. It will be a serious issue as these things ebb and flow, and having an educated populace is critical for an operational democracy.

This is what the GOP wants. Uneducated, dumb populace that lacks critical thinking skills. Not how some of the most repugnant politicans went to Ivy League schools. This is all a game to them.

No. I think people are realizing what a scam it can be in some situations. I think we have allowed higher ed to sell something people don't need in every situation. You don't need college to be a administrative assistant. Just look at how expensive it is to hire truly qualified trades people to work on your house. They have an advantage because so few people go into the trade

We need more vocational schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:10 again. It also feels like I'm being overly critical. All these schools offered interesting courses and had beautifully laid out campuses (no A/C in a lot of dorms though). I can't put my finger on WHY none of us were enthused. For us parents, perhaps it was the price sinking in. We'd rather pay just for the courses, you know? Seems like the manicured grounds, athletic complex and all the extras are weighing down the budget here DS was looking for small classes and a particular program, and he'd rather go to a less selective school that has that program than these beautiful SLACs, even if the classes are bigger. His preferred school is *even more expensive*, but since it's less selective, he's hoping for merit aid and the school did say that they offered some at his range of stats.


We really should be moving towards a European-style, subsidized post-secondary education, with just the academics, no frills. That way, more people will have the opportunity to receive a better education, and we might avoid election pitfalls such as our ongoing political saga.

As someone with one of these European educations you idealize, I really hope the US doesn’t go that way. I think it would be a terrible loss.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, this has nothing to do with most kids whose parents post on DCUM. It's the kid as second level state schools that dropped out when they found tuition rising and they got a 50K job without a college degree with promotion potential. It's not a terrible thing but it doesn't change much for the strivers in the DMV.