Anonymous wrote:LAC boosters either have an inferiority complex or looking for justification for spending $360,000 for a bachelor's degree for a school 50% of the public isn't familiar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - my DH is insisting that Georgetown is a better school in all respects than Amherst. I am sort of surprised by that type of statement, but this is an example of how some people feel about LACs that I just don't understand.

DC chose Amherst over Georgetown and is very happy about his decision. With that said, it was a difficult decision, and he likes many things about Georgetown. I don't see why people need to be so hateful.

This is great to read. My daughter has decided on Amherst over Cornell and UVA and we’re hoping for the best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Because reality is more complex than these simplistic, ignorant takes and anecdotes.

You talk about TAs, but the reality in modern universities is that lecturers, instructors, and adjuncts handle a lot of the entry level teaching. These people are well-qualified and have as much incentive as a LAC professor to focus on teaching. But notice how they never get mentioned, because the people here are ignorant and didn’t have these types of teaching staff when they were in college 30 years ago. And 300 and 400 level courses (and even some 200, especially for honors versions of courses) are mostly taught by professors.

Reality is that teaching is more of a focus at LACs, but plenty of professors check out after getting tenure or hang around too long and become dinosaurs.

Reality is that your teaching-focused professor is less well-known and regarded in his/her field, so their recommendation will carry less weight than someone top of their field.

Reality is that you can’t both talk about how great LACs are for going on and getting PhDs and how they aren’t as pre-professional and then claim that their alumni networks are as or even more valuable, or jump to the defense of their engineering and CS programs.

There are pros and cons to all types of universities. It’s weird to imply that it’s all pros, or somehow objectively the best.

I want to address your points because you’re omitting a lot of details. Temporary staff (adjuncts, instructors, lecturers) are not paid enough to care about your student. It’s just the truth that someone making 6k per unit and often has multiple jobs stretched across more than 1 institution is going to struggle to prioritize your child.
Then, you say that professors just “check out” after getting tenure. But a majority of LAC staff and university staff in general are on tenure track. It’s not like tenured staff are a majority of any department, but also, you then say you have professors in your upper division courses at Universities, but why arent those people checked out?
You have a prestige issue? REUs, and also, you get a stronger LOR from a professor who knows you well and can actually measure your aptitude than a flashy researcher (who btw is some tenured dinosaur according to you) who likely has been teaching at least 300+ students that semester alone. Don’t really get your last point. You can get a job without making it a part of your culture- that’s true of universities too.

This still just demonstrates ignorance. First, instructors and lecturers are full-time paid teaching staff, for many of them it is their full-time job and they are salaried. Your description is only of adjuncts. But even then, the important thing is that they teach well, not that they “care about your student” or “prioritize your child” because they are college level teaching staff, not babysitters.

I didn’t say professors all check out with regard to teaching after getting tenure, I said “plenty” of them do, and yes that applies across institutions, LACs included (and research ones too! See, it’s possible to see and admit negatives!).

Regarding the flashy researcher comment, again, there is no basis for saying the professor cannot “know your kid well” if your kid is in his/her class for their major, which likely has fewer than 30 or maybe even 20 kids (not 300+ per semester, that made me lol in its absurdity, we aren’t talking about intro classes). Also, make up your mind, do the professors teach or do they not?

I could go on, but I really don’t need to.

DD has a full time instructor at her lac, and they’re unable to invest in the department the same as other profs, because they don’t make as much as the others- they also have fewer office hours than other profs and generally engage less. It is overall nicer to take classes with professors who can be your advisor, have labs, and can recommend you to programs/grad schools- I hope we do not disagree on this. I also don’t see why there’s so much grace to the teaching quality of instructors and so little to long-term faculty in your comment. I’m asking YOU to make up your mind- if professors are not quality teachers, your point makes more sense, but I’d like to see where you get that impression.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Because reality is more complex than these simplistic, ignorant takes and anecdotes.

You talk about TAs, but the reality in modern universities is that lecturers, instructors, and adjuncts handle a lot of the entry level teaching. These people are well-qualified and have as much incentive as a LAC professor to focus on teaching. But notice how they never get mentioned, because the people here are ignorant and didn’t have these types of teaching staff when they were in college 30 years ago. And 300 and 400 level courses (and even some 200, especially for honors versions of courses) are mostly taught by professors.

Reality is that teaching is more of a focus at LACs, but plenty of professors check out after getting tenure or hang around too long and become dinosaurs.

Reality is that your teaching-focused professor is less well-known and regarded in his/her field, so their recommendation will carry less weight than someone top of their field.

Reality is that you can’t both talk about how great LACs are for going on and getting PhDs and how they aren’t as pre-professional and then claim that their alumni networks are as or even more valuable, or jump to the defense of their engineering and CS programs.

There are pros and cons to all types of universities. It’s weird to imply that it’s all pros, or somehow objectively the best.

I want to address your points because you’re omitting a lot of details. Temporary staff (adjuncts, instructors, lecturers) are not paid enough to care about your student. It’s just the truth that someone making 6k per unit and often has multiple jobs stretched across more than 1 institution is going to struggle to prioritize your child.
Then, you say that professors just “check out” after getting tenure. But a majority of LAC staff and university staff in general are on tenure track. It’s not like tenured staff are a majority of any department, but also, you then say you have professors in your upper division courses at Universities, but why arent those people checked out?
You have a prestige issue? REUs, and also, you get a stronger LOR from a professor who knows you well and can actually measure your aptitude than a flashy researcher (who btw is some tenured dinosaur according to you) who likely has been teaching at least 300+ students that semester alone. Don’t really get your last point. You can get a job without making it a part of your culture- that’s true of universities too.

This still just demonstrates ignorance. First, instructors and lecturers are full-time paid teaching staff, for many of them it is their full-time job and they are salaried. Your description is only of adjuncts. But even then, the important thing is that they teach well, not that they “care about your student” or “prioritize your child” because they are college level teaching staff, not babysitters.

I didn’t say professors all check out with regard to teaching after getting tenure, I said “plenty” of them do, and yes that applies across institutions, LACs included (and research ones too! See, it’s possible to see and admit negatives!).

Regarding the flashy researcher comment, again, there is no basis for saying the professor cannot “know your kid well” if your kid is in his/her class for their major, which likely has fewer than 30 or maybe even 20 kids (not 300+ per semester, that made me lol in its absurdity, we aren’t talking about intro classes). Also, make up your mind, do the professors teach or do they not?

I could go on, but I really don’t need to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Because reality is more complex than these simplistic, ignorant takes and anecdotes.

You talk about TAs, but the reality in modern universities is that lecturers, instructors, and adjuncts handle a lot of the entry level teaching. These people are well-qualified and have as much incentive as a LAC professor to focus on teaching. But notice how they never get mentioned, because the people here are ignorant and didn’t have these types of teaching staff when they were in college 30 years ago. And 300 and 400 level courses (and even some 200, especially for honors versions of courses) are mostly taught by professors.

Reality is that teaching is more of a focus at LACs, but plenty of professors check out after getting tenure or hang around too long and become dinosaurs.

Reality is that your teaching-focused professor is less well-known and regarded in his/her field, so their recommendation will carry less weight than someone top of their field.

Reality is that you can’t both talk about how great LACs are for going on and getting PhDs and how they aren’t as pre-professional and then claim that their alumni networks are as or even more valuable, or jump to the defense of their engineering and CS programs.

There are pros and cons to all types of universities. It’s weird to imply that it’s all pros, or somehow objectively the best.

I want to address your points because you’re omitting a lot of details. Temporary staff (adjuncts, instructors, lecturers) are not paid enough to care about your student. It’s just the truth that someone making 6k per unit and often has multiple jobs stretched across more than 1 institution is going to struggle to prioritize your child.
Then, you say that professors just “check out” after getting tenure. But a majority of LAC staff and university staff in general are on tenure track. It’s not like tenured staff are a majority of any department, but also, you then say you have professors in your upper division courses at Universities, but why arent those people checked out?
You have a prestige issue? REUs, and also, you get a stronger LOR from a professor who knows you well and can actually measure your aptitude than a flashy researcher (who btw is some tenured dinosaur according to you) who likely has been teaching at least 300+ students that semester alone. Don’t really get your last point. You can get a job without making it a part of your culture- that’s true of universities too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Because reality is more complex than these simplistic, ignorant takes and anecdotes.

You talk about TAs, but the reality in modern universities is that lecturers, instructors, and adjuncts handle a lot of the entry level teaching. These people are well-qualified and have as much incentive as a LAC professor to focus on teaching. But notice how they never get mentioned, because the people here are ignorant and didn’t have these types of teaching staff when they were in college 30 years ago. And 300 and 400 level courses (and even some 200, especially for honors versions of courses) are mostly taught by professors.

Reality is that teaching is more of a focus at LACs, but plenty of professors check out after getting tenure or hang around too long and become dinosaurs.

Reality is that your teaching-focused professor is less well-known and regarded in his/her field, so their recommendation will carry less weight than someone top of their field.

Reality is that you can’t both talk about how great LACs are for going on and getting PhDs and how they aren’t as pre-professional and then claim that their alumni networks are as or even more valuable, or jump to the defense of their engineering and CS programs.

There are pros and cons to all types of universities. It’s weird to imply that it’s all pros, or somehow objectively the best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

+1

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the SLAC haters.

The poster who points out that the UCs have huge classes and alot of TA's gets flack.
Another poster hops in and say "I was a TA and I wasn't qualified to be teaching gets ignored
Still another R1 alum weighs in saying "I was there and they are correct"

but everyone is lying, they "know better".

You went to HYPSM and point out that your family has lived all three models and understand the differences.....you're a huckster!
Others hop in to support you.....crickets or snark is the response.

They are the believers of "don't believe what you are seeing I'm telling you it's not true"

It's not surprising that we are where we are when so many are comfortable with their ignorance in the face of reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

NP. This is an odd take. Why would you think people who choose LACs are ignorant? I went to HYPSM, spouse went to a large top public. We very happily sent our kid to a top LAC where they are getting a much better undergrad experience than we did.

So, no, I don't think we're ignorant, we know exactly what we're doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually look down on SLACs as playgrounds for private school kids who can't handle larger schools. I'd take a top Big Ten school over a SLAC any day. If you're really all that, go to Michigan and prove yourself.

My favorite DCUM LAC post was when someone unironically referred to Pomona as a "major school" in Southern California. Pomona is smaller than most high schools, and there are likely 100 colleges in Southern California with more students. It's barely a blip on the academic radar, though it does punch well above its weight on the pretentiousness scale.

I went to a big school. It's so much easier to skate by. No one notices if you skip class, the average intellectualism is lower. At a SLAC there's no where to hide. Need to show up and contribute to all your classes at a much higher level.

NP

LOL ! The LAC hucksters never quit !

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is at one and chose it over Brown. I have yet to run into anyone in real life who looks down on her choice, and she's doing just fine.

My dd made the same choice - a WASP school over Brown. Honestly, she didn't care what others thought, though there were many who were shocked she didn't go to an Ivy League school. But then we are at a pretty much Ivy+ or bust mentality HS.

Our Val last year chose Williams over Stanford, UCB, and an Ivy. It caused 'talk' because she is Asian.

Our valedictorian last year also chose Williams over several ivies, coming from a famous boarding school - so it was also a bit scandalous. I hope they’ve met each other (I suspect they have).

LACs are great for one who wishes to continue the elite New England boarding school experience as it allows high school athletes to continue in their role as big man on campus while continuing with one or two D III sports such as soccer or lacrosse.

Those asserting that it is easy to "skate by" at a top 50 National University are full of BS. Yes, there is little hand-holding at National Universities when compared to LACs or boarding schools, but the teaching & expectations at National Universities is/are outstanding. Private National Universities tend to have smaller classes than do public National Universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose a WASP school over Northwestern back in the day. Northwestern wasn’t the same T-10 school it is now. I’d make the same decision even today.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

Anonymous wrote:Why people look down on T5 lacs? It seems the majority of kids (and parents) desire T20 university.