Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, I would not. if I haven’t heard of it, neither have most employers.

Ninety five percent of kids will do well at any college that has a major in their area of interest. This notion that fit is some concept that would eliminate tons of schools is nothing more than a marketing ploy for the lesser known schools.

Your second and third sentences seem totally contradictory to me. If 95% of kids will do well anywhere, why is it so important to go to a college future employers recognize?

Parents who are so focused on name brand schools strike me as lacking confidence in their own kids. How sad.

We just live in a the real world where an employer is going to give the kid that goes to Maryland or UVA or Dennison the interview over the kid from Green Mountain or Berry. The fact that people are willing to pay private school tuition for these schools is astounding. Kids would be better off with two years community college to get grades up and transferring to a school people have actually heard of.

This just isn't true. If you're a hiring manager who does this, you're doing it wrong.

DP THat's exactly how we do it at our firm. If you graduated from some no name college you'll never even get a first look.

Circling back to the OP’s question, I for one would not pay for my child to attend anything less than a top 20 ranked school. If he or she cannot get into a top 20 school, then he or she will go to the state university. Those of you who pay tens of thousands of dollars to send your children to second and third tier private colleges are insane, in my view. What a total waste of money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the schools you mentioned are Christian. Does your kid have a particular desire to attend a Christian SLAC? Not criticizing that choice, but it’s just a possible explanation.

These schools are “Christian” in the same way that Carleton, Grinnell, Elon, Boston University, and Emory are. Aka not really at all.

Berry definitely is religious. They talk about Christian principles in their mission statement. The others are affiliated with churches, but appear less religious in an impact on everyday life sense. But don’t kid yourself; if a school is affiliated with a religion it makes a difference.

- Jewish Georgetown grad who definitely felt the impact of Georgetown’s Catholic identity

I am a Carleton grad and disagree 100%.

You disagree with the poster’s experiences at Georgetown?

I am not this poster, but I do understand the point: Georgetown is not Carleton. Georgetown is a far more religious school than Carleton is now or ever was. The Georgetown poster is just plain wrong in extrapolating his or her experience at Catholic Georgetown to nominally Cristian affiliated small liberal arts colleges. There is simply no comparison. Many students attend small liberal arts colleges nominally affiliated with Christian church having no idea of the affiliation beforehand. Anyone who attends Georgetown not knowing it’s Catholic affiliation has not done the research.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, I would not. if I haven’t heard of it, neither have most employers.

Ninety five percent of kids will do well at any college that has a major in their area of interest. This notion that fit is some concept that would eliminate tons of schools is nothing more than a marketing ploy for the lesser known schools.

Your second and third sentences seem totally contradictory to me. If 95% of kids will do well anywhere, why is it so important to go to a college future employers recognize?

Parents who are so focused on name brand schools strike me as lacking confidence in their own kids. How sad.

We just live in a the real world where an employer is going to give the kid that goes to Maryland or UVA or Dennison the interview over the kid from Green Mountain or Berry. The fact that people are willing to pay private school tuition for these schools is astounding. Kids would be better off with two years community college to get grades up and transferring to a school people have actually heard of.

This just isn't true. If you're a hiring manager who does this, you're doing it wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, I would not. if I haven’t heard of it, neither have most employers.

Ninety five percent of kids will do well at any college that has a major in their area of interest. This notion that fit is some concept that would eliminate tons of schools is nothing more than a marketing ploy for the lesser known schools.

Your second and third sentences seem totally contradictory to me. If 95% of kids will do well anywhere, why is it so important to go to a college future employers recognize?

Parents who are so focused on name brand schools strike me as lacking confidence in their own kids. How sad.

We just live in a the real world where an employer is going to give the kid that goes to Maryland or UVA or Dennison the interview over the kid from Green Mountain or Berry. The fact that people are willing to pay private school tuition for these schools is astounding. Kids would be better off with two years community college to get grades up and transferring to a school people have actually heard of.

The idea that only struggling students go to these type of schools is not only wrong but insulting. My child was a Nat'l Merit scholar, magnet student with insane GPA, high SAT scores and tons of APs all of which were 5's. Yes, the tuition is high, but there were significant scholarships. For the majors my child is looking at, it was a good pick. DC wanted a smaller school and it has served them well. I was initially concerned with the choice, but DC knew what they needed and they were right.

My DD is focused on a field that many schools don't offer as a major, so that has her looking at several schools we never heard of. If it's the right school for what she wants we don't have any issues. If it were a common major, we'd probably send her to the best state school she could get into.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, I would not. if I haven’t heard of it, neither have most employers.

Ninety five percent of kids will do well at any college that has a major in their area of interest. This notion that fit is some concept that would eliminate tons of schools is nothing more than a marketing ploy for the lesser known schools.

Your second and third sentences seem totally contradictory to me. If 95% of kids will do well anywhere, why is it so important to go to a college future employers recognize?

Parents who are so focused on name brand schools strike me as lacking confidence in their own kids. How sad.

I’m a new poster on this thread, but it seems obvious to me that “doing well” in this context means “having a good experience at college” and the PP is correct that 95% of kids are not delicate little flowers who’ll wilt in anything less than the perfect environment.

I honestly feel like people falling all over themselves to defend these schools are either college administrators themselves, or are boomers who still have this romanticized view of a “liberal arts education” who haven’t grasped that it costs as much as a house to go to one of these places and most students/families just can’t afford to be so cavalier with that much money.

Maybe you haven't grasped that there are tons of people around here who can afford it. Many sent their kids to private high schools to boot. And as some other threads have made clear, some of these LACs offer very good finiancial aid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, I would not. if I haven’t heard of it, neither have most employers.

Ninety five percent of kids will do well at any college that has a major in their area of interest. This notion that fit is some concept that would eliminate tons of schools is nothing more than a marketing ploy for the lesser known schools.

Your second and third sentences seem totally contradictory to me. If 95% of kids will do well anywhere, why is it so important to go to a college future employers recognize?

Parents who are so focused on name brand schools strike me as lacking confidence in their own kids. How sad.

I’m a new poster on this thread, but it seems obvious to me that “doing well” in this context means “having a good experience at college” and the PP is correct that 95% of kids are not delicate little flowers who’ll wilt in anything less than the perfect environment.

I honestly feel like people falling all over themselves to defend these schools are either college administrators themselves, or are boomers who still have this romanticized view of a “liberal arts education” who haven’t grasped that it costs as much as a house to go to one of these places and most students/families just can’t afford to be so cavalier with that much money.

Anonymous wrote:No, I’m not talking Denison or Kenyon or Knox or St. John’s. My kid is interested in schools like Northland College, Green Mountain College, Berry College.

Sure, as long as I was sure s/he did their homework and it wasn't some fly-by-night operation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, I would not. if I haven’t heard of it, neither have most employers.

Ninety five percent of kids will do well at any college that has a major in their area of interest. This notion that fit is some concept that would eliminate tons of schools is nothing more than a marketing ploy for the lesser known schools.

Your second and third sentences seem totally contradictory to me. If 95% of kids will do well anywhere, why is it so important to go to a college future employers recognize?

Parents who are so focused on name brand schools strike me as lacking confidence in their own kids. How sad.

We just live in a the real world where an employer is going to give the kid that goes to Maryland or UVA or Dennison the interview over the kid from Green Mountain or Berry. The fact that people are willing to pay private school tuition for these schools is astounding. Kids would be better off with two years community college to get grades up and transferring to a school people have actually heard of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be devil’s advocate here, I went to one of the colleges a previous poster mentioned that are very highly ranked but relatively unknown to the general population, and at times it has been less than helpful with local employment. I have gotten jobs and admission to a graduate program partly on the strength of managers’ knowledge of this college, but local and less “big time” employers would definitely have been more impressed if they had seen University of Maryland on my resume.

As long as the student is planning on going to a large and well regarded grad school, this probably isn’t an issue.

Just curious, not attacking, but how do you know it’s been less than helpful?

Fair question. I have seen in my industry how strong the UMD alumni networks are in my area. Workplaces will be full of UMD graduates and people will know many colleagues in common from school. Coupled with the curious looks I get from colleagues when they ask where I went to college (“is that in Massschusetts? Is it a women’s college?” I have come to assume that a high status college may not help you outside of high status professions (law, medicine, academia).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the schools you mentioned are Christian. Does your kid have a particular desire to attend a Christian SLAC? Not criticizing that choice, but it’s just a possible explanation.

These schools are “Christian” in the same way that Carleton, Grinnell, Elon, Boston University, and Emory are. Aka not really at all.

Berry definitely is religious. They talk about Christian principles in their mission statement. The others are affiliated with churches, but appear less religious in an impact on everyday life sense. But don’t kid yourself; if a school is affiliated with a religion it makes a difference.

- Jewish Georgetown grad who definitely felt the impact of Georgetown’s Catholic identity

I am a Carleton grad and disagree 100%.

You disagree with the poster’s experiences at Georgetown?

Anonymous wrote:To be devil’s advocate here, I went to one of the colleges a previous poster mentioned that are very highly ranked but relatively unknown to the general population, and at times it has been less than helpful with local employment. I have gotten jobs and admission to a graduate program partly on the strength of managers’ knowledge of this college, but local and less “big time” employers would definitely have been more impressed if they had seen University of Maryland on my resume.

As long as the student is planning on going to a large and well regarded grad school, this probably isn’t an issue.

Just curious, not attacking, but how do you know it’s been less than helpful?

Anonymous wrote:Nope, I would not. if I haven’t heard of it, neither have most employers.

Ninety five percent of kids will do well at any college that has a major in their area of interest. This notion that fit is some concept that would eliminate tons of schools is nothing more than a marketing ploy for the lesser known schools.

Your second and third sentences seem totally contradictory to me. If 95% of kids will do well anywhere, why is it so important to go to a college future employers recognize?

Parents who are so focused on name brand schools strike me as lacking confidence in their own kids. How sad.

Who will pay for it? Depending on future career choice, what's the point of spending $$$ on a no-name SLAC when there are great and cheaper public schools?