Anonymous wrote:I’ll bite.
And will use this thread as an example.
I saw title and looked forward to reading it this quiet morning.
It is not an engaging discussion regarding the merits of differing educational models.
It has a derogatory, judgmental tone dare I say ignorant. For my kids, I want them to develop an open mind to discuss things they don’t understand - not close minded and derogatory in attacking things they don’t.
I have 3 kids - one in a SLAC mentioned in this thread, one at a State Flagship, and one applying this year.
My DS at the SLAC has benefited from a small, tight knit college environment. It is the right environment for him. And he a legitimate interest in learning, is very aware of world affairs, the political environment, and some of the underlying causes. He spends his time reading. He is growing into an informed young adult.
He is not primarily focused on securing employment. He has spend four years learning. And throughout history that has been the true luxury of the wealthy. And he gets it.
My DD at a state university is potentially pre-med. it’s a large school. Digesting material - not for the sake of learning - but to get through it while ensuring she maintains her 4.0. The goal is not an education - the education is a means to the end - med school admission. The level of intellectual curiosity is clearly different. Career paths are more pragmatic. Engineering, nursing, business. Grinding to get a degree to get employment. I realize that these students exist at a SLACs and there are gunners everywhere. And ironically I think the competition at the flagship is greater because the student body doesn’t have the luxury of assuming life is opportunity rich. But you can feel the difference. For my DD the flagship is the right environment - it fits her personality. But for my other two children, the SLACs are the way to go.
That all said I would say that the reason DCUM folks are obsessed with SLACs is that it is inherently a luxury product - high touch education - while socially signialling to peers, employers, etc. Want to go into Investment banking, Williams, Middlebury, Amherst are goin to signal that you went to the right day school an$ have the right family connections. U Pitt, Penn State, UVA, etc.not so much.
And last yes the SLACs like Denison, Hobart, etc.were historically were the gentlemen ‘c’ students went from prep school. They would not have survived at the flagships so their parents had the money to send them to a nurturing environment.
But that all said, folks are obsessed with SLACs because they are from a SES that understands the value.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A better question might be “Why are some people so obsessed with what others choose to do with their money”?
No clue. Ask OP.
If OP must know about my expenses, the small private college my kid is likely to end up at costs the same, after merit aid, as a popular in-state option. Yes it’s still a bit more than the flagship, but DCs stats are just under the typical accepted student from our area so that’s not likely to be an option anyway (plus it’s not really a good fit for my kid and price is the ONLY reason DC even applied, which when you have other affordable options is, IMO, almost as dumb as picking a school solely for the campus).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The earnings in that link don't look dismal. What are you seeing?
OP here, Grinnell’s average salary ten years out from graduation is around $77K which is quite concerning. Same thing with Skidmore and other selective, but not too selective, LACs.
I'm a teacher. That is close to my salary 10 years after starting (mine is $71K). Is that "quite concerning" to you? No? I didn't think so.
If my kid was smart enough to get into Grinnell and choose to become a teacher, yes, that is quite concerning
Don’t give this troll a second thought. I love it when people hide behind their anonymity on DCUM to say things they would never dare to in public -- because they are cowards, or people would think they are a degenerate, or both.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The earnings in that link don't look dismal. What are you seeing?
OP here, Grinnell’s average salary ten years out from graduation is around $77K which is quite concerning. Same thing with Skidmore and other selective, but not too selective, LACs.
I'm a teacher. That is close to my salary 10 years after starting (mine is $71K). Is that "quite concerning" to you? No? I didn't think so.
If my kid was smart enough to get into Grinnell and choose to become a teacher, yes, that is quite concerning
Anonymous wrote:I’ll bite.
And will use this thread as an example.
I saw title and looked forward to reading it this quiet morning.
It is not an engaging discussion regarding the merits of differing educational models.
It has a derogatory, judgmental tone dare I say ignorant. For my kids, I want them to develop an open mind to discuss things they don’t understand - not close minded and derogatory in attacking things they don’t.
I have 3 kids - one in a SLAC mentioned in this thread, one at a State Flagship, and one applying this year.
My DS at the SLAC has benefited from a small, tight knit college environment. It is the right environment for him. And he a legitimate interest in learning, is very aware of world affairs, the political environment, and some of the underlying causes. He spends his time reading. He is growing into an informed young adult.
He is not primarily focused on securing employment. He has spend four years learning. And throughout history that has been the true luxury of the wealthy. And he gets it.
My DD at a state university is potentially pre-med. it’s a large school. Digesting material - not for the sake of learning - but to get through it while ensuring she maintains her 4.0. The goal is not an education - the education is a means to the end - med school admission. The level of intellectual curiosity is clearly different. Career paths are more pragmatic. Engineering, nursing, business. Grinding to get a degree to get employment. I realize that these students exist at a SLACs and there are gunners everywhere. And ironically I think the competition at the flagship is greater because the student body doesn’t have the luxury of assuming life is opportunity rich. But you can feel the difference. For my DD the flagship is the right environment - it fits her personality. But for my other two children, the SLACs are the way to go.
That all said I would say that the reason DCUM folks are obsessed with SLACs is that it is inherently a luxury product - high touch education - while socially signialling to peers, employers, etc. Want to go into Investment banking, Williams, Middlebury, Amherst are goin to signal that you went to the right day school an$ have the right family connections. U Pitt, Penn State, UVA, etc.not so much.
And last yes the SLACs like Denison, Hobart, etc.were historically were the gentlemen ‘c’ students went from prep school. They would not have survived at the flagships so their parents had the money to send them to a nurturing environment.
But that all said, folks are obsessed with SLACs because they are from a SES that understands the value.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The earnings in that link don't look dismal. What are you seeing?
OP here, Grinnell’s average salary ten years out from graduation is around $77K which is quite concerning. Same thing with Skidmore and other selective, but not too selective, LACs.
I'm a teacher. That is close to my salary 10 years after starting (mine is $71K). Is that "quite concerning" to you? No? I didn't think so.
Anonymous wrote:I’ll bite.
And will use this thread as an example.
I saw title and looked forward to reading it this quiet morning.
It is not an engaging discussion regarding the merits of differing educational models.
It has a derogatory, judgmental tone dare I say ignorant. For my kids, I want them to develop an open mind to discuss things they don’t understand - not close minded and derogatory in attacking things they don’t.
I have 3 kids - one in a SLAC mentioned in this thread, one at a State Flagship, and one applying this year.
My DS at the SLAC has benefited from a small, tight knit college environment. It is the right environment for him. And he a legitimate interest in learning, is very aware of world affairs, the political environment, and some of the underlying causes. He spends his time reading. He is growing into an informed young adult.
He is not primarily focused on securing employment. He has spend four years learning. And throughout history that has been the true luxury of the wealthy. And he gets it.
My DD at a state university is potentially pre-med. it’s a large school. Digesting material - not for the sake of learning - but to get through it while ensuring she maintains her 4.0. The goal is not an education - the education is a means to the end - med school admission. The level of intellectual curiosity is clearly different. Career paths are more pragmatic. Engineering, nursing, business. Grinding to get a degree to get employment. I realize that these students exist at a SLACs and there are gunners everywhere. And ironically I think the competition at the flagship is greater because the student body doesn’t have the luxury of assuming life is opportunity rich. But you can feel the difference. For my DD the flagship is the right environment - it fits her personality. But for my other two children, the SLACs are the way to go.
That all said I would say that the reason DCUM folks are obsessed with SLACs is that it is inherently a luxury product - high touch education - while socially signialling to peers, employers, etc. Want to go into Investment banking, Williams, Middlebury, Amherst are goin to signal that you went to the right day school an$ have the right family connections. U Pitt, Penn State, UVA, etc.not so much.
And last yes the SLACs like Denison, Hobart, etc.were historically were the gentlemen ‘c’ students went from prep school. They would not have survived at the flagships so their parents had the money to send them to a nurturing environment.
But that all said, folks are obsessed with SLACs because they are from a SES that understands the value.
Anonymous wrote:My private school kid, who has worked hard but not done well, will likely only have SLACs as his choice. Already deferred at one state university and will likely get rejected from the other three he's applying to. Our local pressure cooker privates have a direct line to the SLACs for the bottom of the class kids who can't get into the large universities. For my kid with a severe executive function disorder, he would have a difficult time navigating a large state university anyway. Though I have no stress about him navigating life once he graduates. He's smarter than 99% of the world.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Have you seen the Williams campus? Skidmore? Lehigh? Denison?
+1
And mid-career earnings are more reflective of the reality that most LAC graduates go on to graduate or professional school.
My ‘18 graduate of one of the above three schools is making $102K. Not bad for a 24 year old.
Again, most grad students will be out of school at 32 (when this data was taken)
Anonymous wrote:Most graduates of SLACs have pretty dismal earnings compared to their Ivy/Public University peers. So why are SLACs throw around here so often? I see a lot of people recommend random schools like Grinnell but why would you send your kid there for a pretty hefty sum when they could go to a state flagship and be in either a better or similar position?
Source:
https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A better question might be “Why are some people so obsessed with what others choose to do with their money”?
No clue. Ask OP.