Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are kids even applying to SLACS then?

Colgate had something like 22000 applicants this year. A few years ago it was 9000.

Why are kids applying to 10+ schools period? They are casting a wide net.

There are plenty of large universities to cast a wide net without applying to SLACS. So why are kids still applying to SLACS?

If you asked my DC who just applied to 20 schools all over the map he would say:

For variety
For fun
Because I can

Maybe he does not understand the point of the process. Or does not know himself?

The "point of the process," one is led to believe, it to find a school, or group of schools, that will admit a student, and then pick one. It's not that complicated. He's not getting into Harvard, but also think that he can excel at a school beyond community college.

What 17-year-old boy really knows himself?

My response to you, and to PP who states that he still has time to pick up wisdom - is to say -- the system is set up for this. Once a student has slaved over a common app, what problem is it to push a button for a few more submits, especially when there is no application fee, as there is in a large number of these schools, both state universities and SLACs? Oh sure, he had to write a few more supplement essays, but those are largely cut and paste projects as well.

And voila - before he knows it, student ends up with applications submitted to 20 different schools - SLACs, large universities, smaller colleges - whatever you want. My DC ended up with a nice choice to pick from.

Creating more work for other people, applying to schools he’a not really interested in, would never really consider going to, and possibly taking away slots that one of his classmates might have received. I’m sure you don’t see it that way, you are teaching him that his own self is the most important thing, but not all of us have that worldview.

You’re absolutely right. I don’t see it that way at all.

I hope that the OP is right - it will help my son when he's applying to SLACs in two years! My other son is at a NESCAC and loves it. He figured he was likely to spend the rest of his life in a city and he wanted to spend his weekends hiking, kayaking, skiing, etc. and his class time is small discussion-based classes not large lecture halls. Not everyone cares about big football games and not everyone at a SLAC spends their weekends drinking. I really don't understand DCUM's obsession (and it truly is an obsession) with where kids chose to go to school. Are adults really so insecure that they have to question decisions made by teenagers and their parents? My son and his friends celebrated every single one of each other's college decisions - big state schools, SLACs, Ivy, urban, rural, Catholic, non-denomination, co-ed, women's colleges - they were happy for each other. Some of his friends had to make their decisions based on cost, others made it based on their intended major. But none of them questioned each other and none of us parents questioned their parents why they were sending their kids to these school.

Anonymous wrote:I hope my kid applies to and attends a SLAC, for many reasons. As a PP said, they have their whole lives to live in a city, including graduate school.

Bravo! Well said! What is the hurry, right?

Anonymous wrote:Regular Decision Yields (% of students admitted RD who choose to attend) of top 5 SLACs:

Pomona- 43.4%
Williams- 39%
Wellesley- 31.8%
Amherst- 29.7%
Swarthmore- 28.2%

Regular Decision Yields (% of students admitted RD who choose to attend) of selected top universities:

Dartmouth- 51.7%
Brown- 46.5%
Carnegie Mellon- 33.8%
Vanderbilt- 29.4%
Emory- 18.7%

So the Ivies do better but the yields are similar to other top 30 universities?

How about Bowdoin, their yield is like around 60%.

Anonymous wrote:My DC who graduated from a NESCAC had a far superior education than my DC who will graduate shortly from an Ivy. The access to professors and research opportunities at LACs is objectively better. And I can’t even imagine attending some soulless public university where students are just a number and the majority of students come from a single state.

I went to a NESCAC and my brother went to an Ivy. He thought that I received a better education.

Anonymous wrote:My DC who graduated from a NESCAC had a far superior education than my DC who will graduate shortly from an Ivy. The access to professors and research opportunities at LACs is objectively better. And I can’t even imagine attending some soulless public university where students are just a number and the majority of students come from a single state.

Get your head out of your a**

My DC who graduated from a NESCAC had a far superior education than my DC who will graduate shortly from an Ivy. The access to professors and research opportunities at LACs is objectively better. And I can’t even imagine attending some soulless public university where students are just a number and the majority of students come from a single state.

Anonymous wrote:I encouraged both my kids to apply to Slacs like Grinnell, Middlebury, Vassar, etc.
They both refused as they found them too remote. Even Williams was crossed off the list.
I personally find their disinterest mystifying but I guess they are city kids. We live in Washington, DC.

I had a similar experience with two of my three children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be true but the top 20 (or so) SLACs are still very selective. Admission rates are not going up.

Admission rates are easily manipulated through ED overreliance, test-optional policies, and lack of supplements (see Colby or Middlebury). The real metric is what the students who get in for Regular Decision decide. And I do think that among those who are juggling offers between universities and SLACs, more and more are leaning toward the university offer.

This is only applicable if they apply to both types of schools RD which means they were never committed to going to a SLAC. My DS was only interested in SLACs. I think it is a self selecting group.

Anonymous wrote:Most LACs outside of the top 100 are a waste of money

Well nobody pays more than like $40k/year at those so it’s not an even comparison.

Anonymous wrote:Regular Decision Yields (% of students admitted RD who choose to attend) of top 5 SLACs:

Pomona- 43.4%
Williams- 39%
Wellesley- 31.8%
Amherst- 29.7%
Swarthmore- 28.2%

Regular Decision Yields (% of students admitted RD who choose to attend) of selected top universities:

Dartmouth- 51.7%
Brown- 46.5%
Carnegie Mellon- 33.8%
Vanderbilt- 29.4%
Emory- 18.7%

So the Ivies do better but the yields are similar to other top 30 universities?

This might have to do with financial aid. I did try the EFC calculator for Dartmouth, but Princeton’s was extremely generous.

Anonymous wrote:Most LACs outside of the top 100 are a waste of money

The worst LACs are miles better than the worst public universities.

Anonymous wrote:Most LACs outside of the top 100 are a waste of money

The same can be said for private universities

Most LACs outside of the top 100 are a waste of money

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just personal experience, but I know of at least six students this year who had an acceptance from a top 5 SLAC but are turning them down for top universities.

It seems like students these days want to be in major metropolitan areas. and they prefer the university social life. A number of the admits above raised the concern that the LAC social life would feel "dead" by comparison. It seems sad that the hallmark academic and collaborative strengths of LACs seem to be ignored these days. I'm not saying a LAC experience is good for everyone, but I feel like they're admitting students in RD who have no real interest in going to one.

Are they STEM majors?

Not sure why that'd change anything. Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona are all ranked within the top 20 schools (including universities/technical schools) for producing STEM PHDs per capita. Amherst and Wellesley are in the top 30.