The three colleges OP mentioned that his/her kid is interested in all focus on Environment and Sustainability. They are pretty well known by those in the know in those fields. I assume OP's kid wants to work in that field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If you can afford it then feel free to piss your money away on whatever crap you want. But why would you come on this thread defending it as a great choice for everyone and acting all insulted that some people disagree?

? Going to Williams, Carleton, Bowdoin etc. is "pissing your money away?' Well alrighty then.

And I was just pointing out to the person who said many can't afford tese schools that (a) many can, and (b) with F/A these schools are often lower cost than some state schools. Fact.

You are obtuse. Pp is referring to schools no one has ever heard of — see op’s original post.

I haven't heard a name mentioned on this thread that "no one has ever jeard of." We're paying around $65K for a name you probably haven't heard of but is highly ranked and hardly amounts to "pissing your money away on crap."

BTW, educate me here: which schools that have been mentioned here are "crap."?

Fair to say that most people have never heard of the schools identified in op’s first post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Green Mountain? Do a google search for Green Mountain and the terms oxen, Bill and Lou. A very great deal of very bad press pretty recently. The place sounded almost cultish and quite scary. I would veto it in an instant.

You've got to be kidding.

Perhaps you should do a google search for UMd football. THAT is bad press.

Or Penn State. Or North Carolina.

Anonymous wrote:Green Mountain? Do a google search for Green Mountain and the terms oxen, Bill and Lou. A very great deal of very bad press pretty recently. The place sounded almost cultish and quite scary. I would veto it in an instant.

You've got to be kidding.

Perhaps you should do a google search for UMd football. THAT is bad press.

Green Mountain? Do a google search for Green Mountain and the terms oxen, Bill and Lou. A very great deal of very bad press pretty recently. The place sounded almost cultish and quite scary. I would veto it in an instant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If you can afford it then feel free to piss your money away on whatever crap you want. But why would you come on this thread defending it as a great choice for everyone and acting all insulted that some people disagree?

? Going to Williams, Carleton, Bowdoin etc. is "pissing your money away?' Well alrighty then.

And I was just pointing out to the person who said many can't afford tese schools that (a) many can, and (b) with F/A these schools are often lower cost than some state schools. Fact.

You are obtuse. Pp is referring to schools no one has ever heard of — see op’s original post.

I haven't heard a name mentioned on this thread that "no one has ever jeard of." We're paying around $65K for a name you probably haven't heard of but is highly ranked and hardly amounts to "pissing your money away on crap."

BTW, educate me here: which schools that have been mentioned here are "crap."?

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.

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.

Well, prepare to be insulted. People do judge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this what the career centers at these schools tell you? Yeah no. I only have so many hours in the day and I’m not wasting a single one of them learning about your rinky dink special snowflake SLAC when I have so many qualified candidates to choose from.

Now if you’re in an industry/location that doesn’t already have a surfeit of qualified applicants from known schools then maybe. But in DC, at any reasonably sized company, no.

I'm a hiring manager for a large, well-known, sought-after company in DC. Going to a school I've heard of isn't a qualification. At all.

I’ve been on hiring committees for biglaw and fed jobs. It definitely matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If you can afford it then feel free to piss your money away on whatever crap you want. But why would you come on this thread defending it as a great choice for everyone and acting all insulted that some people disagree?

? Going to Williams, Carleton, Bowdoin etc. is "pissing your money away?' Well alrighty then.

And I was just pointing out to the person who said many can't afford tese schools that (a) many can, and (b) with F/A these schools are often lower cost than some state schools. Fact.

You are obtuse. Pp is referring to schools no one has ever heard of — see op’s original post.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If you can afford it then feel free to piss your money away on whatever crap you want. But why would you come on this thread defending it as a great choice for everyone and acting all insulted that some people disagree?

? Going to Williams, Carleton, Bowdoin etc. is "pissing your money away?' Well alrighty then.

And I was just pointing out to the person who said many can't afford tese schools that (a) many can, and (b) with F/A these schools are often lower cost than some state schools. Fact.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this what the career centers at these schools tell you? Yeah no. I only have so many hours in the day and I’m not wasting a single one of them learning about your rinky dink special snowflake SLAC when I have so many qualified candidates to choose from.

Now if you’re in an industry/location that doesn’t already have a surfeit of qualified applicants from known schools then maybe. But in DC, at any reasonably sized company, no.

I'm a hiring manager for a large, well-known, sought-after company in DC. Going to a school I've heard of isn't a qualification. At all.

Simple answer - yes


Slightly more sophisticated answer - yes, provided I do my research as a parent and my kid does their research regarding their goals, the costs, the value the college provides in meeting the goals, etc.

Outside a relatively small number of truly national-reach level academic powerhouse schools, the value of most schools will be somewhat regional and degree-dependent. For example, I'm an attorney and have a pretty standard liberal arts undergrad background. I don't know much about what schools have great engineering programs. If my kid ends up wanting to do that, I'll likely encounter a number of schools I'm not very familiar with.

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.

Is this what the career centers at these schools tell you? Yeah no. I only have so many hours in the day and I’m not wasting a single one of them learning about your rinky dink special snowflake SLAC when I have so many qualified candidates to choose from.

Now if you’re in an industry/location that doesn’t already have a surfeit of qualified applicants from known schools then maybe. But in DC, at any reasonably sized company, no.

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.

+1 I am a hiring manager (have been for years!) and I could give a crap where someone went to college! It's sooooo far down on the list of requirements/priorities!

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.

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.

If you can afford it then feel free to piss your money away on whatever crap you want. But why would you come on this thread defending it as a great choice for everyone and acting all insulted that some people disagree?