Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "preppier" LACs like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Colby, etc. tend to have good career outcomes right out of undergrad.

The "crunchier" ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, etc. have very little on-campus recruiting -- the vast majority of students go to grad school (often a PhD, which have questionable ROI).

My kid is a Grinnell grad married to a Grinnell grad. They both have excellent jobs and landed them right off the bat, and all of their friends from college are doing equally well or better. Some went on to grad school, some didn’t. One got a PhD. All did fine.

I don’t think I know anyone from any college who got their job through on campus recruiting, honestly. I’m sure it happens, but I would never advise a kid to pick a school based on who recruits on campus. Most graduates get their jobs by casting wide nets.

Also, on the PhD front, while it’s certainly true that graduates of SLACs tend to get PhDs in disproportionately large numbers, it’s still the case that the overwhelming majority of SLAC grads don’t go on to get a PhD.

Glad your kid did well, but the fact is that Grinnell has a very poor ROI unless you major in computer science or economics.

NP and no connections with Grinnell - how is this a "fact"?

It’s a fact in that PPs head, and she therefore thinks it is universally true.

It’s not just “in PP’s head” — data backs this up:

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

Lol. That doesn’t say anything like what you think it does. Where did you study data analytics? That school failed you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "preppier" LACs like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Colby, etc. tend to have good career outcomes right out of undergrad.

The "crunchier" ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, etc. have very little on-campus recruiting -- the vast majority of students go to grad school (often a PhD, which have questionable ROI).

My kid is a Grinnell grad married to a Grinnell grad. They both have excellent jobs and landed them right off the bat, and all of their friends from college are doing equally well or better. Some went on to grad school, some didn’t. One got a PhD. All did fine.

I don’t think I know anyone from any college who got their job through on campus recruiting, honestly. I’m sure it happens, but I would never advise a kid to pick a school based on who recruits on campus. Most graduates get their jobs by casting wide nets.

Also, on the PhD front, while it’s certainly true that graduates of SLACs tend to get PhDs in disproportionately large numbers, it’s still the case that the overwhelming majority of SLAC grads don’t go on to get a PhD.

Glad your kid did well, but the fact is that Grinnell has a very poor ROI unless you major in computer science or economics.

NP and no connections with Grinnell - how is this a "fact"?

It’s a fact in that PPs head, and she therefore thinks it is universally true.

It’s not just “in PP’s head” — data backs this up:

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Type-sort.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "preppier" LACs like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Colby, etc. tend to have good career outcomes right out of undergrad.

The "crunchier" ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, etc. have very little on-campus recruiting -- the vast majority of students go to grad school (often a PhD, which have questionable ROI).

My kid is a Grinnell grad married to a Grinnell grad. They both have excellent jobs and landed them right off the bat, and all of their friends from college are doing equally well or better. Some went on to grad school, some didn’t. One got a PhD. All did fine.

I don’t think I know anyone from any college who got their job through on campus recruiting, honestly. I’m sure it happens, but I would never advise a kid to pick a school based on who recruits on campus. Most graduates get their jobs by casting wide nets.

Also, on the PhD front, while it’s certainly true that graduates of SLACs tend to get PhDs in disproportionately large numbers, it’s still the case that the overwhelming majority of SLAC grads don’t go on to get a PhD.

Glad your kid did well, but the fact is that Grinnell has a very poor ROI unless you major in computer science or economics.

NP and no connections with Grinnell - how is this a "fact"?

It’s a fact in that PPs head, and she therefore thinks it is universally true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "preppier" LACs like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Colby, etc. tend to have good career outcomes right out of undergrad.

The "crunchier" ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, etc. have very little on-campus recruiting -- the vast majority of students go to grad school (often a PhD, which have questionable ROI).

My kid is a Grinnell grad married to a Grinnell grad. They both have excellent jobs and landed them right off the bat, and all of their friends from college are doing equally well or better. Some went on to grad school, some didn’t. One got a PhD. All did fine.

I don’t think I know anyone from any college who got their job through on campus recruiting, honestly. I’m sure it happens, but I would never advise a kid to pick a school based on who recruits on campus. Most graduates get their jobs by casting wide nets.

Also, on the PhD front, while it’s certainly true that graduates of SLACs tend to get PhDs in disproportionately large numbers, it’s still the case that the overwhelming majority of SLAC grads don’t go on to get a PhD.

Glad your kid did well, but the fact is that Grinnell has a very poor ROI unless you major in computer science or economics.

NP and no connections with Grinnell - how is this a "fact"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "preppier" LACs like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Colby, etc. tend to have good career outcomes right out of undergrad.

The "crunchier" ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, etc. have very little on-campus recruiting -- the vast majority of students go to grad school (often a PhD, which have questionable ROI).

My kid is a Grinnell grad married to a Grinnell grad. They both have excellent jobs and landed them right off the bat, and all of their friends from college are doing equally well or better. Some went on to grad school, some didn’t. One got a PhD. All did fine.

I don’t think I know anyone from any college who got their job through on campus recruiting, honestly. I’m sure it happens, but I would never advise a kid to pick a school based on who recruits on campus. Most graduates get their jobs by casting wide nets.

Also, on the PhD front, while it’s certainly true that graduates of SLACs tend to get PhDs in disproportionately large numbers, it’s still the case that the overwhelming majority of SLAC grads don’t go on to get a PhD.

Glad your kid did well, but the fact is that Grinnell has a very poor ROI unless you major in computer science or economics.

Also, (DP) the college experience of 4 years at a small, rural, college in Iowa should be a consideration in addition to outcomes.

You really just can’t stand it that someone’s kid enjoyed rural Iowa, has a good job, and is happy and doing well. Are you always so miserable?

DP if they picked up HYP and moved them to rural Iowa I'd still hesitate to go there but YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "preppier" LACs like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Colby, etc. tend to have good career outcomes right out of undergrad.

The "crunchier" ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, etc. have very little on-campus recruiting -- the vast majority of students go to grad school (often a PhD, which have questionable ROI).

My kid is a Grinnell grad married to a Grinnell grad. They both have excellent jobs and landed them right off the bat, and all of their friends from college are doing equally well or better. Some went on to grad school, some didn’t. One got a PhD. All did fine.

I don’t think I know anyone from any college who got their job through on campus recruiting, honestly. I’m sure it happens, but I would never advise a kid to pick a school based on who recruits on campus. Most graduates get their jobs by casting wide nets.

Also, on the PhD front, while it’s certainly true that graduates of SLACs tend to get PhDs in disproportionately large numbers, it’s still the case that the overwhelming majority of SLAC grads don’t go on to get a PhD.

Glad your kid did well, but the fact is that Grinnell has a very poor ROI unless you major in computer science or economics.

Also, (DP) the college experience of 4 years at a small, rural, college in Iowa should be a consideration in addition to outcomes.

You really just can’t stand it that someone’s kid enjoyed rural Iowa, has a good job, and is happy and doing well. Are you always so miserable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "preppier" LACs like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Colby, etc. tend to have good career outcomes right out of undergrad.

The "crunchier" ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, etc. have very little on-campus recruiting -- the vast majority of students go to grad school (often a PhD, which have questionable ROI).

My kid is a Grinnell grad married to a Grinnell grad. They both have excellent jobs and landed them right off the bat, and all of their friends from college are doing equally well or better. Some went on to grad school, some didn’t. One got a PhD. All did fine.

I don’t think I know anyone from any college who got their job through on campus recruiting, honestly. I’m sure it happens, but I would never advise a kid to pick a school based on who recruits on campus. Most graduates get their jobs by casting wide nets.

Also, on the PhD front, while it’s certainly true that graduates of SLACs tend to get PhDs in disproportionately large numbers, it’s still the case that the overwhelming majority of SLAC grads don’t go on to get a PhD.

Glad your kid did well, but the fact is that Grinnell has a very poor ROI unless you major in computer science or economics.

Also, (DP) the college experience of 4 years at a small, rural, college in Iowa should be a consideration in addition to outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "preppier" LACs like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Colby, etc. tend to have good career outcomes right out of undergrad.

The "crunchier" ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, etc. have very little on-campus recruiting -- the vast majority of students go to grad school (often a PhD, which have questionable ROI).

My kid is a Grinnell grad married to a Grinnell grad. They both have excellent jobs and landed them right off the bat, and all of their friends from college are doing equally well or better. Some went on to grad school, some didn’t. One got a PhD. All did fine.

I don’t think I know anyone from any college who got their job through on campus recruiting, honestly. I’m sure it happens, but I would never advise a kid to pick a school based on who recruits on campus. Most graduates get their jobs by casting wide nets.

Also, on the PhD front, while it’s certainly true that graduates of SLACs tend to get PhDs in disproportionately large numbers, it’s still the case that the overwhelming majority of SLAC grads don’t go on to get a PhD.

Glad your kid did well, but the fact is that Grinnell has a very poor ROI unless you major in computer science or economics.

Anonymous wrote:My father is a department head at a huge state school. Both my brother and I went to SLACs. His input on the experience played a big part in those decisions.

This is one reason to differentiate among private National Universities and large public universities and large public honors colleges. Different experiences. (Not all liberal arts colleges are similar either.)

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Duke, Northwestern, Brown, Vanderbilt, Emory, Johns Hopkins, Rice, WashUStL, U Penn, Wake Forest, Notre Dame, Caltech, Columbia, Dartmouth, Carnegie Mellon, are all private National Universities. Very different experience than at almost all public National Universities such as the overcrowded UCs, Univ. of Missouri, Univ. of Central Florida, UMass system, Auburn, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State, and other large publics.

The Honors College or Honors Program experience is quite different at large state public flagships from the non-honors experience at the same public university.

Experiences differ as well between SLAC (selective LACs) and LACs with high acceptance rates.

My father is a department head at a huge state school. Both my brother and I went to SLACs. His input on the experience played a big part in those decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend with a freshman kid in the dorms at UC Berkeley. Her dorm has been in multiple lockdowns due to invasions from violent street residents, where the kids have been ordered to stay in their rooms and lock the door. Meanwhile her kid hasn’t had a class since end of October because of strikes. Not really seeing how that experience is supposed to be so much better than my other friend whose kid is at Middlebury.

Well, isn't that a specific UC Berkeley problem, given its location and politics? Not sure how you extrapolate that to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding large state schools versus SLACs.

The SLAC haters in this thread have categorically stated that national universities are always better. These are the two experiences I know of among my friends and I want to know why Middlebury is still better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the obsessed anti/SLAC posters so obsessed? It’s really sad. If you think they are inferior, why are you threatened by them? And why not be happy that those students aren’t taking up spots in the schools you covet?

Why do the handful of obsessed SLAC posters write inaccurate descriptions of National Universities and often resort to insults and name-calling rather than discussing the realities ?

If LACs were so great, there would be more of them and fewer of the existing LACs would be in such dire financial situations.

I am not that PP and I went to state schools and HYS so no personal experience with SLACs. I started reading this forum about a year ago. As a FYI, my kids aren’t at SLACS, except that now that I’ve been reading your obsessed posts on DCUM for awhile, I’m going to encourage my youngest to look at SLACs. Your posts are distinctive — you post ALL the time on any post even slightly related to SLACS — and over the past year or so have made me look a lot more deeply at SLACs because you sound so bizarrely jealous and unhinged. I figure there must be something really good for someone to be so bitter about not getting into one and to blanket the College forum so incessantly. Then I learned about the spectacular educational possibilities. So thanks for that education! I think my youngest will benefit!

Unigo is a good place to get direct feedback from students.

LAC obsessed people seem a bit over the top and unwilling to deal with the realities of small, rural, isolated schools.

Again if LACs were so great, there would be more of them and fewer would be suffering from inadequate funding.

Agree with another poster who notes that the top LACs are interesting--especially the Claremont schools and Barnard & top 10. Larger schools offer more diversity and more options in every aspect of student life.

Look, I’m just telling you that as someone newish to this board and who wasn’t really looking at SLACs, your bizarrely over-the-top rants about SLACs have pushed me in the exact opposite direction as you intended, so maybe cool down the crazy-sounding posts a bit if you truly want people to not go to SLACs?

As an example, the bolded is absurdly over-the-top. For some students looking for certain experiences, it’s simply not going to be true. God knows HYS isn’t the paradise you seem to think it is for all students all the time, as an alumni.

Just stop being so weird and nutty if you want people to really not consider SLACs. You really aren’t doing your argument any favors. You come across as obsessed, bitter, and jealous, and anytime someone is that negatively entranced with something, to somebody who is coming to this as a neutral person, it makes the SLACs look better, not worse.

Talk about bizarre - you appear to be assuming that you are arguing with only one poster when there are several posting the “anti” SLAC position right now. And you are ranting and raving like a lunatic yourself. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are bizarre.

🤷‍♀️Look, I’m just telling you the experience of one neutral person who is coming to this as a fairly new person to this forum. You can take the input or not. You sound like a crazed jealous obsessive to someone who really hadn’t given SLACs much thought before reading DCUM. Thanks to the posts I’ve read here, I’m now looking more closely at SLACs for my youngest, and I like what I see so far.

Also I don’t get the person who is talking about the price. The kids I know who are going to lower-level SLACs have told me the amount of merit aid they get, and it’s substantial and certainly competitive with the state schools. Those are just the personal datapoints I have, but it doesn’t seem to be all that dramatically different in price.

Anyhow, I’ve said my piece here. Keep ranting away (I know you will), just know that you don’t sound reasoned and logical to a fairly new poster.

I’m a different poster, and you really sound unhinged.

How so? I don’t see “unhinged” in any of that?

For starters, you keep coming back when you say you’re done. That’s unhinged.

Huh. So no actual answer. Okay.

Lol you’re baaaack. Unhinged. “Neutral” poster my a$$.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the obsessed anti/SLAC posters so obsessed? It’s really sad. If you think they are inferior, why are you threatened by them? And why not be happy that those students aren’t taking up spots in the schools you covet?

Why do the handful of obsessed SLAC posters write inaccurate descriptions of National Universities and often resort to insults and name-calling rather than discussing the realities ?

If LACs were so great, there would be more of them and fewer of the existing LACs would be in such dire financial situations.

I am not that PP and I went to state schools and HYS so no personal experience with SLACs. I started reading this forum about a year ago. As a FYI, my kids aren’t at SLACS, except that now that I’ve been reading your obsessed posts on DCUM for awhile, I’m going to encourage my youngest to look at SLACs. Your posts are distinctive — you post ALL the time on any post even slightly related to SLACS — and over the past year or so have made me look a lot more deeply at SLACs because you sound so bizarrely jealous and unhinged. I figure there must be something really good for someone to be so bitter about not getting into one and to blanket the College forum so incessantly. Then I learned about the spectacular educational possibilities. So thanks for that education! I think my youngest will benefit!

Unigo is a good place to get direct feedback from students.

LAC obsessed people seem a bit over the top and unwilling to deal with the realities of small, rural, isolated schools.

Again if LACs were so great, there would be more of them and fewer would be suffering from inadequate funding.

Agree with another poster who notes that the top LACs are interesting--especially the Claremont schools and Barnard & top 10. Larger schools offer more diversity and more options in every aspect of student life.

Look, I’m just telling you that as someone newish to this board and who wasn’t really looking at SLACs, your bizarrely over-the-top rants about SLACs have pushed me in the exact opposite direction as you intended, so maybe cool down the crazy-sounding posts a bit if you truly want people to not go to SLACs?

As an example, the bolded is absurdly over-the-top. For some students looking for certain experiences, it’s simply not going to be true. God knows HYS isn’t the paradise you seem to think it is for all students all the time, as an alumni.

Just stop being so weird and nutty if you want people to really not consider SLACs. You really aren’t doing your argument any favors. You come across as obsessed, bitter, and jealous, and anytime someone is that negatively entranced with something, to somebody who is coming to this as a neutral person, it makes the SLACs look better, not worse.

Talk about bizarre - you appear to be assuming that you are arguing with only one poster when there are several posting the “anti” SLAC position right now. And you are ranting and raving like a lunatic yourself. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are bizarre.

🤷‍♀️Look, I’m just telling you the experience of one neutral person who is coming to this as a fairly new person to this forum. You can take the input or not. You sound like a crazed jealous obsessive to someone who really hadn’t given SLACs much thought before reading DCUM. Thanks to the posts I’ve read here, I’m now looking more closely at SLACs for my youngest, and I like what I see so far.

Also I don’t get the person who is talking about the price. The kids I know who are going to lower-level SLACs have told me the amount of merit aid they get, and it’s substantial and certainly competitive with the state schools. Those are just the personal datapoints I have, but it doesn’t seem to be all that dramatically different in price.

Anyhow, I’ve said my piece here. Keep ranting away (I know you will), just know that you don’t sound reasoned and logical to a fairly new poster.

I’m a different poster, and you really sound unhinged.

How so? I don’t see “unhinged” in any of that?

For starters, you keep coming back when you say you’re done. That’s unhinged.

Huh. So no actual answer. Okay.

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend with a freshman kid in the dorms at UC Berkeley. Her dorm has been in multiple lockdowns due to invasions from violent street residents, where the kids have been ordered to stay in their rooms and lock the door. Meanwhile her kid hasn’t had a class since end of October because of strikes. Not really seeing how that experience is supposed to be so much better than my other friend whose kid is at Middlebury.

Well, isn't that a specific UC Berkeley problem, given its location and politics? Not sure how you extrapolate that to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding large state schools versus SLACs.

I don't understand the worry about not having enough majors at a SLAC compared to a large university unless you're likely to want to major in nursing or engineering or some very technical area where you basically are getting a vocational credential by going to college. And most SLACs these days allow people to create their own major and even take classes at other schools that are part of a consortium. If there isn't Environmental Studies or Black Studies, you can take courses that are required at schools offering those majors. Maybe you'll need to major in biology and do a minor in sociology instead of getting the Human Biology or Neuroscience major that another school offers. Whether you do a "make your own" or a formally offered major will not impact on your career trajectory. Data Science is now all the rage but from the descriptions I've seen, they are not actually much different from Business with an Analytics focus, or Economics with a lot of econometrics coursework. Biostatistics has been around forever at many schools with a medical school or school of public health. Very few people who work in data science these days majored in data science since that major wasn't offered before.