Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

Even if there are only 1800 students in the entire school and it feels suffocating??

then for that student, you find a bigger school. Not all of them are that small.

Also don't forget that there are consortiums at many smaller schools, and if the school is near a metro area, that also increases social opportunities.

A few examples:
As I stated above, my alma mater is Wake Forest. I was in the marching band and our consortium with Salem College allowed those students to participate with us. I have heard of other places where this happens, so worth thinking about.
My child was considering Randolph College, which has a consortium with ULynchburg and Sweet Briar - that would have expanded class options for her and social group.
We looked at Meredith College in NC. Small women's college, but a mile from NC State (also part of a consortium) AND in Raleigh. So you get the small school experience with larger school AND city opportunities. My daughter didn't wind up applying in the end, but it was a lovely school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

Even if there are only 1800 students in the entire school and it feels suffocating??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. I found my friends at my large college, but I had a horrible experience because it was a cold, uncaring environment. I was really lost, and it was clear that no one cared. I think I’d have done much better at a smaller school where professors/ administrators had some knowledge of the students.

Fit is about more than just finding a good group of peers.

This. Access to my professors was so nice, along with smaller classes.

I had exactly one class in a large lecture hall, and that was because I was taking the one science clsss for non science students

I'm curious about your experience. My kid graduated from a private in DC with only 70 people. My kid wanted to spread his wings, so to speak, and attend a huge state university. All kids are different.

My kid enjoyed life at the big school and made many friends while being on the deans list. To me, "Fit" is where your kid will be happy and thrive! A choice only your kid can make and take ownership of their choice!

Dp. I think that’s the point. That there are many factors to “fit” beyond finding your peer group. Different kids have different priorities and needs.

+1 One of my kids is at a huge school and one is at a tiny one. Both happy with their choices and would hate to go to their sibling's school.

I don't understand people who make blanket statements that all big schools are bad or all LACs are bad. They both have their place and I'm glad we have a lot of variety in US higher education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. I found my friends at my large college, but I had a horrible experience because it was a cold, uncaring environment. I was really lost, and it was clear that no one cared. I think I’d have done much better at a smaller school where professors/ administrators had some knowledge of the students.

Fit is about more than just finding a good group of peers.

This. Access to my professors was so nice, along with smaller classes.

I had exactly one class in a large lecture hall, and that was because I was taking the one science clsss for non science students

I'm curious about your experience. My kid graduated from a private in DC with only 70 people. My kid wanted to spread his wings, so to speak, and attend a huge state university. All kids are different.

My kid enjoyed life at the big school and made many friends while being on the deans list. To me, "Fit" is where your kid will be happy and thrive! A choice only your kid can make and take ownership of their choice!

Dp. I think that’s the point. That there are many factors to “fit” beyond finding your peer group. Different kids have different priorities and needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. I found my friends at my large college, but I had a horrible experience because it was a cold, uncaring environment. I was really lost, and it was clear that no one cared. I think I’d have done much better at a smaller school where professors/ administrators had some knowledge of the students.

Fit is about more than just finding a good group of peers.

This. Access to my professors was so nice, along with smaller classes.

I had exactly one class in a large lecture hall, and that was because I was taking the one science clsss for non science students

I'm curious about your experience. My kid graduated from a private in DC with only 70 people. My kid wanted to spread his wings, so to speak, and attend a huge state university. All kids are different.

My kid enjoyed life at the big school and made many friends while being on the deans list. To me, "Fit" is where your kid will be happy and thrive! A choice only your kid can make and take ownership of their choice!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. I found my friends at my large college, but I had a horrible experience because it was a cold, uncaring environment. I was really lost, and it was clear that no one cared. I think I’d have done much better at a smaller school where professors/ administrators had some knowledge of the students.

Fit is about more than just finding a good group of peers.

This. Access to my professors was so nice, along with smaller classes.

I had exactly one class in a large lecture hall, and that was because I was taking the one science clsss for non science students

I'm curious about your experience. My kid graduated from a private in DC with only 70 people. My kid wanted to spread his wings, so to speak, and attend a huge state university. All kids are different.

My kid enjoyed life at the big school and made many friends while being on the deans list. To me, "Fit" is where your kid will be happy and thrive! A choice only your kid can make and take ownership of their choice!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. I found my friends at my large college, but I had a horrible experience because it was a cold, uncaring environment. I was really lost, and it was clear that no one cared. I think I’d have done much better at a smaller school where professors/ administrators had some knowledge of the students.

Fit is about more than just finding a good group of peers.

This. Access to my professors was so nice, along with smaller classes.

I had exactly one class in a large lecture hall, and that was because I was taking the one science clsss for non science students

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

We've toured a ton of LACs this year, and they have everything you list except Huge sporting events. Big events for the school and fun for the kids and full of school spirit, but not on national-TV huge. That isn't something that appeals to my kids anyway (their high school didn't even have a football team), so not a loss.

Just curious for an example, because I haven't found a single one for a top academic LAC...only ones that come close are Richmond and Davidson (but those are in fact D1 sports schools and sometimes they are on TV). All the other D3 academic SLACs you won't find anyone caring or attending a sporting event other than the players, and some cross-cheering from other athletes.

Well does it really matter? Like some people also don't care at all about sports. There's other ways to be active in a school community than yelling in the stands. Most LACs have the "big game" that everyone goes to for rivalries, but it really shouldn't be seen as "losing out" when it ultimately...doesn't matter. I went to a D1 school but spent more time at TD Garden.

It matters only that my kid is interested in an academic LAC where kids care about the sports and we haven't found any. Sorry, there isn't even a "big" game that kids attend anymore.

PP mentioned several LACs that fit the bill...so was curious to see what they found.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

We've toured a ton of LACs this year, and they have everything you list except Huge sporting events. Big events for the school and fun for the kids and full of school spirit, but not on national-TV huge. That isn't something that appeals to my kids anyway (their high school didn't even have a football team), so not a loss.

Just curious for an example, because I haven't found a single one for a top academic LAC...only ones that come close are Richmond and Davidson (but those are in fact D1 sports schools and sometimes they are on TV). All the other D3 academic SLACs you won't find anyone caring or attending a sporting event other than the players, and some cross-cheering from other athletes.

Well does it really matter? Like some people also don't care at all about sports. There's other ways to be active in a school community than yelling in the stands. Most LACs have the "big game" that everyone goes to for rivalries, but it really shouldn't be seen as "losing out" when it ultimately...doesn't matter. I went to a D1 school but spent more time at TD Garden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well does it really matter? Like some people also don't care at all about sports. There's other ways to be active in a school community than yelling in the stands. Most LACs have the "big game" that everyone goes to for rivalries, but it really shouldn't be seen as "losing out" when it ultimately...doesn't matter. I went to a D1 school but spent more time at TD Garden.

There's other ways to care about sports besides yelling in the stands.

Anonymous wrote:Well does it really matter? Like some people also don't care at all about sports. There's other ways to be active in a school community than yelling in the stands. Most LACs have the "big game" that everyone goes to for rivalries, but it really shouldn't be seen as "losing out" when it ultimately...doesn't matter. I went to a D1 school but spent more time at TD Garden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

We've toured a ton of LACs this year, and they have everything you list except Huge sporting events. Big events for the school and fun for the kids and full of school spirit, but not on national-TV huge. That isn't something that appeals to my kids anyway (their high school didn't even have a football team), so not a loss.

Just curious for an example, because I haven't found a single one for a top academic LAC...only ones that come close are Richmond and Davidson (but those are in fact D1 sports schools and sometimes they are on TV). All the other D3 academic SLACs you won't find anyone caring or attending a sporting event other than the players, and some cross-cheering from other athletes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fit" is a thing but my hope is that our children aren't in need of a particular fit. We discourage SLACs.

The college professors in our family have the exact opposite opinion. They discourage large schools and any school with a big graduate program. They want all the kids in the family to attend a school where the primary focus of fully tenured professors is undergraduate education.

If I were looking for advice for success and happiness in life, I would not look to college professors.

This is advice on what makes for a good a college education.

"College education" is about a lot more than direct interface with one's instructors, and a lot of professors don't understand that. It leads them to overvalue LACs, especially the kind that (over) produce PhDs. I'm not saying LACs are bad, but let's keep things in proportion.

You say that as if LACs don't have those other things as well.

* Diverse peer groups?
* Huge sporting events?
* Decent career offices and OCR?
* Well resourced libraries?
* A wide variety of specialized majors?
* State of the art labs?

All of the above items could be construed as part of a good college education. Many LACs have none of them and some have none of them. I'm not saying LACs are bad. But it's a trade-off that's not worth it for most.

And this is where I don't agree.
Diverse peer groups-many LACs lead in the most diverse colleges in the country. Pre-AA Pomona was the most diverse college in America with Amherst leading behind.
Huge Sporting Events-This is not what a college education is about. This is how state schools avoid bankruptcy lmao.

Career offices-Most LACs have had these since the early 2000s. They realized if they want to attract people to a liberal arts curriculum, they needed to give appropriate career services. CMC had the highest salary of any graduating economics major in the entire country just this year.
Libraries-Depends on the college. My alma mater has a massive one that rivals state universities. Also most libraries have shared book agreements, so you don't need a book to physically be in the catalog to find it (and many kids have stopped reading outside of the course syllabi)

Specialized majors- Depends on the LAC, but also you don't need to specialize as an undergrad and LACs have proven it. You are not a professional getting an undergraduate degree, and, in most careers, you should NOT specialize for a four year degree. Breadth is more important.
State of the art labs-My favorite point to argue! STEM facilities at LACs often give you better use of equipment and more exposure than large colleges. It's great that UT has some of the best labs in the world, but most of its undergrad STEM students will never touch it. Having shiny things around you that you never use isn't a "pro" for your education.

This is 30 percent cherry picking (CMC does have a great career office, Bard and Juniata don't; most LACs don't have extensive OCR, only a few); 30 percent exaggeration (some LACs have okay libraries, but none has the Widener stacks) and 40 percent pure cope (no one needs football games! outdated equipment is good because no one uses it!)

LACs are a great choice for a significant minority of students, but the way you're promoting them beggars credulity.