<p>^^Queen's Mom: now all we need is a list of those LAC's that might fall into that category.....let the visits begin!!</p>
<p>^lol rodney. I never thought there would be silver lining to an extremely high EFC.</p>
<p>well, considering that the people (like us) who have saved all these years have no "stimulus package" in the works for our "losses", at least there is some sort of "silver lining" out there......gotta look at something in a positive light, right?</p>
<p>Maybe people are starting to realize that many who get a LAC undergraduate degree will be moving on to a Graduate degree program. (Because a LAC in and of itself isn't worth that much in the job market). And therefor, they are spending less on the undergraduate degree so they can save their money for the graduate degree. Very smart move.</p>
<p>There's no difference between an LAC bachelor's degree and a research university bachelor's degree in the overwhelming majority of cases. And, fwiw, I know of some organizations that hire from Ivy's, top LAC's, and top public unis without distinction. It's the successful applicants from non-top public unis that are statistically underrepresented.</p>
<p>But xiggi, there's no reason to believe that these LACs' yield will be the same as it was in 2006 and 2007, and every reason to believe the LACs will lose accepted students to public schools. If they've got the same number of applicants as they did in 2006, and they want to fill the same number of dorm rooms, they're going to have to admit more students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If they've got the same number of applicants as they did in 2006, and they want to fill the same number of dorm rooms, they're going to have to admit more students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So? </p>
<p>Most of them are at all-time historic high water marks for applicants and all-time low acceptance rates. Surely, nobody thought the numbers from the last few years would go on forever. I guarantee none of the colleges thought they would.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that the publics are going to be all that attractive an option after all the budget cuts are in place and tuiton hikes factored in. Five years to graduate and 2000 people in intro lecture classes may take a bit of the bloom off the rose.</p>
<p>So.. I was just thinking (again), if the numbers of applicants are down and admissions are supposed to be up, how will the kid who STILL doesnt get in feel? Just last year you could maybe rest your ego on the limited admit percentages, but if applications are down 17% or so and your still rejected.. that's gonna seem even more harsh than it would otherwise.</p>
<p>The kid who got accepted to a particular school 10 years ago got accepted to the school last year and will get accepted to the school this year. The ebb and flow in the number of applications and acceptance rates doesn't really change the equation for the well-targeted applicants at a particular school. The same kids are still going to get in.</p>
<p>The ONLY change to that in decades has been the increasing emphasis on diversity has wiped out some number of slots for white kids who may have gotten accepted 20 years ago.</p>
<p>It's a tricky concept, but an important one, IMO. A larger number of applications doesn't really change the likelihood of an invidual applicant being accepted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure that the publics are going to be all that attractive an option after all the budget cuts are in place and tuiton hikes factored in. Five years to graduate and 2000 people in intro lecture classes may take a bit of the bloom off the rose.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These factors are not evident to most people until after decisions are made and deposits are placed. Actually, large increases in the size of intro sections can't happen in most cases, because lecture halls are already at full capacity. Instead, extra sections will be added at odd times of the day--but they will be taught by non-tenure track faculty and adjuncts if the unis can find sources of money for temporary hires. A lot of publics have instituted hiring freezes for regular academic positions.</p>
<p>The five-year plan is a real possibility for many students, I think.</p>
<p>It just dawned on me. The oft-repeated phrase at my recent college reunion - "I could never get accepted here today" - is no longer true. I really could get in with my crappy GPA and SAT scores!</p>
<p>laxtaxi, LOL! The real litmus test in matriculating and graduating is whether the family bank account is "crappy" or not.</p>
<p>TheDad. My point wasn't the school, but the degree. I.e. A degree in history, english, philosophy, polisci, etc... in and of itself isn't the most lucrative degrees. Therefor; if a person is getting a degree in one of these as a stepping stone to a masters or above; they may be more apt to getting the liberal arts degree from a less expensive school so they can save their money for their graduate degree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"liberal arts degree"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not for nothin', but could we at least use the actual meaning of these buzz-words when throwing them around?</p>
<p>A "liberal arts degree" is a B.A. degree majoring in any of the following fields (plus others):</p>
<p>Anthropology
Art
Art History
Asian Studies
Astronomy
Biochemistry
Biology<br>
Chemistry
Classics
Cognitive Science
Comparative Literature
Computer Science
Dance
Economics
Education
English Literature
Environmental Studies<br>
History<br>
Islamic Studies
Linguistics
Mathematics
Arabic
Chinese
French
Italian
German
Japanese
Russian
Spanish
Music
Philosophy
Physics
Political Economy
Political Science
Psychology
Public Policy
Religion
Sociology
Statistics<br>
Theater </p>
<p>And, although not traditionally a part of the "liberal arts" curriculum, many liberal arts colleges and universities also offer a degree in engineering.</p>
<p>Since the argument seems to have boiled down to "highest paid positions", I believe that over time the highest paid careers in the United States have stradtionally be business, law, and medicine. Almost without exception, all of the people in these professions graduated with an undergraduate "liberal arts degree".</p>
<p>Great information. And exactly my point. There are a lot of people who get a Liberal Arts Degree for their undergraduate degree; and then go on to an advanced degree. because of economics, I believe many people are realizing that a Liberal Arts Degree from a high cost college probably isn't worth it if they are going to go to graduate school anyway. In that case, they can get their liberal arts degree from a much less expensive school and save their money for the graduate degree.</p>
<p>On the other hand afadad, much like your demographics and high school matriculation can play a role into where you get into undergrad, so does your undergrad degree help determine where you may get into grad school. And whether you graduate from the University of Minnesota or Harvard does seem to correlate to what you will ultimately earn in income (not to mention the connections to secure the most lucrative jobs). It's not that both students aren't capable of doing the job offered, but it comes down to who gets the door opened. While it does matter what you know, who you know will always be a factor.</p>
<p>Actually is has been shown that given the same basic test scores and grades it matters little where you go to undergrad as to later income unless you are black. That's why Wisconsin undergrad has produced about the same number of top CEOs as Harvard.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0292.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0292.asp</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
And exactly my point. There are a lot of people who get a Liberal Arts Degree for their undergraduate degree; and then go on to an advanced degree. because of economics, I believe many people are realizing that a Liberal Arts Degree from a high cost college probably isn't worth it if they are going to go to graduate school anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, you really weren't talking about liberal arts colleges at all, then. You were making the point that all expensive colleges and universities will lose some customers to cheaper in-state publics?</p>
<p>That seems rather obvious. There have always been large numbers of students who attend in-state universities and community colleges due to reasons of cost.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are a lot of people who get a Liberal Arts Degree for their undergraduate degree; and then go on to an advanced degree. because of economics, I believe many people are realizing that a Liberal Arts Degree from a high cost college probably isn't worth it if they are going to go to graduate school anyway. In that case, they can get their liberal arts degree from a much less expensive school and save their money for the graduate degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Afadad, I believe that your position is based on the assumption that all LAC are the same, and that the entire undergraduate education labeled as "liberal arts" is one and the same. Unless I am mistaken, you also make the assumpton that if the education represents a "light" education that could only be saved by attending a graduate schol, it is better to grab the cheapest "provider" and save money for a "real" education. </p>
<p>Of course, such a position would be forcefully rejected by anyone who understands that the world of LACs is no nore homogeneous than the realm of research and large state universities; they come in all shape and flavors. Although pointing to a few references is often fraught in adding more bias to a conversation, perhaps you might compare the education provided at Harvey Mudd with the best engineering schools in the country, or even comparing the education available in finance and economics at the Claremont Consortium to the leading undergraduate programs in the same fields. </p>
<p>And, last but not least, I do think that the value of "light" degrees remains in the eye of the beholder, and in the eye of recruiters. It so happens that in a world that has become more competitive than ever, the value of having acquired deep thinking and clear communication skills remains valuable and sought after. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, it is not the degree but the individual that makes the difference; and it is up to the individual to be able to express and demonstrate that his or her undergraduate did indeed make a difference. Be it in an application to a graduate school or with an interviewer!</p>
<p>xiggi; no, you are not seeing my point. When you apply for that job; they look at your highest education obtained. If you got your masters or PhD for "X" university; they don't care at all where you went for your undergraduate degree. Just like your first job is about the only time your degree really matters. Once you've gain "experience", when you apply to the next job, they care about the experience you've gained at your last job. The degree might be a requirement, but where no longer really matters as much. In some specialized careers maybe. But a University of Wherever degree with 7 years of experience will almost always beat out a job interview against a Harvard grad with 1-2 years of experience. (All things being equal). Same thing applies to people who do lousy on SAT/ACT tests. Go to a community college for a couple years and you can transfer to a full 4 year university based only on your GPA. Matter of fact, there are plenty of students who went to a Community College who didn't take the SAT and later transferred to a 4 year and again, never took the SAT. I myself did that. So again; if you are going to get a masters or PhD, where you go for your undergraduate is not that important. If you get your masters or PhD, no one is even going to ask where you went for your undergraduate.</p>