"Pardon me for not understanding, but whats the point of spending more money at a LAC for a degree like engineering that can be had for much cheaper elsewhere?
You say you don’t feel like you missed out of anything at your state flagship, so why are you making the opposite choice for your children?"
Good questions. First, it wasn’t my state’s flagship so we paid out of state tuition. Back then it was still less than privates but money wasn’t the reason I chose the public one, it just looked more appealing at the time.
So yes, the engineering education was excellent but the ride was a lot rougher than I thought it would be. The weed out years were not nice ones , we started school with the hopefully dead by now dean’s speech: “look at your left… Look at your right… Look behind you… two will not be here in four years…”. I thought that was meant to scare you but sadly that’s how things turned out in the end.
The biggest problem was that you needed to be very disciplined and on your toes as your brand new family, meaning other kids (with other majors living in close quarters) were doing the exact opposite. While engineering’s workload was tough I could say the opposite of other departments. I used to joke (but it wasn’t a joke really…) that it was harder to get a B on one week’s lab portion of an engineering class than an A on a whole semester of say Philosophy 101. And I liked Philosophy 101, it was a requirement and I remember there were three other engineering students on that class and oddly enough they were head and shoulders above most others even those whose academic strengths were supposedly more aligned with that path.
Things have changed I am sure. I now hear about honors dorms, substance free dorms, questionnaires where they match you with compatible roomates and who knows what else… but I would still prefer no limits in an environment with less extreme disparities…
As to my children. I am doing my best not to make any choice for them one way or the other. I just want to have them look at all options and chose for themselves but can’t help to take a personal trip to memory lane every now and then…
“Average students from directionals have a tough road ahead because their college has less rigor than lacs and fewer resources per student than either LAC or flagship, their alumni network is not as expensive or strong as either…”
Directionals pay 10K a year, LACs 70K a year, for that difference the LACs better offer a much better experience. What you’re saying is that a $700K house is better than a $100K house, of course that’s true. The question the OP is asking is why should someone pay the price for a LAC, financial aid package or not than a public school. And since the LAC proponents keep saying the same things over and over again, it’s a good question.
Also directionals are commuter schools so there are no fees for room and board typically.
Most students don’t pay the full price for LACs. And those that do often have saved specifically for college and have healthy incomes.
If you don’t think smaller classes, more opportunities to interact with profs, often stronger career counseling offices, a more tight knit college communiy, and possibly a more pleasant college atmosphere is worth paying for, then the answer is simple. Don’t pay for it.
“Though nearly remarkable in its conclusion, this study seems to be infrequently cited. The authors themselves use conservative wording, but they do appear to strongly suggest that for maximal cognitive progression, it’s imperative – given a realistic choice – to select a liberal arts college”
the issue though is that LACs are expensive even with their FA and most people don’t think an economics degree from Berkeley or Michigan at half the price is worse than economics degree from Pomona or Amherst. If you want to compare Berkeley or Michigan to Pomona or Amherst in engineering, economics, english. literature, computer science, physics and figure out who’s better, I’m more than happy to engage in this discussion. You’ll have a tough time figuring out where Amherst or Pomona is better. Let me start, the co-founder of Google went to Michigan undergrad.
“If you don’t think smaller classes, more opportunities to interact with profs, often stronger career counseling offices, a more tight knit college communiy, and possibly a more pleasant college atmosphere is worth paying for, then the answer is simple. Don’t pay for it.”
And guess what, most people don’t. Pretty dumb people at UCLA huh.
^ Many people aren’t aware that a LAC is an option worth seriously considering. I attended a research university and so did my spouse. Until I my kids reached college age, I had little experience with small liberal arts colleges. This probably is even more typical for families west of the Mississippi, where LACs are less common than in the NE. In many states, almost the only state-supported options are universities.
By my count, 563 of 587 students (96%) surveyed by Niche at US News T20 national LACs agree that their professors have positive attributes identified in the survey. 1441 of 1705 students (85%) surveyed by Niche at T20 national universities agree that their professors have the same positive attributes identified in the survey. At the highest-ranked state university, 76% of surveyed students agreed (which seems to be a typical agreement rate for other “public Ivies”). On a student review site, on the pages for a couple of the highest-ranked state universities, one can see comment after comment complaining about large classes and over-reliance on teaching assistants. The National Survey of Student Engagement assessment reports I’ve seen also suggest to me that LACs tend to have a higher level of student-faculty engagement than big RUs do. It’s interesting, too, that college professors often send their kids to LACs (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-professors-send-their-children-to-college/).
I wouldn’t say that the difference between 76% and 96% satisfaction (especially in reference to rather vaguely-defined faculty attributes) automatically justifies a big price premium for LACs. Nevertheless I’ve looked at enough different kinds of data, and anecdotal reports, to conclude that just w.r.t. undergraduate teaching quality (and ignoring other factors that might be very important), LACs do tend to be worth some price premium over a typical state flagship for many arts & science majors. That’s assuming one values high-quality instruction as something valuable in itself (because it won’t necessarily lead to a higher financial ROI, according to some research findings.) It also assumes high-quality instruction in the liberal arts involves what LACs tend to deliver from year 1: lots of class discussion, frequent graded writing assignments, more short-answer or essay tests than multiple choice (or T/F), mentoring by experienced professors, and guided exposure to primary source materials. If you don’t think any of that is necessary, then it’s certainly cheaper to build a college education around big lecture classes, text books, and multiple choice tests. According to IPEDS data, Yale spends over $100K per student per year on instruction, UChicago about $84K. T20 LACs typically spend about $25K-$40K, top public universities (Berkeley, Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin) about $15K-$25K. Many factors (including economies of scale) affect instruction expenditures per FTE student, but certainly these would include faculty salaries, the S-F ratio, TA usage, and average class size.
^^FWIW, I don’t think it’s any accident that California is often the second or third most represented state at the NESCAC colleges. One could argue that the reverse is also true and that Pomona has a large share of New Yorkers and Bay Staters, but, in that case there’s a logical explanation - UMass and SUNY have absolutely zero prestige among parents wealthy enough to send their kids to private college.
Often it is cheaper to attend a LAC or small engineering college than a state flagship. My Olin student’s total cost of attendance is much lower than what he would have to pay at Virginia Tech or UVA. My Tulane student’s total bill for next year will be lower than what UVA would have cost. We are VA residents.
I agree with @dfbdfb and @homerdog and just texted my D. She attends what is considered a very strong public flagship and has no interest in a licensed or pre-professional type major such as nursing, PT, pre-med etc. Reminds me of our tour guide at UVA who was a senior history major with a job lined up following graduation. He actually told us that he is proof that history majors get jobs ( my D is not a history major).
“…One could argue that the reverse is also true and that Pomona has a large share of New Yorkers and Bay Staters, but, in that case there’s a logical explanation - UMass and SUNY have absolutely zero prestige among parents wealthy enough to send their kids to private college.”
Good observation. The subject of prestige can be a bit dangerous as things can get silly in a hurry. As I implied above I may have a bias towards LACS but I also have a lot respect towards good public institutions, they are ultimately the most likely alternative for good students if only because of their resources and in state cost coupled with the vast numbers they accommodate in comparison to LACs. On the other hand the way wealthy people look down on perfectly fine public schools on the northeast I find borderline obscene. I often think that if these public schools were transplanted elsewhere in the country their status will skyrocket. Sure, I understand that they are a stone throw away from many of the best institututions the world has ever seen but those are also rejection factories. Historically lower tiered schools like Northeastern now catapulting up the rankings is blamed on institutional gaming but I believe the anti public NE snobbery should share some of the blame…
Sorry for the detour, couldn’t resist throwing a mini rant here …
^I don’t think it’s hijacking the thread at all. I think the concept of prestige goes to the heart of the OP’s question. Some schools don’t seem to ever lose it while others can’t seem to gain any traction around it. After all, what are merit scholarships other than an admission that a college must deeply discount its tuition in order to attract upper-middle class customers?.
For hyping lower tiered private colleges… what I am saying is that IMO and particularly (or perhaps exclusively
…) in the northeast people would pay a premium to send their kids to quite a number of inferior private schools just to avoid the stigma around the public institutions of the area. That alongside with gaming as in NE case helps create a sort of artificial educational bubble where prestige trumps real academics. If someone is no familiar with NE:
And I agree, there are ignorant people everywhere and that’s a huge factor here. But for the northeast public school system which don’t seem to (borrowing from @circuitrider: ) “gain any traction” just because they are public I think both ignorance and snobbery go hand in hand. Sure, I get that paying extra to attend any of the four LACS of the five colleges (fifth is UMass) consortium could make a lot of sense, at least it does to me… also of course Wes… But to shun out UMass and paying a huge premium for NE or say Michigan (talking about a Mass resident) expecting much more I think is kind of ridiculous.
Actually, given California’s population, I’m kind of surprised that it isn’t the single most represented state. The fact that it’s below that isn’t some signal that Californian students are trying to escape their state or somesuch—rather the opposite, in fact.
^Well, a 5,000 mile plane trip could have something to do with why California is merely the second most represented state in NESCAC. In any event, I wouldn’t say they are escaping California so much as seeking something different. L.A. has been called a huge company town and there are advantages to seeing the world from a different perspective.
^^ Colleges in general tend to be connected to their regions. As one example, though Massachusetts comprises ~2% of the U.S. population, 17% of Harvard students come from MA.
Oh, I know, and I’m not seriously saying that just because California has the largest population it should have the largest representation in the NESCAC colleges—but it’s a pet peeve of mine when people start talking about how there’s, say, lots of Californians and very few Alaskans who do something, when the reason isn’t usually because Californians are more likely to do it than Alaskans are, it’s just that there’s a whole bunch more Californians.
…