Loren Pope and Choosing Colleges

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I recently skimmed through Loren Pope's books, "Colleges That Change Lives," and "Looking Beyond the Ivy League." I am both fascinated and disgusted by Pope, and I was hoping to find some support for my views on this board.</p>

<p>WHAT I LIKE ABOUT LOREN POPE'S BOOKS:</p>

<p>1) He dismantles the correlation between quality and prestige. "What is best for others is what's best for me; what others think is best for me is best for me; what others think is best for themselves is best for me" are extremely common attitudes towards college selection. By spelling it out, Pope draws the readers' attention to the silliness of applying where other people are applying, applying exclusively to schools that family members and GC's recommend (which would tend to be the more popular, name-brand schools anyway), and applying to schools because of their high selectivity. Instead, Pope stresses students to think, “What’s best for me is what’s best for me.”</p>

<p>2) He makes a persuasive case for the power of an LAC, in terms of accessible professors and a sense of community, which, he argues will contribute to intellectual, social, and moral growth. It's probably easier to float by at a large university without ever getting to know a professor, face an academic challenge, be called on in class, or have to fulfill an extracurricular requirement. What he doesn’t mention (and what I will mention, to further his argument about strong academics at obscure LAC's) is that the job market for professors is so competitive that you’ll have amazing, talented professor-wannabes taking jobs at schools you’ve never heard of. A family friend was considered lucky for getting a lowest-of-the-low adjunct professor offert at the University of South Dakota after receiving a PhD from an ivy in medieval history. He instead opted to go into business.</p>

<p>3) “Colleges that Change Lives” gives terrific, thoughtfully-researched profiles of the schools mentioned, but what Pope somewhat glosses over is that a college that “changes lives” is not a good fit for everyone. He has specifically chosen colleges that are known to smooth down students who are rough around the edges. A future Dukie or Cornellian would die at some of the schools he mentions, like Hampshire and Evergreen State, where the academics are much more focused on individual intellectual goals and could possibly be counterproductive to those seeking professional degrees after graduation. He shows that there are great schools that you haven't heard of that will give you opportunities you probably didn't know were available.</p>

<p>4) He pushes students to ask not what they will do for the school, but what the school will do for them (to paraphrase JFK).</p>

<p>WHAT I DISLIKE ABOUT LOREN POPE’S BOOKS:</p>

<p>1) He hates on state schools way too much. As I mentioned before, you can find good professors at the elites, you can find them at small LAC’s you’ve never heard of, YOU CAN ALSO FIND THEM AT STATE SCHOOLS. Additionally, state schools offer stronger athletics and college newspapers, by sheer size-advantage, and, if you’re a top student, really sweet opportunities in research and graduate-level classes. Somebody I know turned down Yale for a full scholarship at Michigan (he could have afforded Yale) and only speaks with joy about his Michigan days. He was able to take graduate-level classes in physics sophomore year, TA classes, and yet have a laid-back social experience with his classmates and college friends. When grad students look to complete PhD’s, they don’t go by school prestige, but rather by the connections they establish with an advisor and by the overall friendliness and openness of the school to them and their research. See what I mean by following this discussion, about grad students who turned down the offer of an ivy PhD and have never looked back: <a href="http://community.livejournal.com/gradstudents/398685.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://community.livejournal.com/gradstudents/398685.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>2) His language is far too strong and immature. He's way too passionate about the schools he profiles in CTCL. To him, a rebuttal consists of saying, “Not true.”</p>

<p>3) He writes things that are just…. weird? bizarre? contradictory? false? So this whole time, I’ve been following his “Looking Beyond the Ivy League” argument in that no school is the best school and the ones you think are the best aren’t always the best blah blah blah, and all of a sudden I come to a mini-index of schools with one line summaries. For both the University of Chicago and Northwestern, he writes the identical line: “better than most of the ivies.” Better??? In what way, Mr. Pope, and which ones? Certainly USNWR would agree that Chicago and Northwestern are better than some of the ivies, but certainly that’s not what you mean… on these boards, you’ll get hounded for qualifications if you say that school X is better than school Y, but somehow Loren Pope gets away with it. It’s for reasons like this that I’m somewhat convinced these books are an ego boost for him, a well-intentioned ego-boost.</p>

2

<p>I agree with pretty much everything you've said.</p>

<p>I bought CTCL a while ago and am about half-way through it. Although I'm sure a lot of what he says is good and helpful, I also feel a bit wary of trusting it too much because of his seemingly very personal dislike of the Ivys, etc. I would find the book much more credible if he only told about how good certain schools are, not putting down others. In a sense, I get the impression that the purpose of the book is just as much to put down the Ivy League (and other universties) as to draw attention to the lesser-known LACs. I'd expected more objectivity. Also, I had expected more from it than little notes from his former clients saying "____ school changed my life!" So yeah, I'm not that impressed by his book.</p>

3

<p>I loved his book Looking Beyond the Ivy League.</p>

<p>Yes, he generally hates state schools, saying that they are too big and impersonal to contribute much to the growth of the individual. But he does support the honors programs of the state universities. I think he's mainly just trying to steer people away from just looking at state universities. I remember near the beginning of the book he said that at lots of high schools, tons of students just apply to the state universities partly because that's where everyone tradiitionally went, and partly because they didn't bother exploring other colleges. </p>

<p>I think the best part of the book was the fact that even though his data was kind of obsolete, he made me think so much outside the box, beyond just prestige, and he really made me appreciate the value of a liberal arts education. The book's greatest strength was that it pushed me to do more research and to be more proactive in finding the school that's truly right for me.</p>

<p>I briefly looked at Colleges That Change Lives and realized after reading about half the book that I would absolutely hate going to those places, except Reed and Kalamazoo. I definitely prefer Looking Beyond the Ivy League, and don't think any high schooler should move on to college without reading it.</p>

4

<p>I think the book is ridiculous. Most third-tier private schools are not worth the price tag. If you can't get into an elite undergrad you should save your money and go to your state school. Its better than drowning in debt.</p>

5

<p>At the beginning of your college search, it's important to keep a totally open mind and consider all of the options. Then, if you really do not feel good about small liberal arts colleges, large state places, Ivies, etc, rule out that category. I never was attracted to the small schools myself, but think that they deserve a look. And, on the other hand, many people do thrive at huge, impersonal, state schools. They also deserve consideration.</p>

6

<p>I agree with point one. I still don't understand people that apply to and even accept admission to Ivy League schools sight unseen just because they're Ivy Leaguge. Yes, the are excellent schools, and yes, they are the right place for a lot of people, but they're also NOT the right place for a lot of people, even qualified people. Everyone should sit down when they start the selection process and say "Besides academics, what's important to me?" From there you can get a good list of schools, and then see which ones are the strongest academically.</p>

<p>I also agree (with unalove that is) with the state school thing. Sure, at a state school you can "drift by" if you want to, but you can also turn it into great opportunities. I would argue that many large State schools even have MORE opportunities than your average LAC, depending on what field you are in. You just have to put forth some effort yourself instead of being forced.</p>

<p>He's pretty hypocritical for going on a speil about doing whats best for you, not for someone else, and then saying State schools aren't good for anyone.</p>

7

<p>We read his book to get another perspective and ideas on schools. It forced us to think more broadly about what to look for in our schools.</p>

<p>What we found to be a more helpful book for us was the Fiske guides. These books discuss LACS, state schools and the ivys and they go beyond just the statistics. We used them when both of our D's were going through the search process.</p>

8

<p>I stood in Barnes and Noble, saw it on the shelf, and because it had been touted on here so much (by one person, in particular-- so much so, that I assumed the poster was related to him, or was somehow getting royalties), I stood there and read through it. </p>

<p>I agree with what you say. I thought he made some amazingly disparaging remarks and generalizations about many schools (well, basically everything not listed in his book). Thought it was written in a very condescending manner as well. I also agree with the statement that many students would "die" at some of these places. (Reed seemed to be one of the exceptions.) </p>

<p>To my mind, he's speaking to a lot of students who are not academic "stars," nor who are very independent thinkers, and who need (or want) a lot of hand-holding. That sounds like a generalization, too, but that's the impression I got. </p>

<p>I have no idea who he is or what his credentials are, but I thought the book was just awful. I even wondered if these schools paid him to write it. He obviously has an agenda, but the way he goes about getting it across is laughable-- and so transparent.</p>

9

<p>I think it is a great read if you take his advice with a BIG grain of salt. What the book does do is expand the school set many students might consider and it does make a compelling case that LACs might be a great fit for some kids. Unfortunately he makes his case for the schools he likes by tearing down other schools. I like the broader focus he suggests; I wish he had made the same argument in a more positive manner.</p>