One-line descriptions of each LAC culture from enrolled student

Parents Forum
181

<p>


</p>

<p>Xmere, I think SBMom has explained the dilemma very well: most often the college choice involves a trade off. You may not get everything you want, but if you work at it you can get what you need. My son, who had only ever lived in mega-cities, started off believing that he needed an urban environment. He also wanted small or medium size and a focus on the arts. He is politally middle road and wanted to avoid an excessivley PC environment. His list pre and post visiting was completely turned upside down and inside out. After two years in an insular rural environment with a surprisingly vibrant arts scene, he wonders why he ever even considered urban. The campus community is, as you say, a "city" unto itself (or at least a thriving small town.)</p>

<p>If I understand you correctly, your daughter is considering an LAC, wants to be around intellectually challenged kids who still find time enjoy non-academic interests, wants an emphasis on the arts, but doesn't want to go too far to the left politically. If these are her top priorities I'd suggest that your daughter take another look at those colleges that appear to be in the middle of nowhere, like Kenyon, Amherst, Hamilton, Skidmore and Williams (plus some of the others recommended). These LACs, though decidedly not urban, may have enough of the other elements on your daughter's wishlist to make the tradeoff worthwhile. </p>

<p>Kenyon and Williams also have excellent theater opportunities. (Others may as well, but these are two that I'm personally familar with.)</p>

182

<p>Thanks, Momrath, for your comments, which are very helpful. Part of what makes this process so hard is trying to convince the teenager in question to keep an open mind and to be willing to look widely.</p>

<p>It was perceptive of you to note the theater possibilities at some of the schools. The artsy side of my daughter is indeed theater -- everything about it except acting! She is a lighting designer for her school productions, and often runs the light board herself. She has been a "tech" designing costumes and sets, and next year will direct some school plays.</p>

<p>The reason Amherst and Williams are so popular is that they are on everyone's list for many, many reasons. </p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

183

<p>If your daughter is into theater, I'd add another recommendation: Whitman College in Washington State. It's in a nice small town but has an incredibly active theater program and meets all of her other requirements to a tee. </p>

<p>My daughter also has changed her mind several times about what type of environment she would consider. She always knew she wanted an LAC, but at first said "No LAC's that aren't near large cities." Then it became "No LACs that are in cold climates." Then "No LACs that have a religious affiliation of any kind." </p>

<p>What looks to be shaping up as her final list of schools all are lacking in at least one (some more than one) of each of those "NO!" areas. But they all offer exactly the feel she really wants but couldn't verbalize until she started visiting schools that DID meet many of her "must haves." It has been an interesting journey.</p>

184

<p>Xmere, for some reason my son has several highschool friends who were theater techies. They ended up at Barnard, Wisconsin and Grinnell. Williams -- and other schools -- definitely need backstage experience. This is a valuable EC.</p>

<p>Visiting diverse types of colleges is critical. Try to get your daughter to visit as many as you can. My son visited 14 schools and only three were what he expected, and he had done a lot of pre-visit research including watching Collegiate Choice videos. </p>

<p>His two top choices fell off the list entirely and two last minute add-ons (that had previously been scratched because of preconceived stereotypes) rose to the top.</p>

<p>After the visit if it's a no-go, I never argue with the kid. As my co-op board used to say, they can reject for any or no reason. It's not always logical.</p>

185

<p>Xmere, ideally your D should have 5-6 reaches, 5-6 matches 5-6 safeties early in the process, so they can be winnowed down after some visits to more like 3/3/3.</p>

<p>I was able to talk my D into keeping schools under consideration by providing specific "A vs. B" questions. </p>

<p>For example, she applied to UC as match/safety. But she really wanted LACs. When she told me she "didn't want midwest" I say, yes, but where would you rather go, UCSC or Grinnell? This way, she could see that Grinnell was a "match" she'd prefer to UCSC...</p>

186

<p>"for some reason my son has several highschool friends who were theater techies. They ended up at Barnard, Wisconsin and Grinnell. Williams -- and other schools -- definitely need backstage experience. This is a valuable EC."</p>

<p>Golly, this is the first really good news I've heard. My daughter is also a varsity policy debater (went to WACFL nationals last weekend in Milwaukee), but those are apparently a dime a dozen.(!!!) In my high school days, techs were people you felt sorry for, if you noticed them at all. Life has changed.</p>

<p>Thanks, momrath.</p>

187

<p>SBmom and Carolyn-</p>

<p>Thanks to you both. We sent for Whitman's materials, and it sounds wonderful. But it would take a huge amount of time to get to--we live in the metro DC area. I spoke to a Portland man on the plane from Nationals last weekend, and he said that was really true. In addition to the 5 hour plane flight, it is at least a 4 hour drive from Seattle. </p>

<p>He went to Lewis and Clark. I don't think I want her to be THAT much of a hippie right off the bat, unless this stereotype is undeserved.</p>

<p>Question: is it really useful to go see colleges in the summer if no students are there?</p>

188

<p>Xmere:</p>

<p>If you are worried about academic stress and concern that your daughter not be a "grind", I think you should be equally concerned about Swarthmore, Williams, and Amherst. I have first hand experience at Williams and vicarious experience at Swarthmore and I don't think there's enough difference in average workloads to change the basic equation. The differences, if any, would be at the "Gentleman's C" end of the spectrum. The average GPAs at all three schools are within a tenth or two. I believe that going to any of the these three schools without an expectation of working pretty hard would be a big mistake. You can skate by, but why bother? You can skate by for a heck of a lot less than $40k per year and save yourself a lot of aggravation.</p>

<p>I don't think you have to be a "grind" at these schools, but as my daughter put it about Swarthmore (and I think it applies equally to Williams and Amherst):</p>

<p>a) if you are the kind of kid who hated getting your stuff done in high school, go somewhere else because you won't be happy.</p>

<p>b) if you are the kind of kid who is going to give yourself ulcers over your GPA, like getting a B+ or an A-, protect your health and go somewhere else.</p>

<p>I think that is solid advice.</p>

189

<p>Xmere, count me in the camp that finds summer college visits better than nothing--they at least give you a sense of the facilities--but they don't give a sense of what the campus community/students are like during the school year. Aside from summer being atypical for whatever students may be there, many schools are hosting various summer programs that bear little resemblance to the look/feel of the campus during the school year.</p>

<p>Btw, I dropped you three e-mails about Smith in light of your comments about what your D is looking for. The last one was only two lines. The first one...well, I was writing a Bible.</p>

190

<p>Xmere, due to logistics, we made all of our visits in the summer and felt satisfied that we got a good feeling for each school. The admissions departments are operating full tilt and there is, as TheDad mentions, an acceptable amount of action going on on campus. A follow up overnight to the short-listed schools is a good combination with a summer visit.</p>

<p>Having said that, if you have a choice, it's still better to visit during the school year, especially if your child has a preconceived negative opinion about a college. If you want to present a campus in its best light, then I'd say visit in Fall or Spring.</p>

191

<p>Xmere, you mentioned Lewis and Clark. I visited there when I went to see schools in Oregon, and it sounds like it would be a good match/safety for your daughter. It isn't extremely selective but it is becoming much more so. I enjoyed my visit (but clicked more with Reed). It seemed to have a thriving arts department and new theater, and the academics are challenging but not overcoming. Its about 15 minutes from Portland (downtown) and the school runs a shuttle in nonstop. The girl who gave my tour didn't seem particularly "out there" ( as in she wore a sweater and jeans, clean and normal hair...). Her description of her experience seemed to be on the line of what your D is going for. They also have a great study abroad program, a plus in my book. Finally, if your daughter is a bit above their normal admissions pool, she can qualify for merit scholarships aside from school-funded need-based, as the admin lady described to me. I found visiting the picturesque campus incredible with the rose gardens and manicured grounds. Reed and LC made me fall in love with Portland- and that is my two cents or so.</p>

192

<p>"Isn't Carleton isolated?"</p>

<p>Sure, Northfield is a small town, but it contains two colleges. It's also only 30 minutes from Minneapolis/St. Paul and, more importantly, the Mall of America.</p>

193

<p>Xmere, summer visits have disadvantages, but aren't too bad for preliminary weeding - you work with what you have. I second the idea of starting summer visits with schools that she likes, and if there is a school that fits her profile in most every way, but she's balking because she's a teen, put that one one the precious fall visit list.
Refining the list is a process, my DD is a thinker, but dogmatic, she seesawed between strongly held opinions in one direction and another - to the point where we never knew what her final thought about a particular school was going to be - you could see the decision-making going on, but couldn't understand it. When the dust cleared, though, she had a well thought list, and she could articulate good reasons for why each school was on the list. As others have said, each school had a trade-off, there was no perfect school in her eyes (there was in my eyes, but we didn't see eye to eye), but they were ranked and ready to go. In the end she took charge of the safety list too, and while her safeties were further from the ideal school than would be recommended on this forum, she could tell exactly why each school was on the list.</p>

194

<p>techs were people you felt sorry for, if you noticed them at all. Life has changed.</p>

<p>Xmere:
I cracked up laughing. I think you'll find these two threads of interest (must read them in full), and the Musical Theatre forum also.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=33960%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=33960&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=36042%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=36042&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Like your D, my daughter also had a big verbal/math disparity on her SAT and wouldn't trade being backstage for onstage for anything.</p>

195

<p>Someone do the University of Michigan!</p>

196

<p>Xmere - Macalester meets every single one of your requirements. No tradeoffs necessary.</p>

<p>Getting in might be another matter, but then again....</p>

197

<p>As for a summer visit to Kenyon if your kid already doesn't think they want to go someplace rural then it is a bad idea. You could set a bomb off in the middle of that campus in August and nobody would hear it. The wastelands of the Sahara are more populated.</p>

198

<p>Carleton is at least 45 minutes from Minneapolis/ St. Paul. Oberlin is closer to Cleveland than Carleton is to St. Paul. Oberlin is the same distance to the huge malls in the Cleveland suburbs as Carleton is to Mall of America.</p>

199

<p>You all are so nice to take an interest in our case. This forum is quite amazing. </p>

<p>Schools that are reputedly demanding (oft-mentioned are Chicago, Swarthmore) are reasonably seen as that for the majority of their admittees. So, the rational observer goes to the website or rankings to see who constitutes the majority of their admittees, and voila, there are either 25-75% test scores or the grid that separates 600s from 700s in math and verbal (GPA either absent or grouped, mostly). If a kid falls above the 75%, that is a good sign to start with.</p>

<p>(Note that GPA is almost always absent or vague, presumably because equating grades from even two schools is hard, and from thousands of high schools is so hard it moves into the realm of statisticians and demographers.)</p>

<p>But, from a consumer's point of view, there just isn't enough information to judge for a particular applicant how hard the school really is other than anecdotal reports from students he/she knows who appear similar to the applicant and who attend the college.</p>

<p>This is because, (source for #1 is CTY/JHU program research):
1) There is a huge difference between a 700 verbal SAT kid and an 800 kid. The verbal scores correlate much more with basic mental ability than math scores at that level, (as a contrast, Cal Tech kids who would get 1200 on a math SAT if the scoring went up that high are overwhelmingly likely to be extremely smart verbally because there is some correlation of the two scores). </p>

<p>2) Left unmeasured in any systematic way is the capacity to focus or concentrate for several months at a time on demanding material. </p>

<p>This latter, focus, is judged by necessity almost entirely on high school grades (what else is there), but I hardly need tell you that very smart kids in high school courses that they are naturally good at can get As easily. The only test is how they do in courses that they are not good at, barring learning disabilities. But for high school kids who are good at every core subject, with test scores over 1500s, there is no way to make this assessment from a distance. In other words, they haven't been really put to the focus test.</p>

<p>At the higher end of the focus spectrum, however, I believe there are huge natural differences, even for kids with nearly perfect test scores, partly because the scores don't extend high enough to measure at the top, and partly because a smart kid who focuses easily is just not going to have to spend much time studying. </p>

<p>My line of work accepts a huge span if you are talking about focus, and a smaller span if you are considering basic mental smarts. Example of high focus demand: new associates in huge law firms assigned to antitrust sections are cast aside quickly if they show signs of flagging in absolute concentration and output, because they will have to do this for most of their working lives. This means 10-12 billable hours a day of pure concentration on more complicated stuff than most lawyers have to address, six days a week usually, eleven months a year, and over a forty year period. The work load at Chicago would be nothing for such people. In fact one of my good friends many years ago was the valedictorian of the UChicago law school and spent little time studying. It was effortless for him, mildly annoying to the ordinary mortals around him, they told me.</p>

<p>As for a kid with great focus and lesser basic ability, my guess is that schools like them better than really smart kids with lesser focus, for obvious reasons. In the long run, success goes to folks who work efficiently and long, although they may have to adjust their desired field of work slightly. </p>

<p>Sorry this is so long winded. What is the point? My instinct tells me that my daughter would find the humanities courses at a place like Chicago not too demanding, but any serious math or science course would be a huge problem. We have spent thousands on trying to figure out what the problem is, with no luck. It probably has something to do with poor rote number/symbol memory, but highly paid experts disagree. So, the gloss I use is "not a grind," even though that is not, strictly speaking, accurate.</p>

<p>Whew. Sorry, folks. Too long!</p>

200

<p>
[quote]
My instinct tells me that my daughter would find the humanities courses at a place like Chicago not too demanding, but any serious math or science course would be a huge problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Join the crowd. I would say that difficulty with college-level calculus and hard science courses is the number one "surprise" for kids at all elite colleges and appears to be nearly universal. I saw it at Williams. I know of it at Swarthmore, Dartmouth, and Harvard. I believe the universality extends across all ranges of schools.</p>

<p>I think my daughter probably captured the heart of the matter well when she said, "I like math that has numbers...." </p>

<p>She probably captured the other part of it in explaining a decision not to continue as a physics major, even after doing OK in the advanced freshman seminar: "I don't think I can handle with 'those Physics boys', refering to a particular genre of students for whom Physics comes effortlessly (think plastic pocket protector stereotypes). She tells a hilarious story of 18 year old "physics boys" in her seminar trying to convince the professor that the textbook was wrong about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. "Yeah, like that's really gonna happen....", was her comment.</p>

<p>These two issues are probably the explanation for the second-most common phenomenom: kids going to college thinking math/science and ending up going a different direction.</p>

<p>Point being: these are universal issues that will be the same at all schools. And, the difficulty of college has much more to do with course selection than it does with the inherent overall difficulty of various schools (within similar groups).</p>