How is this hard to understand? Go beyond the rankings and check the things that really matter.
For example, comparing our flagship (CU Boulder) to the top 40-80 range LACs my D is considering, CU does worse in all of the following ways;
Larger classes (18;1 student faculty ratio vs. 10:1 or 11:1)
Worse 4/6 yr grad rates (70% vs. 80+%)
Worse freshmen retention rates
Lower test scores (24-29 ACT vs. approx. 27-31)
Fewer students graduating in top 10% of their class
Other things I consider positives about LACs vs CU:
Residential campus - studies show students who live on campus do better
Less emphasis on big sports culture
Less partying and drug use (I know this one is up for debate, but in the case of CU, partying is way more rampant)
More opportunities/less competition for study abroad, internships, other opportunities
Way more individual, personal attention
Big fish in little pond
More nurturing environment
But this is not just a case of flagship vs. LACs. Compare CU and University of Denver, which are ranked the same. Again, DU does better than CU in every single category - class size, 6 year grad rates, ACT scores. Not by a huge margin, but better. DU also has much better study abroad opportunities. And at one-third the size of CU, students at DU receive more personal attention. All of which translates into a better education, in my opinion.
And I forgot to mention, the LACs we are considering, with merit aid, are approximately the same cost or cheaper than CU in-state.
So to me, the better question is why send your kid to the state flagship when she can get a better, private education elsewhere for the same or a lower price?
That said, my S, who will be applying in 2 years, wants to go to the flagship. Its probably a much better fit for him, and he may not have the stats to get merit at a private school. I’m sure he will do fine. But if cost was the same, I would steer him to a smaller school.
I agree with above. DD received very good merit at DU; applied to CU, CSU, MINES,REGIS and several OOS private schools. DU gave her the best merit and so was a no brainer. Also when all was said and done, wants to stay in Colorado.
First - Apparently, with merit aid at some lower ranked LACs, kids who qualify for that aid can attend at the same price, or cheaper than in-state tuition at the flagship. Regional publics also give merit aid to top students, whereas the flagships often don’t or are stingy with it, giving out only a few awards to the very top. Some kids will thrive better at a smaller LAC.
Second - My own kid does not want to attend a school with over 30k students. She thinks she’d be overwhelmed and I agree, actually. A smaller school, even one with 10-15k students, instead, would be less overwhelming for her.
Why profs send their kids to SLAC? Well, I didn’t read the article but I can guess a major reason. Towards the end of grad school, since I was interested in teaching at the college level, I participated in a teacher training program. Only then was it revealed to me -“The Holy Trinity” as one song calls it. Faculty have to complete 1) teaching 2) research 3) service in order to be successful (in order to get tenure). At R1 universities, there’s a heavy focus on research (publications, grants, etc), with teaching way down on that priority list. At smaller and SLACs, priority is teaching. The size of each piece of that pie differs depending on the school’s aims. I’d had NO clue up to that point even though that had been my career path, so I can imagine that the general public (not counting majority at CC) doesn’t know this. I would’ve steered my son towards the smaller engineering colleges but he wanted a large Uni (gender balance was important to him, seriously). He actually chose the largest Uni he could’ve possibly chosen and insisted he wouldn’t mind. So umm yeah, this parent didn’t make his decision for him
I forgot to finish my thought…and some kids would do better in an environment where teaching was the main focus.
^At many research universities, including the Ivy I attended for grad school, teaching doesn’t even make “The Holy Trinity”. In fact, there is only one thing that matters for tenure… grant money… and lots of it!
My son was admitted to the state flagship and a comparable liberal arts school. He also was admitted to Tulane. We could not afford Tulane (they did not give much aid at all). The comparable liberal arts school gave him a big merit scholarship as well as met our need - the big “swing” for us was viewing the lecture halls. The state flagship lecture hall was HUGE - at least four times as large as the lecture hall in the private school - the funny thing is that the tour guide assured the tour that the “large lecture hall” was used for usually first year lecture courses only - most classes were much smaller. Tulane is much more selective, however we have not had to incur huge amounts of debt, and will hopefully be able to help him with his loans a bit after our D is finished with her school.
Honestly, now that my son is almost finished, the smaller class sizes would have been more than worth it if the school had cost more than the flagship. We wouldn’t, however, have been able to afford it then.
Unless you get into the honors programs with small class sizes at the state schools, a school with a better teacher/student ratio in the classroom (not being taught by grad students) is a better value.
Our state flagship (tOSU) offers very little in merit to instate while it courts out of state students. D16’s front runner (UK) is courting her. That, coupled with research opportunities starting freshman year, is good enough for us.
I haven’t read any posts in this thread which mention something else–ECs. Now, I suspect some of you will think that focusing on ECs is silly. I disagree.
Lets say you have a son who is shy and a bit of a follower. He’s really enjoyed being on the basketball team in high school. Most of the close friends he made were boys on the basketball team with him. He didn’t drink or use drugs in high school and you are as a parent aware that the desire to play his best was the reason he could say NO when other kids pressured him to drink or smoke pot.
You live in California and he gets into UCLA. There is no universe in which he is good enough to play basketball for UCLA. There is a Division 3 school though where he could play ball. He won’t get an athletic scholarship for it, but he’ll make the team. And your son really, really would like to play ball in college.
So…you try to analyze all the facts and say. If he goes to UCLA he won’t play ball. When there’s pressure to drink too much or smoke pot, he’s not going to be able to say “No thanks, I’ve got a game tomorrow.” You wonder how he’s going to make friends. And then there’s that LAC. He’ll be able to play basketball. You envision him making friends on the team. You know he’ll stay away from booze and weed to make sure he’ll play his best. You know that as a membe of the basketball team at a LAC he’ll"be someone." You’ve met the coach. He seems like a really good man. He is well aware that it is extremely unlikely that any of the kids he coaches are going to end up in the NBA.
If you can afford the extra money, are you going to send your kid off to UCLA? Or are you going to think twice about the LAC. I know if he can play ball, he’ll make friends. He’ll stay away from drinking and smoking pot. He’ll have a mentor in the coach. I think he’ll be a heck of a lot happier.
It’s not just sports. Your kid might be good enough to be in the marching band at a LAC but not at UMIchigan. Or good enough to get leading roles in drama productions at a LAC but not at UCLA. He might be a good enough photographer to be the sports photographer for the teams at a LAC but not at Cal Berkeley. And being able to do those things might really matter to your kid.
A UCLA student can certainly play intramural basketball. Also, some small LACs have intercollegiate basketball programs that are better than one might assume for small schools (e.g. Davidson).
Also, small school size and student participation in athletics tend to have a positive correlation with high risk alcohol use, according to http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/niaaacollegematerials/panel01/highrisk_05.aspx , so your assumption that the small LAC would be a lower risk (for recreational drugs including alcohol use) environment may not necessarily be true.
Not ALL small schools - but it is possible. I have a friend whose son is attending a CTCL school in the midwest - flagship is UMass. He is on the varsity swim team and has participated in really neat programs and tried all kinds of activities that would have been unlikely at his flagship. My own D plays a sport different from her primary HS sport, was in a dance recital (last danced in kindergarten), is active in student government and goes to many campus productions of all types because she has friends who are participating. Yes she maybe could have done those things at our flagship but it is very unlikely knowing her personality. A decent sized LAC is a great place for a kid to participate in lots of things.
ucbalumnus, you misunderstand me…perhaps because I was unclear…if you think I’m saying LACs are always a better choice. They aren’t. I’m only saying that sometimes ECs are a good reason to choose a different school over the state flagship. It’s a school by school determination. A particular kid may be happier at a college where he can pursue his/her passion than at one where (s)he can’t.
Personally, though, I have to say that I don’t think playing intramurals is much of a substitute for being on the varsity team.
I mean he left Massachusetts and went west (to the midwest or heartland or whatever) to a CTCL school where he is a varsity swimmer etc. I guess I should have said HIS flagship is UMass but I thought that was self-evident.
It was tough my D got into university of Chicago and Michigan but we could not afford the tuition so she opted for UIUC. Grad school she can go where she wants. Other D it is tougher for her, she wants to go to UCLA or Columbia but we can’t afford it. I almost wish they did not apply but they were hopping for more aid, so UIUC for second D unless a miracle happens.
Wisconsin is another top flagship school than is so much better than most private schools. Therefore it was easy to eliminate so many private schools many consider for our gifted son.
I disagree with the pros and cons of post #46. Honors programs at flagships are for the students with the same stats as at the most elite private schools. Not all classes are the same at the large publics. Things like 3 different general chemistry classes and different options in other fields. The average student has a much different course experience than the top student. Not all students want the atmospheres of the various Ivies but still get nationally known professors and can experience top research personally at many state flagships.
Which school chosen depends on the area of interest. Being able to take grad level courses as an undergrad in a top 15 department trumps being at a known to many school with lesser opportunities in the field that matters to the student. Remember- no school can be tops in everything. Even Harvard is a poor choice for some interests.
To answer the post title- no good reason to pay more for a lesser choice. That is one reason (aside from distance) that many gifted students in the other regions of the country do not consider the east coast schools so many CCers consider.
