AdOfficer

It seems like some folks are completely missing the point of the CTCL book and Pope's work: he wasn't trying to make Reed, Wooster, Evergreen, and friends gain prestige, nor was he trying to market them to appear better than WASP (Williams, Amherst, Swat, Pomona, etc...). Instead, he was trying to help those students for whom WASP is not attainable find places that could provide them with the compelling, life-changing 4 years of college they are hoping for at the end of the day. WASP and their peers aren't interested in admitting B- or C-students and transforming them into lifelong learners who go on to get PhDs; Eckerd, Goucher, OWU, and Evergreen, like their CTCL peers, are and do. And this is exactly why they ARE special.

NOVA's point about Grinnell being dropped points to this precisely: Grinnell is a fantastic place, but it is so selective now that the majority of kids who apply are denied. Clearly, Grinnell (or Bowdoin or Vassar or Carleton, etc...,) is special and outstanding in its own ways. However, its mission is a bit different than those of Hendrix, Austin, New College, etc...,.

Surely, the CTCLs aren't right for everyone, but for many students, including those who may not have achieved their fullest academic potential in high school, they're amazing places that provide opportunities for growth that many places simply do not (for whatever reasons). It's this "Bs to PhDs philosophy" that attracts a broad range of students to CTCLs, and one of the main reasons folks like Pope have "advertised" them. High selectivity doesn't necessarily equate to a quality experience and opportunities for everyone.

absweetmarie

But, AdOfficer, would it be okay if we didn't perpetuate the notion that these schools are only attractive to B- and C- students? My D is an A- student with test scores that put a great many schools in her match range (if not the schools you so cleverly refer to with the WASP acronym). She CHOSE Kalamazoo College after a rather thorough search, and many other students who are not B- or C- students choose the CTCL schools (or any number of other small schools that aren't household names) after the same kind of search.

annasdad

The C students from my D's hyper-selective high school who applied to Beloit this year were rejected (at least those whose parents I know were). That's the first time that's happened.

sally305

absweetmarie, agreed--my son was an A- student at a super-competitive high school and had very high test scores (plus great essays and recs). He got into several higher-ranked schools and was awarded significant merit aid by all of them. He chose Hendrix because of how he felt when he visited and what he thinks he can accomplish there, not because he didn't get in somewhere "better." And AdOfficer, just BTW--the ACT range at Hendrix is comparable to Grinnell, Macalester, and so on. Doesn't sound like "C-" students to me.

Also, AdOfficer, I do appreciate the points you are trying to make but they come across as damning with faint praise, unfortunately. I would love to hear you elaborate on how the mission of higher-ranked schools is "different." I would be very interested in knowing what is special about the "WASP" schools from your vantage point.

absweetmarie

Also, last I checked, a C- student has a sub 2.0 GPA ... This is not the domain of the CTCL school, let's be real. And the core of the student body at most of these places are not B- students either. So, yeah. That's not to say the CTCL schools are not more forgiving than some more selective schools when it comes to kids whose GPAs or test scores are not stratospheric. You can look all this stuff up, btw.

LasMa

I'm sorry, AdOfficer, but I just have to disagree with the notion that CTCL students are reclamation cases and WASP wanna-bes. My D and her college friends were not sub-par HS students who saw their LAC as their last chance to get on the education/career train. Coming into college, they were bright, curious, high-achieving, and eager to expand their horizons. They were already on the lifelong-learner track and saw this college, with its personal, non-competitive ethos, as the best way to continue down that track. There's a large contingent of IB students at my D's college; and yes, kids who were accepted at Ivies and preferred the LAC. If you think CTCLs are populated by HS underachievers who are trying to make up for lost time, who had to settle for this school when they really wanted to go to Amherst, you're mistaken.

Consumed as our culture is with status and prestige, I know this is baffling for people whose primary standard for judging a college is USNWR. But it's a fact -- there are plenty of superior students who reject WASP in favor of CTCL. And they are getting a terrific education.

redpoint

First, Ad, don't tell us we are missing the point, and that you know better, because that is downright pompous.

Second, what? Reed, for example, is one of the top schools for real intellectuals in the country. My school, New College, was definitely for geeky intellectuals. The school didn't have to turn anyone around: no one would pick the school unless they were so inclined.

I think you are just enjoying irritating us.

atomom

To answer the original question: Yes, S's life was changed at Thomas Aquinas College in CA--one of the most unusual colleges in the world. See their website for more info.

LasMa

atomom, I just checked the Thomas Aquinas website, and you're not kidding. Talk about pure education!

novaparent

Adcom is spot on on at least one point: all of these protests to the contrary, the large majority of students at CTCL schools are clearly and unequivocally those for whom the tops LACs are "not attainable," and CTLC is aimed at those students and their parents.

And, seriously, Grinnell is now deemed bashworthy because it has progressed to the point where it is unattainable by most CTCL students? Suddenly it isn't as intellectually rigorous as Knox? Preposterous. Just ask any graduate school admissions officer, and I'll bet you'll get vehement disagreement. For that matter, ask any student at any of the other top LACs.

In a recent year, Grinnell's top five overlap institution for applications were Carleton, Brown, Chicago, Amherst, and Pomona. Students who apply to these schools are generally not intellectual basket cases.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up the U.S. news rankings. But, since they are, I happen to think they provide some useful information -- particularly the reputation rankings -- and shouldn't completely be dismissed out of hand. If one school has better students than another, more money, and a better reputation, why shouldn't it be ranked higher? The key is to use the rankings wisely and not be a slave to them.

Finally, a message to all the posters on this thread who insist that they're paying less to go to a CTCL school than their state flagship. That's just great, but as I've been saying all along I don't think you're CTCL's target audience. My comments are directed towards the full or close to full freight folks. Very few schools -- and I'd include all CTLC schools among them -- are worth paying that kind of money for, especially if it requires borrowing. But if you can actually SAVE money by going to a CTCL school, then more power to you.

bopambo

Thomas Aquinas is indeed a unique and amazing school that I'm sure changes lives, but just to be precise, it is not on the CTCL list. There are many great schools that aren't.

When my friend (a high school teacher) suggested that I read CTCL as we started searching for colleges, he also suggested that I read "Looking Beyond the Ivy League", also written by Loren Pope. Up until that point we were pretty much looking at the same 25 "top" schools, along with everybody else. He made a very persuasive argument that there are plenty of colleges in America that are actually better suited to preparing one for a fulfilling life.

This is a quote:
"Vocational preparation, whether for engineering, medicine, business, or plumbing, is concerned with the job rather than the person. It does not seek to achieve the liberating and enlightening changes, in values, attitudes, and thinking that will help a student lead a productive and fulfilling life. That is only done by way of a liberal education. The vocational route prepares for only the most temporary of temporary satisfactions: the first job. Almost everybody changes jobs in the first years after graduation. And who has a crystal ball clear enough to see his last job? The fact is that for this and coming generations, the odds are overwhelming that it hasn't been invented yet."

We found we agreed with Loren Pope, so for these over-coddling parents the true value of education was to have our son learn to: think critically; communicate effectively; understand history, world religions and philosophies; speak another language; make enduring friends and connections; value the arts; and know how to learn and find the appropriate resources to re-educate himself over and over. Pope is just pointing out that the CTCL are qualified to do that, and in many instances better qualified to do that than more "highly ranked" schools.

rbouwens

These schools aren't for those left out from WASP or whatever......people choose these schools because they WANT to.

Here is an excerpt from a prof's email to me: he chose an LAC over Chicago (Carleton)


"I think that nothing is better preparation for graduate study at the top schools than a great liberal arts education. It is why I chose NOT to go to Chicago as an undergraduate. I wanted the perfect preparation, which I got at a liberal arts school, followed by my dream of studying for the doctorate at Chicago. An anthropology major at Beloit College (recognized as one of the best, and often THE best, undergraduate department of anthropology in the country) is perfect. I am biased toward liberal arts colleges (four year ones like Beloit) for the B.A. Not everyone would agree, but it is hard to argue with the results over time."

I'm not even sure if Carleton is in CTCL, but clearly he loves Beloit, which is.

bopambo

Novaparent, nobody should go into huge amounts of debt for any school, I think we would all agree with you on that. NO school is worth a lifetime of crippling debt. If that's your only point, there isn't an argument here.

novaparent

Rbouwens, no Carleton is not on the CTCL list, and frankly if you don't know that (and can't even intuit it based on Carleton's reputation and selectivity) then you are not sufficiently informed to participate in this discussion. We're not talking about liberal arts colleges generally, we're talking about CTCL colleges and the CTCL book specifically.

Bopampo, my point goes beyond that. No merely above average school is worth paying a top school price to attend. (I'd consider paying full price for Carleton but not for Beloit.) And, for the record, when I talk about top schools I'm not talking about U.S. News. The schools on top at U.S. News were largely on top before the magazine came along. (I'd also venture a guess, based on the description of what you're looking for for your "coddled" son, that money isn't much of an issue for you or your family.)

bopambo

novaparent, I know this is hard for you to believe, but there are actually people who would rather go to Beloit than Carleton, for variety of reasons. What you prefer to do with your money is your business. Parents need to be educated about how FA and merit aid works and be able to make informed choices regarding tuition. Beyond that, where they choose to invest their resources is just that, their choice.