This has all the hallmarks of the What defines a liberal arts university? thread from a year ago: neologisms, taxonomical schisms, and parents cooped up inside on cold/wet winter days. 
2 Likes
I once spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convince a certain community of people it would make sense to call the region between the Northeast Coast and Great Lakes the “Northeast Highlands”. This all came out of the perennial debate about whether that region is Midwest or East Coast, with Midwesterners typically denying it is Midwestern, East Coasters denying it is East Coastal, and people from that region hating the term Appalachia.
But has anyone else here heard that term “Northeast Highlands” used that way before? Probably not, so not exactly a successful effort.
But my two cents is even if unsuccessful (language tends to do what it wants to do regardless of intentional efforts–aka the Stop Trying to Make Fetch Happen theory), these discussions can sometimes touch on important concepts and histories and such that are worth considering.
TBH, every time I see this acronym, my brain thinks “SLAG,” which itself has a very different meaning in UK English. 
I was too late here to join that discussion (VERY unkind of you who immediately thought that was a good thing), but I do agree part of the problem with lumping together all small, independent schools under the term LAC is very clearly some of them are not just liberal arts and sciences colleges, and indeed some are not liberal arts and sciences colleges at all.
So, like, I assume someone might rationally cross-shop Purdue Engineering and Olin, or Michigan LSA and Bryn Mawr. And a system which indiscriminately lumps together the big schools and the small independent schools respectively regardless of actual educational focus doesn’t make much sense to me.
Me too, but of course aren’t they all small?
Maybe we should add a “K”. SLACK. You know, those liberal arts slackers…
2 Likes
You might have fun looking up the very obscure song called 99% of Gargoyles Look Like Bob Todd by a long defunct band called Half Man Half Biscuit [Edit: not defunct!]. Every time I hear the term $lag, I remember that crazy song. I won’t link it because it is possible that the lyrics are offensive😉
Genius, @ChoatieMom !
This Life Magazine article from 1960 offers an example of this: LIFE - Google Books.
1 Like
Small nit: your beef shoudl be with the Carnegie Classification, as that is the ‘overlord’ who makes the definitions that USNews uses.
2 Likes
The score-based tiers are so awesome. Obviously some colleges have legitimately had rising or failing fortunes since then, but I think some of the people who are convinced the lists of “elite” colleges have never changed would be somewhat shocked.
I have no problem with the Carnegie Classification system as the whole point is it is an INSTITUTIONAL-level classification system.
No end of trouble has been caused by US News taking that system and using it specifically to classify undergrad programs for the purpose of ranking the “Best Colleges”.
If it was a “Best Institutions” ranking, OK, not particularly useful in my view, but sure, divide up institutions by Carnegie Classification if you like.
But dividing up colleges by the classification of their institution before ranking them as colleges has really confused a lot of people.
LAC = LA Chargers.
1 Like
Comments
-
Smaller colleges compose the majority of the first tier.
-
Carleton was the strongest school (by SAT profile) in the Midwest; Reed was the strongest on the West Coast; Sewanee was competitive with Duke in the South.
-
The members of the Ivy League were scattered across three tiers.
-
Antioch College enrolled students who were academically competitive on a national level.
Note that the included schools are not comprehensive, with a notable dearth or absence of women’s colleges, technically-focused schools and religiously-based schools.
2 Likes
My understanding as a non-American is that LAC referred to standalone primarily undergraduate institutions (PUI’s) that were small in size. Thus it did not refer to the college of arts & sciences at research universities. I then understood the term SLAC to refer to specific schools in that category that were highly selective for admissions.
3 Likes
OK, so NOW it is war . . . .
still not sure what that has to do with a listing of LAC’s or SLAC’s if you prefer.
“But dividing up colleges by the classification of their institution…”
Carnegie is the one doing the “dividing” of all colleges into Research Institutions and Baccalaureate Colleges. USNews just uses their lists in its rankings. USNews does not make a list of the liberal arts divisions/colleges at R1 Unis.
Sure, many throw shade at USNews for its processes, and actual existence, but the college category is not theirs.
Random aside, but Carleton has a deeper tradition as a “top college” in Midwestern circles than I think many outside the Midwest (and really outside the multi-generational college-educated Midwest) are sometimes aware.
I also personally still think professional and tech colleges should be evaluated separately from liberal arts and sciences colleges, but I will admit it has gotten confusing as various liberal arts and sciences colleges have beefed up their professional and tech offerings in response to student demand trends, and not always in separate colleges within the same institution. To me that is still enough of an exception and not the rule, though, that you could conceivably just put those few undivided colleges on multiple lists with some sort of asterix.
I don’t want to belabor this, but that is not correct. Carnegie divides INSTITUTIONS (not colleges) into a variety of categories. Here is the current flow chart:
After some other classifications, Doctoral UNIVERSITIES (again, NOT colleges) are split off. Master’s Colleges and Universities are split off, and then finally Baccalaureate Colleges are split from Baccalaureate/Associates Colleges.
So the Carnegie system does NOT make the conceptual mistake of treating Doctoral Universities as a college subclass. It is an institutional subclass.
I know this can seem like a fine distinction to some, but it really is not. The point of the Carnegie system is to classify institutions by the type of degrees offered, in what portions. As soon as you are focused on just comparing baccalaureate degree programs, aka four-year colleges, the Carnegie classifications are largely mooted because they are about something else, namely all sorts of things other than such degree programs.
2 Likes
which is largely what USNews does.
They maybe ‘mooted’ in your eyes, but they exist on a list. And that list is used by USNews. The only difference is that USNews labels them ‘Liberal Arts Colleges’, and Carnegie labels them ‘Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts and Sciences focus’. (see Williams listing, for example)
Perhaps CC shoudl adopt Carnegie’s listing and change ‘LAC’ to ‘BC:A&S’. What say you, OP?
1 Like
No, US News purports to be offering a “Best COLLEGES” ranking, not a “Best INSTITUTIONS” ranking.
“They” meaning what?
Harvard University is on the Carnegie Doctoral Universities list.
Harvard College is on no Carnegie list.
People applying to go to Harvard College are applying to something which is on no Carnegie List.
And US News putting Harvard on a list of Best Colleges is referring to something which is on no Carnegie List.
And I really don’t want to belabor this, so I will just conclude at least my portion of this discussion with the observation that this discussion itself to me is illustrating exactly how using an institutional classification as a college classification instead breeds confusion.
Edit:
Right, WILLIAMS COLLEGE, the institution, appears on a Carnegie list, and in Williams’s case the college is coextensive with the institution.
Yale College does not appear on a Carnegie list, Yale University does, and in Yale’s case Yale College is not coextensive with Yale University.
So people choosing between Williams College and Yale College are choosing between one thing which is on a Carnegie list, and one thing which is not.
This, to me, is just underscoring why it is an obvious mistake to use the Carnegie classifications in this way.