How many colleges are "better" than Williams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire discussion is nonsensical. A school is only "better" if the area you want to study is "better." If you want to study mathematics and the mathematics department is marginal, then no it is not a better school for you. People get too caught up in names when they should be researching the underlying departments when making their decisions.

I get your premise for larger state schools, but it doesn't hold at all for liberal arts colleges and the ivies.

Actually, PP's point holds even more true for LACs because faculties are so small. A LAC could have a great physics program but no one who specializes in the kind of bio your DC is interested in. Or a poli sci department that's strong in IR and quantitative methods, but your kid loves con law and political theory. Ivies fall somewhere in the middle wrt size -- most fields/subfields will at least be represented on the faculty, but departmental (and subfield) strength can vary pretty significantly. I ended up choosing between the two Ivies I got into based on across-the-board strength vs strength in the one field I thought I was most interested in but no appealing Plan B if I changed my mind. Good call, since I did change fields.

So, yeah, look at departments. But don't just focus on a single one.

Ehh. I know a kid from Pomona who's doing a mechanical engineering PhD at MIT this year. Pomona doesn't have engineering. And I know another at Amherst who was funded for a summer experience at U'Chicago since they had a research topic he was interested in that Amherst didn't. He's going to Stanford for a neuroscience PhD. Yet another is a CS major at Swarthmore, and their CS program, to put it mildly, is lackluster. Still got to intern at Google last summer.

These schools and many other top liberal art colleges, despite their lack of resources compared to universities, still end up preparing their grads well. They open doors regardless of how good their individual departments are. Furthermore, their emphasis on exploration and breadth means they give much more fluidity in the courses and research endeavors students can access than those at a state university. Top Ivies like Yale and Columbia are modeled after the liberal arts college. And while they certainly offer more classes, let us not forget that most undergraduates take only around 30-40 classes total in their four years. The difference between a school like Williams offering 700 courses and another like Yale offering 2000 really isn't that vast for the real experience of an undergrad.

As a prof, I was shocked by how poorly educated/prepared some of the Amherst students I encountered were for graduate work. Smart kids (so good grades, recs, scores) but their intellectual growth had been kind of stunted by lack of exposure to a wider range of faculty. And I know that the range of course offerings in my (non-STEM) field that would have been *available* to me at a top LAC was a fraction (1/4 - 1/3) of what I actually took as an undergrad.

Why do you think Columbia is modeled after a LAC? I can see why someone might, mistakenly, think that of Yale but Columbia?!

[Anonymous]

Well, we all have our experiences I suppose. I can't really challenge you on that.

I meant to say the younger LACs are modeled after the Ivies. Williams was found by a Yale grad. Pomona was inspired as a Dartmouth/Yale/Williams of the west coast.

Columbia is definitely a liberal arts college. They themselves call it that: "One of the world’s premier liberal arts colleges and distinguished by a singular, intensive Core Curriculum, Columbia College provides all the benefits of a small college and all the reach of a great research university."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It'd be around Dartmouth's level (~10%), honestly. The college is so isolated that it turns off a lot of applicants. Williams gets almost 1000-1500 less applicants than ASP, even though it consistently does better on the most well-known rankings (US News, Forbes). The other three are less isolated and have additional consortia systems to give more resources.

*fewer

[Anonymous]

My experience as both a graduate of a SLAC and now having been a professor at two major research universities is that students who come out of SLACs are better writers, tend to be more intellectually engaged, and more confident conversationalists in seminars. I'm not particularly phased by the smaller availability of courses offered at SLACs--the fact is that most students don't maximize the number of courses in their undergrad departments anyway. Also, going to a larger university doesn't mean that a student will end up actually taking a variety of courses within the discipline--in fact when you have a larger department with more course offerings, there is a greater likelihood that a student ends up specializing too early. The experiences and insights gained by taking undergraduate courses in other disciplines are invaluable for future academics, and liberal arts requirements are more likely to be found in the curriculum of SLACs than in larger universities. This is not to say, of course, that graduate of larger universities don't end up with great educations, but rather than the focused attention on undergraduates has major advantages, especially in terms of going to graduate school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, we all have our experiences I suppose. I can't really challenge you on that.

I meant to say the younger LACs are modeled after the Ivies. Williams was found by a Yale grad. Pomona was inspired as a Dartmouth/Yale/Williams of the west coast.

Columbia is definitely a liberal arts college. They themselves call it that: "One of the world’s premier liberal arts colleges and distinguished by a singular, intensive Core Curriculum, Columbia College provides all the benefits of a small college and all the reach of a great research university."

Sure, any place/division that awards BAs (or ABs) is a "liberal arts college." But when people use LAC as a term of distinction in these types of conversations, the contrast is typically major research university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My experience as both a graduate of a SLAC and now having been a professor at two major research universities is that students who come out of SLACs are better writers, tend to be more intellectually engaged, and more confident conversationalists in seminars. I'm not particularly phased by the smaller availability of courses offered at SLACs--the fact is that most students don't maximize the number of courses in their undergrad departments anyway. Also, going to a larger university doesn't mean that a student will end up actually taking a variety of courses within the discipline--in fact when you have a larger department with more course offerings, there is a greater likelihood that a student ends up specializing too early. The experiences and insights gained by taking undergraduate courses in other disciplines are invaluable for future academics, and liberal arts requirements are more likely to be found in the curriculum of SLACs than in larger universities. This is not to say, of course, that graduate of larger universities don't end up with great educations, but rather than the focused attention on undergraduates has major advantages, especially in terms of going to graduate school.

I think it really comes down to the student re which type of approach is best. But, regardless of what type of school your DC is looking at, it makes sense to look beyond reputation generally and to pay attention to what resources are available in the fields your DC is most interested in.

[Anonymous]

I don't disagree, but the experience at Yale/Columbia is more comparable to Williams/Amherst than it would be to UT Austin/UC Berkeley. Not to say those former schools are "better" than public schools. But the heavy residential emphasis at some of the Ivies, a lack of requiring students to pick their majors before enrolling as well as fluidity to switch around to a completely different major if so desired, and small classes are key features at those Ivies and LACs. They also attract similar students- the recent NY Times data on which schools attract what percent of top 1%/20% income families suggests that they attract similar socioeconomic groups to top LACs.

It's not a defining trait, and there are some Ivies (Penn and Cornell in particular) that resemble traditional research universities more. But to me, schools like Yale, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Brown have always felt like larger LACs. I mean, you can just imagine a residential college at Yale being the whole first year class at one of the liberal art colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience as both a graduate of a SLAC and now having been a professor at two major research universities is that students who come out of SLACs are better writers, tend to be more intellectually engaged, and more confident conversationalists in seminars. I'm not particularly phased by the smaller availability of courses offered at SLACs--the fact is that most students don't maximize the number of courses in their undergrad departments anyway. Also, going to a larger university doesn't mean that a student will end up actually taking a variety of courses within the discipline--in fact when you have a larger department with more course offerings, there is a greater likelihood that a student ends up specializing too early. The experiences and insights gained by taking undergraduate courses in other disciplines are invaluable for future academics, and liberal arts requirements are more likely to be found in the curriculum of SLACs than in larger universities. This is not to say, of course, that graduate of larger universities don't end up with great educations, but rather than the focused attention on undergraduates has major advantages, especially in terms of going to graduate school.

I think it really comes down to the student re which type of approach is best. But, regardless of what type of school your DC is looking at, it makes sense to look beyond reputation generally and to pay attention to what resources are available in the fields your DC is most interested in.

If you child is able to gain admissions into AWS, frankly, it matters little what your child chooses as a major. Far better to be a philosophy major at AWS than a finance major at State U. Your child's degree from AWS will open a lot of doors in high places.

[Anonymous]

Why are some LACs like Pomona, Bowdoin,and Middlebury omitted from the whole AWS thing? Others too, like Mudd and Carleton. Can someone explain what makes AWS so special beyond just US News and World Report, which is of questionable merit?

Because I'm comparing the schools and there are literally hairs of differences between them. In some respects, actually, they are very noticeably trumped by other liberal art colleges.

[Anonymous]

It's just US News, honestly.

If you actually look at the average rank of LACs across a wide variety of rankings, the acronym would be different: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/10/20/heres-a-new-college-ranking-based-entirely-on-other-college-rankings/

APWWBMWS

[Anonymous]

To PP's point- majors don't really matter at all at SLACs because you can do whatever you want after you graduate. Major in history, go into finance then on to Wharton. No problem. Major in English, head to Harvard med after a post Bach and on to a career in internal medicine.

Liberal arts schools teach you how to think critically, write, and explore. Departments matter at bigger schools because they're inherently more competitive with more students, and also harder to just rely on the brand for networking and professional purposes without more targeted "direction."

Just different strokes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams gets mega respect from anyone in the know. Flyover trash and rubes are the only morons who don't know Williams is one of the finest schools in the world.

Very, very few human beings have heard of it.

Imagine how low its acceptance rate would be if it were as well known among the populace as HYP.

It'd be around Dartmouth's level (~10%), honestly. The college is so isolated that it turns off a lot of applicants. Williams gets almost 1000-1500 less applicants than ASP, even though it consistently does better on the most well-known rankings (US News, Forbes). The other three are less isolated and have additional consortia systems to give more resources.

Isolated colleges produce better students, better college experiences, deeper friendships. College isn't so you can be a Kardashian popping bottles in some nightclub.

Can you reference some research behind this statement? I truly am interested.

[Anonymous]

"Far better to be a philosophy major at AWS than a finance major at State U."

It is certainly true that it is better to have a philosophy DEGREE from AWS than a finance DEGREE from State U.

BUT the odds are much greater for an AWS student who HATES philosophy to flunk out of AWS

than for the same student to have any trouble getting a finance degree at State U even if they HATE finance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To PP's point- majors don't really matter at all at SLACs because you can do whatever you want after you graduate. Major in history, go into finance then on to Wharton. No problem. Major in English, head to Harvard med after a post Bach and on to a career in internal medicine.

Liberal arts schools teach you how to think critically, write, and explore. Departments matter at bigger schools because they're inherently more competitive with more students, and also harder to just rely on the brand for networking and professional purposes without more targeted "direction."

Just different strokes.

Not much right about this post.

[Anonymous]

I guess the right part is that if your kid is smart and upper middle class it really doesn't matter what (if anything), s/he learns in college if the LAC is prestigious.