where would top SLACs fall in an overall college ranking list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:nobody cares about all these LACs. R1s are where it's at.

Anyone with half a brain a) would not have this opinion, and b) even if they had this opinion, would not voice it with such confidence.

I think a good determinant of class and intellect is how one feels about SLACs. I find that it is ignorant low class striver types who are really hateful towards SLACs. They don't get the value of a liberal arts education. It is all "you must be a finance or engineering major or pre-med." I think there is likely a political divide on this as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nobody cares about all these LACs. R1s are where it's at.

Anyone with half a brain a) would not have this opinion, and b) even if they had this opinion, would not voice it with such confidence.

I think a good determinant of class and intellect is how one feels about SLACs. I find that it is ignorant low class striver types who are really hateful towards SLACs. They don't get the value of a liberal arts education. It is all "you must be a finance or engineering major or pre-med." I think there is likely a political divide on this as well.

Yes, true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nobody cares about all these LACs. R1s are where it's at.

Anyone with half a brain a) would not have this opinion, and b) even if they had this opinion, would not voice it with such confidence.

I think a good determinant of class and intellect is how one feels about SLACs. I find that it is ignorant low class striver types who are really hateful towards SLACs. They don't get the value of a liberal arts education. It is all "you must be a finance or engineering major or pre-med." I think there is likely a political divide on this as well.

The top SLACs have very meh yield for a reason. Amherst is at an abysmal 39%, williams at 43%. Pomona barely better at 50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nobody cares about all these LACs. R1s are where it's at.

Anyone with half a brain a) would not have this opinion, and b) even if they had this opinion, would not voice it with such confidence.

I think a good determinant of class and intellect is how one feels about SLACs. I find that it is ignorant low class striver types who are really hateful towards SLACs. They don't get the value of a liberal arts education. It is all "you must be a finance or engineering major or pre-med." I think there is likely a political divide on this as well.

The top SLACs have very meh yield for a reason. Amherst is at an abysmal 39%, williams at 43%. Pomona barely better at 50%.

"They don't get the value of a liberal arts education. It is all "you must be a finance or engineering major or pre-med."

Yea, terrible to want to be employed in a good job during a tough economy. Imagine being an english or philo major at any of these SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nobody cares about all these LACs. R1s are where it's at.

Anyone with half a brain a) would not have this opinion, and b) even if they had this opinion, would not voice it with such confidence.

I think a good determinant of class and intellect is how one feels about SLACs. I find that it is ignorant low class striver types who are really hateful towards SLACs. They don't get the value of a liberal arts education. It is all "you must be a finance or engineering major or pre-med." I think there is likely a political divide on this as well.

The top SLACs have very meh yield for a reason. Amherst is at an abysmal 39%, williams at 43%. Pomona barely better at 50%.

"They don't get the value of a liberal arts education. It is all "you must be a finance or engineering major or pre-med."

Yea, terrible to want to be employed in a good job during a tough economy. Imagine being an english or philo major at any of these SLACs.

You're proving the OP's point. There are lots of jobs out there beyond engineering and banking. Consulting firms love these types. And there are many jobs in corporate America (the horror!) that also value the ability to communicate. I work at a big bank and as long as a kid shows some basic quantitative skills, I love hiring liberal arts majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're into the best lacs- aka Williams, Pomona, Bowdoin, Swarthmore- it's just up to the student to determine what environment is right for them. Some choose Brown over Williams, but I've also seen students struggle between Pomona and Yale. It really depends on what the student wants out of their college experience. Overall, it doesn't really matter since these are the top of the top and they will end up fine whether at a top lac or an ivy.

Bowdoin is not in the same league. Nice try.

There are so many boosters here who try to casually insert a less prestigious school into a list of more prestigious schools thinking the association will make others think they’re of the same caliber. I’ve seen this done for Bowdoin, Denison, Richmond, Holy Cross, Lehigh, Bucknell, and several others.

Bowdoin certainly is in the top league.

+1 It is equally or more selective than WASP schools right now. Certainly a peer school.

So is Colby. Not a valid gauge. Bowdoin is simply not comparable to the Ivies educationally. Admit rates alone do not make it so.

You are correct it is not comparable for undergraduate education. It is superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're into the best lacs- aka Williams, Pomona, Bowdoin, Swarthmore- it's just up to the student to determine what environment is right for them. Some choose Brown over Williams, but I've also seen students struggle between Pomona and Yale. It really depends on what the student wants out of their college experience. Overall, it doesn't really matter since these are the top of the top and they will end up fine whether at a top lac or an ivy.

Bowdoin is not in the same league. Nice try.

There are so many boosters here who try to casually insert a less prestigious school into a list of more prestigious schools thinking the association will make others think they’re of the same caliber. I’ve seen this done for Bowdoin, Denison, Richmond, Holy Cross, Lehigh, Bucknell, and several others.

Bowdoin certainly is in the top league.

former AO at an M7 B-school (more than 10 years ago, but I think the below still holds true). The top SLAC kids were at least as impressive as HYPSM kids, and where they typically shined brightest was their writing skills (and also leadership to a lesser extent). I have a grandkid going thru process now and although times have changed, Willams/Amherst/Pomona were considered the top schools equivalent to ivies, while Bowdoin Middlebury Swarthmore Wesleyan were a notch below. Take it for what it’s worth, but that’s how the schools are probably still viewed by b-schooks

Serious question: How would an admissions officer--as opposed to a professor--know about a student's writing skills ? Based on a one-time, possibly/likely coached application ?

If just comparing "the top SLAC kids" to any HYPSM educated applicant, then I agree that it is possible that a top SLAC student is as good as a typical HYPSM graduate depending upon how one defines "top SLAC student".

Nonetheless, it appears as though you have an agenda focused on promoting several LACs over Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, & Stanford. Doesn't this seem to be a bit ridiculous ? Especially when a primary factor in M-7 business school admissions is an applicant's work experience and success during that period of post-undergraduate degree years prior to applying to business school ?

The number of applicants to the top LACs is small when compared to the volume of applicants to an elite National University (which, in this case, is focused on HYPSM). The applicant pool at the LACs listed by you is even less competitive when accounting for admitted athletes which is often about 30% of each class.

Nonsensically stupid even by DCUM standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended a WASP about 30 years ago — I met my husband there, and two of our children attended the same one (actually, one is there currently). I had no interest in applying to an Ivy. I visited Yale and attended classes with a friend. She was especially excited to bring me to a lecture class with a professor who I’m sure was world-renowned. The 200 hundred person lecture class paled in comparison to the three person language class I visited at the college I ended up attending (also with a renowned professor). Like my husband and our two children who attended the WASP, I had no interest in applying to any ivies after visiting. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, nothing beats the education you can receive as an undergraduate at a SLAC. Don’t assume that many students are Ivy rejects — while some are, there are many that never considered applying to them.

Certainly, there are positives and negatives about the educational experiences at both LACs and at National Universities. School selection should depend upon the particular preferences of a specific student. One, among several, aspects that cannot be denied are the greater breadth of courses, majors, and professors available at larger schools than at smaller schools. I attended a 2,000 plus student LAC and was limited by the lack of variety of courses, majors,and professors at the school. Additionally, the LAC suffered from a lack of perspectives available and shared by both fellow students and professors. To me, the LAC experience was somewhat suffocating and boring due the above mentioned limitations.

Some cautionary advice for those considering small colleges: Don't be fooled by departments which list a high number of professors and a wide variety of courses as neither is going to be accurate during a typical school year.

This seems like a personal problem on your part. Maybe you should do some self reflection to understand why you are stifling and boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:back to the original question about where amherst williams and pomona should fall on an overall prestige list, I would say from the majority of answers that Williams would be T10 and Amherst/ Pomona would be T20. Think that’s the best ur gonna get from this crowd, with healthy number of outliers strongly disagreeing on both sides

No source shows Williams in t10. It's closer to the latter half of the t20.

You are a dim little idiot fetishizing HYPSM like our president drools over 20 year old women.

[Anonymous]

Debating rankings of top colleges is like arguing which Michelin-star restaurant deserves to be ranked higher. They all serve world-class food, the difference lies in the flavors and what suits your taste.

As a parent of a child attending a WASP, here’s my two cents:

POSITIVES

Tons of resources: lots of courses, no waiting at the gym, easy to join clubs, and undergrad research with professors is accessible.

No cutthroat competition: It’s not a rat race where kids fight for the best spots. This lets them explore what they’re truly interested in and builds great teamwork skills.

Intellectually alive: Small classes, seminars, and the kind of students admitted create a buzzing environment full of passionate, intense discussion. My child’s reasoning has really improved since starting.

NEGATIVES

SLACs are sheltered: They don’t always teach you to be tough or competitive, skills useful in the real world. There are different paths to success (think Trump’s sharp elbows vs. Obama’s idealism). SLAC fits my child’s personality but might feel limiting for someone super ambitious.

SLACs give great, personal education but aren’t usually at the research forefront. For example, Terence Tao at UCLA is a genius but a minimalist teacher. SLACs have great coaches but rarely A-list stars or speakers like research universities do.

Course choices are narrower. This only matters for those wanting very specialized classes; most have plenty to pick from.

I chose a SLAC to help my child build life skills - thinking critically, being open, working well with others - while exploring interests without pressure and getting ready for grad school.

I also think SLACs and top-tier research schools look for different qualities in applicants. SLACs want curiosity, teamwork, and broad interests; HYPSM want top achievers in their fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Debating rankings of top colleges is like arguing which Michelin-star restaurant deserves to be ranked higher. They all serve world-class food, the difference lies in the flavors and what suits your taste.

As a parent of a child attending a WASP, here’s my two cents:

POSITIVES

Tons of resources: lots of courses, no waiting at the gym, easy to join clubs, and undergrad research with professors is accessible.

No cutthroat competition: It’s not a rat race where kids fight for the best spots. This lets them explore what they’re truly interested in and builds great teamwork skills.

Intellectually alive: Small classes, seminars, and the kind of students admitted create a buzzing environment full of passionate, intense discussion. My child’s reasoning has really improved since starting.

NEGATIVES

SLACs are sheltered: They don’t always teach you to be tough or competitive, skills useful in the real world. There are different paths to success (think Trump’s sharp elbows vs. Obama’s idealism). SLAC fits my child’s personality but might feel limiting for someone super ambitious.

SLACs give great, personal education but aren’t usually at the research forefront. For example, Terence Tao at UCLA is a genius but a minimalist teacher. SLACs have great coaches but rarely A-list stars or speakers like research universities do.

Course choices are narrower. This only matters for those wanting very specialized classes; most have plenty to pick from.

I chose a SLAC to help my child build life skills - thinking critically, being open, working well with others - while exploring interests without pressure and getting ready for grad school.

I also think SLACs and top-tier research schools look for different qualities in applicants. SLACs want curiosity, teamwork, and broad interests; HYPSM want top achievers in their fields.

I don't personally find this a real skill, unless your career interests are greedy businessman. DD works like a hound at Williams and is tough with herself; there's no reason she needs to try to take down her classmates. She also performs well in Mock trial. The type of personal struggle described by Berkeley is really just the honest issues of public universities lacking undergraduate resources, even if their research opportunities are excellent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I chose a SLAC to help my child build life skills.

therein lies the large issue with DCUM striver parents - the parents are choosing the kid’s college. Mostly with ivies, but also SLACs - yech

[Anonymous]

I have a kid going into his third year at yale, which - so far - has been a pretty ideal undergrad experience.

But for people applying now who are open to smaller schools, I think flying under these Trump-era provisions (which will have lasting impacts post-Trump) isn't a small thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended a WASP about 30 years ago — I met my husband there, and two of our children attended the same one (actually, one is there currently). I had no interest in applying to an Ivy. I visited Yale and attended classes with a friend. She was especially excited to bring me to a lecture class with a professor who I’m sure was world-renowned. The 200 hundred person lecture class paled in comparison to the three person language class I visited at the college I ended up attending (also with a renowned professor). Like my husband and our two children who attended the WASP, I had no interest in applying to any ivies after visiting. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, nothing beats the education you can receive as an undergraduate at a SLAC. Don’t assume that many students are Ivy rejects — while some are, there are many that never considered applying to them.

Certainly, there are positives and negatives about the educational experiences at both LACs and at National Universities. School selection should depend upon the particular preferences of a specific student. One, among several, aspects that cannot be denied are the greater breadth of courses, majors, and professors available at larger schools than at smaller schools. I attended a 2,000 plus student LAC and was limited by the lack of variety of courses, majors,and professors at the school. Additionally, the LAC suffered from a lack of perspectives available and shared by both fellow students and professors. To me, the LAC experience was somewhat suffocating and boring due the above mentioned limitations.

Some cautionary advice for those considering small colleges: Don't be fooled by departments which list a high number of professors and a wide variety of courses as neither is going to be accurate during a typical school year.

This seems like a personal problem on your part. Maybe you should do some self reflection to understand why you are stifling and boring.

What a low class response. Maybe you should reflect on your lack of manners and need to resort to personal attacks rather than dealing with the issue presented by the thread topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're into the best lacs- aka Williams, Pomona, Bowdoin, Swarthmore- it's just up to the student to determine what environment is right for them. Some choose Brown over Williams, but I've also seen students struggle between Pomona and Yale. It really depends on what the student wants out of their college experience. Overall, it doesn't really matter since these are the top of the top and they will end up fine whether at a top lac or an ivy.

Bowdoin is not in the same league. Nice try.

There are so many boosters here who try to casually insert a less prestigious school into a list of more prestigious schools thinking the association will make others think they’re of the same caliber. I’ve seen this done for Bowdoin, Denison, Richmond, Holy Cross, Lehigh, Bucknell, and several others.

Bowdoin certainly is in the top league.

former AO at an M7 B-school (more than 10 years ago, but I think the below still holds true). The top SLAC kids were at least as impressive as HYPSM kids, and where they typically shined brightest was their writing skills (and also leadership to a lesser extent). I have a grandkid going thru process now and although times have changed, Willams/Amherst/Pomona were considered the top schools equivalent to ivies, while Bowdoin Middlebury Swarthmore Wesleyan were a notch below. Take it for what it’s worth, but that’s how the schools are probably still viewed by b-schooks

Serious question: How would an admissions officer--as opposed to a professor--know about a student's writing skills ? Based on a one-time, possibly/likely coached application ?

If just comparing "the top SLAC kids" to any HYPSM educated applicant, then I agree that it is possible that a top SLAC student is as good as a typical HYPSM graduate depending upon how one defines "top SLAC student".

Nonetheless, it appears as though you have an agenda focused on promoting several LACs over Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, & Stanford. Doesn't this seem to be a bit ridiculous ? Especially when a primary factor in M-7 business school admissions is an applicant's work experience and success during that period of post-undergraduate degree years prior to applying to business school ?

The number of applicants to the top LACs is small when compared to the volume of applicants to an elite National University (which, in this case, is focused on HYPSM). The applicant pool at the LACs listed by you is even less competitive when accounting for admitted athletes which is often about 30% of each class.

Nonsensically stupid even by DCUM standards.

Why do LAC supporters always resort to crude personal attacks rather than address issues in a mature, thoughtful manner ?