Wellesley underrated?

[Anonymous]

Because it is not that selective because very few women want to attend a women’s college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From another post, but why is it that Wellesley is so underrated nationally? It has a direct relationship with MIT, has just as high of an endowment as WASP, and is always ranked right under WASP. Why isn’t it more respected?

That means it’s overrated.

Why? Its student profile is better than some WASP schools.

Higher admit rate, and worse — not similar — profile. 30% ED admit rate. Great school, but overrated because it is the top women’s school.

Most of wasp has the same Ed admit rate and have to admit the other 50% of the population. This is more impressive on Wellesley’s end than proof of WASP being superior.

Swat is 16%
Pomona is 13%

Those are the only of WASP with two rounds of ED. Bowdoin is 18%. Wellesley is not in the same league and is lucky to be ranked where it is.

As for Williams and Amherst, they have only one round of ED…

But something tells me numbers will not matter to you. So be it.

Yeah, that’s called selective picking. Williams has a 27% Ed acceptance rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WASP doesn’t actually represent the best lacs. It’s more a catchy name to demonstrate the most prominent examples of LACs. There’s quite a few lacs better than the WASP ones.

Bizarre, yes it does. Pomona and Williams are two schools you specifically cannot find better lacs than. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Def overrated - look at the cost. Bad deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASP doesn’t actually represent the best lacs. It’s more a catchy name to demonstrate the most prominent examples of LACs. There’s quite a few lacs better than the WASP ones.

Bizarre, yes it does. Pomona and Williams are two schools you specifically cannot find better lacs than. What are you talking about?

I think someone is home from school today and is jerking the chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WASP doesn’t actually represent the best lacs. It’s more a catchy name to demonstrate the most prominent examples of LACs. There’s quite a few lacs better than the WASP ones.

Agree. I feel like the poster who keeps talking about WASP is trying to make fetch happen. I’ve never heard it in the wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From another post, but why is it that Wellesley is so underrated nationally? It has a direct relationship with MIT, has just as high of an endowment as WASP, and is always ranked right under WASP. Why isn’t it more respected?

That means it’s overrated.

Why? Its student profile is better than some WASP schools.

Higher admit rate, and worse — not similar — profile. 30% ED admit rate. Great school, but overrated because it is the top women’s school.

Most of wasp has the same Ed admit rate and have to admit the other 50% of the population. This is more impressive on Wellesley’s end than proof of WASP being superior.

Swat is 16%
Pomona is 13%

Those are the only of WASP with two rounds of ED. Bowdoin is 18%. Wellesley is not in the same league and is lucky to be ranked where it is.

As for Williams and Amherst, they have only one round of ED…

But something tells me numbers will not matter to you. So be it.

Yeah, that’s called selective picking. Williams has a 27% Ed acceptance rate.

Educate yourself about what 1 round of ED means vs. 2 rounds. Wellesley has 2. The only SLACs with 1 are Amherst and Williams. Not a coincidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From another post, but why is it that Wellesley is so underrated nationally? It has a direct relationship with MIT, has just as high of an endowment as WASP, and is always ranked right under WASP. Why isn’t it more respected?

That means it’s overrated.

Why? Its student profile is better than some WASP schools.

Higher admit rate, and worse — not similar — profile. 30% ED admit rate. Great school, but overrated because it is the top women’s school.

Most of wasp has the same Ed admit rate and have to admit the other 50% of the population. This is more impressive on Wellesley’s end than proof of WASP being superior.

Swat is 16%
Pomona is 13%

Those are the only of WASP with two rounds of ED. Bowdoin is 18%. Wellesley is not in the same league and is lucky to be ranked where it is.

As for Williams and Amherst, they have only one round of ED…

But something tells me numbers will not matter to you. So be it.

Yeah, that’s called selective picking. Williams has a 27% Ed acceptance rate.

Educate yourself about what 1 round of ED means vs. 2 rounds. Wellesley has 2. The only SLACs with 1 are Amherst and Williams. Not a coincidence.

Yeah and they have overall higher acceptance rates than their SP peers, so no, not really coincidence- a testament to less people wanting to go to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASP doesn’t actually represent the best lacs. It’s more a catchy name to demonstrate the most prominent examples of LACs. There’s quite a few lacs better than the WASP ones.

Bizarre, yes it does. Pomona and Williams are two schools you specifically cannot find better lacs than. What are you talking about?

I think someone is home from school today and is jerking the chain.

NP but I feel like my chain is being yanked by these other posters. Wellesley is an awesome school.

[Anonymous]

13% admit rate for class of 2028. Seems selective to me, even if it's a self-selecting group who apply.

The school has a lot going for it:
- Academic rigor and excellent reputation, consistently ranked a top LAC
- undergrad only so all classes and labs with world class professors
- great pathways to law school, med school, the street, etc, good recruiting on campus
- many notable alumnae and an incredible alum network helpful for mentoring and job opportunities
- gorgeous residential campus with guaranteed housing all four years, great facilities and many newer buildings, etc.

Not sure what else one would want in an undergrad institution unless your student is looking for a big school experience with football, etc. Sure, there's no guys but that's what makes it appeal to a smaller group of women in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Selective from a very small subset of the population. Not selective relative to its alleged peers. Look at the number of applicants. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Selective from a very small subset of the population. Not selective relative to its alleged peers. Look at the number of applicants. Not even close.

It can’t admit the other half of students. It’s just selective in general. Most of the LACs including WASP especially don’t have that many applications. Nothing in comparison to ivies.

[Anonymous]

TIL most of DCUM thinks Caltech is not selective. Either that or they’re rabid sexists.

[Anonymous]

Here's some support for your thesis:

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/blog/6/

[Anonymous]

I'm the one who said that Wellesley is underrated in the other thread. My kid goes to a WASP and didn't apply to Wellesley because her particular major is one of Wellesley's very few weak points and she preferred coed anyway. But Wellesley students are incredibly qualified and have great outcomes. By nearly every measure, it's a great school. I suspect few people talk about it because it's a women's college. Ditto for Smith, Scripps, and Bryn Mawr, all of which punch above their respective selectivity percentages IMO.

That all said, I won't offer an opinion as to whether I think Wellesley is better or worse than WASP or Bowdoin/Carleton/Midd/CMC because such opinions are utterly useless. It wasn't a good fit for my particular DD, which is all that matters. Anyhow, they are all great schools and if you pick one on the basis of rankings or perceived prestige you're probably a dingdong (and, if that's the way you think, why are you even interested in LACs?).