Which colleges are considered the "Little Ivies"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it the following? Am I missing any?

The "Little Three":
Amherst (Massachusetts)
Williams (Massachusetts)
Wesleyan (CT)

Others:
Bowdoin College (Maine)
Colby College (Maine)
Hamilton College (New York)
Haverford College (Pennsylvania)
Middlebury College (Vermont)
Swarthmore College (Pennsylvania)
Vassar (New York)
Wellesley (New York)

People associate Williams and Amherst with Wesleyan? Really? Wesleyan is several tiers lower and doesn’t really excel at…much.

Sorry you nouveau dolt. Traditionally, Wesleyan, Williams and Amherst were the Little 3. Wes excels in not just sending kids to finance and consulting. It’s a very creative place. Alumni created Hamilton and White Lotus. Intellectually engaging place where kids aren’t just sheeo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is utterly pathetic.

Agree….even more pathetic than the Moms pushing so hard for little ivies branding….

[Anonymous]

Indiana.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is utterly pathetic.

Agree….even more pathetic than the Moms pushing so hard for little ivies branding….

I really don't think that anyone was doing that; someone asked a question which caused the pathetic little Ivy prestige whores to get their knickers in a bunch about the fact that someone long ago recognized and called out a reality that they just can't accept because it would totally destroy their sense of self importance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it the following? Am I missing any?

The "Little Three":
Amherst (Massachusetts)
Williams (Massachusetts)
Wesleyan (CT)

Others:
Bowdoin College (Maine)
Colby College (Maine)
Hamilton College (New York)
Haverford College (Pennsylvania)
Middlebury College (Vermont)
Swarthmore College (Pennsylvania)
Vassar (New York)
Wellesley (New York)

People associate Williams and Amherst with Wesleyan? Really? Wesleyan is several tiers lower and doesn’t really excel at…much.

Williams, Amherst, & Wesleyan were clumped together as the “Little 3” for decades.

That’s the wrong W. It was always Williams, Amherst and Wellesley. Now it’s WASP, without Wellesley and deftly without Wesleyan

No dumbass. Wellesley was part if Seven Sisters

[Anonymous]

Now let us do HYPSM of the "Little Ivies".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is utterly pathetic.

Agree….even more pathetic than the Moms pushing so hard for little ivies branding….

I really don't think that anyone was doing that; someone asked a question which caused the pathetic little Ivy prestige whores to get their knickers in a bunch about the fact that someone long ago recognized and called out a reality that they just can't accept because it would totally destroy their sense of self importance.

It sounds like the sense of self importance is more important to the little LACs pretending to be in a club they are not…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The topic of Liitle Ivies doesn't need to rely on personal interpretation. Forbes, for example, used the term in August while naming four examples (Williams, Bowdoin, Hamilton and Swarthmore).

Right, because they feel that if they didnt say that, the vast majority of their idiotic audience would not know that these are good schools.

Doesn’t make it right to jump on someone else’s bandwagon…..it is cringey

In choosing the four schools that it did (Williams, Bowdoin, Hamilton and Swarthmore), Forbes showed that it understands preexisting uses of the term Little Ivies. Otherwise, it just as easily could have named, say, Wellesley, Claremont McKenna, Pomona and Washington and Lee as examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is utterly pathetic.

Agree….even more pathetic than the Moms pushing so hard for little ivies branding….

I really don't think that anyone was doing that; someone asked a question which caused the pathetic little Ivy prestige whores to get their knickers in a bunch about the fact that someone long ago recognized and called out a reality that they just can't accept because it would totally destroy their sense of self importance.

It sounds like the sense of self importance is more important to the little LACs pretending to be in a club they are not…

Actually it feels more closely aligned with you being an idiot. 80 years ago when the term was coined these LACs felt no need for Ivy prestige because the Ivy league was a one year old athletic conference. They were in the club then and they still are anywhere that actually matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The topic of Liitle Ivies doesn't need to rely on personal interpretation. Forbes, for example, used the term in August while naming four examples (Williams, Bowdoin, Hamilton and Swarthmore).

Right, because they feel that if they didnt say that, the vast majority of their idiotic audience would not know that these are good schools.

Doesn’t make it right to jump on someone else’s bandwagon…..it is cringey

In choosing the four schools that it did (Williams, Bowdoin, Hamilton and Swarthmore), Forbes showed that it understands preexisting uses of the term Little Ivies. Otherwise, it just as easily could have named, say, Wellesley, Claremont McKenna, Pomona and Washington and Lee as examples.

The term existed long before the Forbes article.

[Anonymous]

I call them potted Ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is utterly pathetic.

Agree….even more pathetic than the Moms pushing so hard for little ivies branding….

I really don't think that anyone was doing that; someone asked a question which caused the pathetic little Ivy prestige whores to get their knickers in a bunch about the fact that someone long ago recognized and called out a reality that they just can't accept because it would totally destroy their sense of self importance.

It sounds like the sense of self importance is more important to the little LACs pretending to be in a club they are not…

Actually it feels more closely aligned with you being an idiot. 80 years ago when the term was coined these LACs felt no need for Ivy prestige because the Ivy league was a one year old athletic conference. They were in the club then and they still are anywhere that actually matters.

So I guess you are saying only the US matters. Cause me let you honey. Nobody has any idea what any of these NASCAC schools are in any of the major capitals of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is utterly pathetic.

Agree….even more pathetic than the Moms pushing so hard for little ivies branding….

I really don't think that anyone was doing that; someone asked a question which caused the pathetic little Ivy prestige whores to get their knickers in a bunch about the fact that someone long ago recognized and called out a reality that they just can't accept because it would totally destroy their sense of self importance.

It sounds like the sense of self importance is more important to the little LACs pretending to be in a club they are not…

Actually it feels more closely aligned with you being an idiot. 80 years ago when the term was coined these LACs felt no need for Ivy prestige because the Ivy league was a one year old athletic conference. They were in the club then and they still are anywhere that actually matters.

So I guess you are saying only the US matters. Cause me let you honey. Nobody has any idea what any of these NASCAC schools are in any of the major capitals of the world.

Pretty sure you’re wrong on that. But it the same as here, if you know you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reed is my prime go to that the SAT really didn’t measure much of worth. They have PhD matriculation rates better than the vast majority of peers and aspirant peers (Pomona, Williams, etc), yet their SAT is lower than some of these schools’ 25th percentile. We don’t talk enough about how much all of this is cultural.

Historically, Reed has reported impressive standardized scoring profiles, including higher than that of Williams circa 1980.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is utterly pathetic.

- largely due to the lack of mention of UVA.