How would you rank NESCACS academically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do these LACs compare to national universities? Is Williams HYPSM level? Are Bowdoin and Middlebury comperable to Duke and Northwestern? Or are they lower

No, schools like Duke and Northwestern are simply on another tier above Bowdoin/Middlebury. Even Williams/Amherst would be right below Duke/Northwestern.

Agree. More diversity, more options academically and socially. Great academic atmosphere due to presence of very serious graduate & professional students.

I cannot imagine anyone equating Middlebury or Bowdoin to National Universities ranked in the top 15 or 20. And the Wall street Journal/Times higher Education rating & ranking system appears to agree that the top ranked LACs (Amherst & Williams) rank at #22 and #23 when rated in a combined ranking of LACs and National Universities.

I am very familiar with all of the schools mentioned by the above quoted poster and know students at all of these schools currently and in the past. They are in two different leagues.

+1.

-1 I am a tenured professor at an R1, and would rank the academic ability of graduates of SLACs like Amherst and Williams (and Swarthmore and Pomona) above Duke and Northwestern. There's a reason why those of us who actually teach and research at universities overwhelmingly send our children to SLACs.

I wouldn't necessarily say students' academic "ability" is greater, but the academic benefits of a Duke or Northwestern are really at the grad school level more than the undergrad level. What you're getting by going undergrad to Duke or Northwestern is more social opportunities, DI athletics and school spirit, and a greater range of majors, classes, and professors (although that doesn't mean it's easier to get into those classes or to get the times/professors you want). The SLACs' clear focus is on teaching undergrads. For major research universities, grad students and research are the focus and undergrads are part of the business model of paying for that research focus. It's not wrong to go to one over the other, but there are tradeoffs to each academically/socially, which is why they typically aren't considered in the same categories by rankings.

But if you put aside academic strength and focus on credentialing, then going to schools with the most name brand recognition, the most graduates with whom you can network, and, for certain career paths, the most practical training and industry ties, is going to be better, none of which is really about superior "academics."

I take issue with the idea that larger more well known schools offer better post grad networking opportunities. It’s quality, not quantity. Alums of smaller schools look out for one another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do these LACs compare to national universities? Is Williams HYPSM level? Are Bowdoin and Middlebury comperable to Duke and Northwestern? Or are they lower

No, schools like Duke and Northwestern are simply on another tier above Bowdoin/Middlebury. Even Williams/Amherst would be right below Duke/Northwestern.

Agree. More diversity, more options academically and socially. Great academic atmosphere due to presence of very serious graduate & professional students.

I cannot imagine anyone equating Middlebury or Bowdoin to National Universities ranked in the top 15 or 20. And the Wall street Journal/Times higher Education rating & ranking system appears to agree that the top ranked LACs (Amherst & Williams) rank at #22 and #23 when rated in a combined ranking of LACs and National Universities.

I am very familiar with all of the schools mentioned by the above quoted poster and know students at all of these schools currently and in the past. They are in two different leagues.

+1.

-1 I am a tenured professor at an R1, and would rank the academic ability of graduates of SLACs like Amherst and Williams (and Swarthmore and Pomona) above Duke and Northwestern. There's a reason why those of us who actually teach and research at universities overwhelmingly send our children to SLACs.

I wouldn't necessarily say students' academic "ability" is greater, but the academic benefits of a Duke or Northwestern are really at the grad school level more than the undergrad level. What you're getting by going undergrad to Duke or Northwestern is more social opportunities, DI athletics and school spirit, and a greater range of majors, classes, and professors (although that doesn't mean it's easier to get into those classes or to get the times/professors you want). The SLACs' clear focus is on teaching undergrads. For major research universities, grad students and research are the focus and undergrads are part of the business model of paying for that research focus. It's not wrong to go to one over the other, but there are tradeoffs to each academically/socially, which is why they typically aren't considered in the same categories by rankings.

But if you put aside academic strength and focus on credentialing, then going to schools with the most name brand recognition, the most graduates with whom you can network, and, for certain career paths, the most practical training and industry ties, is going to be better, none of which is really about superior "academics."

I take issue with the idea that larger more well known schools offer better post grad networking opportunities. It’s quality, not quantity. Alums of smaller schools look out for one another.

Yes, so true. it's like a lovefest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many highly educated and affluent people care so much what 3rd rate magazines and random websites say about how colleges stack up?
Justifying statements about schools with more random rankings is just not helpful either.

No one believes Chicago is a top 4-6 school or that Princeton and Williams are simply "the best."
With universities, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT are the truly most sought after schools. MIT's focus is a bit narrow for my liking as an overall university, but I can't deny it is right there at the top. Duke and Northwestern (and others) are not quite there.
In the SLAC world, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams are the top schools. Pomona and Wellesley will occasionally get ranked there but they are kind of the very strong Duke and Chicago/NW of the SLAC world.

I'm an Amherst grad, and I definitely think of Pomona and Wellesley as being in the same grouping as us. Although my son isn't interested in attending a LAC, I'd be absolutely thrilled for him if he were going to Pomona (I would even push for him to go there, if Williams were in the picture )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Safety School of the South" is still in the powerhouse academic ACC, right ?
And the 2nd best school in metro Chicago is a B1G disappointment too or do we also include South Bend, which would arguably make it a 3rd option for many in that area. At least their great journalism grads can write eloquently about their miserable winters as undergrads.

In what universe would Notre Dame be considered above Northwestern, LOL.
And by your logic, I guess that makes MIT a second rate school, since it's only the "2nd best school" in metro Boston?

NW and ND are definitely closer and more debatable than NW and Harvard or Stanford!
MIT will always have a chip on its shoulder. No one ever means MIT when they say they go to school in the Boston area

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many highly educated and affluent people care so much what 3rd rate magazines and random websites say about how colleges stack up?
Justifying statements about schools with more random rankings is just not helpful either.

No one believes Chicago is a top 4-6 school or that Princeton and Williams are simply "the best."
With universities, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT are the truly most sought after schools. MIT's focus is a bit narrow for my liking as an overall university, but I can't deny it is right there at the top. Duke and Northwestern (and others) are not quite there.
In the SLAC world, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams are the top schools. Pomona and Wellesley will occasionally get ranked there but they are kind of the very strong Duke and Chicago/NW of the SLAC world.

I'm an Amherst grad, and I definitely think of Pomona and Wellesley as being in the same grouping as us. Although my son isn't interested in attending a LAC, I'd be absolutely thrilled for him if he were going to Pomona (I would even push for him to go there, if Williams were in the picture )

Interesting. I went to one of those top LACs too and disagree. However, having lived in California and the DMV, I'd say on the west coast Pomona has a just as good, if not better reputation than any SLAC. Wellesley is also great but the students and faculty don't seem as strong now. They probably have the best and most tightly-knit alumni network though. Wellesley and Smith amaze me in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do these LACs compare to national universities? Is Williams HYPSM level? Are Bowdoin and Middlebury comperable to Duke and Northwestern? Or are they lower

No, schools like Duke and Northwestern are simply on another tier above Bowdoin/Middlebury. Even Williams/Amherst would be right below Duke/Northwestern.

Agree. More diversity, more options academically and socially. Great academic atmosphere due to presence of very serious graduate & professional students.

I cannot imagine anyone equating Middlebury or Bowdoin to National Universities ranked in the top 15 or 20. And the Wall street Journal/Times higher Education rating & ranking system appears to agree that the top ranked LACs (Amherst & Williams) rank at #22 and #23 when rated in a combined ranking of LACs and National Universities.

I am very familiar with all of the schools mentioned by the above quoted poster and know students at all of these schools currently and in the past. They are in two different leagues.

+1.

-1 I am a tenured professor at an R1, and would rank the academic ability of graduates of SLACs like Amherst and Williams (and Swarthmore and Pomona) above Duke and Northwestern. There's a reason why those of us who actually teach and research at universities overwhelmingly send our children to SLACs.

YUP.

Absolutely. People paying attention only to "brands" and not the quality of undergraduate teaching are mystifying to me.

Do you live in the DMV? If not….there’s your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many highly educated and affluent people care so much what 3rd rate magazines and random websites say about how colleges stack up?
Justifying statements about schools with more random rankings is just not helpful either.

No one believes Chicago is a top 4-6 school or that Princeton and Williams are simply "the best."
With universities, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT are the truly most sought after schools. MIT's focus is a bit narrow for my liking as an overall university, but I can't deny it is right there at the top. Duke and Northwestern (and others) are not quite there.
In the SLAC world, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams are the top schools. Pomona and Wellesley will occasionally get ranked there but they are kind of the very strong Duke and Chicago/NW of the SLAC world.

I'm an Amherst grad, and I definitely think of Pomona and Wellesley as being in the same grouping as us. Although my son isn't interested in attending a LAC, I'd be absolutely thrilled for him if he were going to Pomona (I would even push for him to go there, if Williams were in the picture )

Interesting. I went to one of those top LACs too and disagree. However, having lived in California and the DMV, I'd say on the west coast Pomona has a just as good, if not better reputation than any SLAC. Wellesley is also great but the students and faculty don't seem as strong now. They probably have the best and most tightly-knit alumni network though. Wellesley and Smith amaze me in that regard.

You're just biased. Wellesley professors are ridiculously accomplished. I'd go so far as to say #1 among all LACs, or 2 after Barnard. And student caliber is similarly high across all of these institutions (no data for Williams since they haven't posted their recent 2022-2023 CDS):

Wellesley- 1440-1540 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 89% in top 10% of HS class
Amherst- 1450-1550 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 90% in top 10% of HS class
Pomona- 1480-1540 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 91% in top 10% of HS class
Swarthmore- 1455-1540 SAT, 32-35 ACT, 89% in top 10% of HS class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many highly educated and affluent people care so much what 3rd rate magazines and random websites say about how colleges stack up?
Justifying statements about schools with more random rankings is just not helpful either.

No one believes Chicago is a top 4-6 school or that Princeton and Williams are simply "the best."
With universities, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT are the truly most sought after schools. MIT's focus is a bit narrow for my liking as an overall university, but I can't deny it is right there at the top. Duke and Northwestern (and others) are not quite there.
In the SLAC world, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams are the top schools. Pomona and Wellesley will occasionally get ranked there but they are kind of the very strong Duke and Chicago/NW of the SLAC world.

I'm an Amherst grad, and I definitely think of Pomona and Wellesley as being in the same grouping as us. Although my son isn't interested in attending a LAC, I'd be absolutely thrilled for him if he were going to Pomona (I would even push for him to go there, if Williams were in the picture )

Interesting. I went to one of those top LACs too and disagree. However, having lived in California and the DMV, I'd say on the west coast Pomona has a just as good, if not better reputation than any SLAC. Wellesley is also great but the students and faculty don't seem as strong now. They probably have the best and most tightly-knit alumni network though. Wellesley and Smith amaze me in that regard.

You're just biased. Wellesley professors are ridiculously accomplished. I'd go so far as to say #1 among all LACs, or 2 after Barnard. And student caliber is similarly high across all of these institutions (no data for Williams since they haven't posted their recent 2022-2023 CDS):

Wellesley- 1440-1540 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 89% in top 10% of HS class
Amherst- 1450-1550 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 90% in top 10% of HS class
Pomona- 1480-1540 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 91% in top 10% of HS class
Swarthmore- 1455-1540 SAT, 32-35 ACT, 89% in top 10% of HS class

It’s worth pointing out that almost all the top 30 LACs are close to these stats. They drift towards 31-34 but still up there. Sure the super duper kids are more likely to be found among the top 5/10 but there is not a huge drop off by any means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many highly educated and affluent people care so much what 3rd rate magazines and random websites say about how colleges stack up?
Justifying statements about schools with more random rankings is just not helpful either.

No one believes Chicago is a top 4-6 school or that Princeton and Williams are simply "the best."
With universities, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT are the truly most sought after schools. MIT's focus is a bit narrow for my liking as an overall university, but I can't deny it is right there at the top. Duke and Northwestern (and others) are not quite there.
In the SLAC world, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams are the top schools. Pomona and Wellesley will occasionally get ranked there but they are kind of the very strong Duke and Chicago/NW of the SLAC world.

I'm an Amherst grad, and I definitely think of Pomona and Wellesley as being in the same grouping as us. Although my son isn't interested in attending a LAC, I'd be absolutely thrilled for him if he were going to Pomona (I would even push for him to go there, if Williams were in the picture )

Interesting. I went to one of those top LACs too and disagree. However, having lived in California and the DMV, I'd say on the west coast Pomona has a just as good, if not better reputation than any SLAC. Wellesley is also great but the students and faculty don't seem as strong now. They probably have the best and most tightly-knit alumni network though. Wellesley and Smith amaze me in that regard.

You're just biased. Wellesley professors are ridiculously accomplished. I'd go so far as to say #1 among all LACs, or 2 after Barnard. And student caliber is similarly high across all of these institutions (no data for Williams since they haven't posted their recent 2022-2023 CDS):

Wellesley- 1440-1540 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 89% in top 10% of HS class
Amherst- 1450-1550 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 90% in top 10% of HS class
Pomona- 1480-1540 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 91% in top 10% of HS class
Swarthmore- 1455-1540 SAT, 32-35 ACT, 89% in top 10% of HS class

It’s worth pointing out that almost all the top 30 LACs are close to these stats. They drift towards 31-34 but still up there. Sure the super duper kids are more likely to be found among the top 5/10 but there is not a huge drop off by any means.

Important too to look at percent submitting test scores, all similar range with Pomona the lowest:

Wellesley 61%
Amherst 63%
Pomona 53%
Swarthmore:61%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many highly educated and affluent people care so much what 3rd rate magazines and random websites say about how colleges stack up?
Justifying statements about schools with more random rankings is just not helpful either.

No one believes Chicago is a top 4-6 school or that Princeton and Williams are simply "the best."
With universities, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT are the truly most sought after schools. MIT's focus is a bit narrow for my liking as an overall university, but I can't deny it is right there at the top. Duke and Northwestern (and others) are not quite there.
In the SLAC world, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams are the top schools. Pomona and Wellesley will occasionally get ranked there but they are kind of the very strong Duke and Chicago/NW of the SLAC world.

I'm an Amherst grad, and I definitely think of Pomona and Wellesley as being in the same grouping as us. Although my son isn't interested in attending a LAC, I'd be absolutely thrilled for him if he were going to Pomona (I would even push for him to go there, if Williams were in the picture )

Interesting. I went to one of those top LACs too and disagree. However, having lived in California and the DMV, I'd say on the west coast Pomona has a just as good, if not better reputation than any SLAC. Wellesley is also great but the students and faculty don't seem as strong now. They probably have the best and most tightly-knit alumni network though. Wellesley and Smith amaze me in that regard.

You're just biased. Wellesley professors are ridiculously accomplished. I'd go so far as to say #1 among all LACs, or 2 after Barnard. And student caliber is similarly high across all of these institutions (no data for Williams since they haven't posted their recent 2022-2023 CDS):

Wellesley- 1440-1540 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 89% in top 10% of HS class
Amherst- 1450-1550 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 90% in top 10% of HS class
Pomona- 1480-1540 SAT, 33-35 ACT, 91% in top 10% of HS class
Swarthmore- 1455-1540 SAT, 32-35 ACT, 89% in top 10% of HS class

It’s worth pointing out that almost all the top 30 LACs are close to these stats. They drift towards 31-34 but still up there. Sure the super duper kids are more likely to be found among the top 5/10 but there is not a huge drop off by any means.

Important too to look at percent submitting test scores, all similar range with Pomona the lowest:

Wellesley 61%
Amherst 63%
Pomona 53%
Swarthmore:61%

Realistically that small gap simply reflects the fact that Pomona is in California.

[Anonymous]

By the way, notice how the only way to compare the academic caliber of schools is by looking at test score data? This is why testing will never go away. No other way to differentiate. Here we are figuring out which schools are better on the basis of the percentage of students that are not test optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By the way, notice how the only way to compare the academic caliber of schools is by looking at test score data? This is why testing will never go away. No other way to differentiate. Here we are figuring out which schools are better on the basis of the percentage of students that are not test optional.

PP, obviously test scores are important to you and a handful of other frequent posters. That doesn't mean that your statement above - "the only way to compare the academic caliber of schools is by looking at test score data" - is remotely accurate. Just because you keep saying something is true doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, notice how the only way to compare the academic caliber of schools is by looking at test score data? This is why testing will never go away. No other way to differentiate. Here we are figuring out which schools are better on the basis of the percentage of students that are not test optional.

PP, obviously test scores are important to you and a handful of other frequent posters. That doesn't mean that your statement above - "the only way to compare the academic caliber of schools is by looking at test score data" - is remotely accurate. Just because you keep saying something is true doesn't make it so.

NP. I don’t have any problem with colleges offering seats to studio art majors and the like without regard to test scores. But my kid likes math. I’ve noticed that even ODU requires a 740 SAT Math score to place into Calc I. (And yes, even “test optional” schools require math placement tests.) And this problem is especially acute at small campuses. If a LAC only enrolls 400 students per year, and only 50% submit test scores, and only 50% of them score over 700 math, how many STEM departments can the campus even support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, notice how the only way to compare the academic caliber of schools is by looking at test score data? This is why testing will never go away. No other way to differentiate. Here we are figuring out which schools are better on the basis of the percentage of students that are not test optional.

PP, obviously test scores are important to you and a handful of other frequent posters. That doesn't mean that your statement above - "the only way to compare the academic caliber of schools is by looking at test score data" - is remotely accurate. Just because you keep saying something is true doesn't make it so.

How else can you compare? GPA? Class rank? We know all of this varies wildly from school to school.

How can we know if one school has stronger students than another?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do these LACs compare to national universities? Is Williams HYPSM level? Are Bowdoin and Middlebury comperable to Duke and Northwestern? Or are they lower

No, schools like Duke and Northwestern are simply on another tier above Bowdoin/Middlebury. Even Williams/Amherst would be right below Duke/Northwestern.

You are a member of a socio-economic class that is one rung below those who send their children to Amherst and Williams. If you know, you know.

You must be the Burberry tote Succession person from the Pomona thread. That was a great post. LOL.