Middlebury vs Tufts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't really understand if this Midd hater had a kid go there and hate it or have a kid get rejected.

The idea of being SO MAD about a school increasing enrollment by 60 kids a grade? Or admit kids in Feb (which they've always done). Or pay kids to defer (most colleges call that "upping merit award" .. all US schools like enticing nearly full pay kids to pay 75k to go to their college). Or expanding their brand .. Harvard does that all day long. It's just all state of play, nothing unique to Midd at all

(New poster.)

The poster whom you have labeled "this Midd hater" is 100% correct.

Apparently, you have trouble with facts.

Converting double rooms into triples, singles into doubles, and requiring students to "dorm" in off-campus hotels has a significant effect on a student's experience.

LACs like to tout small class sizes, yet that is not quite what Middlebury College delivered despite stating, falsely, that the enlargement was only temporary.

Middlebury College's attractiveness has been diminished due to either poor planning or a lack of planning.

Decades ago, I attended another LAC. Did not like the experience; wished for decades that I had attended Middlebury College instead. However, I have no such desire in light of the current state of Middlebury College.

My kid was in a tiny forced triple her first year at Yale, that year after Covid. She lived to tell the tale - although it’s not a tale she tells because who the f cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is tied with BC at 37 behind Ga Tech, UC-Irvine, UC Davis and UIllinois none of which are academic powerhouses.

What an ignorant post.

It is clear that you know little about Georgia Tech. The academics and research at Georgia Tech blow every single LAC out of the water.

U Illinois has some of the best and most academically demanding STEM majors in the country--especially in engineering.

UC-Davis' ag research benefits us all. Beautiful campus populated by high achieving, hard working students.

UC-Irvine rejects many who surpass the 75% for Tufts & Middlebury.

For research opportunities in a field such as, say, physics, there are several liberal arts colleges I'd recommend over Georgia Tech.

Okay. Willing to listen. Please name those LACs which you think are better for "research opportunities" than Georgia Tech. While you're at it, please share the research expenditures (R&D expenditures) at those LACs compared to Georgia Tech. (I'll respond when,and if, I can stop laughing.) Typical LAC bs which criticizes National Universities for spending too much time,effort, and resources on research, but then claims that LACs offer better research opportunities. LOL !

[Anonymous]

Midd has better looking students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is tied with BC at 37 behind Ga Tech, UC-Irvine, UC Davis and UIllinois none of which are academic powerhouses.

What an ignorant post.

It is clear that you know little about Georgia Tech. The academics and research at Georgia Tech blow every single LAC out of the water.

U Illinois has some of the best and most academically demanding STEM majors in the country--especially in engineering.

UC-Davis' ag research benefits us all. Beautiful campus populated by high achieving, hard working students.

UC-Irvine rejects many who surpass the 75% for Tufts & Middlebury.

For research opportunities in a field such as, say, physics, there are several liberal arts colleges I'd recommend over Georgia Tech.

Okay. Willing to listen. Please name those LACs which you think are better for "research opportunities" than Georgia Tech. While you're at it, please share the research expenditures (R&D expenditures) at those LACs compared to Georgia Tech. (I'll respond when,and if, I can stop laughing.) Typical LAC bs which criticizes National Universities for spending too much time,effort, and resources on research, but then claims that LACs offer better research opportunities. LOL !

Your tone hear doesn't seem to suggest an open mind. I've nothing against Georgia Tech, including as an excellent school for research opportunities. Nonetheless, Georgia Tech has yet to produce a recipient of an Apker Award — the nation's top recognition for undergraduate research in physics — which might be of concern considering the long history of the Apker. With respect to LACs I'd recommend for physics, including the several I would recommend over Georgia Tech, that opinion seems better suited to another topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't really understand if this Midd hater had a kid go there and hate it or have a kid get rejected.

The idea of being SO MAD about a school increasing enrollment by 60 kids a grade? Or admit kids in Feb (which they've always done). Or pay kids to defer (most colleges call that "upping merit award" .. all US schools like enticing nearly full pay kids to pay 75k to go to their college). Or expanding their brand .. Harvard does that all day long. It's just all state of play, nothing unique to Midd at all

(New poster.)

The poster whom you have labeled "this Midd hater" is 100% correct.

Apparently, you have trouble with facts.

Converting double rooms into triples, singles into doubles, and requiring students to "dorm" in off-campus hotels has a significant effect on a student's experience.

LACs like to tout small class sizes, yet that is not quite what Middlebury College delivered despite stating, falsely, that the enlargement was only temporary.

Middlebury College's attractiveness has been diminished due to either poor planning or a lack of planning.

Decades ago, I attended another LAC. Did not like the experience; wished for decades that I had attended Middlebury College instead. However, I have no such desire in light of the current state of Middlebury College.

My kid was in a tiny forced triple her first year at Yale, that year after Covid. She lived to tell the tale - although it’s not a tale she tells because who the f cares.

Nice whataboutism. Was kid put in a forced triple at Yale because of a school financial crisis, which is ongoing at Midd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't really understand if this Midd hater had a kid go there and hate it or have a kid get rejected.

The idea of being SO MAD about a school increasing enrollment by 60 kids a grade? Or admit kids in Feb (which they've always done). Or pay kids to defer (most colleges call that "upping merit award" .. all US schools like enticing nearly full pay kids to pay 75k to go to their college). Or expanding their brand .. Harvard does that all day long. It's just all state of play, nothing unique to Midd at all

(New poster.)

The poster whom you have labeled "this Midd hater" is 100% correct.

Apparently, you have trouble with facts.

Converting double rooms into triples, singles into doubles, and requiring students to "dorm" in off-campus hotels has a significant effect on a student's experience.

LACs like to tout small class sizes, yet that is not quite what Middlebury College delivered despite stating, falsely, that the enlargement was only temporary.

Middlebury College's attractiveness has been diminished due to either poor planning or a lack of planning.

Decades ago, I attended another LAC. Did not like the experience; wished for decades that I had attended Middlebury College instead. However, I have no such desire in light of the current state of Middlebury College.

My kid was in a tiny forced triple her first year at Yale, that year after Covid. She lived to tell the tale - although it’s not a tale she tells because who the f cares.

Nice whataboutism. Was kid put in a forced triple at Yale because of a school financial crisis, which is ongoing at Midd?

It was because they enrolled too many kids that year. It wasn't the only college by a long shot. Kids were correct to defer over Covid, and colleges had little visibility about how many would come the next year. 95%? 90%? 85%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never met a top student who listed either as their top choice. Middlebury is approximately named because it is in a middle of the NESCAC In terms of prestige way behind Amherst, Williams and Bowdoin. It’s the Colby of Vermont with a waspy. ll Bean vibe. Tufts has seen better days ranking has slipped and an easier version of Emory and liberal,

It’s fascinating to see the level of vitriol for both of these schools that’s on display here. These are two of the best colleges in the country and people act like they’re community colleges. Whatever makes you feel better about your school, I guess.

It's probably 1-2 people amplifying their grievance for some strange personal reason. Both these schools are held in high regard. Arguing any school down just makes people look silly and insecure.

one poster really hates that Midd overenrolled one year.

6 years in a row. Facts are stubborn things.

One poster is a paid Middlebury shill.

Over enrolled 6 years in a row? Could you point out your source for that? Earlier today a poster corrected your misstatements by simply pointing to the link that you posted as 'evidence'. What on earth did Middlebury do to you?

Took me 2 minutes. It’s right here for 5 years. Source is the college itself:
https://www.middlebury.edu/assessment-institutional-research/institutional-data/middlebury-college

This year, year 6, isn’t included on the chart; they have recently announced — after the admissions season, of course — that the “temporary” overenrollment is permanent. Here’s the link for that, which also outlines the budget crisis (something that has been going on for years). Source is the college newspaper:
https://www.middleburycampus.com/article/2025/04/middlebury-slashes-budget-by-over-10-million-imposes-partial-hiring-freeze

As for “misstatements,” which there have been none — nor have any been “corrected” — anxiously awaiting your apology for yours. This intentional prevarication needs to end.

200 kids - across 4 years - is hardly a huge deal. it's 50 kids a class. and yet you bring it up again and again.

also, they broke ground of a 150 room/300 student dorm back in 2023. which would have to have been planned at least 2-3 prior. so sounds like thy were preparing to house 300 more kids.

https://www.middleburycampus.com/article/2024/11/going-on-site-our-tour-of-the-new-first-year-dorm

The poster is well off of the range, just delulu. The new dorm is a replacement for Battelle hall which was built in the 50's and holds 250 students. The new dorm holds 300 which is one of the reasons that they are comfortable in slightly increasing their class size.

The irony of the whole thing is that people constantly cry that the elite schools should grow their class sizes yet when one does this is the nonsense that you hear.

The issue is about Middlebury (and these poster shills) lying. Midd upped enrollment immediately by 250-300 several years ago. At the time, Midd said it was a COVID one off. The next year they did it again (calling it accidental, rather than intentional, overenrollment). Then they did it again, then again, then again. Kids had larger classes, less class options, were sent off campus to live in hotels and, after yet another year of overenrollment, paid 10k in actual cash not to go to school. Doubles became triples and singles doubles, as would always happen for any school that immediately, and with no advanced planning, increased enrollment by 10-15%.

Each year they said they would return to normal enrollment levels the next year. And told prospective students this. This is a lie. For the class of 2029, they did the same thing, calling it a school with 2,500 enrollment at information sessions and saying they would be going back down the very next year. Continuously lying to your own students and to prospective students is bad. For the class of 2029, they said sending kids to Copenhagen the year before for the fall was a one off but enrollment will return to normal levels in the fall. Another lie. Even the AOs knew it was a lie at that point.

The COVID excuse, especially the past 2-3 years, was untenable, even for Middlebury. Last fall they had an enrollment of 2740. This fall they are enrolling 60 more kids in the freshman class than last year, for a so-called enrollment of 2600-2650. Math? They are still lying, but not by as much. Check this out a year from today: their enrollment will not be between 2600-2650 next year. It will be 2700-2750. Maybe even 2800 based on finances. Lies beget lies. And 1/2 truths. The 1/2 truth is they are finally saying (five years too late) the enrollment increase is permanent; they are lying about how much.

Speaking of the new dorm, which was built to get the kids back on campus after having them live in hotels or not having them on campus by dissuading them from even attending? The dorm was paid for by bonds. How are their bonds doing? Slightly better, actually. Why?

Because Midd has increased the proportion of full pay students. How? Why?

ED. A few years ago, they went ED crazy. They now take 70-80% of the class ED.

This lowered the deficit, but it was only a finger in the dam. Midd is still running 10 million a year deficits. Why? Because Midd is not Midd the liberal arts school. It is Midd the international language schools abroad, Midd the summer language school, Midd the school at Monterey California. It is all one financial entity. This is unique in higher education. It is also why Midd is going down faster than any other schools.

Kids don’t study languages anymore; the reduction is permanent. All of these schools are hurting big time and Midd will continue to have problems.

What does this all mean? Midd will continue on its downward trajectory for the next 5-10 years and stabilize at a notch around Colgate (another large liberal arts school in the middle of nowhere) and even below — think Bates.

Nothing wrong with that. But stop with the lies…

speaking of lies, according to your own link (https://www.middlebury.edu/assessment-institutional-research/institutional-data/middlebury-college):

over a 10-year period, the enrollment at Midd has ranged from 2,532 to 2,858 which - for most sane people - reads as fairly level. Considering this year a lot of colleges are expecting a higher than usual summer melt due to international kids rethinking their US plans, I'm sure they're feeling good to be aiming for the higher end of their enrollment numbers.

I also think all colleges would be smart to plan to enroll about 10% more kids. I also think we should encourage expanding access. Midd takes more Posse and QB kids than 10 years ago too. Which .. good for them.

Learn how to read a chart. It was a one-year shift. Please stop trolling. You are embarrassing yourself. I can only speculate that you think readers won’t click the link and believe you instead. You are hurting the school you are seemingly touting by drawing more attention to your lies.

Or are you a paid troll for another school? Can’t quite figure it out. In either case, you would be more effective if your lies were not so blatant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't really understand if this Midd hater had a kid go there and hate it or have a kid get rejected.

The idea of being SO MAD about a school increasing enrollment by 60 kids a grade? Or admit kids in Feb (which they've always done). Or pay kids to defer (most colleges call that "upping merit award" .. all US schools like enticing nearly full pay kids to pay 75k to go to their college). Or expanding their brand .. Harvard does that all day long. It's just all state of play, nothing unique to Midd at all

(New poster.)

The poster whom you have labeled "this Midd hater" is 100% correct.

Apparently, you have trouble with facts.

Converting double rooms into triples, singles into doubles, and requiring students to "dorm" in off-campus hotels has a significant effect on a student's experience.

LACs like to tout small class sizes, yet that is not quite what Middlebury College delivered despite stating, falsely, that the enlargement was only temporary.

Middlebury College's attractiveness has been diminished due to either poor planning or a lack of planning.

Decades ago, I attended another LAC. Did not like the experience; wished for decades that I had attended Middlebury College instead. However, I have no such desire in light of the current state of Middlebury College.

My kid was in a tiny forced triple her first year at Yale, that year after Covid. She lived to tell the tale - although it’s not a tale she tells because who the f cares.

Nice whataboutism. Was kid put in a forced triple at Yale because of a school financial crisis, which is ongoing at Midd?

It was because they enrolled too many kids that year. It wasn't the only college by a long shot. Kids were correct to defer over Covid, and colleges had little visibility about how many would come the next year. 95%? 90%? 85%?

So then the answer is no. Yale did nothing of the sort due to a financial crisis. Thanks for acknowledging that. This thread is about Middlebury and Tufts. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. In the real world, I know multiple finance/hedge fund extremely wealthy guys who have acknowledged respect for Tufts. One sent his kid there. Is it going to result in a red carpet being rolled out? Of course not, but it is more than sufficient.

I'm pretty sure that Ted Pick and John Waldron will vouch for Middlebury.

And Jamie Dimon went to Tufts. Are we just looking up famous alumni now? This only proves that privilege begets privilege. Tufts and Middlebury are fine schools, but let's be honest, they are at best faux elite.

Since these schools are relatively selective, they do attract strong students who are also well-connected, which genuinely leads to success. So if you're rich and connected but not the brightest, Middlebury and Tufts will do just fine. The upside? Your kid will be in no danger of sitting next to a JUCO transfer or a 7th-year senior working their way through college.Sure, both schools toss out financial aid to a few students so they don't appear too elitist, but we all know the game.

Tufts, Middlebury, and other similar schools should just consider themselves Ivy League branch campuses. They're not quite the real thing, but you can convince yourself that they're what you really wanted all along.

Tufts is a great school, as is Middlebury. Both are so close to the 'real thing' that the stats for 80% of the student bodies overlap with the T10 student bodies. I don't get the people who disparage Tufts or Middlebury on this thread especially the poster who seems to have lost their mind over Middlebury; they are way over the top.

Sure, they might have some stat overlap with actual elite institutions, but that conveniently ignores the reality that they're safety schools for students who couldn't make the Ivy cut. Most colleges have some overlap with the T10 as well.

If Tufts is so great, why can't it compete with other schools in Rhodes Scholarships? Middlebury has produced 16 Rhodes Scholars while Tufts has produced 4. Dartmouth (ranked 15th and similar in size to Tufts) has produced 63 Rhodes Scholars. If student statistics were the primary determinant of such achievements, and Tufts truly has 80% overlap with Top 10 schools, shouldn't its Rhodes Scholar count be closer to 50?

The claim that Tufts has 80% student stat overlap with Top 10 universities seems dubious. If the student populations are so similar academically, why such different outcomes for Rhodes Scholarships? This disparity suggests either that the student qualifications aren't as comparable as the statistics imply, or that Tufts does a poor job developing talent. I think it's both. I'm using an admittedly simplistic argument with only Rhodes Scholarships as a metric, but it's enough to show that comparing Tufts and its students to a T10 or T15 school is unrealistic.

The Rhodes is considered by state, with candidates in states with fewer colleges being advantaged, so direct comparisons, such as those you made, are invalid.

Sort of. Rhodes is by Region and Dartmouth does have an easier region (but not easy) because NH, CT, and NJ are states in their region. Middlebury's 16 is pretty impressive since their region includes MA and RI along with VT and ME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. In the real world, I know multiple finance/hedge fund extremely wealthy guys who have acknowledged respect for Tufts. One sent his kid there. Is it going to result in a red carpet being rolled out? Of course not, but it is more than sufficient.

I'm pretty sure that Ted Pick and John Waldron will vouch for Middlebury.

And Jamie Dimon went to Tufts. Are we just looking up famous alumni now? This only proves that privilege begets privilege. Tufts and Middlebury are fine schools, but let's be honest, they are at best faux elite.

Since these schools are relatively selective, they do attract strong students who are also well-connected, which genuinely leads to success. So if you're rich and connected but not the brightest, Middlebury and Tufts will do just fine. The upside? Your kid will be in no danger of sitting next to a JUCO transfer or a 7th-year senior working their way through college.Sure, both schools toss out financial aid to a few students so they don't appear too elitist, but we all know the game.

Tufts, Middlebury, and other similar schools should just consider themselves Ivy League branch campuses. They're not quite the real thing, but you can convince yourself that they're what you really wanted all along.

Tufts is a great school, as is Middlebury. Both are so close to the 'real thing' that the stats for 80% of the student bodies overlap with the T10 student bodies. I don't get the people who disparage Tufts or Middlebury on this thread especially the poster who seems to have lost their mind over Middlebury; they are way over the top.

Sure, they might have some stat overlap with actual elite institutions, but that conveniently ignores the reality that they're safety schools for students who couldn't make the Ivy cut. Most colleges have some overlap with the T10 as well.

If Tufts is so great, why can't it compete with other schools in Rhodes Scholarships? Middlebury has produced 16 Rhodes Scholars while Tufts has produced 4. Dartmouth (ranked 15th and similar in size to Tufts) has produced 63 Rhodes Scholars. If student statistics were the primary determinant of such achievements, and Tufts truly has 80% overlap with Top 10 schools, shouldn't its Rhodes Scholar count be closer to 50?

The claim that Tufts has 80% student stat overlap with Top 10 universities seems dubious. If the student populations are so similar academically, why such different outcomes for Rhodes Scholarships? This disparity suggests either that the student qualifications aren't as comparable as the statistics imply, or that Tufts does a poor job developing talent. I think it's both. I'm using an admittedly simplistic argument with only Rhodes Scholarships as a metric, but it's enough to show that comparing Tufts and its students to a T10 or T15 school is unrealistic.

The Rhodes is considered by state, with candidates in states with fewer colleges being advantaged, so direct comparisons, such as those you made, are invalid.

Sort of. Rhodes is by Region and Dartmouth does have an easier region (but not easy) because NH, CT, and NJ are states in their region. Middlebury's 16 is pretty impressive since their region includes MA and RI along with VT and ME.

Thank you for the correction.

[Anonymous]

Midd and Tufts do have 1 thing in common and it’s falling academic rankings.