Changes in LACs

[Anonymous]

Let’s talk honestly: Williams and Amherst are great liberal arts colleges—but they’re not inherently better than the rest of the top 50.

The prestige surrounding these two schools often overshadows the fact that many other liberal arts colleges offer just as rigorous academics, strong faculty mentorship, close-knit communities, and better support for a wider range of students. Schools like Pomona, Swarthmore, Carleton, Denison, Davidson, Grinnell, and many others consistently deliver top-tier outcomes—often with less elitism and more emphasis on accessibility and innovation.

Yes, Williams and Amherst have name recognition, but that doesn’t automatically mean a better education or student experience. In fact, the obsession with “top two” rankings tends to reinforce narrow definitions of success that overlook what actually makes a college experience meaningful: mentorship, opportunity, fit, and growth.

It’s time to stop treating Williams and Amherst like they’re in a league of their own. They’re part of a much broader landscape of excellent liberal arts institutions that deserve equal attention and respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^disagree about Bates climbing.

Disagree? Bates must’ve missed your memo, because their endowment has doubled in the last decade, and they’ve been aggressively expanding research facilities and faculty. They’re pulling in a stronger applicant pool, with many students eyeing them as a top alternative to schools like Middlebury or Hamilton. Plus, with their major investments in faculty and national recruiting, they’re making noise in the liberal arts world. But hey, feel free to keep sleeping on them—Bates is already on the rise.

By statistical aspects, the student body at Bates doesn't seem to compare with those of Middlebury or Hamilton.

I'd love to hear the difference of means tests you did, since you mention statistical analysis of the following:
College | SAT(25th , 50th , 75th)
Bates | (1410, 1450, 1490)
Middlebury | (1450, 1500, 1530)
Hamilton | (1460, 1500, 1530)
A difference of about 4-5 questions between average Bates and average Middlebury/Hamilton scores. Must be some pretty low variation if a jump from 96 to 98th percentile is significant.

Less than 20% of Bates students submit test scores compared to around 50% and rising (once again) for the other two schools. That is a pretty big difference.

NP here. Bates has been TO for decades (as has nearby Bowdoin.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^disagree about Bates climbing.

Disagree? Bates must’ve missed your memo, because their endowment has doubled in the last decade, and they’ve been aggressively expanding research facilities and faculty. They’re pulling in a stronger applicant pool, with many students eyeing them as a top alternative to schools like Middlebury or Hamilton. Plus, with their major investments in faculty and national recruiting, they’re making noise in the liberal arts world. But hey, feel free to keep sleeping on them—Bates is already on the rise.

By statistical aspects, the student body at Bates doesn't seem to compare with those of Middlebury or Hamilton.

I'd love to hear the difference of means tests you did, since you mention statistical analysis of the following:
College | SAT(25th , 50th , 75th)
Bates | (1410, 1450, 1490)
Middlebury | (1450, 1500, 1530)
Hamilton | (1460, 1500, 1530)
A difference of about 4-5 questions between average Bates and average Middlebury/Hamilton scores. Must be some pretty low variation if a jump from 96 to 98th percentile is significant.

Less than 20% of Bates students submit test scores compared to around 50% and rising (once again) for the other two schools. That is a pretty big difference.

Great, but that is not the original claim.

The poster said statistical aspects, and the percentage of students submitting standardized scores is a statistical aspect from which inferences may be drawn. In any case, there are other statistical indicators of notable differences. For example, the percentage of students that Hamilton reports as originating from the top 10% of their high school classes (82%) is about the same as Bates reports as originating from the top quarter of their high school classes (84%).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s talk honestly: Williams and Amherst are great liberal arts colleges—but they’re not inherently better than the rest of the top 50.

The prestige surrounding these two schools often overshadows the fact that many other liberal arts colleges offer just as rigorous academics, strong faculty mentorship, close-knit communities, and better support for a wider range of students. Schools like Pomona, Swarthmore, Carleton, Denison, Davidson, Grinnell, and many others consistently deliver top-tier outcomes—often with less elitism and more emphasis on accessibility and innovation.

Yes, Williams and Amherst have name recognition, but that doesn’t automatically mean a better education or student experience. In fact, the obsession with “top two” rankings tends to reinforce narrow definitions of success that overlook what actually makes a college experience meaningful: mentorship, opportunity, fit, and growth.

It’s time to stop treating Williams and Amherst like they’re in a league of their own. They’re part of a much broader landscape of excellent liberal arts institutions that deserve equal attention and respect.

You had me until you mentioned Denison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s talk honestly: Williams and Amherst are great liberal arts colleges—but they’re not inherently better than the rest of the top 50.

The prestige surrounding these two schools often overshadows the fact that many other liberal arts colleges offer just as rigorous academics, strong faculty mentorship, close-knit communities, and better support for a wider range of students. Schools like Pomona, Swarthmore, Carleton, Denison, Davidson, Grinnell, and many others consistently deliver top-tier outcomes—often with less elitism and more emphasis on accessibility and innovation.

Yes, Williams and Amherst have name recognition, but that doesn’t automatically mean a better education or student experience. In fact, the obsession with “top two” rankings tends to reinforce narrow definitions of success that overlook what actually makes a college experience meaningful: mentorship, opportunity, fit, and growth.

It’s time to stop treating Williams and Amherst like they’re in a league of their own. They’re part of a much broader landscape of excellent liberal arts institutions that deserve equal attention and respect.

You had me until you mentioned Denison.

+1 took the words right out of my mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midd boosters are very defensive but can not explain away current problems at the school. Hiring a new President is a start. As others have pointed out Midd has dropped to tie for 19th in US News, application decline and budget deficit not signs of a hot school like Duke or Vandy. More comparable to fine school like Colgate.

It’ you again pretending to be someone else because you’re not getting traction as usual. Someone at 10:08 put a fork in your finances claim so you need to pivot. Others haven’t pointed anything out about app drops because they are tiny and still up massively over the last 5 years. The budget deficit is tiny relative to the endowment and could be closed by simply reducing international financial aid to the same level as Williams. You’ll try over enrollment next but people in previous posts have shown the numbers that it happened all in one year and they are now graduated. You’ll then move on to “they are adding people to cover the deficit but the reality is that their new dorm is 50 beds bigger than the one it replaced and they have been very open about adding 50-75 additional students because they have now have the room and this number is nor larger than typical because with more kids going abroad each year the on campus population will remain stable.

Keep on trying little tool.

Please stop, pro-Midd troll. On behalf of Midd, stop saying it increased enrollment only one year; stop saying they have added only 50; and stop saying that they have no financial issues. These are lies. You sound unhinged, particularly when all of this is common knowledge for anyone who knows Midd. If you really want to be pro-Midd, say something positive about the school so the focus is not on denial.

Constantly repeating your lies will not make them true. People constantly point you to the actual data sources such as

https://www.middlebury.edu/assessment-institutional-research/institutional-data/middlebury-college

showing the actual enrollment over the past 10 years (and the one year of over enrollment) and highlighting that going to between 2600 and 2650 is an increase of 30-70 or so students which is happening coincident with a new dorm opening this year yet you persist. We point out that Middlebury has a AA bond rating yet you blather about non-existent ‘financial problems’. We correct you with fact yet you continue to lie.

Your own link shows 4 straight years of overenrollment over the 2500 norm, by several hundred — over 10%. Which is why they paid kids not to attend school, had them start the year in Copenhagen, had kids live at Bread Loaf off campus, and had kids live at the Inn. Just go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s talk honestly: Williams and Amherst are great liberal arts colleges—but they’re not inherently better than the rest of the top 50.

The prestige surrounding these two schools often overshadows the fact that many other liberal arts colleges offer just as rigorous academics, strong faculty mentorship, close-knit communities, and better support for a wider range of students. Schools like Pomona, Swarthmore, Carleton, Denison, Davidson, Grinnell, and many others consistently deliver top-tier outcomes—often with less elitism and more emphasis on accessibility and innovation.

Yes, Williams and Amherst have name recognition, but that doesn’t automatically mean a better education or student experience. In fact, the obsession with “top two” rankings tends to reinforce narrow definitions of success that overlook what actually makes a college experience meaningful: mentorship, opportunity, fit, and growth.

It’s time to stop treating Williams and Amherst like they’re in a league of their own. They’re part of a much broader landscape of excellent liberal arts institutions that deserve equal attention and respect.

You had me until you mentioned Denison.

+1 took the words right out of my mouth.

Why not mention Hillsdale? That’s #50. And Hillsdale got SLACs out of the endowment tax. Maybe it should be #1 since the top 50 are apparently interchangeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^disagree about Bates climbing.

Disagree? Bates must’ve missed your memo, because their endowment has doubled in the last decade, and they’ve been aggressively expanding research facilities and faculty. They’re pulling in a stronger applicant pool, with many students eyeing them as a top alternative to schools like Middlebury or Hamilton. Plus, with their major investments in faculty and national recruiting, they’re making noise in the liberal arts world. But hey, feel free to keep sleeping on them—Bates is already on the rise.

By statistical aspects, the student body at Bates doesn't seem to compare with those of Middlebury or Hamilton.

I'd love to hear the difference of means tests you did, since you mention statistical analysis of the following:
College | SAT(25th , 50th , 75th)
Bates | (1410, 1450, 1490)
Middlebury | (1450, 1500, 1530)
Hamilton | (1460, 1500, 1530)
A difference of about 4-5 questions between average Bates and average Middlebury/Hamilton scores. Must be some pretty low variation if a jump from 96 to 98th percentile is significant.

Less than 20% of Bates students submit test scores compared to around 50% and rising (once again) for the other two schools. That is a pretty big difference.

Great, but that is not the original claim.

The poster said statistical aspects, and the percentage of students submitting standardized scores is a statistical aspect from which inferences may be drawn. In any case, there are other statistical indicators of notable differences. For example, the percentage of students that Hamilton reports as originating from the top 10% of their high school classes (82%) is about the same as Bates reports as originating from the top quarter of their high school classes (84%).

Fun thing, this isn’t statistical! That’s the whole point. It’s just making conclusions based off of differences in data points, but that is not statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

There was already a deficit, so she didn't undo anything, she continued the trend of past presidents. Endowment returns have to do with the hedge fund you outsource too; potentially, Middlebury could've switched asset managers, but I highly doubt that would've changed things, since it depends on your asset portfolio. Once again, this isn't undoing anything, it's carrying on a trend. The Charles Murray incident isn't some stain on the college record; almost no-one other than disgruntled Middlebury alum care or think about it. It was news for 5 minutes, big whoop. How much do you know about Claremont McKenna's protest against Heather Mac Donald, and how much do you think that affected their billion dollar campaign? The only thing "undone" from your list is not keeping up with faculty compensation, and I'd love a source for that.

The fact that you don’t think a college president’s job is to balance a budget—regardless of whether it was balanced in the past—isn’t a critical responsibly, means that you are a complete dolt.

good job at making something up. But you said it confidently, so that's good!

What was made up? Did Laurie Patton balance Middlebury’s budget or not? She allowed the college to carry a deficit for the majority of her tenure. In corporate America, she would have been fired long ago. It took an interim president to get the ball rolling. Hopefully Baucom will right the ship.

No where did I mention the responsibilities of the president. That was not the question I first asked nor was it in any of your posts prior- suddenly, you just claimed something that made no sense.

All your follow ups are not what we’re discussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

There was already a deficit, so she didn't undo anything, she continued the trend of past presidents. Endowment returns have to do with the hedge fund you outsource too; potentially, Middlebury could've switched asset managers, but I highly doubt that would've changed things, since it depends on your asset portfolio. Once again, this isn't undoing anything, it's carrying on a trend. The Charles Murray incident isn't some stain on the college record; almost no-one other than disgruntled Middlebury alum care or think about it. It was news for 5 minutes, big whoop. How much do you know about Claremont McKenna's protest against Heather Mac Donald, and how much do you think that affected their billion dollar campaign? The only thing "undone" from your list is not keeping up with faculty compensation, and I'd love a source for that.

The fact that you don’t think a college president’s job is to balance a budget—regardless of whether it was balanced in the past—isn’t a critical responsibly, means that you are a complete dolt.

good job at making something up. But you said it confidently, so that's good!

What was made up? Did Laurie Patton balance Middlebury’s budget or not? She allowed the college to carry a deficit for the majority of her tenure. In corporate America, she would have been fired long ago. It took an interim president to get the ball rolling. Hopefully Baucom will right the ship.

No where did I mention the responsibilities of the president. That was not the question I first asked nor was it in any of your posts prior- suddenly, you just claimed something that made no sense.

All your follow ups are not what we’re discussing.

You are making a big presumption here, namely, that anyone would want to get into a “discussion” with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midd boosters are very defensive but can not explain away current problems at the school. Hiring a new President is a start. As others have pointed out Midd has dropped to tie for 19th in US News, application decline and budget deficit not signs of a hot school like Duke or Vandy. More comparable to fine school like Colgate.

It’ you again pretending to be someone else because you’re not getting traction as usual. Someone at 10:08 put a fork in your finances claim so you need to pivot. Others haven’t pointed anything out about app drops because they are tiny and still up massively over the last 5 years. The budget deficit is tiny relative to the endowment and could be closed by simply reducing international financial aid to the same level as Williams. You’ll try over enrollment next but people in previous posts have shown the numbers that it happened all in one year and they are now graduated. You’ll then move on to “they are adding people to cover the deficit but the reality is that their new dorm is 50 beds bigger than the one it replaced and they have been very open about adding 50-75 additional students because they have now have the room and this number is nor larger than typical because with more kids going abroad each year the on campus population will remain stable.

Keep on trying little tool.

Please stop, pro-Midd troll. On behalf of Midd, stop saying it increased enrollment only one year; stop saying they have added only 50; and stop saying that they have no financial issues. These are lies. You sound unhinged, particularly when all of this is common knowledge for anyone who knows Midd. If you really want to be pro-Midd, say something positive about the school so the focus is not on denial.

Constantly repeating your lies will not make them true. People constantly point you to the actual data sources such as

https://www.middlebury.edu/assessment-institutional-research/institutional-data/middlebury-college

showing the actual enrollment over the past 10 years (and the one year of over enrollment) and highlighting that going to between 2600 and 2650 is an increase of 30-70 or so students which is happening coincident with a new dorm opening this year yet you persist. We point out that Middlebury has a AA bond rating yet you blather about non-existent ‘financial problems’. We correct you with fact yet you continue to lie.

Your own link shows 4 straight years of overenrollment over the 2500 norm, by several hundred — over 10%. Which is why they paid kids not to attend school, had them start the year in Copenhagen, had kids live at Bread Loaf off campus, and had kids live at the Inn. Just go away.

The link shows exactly what happened, a one year of over enrollment which then took 4 years to work through the system. Middlebury was very open that they were going to carry the through the system rather than impact later classes. It was a one time event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midd boosters are very defensive but can not explain away current problems at the school. Hiring a new President is a start. As others have pointed out Midd has dropped to tie for 19th in US News, application decline and budget deficit not signs of a hot school like Duke or Vandy. More comparable to fine school like Colgate.

It’ you again pretending to be someone else because you’re not getting traction as usual. Someone at 10:08 put a fork in your finances claim so you need to pivot. Others haven’t pointed anything out about app drops because they are tiny and still up massively over the last 5 years. The budget deficit is tiny relative to the endowment and could be closed by simply reducing international financial aid to the same level as Williams. You’ll try over enrollment next but people in previous posts have shown the numbers that it happened all in one year and they are now graduated. You’ll then move on to “they are adding people to cover the deficit but the reality is that their new dorm is 50 beds bigger than the one it replaced and they have been very open about adding 50-75 additional students because they have now have the room and this number is nor larger than typical because with more kids going abroad each year the on campus population will remain stable.

Keep on trying little tool.

Please stop, pro-Midd troll. On behalf of Midd, stop saying it increased enrollment only one year; stop saying they have added only 50; and stop saying that they have no financial issues. These are lies. You sound unhinged, particularly when all of this is common knowledge for anyone who knows Midd. If you really want to be pro-Midd, say something positive about the school so the focus is not on denial.

Constantly repeating your lies will not make them true. People constantly point you to the actual data sources such as

https://www.middlebury.edu/assessment-institutional-research/institutional-data/middlebury-college

showing the actual enrollment over the past 10 years (and the one year of over enrollment) and highlighting that going to between 2600 and 2650 is an increase of 30-70 or so students which is happening coincident with a new dorm opening this year yet you persist. We point out that Middlebury has a AA bond rating yet you blather about non-existent ‘financial problems’. We correct you with fact yet you continue to lie.

Your own link shows 4 straight years of overenrollment over the 2500 norm, by several hundred — over 10%. Which is why they paid kids not to attend school, had them start the year in Copenhagen, had kids live at Bread Loaf off campus, and had kids live at the Inn. Just go away.

The link shows exactly what happened, a one year of over enrollment which then took 4 years to work through the system. Middlebury was very open that they were going to carry the through the system rather than impact later classes. It was a one time event.

No, it shows 4 years of over-enrollment. It is an Orwellian world in which you live. Never before have I heard the argument that if you over-enroll by over 10% one year, then the next, then the next, and then the next (while claiming a return to previous levels each year, but not doing so for budget reasons) constitutes only 1 year of over-enrollment. You should contact Midd communications with your argument, since, year after year, it said it would return to enrollment levels the very next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

There was already a deficit, so she didn't undo anything, she continued the trend of past presidents. Endowment returns have to do with the hedge fund you outsource too; potentially, Middlebury could've switched asset managers, but I highly doubt that would've changed things, since it depends on your asset portfolio. Once again, this isn't undoing anything, it's carrying on a trend. The Charles Murray incident isn't some stain on the college record; almost no-one other than disgruntled Middlebury alum care or think about it. It was news for 5 minutes, big whoop. How much do you know about Claremont McKenna's protest against Heather Mac Donald, and how much do you think that affected their billion dollar campaign? The only thing "undone" from your list is not keeping up with faculty compensation, and I'd love a source for that.

The fact that you don’t think a college president’s job is to balance a budget—regardless of whether it was balanced in the past—isn’t a critical responsibly, means that you are a complete dolt.

good job at making something up. But you said it confidently, so that's good!

What was made up? Did Laurie Patton balance Middlebury’s budget or not? She allowed the college to carry a deficit for the majority of her tenure. In corporate America, she would have been fired long ago. It took an interim president to get the ball rolling. Hopefully Baucom will right the ship.

No where did I mention the responsibilities of the president. That was not the question I first asked nor was it in any of your posts prior- suddenly, you just claimed something that made no sense.

All your follow ups are not what we’re discussing.

You are making a big presumption here, namely, that anyone would want to get into a “discussion” with you.

I see you have no argument so you instead must act like a child. I’ll wait for a response that indicates you can think and post responsibly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

There was already a deficit, so she didn't undo anything, she continued the trend of past presidents. Endowment returns have to do with the hedge fund you outsource too; potentially, Middlebury could've switched asset managers, but I highly doubt that would've changed things, since it depends on your asset portfolio. Once again, this isn't undoing anything, it's carrying on a trend. The Charles Murray incident isn't some stain on the college record; almost no-one other than disgruntled Middlebury alum care or think about it. It was news for 5 minutes, big whoop. How much do you know about Claremont McKenna's protest against Heather Mac Donald, and how much do you think that affected their billion dollar campaign? The only thing "undone" from your list is not keeping up with faculty compensation, and I'd love a source for that.

The fact that you don’t think a college president’s job is to balance a budget—regardless of whether it was balanced in the past—isn’t a critical responsibly, means that you are a complete dolt.

good job at making something up. But you said it confidently, so that's good!

What was made up? Did Laurie Patton balance Middlebury’s budget or not? She allowed the college to carry a deficit for the majority of her tenure. In corporate America, she would have been fired long ago. It took an interim president to get the ball rolling. Hopefully Baucom will right the ship.

No where did I mention the responsibilities of the president. That was not the question I first asked nor was it in any of your posts prior- suddenly, you just claimed something that made no sense.

All your follow ups are not what we’re discussing.

You are making a big presumption here, namely, that anyone would want to get into a “discussion” with you.

I see you have no argument so you instead must act like a child. I’ll wait for a response that indicates you can think and post responsibly.

That was a different poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s talk honestly: Williams and Amherst are great liberal arts colleges—but they’re not inherently better than the rest of the top 50.

The prestige surrounding these two schools often overshadows the fact that many other liberal arts colleges offer just as rigorous academics, strong faculty mentorship, close-knit communities, and better support for a wider range of students. Schools like Pomona, Swarthmore, Carleton, Denison, Davidson, Grinnell, and many others consistently deliver top-tier outcomes—often with less elitism and more emphasis on accessibility and innovation.

Yes, Williams and Amherst have name recognition, but that doesn’t automatically mean a better education or student experience. In fact, the obsession with “top two” rankings tends to reinforce narrow definitions of success that overlook what actually makes a college experience meaningful: mentorship, opportunity, fit, and growth.

It’s time to stop treating Williams and Amherst like they’re in a league of their own. They’re part of a much broader landscape of excellent liberal arts institutions that deserve equal attention and respect.

Denison? Seems like a good school and my kid likes it and will apply, but, c'mon, it's not in the same group as Swarthmore.