Which among WASP would you choose to ED and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved Amherst when I visited a million years ago, so I'd ED there. Although I didn't see Swarthmore and I think I might have loved it too.

But if I had a kid who had so little opinion on geography etc . . . that they were asking this, I'd have them ED to a SLAC that was also excellent and a little easier to get into. Grinnell or Middlebury or something. (I don't have a kid who wants SLAC so I am not that knowledgeable). Why pick a WASP?

Absolutely. Go down a rung and ED might actually help. (Bowdoin is not down a rung.)

Bowdoin’s stats are nearly identical to Middlebury’s. Biggest difference is that Middlebury is much larger.

Latest admissions cycle:
Bowdoin acceptance rate: 6.8%
Middlebury acceptance rate: 13.99%

Bowdoin ED acceptance rate:14.8%
Middlebury ED acceptance rate: 30.5%

Bowdoin's acceptance rate is artificially deflated because of their need blind policies for international students. They get about 3000 excess applications from international students because of this policy. The same issue holds for Williams, Amherst, the Ivies and other need blind for internationals schools. About 42-45% of Bowdoin's applications are international in a typical year. Domestic applicants have a 12% acceptance rate.

If you normalize of financial aid you will find that all of the top SLACs have a 10-12% admissions rate and the rate for the Ivies is 7-10%.

but the ivies are also need blind for international. so what's to normalize?

What this person is saying is that poorer schools, endowment wise, are somehow better than you think because they can’t afford to go need blind for internationals. Gee, that’s certainly one way to look at it…

anybody who is currently need blind for intl could stop being need blind with a press release. Nobody is doing this because they have to

Not “have to.” The operative word is “can.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hi Midd hater! hope all is well with you!

? Midd is a great school on the very prestigious Davidson, Colby, W&L, Carleton, Wesleyan, Vassar, CMC, Harvey Mudd, Wellesley, Barnard, Haverford, Grinnell rung. Wouldn’t call it the worst school on that rung, or the best. Somewhere in the Midd, so to speak. WASPB it is not. Don’t get greedy!

I would say that people push back because your assertion is nonsensically incorrect

The top 9 SLACs (10 if you count Barnard have SAT medians of 1500+.
There are 5 more with medians of 1480/1490.

All of these schools are effectively the same with student profiles which for 90% of the student population overlap with the T10 universities.

Arguing that any of these schools are better than any of the others is just an exercise in mental masturbation. It makes the insecure feel good but it isn't reality.

You are just making a boundary in a different place (after 10, rather than the WASPB 5). But we don’t know what your 10 are. “Effectively the same with student profiles” sounds pretty masturbatory to me. Hope you are not advising students, though, as to the “sameness” of what your 10 are. The back half of your 10 are much easier admits, especially with ED…

Sorry, it’s just not true.

I wouldn’t rank any of the schools because it can’t be done. Same for the top universities, it’s nonsense. You can create ‘buckets’ of schools which are generally similar in student quality and resources but you can’t actually rank the schools within the buckets because any methodology is prone to manipulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved Amherst when I visited a million years ago, so I'd ED there. Although I didn't see Swarthmore and I think I might have loved it too.

But if I had a kid who had so little opinion on geography etc . . . that they were asking this, I'd have them ED to a SLAC that was also excellent and a little easier to get into. Grinnell or Middlebury or something. (I don't have a kid who wants SLAC so I am not that knowledgeable). Why pick a WASP?

Absolutely. Go down a rung and ED might actually help. (Bowdoin is not down a rung.)

Bowdoin’s stats are nearly identical to Middlebury’s. Biggest difference is that Middlebury is much larger.

Latest admissions cycle:
Bowdoin acceptance rate: 6.8%
Middlebury acceptance rate: 13.99%

Bowdoin ED acceptance rate:14.8%
Middlebury ED acceptance rate: 30.5%

Bowdoin's acceptance rate is artificially deflated because of their need blind policies for international students. They get about 3000 excess applications from international students because of this policy. The same issue holds for Williams, Amherst, the Ivies and other need blind for internationals schools. About 42-45% of Bowdoin's applications are international in a typical year. Domestic applicants have a 12% acceptance rate.

If you normalize of financial aid you will find that all of the top SLACs have a 10-12% admissions rate and the rate for the Ivies is 7-10%.

but the ivies are also need blind for international. so what's to normalize?

What this person is saying is that poorer schools, endowment wise, are somehow better than you think because they can’t afford to go need blind for internationals. Gee, that’s certainly one way to look at it…

Other way around. The need blind schools aren’t nearly as selective as they appear because they draw huge numbers of international applications but only take a very tiny portion of them which “artificially” skews their numbers.

You still don’t get it. I will try to be more succinct: Domestic students. Admissions. WASPB harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious as I have a kid looking at Swarthmore. Is it not considered similar to Williams/Amherst in these conversations (most of which center on WAP and Bowdoin) bc of perceived intensity or something else?

yes, I think WASP is alive and well as top 4. I also think Midd and Bowdoin are really just a half a step behind. Very tough admits, really nice environments, great career outcomes. I personally would pick Bowdoin and Midd over Amherst. If a kid liked the vibe of one over the others, that's the way to go. They're that close in prestige etc

Maybe I would consider Bowdoin, but definitely not Midd with it financial issues and very remote location and small surrounding town

The Midd hater has finally arrived. Please don't start because we will bat you around as typical when you start thread hijacking with your nonsense.

You may think you’re responding to your so-called Midd hater but I have no connection with Midd. Just stating my opinion. Whether you like it or not, that’s your problem, but there was nothing said that was false.

[Anonymous]

This thread is embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hi Midd hater! hope all is well with you!

? Midd is a great school on the very prestigious Davidson, Colby, W&L, Carleton, Wesleyan, Vassar, CMC, Harvey Mudd, Wellesley, Barnard, Haverford, Grinnell rung. Wouldn’t call it the worst school on that rung, or the best. Somewhere in the Midd, so to speak. WASPB it is not. Don’t get greedy!

I would say that people push back because your assertion is nonsensically incorrect

The top 9 SLACs (10 if you count Barnard have SAT medians of 1500+.
There are 5 more with medians of 1480/1490.

All of these schools are effectively the same with student profiles which for 90% of the student population overlap with the T10 universities.

Arguing that any of these schools are better than any of the others is just an exercise in mental masturbation. It makes the insecure feel good but it isn't reality.

You are just making a boundary in a different place (after 10, rather than the WASPB 5). But we don’t know what your 10 are. “Effectively the same with student profiles” sounds pretty masturbatory to me. Hope you are not advising students, though, as to the “sameness” of what your 10 are. The back half of your 10 are much easier admits, especially with ED…

Sorry, it’s just not true.

I wouldn’t rank any of the schools because it can’t be done. Same for the top universities, it’s nonsense. You can create ‘buckets’ of schools which are generally similar in student quality and resources but you can’t actually rank the schools within the buckets because any methodology is prone to manipulation.

You are ranking them, in a bucket of 10. Of course, you are afraid to say what your 10 even are. You are ranking them over those not in your bucket of 10. Self-awareness would be nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is embarrassing.

I don’t really get why no one’s answering the question. This doesn’t call for analysis or deep thinking.

I’d ED Pomona, cause the students seems happy, sunshine year round is good for you, and student body size is great due to Claremont college system.

[Anonymous]

https://www.middlebury.edu/announcements/announcements/2025/04/budget-our-way-forward

For the Midd booster who denies everything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved Amherst when I visited a million years ago, so I'd ED there. Although I didn't see Swarthmore and I think I might have loved it too.

But if I had a kid who had so little opinion on geography etc . . . that they were asking this, I'd have them ED to a SLAC that was also excellent and a little easier to get into. Grinnell or Middlebury or something. (I don't have a kid who wants SLAC so I am not that knowledgeable). Why pick a WASP?

Absolutely. Go down a rung and ED might actually help. (Bowdoin is not down a rung.)

Bowdoin’s stats are nearly identical to Middlebury’s. Biggest difference is that Middlebury is much larger.

Latest admissions cycle:
Bowdoin acceptance rate: 6.8%
Middlebury acceptance rate: 13.99%

Bowdoin ED acceptance rate:14.8%
Middlebury ED acceptance rate: 30.5%

Bowdoin's acceptance rate is artificially deflated because of their need blind policies for international students. They get about 3000 excess applications from international students because of this policy. The same issue holds for Williams, Amherst, the Ivies and other need blind for internationals schools. About 42-45% of Bowdoin's applications are international in a typical year. Domestic applicants have a 12% acceptance rate.

If you normalize of financial aid you will find that all of the top SLACs have a 10-12% admissions rate and the rate for the Ivies is 7-10%.

but the ivies are also need blind for international. so what's to normalize?

What this person is saying is that poorer schools, endowment wise, are somehow better than you think because they can’t afford to go need blind for internationals. Gee, that’s certainly one way to look at it…

Other way around. The need blind schools aren’t nearly as selective as they appear because they draw huge numbers of international applications but only take a very tiny portion of them which “artificially” skews their numbers.

You still don’t get it. I will try to be more succinct: Domestic students. Admissions. WASPB harder.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is embarrassing.

I don’t really get why no one’s answering the question. This doesn’t call for analysis or deep thinking.

I’d ED Pomona, cause the students seems happy, sunshine year round is good for you, and student body size is great due to Claremont college system.

Certainly you are not alone; this seems to be the prevailing view of teenagers. The old northeast schools can fight over the scraps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Bowdoin's acceptance rate is artificially deflated because of their need blind policies for international students. They get about 3000 excess applications from international students because of this policy. The same issue holds for Williams, Amherst, the Ivies and other need blind for internationals schools. About 42-45% of Bowdoin's applications are international in a typical year. Domestic applicants have a 12% acceptance rate.

If you normalize of financial aid you will find that all of the top SLACs have a 10-12% admissions rate and the rate for the Ivies is 7-10%.

This is an interesting way of looking at it. Amongst WASP, Amherst is the only one that is Need Blind for internationals. So by your logic its acceptance should actually be higher than what it seems to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved Amherst when I visited a million years ago, so I'd ED there. Although I didn't see Swarthmore and I think I might have loved it too.

But if I had a kid who had so little opinion on geography etc . . . that they were asking this, I'd have them ED to a SLAC that was also excellent and a little easier to get into. Grinnell or Middlebury or something. (I don't have a kid who wants SLAC so I am not that knowledgeable). Why pick a WASP?

Absolutely. Go down a rung and ED might actually help. (Bowdoin is not down a rung.)

Bowdoin’s stats are nearly identical to Middlebury’s. Biggest difference is that Middlebury is much larger.

Latest admissions cycle:
Bowdoin acceptance rate: 6.8%
Middlebury acceptance rate: 13.99%

Bowdoin ED acceptance rate:14.8%
Middlebury ED acceptance rate: 30.5%

Bowdoin's acceptance rate is artificially deflated because of their need blind policies for international students. They get about 3000 excess applications from international students because of this policy. The same issue holds for Williams, Amherst, the Ivies and other need blind for internationals schools. About 42-45% of Bowdoin's applications are international in a typical year. Domestic applicants have a 12% acceptance rate.

If you normalize of financial aid you will find that all of the top SLACs have a 10-12% admissions rate and the rate for the Ivies is 7-10%.

but the ivies are also need blind for international. so what's to normalize?

What this person is saying is that poorer schools, endowment wise, are somehow better than you think because they can’t afford to go need blind for internationals. Gee, that’s certainly one way to look at it…

Other way around. The need blind schools aren’t nearly as selective as they appear because they draw huge numbers of international applications but only take a very tiny portion of them which “artificially” skews their numbers.

You still don’t get it. I will try to be more succinct: Domestic students. Admissions. WASPB harder.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Trying to not let students feel worse when they make an ill-advised ED app to WASPB when they could have done an ED1 and gotten into Carleton, Wes, or Midd. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.middlebury.edu/announcements/announcements/2025/04/budget-our-way-forward

For the Midd booster who denies everything

Don't start, there are so many threads with you getting batted around like a ping pong ball and nobody feels like dealing with your foolishness.

[Anonymous]

I’d choose Williams or Pomona for their special study abroad and fellowships with Oxford and Cambridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.middlebury.edu/announcements/announcements/2025/04/budget-our-way-forward

For the Midd booster who denies everything

Don't start, there are so many threads with you getting batted around like a ping pong ball and nobody feels like dealing with your foolishness.

“Batted around” is Midd troll’s favorite phrase. I swear Midd troll works for Colby or something, because his constant denials over-invite even more scrutiny.