Most over-ranked/under-ranked LACS on USNWR?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

[Anonymous]

Malcom Gladwell did a whole podcast trashing Vassar's quality of life. He claimed that it was for the good because it meant more money towards aid, but any full pay family listening will be immediately turned off

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/food-fight/id1119389968?i=1000372453199

[Anonymous]

I think the vast majority of students today would choose Midd over Wesleyan. W&L is a different animal and in some ways diametrically opposite Wesleyan culturally. 10 pct of W&L also gets a full ride via Johnson Scholar - that is a tough offer to turn down.

W&L is also very well-known in the finance world, especially venture capital/private equity, and not just on the east coast, so draws nationally for that. It is also famous for its mock presidential conventions that take place every four years, so is attractive to kids interested in politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

We're getting back to the glory days of private colleges and universities being the purview of the rich. Schools now need enough poor kids to be diverse, but we're getting closer to to rich kids just deciding where they want to attend not where they want to apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vassar and Smith should be lower. Richmond perhaps as well. CMC is a little too close to the sun

Why? We were very impressed with Vassar.

I’m always surprised Vassar is not more popular. I don’t know what I am missing about it.

When Vassar was asked to join Yale, it declined. It is/was never about ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Always funny to see conservatives freak out about Oberlin, Wesleyan, Vassar, and Brown because of reputations forged from the 60s to 80s when the reality is that today they are very middle of the road institutions

LOL if you think that Oberlin is a "very middle of the road institution". More like a narrow-minded nuthouse, than a middle of the road institution.

Haverford is over-rated as is Colorado College, but for different reasons.

The problem that many see with schools like Oberlin, Wesleyan, Vassar, & Haverford is that they are all too narrow-minded and shut-down opposing or different opinions. Too focused on political correctness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

That is an unfair assessment of merit aid. All colleges want to attract the best students they can (and climb the rankings). Need blind financial aid is also a tool to attract students who might otherwise feel disadvantaged in the application process. Does merit aid really target the wealthy? All things being equal, a wealthy kid would go to the most prestigious school he gets into, not the one that is providing the largest discount. Merit aid therefore really targets the middle class or upper middle class kid who qualifies for little or no financial aid. In the context of LACs, a family that is borderline for need based aid would probably hesitate to shell out 80k a year (versus much cheaper in state alternatives, for example) and would be wise to do so. So if such a kid wants the LAC experience, merit aid may be the only possibility. Should this kid be denied that opportunity? Only lower middle class and wealthy kids should have access to it?

Your attitude is very snotty. Schools that provide merit aid are doing a tremendous service to families in the middle and appropriately rewarding some of our country's best, hardest working kids.

[Anonymous]

Higher education should allow freedom of speech, respect differing opinions, and encourage intellectual discourse presented from a variety of perspectives. Ultra-liberal, leftist schools are intolerant of opposing thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always funny to see conservatives freak out about Oberlin, Wesleyan, Vassar, and Brown because of reputations forged from the 60s to 80s when the reality is that today they are very middle of the road institutions

LOL if you think that Oberlin is a "very middle of the road institution". More like a narrow-minded nuthouse, than a middle of the road institution.

Haverford is over-rated as is Colorado College, but for different reasons.

The problem that many see with schools like Oberlin, Wesleyan, Vassar, & Haverford is that they are all too narrow-minded and shut-down opposing or different opinions. Too focused on political correctness.

Anytime anyone claims Oberlin is middle of the road, the bakery lawsuit needs to be brought up

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/us/oberlin-bakery-lawsuit.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Higher education should allow freedom of speech, respect differing opinions, and encourage intellectual discourse presented from a variety of perspectives. Ultra-liberal, leftist schools are intolerant of opposing thought.

The same goes for Hillsdale College, but Hillsdale is much more honest about its intolerance of opposing viewpoints/non-believers especially with respect to faculty and administrators. But, any student should know what they are getting if enrolled at Hillsdale, this is not the case with ultra-left schools such as Haverford & Oberlin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

That is an unfair assessment of merit aid. All colleges want to attract the best students they can (and climb the rankings). Need blind financial aid is also a tool to attract students who might otherwise feel disadvantaged in the application process. Does merit aid really target the wealthy? All things being equal, a wealthy kid would go to the most prestigious school he gets into, not the one that is providing the largest discount. Merit aid therefore really targets the middle class or upper middle class kid who qualifies for little or no financial aid. In the context of LACs, a family that is borderline for need based aid would probably hesitate to shell out 80k a year (versus much cheaper in state alternatives, for example) and would be wise to do so. So if such a kid wants the LAC experience, merit aid may be the only possibility. Should this kid be denied that opportunity? Only lower middle class and wealthy kids should have access to it?

Your attitude is very snotty. Schools that provide merit aid are doing a tremendous service to families in the middle and appropriately rewarding some of our country's best, hardest working kids.

DP - it they are correct. This is what kowtowing to USNWR has done to our nation’s colleges and universities. Any college counselor will tell you tgst the very top schools don’t offer merit aid any more because they don’t have to. You must drop to second or third tier schools to get any sort of substantial award and that almost always us in exchange for something tge schools want that is reportable to USNWR. Top GpA, top SAT. Top ACT. Two small SLACs you’ve never heard offered my kid a full ride because if his ACT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

That is an unfair assessment of merit aid. All colleges want to attract the best students they can (and climb the rankings). Need blind financial aid is also a tool to attract students who might otherwise feel disadvantaged in the application process. Does merit aid really target the wealthy? All things being equal, a wealthy kid would go to the most prestigious school he gets into, not the one that is providing the largest discount. Merit aid therefore really targets the middle class or upper middle class kid who qualifies for little or no financial aid. In the context of LACs, a family that is borderline for need based aid would probably hesitate to shell out 80k a year (versus much cheaper in state alternatives, for example) and would be wise to do so. So if such a kid wants the LAC experience, merit aid may be the only possibility. Should this kid be denied that opportunity? Only lower middle class and wealthy kids should have access to it?

Your attitude is very snotty. Schools that provide merit aid are doing a tremendous service to families in the middle and appropriately rewarding some of our country's best, hardest working kids.

DP. You're talking about how you'd like the world to work to benefit you. Ideally merit aid should be unrelated to need, meaning it's given to any applicant the school wants to attract. That includes many wealthy applicants, and yes some some schools specifically target wealthy families, why wouldn't they? Coupons often encourage people to spend more, they often are handed out selectively, this isn't unique to colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

That is an unfair assessment of merit aid. All colleges want to attract the best students they can (and climb the rankings). Need blind financial aid is also a tool to attract students who might otherwise feel disadvantaged in the application process. Does merit aid really target the wealthy? All things being equal, a wealthy kid would go to the most prestigious school he gets into, not the one that is providing the largest discount. Merit aid therefore really targets the middle class or upper middle class kid who qualifies for little or no financial aid. In the context of LACs, a family that is borderline for need based aid would probably hesitate to shell out 80k a year (versus much cheaper in state alternatives, for example) and would be wise to do so. So if such a kid wants the LAC experience, merit aid may be the only possibility. Should this kid be denied that opportunity? Only lower middle class and wealthy kids should have access to it?

Your attitude is very snotty. Schools that provide merit aid are doing a tremendous service to families in the middle and appropriately rewarding some of our country's best, hardest working kids.

With the exception of the wealthiest colleges, financial aid offices have to make choices how they give out monies to familes, and rightly so they prioritize the neediest families. I do not see anything "snooty" about that.
Your frustration really should be targeted towards financial aid calculators, which colleges use to determine who should get aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Higher education should allow freedom of speech, respect differing opinions, and encourage intellectual discourse presented from a variety of perspectives. Ultra-liberal, leftist schools are intolerant of opposing thought.

And schools that fail to promote this type of environment will suffer in the marketplace. How many non-LGBTQ males who get 1500 on their SATs would choose Vassar over all their other options? Oberlin is way off the charts now, and Wesleyan has plunged as well. Haverford has declined, now tied with Richmond (which has a conservative reputation). Reed is nowhere to be found. W&L is thriving. Southern schools in general are thriving. Who wants to go to school with a bunch of angry single minded activists who can't even have a conversation but can only call you names?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vassar and Smith should be lower. Richmond perhaps as well. CMC is a little too close to the sun

Why? We were very impressed with Vassar.

I’m always surprised Vassar is not more popular. I don’t know what I am missing about it.

When Vassar was asked to join Yale, it declined. It is/was never about ranking.

What does a 1967 declination to merge with Yale have to do with anything related to this topic ?