What Schools Do You Consider “Prestigious?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s admirable about the Williams & Amherst students is that they probably could have gotten into more-famous schools that would be more impressive to friends, relatives, and employers who are not familiar with how elite the top liberal arts colleges are.

In an era when so many are ostentatious, this is no small matter.

Why is this admirable ?

+1
"Admirable" - I'm still laughing.

It's not only admirable, it's downright courageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you get a pass for Wiliams and Amherst. But otherwise SLACs aren't really taken seriously

What do you think makes the education one receives at a SLAC different from an Ivy League school which I presume you think people take seriously? Like is an Econ degree at Swarthmore bs while it’s serious business at Brown?

30 or 40 years ago I might have understood what you mean. The leaders and people making hiring decisions back then that went to Harvard may not have heard of most LACs but with the major changes in college admissions since the late 80s, nearly everyone who attended an elite school is well aware of the other top schools. People at Stanford know Pomona is a great school and people at Harvard and Yale know Swarthmore and Amherst well.

30 years ago when the high school population was at a generational low it was pretty easy for a solid student to get into a LAC while ivies were more competitive and only the top of the class got in (but they could get in without a hook, just excellent grades and scores). Now in order to get into an Ivy you need all that plus hooks and same goes for top 5/10 SLACs. When you go down the SLAC list the need to have a hook declines but the basic academic credentials basically hangs in there, with more tolerance of imperfections. So there is less disparity in terms of the academic caliber of the students than there used to be.

[Anonymous]

Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly less enamored with prestige and more focused on outcomes.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU

Chicago has the same issues as LACs. People just don't know them name wise. Chicago is like UDC or a CUNY, right?
They have prestige in elite circles but not with most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly less enamored with prestige and more focused on outcomes.

+1

That is fine as long as you know how to look at outcomes. Avoid traps like focusing on overall university earnings. People today are overestimating STEM focused schools based on faulty metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU

Chicago has the same issues as LACs. People just don't know them name wise. Chicago is like UDC or a CUNY, right?
They have prestige in elite circles but not with most people.

Honestly anyone who hasn’t heard of University of Chicago is an imbecile and their opinion is meaningless

[Anonymous]

Elon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU

I had to ask what JHU was. That disqualifies it to me.
Georgetown and Vandy have more prestigious name recognition than Hopkins and Chicago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elon

HEP. Harvard Elon Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you get a pass for Wiliams and Amherst. But otherwise SLACs aren't really taken seriously

What do you think makes the education one receives at a SLAC different from an Ivy League school which I presume you think people take seriously? Like is an Econ degree at Swarthmore bs while it’s serious business at Brown?

30 or 40 years ago I might have understood what you mean. The leaders and people making hiring decisions back then that went to Harvard may not have heard of most LACs but with the major changes in college admissions since the late 80s, nearly everyone who attended an elite school is well aware of the other top schools. People at Stanford know Pomona is a great school and people at Harvard and Yale know Swarthmore and Amherst well.

30 years ago when the high school population was at a generational low it was pretty easy for a solid student to get into a LAC while ivies were more competitive and only the top of the class got in (but they could get in without a hook, just excellent grades and scores). Now in order to get into an Ivy you need all that plus hooks and same goes for top 5/10 SLACs. When you go down the SLAC list the need to have a hook declines but the basic academic credentials basically hangs in there, with more tolerance of imperfections. So there is less disparity in terms of the academic caliber of the students than there used to be.

I don't think you know actually what you are talking about TBH. It sounds pretty good though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU

Chicago has the same issues as LACs. People just don't know them name wise. Chicago is like UDC or a CUNY, right?
They have prestige in elite circles but not with most people.

Honestly anyone who hasn’t heard of University of Chicago is an imbecile and their opinion is meaningless

I have a bunch of Chicago grads in my family and one who is there now. It is surprising to me to that a lot of people don't know it well on the coasts. The University of City Name doesn't help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you get a pass for Wiliams and Amherst. But otherwise SLACs aren't really taken seriously

What do you think makes the education one receives at a SLAC different from an Ivy League school which I presume you think people take seriously? Like is an Econ degree at Swarthmore bs while it’s serious business at Brown?

30 or 40 years ago I might have understood what you mean. The leaders and people making hiring decisions back then that went to Harvard may not have heard of most LACs but with the major changes in college admissions since the late 80s, nearly everyone who attended an elite school is well aware of the other top schools. People at Stanford know Pomona is a great school and people at Harvard and Yale know Swarthmore and Amherst well.

30 years ago when the high school population was at a generational low it was pretty easy for a solid student to get into a LAC while ivies were more competitive and only the top of the class got in (but they could get in without a hook, just excellent grades and scores). Now in order to get into an Ivy you need all that plus hooks and same goes for top 5/10 SLACs. When you go down the SLAC list the need to have a hook declines but the basic academic credentials basically hangs in there, with more tolerance of imperfections. So there is less disparity in terms of the academic caliber of the students than there used to be.

I don't think you know actually what you are talking about TBH. It sounds pretty good though!

Well I got into HYP almost exactly 30 years ago, and know where my high school friends landed, and the background of my college classmates, and I just lived through my DD’s application cycle with all her friends, and I’ve studied all the CDS data… so actually I think I have a pretty good grip on this.

[Anonymous]

- HYPSM
- The other Ivies
- CalTech, UChicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, maybe Gtown
- Elite publics: UVA, UMich, Berkeley, UCLA
- The top NESCACs and LACs: Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, maybe Pomona
- The top (former and current) women's colleges: Smith, Wellesley, Vassar, Barnard, Bryn Mawr — some of these are less so now, but have elite roots
- UK: Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, LSE, Imperial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you get a pass for Wiliams and Amherst. But otherwise SLACs aren't really taken seriously

What do you think makes the education one receives at a SLAC different from an Ivy League school which I presume you think people take seriously? Like is an Econ degree at Swarthmore bs while it’s serious business at Brown?

30 or 40 years ago I might have understood what you mean. The leaders and people making hiring decisions back then that went to Harvard may not have heard of most LACs but with the major changes in college admissions since the late 80s, nearly everyone who attended an elite school is well aware of the other top schools. People at Stanford know Pomona is a great school and people at Harvard and Yale know Swarthmore and Amherst well.

30 years ago when the high school population was at a generational low it was pretty easy for a solid student to get into a LAC while ivies were more competitive and only the top of the class got in (but they could get in without a hook, just excellent grades and scores). Now in order to get into an Ivy you need all that plus hooks and same goes for top 5/10 SLACs. When you go down the SLAC list the need to have a hook declines but the basic academic credentials basically hangs in there, with more tolerance of imperfections. So there is less disparity in terms of the academic caliber of the students than there used to be.

I don't think you know actually what you are talking about TBH. It sounds pretty good though!

Well I got into HYP almost exactly 30 years ago, and know where my high school friends landed, and the background of my college classmates, and I just lived through my DD’s application cycle with all her friends, and I’ve studied all the CDS data… so actually I think I have a pretty good grip on this.

Did she end up picking your alma mater with the hook?
I like the credentialism too. Does specifically getting into HYP help your argument?
Your mention of the CDS data is good but the other anecdotal evidence is what gets people in trouble spreading info on forums.