where would Williams and Amherst rank in the ivy league..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

A few things to this response.
My kid has no interest in medical school. It just happens to be extremely useful resource for him to explore his research interests. Medical schools provide a lot of interested computational, biophysical, and statistical research projects that an LAC wouldn't be able to replicate.

Now to your second question, per capita, it depends on the cohort of students. Students with higher incoming stats are going to be more likely to end up getting into medical school. Only 1 Lac is in the top 10 for feeding students into medical school per capita and it's Amherst. 1/2 the Ivy League is in the top 10. Comparing school acceptance rates is meaningless when some schools really gatekeep and delay students from applying to medical school to keep their high acceptance rate publicity. I'd say the data is pretty clear that if you have to choose between Harvard or Yale versus Williams or Amherst for medical school, the former is the wiser decision if it's a true tossup. I especially wouldn't underrate going to a college in Boston, the hub for biotech and medical research in the country.

Well, there are over 2X as many National Universities as National LACs (USNWR). There are 2X as many National Universities to National LACs in the top 30 College Transitions top per capita feeder schools, so it is proportionate.

But another thing to consider is some schools, most notably some National Universities (e.g. JHU) have a disproportionate percentage of pre-med students, which skews the numbers.

Okay? They prepare a lot of people to go into medical school. That's a good thing.

OK, but if you are trying to evaluate whether JHU is more likely to get you to a top 25 medical school compared to say MIT, you probably want to consider that a much higher percentage of JHU undergraduates are pre-med. If you just look at the College Transitions per capita rankings, JHU is ranked 7 and MIT 8. But if you factor the number of applicants, an MIT medical school applicant is 4.7X more likely to end up at a top 25 medical school than a JHU applicant. That's a pretty big difference.

That is a good point.

Mostly extrapolation. Someone who isn't med school ready at JHU will not magically become Henry Brem at Williams.

But they might not end up being burnt out due to unhealthy cutthroat competition. And, by the way, a Williams medical school applicant is 2X more likely to end up at a top 25 medical school than a JHU applicant.

Source for those numbers?

The number at top 25 medical schools is from College Transitions. The number applying to medical school is from AAMC.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-medical-school/
https://www.aamc.org/media/9636/download

So you’re making inferences off of two data sets examining different years and different data. Oh brother help us. This person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

This is nothing more than what College Transitions did to start with, only with a more meaningful denominator. You just don't like what that indicates. Adjusted for size, College Transitions has Princeton at #6, JHU at #7, and MIT at #8. They are relatively close in size and in number of graduates at top 25 medical schools. But the reality is a much, much higher number and percentage of JHU undergraduates apply to medical school and this is true over years of AAMC application history. Their average applicant is significantly less likely to attend a top 25 medical school than Princeton or MIT. Here is how big the difference in the number of applicants is. JHU had between 470 and 506 medical school applicants over the past 4 years. For Princeton is was 133 to 150 applicants. MIT was 67 to 77 applicants. Huge difference.

About 70% incoming JHU freshman are premed. 1050/1500
About 33% (506/1500) JHU students apply to medical schools each year.
Over 80% of JHU medical school applicants are admitted to at least one medical school. 400/1500
The weedout rate is > 60%.
More likely than not, a student going to JHU would say bye-bye to their dreams of becoming a doctor.

Similar figures in large premed hubs like WashU Vandy Emory.

Parents! Protect your investment... Make wise decisions!

the good news is they can still get employable engineering majors. at a lac, no

Agree!

MIT, JHU, CMU are stem schools where kids never need to worry about employment. I would send kids there over any ivy any day.

STEM at ivies is basically a joke, with Cornell being an exception. Harvard is still holding the remedial math class this year.

What institutions in the world are better in science and math than Harvard?

MIT, JHU, Cal Tech,Georgia Tech

Harvard leads all of those universities and all of the universities in the world in Nobel Prizes in sciences and it isn't close. Harvard leads all U.S. universities in Fields Prizes (Mathematics). USNWR ranked Harvard ranked 1st in medicine before it stopped doing a ranked list, and it ranks Harvard 1st in Biological Sciences, Biostatistics, 3 in Mathematics, Physics, and Statistics, and 4 in Chemistry. You probably think engineers who attended Harvard are unemployed and underpaid, but WSJ reported that "Engineers who attended Harvard as undergraduates earn significantly more per year than graduates of other schools". You probably think the same for computer science, but again you are wrong. Harvard computer science grads have median earnings of $219,550/year ($400 less than MIT grads), which is $64,501 more than Georgia Tech grads and $36,446 more than JHU grads.

In the past century, yes H and P have produced a ton of nobel laureates.
But if you look at recent data 10 years, H and P have produced relatively far less than their golden days.
In the next ten years, H won't be in the leading positions with this trend.
And other ivies? Barely any news.

And what about turing award? Did you count how many MIT and CMU produced?

No. Gary Ruvkun won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2024, Kaelin in 2019, Bertozzi in 2022 for Chemistry.

In the QS World Rankings, Harvard is #1 in both Life Sciences and Medicine and Natural Sciences (and 4 of 5 total categories).

You proved my point. Three in 10 years, a huge decline as compared to 1960-1970 or 1970-1980.

And you didn't acknowledge my point on the turing award winners at CMU and MIT, far exceeding Harvard.

And you didn't acknowledge my point on other ivies, which has become essentially irrelevant in the context of Nobel prize.

Provide your own evidence. I shouldn't have to chase your assertions. I did check Turing winners and you are wrong. Counting education and where work was done from Wikipedia, MIT has 16, Harvard 13, and CMU 10.

nobody else is counting where they work. that defeats this whole idea. find the forum where bored parents discuss their kids employers for that one.

Wikipedia tracked where Turing recipients did their work.

so you'll need a source beyond wiki to get the info you want.

Wikipedia also provides the bios of the Turing winners. You can also see where they studied. Between the two, the information was available to refute the assertion that "Turing winners at CMU and MIT far exceed Harvard".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way you all are obsessed with this on new years.

I wanna chime in as someone who has ample experience at t10s and LACs (my friends go to Williams and Swat). I have had a professor at my t10 (jhu) who also taught at Williams, overall the standard for teaching support, interactions with professors, and pedagogy for classes that hes taught at Williams were far higher compared to jhu. The rigor at most of these top institutions are exactly the same, I think STEM other then Physics and math seems to be harder here at JHU then Williams but the Humanities classes are definetly more serious at Williams (JHU is a stem school after all which is why im here for premed chem). He has also taught at Princeton as well as a visiting faculty member, Princeton seems to have just as good as teaching as the top LACs so if you get in you should always go there.

The faculty student ratios are misleading and comparing them to LACs is frankly stupid, LACs are intended to teach and all faculty at LACs are dedicated solely to teaching and some research work. There are faculty at many R1s who will never step into a classroom, so while williams and penn may both have 7:1 student faculty ratios, the teaching ratios are much lower at Williams. Thats the trade off you get with going to a top research school, its amazing for some students and not so great for others, acknowledging that doesnt take away from the teaching available at Penn that is still infinetly better then at UMD.

There are no LAC targets for jane street or quant lol, theres only like 5 universities that are quant targets at all and thats pushing it. The top LACs seem to be ivy equivalents for all intents and purposes, you wont have as much R1 on campus research opportunities but the education is definetly stronger. Just consider the trade off whenever your choosing between the two types of schools.

Hate to break it to you, but JHU is top 10 in name only for undergrad. There is no question that Williams slots in higher than JHU, so your noblesse oblige act does not work and makes you seem ignorant.

Hate to break it to you but your useless little retort just identifies you as one of the mindless drones on this thread who are so insecure about anyone questioning the relative quality of Ivies doesn't make you seem ignorant, it identifies you as ignorant. The truth is that there are many schools across many subjects whom are equal to or better than the group of schools which comprise that athletic conference. Top SLACs, including many beyond Amherst and Williams are superior schools for undergraduate education outside of Engineering and CS. Technical focused schools both public and private lead most of the conference in engineering fields. I know that it hurts, I know that it stings your fragile sense of self-worth. Strive to move beyond your infantile emotions in the new year. You can strive to be better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way you all are obsessed with this on new years.

I wanna chime in as someone who has ample experience at t10s and LACs (my friends go to Williams and Swat). I have had a professor at my t10 (jhu) who also taught at Williams, overall the standard for teaching support, interactions with professors, and pedagogy for classes that hes taught at Williams were far higher compared to jhu. The rigor at most of these top institutions are exactly the same, I think STEM other then Physics and math seems to be harder here at JHU then Williams but the Humanities classes are definetly more serious at Williams (JHU is a stem school after all which is why im here for premed chem). He has also taught at Princeton as well as a visiting faculty member, Princeton seems to have just as good as teaching as the top LACs so if you get in you should always go there.

The faculty student ratios are misleading and comparing them to LACs is frankly stupid, LACs are intended to teach and all faculty at LACs are dedicated solely to teaching and some research work. There are faculty at many R1s who will never step into a classroom, so while williams and penn may both have 7:1 student faculty ratios, the teaching ratios are much lower at Williams. Thats the trade off you get with going to a top research school, its amazing for some students and not so great for others, acknowledging that doesnt take away from the teaching available at Penn that is still infinetly better then at UMD.

There are no LAC targets for jane street or quant lol, theres only like 5 universities that are quant targets at all and thats pushing it. The top LACs seem to be ivy equivalents for all intents and purposes, you wont have as much R1 on campus research opportunities but the education is definetly stronger. Just consider the trade off whenever your choosing between the two types of schools.

Hate to break it to you, but JHU is top 10 in name only for undergrad. There is no question that Williams slots in higher than JHU, so your noblesse oblige act does not work and makes you seem ignorant.

Hate to break it to you but your useless little retort just identifies you as one of the mindless drones on this thread who are so insecure about anyone questioning the relative quality of Ivies doesn't make you seem ignorant, it identifies you as ignorant. The truth is that there are many schools across many subjects whom are equal to or better than the group of schools which comprise that athletic conference. Top SLACs, including many beyond Amherst and Williams are superior schools for undergraduate education outside of Engineering and CS. Technical focused schools both public and private lead most of the conference in engineering fields. I know that it hurts, I know that it stings your fragile sense of self-worth. Strive to move beyond your infantile emotions in the new year. You can strive to be better.

Hate to break it to you, but you're useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way you all are obsessed with this on new years.

I wanna chime in as someone who has ample experience at t10s and LACs (my friends go to Williams and Swat). I have had a professor at my t10 (jhu) who also taught at Williams, overall the standard for teaching support, interactions with professors, and pedagogy for classes that hes taught at Williams were far higher compared to jhu. The rigor at most of these top institutions are exactly the same, I think STEM other then Physics and math seems to be harder here at JHU then Williams but the Humanities classes are definetly more serious at Williams (JHU is a stem school after all which is why im here for premed chem). He has also taught at Princeton as well as a visiting faculty member, Princeton seems to have just as good as teaching as the top LACs so if you get in you should always go there.

The faculty student ratios are misleading and comparing them to LACs is frankly stupid, LACs are intended to teach and all faculty at LACs are dedicated solely to teaching and some research work. There are faculty at many R1s who will never step into a classroom, so while williams and penn may both have 7:1 student faculty ratios, the teaching ratios are much lower at Williams. Thats the trade off you get with going to a top research school, its amazing for some students and not so great for others, acknowledging that doesnt take away from the teaching available at Penn that is still infinetly better then at UMD.

There are no LAC targets for jane street or quant lol, theres only like 5 universities that are quant targets at all and thats pushing it. The top LACs seem to be ivy equivalents for all intents and purposes, you wont have as much R1 on campus research opportunities but the education is definetly stronger. Just consider the trade off whenever your choosing between the two types of schools.

Hate to break it to you, but JHU is top 10 in name only for undergrad. There is no question that Williams slots in higher than JHU, so your noblesse oblige act does not work and makes you seem ignorant.

Hate to break it to you but your useless little retort just identifies you as one of the mindless drones on this thread who are so insecure about anyone questioning the relative quality of Ivies doesn't make you seem ignorant, it identifies you as ignorant. The truth is that there are many schools across many subjects whom are equal to or better than the group of schools which comprise that athletic conference. Top SLACs, including many beyond Amherst and Williams are superior schools for undergraduate education outside of Engineering and CS. Technical focused schools both public and private lead most of the conference in engineering fields. I know that it hurts, I know that it stings your fragile sense of self-worth. Strive to move beyond your infantile emotions in the new year. You can strive to be better.

Can you at least put this gobbledygook writing through AI, or something? Even that would be an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there are 3 schools that have consistently produced alumni who annoy me both professionally and socially since I graduated from a Pa liberal arts college 40+ years ago.

Williams, Cornell, and Duke.

Although Cornell grads are far and away the most obnoxious imo, Williams grads hold their own in this regard..

+1 the most incompetent person I have ever met on the job was a Williams grad

Extended time in an overly sheltered environment can come at the cost of emotional maturity, social awareness, and everyday life competence. This is often the process paid for attending school in a bubble-like locale such as Williams or Amherst

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way you all are obsessed with this on new years.

I wanna chime in as someone who has ample experience at t10s and LACs (my friends go to Williams and Swat). I have had a professor at my t10 (jhu) who also taught at Williams, overall the standard for teaching support, interactions with professors, and pedagogy for classes that hes taught at Williams were far higher compared to jhu. The rigor at most of these top institutions are exactly the same, I think STEM other then Physics and math seems to be harder here at JHU then Williams but the Humanities classes are definetly more serious at Williams (JHU is a stem school after all which is why im here for premed chem). He has also taught at Princeton as well as a visiting faculty member, Princeton seems to have just as good as teaching as the top LACs so if you get in you should always go there.

The faculty student ratios are misleading and comparing them to LACs is frankly stupid, LACs are intended to teach and all faculty at LACs are dedicated solely to teaching and some research work. There are faculty at many R1s who will never step into a classroom, so while williams and penn may both have 7:1 student faculty ratios, the teaching ratios are much lower at Williams. Thats the trade off you get with going to a top research school, its amazing for some students and not so great for others, acknowledging that doesnt take away from the teaching available at Penn that is still infinetly better then at UMD.

There are no LAC targets for jane street or quant lol, theres only like 5 universities that are quant targets at all and thats pushing it. The top LACs seem to be ivy equivalents for all intents and purposes, you wont have as much R1 on campus research opportunities but the education is definetly stronger. Just consider the trade off whenever your choosing between the two types of schools.

Hate to break it to you, but JHU is top 10 in name only for undergrad. There is no question that Williams slots in higher than JHU, so your noblesse oblige act does not work and makes you seem ignorant.

Hate to break it to you but your useless little retort just identifies you as one of the mindless drones on this thread who are so insecure about anyone questioning the relative quality of Ivies doesn't make you seem ignorant, it identifies you as ignorant. The truth is that there are many schools across many subjects whom are equal to or better than the group of schools which comprise that athletic conference. Top SLACs, including many beyond Amherst and Williams are superior schools for undergraduate education outside of Engineering and CS. Technical focused schools both public and private lead most of the conference in engineering fields. I know that it hurts, I know that it stings your fragile sense of self-worth. Strive to move beyond your infantile emotions in the new year. You can strive to be better.

Hate to break it to you, but you're useless.

LAC “education” epitomized here. would send kid to jhu 10/10 times over an LAC. Yield, selectivity, freshman stats all agree over a lackluster williams or amherst

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no way you all are obsessed with this on new years.

I wanna chime in as someone who has ample experience at t10s and LACs (my friends go to Williams and Swat). I have had a professor at my t10 (jhu) who also taught at Williams, overall the standard for teaching support, interactions with professors, and pedagogy for classes that hes taught at Williams were far higher compared to jhu. The rigor at most of these top institutions are exactly the same, I think STEM other then Physics and math seems to be harder here at JHU then Williams but the Humanities classes are definetly more serious at Williams (JHU is a stem school after all which is why im here for premed chem). He has also taught at Princeton as well as a visiting faculty member, Princeton seems to have just as good as teaching as the top LACs so if you get in you should always go there.

The faculty student ratios are misleading and comparing them to LACs is frankly stupid, LACs are intended to teach and all faculty at LACs are dedicated solely to teaching and some research work. There are faculty at many R1s who will never step into a classroom, so while williams and penn may both have 7:1 student faculty ratios, the teaching ratios are much lower at Williams. Thats the trade off you get with going to a top research school, its amazing for some students and not so great for others, acknowledging that doesnt take away from the teaching available at Penn that is still infinetly better then at UMD.

There are no LAC targets for jane street or quant lol, theres only like 5 universities that are quant targets at all and thats pushing it. The top LACs seem to be ivy equivalents for all intents and purposes, you wont have as much R1 on campus research opportunities but the education is definetly stronger. Just consider the trade off whenever your choosing between the two types of schools.

And here we have a loser likely over 40 LAC grad with a lackluster career moonlighting as a college student. Because what college student is going to wax poetic on the depth of their humanities professors teachings at another college on new years while pretending to be a chem premed student (lol). The starting emphasized capitalization on Williams and other LACs over his supposed home school is another shit touch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way you all are obsessed with this on new years.

I wanna chime in as someone who has ample experience at t10s and LACs (my friends go to Williams and Swat). I have had a professor at my t10 (jhu) who also taught at Williams, overall the standard for teaching support, interactions with professors, and pedagogy for classes that hes taught at Williams were far higher compared to jhu. The rigor at most of these top institutions are exactly the same, I think STEM other then Physics and math seems to be harder here at JHU then Williams but the Humanities classes are definetly more serious at Williams (JHU is a stem school after all which is why im here for premed chem). He has also taught at Princeton as well as a visiting faculty member, Princeton seems to have just as good as teaching as the top LACs so if you get in you should always go there.

The faculty student ratios are misleading and comparing them to LACs is frankly stupid, LACs are intended to teach and all faculty at LACs are dedicated solely to teaching and some research work. There are faculty at many R1s who will never step into a classroom, so while williams and penn may both have 7:1 student faculty ratios, the teaching ratios are much lower at Williams. Thats the trade off you get with going to a top research school, its amazing for some students and not so great for others, acknowledging that doesnt take away from the teaching available at Penn that is still infinetly better then at UMD.

There are no LAC targets for jane street or quant lol, theres only like 5 universities that are quant targets at all and thats pushing it. The top LACs seem to be ivy equivalents for all intents and purposes, you wont have as much R1 on campus research opportunities but the education is definetly stronger. Just consider the trade off whenever your choosing between the two types of schools.

Hate to break it to you, but JHU is top 10 in name only for undergrad. There is no question that Williams slots in higher than JHU, so your noblesse oblige act does not work and makes you seem ignorant.

Hate to break it to you but your useless little retort just identifies you as one of the mindless drones on this thread who are so insecure about anyone questioning the relative quality of Ivies doesn't make you seem ignorant, it identifies you as ignorant. The truth is that there are many schools across many subjects whom are equal to or better than the group of schools which comprise that athletic conference. Top SLACs, including many beyond Amherst and Williams are superior schools for undergraduate education outside of Engineering and CS. Technical focused schools both public and private lead most of the conference in engineering fields. I know that it hurts, I know that it stings your fragile sense of self-worth. Strive to move beyond your infantile emotions in the new year. You can strive to be better.

Hate to break it to you, but you're useless.

LAC “education” epitomized here. would send kid to jhu 10/10 times over an LAC. Yield, selectivity, freshman stats all agree over a lackluster williams or amherst

Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how would you rank overall based on the following - overall prestige, quality of undergraduate instruction, outcomes, quality of life, social. I’d wedge them in as follows:
Harvard, Yale, Princeton > Williams > Columbia, Dartmouth > Amherst > Brown, Cornell

The only ivies that matter now are HP and Cornell. The rest of the ivies have no real impact in this world. Note that H is declining fast.
MS Hopkins, CMU are way better than most of the ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how would you rank overall based on the following - overall prestige, quality of undergraduate instruction, outcomes, quality of life, social. I’d wedge them in as follows:
Harvard, Yale, Princeton > Williams > Columbia, Dartmouth > Amherst > Brown, Cornell

The only ivies that matter now are HP and Cornell. The rest of the ivies have no real impact in this world. Note that H is declining fast.
MS Hopkins, CMU are way better than most of the ivies.

When is your XMas vacation over? How can we help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how would you rank overall based on the following - overall prestige, quality of undergraduate instruction, outcomes, quality of life, social. I’d wedge them in as follows:
Harvard, Yale, Princeton > Williams > Columbia, Dartmouth > Amherst > Brown, Cornell

The only ivies that matter now are HP and Cornell. The rest of the ivies have no real impact in this world. Note that H is declining fast.
MS Hopkins, CMU are way better than most of the ivies.

Tell that to the recent Nobel Prize winner from Brown in economics that doesn’t, gasp, have a business school.

[Anonymous]

The ferocity-to-triviality balance here is greatly out of whack. I'd hate to see how some of you voice your opinions on more serious topics than the "what's your favorite color" nature of this one. ("It's red because all other colors are worthless and for the weak-willed. Let's fistfight!")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how would you rank overall based on the following - overall prestige, quality of undergraduate instruction, outcomes, quality of life, social. I’d wedge them in as follows:
Harvard, Yale, Princeton > Williams > Columbia, Dartmouth > Amherst > Brown, Cornell

The only ivies that matter now are HP and Cornell. The rest of the ivies have no real impact in this world. Note that H is declining fast.
MS Hopkins, CMU are way better than most of the ivies.

Tell that to the recent Nobel Prize winner from Brown in economics that doesn’t, gasp, have a business school.

I can tell you even UCB has 10x more impact than Brown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how would you rank overall based on the following - overall prestige, quality of undergraduate instruction, outcomes, quality of life, social. I’d wedge them in as follows:
Harvard, Yale, Princeton > Williams > Columbia, Dartmouth > Amherst > Brown, Cornell

The only ivies that matter now are HP and Cornell. The rest of the ivies have no real impact in this world. Note that H is declining fast.
MS Hopkins, CMU are way better than most of the ivies.

Tell that to the recent Nobel Prize winner from Brown in economics that doesn’t, gasp, have a business school.

I can tell you even UCB has 10x more impact than Brown.

I hope they do! I want as many excellent institutions as possible advancing us all forward. I don’t ascribe to the only 4 worthy schools narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there are 3 schools that have consistently produced alumni who annoy me both professionally and socially since I graduated from a Pa liberal arts college 40+ years ago.

Williams, Cornell, and Duke.

Although Cornell grads are far and away the most obnoxious imo, Williams grads hold their own in this regard..

+1 the most incompetent person I have ever met on the job was a Williams grad

Extended time in an overly sheltered environment can come at the cost of emotional maturity, social awareness, and everyday life competence. This is often the process paid for attending school in a bubble-like locale such as Williams or Amherst

I prefer National Universities over LACs (my undergraduate degree is from an LAC and my graduate degree from a large state flagship university).

While there is a substantial degree of truth in the post that I quoted above, LAC students learn interpersonal skills which are valuable in the real world. A degree from an elite LAC--such as Williams College or Amherst College--is both valuable and highly valued as it should be.

Many LACs have come to the realization that the small, isolated college experience in a sheltered bubble is not ideal and, accordingly, have taken the initiative to encourage or require volunteer experience in the community or in an impoverished area. Also, study abroad does expand a student's understanding of the differences in the world.

Unfortunately, many small schools do have divides among various groups such as athletes/non-athletes and wealthy/poor students that make a small school even smaller.