Middlebury or Vassar (Parchment says Vassar)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Id rather have the option than not have it at all |
Anonymous
Amtrak runs from Burlington to NYC with a stop in Middlebury. |
Anonymous
|
Vassar kids are quirky, kind of artsy (even if majoring in math or history). Kids from NYC schools like St. Ann's. Lots of future academics. Just shy of getting into Brown.
Middlebury is waspy and preppy. Mid-ranked kids from top NYC privates, Darien, Bronxville, etc. Bright but not quite Ivy bright (this is not an insult). Sporty. More pre-professional. They are two pretty different places. |
Anonymous
I agree but one similarity is that they are a little more humanities-driven (relatively speaking) than many SLACs. Midd because of languages, Vassar more broadly. |
Anonymous
Vassar alumna here… in the days before Uber (which honestly when I went back to campus a year ago was so nice to have!) we went 2 or 3 times a semester. I had a friend who went weekly for an internship so there is a range. The metronorth runs to Poughkeepsie so it’s much more affordable than the Amtrak. |
Anonymous
They are two very different places but they don’t give up anything to each other or the Ivies. Checking the latest info both have test and GPA ranges that are basically identical to Dartmouth. The top SLACs are academic peers of any T10. |
Anonymous
| VA Tech. No question. |
Anonymous
Agree that the very top SLACs Williams, Amherst, Pomona) are equivalent to, or perhaps even harder to get into, than Ivies. There are fewer seats, particularly if you are not hooked for sports, URM or legacy. Vassar and Middlebury are a notch below. Still incredible schools - not knocking them. I know several kids at these schools who aspired to Ivies but applied early to these because they didn't think they would make an Ivy. In hindsight, they might have, but they felt it was safer. And these were white, upper middle class kids from major metros without any connections. If I had to guess, I would say that Middlebury is tougher to get into than Vassar, but I am not 100% confident in that and others might be better informed (wow - someone on this board admitting they are not the world's leading expert!). And as I noted, they definitely have some overlap in applicants but they are fairly different places. |
Anonymous
| I would argue that the SLACs offer a better education than the Ivies primarily because smaller classes and professors are focused on education and developing a relationship with the student. There aren’t 100 student classes taught by a TA. |
Anonymous
It used to be the case that the students were the same academic quality, but I don’t think that is any longer true: Top unhooked kids now know that applying ED to Amherst and Williams is a waste. These kids apply ED1 and ED2 elsewhere. They are gone by the RD round and Williams and Amherst never see them. Meanwhile, those few top unhooked kids who are still around at RD are not yielding to Williams and Amherst if admitted: they go Ivy. The bottom line is that Williams and Amherst used to get their top unhooked applicants in the early round, back when ED was an advantage; but now that it is a disadvantage, they are gone. Overall student academic quality has only taken as slight step down, but there is nothing to stop further decline without reducing the number of recruited athletes, opening up an ED2 round, or taking a much higher percentage of the class ED to bring the top unhooked students back. The fact that they are in this dilemma gets no sympathy from me: they are being hoist by their athletics petard. |
Anonymous
|
11465 applied to Williams.
1145 admitted. I think they're doing okay! |
Anonymous
I think “okay” is the appropriate word here. But there is a decline relative to the Ivies. If you don’t see it — and can’t follow logic — revisit this issue in 5-10 years when it will be more obvious to bystander types. |
Anonymous
| I will mark my calendar this day 10 years from now to come back and find this post. Good thinking. |
Anonymous
lol |
Anonymous
I think these are really great points. Due to their small sizes, these schools have much less wiggle room. I agree that the increased power of the athletics departments has made a difference - such a huge portion of the class is athletes that it impacts admissions, school culture, etc. I did not attend one of these schools but strongly considered them in the 90s and I don't think athletics was nearly as big of a hook back then. I agree that they need to de-emphasize sports slightly (and I am a huge sports fan) and admit more unhooked kids through ED. I'm not a fan of ED2 so I will not encourage that. But I think there are plenty who like it. All that being said, I don't think the academic quality of these schools has materially changed and is unlikely to change too much. |