Well, USNWR put them where they put them. I'd imagine that students who are interested in them don't find the rankings particularly useful. |
I think that’s the point: the rankings have jumped the shark and are not particularly useful. SLACs in a separate list have the impact of marginalization; the unwary consumer is left thinking that the top SLACs are easier admits than they are — and will end up in the rejection pile. |
Naval Academy #75 + UC Davis #40 = crap Pomona #25 + NYU #26 = LOL IYKYK |
| DS transferred out of Berkeley (Haas) to a SLAC. The difference in the quality of undergrad teaching and the student experience is vast. National universities may be great for grad school but they leave a lot to be desired for undergrad. Those research dollars go to grad students, not lowly undergrads. Class sizes, particularly for the first two years, are huge, and taught almost exclusively by TAs. Don’t get me started on club culture. In my experience, SLACs are mid-size schools are the only way to go. Save the big schools for graduate studies. |
|
I'm a tenured professor at an R1, who attended a PAWS college, then completed a PhD at HYP in the social sciences. It is absurd to compare SLACs to "National Universities" (a UWNWR silly category) based upon percentage of applicants admitted.
No one on this thread seems to factor in that the seniors who apply to top SLACs are already a highly filtered group, for better or for worse. Chances are that applicants already come from a well-educated family and/or attend a high school with superior college counseling. Everyone has heard of HYP; you don't need a selective graduate degree to know that these schools have reputations. This is a major reason why H, in particular, has such low admit rates; everyone applies to H, even when it's a crap shoot. OP, your child needs to figure out what environment she'll need to thrive. It can be small or large, urban or rural, Greek or not, etc., etc. I truly do not think that your child understands what "competitiveness" actually entails. So much of her happiness in college will be in finding a supportive friend group, and she can find this, or not, wherever she ends up. |
There is no such thing as WASP-B but SWAMP actually was a term (you can google it) if one wants to play that game. The top 20 SLACs are as strong for undergraduate education as any of the T20 universities (don’t out yourself by saying Unis). |
This is one of the stupidest and nonsensical posts that I have read in a long time. That says a lot given the idiocy of the previous posts in this thread. And, I am still on page 1. Idiots on the loose I see. |
| DC had stats for top schools but didn't want that culture. DC went down the list of LACs until DC found one that felt like the right combo of rigorous academics in a supportive atmosphere. It's a Top 15 LAC. |
WalletHub rankings are completely broken for LACs….no Williams, no Middlebury, no credibility. |
They have two different functions. And, Williams is far superior at it’s mission which is undergraduate education. |
Maybe, maybe not. What is Williams College's mission ? JHU undergraduates are hard-working and successful. |
Agree with most of the above, but will add that whether a Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore is preferable to a U Chicago or JHU depends on the student's priorities and goals. If the goal is to work in a high impact lab as an undergrad, obviously UChicago or JHU, or heck even a good state flagship like UMD would be better. If the goal is good quality teaching in courses all around, combined with high levels of student support and advisement, then go for an LAC. |
The PP is just clueless. PP, you probably shouldn’t participate in adult conversations. |
And you just confirmed my previous comment. |
Pointing to a WalletHub ranking is just highlighting one’s cluelessness. |