T20 or T5 lacs
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
What in the world is a "little 3?" That term is definitely not used, and Williams and Amherst are grouped with Swarthmore and Pomona. Wes is great for artsy students. |
Anonymous
At least 50% of the public is composed of total morons whose recognition of your college is of zero concern. |
Anonymous
|
Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams tend to attract the best students who "really want to attend a SLAC." Wellesley, Pomona and a few others too to a slightly lesser extent. It is similar to the Ivy League where there are tiers. With the top 3 group (which are the only 3 US News has ever ranked #1 and who have never dropped lower than #4), I think most are pretty comfortable with kids choosing the SLAC over a T20.
If anything, in my experience, some SLAC kids and grads take pride in turning down certain other name schools that other T20 kids don't turn down without a serious financial incentive (rather than an inferiority complex). We know from these forums that many T20 schools are picked due to not getting in REA elsewhere or settling for a really good shot at ED or ED2 versus shooting your RD shot. The Chicagos, Georgetowns, Cornells, and even Dukes of the world are the ones whose students and alumni sometimes come across as having a bit of an inferiority complex. |
Anonymous
The term has “definitely” been used for decades. Wes is not what it once was, partly because they expanded enrollment after going coed, and partly because the woke virus took too many casualties. |
Anonymous
| SLAC grads I've worked with in San Francisco and DC also had impressive grad degrees I wasn't aware of before getting to know them better (mostly business in my sphere). They were the ones who didn't lead with HBS, Stanford GSB, or Wharton when describing their educations. A few bigger schools are also that way (Princeton, Dartmouth, and Notre Dame are the ones that come to mind right away). |
Anonymous
Northwestern is not really exactly the same as Penn or Brown, say. I'd go to Williams or Swarthmore over NW any day. |
Anonymous
Completely agree, this is an insane list. Wesleyan is tier below WAS but just, and frankly better than Bowdoin. If someone said t5 I wouldn't argue. |
Anonymous
Would be interested to hear your DD's reasoning. With the primacy of undergrad education at Brown my DS felt like it resembled a very large LAC more than it did massive universities like Penn, Cornell or Columbia. I guess it is still much larger than the typical 2000 kid LAC but wondering if there were other considerations. |
Anonymous
Because many people who don't draw or paint or sculpt feel that liberal arts is not for them. |
Anonymous
“University boosters” are not a thing. Most people just don’t want to go to a college smaller than their high school. |
Anonymous
| What do people know about Barnard. DD trying to decide. Isn't it a top LAC too? |
Anonymous
LOL! EXACTLY!!!! |
Anonymous
Why stop at 5 or 6. Middlebury, Hamilton, Wesleyan, Colby and Bates are strong too. Enough of the ranking -- let your kid pick the school where they feel comfortable and it will be great. |
Anonymous
+1 Colgate, Washington & Lee, Davidson nowhere near top status. (I mean, one celebrates the confederacy with half its name!) I've taught at a number of these schools and can say Wesleyan is at a different level. |
Anonymous
I agree, and why stop there? As I posted much earlier There are 9 SLACs with with SAT medians above 1500 Amherst Bowdoin Claremont McKenna Harvey Mudd Middlebury Pomona Swarthmore Wellesley Williams and another cluster right behind them (1480+) Carleton Colgate Davidson Hamilton Haverford Vassar Washington & Lee Academically their student bodies are indistinguishable. Wesleyan Bates Colby Smith Grinnell are all great schools with only slightly lower SAT averages. 26 well resourced schools all with excellent students. The idea that one can objectively stack rank them is frankly foolish. |