Changes in LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

OMG. This is a very typical DCUM response in that it acknowledges the existence of only 4 liberal arts colleges. My point is that the NEACACs are the standards at their relative tiers. They are the known names. Even poor Trin and Conn College who are only pariahs in the context of this hyper elitist, striver obsessed, Ivy Plus or nothing board. The point remains that they are known brands and frequent comparators to lesser known lacs in vibe or experience if not “prestige.” And all that said, I’m sorry to break it to you, but you can get an elite education at Wes, Hamilton, Midd, etc. Those schools are far more similar to Amherst and Williams than they are different.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

Obviously the Mudd booster chiming in which is pretty ironic.

Mudd is a very new school which was literally started as a school to train, (yes train) entry level engineers for the defense industry. It was basically a trade school. It has evolved into a unique and special place but it is very niche like Olin on the East Coast.

Wesleyan on the other hand has a long history and is one of the 'little three' which is considered to be one of the top 10 sports rivalries in college sports.

There is no argument about including Wellesley, they have always been part of the top group. There are 9 SLACS with average test scores at 1500+ 4 are NESCAC (Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Williams), , 3 are 5C (CMC, Mudd, and Pomona), and the other 2 are Wellesley and Swat. That is your group and you should probably add Carleton, Hamilton, and Haverford to it as well.

WASP has as much meaning or usefulness as HYPSM which means it has nothing of value. The NESCAC along with a few other schools has long been the standard and that isn't changing in your lifetime.

When Midd is talked about in terms of having fallen people point out:

That the rankings drops were driven by methodology changes at USNWR which didn't align well to Midds SES profile and by reporting changes which caused a major drop (only on paper) in how some spending per student numbers are reported.
Negative comments seem to be by a singular person on this thread who is obsessed bout them (not in a positive way) who periodically tries to create controversy yet inevitably gets batted around like a cat toy.

+1
This is the informed response. Mudd is great, but it doesn’t have the history—or the goals—of the traditionally top LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

Obviously the Mudd booster chiming in which is pretty ironic.

Mudd is a very new school which was literally started as a school to train, (yes train) entry level engineers for the defense industry. It was basically a trade school. It has evolved into a unique and special place but it is very niche like Olin on the East Coast.

Wesleyan on the other hand has a long history and is one of the 'little three' which is considered to be one of the top 10 sports rivalries in college sports.

There is no argument about including Wellesley, they have always been part of the top group. There are 9 SLACS with average test scores at 1500+ 4 are NESCAC (Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Williams), , 3 are 5C (CMC, Mudd, and Pomona), and the other 2 are Wellesley and Swat. That is your group and you should probably add Carleton, Hamilton, and Haverford to it as well.

WASP has as much meaning or usefulness as HYPSM which means it has nothing of value. The NESCAC along with a few other schools has long been the standard and that isn't changing in your lifetime.

When Midd is talked about in terms of having fallen people point out:

That the rankings drops were driven by methodology changes at USNWR which didn't align well to Midds SES profile and by reporting changes which caused a major drop (only on paper) in how some spending per student numbers are reported.
Negative comments seem to be by a singular person on this thread who is obsessed bout them (not in a positive way) who periodically tries to create controversy yet inevitably gets batted around like a cat toy.

+1
This is the informed response. Mudd is great, but it doesn’t have the history—or the goals—of the traditionally top LACs.

I don't know much about Mudd, but there's no way this is correct history. Mudd was inherited into a consortium for liberal arts colleges. It also makes no sense because Mudd has more humanities requirements than almost any top LAC, so I highly doubt it was solely made to be a trade school for the defense industry. I don't think this is a fair take, and it really didn't make sense to assume that PP was a mudd booster, since mudd is the known LAC for STEM, while Wellesley is the best all-womens LACs. Somehow the pendulum swung backwards and we decided to bash a stem school for really no reason.

[Anonymous]

I loved Wes. My DS did not. It skews heavily female and presents as super artsy. Regardless of the reality, that is what we took from the tour. And, the increasing admit rate reflects this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

Obviously the Mudd booster chiming in which is pretty ironic.

Mudd is a very new school which was literally started as a school to train, (yes train) entry level engineers for the defense industry. It was basically a trade school. It has evolved into a unique and special place but it is very niche like Olin on the East Coast.

Wesleyan on the other hand has a long history and is one of the 'little three' which is considered to be one of the top 10 sports rivalries in college sports.

There is no argument about including Wellesley, they have always been part of the top group. There are 9 SLACS with average test scores at 1500+ 4 are NESCAC (Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Williams), , 3 are 5C (CMC, Mudd, and Pomona), and the other 2 are Wellesley and Swat. That is your group and you should probably add Carleton, Hamilton, and Haverford to it as well.

WASP has as much meaning or usefulness as HYPSM which means it has nothing of value. The NESCAC along with a few other schools has long been the standard and that isn't changing in your lifetime.

When Midd is talked about in terms of having fallen people point out:

That the rankings drops were driven by methodology changes at USNWR which didn't align well to Midds SES profile and by reporting changes which caused a major drop (only on paper) in how some spending per student numbers are reported.
Negative comments seem to be by a singular person on this thread who is obsessed bout them (not in a positive way) who periodically tries to create controversy yet inevitably gets batted around like a cat toy.

+1
This is the informed response. Mudd is great, but it doesn’t have the history—or the goals—of the traditionally top LACs.

I don't know much about Mudd, but there's no way this is correct history. Mudd was inherited into a consortium for liberal arts colleges. It also makes no sense because Mudd has more humanities requirements than almost any top LAC, so I highly doubt it was solely made to be a trade school for the defense industry. I don't think this is a fair take, and it really didn't make sense to assume that PP was a mudd booster, since mudd is the known LAC for STEM, while Wellesley is the best all-womens LACs. Somehow the pendulum swung backwards and we decided to bash a stem school for really no reason.

What this poster is getting at is that Mudd students must take at least 11 humanities, social sciences, and art courses to graduate. This is more than many peers who have relaxed distribution requirements or open curriculums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

Obviously the Mudd booster chiming in which is pretty ironic.

Mudd is a very new school which was literally started as a school to train, (yes train) entry level engineers for the defense industry. It was basically a trade school. It has evolved into a unique and special place but it is very niche like Olin on the East Coast.

Wesleyan on the other hand has a long history and is one of the 'little three' which is considered to be one of the top 10 sports rivalries in college sports.

There is no argument about including Wellesley, they have always been part of the top group. There are 9 SLACS with average test scores at 1500+ 4 are NESCAC (Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Williams), , 3 are 5C (CMC, Mudd, and Pomona), and the other 2 are Wellesley and Swat. That is your group and you should probably add Carleton, Hamilton, and Haverford to it as well.

WASP has as much meaning or usefulness as HYPSM which means it has nothing of value. The NESCAC along with a few other schools has long been the standard and that isn't changing in your lifetime.

When Midd is talked about in terms of having fallen people point out:

That the rankings drops were driven by methodology changes at USNWR which didn't align well to Midds SES profile and by reporting changes which caused a major drop (only on paper) in how some spending per student numbers are reported.
Negative comments seem to be by a singular person on this thread who is obsessed bout them (not in a positive way) who periodically tries to create controversy yet inevitably gets batted around like a cat toy.

This is such a myopic view, I’m surprised it’s being agreed with. Mudd is as much a trade school as any lac with a stem major is a trade school. It has a mission to give scientists and researchers a humanities-based framework to engage with science, and it’s doing it a heck of a lot better than most of our nations engineering programs.

This idea that engineering or stem is divorced from the humanities is the exact opposite attitude of Harvey mudd and reflects poor critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

OMG. This is a very typical DCUM response in that it acknowledges the existence of only 4 liberal arts colleges. My point is that the NEACACs are the standards at their relative tiers. They are the known names. Even poor Trin and Conn College who are only pariahs in the context of this hyper elitist, striver obsessed, Ivy Plus or nothing board. The point remains that they are known brands and frequent comparators to lesser known lacs in vibe or experience if not “prestige.” And all that said, I’m sorry to break it to you, but you can get an elite education at Wes, Hamilton, Midd, etc. Those schools are far more similar to Amherst and Williams than they are different.

This is a lot of words to say “I can’t handle that some liberal arts colleges are better than my personal favorite.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A majority of LACs will not experience the endowment tax and have not experienced many research cuts from the government. They seem like they could gain a bit of popularity if they invest in student experience. What LACs do you see rising/have continued to rise? For example, some people think Pomona is Williams and Amherst level, which is REALLY surprising, since it was a party school for dolts when I was applying to college!

Hey Dummy- he’s coming. He’s coming for your “elite, liberal schools” too. Give him time.

I’m sick of people cheering on universities getting fkkkd with instead of being outraged that government wants to control universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A majority of LACs will not experience the endowment tax and have not experienced many research cuts from the government. They seem like they could gain a bit of popularity if they invest in student experience. What LACs do you see rising/have continued to rise? For example, some people think Pomona is Williams and Amherst level, which is REALLY surprising, since it was a party school for dolts when I was applying to college!

Hey Dummy- he’s coming. He’s coming for your “elite, liberal schools” too. Give him time.

I’m sick of people cheering on universities getting fkkkd with instead of being outraged that government wants to control universities.

You’re preaching to the choir. Trump was literally trying to end liberal arts colleges with the original endowment tax. This person is responding to a reality that there will be a lot more funds for LACs now that they’re tax exempt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved Wes. My DS did not. It skews heavily female and presents as super artsy. Regardless of the reality, that is what we took from the tour. And, the increasing admit rate reflects this.

Hard to wade through the incongruity of this post. I’m an era where most private schools struggle mightily with gender balance, Wes’s 53/47ish split is pretty impressive. And yes, while Wes does have some arts programs of not that kids definitely choose the school for, the most popular majors are things like Econ, bio, neuroscience, etc. None of those things have any direct bearing on any increase in admissions rate, which I don’t think has been outside historical trends. So, not sure if you’re just trolling or if you are just mistaken. Maybe you’re thinking about Vassar.

[Anonymous]

I hate this thread. So many uninformed takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

OMG. This is a very typical DCUM response in that it acknowledges the existence of only 4 liberal arts colleges. My point is that the NEACACs are the standards at their relative tiers. They are the known names. Even poor Trin and Conn College who are only pariahs in the context of this hyper elitist, striver obsessed, Ivy Plus or nothing board. The point remains that they are known brands and frequent comparators to lesser known lacs in vibe or experience if not “prestige.” And all that said, I’m sorry to break it to you, but you can get an elite education at Wes, Hamilton, Midd, etc. Those schools are far more similar to Amherst and Williams than they are different.

This is a lot of words to say “I can’t handle that some liberal arts colleges are better than my personal favorite.”

One of the WASPs IS my personal favorite! Or at least one of them. Which is why I can confidently say the sun does not rise and set in the Pioneer Valley. Love to discuss the profiles of the SLACs, far down the US News top 100 than most people on this board would care for. But if you come at me with the anointed 4 or nothing, you’re a clown and your opinion means nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

OMG. This is a very typical DCUM response in that it acknowledges the existence of only 4 liberal arts colleges. My point is that the NEACACs are the standards at their relative tiers. They are the known names. Even poor Trin and Conn College who are only pariahs in the context of this hyper elitist, striver obsessed, Ivy Plus or nothing board. The point remains that they are known brands and frequent comparators to lesser known lacs in vibe or experience if not “prestige.” And all that said, I’m sorry to break it to you, but you can get an elite education at Wes, Hamilton, Midd, etc. Those schools are far more similar to Amherst and Williams than they are different.

This is a lot of words to say “I can’t handle that some liberal arts colleges are better than my personal favorite.”

One of the WASPs IS my personal favorite! Or at least one of them. Which is why I can confidently say the sun does not rise and set in the Pioneer Valley. Love to discuss the profiles of the SLACs, far down the US News top 100 than most people on this board would care for. But if you come at me with the anointed 4 or nothing, you’re a clown and your opinion means nothing.

Yeesh, Amherst is a $hithole, but glad someone out there likes it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate this thread. So many uninformed takes.

Like what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly this is one of the weirdest and stupidest threads I’ve seen on the DCUM college forum in a looong time. And that’s saying a lot. All that you are accomplishing is confirming for others that liberal arts college parents are complete nut jobs.

100% chance this person was a frequent poster on a 10 day thread about how Emory and/or Tufts is a terrible school. Hates or doesn’t like lacs and just jumps on threads waiting to be offended.