compare rankings of unis vs LACs

[Anonymous]

Should have applied to the Emory campus in the boonies that takes everyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should have applied to the Emory campus in the boonies that takes everyone

She did,... I guess they don't take everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are some numbers that presumably reveal something about a school's current popularity. These are stats for the schools recently mentioned in this thread. BTW, all these schools became test-optional this year.

Applications were up 30% at Middlebury this year,

https://middleburycampus.com/53708/news/applications-up-30-to-nearly-12000-in-historic-surge/

35% at Tufts

https://now.tufts.edu/articles/tufts-undergraduate-applications-rise-35-percent

Emory seems to have only released information on ED 1 and 2 applications, which were up 10%,

https://emorywheel.com/early-decision-ii-applicant-pool-grows-in-wake-of-test-optional-policy/

A reasonable conjecture is that Emory has not broadcast the rise in total applications because it isn't as impressive a number as for other schools.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/lcjb19/yet_another_series_of_records_news_emory_and/

Emory apps increased by 18%. Emory already received around 30k apps per year. Conversely Princeton only increased apps by 5% and Gatech by 11%. Emory regardless is the better school between the three with better outcomes for graduates.

What color is the sky on crazy planet?

I already said I meant Emory had better outcomes than Middlebury and Tufts not Princeton.

Princeton's apps increased 15%; Georgia Tech by 28%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the idea that emory is better than middlebury is laughable. even more laughable is the idea that it would attract the same kind of student. midd is an elite school; top 10 SLAC in the country. Emory is ranked 21 on university list. however, none of that matters because a kid who is going to desire to go to midd is not going to want to go to emory and vice versa. they will attract a different kind of student; urban/rural; medium/small; greek life/no greek life; more pre-professional/true SLAC focused on languages and environmental studies. this is why the comparisons are just plain stupid.

https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=Middlebury+College&with=Emory+University

You overrating Middlebury to the heavens.

Only in DCUM world would someone try to make a point that Emory is better than Midd and post a link that shows them chosen 50-50.

I'm not PP

That's the thing - no matter which side you are on it is literally 50-50 negating any corroborative value.

Parchment is a bogus site and cannot be trusted for valuable data. The site says that Emory's avg ACT is 20 for admitted students. TWENTY!!

I'm sorry, it does not say that is the average score for admitted students, it says that is the average score for students "interested in" Emory--two very different things I think you would agree. See

https://www.parchment.com/u/college/436-Emory-University/profile

Not sure how you could have misread that.

I might add that at my son's school, all students take the SAT in their junior year. Even those who do well on the SAT will then take the ACT in their senior year just for the heck of it to see how it goes. The average SAT score ends up being much better than the average ACT score. Each student reports the better score (SAT vs. ACT) when applying to colleges. So average ACT score of an "interested student" might be very different from the average ACT score of admitted students who choose to report ACT.

Parchment says it is based on actual data, but there could be some sort of bias in the schools that provide data to Parchment. I find it is plausible, particularly for schools where there is a significant overlap in applications. It won't really provide direct insights on selectivity. For instance, 81% of cross-admits choose MIT over Caltech, so 4 to 1. But if you consider that there are about 4.5 MIT undergraduates for every 1 Caltech undergraduates, you can see that it is likely with the number of common applicants, Caltech couldn't be 50-50 with MIT unless it were significantly larger than it is. They would be overenrolled at 50-50. Caltech actually has slightly higher stats than MIT.

Your argument makes no sense. Based on the parchment data, in the population of students accepted to both schools, 80% choose MIT. The schools obviously admit more students than can enroll based on yield information. There is no size adjustment needed.

It is simple math. If half of the students admitted to Caltech were also admitted to MIT and were choosing between those two, Caltech would be about 35% overenrolled if the percentage of cross-admits choosing Caltech went from 19% to 50%. If the percentage choosing Caltech completely flipped and 81% chose Caltech, Caltech would nearly fill its class solely from the cross-admits with MIT. If it did not increase its size, it would have to become significantly more selective to reduce the size of the overlap with MIT, and it already has slightly higher stats than MIT.

As it is, if the two schools are drawing from the same pool of admitted students (all with the comparable stats), Caltech only has to get 18% out of that pool to fill its class and have equivalent stats to MIT.

I want some of what you’re smokin dude.

Math?

[Anonymous]

LACs are strictly worse to comparably ranked universities. Williams isn't comparable to Princeton, Pomona isn't comparable to Stanford, and Middlebury isn't comparable to UPenn (doing a relative US News comparative rank).

Add +10 to +20 to LAC rankings and you'll get a rough idea of how they rank alongside top universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LACs are strictly worse to comparably ranked universities. Williams isn't comparable to Princeton, Pomona isn't comparable to Stanford, and Middlebury isn't comparable to UPenn (doing a relative US News comparative rank).

Add +10 to +20 to LAC rankings and you'll get a rough idea of how they rank alongside top universities.

How do you survive professionally with such atrocious writing skills? Nobody will take anything you say seriously when you express your thoughts so poorly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LACs are strictly worse to comparably ranked universities. Williams isn't comparable to Princeton, Pomona isn't comparable to Stanford, and Middlebury isn't comparable to UPenn (doing a relative US News comparative rank).

Add +10 to +20 to LAC rankings and you'll get a rough idea of how they rank alongside top universities.

Thank you, that's like saying UCB is better than Harvard or Howard is better than Yale. It's a dumb argument they're making. Unless it's Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, and Wellesley it's not comparable to a top 25 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LACs are strictly worse to comparably ranked universities. Williams isn't comparable to Princeton, Pomona isn't comparable to Stanford, and Middlebury isn't comparable to UPenn (doing a relative US News comparative rank).

Add +10 to +20 to LAC rankings and you'll get a rough idea of how they rank alongside top universities.

Agreed 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know Emory is a good school, but is it really all that impressive? Its high ranking is more due to Coca Cola fortune and endowment than academics or academic reputation.

Middlebury is one of the best SLACs in the country.

Emory is much better than Middlebury, a true shmuck would send their child to Miss if they also got into Emory.

With that said to answer OP's question the top 10 LAC's would be equal to the top 30 Unis. The times/wsj ranking combines both unis and lacs into the same ranking and Williams and Amherst are just outside the top 20.

All that is wrong. Though grads from both schools probably know how to spell "schmuck."

It's not wrong there's a reputable ranking that combine both unis and Williams and Amherst are right outside the top 20. Maybe 50 years ago Middlebury was better but today not a chance, most teens would choose Emory.

I think the reverse actually. Most kids today would choose Middlebury or Tifts over Emory. There is not a lot of buzz around Emory.

They would choose Middlebury if they want to be on a campus that has a small strip of restaurants and stores, and nothing else around until you get to Burlington, Lake George, Albany or Boston. Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is.

Kids go to Middlebury to ski. You are obviously not a skier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know Emory is a good school, but is it really all that impressive? Its high ranking is more due to Coca Cola fortune and endowment than academics or academic reputation.

Middlebury is one of the best SLACs in the country.

Emory is much better than Middlebury, a true shmuck would send their child to Miss if they also got into Emory.

With that said to answer OP's question the top 10 LAC's would be equal to the top 30 Unis. The times/wsj ranking combines both unis and lacs into the same ranking and Williams and Amherst are just outside the top 20.

All that is wrong. Though grads from both schools probably know how to spell "schmuck."

It's not wrong there's a reputable ranking that combine both unis and Williams and Amherst are right outside the top 20. Maybe 50 years ago Middlebury was better but today not a chance, most teens would choose Emory.

I think the reverse actually. Most kids today would choose Middlebury or Tifts over Emory. There is not a lot of buzz around Emory.

They would choose Middlebury if they want to be on a campus that has a small strip of restaurants and stores, and nothing else around until you get to Burlington, Lake George, Albany or Boston. Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is.

Kids go to Middlebury to ski. You are obviously not a skier.

Its funny how people around here know nothing about the New England boarding school culture. There are tens of thousands of kids in boarding schools in New England, and that doesn't even count the gazillions in days schools in Connecticut or all the kids in New York and New Jersey. The pipeline from those schools to the SLACs and LACs in New England and upstate New York and Pennsylvania is HUGE--plenty of those kids go to the Ivies, sure, but they aren't going to places like UNC or Sewanee or SMU, they are often going to go to smaller schools in more rural settings like the ones they are used to and that their parents and grandparents went to. And gives cachet to those schools to the public school kids from those areas, which is why they still attract lots of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know Emory is a good school, but is it really all that impressive? Its high ranking is more due to Coca Cola fortune and endowment than academics or academic reputation.

Middlebury is one of the best SLACs in the country.

Emory is much better than Middlebury, a true shmuck would send their child to Miss if they also got into Emory.

With that said to answer OP's question the top 10 LAC's would be equal to the top 30 Unis. The times/wsj ranking combines both unis and lacs into the same ranking and Williams and Amherst are just outside the top 20.

All that is wrong. Though grads from both schools probably know how to spell "schmuck."

It's not wrong there's a reputable ranking that combine both unis and Williams and Amherst are right outside the top 20. Maybe 50 years ago Middlebury was better but today not a chance, most teens would choose Emory.

I think the reverse actually. Most kids today would choose Middlebury or Tifts over Emory. There is not a lot of buzz around Emory.

They would choose Middlebury if they want to be on a campus that has a small strip of restaurants and stores, and nothing else around until you get to Burlington, Lake George, Albany or Boston. Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is.

Kids go to Middlebury to ski. You are obviously not a skier.

Pretty sure a “strip restaurant” isn’t a thing but downtown Middlebury is adorable, if teeny tiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know Emory is a good school, but is it really all that impressive? Its high ranking is more due to Coca Cola fortune and endowment than academics or academic reputation.

Middlebury is one of the best SLACs in the country.

Emory is much better than Middlebury, a true shmuck would send their child to Miss if they also got into Emory.

With that said to answer OP's question the top 10 LAC's would be equal to the top 30 Unis. The times/wsj ranking combines both unis and lacs into the same ranking and Williams and Amherst are just outside the top 20.

All that is wrong. Though grads from both schools probably know how to spell "schmuck."

It's not wrong there's a reputable ranking that combine both unis and Williams and Amherst are right outside the top 20. Maybe 50 years ago Middlebury was better but today not a chance, most teens would choose Emory.

I think the reverse actually. Most kids today would choose Middlebury or Tifts over Emory. There is not a lot of buzz around Emory.

They would choose Middlebury if they want to be on a campus that has a small strip of restaurants and stores, and nothing else around until you get to Burlington, Lake George, Albany or Boston. Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is.

Kids go to Middlebury to ski. You are obviously not a skier.

Its funny how people around here know nothing about the New England boarding school culture. There are tens of thousands of kids in boarding schools in New England, and that doesn't even count the gazillions in days schools in Connecticut or all the kids in New York and New Jersey. The pipeline from those schools to the SLACs and LACs in New England and upstate New York and Pennsylvania is HUGE--plenty of those kids go to the Ivies, sure, but they aren't going to places like UNC or Sewanee or SMU, they are often going to go to smaller schools in more rural settings like the ones they are used to and that their parents and grandparents went to. And gives cachet to those schools to the public school kids from those areas, which is why they still attract lots of applicants.

The kids who apply to Emory probably aren’t interested in Middlebury and vice versa. Not only a strong regional bias to these two schools, but comparing SLAC and big universities is like comparing coupes to SUVs. But if you want to just look at numbers, US News has Emory with 16% admissions and mid-50 ACT of 31-34. Middlebury has 15% admissions with mid-50 ACT of 32-34.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, Parchment, which collects data on student admissions and which school they end up attending, shows Emory and Tufts as being pretty much a toss-up:

https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=Tufts+University&with=Emory+University

But that isn't the case for WashU and Tufts

https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=Washington+University+in+St.+Louis&with=Tufts+University

Clear preference for WashU.

That site is very interesting and show that when students are choosing based on what matters to them about college (size, location, majors, actual cost, atmosphere and extras that matter to the student), rankings are meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LACs are strictly worse to comparably ranked universities. Williams isn't comparable to Princeton, Pomona isn't comparable to Stanford, and Middlebury isn't comparable to UPenn (doing a relative US News comparative rank).

Add +10 to +20 to LAC rankings and you'll get a rough idea of how they rank alongside top universities.

But rank for what? If you want a small school, reverse the rank. If you want professors not grad students teaching, reverse the rank, and so on. Ranking colleges is as ridiculous as ranking fruits against each other.

[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:the idea that emory is better than middlebury is laughable. even more laughable is the idea that it would attract the same kind of student. midd is an elite school; top 10 SLAC in the country. Emory is ranked 21 on university list. however, none of that matters because a kid who is going to desire to go to midd is not going to want to go to emory and vice versa. they will attract a different kind of student; urban/rural; medium/small; greek life/no greek life; more pre-professional/true SLAC focused on languages and environmental studies. this is why the comparisons are just plain stupid.

https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=Middlebury+College&with=Emory+University

You overrating Middlebury to the heavens.

Only in DCUM world would someone try to make a point that Emory is better than Midd and post a link that shows them chosen 50-50.

I'm not PP

That's the thing - no matter which side you are on it is literally 50-50 negating any corroborative value.

Parchment is a bogus site and cannot be trusted for valuable data. The site says that Emory's avg ACT is 20 for admitted students. TWENTY!!

I'm sorry, it does not say that is the average score for admitted students, it says that is the average score for students "interested in" Emory--two very different things I think you would agree. See

https://www.parchment.com/u/college/436-Emory-University/profile

Not sure how you could have misread that.

I might add that at my son's school, all students take the SAT in their junior year. Even those who do well on the SAT will then take the ACT in their senior year just for the heck of it to see how it goes. The average SAT score ends up being much better than the average ACT score. Each student reports the better score (SAT vs. ACT) when applying to colleges. So average ACT score of an "interested student" might be very different from the average ACT score of admitted students who choose to report ACT.

Parchment says it is based on actual data, but there could be some sort of bias in the schools that provide data to Parchment. I find it is plausible, particularly for schools where there is a significant overlap in applications. It won't really provide direct insights on selectivity. For instance, 81% of cross-admits choose MIT over Caltech, so 4 to 1. But if you consider that there are about 4.5 MIT undergraduates for every 1 Caltech undergraduates, you can see that it is likely with the number of common applicants, Caltech couldn't be 50-50 with MIT unless it were significantly larger than it is. They would be overenrolled at 50-50. Caltech actually has slightly higher stats than MIT.

Your argument makes no sense. Based on the parchment data, in the population of students accepted to both schools, 80% choose MIT. The schools obviously admit more students than can enroll based on yield information. There is no size adjustment needed.

It is simple math. If half of the students admitted to Caltech were also admitted to MIT and were choosing between those two, Caltech would be about 35% overenrolled if the percentage of cross-admits choosing Caltech went from 19% to 50%. If the percentage choosing Caltech completely flipped and 81% chose Caltech, Caltech would nearly fill its class solely from the cross-admits with MIT. If it did not increase its size, it would have to become significantly more selective to reduce the size of the overlap with MIT, and it already has slightly higher stats than MIT.

As it is, if the two schools are drawing from the same pool of admitted students (all with the comparable stats), Caltech only has to get 18% out of that pool to fill its class and have equivalent stats to MIT.

I want some of what you’re smokin dude.

Really confused why you would trust a site like parchment? It's just dumb. A self report website for teenagers. It's silly.

They say they get their data from high schools.