Anonymous wrote:Liberal arts schools that are not ivy are not elite?

What's that supposed to mean?

Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Stanford...
just getting started....

Ok, let's be more precise. Liberal arts schools based in the east coast that are not ivy are not elite, world class. They can be very nice, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, classes at places like Swarthmore or Wesleyan are arguably more rigorous than classes at Harvard.

I went to a similar SLAC to these two and never had a class not taught by a professor. I have three very good friends who went to Harvard and almost all their classes the first two years were taught by TAs.

But so what? There are plenty of TAs who are better teachers than many professors. TAs haven't finished their doctorates, but the doctorate only shows how well you can research, not how well you can teach.

I went to a SLAC and had excellent professors, but their teaching ability didn't come from their degrees. It was because they had the interest in and ability to be good at it.

The professors at a SLAC are hired largely because of their teaching skills. They also often have many years of teaching experience before they become professors. The TAs at a large research university are hired almost completely because of their research skills and academic credentials, and are at the beginning of their careers. It stands to reason that, while there may be some TAs who are outstanding, you'll have overall higher quality among the professors at a SLAC than among the TAs at a research university.

I attended a school that is somewhere in between, a research university but smaller and private, like Tufts, or Georgetown, or Chicago. The TAs who taught us were definitely not of the same caliber as the professors. Again, with a few exceptions.

Good school, but not enough diversity.

I have a good friend that went there. I would consider it "respectable" but by no means "elite."

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, classes at places like Swarthmore or Wesleyan are arguably more rigorous than classes at Harvard.

I went to a similar SLAC to these two and never had a class not taught by a professor. I have three very good friends who went to Harvard and almost all their classes the first two years were taught by TAs.

But so what? There are plenty of TAs who are better teachers than many professors. TAs haven't finished their doctorates, but the doctorate only shows how well you can research, not how well you can teach.

I went to a SLAC and had excellent professors, but their teaching ability didn't come from their degrees. It was because they had the interest in and ability to be good at it.

Julliard and the Curtis Institute of Music accept a lower ratio of their applicants than Harvard - down at 5-6% of applicants. "Elite" can mean a lot of different things.

Stanford and MIT? Absolutely elite.

Actually, classes at places like Swarthmore or Wesleyan are arguably more rigorous than classes at Harvard.

I went to a similar SLAC to these two and never had a class not taught by a professor. I have three very good friends who went to Harvard and almost all their classes the first two years were taught by TAs.

But to get back to the topic of the thread, Mount St. Mary's is not elite. I know because I graduated from a school here where my three good friends were not the only graduates in our class of less than 100 that went to Harvard, and I have never heard of anyone going there.

Stanford is elite,,, so are Hopkins and Navy. The others are for people who don't fly jets save lives or invent things.. You know the serious stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal arts schools that are not ivy are NOT elite. The classes are not rigorous. Look up what creations or inventions of impact made by UVA or W&M alumni or Nobel prizes and you will get the picture.

Actually, classes at places like Swarthmore or Wesleyan are arguably more rigorous than classes at Harvard. There is a surfeit of PhDs who are great teachers in this country, and not all of them can end up at ivies.

I'm not sure what alumn creations and inventions has to do with it, though.

Arguably you don't need to attend college, just read and memorize the classics.

Yes, you can argue anything...but the first PP makes much more sense than the second.

Only if you are stuck in 1985 and don't have a clue about colleges in 2013. That seems to be your problem. Swarthmore takes 15% of applicants. Wesleyan takes maybe 20% of applicants, I'm not sure. That's not "elite?"

(And before you accuse my kid of slackerdom, my DC just got into a college that takes 7% of applicants. Do I think Swarthmore or Wesleyan are not "elite"? Heck no!)

PP again. Just to clarify, I think Swarthmore and Wesleyan ARE elite. HTH

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal arts schools that are not ivy are NOT elite. The classes are not rigorous. Look up what creations or inventions of impact made by UVA or W&M alumni or Nobel prizes and you will get the picture.

Actually, classes at places like Swarthmore or Wesleyan are arguably more rigorous than classes at Harvard. There is a surfeit of PhDs who are great teachers in this country, and not all of them can end up at ivies.

I'm not sure what alumn creations and inventions has to do with it, though.

Arguably you don't need to attend college, just read and memorize the classics.

Yes, you can argue anything...but the first PP makes much more sense than the second.

Only if you are stuck in 1985 and don't have a clue about colleges in 2013. That seems to be your problem. Swarthmore takes 15% of applicants. Wesleyan takes maybe 20% of applicants, I'm not sure. That's not "elite?"

(And before you accuse my kid of slackerdom, my DC just got into a college that takes 7% of applicants. Do I think Swarthmore or Wesleyan are not "elite"? Heck no!)

Liberal arts schools that are not ivy are not elite?

What's that supposed to mean?

Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Stanford...
just getting started....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal arts schools that are not ivy are NOT elite. The classes are not rigorous. Look up what creations or inventions of impact made by UVA or W&M alumni or Nobel prizes and you will get the picture.

Actually, classes at places like Swarthmore or Wesleyan are arguably more rigorous than classes at Harvard. There is a surfeit of PhDs who are great teachers in this country, and not all of them can end up at ivies.

I'm not sure what alumn creations and inventions has to do with it, though.

Arguably you don't need to attend college, just read and memorize the classics.

Yes, you can argue anything...but the first PP makes much more sense than the second.

Anonymous wrote:Liberal arts schools that are not ivy are NOT elite. The classes are not rigorous. Look up what creations or inventions of impact made by UVA or W&M alumni or Nobel prizes and you will get the picture.

Actually, classes at places like Swarthmore or Wesleyan are arguably more rigorous than classes at Harvard. There is a surfeit of PhDs who are great teachers in this country, and not all of them can end up at ivies.

I'm not sure what alumn creations and inventions has to do with it, though.

Anonymous wrote:Liberal arts schools that are not ivy are NOT elite. The classes are not rigorous. Look up what creations or inventions of impact made by UVA or W&M alumni or Nobel prizes and you will get the picture.

only 2 elite school.. Hopkins and Navy they are the best in the world for what they specialize in and are brutally rigorous.

Liberal arts schools that are not ivy are NOT elite. The classes are not rigorous. Look up what creations or inventions of impact made by UVA or W&M alumni or Nobel prizes and you will get the picture.