Being rediscovered by the Big 3 grads.

A pretty good liberal arts college. Nothing more to say than that, really.

If your dc looked at a Trinity, where else did he/she look at?

Anonymous wrote:We aren't looking at Trinity. DD thought it too preppy, stats were too low for her, too isolated (Hartford is where?). She's looking at Wesleyan, Hamilton, Colby, Bowdoin, which seem a bit higher ranked, and the kids seem less preppy (OK, maybe Bowdoin is a bit preppy, but it's very outdoorsy too).

Many years ago, my super-preppy cousin went there. She's smart, but not into studying, and got all As there. She's very social and had a busy social life dating lots of other preps. Went to U of C business school and married an investment banker. Worked out well for her.

Trinity is not isolated. Hartford is the capital of Connecticut, and while it may not be your cup of tea, it is not isolated.

Hamilton, Bowdoin, and Colby? Now those schools are indeed isolated.

We aren't looking at Trinity. DD thought it too preppy, stats were too low for her, too isolated (Hartford is where?). She's looking at Wesleyan, Hamilton, Colby, Bowdoin, which seem a bit higher ranked, and the kids seem less preppy (OK, maybe Bowdoin is a bit preppy, but it's very outdoorsy too).

Many years ago, my super-preppy cousin went there. She's smart, but not into studying, and got all As there. She's very social and had a busy social life dating lots of other preps. Went to U of C business school and married an investment banker. Worked out well for her.

I graduated from Trinity in the 80s. I went because I wanted a SLAC and it mostly filled the bill. I chose it over Mt. Holyoke which, in retrospect, was perhaps a mistake as I think I would probably have liked Mt. Holyoke more. I was a mediocre student in high school, earned mostly Bs, and was not Bowdoin or Williams material. However, I scored high SATs and had interesting extracurriculars.

I loved the academics there (they are excellent), and did very well in that regards, outgrowing my high school laziness and earning excellent grades. The size was a good fit for me as well. I am still in touch with a couple of professors from Trinity, one of whom we visit with every year at the holidays. Years after graduating from Trinity, I applied to law school and had no trouble getting recommendations from professors because they remembered me well. The experience is *that* personal.

My college classmates have all done very well professionally. Most went on to earn graduate or professional degrees at good schools.

On the down side: Hartford is a crappy little city, IMO. Trinity is in a very dicey neighborhood, or at least it was dicey when I attended. Greek life is super-prevalent, which may be a plus or a minus depending on the student - for me it was a huge minus, and colored my experience negatively. The student body is by and large, conservative and preppy. Most of my classmates were from affluent families and had attended private schools, vastly different from my very middle class, public high school background.

I have the impression that Trinity's reputation is not as good as it was a decade or two ago. But I don't know what the data are on that.

My DH went to Trinity albeit a long time ago. Was the formative experience of his education. Being taught by professors for whom teaching is a priority instead of those for whom teaching is a chore or by TAs is pretty important.

I don't know how the 85% retention rate compares to other similarly sized colleges (a PP wrongly referred to this stat as an 85% transfer rate!).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't take any reference to Wash. U. and rankings seriously because they've made such a concerted effort to game them.

Aside from the fact that the rankings are BS for a whole lotta reasons, do you really think there's a significant difference between #7 and #16?

To the schools themselves, the difference between #7 and #16 is enormous. The schools care about the USNews rankings - a lot. There was an article a few years back detailing how University of a Chicago met with US news to understand better how they should be reporting their data. UC learned they were reporting some things in a way that hurt their ranking, changed their reporting and moved up from the mid-teens. Those who rant against the USNEWS ratings seldom take time to understand the methodology. USNEWS lays it all out yet you'll often read rants that suggest that the key to improved rankings is tricking unqualified applicants into submitting applications to bring down the acceptance rate. It just isn't so.

Is the USNEWS ranking perfect? no, but it is the ranking that matters to schools.

To schools, maybe, and I agree with the posts about Wash U. But we're talking about kids. A kid may have good personal reasons for preferring Cornell to U Chicago or Wash U. Strength in the intended major, intensity (hello U Chicago!), location are just some reasons.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming about Trinity.

It appears as if this thread has gotten off trace. The original poster wanted information about Trinity. PPs indicate is a "safety school". Is this accurate? Also, is it also a case where the school has somewhat "declined" scholastically such that its really part of the New England consortium of Liberal Arts schools in name only?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't take any reference to Wash. U. and rankings seriously because they've made such a concerted effort to game them.

Aside from the fact that the rankings are BS for a whole lotta reasons, do you really think there's a significant difference between #7 and #16?

To the schools themselves, the difference between #7 and #16 is enormous. The schools care about the USNews rankings - a lot. There was an article a few years back detailing how University of a Chicago met with US news to understand better how they should be reporting their data. UC learned they were reporting some things in a way that hurt their ranking, changed their reporting and moved up from the mid-teens. Those who rant against the USNEWS ratings seldom take time to understand the methodology. USNEWS lays it all out yet you'll often read rants that suggest that the key to improved rankings is tricking unqualified applicants into submitting applications to bring down the acceptance rate. It just isn't so.

Is the USNEWS ranking perfect? no, but it is the ranking that matters to schools.

It matters to some schools and so they try to game the system, as your post reflects. Thats problem number one. Problem number two is that they are trying to quantify something that can't be quantified. It doesn't matter what the methodology is. You could pick different factors to measure -- all factors that reflect well on the school -- and come up with completely different rankings. You could weight the same factors differently. Maybe you care very little about how much money a school is putting into its physical plant and care a great deal about how much interaction students have directly with professors. Maybe you care less about "yield" and more about whether students are required to do a thesis or extended research project before they graduate. (A friend has a son at a top 5 university who got through his entire freshman year without doing any extensive writing. Thats an education?)

Wash U, at least two years ago, was giving every student who took a tour a "free preliminary application." In that manner, they could pump up their application rate and therefore have a lower acceptance rate. And it works! See how they've risen in the rankings with this sort of thing. And then sheep will send their children there solely because it has such a high ranking (there are more affirmative reasons to go, I'm not ragging on all Wash U students).

If Chicago can wave a magic wand and move up in the rankings it proves the point that there is no significant difference between #7 and #16. Except maybe bragging rights. You want to be that person?

"Wash U, at least two years ago, was giving every student who took a tour a "free preliminary application." In that manner, they could pump up their application rate and therefore have a lower acceptance rate. And it works! See how they've risen in the rankings with this sort of thing. And then sheep will send their children there solely because it has such a high ranking (there are more affirmative reasons to go, I'm not ragging on all Wash U students). "

I've seen this or similar whoppers posted here periodically. Just to inject a wee bit of factual information - ten years ago, Washington University was ranked #9 (tied with Dartmouth) http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/340.aspx In 2013, Washington University was ranked #14. So the grand scheme to "pump up their application rate" seems to have failed miserably. I suppose that (like some on DCUM) they were too dumb or lazy to take time to understand the USNews methodology and understand that acceptance rate counts for a minuscule 1/80th of the ranking.

I get that you don't think rankings should matter and you are, of course, free to ignore them. My only point is that the US News rankings do matter to enough people that schools care a lot about the US News Rankings. Understanding the importance of the US News rankings to schools and the methodology is a key to demystifying the college application process. As much as people and schools love to "hate" the US News rankings, it would be foolish to deny the positive impact the rankings have had in forcing schools to focus on issues like retention rate, class size, facilities and standardized test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't take any reference to Wash. U. and rankings seriously because they've made such a concerted effort to game them.

Aside from the fact that the rankings are BS for a whole lotta reasons, do you really think there's a significant difference between #7 and #16?

To the schools themselves, the difference between #7 and #16 is enormous. The schools care about the USNews rankings - a lot. There was an article a few years back detailing how University of a Chicago met with US news to understand better how they should be reporting their data. UC learned they were reporting some things in a way that hurt their ranking, changed their reporting and moved up from the mid-teens. Those who rant against the USNEWS ratings seldom take time to understand the methodology. USNEWS lays it all out yet you'll often read rants that suggest that the key to improved rankings is tricking unqualified applicants into submitting applications to bring down the acceptance rate. It just isn't so.

Is the USNEWS ranking perfect? no, but it is the ranking that matters to schools.

It matters to some schools and so they try to game the system, as your post reflects. Thats problem number one. Problem number two is that they are trying to quantify something that can't be quantified. It doesn't matter what the methodology is. You could pick different factors to measure -- all factors that reflect well on the school -- and come up with completely different rankings. You could weight the same factors differently. Maybe you care very little about how much money a school is putting into its physical plant and care a great deal about how much interaction students have directly with professors. Maybe you care less about "yield" and more about whether students are required to do a thesis or extended research project before they graduate. (A friend has a son at a top 5 university who got through his entire freshman year without doing any extensive writing. Thats an education?)

Wash U, at least two years ago, was giving every student who took a tour a "free preliminary application." In that manner, they could pump up their application rate and therefore have a lower acceptance rate. And it works! See how they've risen in the rankings with this sort of thing. And then sheep will send their children there solely because it has such a high ranking (there are more affirmative reasons to go, I'm not ragging on all Wash U students).

If Chicago can wave a magic wand and move up in the rankings it proves the point that there is no significant difference between #7 and #16. Except maybe bragging rights. You want to be that person?

Anonymous wrote:I don't take any reference to Wash. U. and rankings seriously because they've made such a concerted effort to game them.

Aside from the fact that the rankings are BS for a whole lotta reasons, do you really think there's a significant difference between #7 and #16?

To the schools themselves, the difference between #7 and #16 is enormous. The schools care about the USNews rankings - a lot. There was an article a few years back detailing how University of a Chicago met with US news to understand better how they should be reporting their data. UC learned they were reporting some things in a way that hurt their ranking, changed their reporting and moved up from the mid-teens. Those who rant against the USNEWS ratings seldom take time to understand the methodology. USNEWS lays it all out yet you'll often read rants that suggest that the key to improved rankings is tricking unqualified applicants into submitting applications to bring down the acceptance rate. It just isn't so.

Is the USNEWS ranking perfect? no, but it is the ranking that matters to schools.

Safety school of the northeast!

I don't take any reference to Wash. U. and rankings seriously because they've made such a concerted effort to game them.

Aside from the fact that the rankings are BS for a whole lotta reasons, do you really think there's a significant difference between #7 and #16?

A prior poster wrote: "
Duke (#7) is ranked comfortably ahead of Dartmouth and well ahead of Cornell (#16). It's hard to imagine any circumstance in which Duke would be a fall back for a Cornell reject - usually the opposite. The same applies to JHU and WASH U - both of which are ranked ahead of Cornell. Cornell is in the same athletic conference as Princeton Harvard Yale and a Columbia, but no knowledgeable person would consider them in the same " league."

While I agree that Cornell is generally less selective than H/Y/C, beyond that the above post puts far too much weight on rankings that are divorced from the admissions process. I know students in the past year accepted at Wash U and Duke but not Cornell, and I am sure there are many other variations inconsistent with the above post. May I also suggest refraining from terms like a "Cornell reject"-- sounds like a middle school insult. Let's try to keep decorum up on this forum please.