Anonymous wrote:These are posts from Reed students:

https://www.unigo.com/colleges/reed-college/is-the-stereotype-of-students-at-your-school-accurate

It is not where I would send my teen to grow into an adult (and it is far away if they run into problems), but see what you think OP.

Thank you, I will have a look.

PhD productivity:

https://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the things you like about Reed, you might also want to consider other liberal arts schools that focus on undergraduate education. USNews has such a list, based on reputation (Reed ranks at #16):

1. Carleton
2. Amherst
3. Agnes Scott
3. Bowdoin
3. Davidson
6. Grinnell
6. Swarthmore
8. Bates
9. Colorado College
9. Pomona
11. Macalester
11. Wellesley
13. Bryn Mawr
13. College of Wooster
15. Middlebury
16. Berea
16. Reed
16. Smith
19. Kenyon
19. Spelman

etc. (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/undergraduate-teaching)

As a Williams grad, I'm stunned at how low the College is in undergraduate teaching (23rd). Haven't looked at the methodology for the ranking, but I hope Williams is trying to see if they have a real problem which can be addressed.

Real problem ?

Undergrad teaching is probably the best at community colleges and at the least selective schools. Why ? because the students need to be spoon fed since many are not motivated to engage in deep intellectual thought.

For intelligent, motivated students, disruptive, thought-provoking guidance is far more important than having a PhD hand feed material to students.

Good teaching is NOT spoon feeding students. It is engaging them in opportunities for critical thinking and growth.

I agree & I understand. But I suspect that the ratings & rankings are based upon how "nice" profs are & how easy-to-understand a prof makes the material seem to be.

These are posts from Reed students:

https://www.unigo.com/colleges/reed-college/is-the-stereotype-of-students-at-your-school-accurate

It is not where I would send my teen to grow into an adult (and it is far away if they run into problems), but see what you think OP.

I loved every minute of my time at Reed and didn’t do drugs. I’m a lifelong democrat but not the slightest bit radical and always felt accepted. The relationships with (devoted and brilliant) professors, the depth of learning, the classical curriculum, the truly honored honor code were beyond my wildest dreams coming from a huge high school where no one cared about who I was or even whether I attended class.

That said, the world after Reed was a shock. I didn’t go to grad school (big mistake) and struggled to find my place. Only started to care about $ in my 40s and then it was too late. I would still send a child there but with the caveat that they need to have an explicit plan for moving into the professional world after their four years of learning. I had little guidance of any pragmatic nature.

I also loved Portland at the time. Many other slacs felt too isolated.

Reed graduate here, biochemistry major. I'm in my mid-30s and a tenure track professor at a large public research university now (actually moving to a university abroad soon). I ended up getting a PhD and landing a tenure track job, so I'm clearly the sort of student the school was designed for. It was extremely formative for me in terms of the rigorous academics, the tight knit relationships with profs, and feeling like I was surrounded by interesting, intellectually curious people.

There were also downsides. It was very non-preprofessional in focus and more classical liberal arts education which resulted in some students feeling a bit adrift after graduating (especially since my peers mostly graduated between 2010-2008), there is a really intense stress culture surrounding academics, and people are just intense and weird which can be awesome if that's who you fit in with or alienating if it's not your vibe.

But all said and done, I really appreciated my time there, found it extremely formative, and think I got an excellent education. I have some incredible friends and even 13 years after graduating, I'm still in touch with a few of my profs. Some of my peers are doing really impressive things with their careers, although as someone mentioned, going into careers that are not for the money is a common thing (not exclusively so, though). Lots of academics, journalists, public interest lawyers, non-profit workers, etc. But then again I have some friends who work in tech, Big Law, medicine, etc. as well so it's not impossible to do something lucrative, the school just doesn't tend to draw those personality types as much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG I would not describe the actual, real life Reed culture like what you were saying at all. Look at St Johns in Annapolis instead. Reed seriously has always had a lot of unstable kids, with a VERY small Uber left intellectual group that the market the heck out of.

So Reed combines a St. John's-type curriculum with a Hampshire-type student body?

Reed is more intellectually rigorous than St. John's IMO. St. John's is a discuss the classics curriculum; Reed is a research-based curriculum (grounded in reading a variety of literature). Both have a non-vocational, intellectual vibe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the things you like about Reed, you might also want to consider other liberal arts schools that focus on undergraduate education. USNews has such a list, based on reputation (Reed ranks at #16):

1. Carleton
2. Amherst
3. Agnes Scott
3. Bowdoin
3. Davidson
6. Grinnell
6. Swarthmore
8. Bates
9. Colorado College
9. Pomona
11. Macalester
11. Wellesley
13. Bryn Mawr
13. College of Wooster
15. Middlebury
16. Berea
16. Reed
16. Smith
19. Kenyon
19. Spelman

etc. (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/undergraduate-teaching)

As a Williams grad, I'm stunned at how low the College is in undergraduate teaching (23rd). Haven't looked at the methodology for the ranking, but I hope Williams is trying to see if they have a real problem which can be addressed.

Real problem ?

Undergrad teaching is probably the best at community colleges and at the least selective schools. Why ? because the students need to be spoon fed since many are not motivated to engage in deep intellectual thought.

For intelligent, motivated students, disruptive, thought-provoking guidance is far more important than having a PhD hand feed material to students.

Good teaching is NOT spoon feeding students. It is engaging them in opportunities for critical thinking and growth.

I have heard that Reed boasts a rather large proportion of lost kids (what another poster call "unstable.") They are smart but perhaps drifting (drugs, mental illness).

Of course, most students might not get caught up in this, but my neighbor's kid did and it was really touch and go until she transferred.

One other downside I heard is that the small number of faculty (at least in some departments) leaves you little recourse if you don't hit it off with one or two of them.

Anonymous wrote:OMG I would not describe the actual, real life Reed culture like what you were saying at all. Look at St Johns in Annapolis instead. Reed seriously has always had a lot of unstable kids, with a VERY small Uber left intellectual group that the market the heck out of.

So Reed combines a St. John's-type curriculum with a Hampshire-type student body?

I heard it was a druggie place back in the late 80s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the things you like about Reed, you might also want to consider other liberal arts schools that focus on undergraduate education. USNews has such a list, based on reputation (Reed ranks at #16):

1. Carleton
2. Amherst
3. Agnes Scott
3. Bowdoin
3. Davidson
6. Grinnell
6. Swarthmore
8. Bates
9. Colorado College
9. Pomona
11. Macalester
11. Wellesley
13. Bryn Mawr
13. College of Wooster
15. Middlebury
16. Berea
16. Reed
16. Smith
19. Kenyon
19. Spelman

etc. (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/undergraduate-teaching)

As a Williams grad, I'm stunned at how low the College is in undergraduate teaching (23rd). Haven't looked at the methodology for the ranking, but I hope Williams is trying to see if they have a real problem which can be addressed.

Do you realize how many LA colleges there are in this country? 23rd isn't terrible. They aren't giving ties here so I doubt there is a huge difference between the top 30 on this list

Anonymous wrote:My impression of Reed is that it has an "intellectual" sub-culture, which fits with the high number of students who go on to get PhDs. It's also know to be more progressive/far left than your typical college campus.

Have also heard about the drug culture. Not sure if it's worse than other colleges.

The one thing that I'd suggest you look into more is the 4 year graduation rate, which hovers around 60%. That's pretty low. Anecdotally I've known two students who went to Reed and then transferred out, and I wonder if that's a meaningful factor in the 4-year grad numbers. (At least one of those kids has some underlying mental health issues, which is why he left--he stopped out of college.) The small sample of kids I know who have gone to Reed would be best described as a little quirky. (I say that as a parent of a quirky kid, not with judgment.)

My impression is that it's a unique culture and if that culture is a good fit, it can be a great place, but look closely and ask a lot of questions to find out if your kid is a good match.

The five-year graduation rate is 81%. That's a very unremarkable number for a good SLAC. There is a small number of top SLACs that have 90%+ graduation rates, but most the vrey good SLACs are in the 80-90% range.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the things you like about Reed, you might also want to consider other liberal arts schools that focus on undergraduate education. USNews has such a list, based on reputation (Reed ranks at #16):

1. Carleton
2. Amherst
3. Agnes Scott
3. Bowdoin
3. Davidson
6. Grinnell
6. Swarthmore
8. Bates
9. Colorado College
9. Pomona
11. Macalester
11. Wellesley
13. Bryn Mawr
13. College of Wooster
15. Middlebury
16. Berea
16. Reed
16. Smith
19. Kenyon
19. Spelman

etc. (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/undergraduate-teaching)

As a Williams grad, I'm stunned at how low the College is in undergraduate teaching (23rd). Haven't looked at the methodology for the ranking, but I hope Williams is trying to see if they have a real problem which can be addressed.

These sort of ranking is meaningless, they're arbitrary. I have literally never met a LAC grad who didn't think their undergraduate teaching was terrific. There's probably not a difference between #5 and #35.

But, based on what ? Making the material easy to understand ? (This is a serious question--not a rhetorical question.) TIA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the things you like about Reed, you might also want to consider other liberal arts schools that focus on undergraduate education. USNews has such a list, based on reputation (Reed ranks at #16):

1. Carleton
2. Amherst
3. Agnes Scott
3. Bowdoin
3. Davidson
6. Grinnell
6. Swarthmore
8. Bates
9. Colorado College
9. Pomona
11. Macalester
11. Wellesley
13. Bryn Mawr
13. College of Wooster
15. Middlebury
16. Berea
16. Reed
16. Smith
19. Kenyon
19. Spelman

etc. (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/undergraduate-teaching)

As a Williams grad, I'm stunned at how low the College is in undergraduate teaching (23rd). Haven't looked at the methodology for the ranking, but I hope Williams is trying to see if they have a real problem which can be addressed.

These sort of ranking is meaningless, they're arbitrary. I have literally never met a LAC grad who didn't think their undergraduate teaching was terrific. There's probably not a difference between #5 and #35.

And in support of your statement, Stanford University is ranked #36 on the National Universities list for best undergraduate teaching.

Regardless, how does one rate undergraduate teaching ? By making students comfortable & confident in the subject matter or by provoking independent thought and disagreement ?