New poster here. Maybe years ago Middlebury "hid" weaker students in their Feb program, and Bowdoin hid them in their SAT optional thing. But that is not my impression at all from knowing the Febs of recent years, for sure. My DC applied to Midd deliberately as a Feb, as did many/most of the other Febs. Gap years are popular now and the option of a half-gap was a good compromise between our DC and us. DC wanted a full year off initially. The half-gap was perfect. You can mark on the application that you prefer the Feb admit, if you do. DC was a leader on campus, studied abroad twice, very high GPA, AND had a half-gap experience that clearly helped land a couple of incredible summer internships earlier in college than is typical for a college student. DC debated whether to graduate in 3.5 or 4 years (came in with credits). Chose 4 years in order to tuck in an extra minor and a thesis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummmmm she got wait listed at Colby and Bowdoin???

Bowdoin WL is understandable. Colby is now 3-4 years into the thick of playing games to rise in the US News rankings. They have gotten rid of their extra essays as part of their application and just about halved their application fee as a way to get more kids to apply so they can then reject more, be considered more selective and climb the ranking. Around 2012 they were ranked somewhere in the 30s, in 2014 in the 20s and now #12, with record numbers of HS seniors applying last year and this. My DS, with perfect SAT scores from very competitive private HS was also just waitlisted at Colby but accepted by much "better" schools. Actually kind of pissed that he applied there in retrospect, playing right into their scheme.

That's the thing. College rankings are really easily to manipulate, and there are several culprits. Take Middlebury, which hides weaker students through its Feb admits. Middlebury reports an acceptance rate of 16.1% and a SAT of 1450 to US News, but their actual acceptance rate was 18.9% and their SAT lower thanks to the Feb admits, who don't have to be reported. Bowdoin gets to hide a lot of low testing applicants with its testing optional policy. Claremont McKenna purposely caps a number of their classes to be under 20 students to do well on the faculty resources ranking, but only in the fall, which is what counts for the ranking. A number of schools heavily rely on ED to make their RD rates lower. Take CMC and Pomona for instance- both had a yield of 53.7 last year and an admit rate of 9.4, but CMC filled a whopping 68% of their class through ED, while Pomona only 47% (actually one of the lowest among LACs). If you didn't know better, you'd think these colleges were equally desirable. But Pomona's yield of regular decision applicants is more than 35% higher than CMC.

That's why it's important not to take rankings so seriously, and to just let a college's profile, students, and outcomes speak for themselves.

Midd grad here. And just want to add that, speaking of outcomes, Feb admits have better GPAs and hold more leadership positions on campus than their September admit peers. At least, this was the case a decade ago. Maybe it's the extra four months to mature. FTR, I was a September admit.

Williams or Pomona. Let the location be the deciding factor. I have spent time in Claremont and Williamstown, and like both places. But they are quite different.

She won't go wrong with any of these schools. Well done to her!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats to your D! She has many outstanding options.

One minor thing, though. Middlebury is as selective as WASP, and more than Carleton.

Um, no it's not. WASP all have higher SATs/% of students in the top 10%, and Middlebury had a higher admit rate (19.6%) than all of them this year (Pomona 8.2%, Swarthmore 10.3%, Williams 13.9%, Amherst 12.5%). Middlebury is selective, no doubt, but WASP are definitely more selective. And as pointed out above, Middlebury hides a lot of weak applicants via its Feb Admit program, which the others don't do. Even Carleton has a higher % of students in the top 10% and a higher SAT than Carleton. The statistics are posted above.

*than Middlebury. I wish there was an edit option.

Anonymous wrote:Congrats to your D! She has many outstanding options.

One minor thing, though. Middlebury is as selective as WASP, and more than Carleton.

Um, no it's not. WASP all have higher SATs/% of students in the top 10%, and Middlebury had a higher admit rate (19.6%) than all of them this year (Pomona 8.2%, Swarthmore 10.3%, Williams 13.9%, Amherst 12.5%). Middlebury is selective, no doubt, but WASP are definitely more selective. And as pointed out above, Middlebury hides a lot of weak applicants via its Feb Admit program, which the others don't do. Even Carleton has a higher % of students in the top 10% and a higher SAT than Carleton. The statistics are posted above.

Congrats to your D! She has many outstanding options.

One minor thing, though. Middlebury is as selective as WASP, and more than Carleton.

Great news! She just checked a few minutes ago and is in at Amherst, and she got an accepted package from Haverford today. Those are all of her reach choices, so now the decision is on between these schools.

She told me she crossed out Middlebury/Haverford since they lack a cognitive science program, and she's interested in exploring that in college. She applied to them because they're not as selective as the others, and she could have still studied psychology. Her top 2 are Williams and Pomona at the moment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummmmm she got wait listed at Colby and Bowdoin???

Bowdoin WL is understandable. Colby is now 3-4 years into the thick of playing games to rise in the US News rankings. They have gotten rid of their extra essays as part of their application and just about halved their application fee as a way to get more kids to apply so they can then reject more, be considered more selective and climb the ranking. Around 2012 they were ranked somewhere in the 30s, in 2014 in the 20s and now #12, with record numbers of HS seniors applying last year and this. My DS, with perfect SAT scores from very competitive private HS was also just waitlisted at Colby but accepted by much "better" schools. Actually kind of pissed that he applied there in retrospect, playing right into their scheme.

That's the thing. College rankings are really easily to manipulate, and there are several culprits. Take Middlebury, which hides weaker students through its Feb admits. Middlebury reports an acceptance rate of 16.1% and a SAT of 1450 to US News, but their actual acceptance rate was 18.9% and their SAT lower thanks to the Feb admits, who don't have to be reported. Bowdoin gets to hide a lot of low testing applicants with its testing optional policy. Claremont McKenna purposely caps a number of their classes to be under 20 students to do well on the faculty resources ranking, but only in the fall, which is what counts for the ranking. A number of schools heavily rely on ED to make their RD rates lower. Take CMC and Pomona for instance- both had a yield of 53.7 last year and an admit rate of 9.4, but CMC filled a whopping 68% of their class through ED, while Pomona only 47% (actually one of the lowest among LACs). If you didn't know better, you'd think these colleges were equally desirable. But Pomona's yield of regular decision applicants is more than 35% higher than CMC.

That's why it's important not to take rankings so seriously, and to just let a college's profile, students, and outcomes speak for themselves.

+1000 well stated. Also, the best numeric---look at the percentage of grads FULLY employed and what is their starting salary...that really should say it all. Forget about the admit rate...its the EXIT numbers that matter!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummmmm she got wait listed at Colby and Bowdoin???

Bowdoin WL is understandable. Colby is now 3-4 years into the thick of playing games to rise in the US News rankings. They have gotten rid of their extra essays as part of their application and just about halved their application fee as a way to get more kids to apply so they can then reject more, be considered more selective and climb the ranking. Around 2012 they were ranked somewhere in the 30s, in 2014 in the 20s and now #12, with record numbers of HS seniors applying last year and this. My DS, with perfect SAT scores from very competitive private HS was also just waitlisted at Colby but accepted by much "better" schools. Actually kind of pissed that he applied there in retrospect, playing right into their scheme.

Plus they're probably concerned about yield. She's such a strong applicant they think she's unlikely to go to Colby or Bowdoin.

FYI..Colby has waived their application fee altogether.....a completely transparent tactic to boost rankings.

BTW I'd choose Bowdoin over these other schools so I'm not sure your yield protection theory has much weight.

Middlebury....biased because I went there. But it's significantly bigger 2600 than Amherst or Williams. Campus and facilities are amazing aincluding its own ski mountain.


I would x out Carleton. Never seen Pomona but here it is great - but it is in California.

I would have her look at the research programs (by looking at individual websites/cvs) of professors in cognitive science and psychology (and maybe economics) at all the schools. If she wants to get a phd, she needs to do research in undergrad. (And even if she ends up doing something else professionally, it'll be a great experience). See which school has the most professors who align with her interests and maybe even have her reach out to current students affiliated with those labs and ask about their experiences. I'd have her so the same thing for coursework. Some liberal arts colleges might be stronger than others in cognitive science, for example.

(- Phd who went to Williams)

It was fifteen years ago, but I loved my time at Pomona. Of these schools, Williams seemed most similar to me. Swarthmore a little serious for my taste. Carleton lovely but cold and rural - not for me. Middlebury is a bit preppy for my tastes. A happy decision to make, you really can't go wrong.

Some comparative data among these colleges that doesn't include subjective rankings. Sources are the 2016-2017 Common Data Set, the Chronicle for Higher Education, and CollegeRaptor.

Williams
First year class: 7.4% international, 13% Hispanic, 7.7% Black, 13.4% Asian, 4.7% multiracial, 53.7% white
51% of first years receive need based aid, with an average award of $52,512 (including $2,921 in loans)
Educational Spending per Degree: $270,253
Endowment Per Student: $992,200
86% four year graduation rate, 94% six year graduation rate, 97% retention rate
32% yield among those admitted in Regular Decision, 2000-2310 SAT, 31-34 ACT
91% of students in top 10%, 98% in top quarter
73% of classes under 20 students, 85% under 30, 2.2% over 50

Carleton
First year class: 8.6% international, 8.8% Hispanic, 5.5% Black, 8.5% Asian, 7.4% multiracial, 59.1% white
55% of first years received need based aid, with an average award of $47,719 (including $4,089 in loans)
Educational Spending per Degree: $202,805
Endowment Per Student: $395,380
88% four year graduation rate, 92% six year graduation rate, 96% retention rate
18.4% yield among those admitted in Regular Decision, 1970-2290 SAT, 30-33 ACT
75% of students in top 10%, 93% in top quarter
70% of classes under 20 students, 89% under 30, 0.5% over 50

Middlebury: Fall admits only
First year class: 9.2% international, 10.1% Hispanic, 4.1% Black, 6.4% Asian, 4.8% multiracial, 62.8% white
42% of first years receive need based aid, with an average award of $47,554 (including $3,095 in loans)
Educational Spending per Degree: $220,563
Endowment Per Student: $355,535
85% four year graduation rate, 93% six year graduation rate, 96% retention rate
20.3% yield among those admitted in Regular Decision, 1925-2245 SAT, 30-33 ACT
Does not report class rank
67% of classes under 20 students, 87% under 30, 1.8% over 50

Swarthmore
First year class: 12% international, 13.5% Hispanic, 7.7% Black, 13.9% Asian, 6.3% multiracial, 42.4% white
59% of first years receive need based aid, with an average award of $48,573 (no loans)
Educational Spending per Degree: $265,606
Endowment Per Student: $1,193,050
88% four year graduation rate, 94% six year graduation rate, 98% retention rate
25.9% yield among those admitted in Regular Decision, 1958-2295 SAT (extraprolated due to no writing reported), 30-34 ACT
91% of students in top 10%, 96% in top quarter
74% of classes under 20 students, 88% under 30, 2.8% over 50

Pomona
First year class: 11.9% international, 15.1% Hispanic, 10.7% Black, .7% Native American, 15.8% Asian, 7.1% multiracial, 36% white
55% of first years receive need based aid, with an average award of $51,284 (no loans)
Educational Spending per Degree: $300,095
Endowment Per Student: $1,289,239
92% four year graduation rate, 97% six year graduation rate, 97% retention rate
38% yield among those admitted in Regular Decision, 2010-2310 SAT, 31-34 ACT
92% of students in top 10%, 99% in top quarter
70% of classes under 20 students, 94% under 30, 0.2% over 50

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummmmm she got wait listed at Colby and Bowdoin???

Bowdoin WL is understandable. Colby is now 3-4 years into the thick of playing games to rise in the US News rankings. They have gotten rid of their extra essays as part of their application and just about halved their application fee as a way to get more kids to apply so they can then reject more, be considered more selective and climb the ranking. Around 2012 they were ranked somewhere in the 30s, in 2014 in the 20s and now #12, with record numbers of HS seniors applying last year and this. My DS, with perfect SAT scores from very competitive private HS was also just waitlisted at Colby but accepted by much "better" schools. Actually kind of pissed that he applied there in retrospect, playing right into their scheme.

That's the thing. College rankings are really easily to manipulate, and there are several culprits. Take Middlebury, which hides weaker students through its Feb admits. Middlebury reports an acceptance rate of 16.1% and a SAT of 1450 to US News, but their actual acceptance rate was 18.9% and their SAT lower thanks to the Feb admits, who don't have to be reported. Bowdoin gets to hide a lot of low testing applicants with its testing optional policy. Claremont McKenna purposely caps a number of their classes to be under 20 students to do well on the faculty resources ranking, but only in the fall, which is what counts for the ranking. A number of schools heavily rely on ED to make their RD rates lower. Take CMC and Pomona for instance- both had a yield of 53.7 last year and an admit rate of 9.4, but CMC filled a whopping 68% of their class through ED, while Pomona only 47% (actually one of the lowest among LACs). If you didn't know better, you'd think these colleges were equally desirable. But Pomona's yield of regular decision applicants is more than 35% higher than CMC.

That's why it's important not to take rankings so seriously, and to just let a college's profile, students, and outcomes speak for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummmmm she got wait listed at Colby and Bowdoin???

Bowdoin WL is understandable. Colby is now 3-4 years into the thick of playing games to rise in the US News rankings. They have gotten rid of their extra essays as part of their application and just about halved their application fee as a way to get more kids to apply so they can then reject more, be considered more selective and climb the ranking. Around 2012 they were ranked somewhere in the 30s, in 2014 in the 20s and now #12, with record numbers of HS seniors applying last year and this. My DS, with perfect SAT scores from very competitive private HS was also just waitlisted at Colby but accepted by much "better" schools. Actually kind of pissed that he applied there in retrospect, playing right into their scheme.

Plus they're probably concerned about yield. She's such a strong applicant they think she's unlikely to go to Colby or Bowdoin.