I loved my experience at my teeny tiny unknown WASP school. Was it perfect? No. Were there trade-offs that came with being at a small LAC? Yes. But it was right for me and I’m sure there are others who feel the same.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in the real world care about these teeny tiny schools. They're like elite boarding schools, I'm sure there is good learning and a small but mighty network of alums, but it really doesn't amount to much. The reality is most adults in the US and world has never heard of any of these tiny lacs.

I may know you. You mistake school size for quality and prestige even if there is a 45-55 point gap between admit rates. Wisconsin is a top research school but your DC is in marketing so DK how that helps them.

Many US adults do not know much about schools outside their own state, maybe even their region. Not clear why the opinions of “most adults” in the world is relevant for students not looking for international careers.

Our DC has co-authored two research papers in the health sciences as an UG at one of these “teeny tiny schools” now in junior year. This research was undertaken at two R1 institutions. DC learned about these opportunities from a “small but mighty network of alums” who like to hire students from their alma mater as they know they will be rock stars.

LACs are not for everyone but so what. Why even expend a scintilla of brain power on teeny tiny schools and their small but mighty network of alums - focus on the schools where you want your kids to go and have a shot at being admitted.

Do people think schools that can hardly attract more than 15,000 apps are elite now?

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in the real world care about these teeny tiny schools. They're like elite boarding schools, I'm sure there is good learning and a small but mighty network of alums, but it really doesn't amount to much. The reality is most adults in the US and world has never heard of any of these tiny lacs.

And?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

It truly depends on the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

As a parent of a D1 athlete that was recruited by several NESCAC schools, and who had at least 5 teammates that went NESCAC, I can tell you that the standards aren’t as high as you seem to believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

This is how you demonstrate that you don’t understand NESCAC athletics without coming right out and saying it. The average NESCAC athlete is a stronger student than the average student. The recruiting rules pretty much require it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

That will be interesting to see. They have a lower yield rate than some of their peer schools.

NP how so? I mean, certainly the lower the traditional yield, the higher the acceptance rate. if a college has a 40% yield, which wouldn't be uncommon (some of these same students will be getting into HYP with better FA), then they have to accept more kids.

So if Amherst is able to fill their class while accepting 5%, that's pretty impressive.

Pomona and Bowdoin have yield rates around 50%. Amherst gets more applications, but if they can’t convert those accepted to enrolled, the added apps doesn’t mean much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Why does an “elite” peer group matter to an individual student? When you factor in the 600 athletes of the 1900 enrolled that dilutes the academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

A 5% acceptance rate signals an elite peer group, so I’d say yes. Plus the attention to UG pedagogy at SLACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

That will be interesting to see. They have a lower yield rate than some of their peer schools.

NP how so? I mean, certainly the lower the traditional yield, the higher the acceptance rate. if a college has a 40% yield, which wouldn't be uncommon (some of these same students will be getting into HYP with better FA), then they have to accept more kids.

So if Amherst is able to fill their class while accepting 5%, that's pretty impressive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

That will be interesting to see. They have a lower yield rate than some of their peer schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

On this site it is the only thing that matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.

Does more applicants than enrolled slots make the education elite?

Anonymous wrote:Amherst Early Writes out. Did anyone get one? Letter says 17,500 applicants this cycle, up 2K from last year, which set a record. That means acceptance rate 5-6% versus 7% last year.

Well I think this answers the elite question.