Anonymous wrote:Pomona has a yield rate of 48% and has great weather.

Isn't that a high yield? I checked their common data set and they actually list 54.5% for the current first year class: https://www.pomona.edu/sites/default/files/cds-2017-2018.pdf

Pomona has a yield rate of 48% and has great weather.

Many slacs are a safety valve for privileged white families whose privileged kids don’t make the cut at better schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The link for Williams is a bit hard to read, but I find it interesting for the others that the Florida numbers are so low. I'm going to avoid a comparison with the regional states and look at other states.

Swarthmore (in Pennsylvania) says 36 students are from Florida while 180 are from California. Florida has half the population of California, so it's severely underrepresented.

Pomona (in California) says 42 students are from Florida and 80 are from New York. Both states have similar populations...again, underrepresented.

Carleton (in Minnesota) says 5 from 2021 are from Florida while 61 are from California- the most stark discrepancy yet.

I found Bowdoin (in Maine) as well- https://www.bowdoin.edu/ir/data/entering-first-year-class.shtml- 7 from Florida, 53 from California. As stark as Carleton.

For whatever reason, LACs are not popular by Florida high school students.

It is at least partly a class and culture issue.

+1 Traditionally, lower and middle class parents were solely focused on their child going to college to obtain the credentials and education necessary to obtain a job....which took LACs off the table.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you grew up in South Florida - one of the most diverse places in the country, great weather, etc...I can't imagine going to some tiny LAC in the middle of (very homogeneous) no where.

This!

That assumes that everyone prefers South Florida weather, which is certainly not true.

Well, I am sitting in - 7 weather right now and we have forecasts for it to get colder over the next few days. So, yes, I could do with some warmth and a bit of sunshine in my old S. Florida home town - and oh to see the ocean!

And I love the cold weather. DC is too temperate for me and you could not pay me enough to live in Florida.

Different strokes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you grew up in South Florida - one of the most diverse places in the country, great weather, etc...I can't imagine going to some tiny LAC in the middle of (very homogeneous) no where.

This!

That assumes that everyone prefers South Florida weather, which is certainly not true.

Well, I am sitting in - 7 weather right now and we have forecasts for it to get colder over the next few days. So, yes, I could do with some warmth and a bit of sunshine in my old S. Florida home town - and oh to see the ocean!

Anonymous wrote:On the whole Ivy vs. LAC thing, I don't think top LACs are being held in the same regard as the Ivies by the top students. The yield difference is substantial. The average yield for the 8 Ivies is 64%. The average yield for the top 10 LACs is 44%. Amherst/Swarthmore/Williams have an average yield of 41%.

Some of the Ivies lack early processes, while others like Cornell, Columbia, and Brown fill in a fewer percent of their class with ED than the LACs. If you just focus on the regular decision yields, every Ivy is above 40%, Williams and Amherst are at 30%, and Swarthmore is at 26%. The two LACs which come closest are Pomona and Wellesley at 37%, but that's still lagging behind the Ivies.

A survey given at Dartmouth cited that Williams and Amherst were in the top 5 schools most frequently turned down by current students. Middlebury was near the top as well: http://www.dartblog.com/data/2017/02/013116.php

Hard to make a case for LACs with the dynamic energy of the university experience, access to rich research, and a shifting of the curriculum to be more akin to the LACs. HYP and UChicago actually have a higher percent of classes under 20 students than any top LAC.

All of your statistics aren't helpful to a DC going through the college selection process......they're just numbers. For our family one DC was much better suited for a LAC and the other chose an Ivy. Two different people with different needs. Analyzing the relative yields of LACs vs Ivies strikes me a a particularly useless exercise. Children that are interested in LACs typically apply to quite a few in the same cohort as they are far more similar than dissimilar. So sure, Midd, Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin will all cannibalize one another.

Anonymous wrote:On the whole Ivy vs. LAC thing, I don't think top LACs are being held in the same regard as the Ivies by the top students. The yield difference is substantial. The average yield for the 8 Ivies is 64%. The average yield for the top 10 LACs is 44%. Amherst/Swarthmore/Williams have an average yield of 41%.

Some of the Ivies lack early processes, while others like Cornell, Columbia, and Brown fill in a fewer percent of their class with ED than the LACs. If you just focus on the regular decision yields, every Ivy is above 40%, Williams and Amherst are at 30%, and Swarthmore is at 26%. The two LACs which come closest are Pomona and Wellesley at 37%, but that's still lagging behind the Ivies.

A survey given at Dartmouth cited that Williams and Amherst were in the top 5 schools most frequently turned down by current students. Middlebury was near the top as well: http://www.dartblog.com/data/2017/02/013116.php

Hard to make a case for LACs with the dynamic energy of the university experience, access to rich research, and a shifting of the curriculum to be more akin to the LACs. HYP and UChicago actually have a higher percent of classes under 20 students than any top LAC.

My kid had this decision to make between a top LAC and one of the universities on your list. His experience is as you've outlined. But, he is a very resilient, a strong self advocate and his independence needed a larger space to roam if you will. That's not true for all kids, some flourish and learn best in a cosier environment with faculty that will actively work to push the student along. IMO looking at yields at LACs doesn't tell you much about what is important. Up to college, some parents are actively involved with structuring a kid's education so although most top students don't pick LACs, that doesn't mean it's not the right choice for some top students who may need a gradual transition. Again not my personal experience but as we toured schools, I came to really appreciate the benefits that LACs bring to the table.

On the whole Ivy vs. LAC thing, I don't think top LACs are being held in the same regard as the Ivies by the top students. The yield difference is substantial. The average yield for the 8 Ivies is 64%. The average yield for the top 10 LACs is 44%. Amherst/Swarthmore/Williams have an average yield of 41%.

Some of the Ivies lack early processes, while others like Cornell, Columbia, and Brown fill in a fewer percent of their class with ED than the LACs. If you just focus on the regular decision yields, every Ivy is above 40%, Williams and Amherst are at 30%, and Swarthmore is at 26%. The two LACs which come closest are Pomona and Wellesley at 37%, but that's still lagging behind the Ivies.

A survey given at Dartmouth cited that Williams and Amherst were in the top 5 schools most frequently turned down by current students. Middlebury was near the top as well: http://www.dartblog.com/data/2017/02/013116.php

Hard to make a case for LACs with the dynamic energy of the university experience, access to rich research, and a shifting of the curriculum to be more akin to the LACs. HYP and UChicago actually have a higher percent of classes under 20 students than any top LAC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these SLACs are just as difficult as the Ivys to get into. Pomona has a sub 10% acceptance rate and top ranked schools like Amherst are getting close with record applications this year.

https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/C%2520Admission_1.pdf

The middle 50% SAT range for ENROLLED students at Amherst is higher than many of the Ivys: 720-770 Verbal and 710-790 Math. The top 25% of enrolled Amherst students have SATs higher than 1560/1600.

And the endowments of the top SLACs are higher on a per student basis than many Ivys (but behind Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Stanford):
https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent

Amherst is very sneaky about testing. They only report the highest submitted between the ACT and SAT by each student (you'll see the total for scores submitted adds up to exactly 100%). The other Ivies and SLACs report every test score when students report both instead of cherry-picking the highest, bringing their numbers down. And then some universities only report the highest single setting score, instead of a superscore. Amherst has done this starting from last year to do well on US News's "selectivity" benchmark. I'd be careful about making a statement that their testing is inherently higher- it probably isn't. The fact that only 83% ranked in the top 10%, while every other Ivy besides Cornell is at 92%+, is telling.

How do you know this is true? Amherst admissions hasn't made any statements to this effect. I'm a Williams grad and there have been musings on a Williams alumni board that because Amherst's scores are higher than Williams, they MUST be doing something funny. On the flip side, Williams reports 91% in the top 10% but some say Williams and some Ivies include kids who come from high schools that don't rank at all (such as in Fairfax County) in the top 10% just based on their transcripts while Amherst does not include these unranked kids. So unless there is a uniform way for colleges to complete their common data sets it is difficult to compare peer schools at the granular level. What is clear is that for all these highly selective schools including SLACs that the bar has been raised significantly over the last 10 years as far as the quality of kids they are accepting at least based on test scores, GPA and # of APs taken.

I explained why. Amherst is choosing between the higher of the two scores when enrolled students submit both. This is not what Williams, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Carleton, Pomona, Vassar, Middlebury, etc. do. It is purposefully done to inflate their testing more than it actually is for the U.S. News rank boost.

To give an example of two schools:

Swarthmore- Total of scores submitted = 118%. 690-760; 690-780; 31-34
Amherst- Total of scores submitted = 100%. 720-770; 710-790; 32-34

If Swarthmore intentionally got rid of the bottom 18% to hit 100%, its testing would be pretty much identical or higher than Amherst, pushing both the 25% and 75% range up since those below the 25% would be eliminated. But they don't, because the understanding by these schools is to report both superscores or single settings (if available). The percent of the totals at most schools will be well above 100%. On the corollary, the actual median SAT and ACT of the students at Amherst is lower than what U.S. News and the CDS would have you think.

With the way Claremont McKenna purposefully inflated their scores several year back, I would not be surprised about suspicious string-pulling happening to preserve the status quo for any of the top 10 LACs. That includes Swarthmore. Amherst has a fully viewable instance of manipulation, so when someone on the board wants to give them kudos for being as selective as an Ivy, they should keep the reality in mind. The Ivies don't hide test scores submitted when an applicant has both.

I agree that LACs and most universities have become more competitive now than they were before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these SLACs are just as difficult as the Ivys to get into. Pomona has a sub 10% acceptance rate and top ranked schools like Amherst are getting close with record applications this year.

https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/C%2520Admission_1.pdf

The middle 50% SAT range for ENROLLED students at Amherst is higher than many of the Ivys: 720-770 Verbal and 710-790 Math. The top 25% of enrolled Amherst students have SATs higher than 1560/1600.

And the endowments of the top SLACs are higher on a per student basis than many Ivys (but behind Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Stanford):
https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent

Amherst is very sneaky about testing. They only report the highest submitted between the ACT and SAT by each student (you'll see the total for scores submitted adds up to exactly 100%). The other Ivies and SLACs report every test score when students report both instead of cherry-picking the highest, bringing their numbers down. And then some universities only report the highest single setting score, instead of a superscore. Amherst has done this starting from last year to do well on US News's "selectivity" benchmark. I'd be careful about making a statement that their testing is inherently higher- it probably isn't. The fact that only 83% ranked in the top 10%, while every other Ivy besides Cornell is at 92%+, is telling.

How do you know this is true? Amherst admissions hasn't made any statements to this effect. I'm a Williams grad and there have been musings on a Williams alumni board that because Amherst's scores are higher than Williams, they MUST be doing something funny. On the flip side, Williams reports 91% in the top 10% but some say Williams and some Ivies include kids who come from high schools that don't rank at all (such as in Fairfax County) in the top 10% just based on their transcripts while Amherst does not include these unranked kids. So unless there is a uniform way for colleges to complete their common data sets it is difficult to compare peer schools at the granular level. What is clear is that for all these highly selective schools including SLACs that the bar has been raised significantly over the last 10 years as far as the quality of kids they are accepting at least based on test scores, GPA and # of APs taken.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you grew up in South Florida - one of the most diverse places in the country, great weather, etc...I can't imagine going to some tiny LAC in the middle of (very homogeneous) no where.

This!

That assumes that everyone prefers South Florida weather, which is certainly not true.

Anonymous wrote:If you grew up in South Florida - one of the most diverse places in the country, great weather, etc...I can't imagine going to some tiny LAC in the middle of (very homogeneous) no where.

This!

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but as I said the specific schools mentioned above were not on my radar as a kid in South Florida. The service academies, yes. State flagships? Yes. Catholic universities? But small, northeastern liberal arts colleges? No. Some Southern one, like Davidson and Wake Forest? Yes. I guess, what I am saying, is that this appears to be regional and there are schools that end up on a student's list b/c of the are of the country they grow up in.

Essentially this is just regional variation and proximity. Students from FL know about and attend Davidson and Wake (and Emory ad Washington and Lee, etc.). Ppl from points further north know about and attend NESCAC colleges

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of these SLACs are just as difficult as the Ivys to get into. Pomona has a sub 10% acceptance rate and top ranked schools like Amherst are getting close with record applications this year.

https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/C%2520Admission_1.pdf

The middle 50% SAT range for ENROLLED students at Amherst is higher than many of the Ivys: 720-770 Verbal and 710-790 Math. The top 25% of enrolled Amherst students have SATs higher than 1560/1600.

And the endowments of the top SLACs are higher on a per student basis than many Ivys (but behind Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Stanford):
https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent

Well, I can sure wipe my a** with that info. It would be great if they share that with the entire student body. Almost all donut-hole families a.k.a. middle class get nothing out of this. It's a meaningless statistic.

NOT middle class. Firmly in the upper-middle class category.

That's just a play on words. My rules (don't care about others') Income under 100K - Poor; 100-250 - Middle class; 250-500 upper middle class; > 500K- Rich.

LOL.

But seriously, many SLACs especially those outside of the top 15 or so grant significant amounts of merit aid to kids who you might not think would otherwise get merit aid. I had a 31 on the ACT back in the day (and before you say how much more competitive everything has gotten, that put me in the 90-95% range, so not, like, amaaaazing) and won the top-tier scholarship to Claremont McKenna (which I didn't take), effectively swiping off 75% of the tuition at the time -- and that was before the need based aid, the loans, and the work study. The sticker shock at these colleges is high, but many students pay far less.

Also, OP, have you heard of Eckerd? Rollins? The New School?