Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forbes:

17 Williams
19 CMC
23 Wellesley
24 Amherst
25 Bowdoin
27 Swarthmore
37 Pomona
47 Washington & Lee
48 Davidson

Davidson overhyped. T30-T35.

Ignorant and idiotic opinion. Next.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One data point - 30ish years ago I was waitlisted then ultimately did not get into Williams and Amherst but got into multiple Ivies. I would have definitely attended Williams over the Ivies, unclear about Amherst.

Williams competes with all Ivies but HYP, and might even occasionally win one of those battles, but that is not often.

Based on parchment survey student selects williams over harvard about 24% of the time a bit more for yale at 27% and a bit more for princeton at 33%. If you want a slac, and you know you would drown at a place like princeton,...

But all things being equal, you don't pick slac over any ivy+

you might not but plenty of other kids do.

How is this so hard to understand? Agree it's like arguing over which are the top 5 ice cream flavors.
This is idiocy.

Anonymous wrote:One data point - 30ish years ago I was waitlisted then ultimately did not get into Williams and Amherst but got into multiple Ivies. I would have definitely attended Williams over the Ivies, unclear about Amherst.

Williams competes with all Ivies but HYP, and might even occasionally win one of those battles, but that is not often.

Based on parchment survey student selects williams over harvard about 24% of the time a bit more for yale at 27% and a bit more for princeton at 33%. If you want a slac, and you know you would drown at a place like princeton,...

But all things being equal, you don't pick slac over any ivy+

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:asking as DH is saying these LA schools are equal prestige and education to at least the lower T20s and I disagree - think they should be lower. Yes great intimate educational experience, but can’t compare to a Vandy Rice Or WashU - should be lower imo -

I think the thread consensus is that you are definitely wrong.
Hubby is probably wrong.
You both underestimate top SLACs.
WASP hovers around non-HYP Ivies (but all above Cornell). Definitely all above Chicago.

You guys are nuts.

This is like asking where you would rank butter pecan as an ice cream flavor.

But if you were going to do it based on what people choose when given a choice, SLACs are not comparable to non HYP ivy.
It's probably not quite as desirable as Vanderbilt/Rice/Emory.
It's probably more desirable than NYU/USC/Northeastern.

For some people Williams is the perfect college because it is a SLAC but most people would take Vanderbilt over Williams
For others Annapolic is the perfect school
But the ivy draw is real and it is hard to ignore. Even Cornell/Brown/Dartmouth are generally more desirable than SLACs

Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, and Bowdoin are all regarded as good schools. If you're going to really mix things up, West Point and Annapolis should also be included.

In an overall list, I think West Point, Annapolis, and Williams get into the top 20. These are going to be strong people who will be highly recruited.

these people quoting page long posts make it difficult to stay engaged with the thread - just post ur original thought, we all get it

williams name is so well known it attracts some status seeking kids especially at privates - you start losing that superficial approach with amherst pomona swarthmore..

Anonymous wrote:Williams and Amherst and Swarthmore are comparable to T12-18 private range. They have never had quite the same percentage of true top kids, partly because 1/3 of the student body is recruited. The intelligence of the top 1/3 is akin to the top 2/3 or so of most ivies (cornell pre-TO had SAT ranges lower than the other ivies).
The LACs from #3 to 15 or so, inclusive of Claremont, Davidson, Wellesley, have student bodies that parallel the T18-30 range schools.

Below the T15ish LAC’s the quality of the average student drops fast and typically one would much better off at a good flagship

Your reasoning is so random but that is what happens when people put so much stock in these rankings. Do top SLACs recruit a bunch of athletes? Sure. Are some of their GPAs and scores lower than the average accepted? Sure. But no more than, say, Harvard's institutional priorities - in 2023 43% of white students at Harvard are either legacies, recruited athletes, or the children of major donors. That is JUST white students. From our private HS, the average GPA accepted to Harvard last year was 3.64 - for Williams it was 3.87. Amherst has done away with legacy preference altogether. The comparisons you are making are meaningless - and if schools like Harvard have shown us anything in the past year, it is that money is more important to them than just about anything else.

One data point - 30ish years ago I was waitlisted then ultimately did not get into Williams and Amherst but got into multiple Ivies. I would have definitely attended Williams over the Ivies, unclear about Amherst.

Williams competes with all Ivies but HYP, and might even occasionally win one of those battles, but that is not often.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hear all this banter about WASP schools being comparable to ivies, but are they really? where should Williams, Amherst, and Pomona fall on an overall list - somewhere in the mid 20s after Georgetown, UVA, USC, Lehigh, etc?

Generic rankings don't mean that much since an internationally known R1 university has many different resources to offer than a small liberal arts college. A SLAC is more comparable to a top notch boarding school but they are not as well known outside the US.

I worked in London for many years and while everyone in Europe has heard of Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton, etc. Almost no one had heard of Pomona, Carleton or Swarthmore or Amherst. But those SLACs are extremely relevant in certain regions of the US.

There are many flavors to rankings, and if small class size was ranked as the most meaningful category, SLACs would dominate the national rankings. They are a non-factor internationally. But honestly, each kid has their own criteria which is why rankings like USNWR, Forbes, etc. are not useful since we all don't care about or value the same criteria.

If reputation is important to you, the larger universities with global reputations will always dominate the SLACs. In terms of international reputation, SLACs would be below Ivies in terms of name recognition. But the value they provide is in great teaching, small classes, less overwhelming atmosphere. Carleton College has been lauded for its excellence in undergraduate teaching and if teaching quality was something that could be easily measured, who knows it may be ranked #1. But the reality is that it's much easier to measure the stuff USNWR etc likes to look at instead.

So go by what your student values, not name cache and national rankings.

Well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, because there are more kids of privilege at williams.

using older data from NYT, percentage of kids from top 1% (630k):
Williams College 18.1%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5.7%

They clearly must enroll a very high number of kids from the bottom say 60% in order to get the average net price down to $26k if your stats are correct.

If say 30% are full pay at $90k then that means nearly 70% aren’t paying much of anything in order to arrive at a $27k average net price.

At Williams? More like half are full pay.

It's almost like the WSJ numbers dont add up. Or any of these rankings when you look deeper into the numbers. Hmm.

It was 45% in 2022…and it probably is more like 40% now at least.

Luckily we have real numbers.

as of April 2025

Williams had 2071 enrolled students.
1222 applied for aid
1092 were granted aid.

So 47.3% were full pay.

I agree with statement that you should go with what your student prefers and not worry too much about how to compare rankings. Top SLACs have advantage in better mentoring from profs (and resulting better recommendations), small classes and focus on undergrad education, less competitive clubs and easier to get leadership in clubs, all of which can translate into advantage in law/grad school apps, also rabid alumni network can help with jobs. Ivies are R1, so better name recognition with ordinary folks and internationally, bigger departments mean more variety in classes, labs, often profs are at the very top of their fields, which can be exciting. Social scene is also very different, which might make Ivy or SLACs much much more attractive to a particular kid. I went to HYP, DC ed’d unhooked to WASP even though naviance showed much better chances at some Ivies, because WASP was first choice. Back in the day it wasn’t as easy to get info about differences between schools and I applied mostly based on rankings. Watching my DC’s process, I was surprised to find that once you really look at them a lot of the Ivies have features (frats, eating clubs, hyper-competitive clubs, very pre-professional vibe, very urban) that made them less attractive to my DC than several top SLACs; of course for some kids some of these features would be advantages. DC very happy with WASP choice, and for their major and career plans I think the SLAC is the same or maybe even a little better than most Ivies, but for another kid an Ivy might well be better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:asking as DH is saying these LA schools are equal prestige and education to at least the lower T20s and I disagree - think they should be lower. Yes great intimate educational experience, but can’t compare to a Vandy Rice Or WashU - should be lower imo -

can't compare in what way?

there's a lot that you can compare, obviously.

you could compare PhD placement or dining hall food.
you could compare 4-year graduation rates or mid-career income stats
you could compare golf teams or research grants.
you could compare start-up incubators or med school enrollment.

what are you asking? usually students have very specific feelings about small schools, either being very attracted or not at all interested.

+1. We are considering both universities and top slac and they are impossible to rank in the same list. The larger universities get their overall global reputations mostly through prestige of their faculty and their respective research programs, and not necessarily from the undergraduate experience. First decide if your dc wants one type of school or the other, then rank your preferences within that category using the factors important to you. You won’t find a great list that compares apples to oranges.

The fact remains that most SLAC applicants do apply to one or more national universities, and many national university applicants apply to SLACs. They get into both and then they implicitly compare prestige. They are not apples and oranges; they are colleges. It’s not like you are weighing going to college vs. entering the trades. The point is, nobody should be raising an eyebrow if you pick Williams over Brown - or vice versa.

Anonymous wrote:asking as DH is saying these LA schools are equal prestige and education to at least the lower T20s and I disagree - think they should be lower. Yes great intimate educational experience, but can’t compare to a Vandy Rice Or WashU - should be lower imo -

I think the thread consensus is that you are definitely wrong.
Hubby is probably wrong.
You both underestimate top SLACs.
WASP hovers around non-HYP Ivies (but all above Cornell). Definitely all above Chicago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, because there are more kids of privilege at williams.

using older data from NYT, percentage of kids from top 1% (630k):
Williams College 18.1%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5.7%

They clearly must enroll a very high number of kids from the bottom say 60% in order to get the average net price down to $26k if your stats are correct.

If say 30% are full pay at $90k then that means nearly 70% aren’t paying much of anything in order to arrive at a $27k average net price.

At Williams? More like half are full pay.

It's almost like the WSJ numbers dont add up. Or any of these rankings when you look deeper into the numbers. Hmm.

It was 45% in 2022…and it probably is more like 40% now at least.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, because there are more kids of privilege at williams.

using older data from NYT, percentage of kids from top 1% (630k):
Williams College 18.1%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5.7%

They clearly must enroll a very high number of kids from the bottom say 60% in order to get the average net price down to $26k if your stats are correct.

If say 30% are full pay at $90k then that means nearly 70% aren’t paying much of anything in order to arrive at a $27k average net price.

+1000