Anonymous wrote:

I prefer A/S/P over Williams but objectively, there's no denying Williams is superior. In fact, Williams consistently wins cross admit battles against Amherst and hit a much higher yield recently (59% vs Amherst and Swat's 40-45%).

Williams has a smaller student to faculty ratio, smaller classes (nearly 80% under 20 vs 65-75% at the others), better maintained facilities (Swat might be prettier but the buildings themselves aren't in the best physical shape), winter study and tutorials for truly distinctive academic experiences, the top d3 athletic program, stronger students by academic standards, and better outcomes based on most outcome oriented rankings. You also get access to the most comprehensive network of Oxford/Cambridge fellowships and study away of any school in the country.

It's a really good school. If it were in a suburban area or had the consortium access the others do, it'd crush the competition.

It's best to be careful when arguing for prestige from published yield numbers for SLACs (or any selective university with ED, for that matter). Yield numbers include those accepted through ED, for whom the yield is typically above 95%. Many selective colleges and universities recruit more than half their classes through ED, boosting their yield numbers. Schools like Chicago and Tulane are infamous for this practice. However, when one looks at yield in regular decision, where there is actual customer choice involved (and hard choices are made regarding cost/benefit), the numbers tell a different story. Here's a list of elite SLACs, with their RD yields (all these numbers are from published institutional data for class of 2026):

Wesleyan 0.19
Middlebury 0.21
Williams 0.21
Swarthmore 0.26
Haverford 0.28
Carleton 0.28
CMC 0.28
Amherst 0.29
Pomona 0.29

Bowdoin 0.41

For comparison, here are RD yields for some highly selective universities with ED:
Duke 0.44
Northwestern 0.44
Brown 0.49
Cornell 0.50
Columbia 0.50
Dartmouth 0.52
UPenn 0.58

Yieldwise, the SLACs (with the exception of Bowdoin) aren't even in the same league as the selective universities. Make of this what you will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vassar and Smith should be lower. Richmond perhaps as well. CMC is a little too close to the sun

Why? We were very impressed with Vassar.

I’m always surprised Vassar is not more popular. I don’t know what I am missing about it.

Vassar test scores are in line with peers and endowment is comparable but it is culturally and socially defective. Only a certain type of student is drawn to the school, which makes it one of the least intellectually diverse and vibrant colleges in America. As a result of this, Vassar struggles to attract male students esp heterosexual males. The student body lacks geographic diversity for the same reason- heavy tilt towards NY area. If you read through college confidential, there is an extraordinary amount of negativity coming from current and former students, specifically related to the drug culture, weird social scene, etc, while the school’s art programs are overhyped. The imbalanced campus culture has led to a reputational decline from its glory days as a Wellesley peer. Teaching quality is low due to heavy ideological bias. Poughkeepsie is universally regarded as dreadful while accessibility to NYC is overestimated from outside. While its proximity to the tristate area gives it access to high stat students, and the endowment is large enough to sustain good financial aid, it should probably be ranked more in line with Oberlin, which is also kept afloat by a large endowment despite a similarly imbalanced campus culture.

Hmmm....have a kid at Vassar and am puzzled by the sweeping claims made above. Many different types of students, including v. mainstream kids looking to go into finance and consulting. The campus leans woke, as is common at LACs, but there is no shortage of kids who are pretty middle-of-the-road and fit in well.

I'm absolutely delighted by the diverse set of friends my kid has made in terms of interests, ethnicity, state/country of origin, and socio-economic background. They just spent part of spring break hanging out in NYC. Seem to make a trip down there once or twice a semester.

Teaching quality is v. good (as one would expect) and faculty are very accessible. Students take academics seriously but the atmosphere is not a high-pressure one in my kid's experience. Vassar has afforded my kid a wonderful range of opportunities both on and off campus.

About 38% of the student body is male, in line with the national average. By comparison, 37% of GW undergrads are male, and 43% of G'town undergrads (data from USNWR).

Poughkeepsie has certainly seen better days. However, the n'hood adjacent to campus is a nice one with student-friendly eateries and bars, including a 24-hour diner. The campus is gorgeous and we always enjoy visiting it.

38% is quite low for a top 30 SLAC which tend to be in the mid 40s. 40% is the danger zone when both girls and boys are turned off by the imbalance. So Vassar must be stretching hard to get boys if it can only muster up 38%. The percentage of gay males also appears to be very high for any school--further exacerbating the lack of diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:overrated - Colby and Richmond; to a lesser extent, Bowdoin

underrated - Haverford, Macalester and Wesleyan

Agree and would add Carleton.

Carleton has been the underrated but great SLAC at least since I was looking 20 years ago. I think that it's reached the point where so many people consider it underrated that it may actually be overrated

#6 isn't really underrated territory. I would personally slide Midd over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vassar and Smith should be lower. Richmond perhaps as well. CMC is a little too close to the sun

Why? We were very impressed with Vassar.

I’m always surprised Vassar is not more popular. I don’t know what I am missing about it.

Vassar test scores are in line with peers and endowment is comparable but it is culturally and socially defective. Only a certain type of student is drawn to the school, which makes it one of the least intellectually diverse and vibrant colleges in America. As a result of this, Vassar struggles to attract male students esp heterosexual males. The student body lacks geographic diversity for the same reason- heavy tilt towards NY area. If you read through college confidential, there is an extraordinary amount of negativity coming from current and former students, specifically related to the drug culture, weird social scene, etc, while the school’s art programs are overhyped. The imbalanced campus culture has led to a reputational decline from its glory days as a Wellesley peer. Teaching quality is low due to heavy ideological bias. Poughkeepsie is universally regarded as dreadful while accessibility to NYC is overestimated from outside. While its proximity to the tristate area gives it access to high stat students, and the endowment is large enough to sustain good financial aid, it should probably be ranked more in line with Oberlin, which is also kept afloat by a large endowment despite a similarly imbalanced campus culture.

Hmmm....have a kid at Vassar and am puzzled by the sweeping claims made above. Many different types of students, including v. mainstream kids looking to go into finance and consulting. The campus leans woke, as is common at LACs, but there is no shortage of kids who are pretty middle-of-the-road and fit in well.

I'm absolutely delighted by the diverse set of friends my kid has made in terms of interests, ethnicity, state/country of origin, and socio-economic background. They just spent part of spring break hanging out in NYC. Seem to make a trip down there once or twice a semester.

Teaching quality is v. good (as one would expect) and faculty are very accessible. Students take academics seriously but the atmosphere is not a high-pressure one in my kid's experience. Vassar has afforded my kid a wonderful range of opportunities both on and off campus.

About 38% of the student body is male, in line with the national average. By comparison, 37% of GW undergrads are male, and 43% of G'town undergrads (data from USNWR).

Poughkeepsie has certainly seen better days. However, the n'hood adjacent to campus is a nice one with student-friendly eateries and bars, including a 24-hour diner. The campus is gorgeous and we always enjoy visiting it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:overrated - Colby and Richmond; to a lesser extent, Bowdoin

underrated - Haverford, Macalester and Wesleyan

Agree and would add Carleton.

Carleton has been the underrated but great SLAC at least since I was looking 20 years ago. I think that it's reached the point where so many people consider it underrated that it may actually be overrated

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

That is an unfair assessment of merit aid. All colleges want to attract the best students they can (and climb the rankings). Need blind financial aid is also a tool to attract students who might otherwise feel disadvantaged in the application process. Does merit aid really target the wealthy? All things being equal, a wealthy kid would go to the most prestigious school he gets into, not the one that is providing the largest discount. Merit aid therefore really targets the middle class or upper middle class kid who qualifies for little or no financial aid. In the context of LACs, a family that is borderline for need based aid would probably hesitate to shell out 80k a year (versus much cheaper in state alternatives, for example) and would be wise to do so. So if such a kid wants the LAC experience, merit aid may be the only possibility. Should this kid be denied that opportunity? Only lower middle class and wealthy kids should have access to it?

Your attitude is very snotty. Schools that provide merit aid are doing a tremendous service to families in the middle and appropriately rewarding some of our country's best, hardest working kids.

DP. You're talking about how you'd like the world to work to benefit you. Ideally merit aid should be unrelated to need, meaning it's given to any applicant the school wants to attract. That includes many wealthy applicants, and yes some some schools specifically target wealthy families, why wouldn't they? Coupons often encourage people to spend more, they often are handed out selectively, this isn't unique to colleges.

Not really. My DC is headed off to a school that provides merit aid but we will not be getting any. I am happy this school provides merit aid because it means DC will be surrounded by many strong students from middle class/upper middle class backgrounds, some of whom probably got into very top ranked schools. The school provides both need based aid and merit aid. Again, wealthy people don't really care about 10-30k discounts. Perhaps some of the merit aid does go to what you might consider a "very wealthy" kid - so be it. He or she earned it. The savings can be spent on grad school.

That's wishful thinking. Merit aid is not tied to income, so nothing saying it brings more MC families in. Merit aid is something schools offer when they are trying to grow their applications, but by design it's a limited time offer (at least they'd like it to be). A school like Reed has exited that phase, and can focus all their aid into need. The next level is to offer even more need based aid, like packages with zero loans, and to more income levels.

Nothing saying it will bring more middle class families in but... logic! If someone is a mega-millionaire, do you think they care about saving $20k a year on their kid's education? Do you think they would turn down Williams because they got $35k from Dickinson? of course not. Merit aid appeals to families for whom $50-100K is a lot of money and for whom that kind of money is so important they are willing to accept a lower "prestige" degree. Rich people apply ED and that is half the class. They are price insensitive and just want their kid to go to the best school possible. Not so rich people evaluate offers RD. There are some exceptions where rich people are swayed by the merit award, but I think it's odd to argue that these sums of money matter more to people who have a lot of money as opposed to people who don't have a lot of money.

LOL that "Reed has exited that phase." Reed is dog poop compared with the list of schools that offer merit aid provided above. Reed's test score profile is inferior to all of them.

The merit aid schools will win long-term because there will be no reason for top students to pay a premium for what will be a non-premium product.

They've exited because they don't do it, and yet still stay afloat, that's an observation. Logic is fine, but how about comparing enrolment demographics? Sounds like, for whatever reason, you're interested in schools where family incomes over 110K but under maybe 500K are well represented (top 20% but not top 1%-ish)? That's Reed. By the numbers, the families you want to be around are willing to full pay at Reed, while much wealthier families end up at Dickinson. This is even more pronounced at a school like Kenyon, which is also known for merit. Offering coupons to wealthy families is very much a thing, maybe they're amused, but they take them.

You cannot possibly have access to any data that show there is a greater proportion of 100k to 500k kids at Reed versus Dickinson and Kenyon. It is beyond irrational to speculate that middle class plus families are happy to go into debt for a Reed degree (not particularly known for having a lot of commercial value) while the families drawn to merit awards at Dickinson or Kenyon are fat cats who just love a good bargain when it comes their way (and will turn down higher ranked schools for that amusing coupon). You are just making completely unsubstantiated statements that defy common sense.

I'm interested in schools that find the most talented interesting kids across the income spectrum. Merit aid schools do a good job of that. They do offer significant need based aid. They offer ED to wealthier families who are willing to pay full price if they get in. And they offer merit aid to appeal to kids of all economic backgrounds who will lift up the academic profile of the school.

Google broken? Check the access numbers here, for example. Doesn't check with your *logic*. Maybe the families that pay for Reed are chumps, but they're the demographic you're looking for, yet they weren't baited with merit aid:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/reed-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/dickinson-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/kenyon-college

Your argument amounts to... Kenyon has a high percentage of rich kids and offers merit aid... therefore merit aid is a tool to attract rich families. But why then do peer schools like Bates and Colby have even higher percentages of rich kids (with no merit aid)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona should be above, or at least with, Williams at this point. Williams and Princeton have been USNWR darlings for a decade+ but people are still choosing to go to Harvard and Stanford instead for national universities and to Amherst and Swarthmore for SLACs.

I prefer A/S/P over Williams but objectively, there's no denying Williams is superior. In fact, Williams consistently wins cross admit battles against Amherst and hit a much higher yield recently (59% vs Amherst and Swat's 40-45%).

Williams has a smaller student to faculty ratio, smaller classes (nearly 80% under 20 vs 65-75% at the others), better maintained facilities (Swat might be prettier but the buildings themselves aren't in the best physical shape), winter study and tutorials for truly distinctive academic experiences, the top d3 athletic program, stronger students by academic standards, and better outcomes based on most outcome oriented rankings. You also get access to the most comprehensive network of Oxford/Cambridge fellowships and study away of any school in the country.

It's a really good school. If it were in a suburban area or had the consortium access the others do, it'd crush the competition.

I've got no dog in this fight--didn't go there, kid could never get in--but Williams is the LAC gold standard.

Would you kindly elaborate?

From everything I know about that school, and from people I know who are professionally involved with NESCAC schools, it is just the one that does everything right. As the other poster mentioned, it kicks butt on every metric. Reputationally on the east coast, especially in business world, it is most respected. It might skew a little corporate--as say Dartmouth does vs Brown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona should be above, or at least with, Williams at this point. Williams and Princeton have been USNWR darlings for a decade+ but people are still choosing to go to Harvard and Stanford instead for national universities and to Amherst and Swarthmore for SLACs.

I prefer A/S/P over Williams but objectively, there's no denying Williams is superior. In fact, Williams consistently wins cross admit battles against Amherst and hit a much higher yield recently (59% vs Amherst and Swat's 40-45%).

Williams has a smaller student to faculty ratio, smaller classes (nearly 80% under 20 vs 65-75% at the others), better maintained facilities (Swat might be prettier but the buildings themselves aren't in the best physical shape), winter study and tutorials for truly distinctive academic experiences, the top d3 athletic program, stronger students by academic standards, and better outcomes based on most outcome oriented rankings. You also get access to the most comprehensive network of Oxford/Cambridge fellowships and study away of any school in the country.

It's a really good school. If it were in a suburban area or had the consortium access the others do, it'd crush the competition.

I've got no dog in this fight--didn't go there, kid could never get in--but Williams is the LAC gold standard.

Would you kindly elaborate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:overrated - Colby and Richmond; to a lesser extent, Bowdoin

underrated - Haverford, Macalester and Wesleyan

Agree and would add Carleton.

(as underrated)

Anonymous wrote:overrated - Colby and Richmond; to a lesser extent, Bowdoin

underrated - Haverford, Macalester and Wesleyan

Agree and would add Carleton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vassar and Smith should be lower. Richmond perhaps as well. CMC is a little too close to the sun

Why? We were very impressed with Vassar.

I’m always surprised Vassar is not more popular. I don’t know what I am missing about it.

Vassar test scores are in line with peers and endowment is comparable but it is culturally and socially defective. Only a certain type of student is drawn to the school, which makes it one of the least intellectually diverse and vibrant colleges in America. As a result of this, Vassar struggles to attract male students esp heterosexual males. The student body lacks geographic diversity for the same reason- heavy tilt towards NY area. If you read through college confidential, there is an extraordinary amount of negativity coming from current and former students, specifically related to the drug culture, weird social scene, etc, while the school’s art programs are overhyped. The imbalanced campus culture has led to a reputational decline from its glory days as a Wellesley peer. Teaching quality is low due to heavy ideological bias. Poughkeepsie is universally regarded as dreadful while accessibility to NYC is overestimated from outside. While its proximity to the tristate area gives it access to high stat students, and the endowment is large enough to sustain good financial aid, it should probably be ranked more in line with Oberlin, which is also kept afloat by a large endowment despite a similarly imbalanced campus culture.

I can see a little of this, could be more diverse, but your assessment reeks of your political bias. My kid applied there (and Wheaton, IL, so don't try to claim we're too lefty). We were very impressed at accepted students day with students and faculty. We had not heard anything of "weird social scene." They have a great reputation for programs, so not buying overhyped. Sure, admitted students were more female and LGBTQ than other campuses, but there was some variety. Kids were nit largely from NY, they were from all over. Mine ultimately chose an Ivy that gave better FA, but definitely considered Vassar. I would rank Vassar higher than Oberlin (interesting you had a dig at them too). You seem on a mission. There may be fair criticism, but yours seems particularly suspect.

25% is from NY. https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/vassar-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-diversity.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education should allow freedom of speech, respect differing opinions, and encourage intellectual discourse presented from a variety of perspectives. Ultra-liberal, leftist schools are intolerant of opposing thought.

And schools that fail to promote this type of environment will suffer in the marketplace. How many non-LGBTQ males who get 1500 on their SATs would choose Vassar over all their other options? Oberlin is way off the charts now, and Wesleyan has plunged as well. Haverford has declined, now tied with Richmond (which has a conservative reputation). Reed is nowhere to be found. W&L is thriving. Southern schools in general are thriving. Who wants to go to school with a bunch of angry single minded activists who can't even have a conversation but can only call you names?

Whoah you are so clearly in a suburban bubble. Vassar and oberlin are very popular with the boys in our Brooklyn crowd

That is exactly my point. They are ONLY popular with the Brooklyn crowd.

A quarter of Vassar comes from NY - so it's even a larger percentage of the domestic student population. It basically just draws from 5 states where wokeness prevails.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/vassar-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-diversity.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona should be above, or at least with, Williams at this point. Williams and Princeton have been USNWR darlings for a decade+ but people are still choosing to go to Harvard and Stanford instead for national universities and to Amherst and Swarthmore for SLACs.

I prefer A/S/P over Williams but objectively, there's no denying Williams is superior. In fact, Williams consistently wins cross admit battles against Amherst and hit a much higher yield recently (59% vs Amherst and Swat's 40-45%).

Williams has a smaller student to faculty ratio, smaller classes (nearly 80% under 20 vs 65-75% at the others), better maintained facilities (Swat might be prettier but the buildings themselves aren't in the best physical shape), winter study and tutorials for truly distinctive academic experiences, the top d3 athletic program, stronger students by academic standards, and better outcomes based on most outcome oriented rankings. You also get access to the most comprehensive network of Oxford/Cambridge fellowships and study away of any school in the country.

It's a really good school. If it were in a suburban area or had the consortium access the others do, it'd crush the competition.

I've got no dog in this fight--didn't go there, kid could never get in--but Williams is the LAC gold standard.

Anonymous wrote:For those of you complaining that LACs on the USNWR list are too far left, remember that the 3 military academies are great schools in the LAC top 20. They shouldn't be too liberal for most applicants !

Washington and Lee is also pretty conservative. Consistent top 15 LAC, some years top 10 on USN

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

That is an unfair assessment of merit aid. All colleges want to attract the best students they can (and climb the rankings). Need blind financial aid is also a tool to attract students who might otherwise feel disadvantaged in the application process. Does merit aid really target the wealthy? All things being equal, a wealthy kid would go to the most prestigious school he gets into, not the one that is providing the largest discount. Merit aid therefore really targets the middle class or upper middle class kid who qualifies for little or no financial aid. In the context of LACs, a family that is borderline for need based aid would probably hesitate to shell out 80k a year (versus much cheaper in state alternatives, for example) and would be wise to do so. So if such a kid wants the LAC experience, merit aid may be the only possibility. Should this kid be denied that opportunity? Only lower middle class and wealthy kids should have access to it?

Your attitude is very snotty. Schools that provide merit aid are doing a tremendous service to families in the middle and appropriately rewarding some of our country's best, hardest working kids.

DP. You're talking about how you'd like the world to work to benefit you. Ideally merit aid should be unrelated to need, meaning it's given to any applicant the school wants to attract. That includes many wealthy applicants, and yes some some schools specifically target wealthy families, why wouldn't they? Coupons often encourage people to spend more, they often are handed out selectively, this isn't unique to colleges.

Not really. My DC is headed off to a school that provides merit aid but we will not be getting any. I am happy this school provides merit aid because it means DC will be surrounded by many strong students from middle class/upper middle class backgrounds, some of whom probably got into very top ranked schools. The school provides both need based aid and merit aid. Again, wealthy people don't really care about 10-30k discounts. Perhaps some of the merit aid does go to what you might consider a "very wealthy" kid - so be it. He or she earned it. The savings can be spent on grad school.

That's wishful thinking. Merit aid is not tied to income, so nothing saying it brings more MC families in. Merit aid is something schools offer when they are trying to grow their applications, but by design it's a limited time offer (at least they'd like it to be). A school like Reed has exited that phase, and can focus all their aid into need. The next level is to offer even more need based aid, like packages with zero loans, and to more income levels.

Nothing saying it will bring more middle class families in but... logic! If someone is a mega-millionaire, do you think they care about saving $20k a year on their kid's education? Do you think they would turn down Williams because they got $35k from Dickinson? of course not. Merit aid appeals to families for whom $50-100K is a lot of money and for whom that kind of money is so important they are willing to accept a lower "prestige" degree. Rich people apply ED and that is half the class. They are price insensitive and just want their kid to go to the best school possible. Not so rich people evaluate offers RD. There are some exceptions where rich people are swayed by the merit award, but I think it's odd to argue that these sums of money matter more to people who have a lot of money as opposed to people who don't have a lot of money.

LOL that "Reed has exited that phase." Reed is dog poop compared with the list of schools that offer merit aid provided above. Reed's test score profile is inferior to all of them.

The merit aid schools will win long-term because there will be no reason for top students to pay a premium for what will be a non-premium product.

They've exited because they don't do it, and yet still stay afloat, that's an observation. Logic is fine, but how about comparing enrolment demographics? Sounds like, for whatever reason, you're interested in schools where family incomes over 110K but under maybe 500K are well represented (top 20% but not top 1%-ish)? That's Reed. By the numbers, the families you want to be around are willing to full pay at Reed, while much wealthier families end up at Dickinson. This is even more pronounced at a school like Kenyon, which is also known for merit. Offering coupons to wealthy families is very much a thing, maybe they're amused, but they take them.

You cannot possibly have access to any data that show there is a greater proportion of 100k to 500k kids at Reed versus Dickinson and Kenyon. It is beyond irrational to speculate that middle class plus families are happy to go into debt for a Reed degree (not particularly known for having a lot of commercial value) while the families drawn to merit awards at Dickinson or Kenyon are fat cats who just love a good bargain when it comes their way (and will turn down higher ranked schools for that amusing coupon). You are just making completely unsubstantiated statements that defy common sense.

I'm interested in schools that find the most talented interesting kids across the income spectrum. Merit aid schools do a good job of that. They do offer significant need based aid. They offer ED to wealthier families who are willing to pay full price if they get in. And they offer merit aid to appeal to kids of all economic backgrounds who will lift up the academic profile of the school.

Google broken? Check the access numbers here, for example. Doesn't check with your *logic*. Maybe the families that pay for Reed are chumps, but they're the demographic you're looking for, yet they weren't baited with merit aid:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/reed-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/dickinson-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/kenyon-college

Ok, you have the data, but it doesn't prove your point. Yes, Kenyon has a larger portion of its class coming from top 1% families than Reed does at 20%. But there is no reason to assume merit aid is why. No more than 25% of the students receive merit aid. And it is well known that wealthier families go ED, when you are committing without knowing if you will get merit aid and when merit aid awards are probably less frequent (because they already have you). 45% of Kenyon is admitted ED normally. So it's not logical to assume merit aid is the reason Kenyon skews very wealthy. Dickinson has merit aid as well but its student body composition more closely resembles Reed.