Anonymous wrote:A majority of LACs will not experience the endowment tax and have not experienced many research cuts from the government. They seem like they could gain a bit of popularity if they invest in student experience. What LACs do you see rising/have continued to rise? For example, some people think Pomona is Williams and Amherst level, which is REALLY surprising, since it was a party school for dolts when I was applying to college!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

OMG. This is a very typical DCUM response in that it acknowledges the existence of only 4 liberal arts colleges. My point is that the NEACACs are the standards at their relative tiers. They are the known names. Even poor Trin and Conn College who are only pariahs in the context of this hyper elitist, striver obsessed, Ivy Plus or nothing board. The point remains that they are known brands and frequent comparators to lesser known lacs in vibe or experience if not “prestige.” And all that said, I’m sorry to break it to you, but you can get an elite education at Wes, Hamilton, Midd, etc. Those schools are far more similar to Amherst and Williams than they are different.

This is a lot of words to say “I can’t handle that some liberal arts colleges are better than my personal favorite.”

One of the WASPs IS my personal favorite! Or at least one of them. Which is why I can confidently say the sun does not rise and set in the Pioneer Valley. Love to discuss the profiles of the SLACs, far down the US News top 100 than most people on this board would care for. But if you come at me with the anointed 4 or nothing, you’re a clown and your opinion means nothing.

Yeesh, Amherst is a $hithole, but glad someone out there likes it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved Wes. My DS did not. It skews heavily female and presents as super artsy. Regardless of the reality, that is what we took from the tour. And, the increasing admit rate reflects this.

Hard to wade through the incongruity of this post. I’m an era where most private schools struggle mightily with gender balance, Wes’s 53/47ish split is pretty impressive. And yes, while Wes does have some arts programs of not that kids definitely choose the school for, the most popular majors are things like Econ, bio, neuroscience, etc. None of those things have any direct bearing on any increase in admissions rate, which I don’t think has been outside historical trends. So, not sure if you’re just trolling or if you are just mistaken. Maybe you’re thinking about Vassar.

Even harder to wade through your ignorance:
https://www.wesleyan.edu/admission/class-profile.html

40% male in most recent class and admit rate increased. You’re welcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math.

At Swarthmore, Engineering was the most popular major last year.

I seriously doubt this when just 3 years ago economics had 3 times the amount of grads as engineering: https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-research/Swarthmore%20Gradstats%202022.pdf

https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/1023-admitted-to-swarthmore-class-2024

Oh, so engineering isn't actually the most popular major—it's just one that many freshmen express interest in when they start. As shown by institutional research, far fewer students end up graduating with an engineering degree, and it's not even among the top five most common majors for Swarthmore graduates.

Engineering is the most popular intended major among the admitted students. Next, in order, are political science, economics, biology, computer science, English literature, mathematics and statistics, philosophy, biochemistry, environmental science, history, and psychology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math.

At Swarthmore, Engineering was the most popular major last year.

I seriously doubt this when just 3 years ago economics had 3 times the amount of grads as engineering: https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-research/Swarthmore%20Gradstats%202022.pdf

https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/1023-admitted-to-swarthmore-class-2024

Oh, so engineering isn't actually the most popular major—it's just one that many freshmen express interest in when they start. As shown by institutional research, far fewer students end up graduating with an engineering degree, and it's not even among the top five most common majors for Swarthmore graduates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved Wes. My DS did not. It skews heavily female and presents as super artsy. Regardless of the reality, that is what we took from the tour. And, the increasing admit rate reflects this.

Hard to wade through the incongruity of this post. I’m an era where most private schools struggle mightily with gender balance, Wes’s 53/47ish split is pretty impressive. And yes, while Wes does have some arts programs of not that kids definitely choose the school for, the most popular majors are things like Econ, bio, neuroscience, etc. None of those things have any direct bearing on any increase in admissions rate, which I don’t think has been outside historical trends. So, not sure if you’re just trolling or if you are just mistaken. Maybe you’re thinking about Vassar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I expect a notable rise in Washington & Lee, Davidson and the 5Cs. I don’t see it at Wesleyan — it’s too far left for a lot of kids but a great school.

Wesleyan is way too left compared to the 5Cs? People with no real connection to the school regurgitate this stereotype but this hasn’t been my family’s experience. I don’t find it to be far to the left of many of its NESCAC peers, save maybe Williams. And the presence of CMC does not turn the 5Cs into U Chicago. Many of the other schools are just as if not more left leaning than Wes.

my kid was a 24 graduate of wes and it was a god awful experience for him - from covid mismanagement to ultra left raging crazies treating every athlete like they are staunch MAGA supporters, to the hipster try-hard pot smoking film majors from brooklyn, it was the most divisive, insular, siloed and myopic place on earth to spend 4 years. Athletes beware

Can we just have athlete only SLACs, and then SLACs with no varsity sports, like Reed? Then there’s no athlete-NARP divide. Something tells me, though, that the athlete-only Spartan schools would go down in stature….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved Wes. My DS did not. It skews heavily female and presents as super artsy. Regardless of the reality, that is what we took from the tour. And, the increasing admit rate reflects this.

Hard to wade through the incongruity of this post. I’m an era where most private schools struggle mightily with gender balance, Wes’s 53/47ish split is pretty impressive. And yes, while Wes does have some arts programs of not that kids definitely choose the school for, the most popular majors are things like Econ, bio, neuroscience, etc. None of those things have any direct bearing on any increase in admissions rate, which I don’t think has been outside historical trends. So, not sure if you’re just trolling or if you are just mistaken. Maybe you’re thinking about Vassar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

Obviously the Mudd booster chiming in which is pretty ironic.

Mudd is a very new school which was literally started as a school to train, (yes train) entry level engineers for the defense industry. It was basically a trade school. It has evolved into a unique and special place but it is very niche like Olin on the East Coast.

Wesleyan on the other hand has a long history and is one of the 'little three' which is considered to be one of the top 10 sports rivalries in college sports.

There is no argument about including Wellesley, they have always been part of the top group. There are 9 SLACS with average test scores at 1500+ 4 are NESCAC (Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Williams), , 3 are 5C (CMC, Mudd, and Pomona), and the other 2 are Wellesley and Swat. That is your group and you should probably add Carleton, Hamilton, and Haverford to it as well.

WASP has as much meaning or usefulness as HYPSM which means it has nothing of value. The NESCAC along with a few other schools has long been the standard and that isn't changing in your lifetime.

When Midd is talked about in terms of having fallen people point out:

That the rankings drops were driven by methodology changes at USNWR which didn't align well to Midds SES profile and by reporting changes which caused a major drop (only on paper) in how some spending per student numbers are reported.
Negative comments seem to be by a singular person on this thread who is obsessed bout them (not in a positive way) who periodically tries to create controversy yet inevitably gets batted around like a cat toy.

+1
This is the informed response. Mudd is great, but it doesn’t have the history—or the goals—of the traditionally top LACs.

I don't know much about Mudd, but there's no way this is correct history. Mudd was inherited into a consortium for liberal arts colleges. It also makes no sense because Mudd has more humanities requirements than almost any top LAC, so I highly doubt it was solely made to be a trade school for the defense industry. I don't think this is a fair take, and it really didn't make sense to assume that PP was a mudd booster, since mudd is the known LAC for STEM, while Wellesley is the best all-womens LACs. Somehow the pendulum swung backwards and we decided to bash a stem school for really no reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I expect a notable rise in Washington & Lee, Davidson and the 5Cs. I don’t see it at Wesleyan — it’s too far left for a lot of kids but a great school.

Wesleyan is way too left compared to the 5Cs? People with no real connection to the school regurgitate this stereotype but this hasn’t been my family’s experience. I don’t find it to be far to the left of many of its NESCAC peers, save maybe Williams. And the presence of CMC does not turn the 5Cs into U Chicago. Many of the other schools are just as if not more left leaning than Wes.

my kid was a 24 graduate of wes and it was a god awful experience for him - from covid mismanagement to ultra left raging crazies treating every athlete like they are staunch MAGA supporters, to the hipster try-hard pot smoking film majors from brooklyn, it was the most divisive, insular, siloed and myopic place on earth to spend 4 years. Athletes beware

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maine LACs are all on the rise - Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Midd.

Also, Hamilton is becoming the new Amherst.

Midd is in Vermont and none of those schools are “rising” any different than years prior, other than maybe Colby.

Hamilton is completely different than Amherst and wants its future to be in tech and AI.

Also, can any of the NESCACs really be described as “on the rise?” Are any of them lacking in respect? Top to bottom, they are the standard on which all other SLACs are judged/compared. Obviously not saying those are the “best” schools, but people take shots at Amherst, Williams, Wes, Hamilton, Mid, Colby, etc. on this board for a reason. I don’t see many Bowdoin people, for example, puffing their chests about how they’re better than W&L.
-NESCAC alum, parent & spouse

I wouldn't say the NESCAC are the standard at all... WASP are. I can see an argument to include Wellesley or Harvey Mudd, but Wesleyan? Hardly even discussed on this forum, same with Hamilton. Middlebury is often talked about with the context of it falling from a top 4 lac and Colby...meh.

Obviously the Mudd booster chiming in which is pretty ironic.

Mudd is a very new school which was literally started as a school to train, (yes train) entry level engineers for the defense industry. It was basically a trade school. It has evolved into a unique and special place but it is very niche like Olin on the East Coast.

Wesleyan on the other hand has a long history and is one of the 'little three' which is considered to be one of the top 10 sports rivalries in college sports.

There is no argument about including Wellesley, they have always been part of the top group. There are 9 SLACS with average test scores at 1500+ 4 are NESCAC (Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Williams), , 3 are 5C (CMC, Mudd, and Pomona), and the other 2 are Wellesley and Swat. That is your group and you should probably add Carleton, Hamilton, and Haverford to it as well.

WASP has as much meaning or usefulness as HYPSM which means it has nothing of value. The NESCAC along with a few other schools has long been the standard and that isn't changing in your lifetime.

When Midd is talked about in terms of having fallen people point out:

That the rankings drops were driven by methodology changes at USNWR which didn't align well to Midds SES profile and by reporting changes which caused a major drop (only on paper) in how some spending per student numbers are reported.
Negative comments seem to be by a singular person on this thread who is obsessed bout them (not in a positive way) who periodically tries to create controversy yet inevitably gets batted around like a cat toy.

This is such a myopic view, I’m surprised it’s being agreed with. Mudd is as much a trade school as any lac with a stem major is a trade school. It has a mission to give scientists and researchers a humanities-based framework to engage with science, and it’s doing it a heck of a lot better than most of our nations engineering programs.

This idea that engineering or stem is divorced from the humanities is the exact opposite attitude of Harvey mudd and reflects poor critical thinking skills.