<br>
<br>
<p>Ah, Sally,
I = Fox
The List = Grapes</p>
<p>Since my kids do not attend these snooty LAC’s (or Ivies), these schools must be irrelevant then.
Don’t underestimate the power of sour grape. This keeps unremarkable people like me sane. :))
(also that’s why I keep a dog - he thinks I am the cat’ meow)</p>
<p>Miami: the title of the thread is “106 Smartest Liberal Arts Colleges.” Why are you even here if you aren’t interested in the discussion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you read what people actually wrote, no one said LACs are where everybody should go. We were just wondering why people were complaining that large research universities weren’t referenced in a post/list that clearly had LAC in the title. So the discussion is more fruitful if it’s about relative merits of LACs. There are plenty of other threads devoted to large research universities - I wouldn’t go there to ask a question or comment about LACs. There are also plenty of posts comparing and contrasting the types of schools.</p>
<p>Ironically, what Miami seems to be saying in almost every one of her posts anywhere on this site is “Non-tippy-top universities or colleges are great and everybody should send their kids to schools like these. There is no reason to consider any other place for UG” </p>
<p>Actually the underlying message is “Miami of Ohio is perfect for everyone.”</p>
<p>“WIth all due respect?” @Pizzagirl, sorry, can I not just thank a fellow list member for posting a link to a list? I like it because I find it a very simple and easy to navigate list. There is just one line per school. I don’t really care about the details of how they are ranked. I only want the big picture. (OK, OK, if I have one problem with the list is that they could have fit the state the college is in on that one line. Yes, that would have been helpful.)</p>
<p>You can do what you like, LBowie. It just struck me as odd that this was so new and novel to you, when the USNWR top LAC list does essentially the same thing and has the same set of schools in just slightly different order. Perhaps you weren’t familiar with that list. </p>
<p>I am familiar with USNWR. You are sounding a little patronizing. I explained why I was appreciatve. I don’t get why you are picking on me. Did I say something crazy inflammatory? Is it not OK to like more than one list? I like USNWR too. But I like when there is one item with few categories per line. Table View in USNWR is a little TMI for me sometimes. I am not liking one list better than another based on how certain schools come out, if that is what you are thinking. (Or wait, am I not supposed to like rankings at all? I am sure someone here, not meaning you, but definitely some CCer will tell me that rankings are evil, and no one should pay any attention to them. 
)</p>
<p>I actually thought the lists were more different than they are because I started with my son’s college, which is 38 on the “smartest” list yet only 81st on USNWR. I then looked at a couple of other schools he applied to and in several cases (for example, Skidmore) the USNWR ranking was significantly higher than the “smartest” one. But many of them are similar from one to the other.</p>
<p>What I found validating with this list was that my suspicions were correct that my son’s school had, overall, “smarter” kids (test-score-wise, anyway) than some of the more popular schools discussed on this site. I am sure a lot of that has to do with location (south vs. northeast). Scores certainly weren’t the only factor in making our determination about the intellectual environment of one college versus another, but they at least were a data point–just as they are for college admissions people.</p>
<p>@Sally305, I was thrown by the Skidmore ranking also. Had expected it to be a lot higher on the “Smartest LACs” list because so many posters here seem to have gotten in (and, in some cases, rejected!) with 2000+ SATs.</p>
<p>@Sally305, that is why I liked this list and posted it, – it just felt more accurate once you remove some of the extraneous data points from USNWR. Also @LBowie I liked the format better also, USNWR has a list but there is alot of info and pages and pages to click through, then at the end they list all the schools that failed to report, or they didn’t consider. At lease this one was a simple line table and you could take it all in without have to page through and perhaps surface some possibilities that were buried in the pages of the USNWR site.</p>
<p>My kid’s top criteria were (1) preferred the size of an LAC, and (2) wanted to go to school with the smartest kids she could find. She is at the #1 school on the list, and it has met every expectation she has in both categories. It isn’t the criteria every kid goes by, but for it was for her. Must add that she sorted her school list by average test scores as part of her decision process on where to apply, and the final 3 schools standing after her acceptances (one not an LAC) had average SATs of 1500, 1480, and 1440. Visits sealed the deal on her final choice. So this list would be valuable to some types of kids. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I am curious. It is really that intense there? A neighbor told me that her daughter really liked the size of the school but was really intimidated by the calibre/intensity of the students when she visited. She ended at a similar school in Boston.</p>
<p>Very, very intense. You have to want that… but it is more of a collaborative intensity than some schools with that label. The core really bonds them, and older students help younger students a lot. They have mixed age dorms (and suites), lots of tutoring programs with older students helping, and the kids in the same class spend a lot of time studying in groups. My D2 thinks she is the luckiest kid in the world to have been admitted.</p>
<p>Hm, the list throws out the entire idea of holistic admissions. For instance, Amherst would often admit students with subpar SAT scores from lower-income backgrounds. </p>
<p>They’re AVERAGES. It doesn’t throw out anything.</p>
<p>There are lots of flaws with looking at only SATs. The schools on the list that are test-optional gain a bump because students with low SAT scores just don’t send them in - so they’re not lowering the average. The schools that don’t report SAT at all of course couldn’t even make this list. This is a starting point, but of course there are multiple factors to be considered.</p>
<p>There are flaws with every ranking system. Since you know which schools don’t require test scores you can assume they get a bump up because only the kids with great scores send them. But really, most rankings can be looked at as a simple rough cut on one or more of many data points. Private schools admit on many criteria, GPA, Test Scores, college athletic participation, legacy, geography, faculty kid, in some cases church affiliation…there are probably many more. Each list will vary depending on the criteria used. This list is GPA and SAT…not sure why that would rankle anybody, take it for what it is. </p>
<p>I’m not rankled. I thought it helpful to point out to people who might be new to this why certain schools might not be on the list - it’s not because their students aren’t smart, it’s because they don’t report SATs. Not everyone bothers to read the explanatory information above the list - many just go straight to the list. I find it helpful to understand why a school might be ranked significantly different than on another similar looking list.</p>
<p>I think prospective students/parents should look at the methodology for ANY rankings system. This list is pretty simple compared to the USNWR rankings some people here accept as gospel. And those, in my opinion, contain many more subjective factors that don’t have much bearing on the quality of a student’s education (i.e., peer rankings).</p>