<p>The insinuation that selectivity has anything to do with quality of education, again, is assinine. </p>
<p>Students go to school to learn… or they should, anyway. The quality of their education is a direct and incontrovertible function of the quality of their instruction, which is in turn a function of the quality of the faculty and of the course depth and breadth.</p>
<p>Thus, were someone to say, “My school is better than your school, per se, because my school is more selective,” that person would be wrong.</p>
<p>“A degree from Amherst, Williams, Pomona commands more respect from people who matter than do degrees from schools such as Cornell, Georgetown, Tufts, etc. It is harder to get into a top liberal arts college than it is to get into almost any school excluding the Ivies. On average, students from the top liberal arts schools have higher SATs and GPAs than do students at most research universities.”</p>
<p>Huh? You’re actually slicing the “more respect” pie into some micro-thin slice in order to come out with that first statement? And harder to get into the top LAC’s than it is to get into Cornell, Georgetown, Tufts? Not in my neck of the woods or anywhere within shouting distance. Sounds like your LAC bias is bringing out your worst inclinations toward unsubstantiated generalization.</p>
<p>Almost everyone who is going to attend schools like Cornell, Tufts, Georgetown (barring SFS) this year were rejected from schools like Amherst and Williams…even all the way in California. I’ve talked to most of them and if they had the opportunity to attend a top LAC, they would have instead. Anecdotal, but top LACs carry more weight than you think.</p>
<p>Getting back to Bubinski’s point, to make a blanket statement that degrees from Amherst, Williams and Pomona command more respect from “people who matter” than degrees from Cornell, Georgetown and Tufts is absurd. </p>
<p>And to toot Tuft’s horn (or trunk!) a little… here is a 2013 stacking of average SAT scores of the three LACs mentioned plus Tufts, from Business Insider:</p>
<p>as if SAT scores mean so much…i don’t think anyone in their right minds would say washu (2225) is SO MUCH better or even on par with brown, amherst, williams, or duke…</p>
<p>Arguably, no, but since Bubinski used tests scores to support his/ her argument regarding “people who matter”…</p>
<p>And btw, according to the SAT lists, it is not true that “on average, students from the top liberal arts schools have higher SATs than do students at most research universities.” Among the top 15 SAT schools on Cappex’s list, there are 12 universities and 3 LACs (if you include Harvey Mudd and Olin). It looks like Pomona is the one real “star” that holds its own with the universities, in that regard.</p>
<p>Admission rates may be a tad higher at Cornell, Georgetown and Tufts, but I know of instances in which students from my D’s school (anecdotally over the past decade) were accepted to Amherst and not to Georgetown (it’s big news whenever anyone gets into Georgetown around here), to Williams and not Cornell, etc. </p>
<p>So again, to make blanket statements,as hello657898 did, that “almost everyone who is going to attend schools like Cornell, Tufts, Georgetown (barring SFS) this year were rejected from schools like Amherst and Williams…” isn’t helpful.</p>
<p>Sorry @gondalineNJ, I was referring only to my fellow classmates my own prep school. If you are using anecdotal evidence, I certainly can as well.</p>
<p>@hello657898, cheers and no worries! But then, your “almost everyone” seemed suggest more than just your classmates–unless I extrapolated?</p>
<p>What it comes down to is that the level of respect for, interest in, and awe upon acceptance at BOTH top universities and top LACs is keen everywhere. To turn all this into an LAC vs. Research University or a top LAC vs. top LAC-based-on-prestige duke-it-out seems counterproductive. Everyone’s trying to protect their “turf” to the denigration of others (guilty of that myself, too, I’m sure). </p>
<p>What the OP ultimately needs is sound advice and valid comparisons based on factors well beyond prestige. To fall back on the “anyone in their right mind” and “no brainer” arguments is too reductive and dog-eat-dog, if you ask me.</p>
<p>I certainly would be the first to agree that “perceived prestige/rankings” is not an accurate way to measure the quality of an institution. In truth I think it’s fair to say that any of the top 25 research Univ or LAC’s would provide a very good education for the vast majority of students. However in todays world for a variety of reasons what school your degree is from now carries moderately significant weight to help one get started in life. This thread was started with a high school student asking advice about how he/she should decided between Reed and Amherst. Now I would fully agree that the student could get a quality education at Reed but I that doesn’t really answer the student’s question. Int 95 who seems to be another student has gotten off in the weeds arguing about the inadequacy of the USNW Rankings, acceptance rates, and perceived prestige. Int 95 makes some valid points but in my much older view they really aren’t that relevant in answering the original poster’s questions. In the real world the vast majority of knowledgeable institutions/people do not consider Amherst and Reed to be remotely comparable. One is consistently viewed as among the top two LAC’s in the USA while the other is seen as a good but not elite school(though far above 74). It may not be fair but for now that’s the consensus view. </p>
<p>This boils down to whether you consider academic quality and rigor (and resulting rep), or student test scores, as the most important variable in judging a school’s quality.</p>
<p>Amherst’s test scores are higher than Reed’s; but Reed hangs with all LACs in academic excellence.</p>
<p>No you too are missing the point. Assuming a student/familiy is paying going to a private college costs over 250k. So the vast majority of families want to get the best return on that huge cost. I would agree that the overall academic teaching is comparable since the standard chemistry/math/history/english are rather basic and could really be learned on-line for the most part. The reason why few if any students/families would choose Reed over Amherst is because gaining admission to Amherst is a major accomplishment while virtually every good student will be accepted to Reed. That big difference in selectivity while less meaningful in measuring the quality of education makes a huge difference in prestige. On the other hand none of this really matters once a student is accepted to medical/law school or has real work experience. </p>
<p>Cody I’ve never seen this before but a quick read suggests this data is of little meaning. Even here Reed is ranked 54th one notch above Williams which is one notch above the elite college named Cedarville. I think the other real problem is that schools can move 10-20 positions in one year which suggests their methodology is very flawed. Garbage in gets you garbage out. </p>
<p>To see how silly this is I compared Reed with both Stanford and Columbia and their data claimed 40% would choose Reed over Columbia and 33% would tun down Stanford for Reed. It even claimed 24% would choose Reed over Harvard. If any of this were remotely true Reed would not have an acceptance rate of 40% not to mention that these other schools offer vastly superior FA. </p>
<p>“The reason why few if any students/families would choose Reed over Amherst is because gaining admission to Amherst is a major accomplishment while virtually every good student will be accepted to Reed”</p>
<p>… which is what I meant by “who feel validated by the exclusionary competition at Amherst”. Are you paying attention? “makes a huge difference in prestige” in WHOSE minds? </p>
<p>“Int 95 who seems to be another student has gotten off in the weeds arguing about the inadequacy of the USNW Rankings, acceptance rates, and perceived prestige” I may have gotten off the point (it doesn’t, however, matter as OP has long made a decision), but that was only because people (i.e you) claimed that rankings and acceptance rates and “prestige” would dictate than Reed is some sort of community college. I was the one who initially vouched for the need to consider fit as the most important factor (since OP didn’t mention anything about $$). Then you and some others started to blabber about how these schools aren’t “remotely comparable”. In academia, Reed is an established name and gets the same level of respect accorded to Amherst.</p>
<p>“In the real world the vast majority of knowledgeable institutions/people do not consider Amherst and Reed to be remotely comparable.” The epitome of a misinformed claim. Who are these “knowledgeable institutions/people”? I am now going to stop taking you seriously.</p>
<p>I am not sure what “neck of the woods” you call home, but I can assure you that it is more difficult to get into Amherst than it is to get into Tufts or any of the other schools you mentioned. That is indisputable, really. </p>
<p>I do not understand why people are so riled up? The OP asked for advice to aid in his or her decision to attend Reed or Amherst. I gave my advice, and I stand by my original comment. </p>
<p>No amount of propaganda, in the form of anecdotes and garbage statistics, is going to change the fact that Amherst is a better school than Reed, Tufts, or Georgetown for almost every student serious about his or her academics. It just is, sorry.</p>
<p>…unless you consider information on Swarthmore’s page to be garbage, which you probably do. Of course for Amherst students there is no better school, and that’s ok.</p>
<p>Int 95 no one is putting Reed down or claiming it’s a community college. Those are your words. However in the real world for better or worse things do end up getting assigned a ranking or value. All of these ranking are somewhat subjective but that doesn’t meant they don’t exist. I have run a large business and been involved in hiring hundreds of highly educated executives. In that evaluation the difference between Reed and and Amherst is significant but it’s not because the quality of the education is so much better at Amherst. It is precisely because it’s so competitive to gain admission at a place like Amherst and not very competitive at Reed. To a business it tells you something more about the individual that managed to find a way in that very competitive environment to gain admission to a very selective school. However the truth is that all this big fuss about college prestige is way overblown. If a student ends up going to med/dental/law/business school exactly where you went to college will help with getting admitted but after that it will mean next to nothing. No one cares where any professional went to college but only where they received their professional degree and even then the medical school or dental school means little as long as it is in the USA or Canada. Your link to the PhD’s does not support your argument because once again for the most part getting a Phd is not that competitive and the job prospects for most are not very good. This thread began by an OP asking for help choosing between Reed and Amherst. This is not a hard decision unless FA is involved or the OP for some reason needs to be on the west coast. Yes Int 95 college costs 250k and about half of the students are paying the full price. So if one’s family is paying then it only makes rational sense to go the best school possible. If the OP was choosing between Pomona,CMC, and Amherst then one could argue about fit and location because all are extremely selective top ten schools. Int 95 if you go to Reed it’s admirable that you feel so strongly about your school but we are only trying to give the OP a more balanced perspective. </p>
<p>I don’t want to get into this argument as I think it epitomizes everything that is wrong with CC (“school X is better than school Y!” “no, school Y is much better!” <em>poster uses USNWR!</em>), but I will correct a factual error in @SAY’s latest rant: “for the most part getting a Phd is not that competitive” is untrue. I can’t speak to all disciplines, but in history there are about 20-30 PhD programs with acceptance rates below or around 10%, and practically none with acceptance rates above 50%. Every year there are scores of aspiring academics who apply to 10-15 grad schools and don’t get in anywhere. Getting into <em>any</em> graduate school in history is considered a statistical improbability, and the applicant pool is already far more self-selective than the applicant pool for college. The situation is even worse in philosophy and literature. Getting into a PhD program in some sciences is slightly less competitive, but ‘slightly less competitive’ means that instead of 10%, the average acceptance rate of the top 30 PhD programs or so is 15-20%.</p>
<p>And, to reiterate, these acceptance rates are formed after a huge number of people who might have applied get weeded out over the course of their undergraduate studies. The application fees are higher, there are more recommendation letters to submit, programs want to see 15-25-page writing samples and research proposals. There are no joke applications cobbled together on deadline day to pad the rejection rate.</p>
<p>Getting <em>into</em> a PhD program is in fact very competitive, to say nothing of the attrition rate in grad school itself.</p>