<p>LAC’s and National Universities were ranked together?</p>
<p>I always wished the USNEWS would rank the LAC’s and National Universities together as it would bing some much deserved attention to some of the amazing LAC’s. (Lets face it most people judge colleges by their rankings) I mean the rankings are for undergraduate studies so shouldn’t all the colleges be ranked together? </p>
<p>Here is what I believe the top 10 would look like:</p>
<li>Princeton University</li>
<li>Harvard University</li>
<li>Williams College</li>
<li>Amherst College</li>
<li>Yale University</li>
<li>Stanford University</li>
<li>Swarthmore College</li>
<li>Wellesley College</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Carleton College</li>
<li>Middlebury College</li>
<li>Pomona College</li>
<li>Bowdoin College</li>
<li>Duke</li>
</ol>
<p>I haven’t altered any of the colleges original rankings ie move Dartmouth and UChicago above Caltech even though I believe their undergrad teaching is better than Caltechs’.</p>
<p>what do you think the top 10 would look like?</p>
<p>Hamman, head and shoulders above how? As a research institution? Of course! As an institution for the education of undergraduates? Debateable, but for many students, I think Amherst and Williams would come out on top. Is Stanford more selective? Sure, but definitely not in a "head and shoulders" sense. I don't know how you can possibly compare the "programs" at a leading research university versus a tiny LAC.</p>
<p>Which is, really, why I like the lists kept separate. Different students are looking for different things, you can't possibly put Middlebury and Berkeley on the same list.</p>
<p>However, in some crazy world in which this were done, I'd say Amherst and Williams would both be top ten or so, in terms of perstudent endowment, student-faculty ratio, etc. But why even bother thinking about these things?</p>
<p>Here's the thing, it's almost impossible to separate the education/experience a student would receive by attending a national university from the fact that the school is a major research university. In many ways, being a research university affects a student's overall experience. For example, a major research university hires a scientist to conduct some sort of research. The scientist just so happens to teach a class at the undergrad. Even if we were to completely disregard the fact that the scientist is there conducting research, he is still teaching a class at the undergrad. In that sense, the small LAC nearby will never be able to compete with the national research university. At least, not on that level. </p>
<p>It just makes a lot more sense (and is more fair to LACs) to keep the lists separate.</p>
<p>The problem with rankings (in general, not just your list, though it certainly has this problem since it's based off USNEWS) is that they ignore a lot of factors, major being one of them. For someone considering the sciences or engineering, the list would arguably be drastically different.</p>
<p>I think that if USNEWS lumped the LACs and National Universities together it would probably still look similar to the National Universities list.</p>
<p>(Also, I got a good belly laugh at Wellesley and Carleton [which, by the way, I've never even heard of] being on that list and Brown not. Je vous remercie.)</p>
<p>There is no way in h*ll that out of your 16 in the "top 10" that there would be an equal number of LACs and National Unis. I mean Carleton's admit rate is over 30%. I'd say in your top 10 there would honestly be around 2 to 3 LACs for every 7 or 8 national unis.</p>
<p>I remember a few years ago in an article the USNEWS editor was asked if Dartmouth moved to the LAC category where it would be ranked. His response was that, in his opinion, it would be number one year over year. This plus the way USNEWS is constructed makes me think that Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams would be in the 8-15 range along with Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Brown, et al.</p>
<p>Slipper, I think Dartmouth is an incredible school, but I can't see it being ranked number 1 for LACs by US News formula (or my formula, go Amherst! ;)) There are criteria by which Dartmouth does extremelu well for a university, but not well for a LAC (like per student endowment, where I think the top LACS have significantly higher per student endowments. I think that alumni giving rate would be another factor.) I just don't see it ranked as thr top LAC - and it doesn't have to be to be phenomenal. Dartmouth is not Williams and it is not Yale and that makes it special to people who love it and think it is just right.</p>
<p>Just for argument's sake, here's a top 13, broken into tiers, which is probably the best way to look at these schools. Although I have some experience with a few of these schools, other placements are based on simply researched perception. Correct me if I'm wrong.</p>
<p>Tier Ia: Fantastic undergrad experience, combined with the unbelievable student body and research opportunities that are difficult for other schools to match.
Harvard
Yale
Stanford</p>
<p>Tier Ib: Comparable, if not better academically, but seem to have less of an abundance of buzz outside the classroom.
MIT
Princeton
UChicago
Caltech</p>
<p>Tier II: Extraordinarily well-rounded institutions just a touch below the top tier.
Williams
Columbia
Amherst
UPenn
Brown
Swarthmore</p>
<p>You probably formed the best way to rank them, with one exception. UChicago should be bumped down to Tier II and UPenn up to Tier Ib simply because Wharton offers something that a lot of other schools don't.</p>