<p>So how would people rate the ivy leauge + stanford, williams, amherst, MIT, caltech, and duke in terms of happiness?</p>
<p>Duke, Holy Cross, Notre Dame. These schools also have some of the strongest alumni networks.</p>
<p>@ccclay: stanford would be at the top of your list. everyone at stanford is happy to be in “the bubble”.</p>
<p>
I agree with Junie that Stanford students are generally pretty happy. Duke students are probably an equally well satisfied bunch. Not too many schools have students willing to camp outside in the cold for a month or two. :rolleyes: I would also classify Penn students as very happy; I had several attempt to extol the virtues of West Philly, and that takes loyalty!</p>
<p>Yay for Stanford 
</p>
<p>My friend LOVES Penn though, she said the area was sketchy BUT there was great food and she was really happy about that. Happiness depends on the individual though, rankings won’t help you if you hole yourself up in a dorm room.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite, though it brings them closer. I count 23 research universities with a freshman retention rate of 96% or higher. Drop out the 8 Ivies and that leaves 15. Only 7 LACs rate that high. At 95% or higher there are 29 research universities (less 8 Ivies = 21) and only 15 LACs. At 94% or higher, 35 universities (less 8 Ivies = 37) and only 20 LACs. I must say I find this result surprising, and a bit puzzling. I’d have expected higher retention rates at LACs. Not that they’re all bad, by any means, but as a group they’re pretty consistently not quite as strong as at top research universities. Anyone have an explanation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I intentionally left out the Service Academies because they’re such a special case that they don’t really belong in the LAC comparisons. But I don’t know where you came up with your 99% figure. According to U.S. News 2009 edition, the freshman retention rate at the U.S. Military Academy is 91.7%. Not so great, especially considering that it’s a free education. But as I said, the Service Academies are a special case operating under unique conditions, so I think the comparison to non-military schools is inappropriate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The statistics don’t generally bear this out. One way to get at it is to see what percentage of the freshman class is determined to have financial need, i.e., is eligible for need-based financial aid. Note that schools would have an incentive not to underreport this, because most of these students are likely to qualify for federal financial aid which the university os not going to want to leave on the table.</p>
<p>Percent of freshman determined to have financial need:
Top 5 publics:
UC Berkeley 50%
Michigan 48%
UCLA 46%
UNC-Chapel Hill 33%
UVA 28%</p>
<p>Some other (randomly selected) publics in US News top 50:
U Texas 57%
UC Irvine 52%
UCSB 49%
Penn State 48%
UIUC 47%
U Florida 45%
U Washington 38%
Georgia Tech 33%
Wisconsin-Madison 32%
William & Mary 29%</p>
<p>While these figures vary widely from school to school, I just don’t see evidence here that as a group the top 5 publics have wealthier students; yet clearly they have higher retention rates. Of course, it could be that they provide better financial aid than the other publics; but that would be a very different claim.</p>
<p>Post #20: “I think people are forgetting that some schools intentionally do not hold your hands for 4 years. they let you fall and despair over your hardships, but they also allow you to bounce back. the UC system is notorious for ignoring the suffering of their students in whatever career they hope to achieve (medicine, law, business, engineering) for the sole purpose of toughening them up for life after college. following in their footsteps i’d rather be prepared than high after getting the diploma”</p>
<p>Where is the evidence that this is intentional toughening up? Or, is this just an ex post facto rationalization for treating students poorly or having to survive such environments? How much of the imposed suffering might stem from size, resource limitations, and other factors apart from any intention to “toughen up” students?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you please provide me a link to these statistics?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perspective, perhaps? Assuming those twenty LACs @>the 94% retention rate represent 14.5% of the total number of “true LACs” in the country, the comparable number for research universities would be what? 145?</p>
<p>^ Well, fair enough, johnwesley. There are more LACs than true research universities, so on a percentage basis maybe LACs are doing better. But I don’t think anyone really cares about that. I’m just saying that for top students trying to decide between top LACs and top research universities, the numbers may be somewhat counterintuitive. I, for one, would have expected LACs to have a higher freshman retention rate, given their reputation as more personal, intimate, hands-on places than the larger, more impersonal research universities. Yet it appears the top research universities, as a group, have a higher retention rate. I have no axe to grind here. I did my undergrad at a top public research university (Michigan) and absolutely loved it. My D, a rising HS senior, is enamored of LACs, and I can see her point: they have many advantages. It’s just that I would have thought a high freshman retention rate would be one indicator of those advantages. Apparently not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I can’t. all the data I cited in the posts above were from the 2009 online edition of the US News college (undergraduate) rankings, which you can access only by paying a fee. Their policy, not mine. You can purchase access if you like by going to [US</a> News & World Report - Breaking News, World News, Business News, and America’s Best Colleges - USNews.com](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com%5DUS”>http://www.usnews.com) and following the link for “rankings,” but the new 2010 rankings are due out in a couple of weeks, so I wouldn’t bother with the 2009s. In the meantime, you’ll just have to take my word for it.</p>
<p>There are some very “happy” students who are asked not to return for soph year–AKA flunkouts. Almost impossible at an ivy but happens at most state U’s.</p>
<p>Bump to add the 2010 information:
[Top</a> 10 Colleges with the Happiest Students - MSN Encarta](<a href=“http://spotlight.encarta.msn.com/Features/encnet_Departments_College_default_article_TPRHappiest2010.html?GT1=27004]Top”>http://spotlight.encarta.msn.com/Features/encnet_Departments_College_default_article_TPRHappiest2010.html?GT1=27004)</p>
<p>I think this debunks pierre’s theory, though he’ll happy to see Clemson’s spot.</p>
<p>So for 2010:
- Brown
- Clemson
- Claremont-McKenna
- Stanford
- Bowdoin
- Yale
- Stonehill College
- Rice
- St. Mary’s (MD)
- Colorado College</p>
<p>Combining that with the lists from 2007-09 (post #23), the only schools to stay in the top 10 all four years at Brown (3, 2, 2, 1) and Stanford (1, 5, 6, 2). Edge to Brown. Others making a strong showing, making the list in the last 3 years: Clemson (3, 1, 2) and Bowdoin (8, 8, 5)</p>
<p>I think the question is how these schools become the haven for the “happiest” students.</p>