HELP. Amherst or Stanford?

<p>This is driving me nuts. I can't decide.
Amherst: LAC, East Coast, Massachusetts, small school and really close community, stuck in the middle of nowhere
Stanford: Big-name uni, West Coast, California, large school not without smaller classes, relatively close to cities like San Fran.</p>

<p>It was bad enough and just yesterday I found out that neither Amherst or Stanford has a film department. I'm in the process of choosing between three majors: English, Film Studies (more towards writing and production, i don't want to do too much analysing) and Polisci. I don't mind dipping into Philosophy a bit before settling on a final major. Anyway now I'm wondering if it's better to apply to USC? It's tempting, being in LA and all. I was going to apply to NYU anyway. And then there's the whole problem of where I should apply early.</p>

<p>I'm Korean, and am attending an international school in Frankfurt right now. I've lived most of my life in the capital city and two years in Ann Arbor, MI. I don't mind the countryside but I'm not confident I'd last for four years in such places..
Any advice? HEEEELP!</p>

<p>You just named three very different schools. Personally, I think Amherst gives the best education of the three because of the size, but obviously many would disagree. Amherst also doesn’t have film, but I believe Hampshire does (if not, certainly UMass does), and it’s easy enough to cross register. It’s not a city, but the 5 schools have events to entertain the very large student pop.</p>

<p>Well, first you need to get accepted. You don’t need to decide which is your #1 school if you’re just getting ready to apply. Apply to several, and be sure to include some “matches” and “safeties.” Stanford and Amherst are so selective that they’re reaches for everyone, no matter how stellar your stats, so if you find aspects of either appealing, include it on your list; you don’t need to decide between the two now.</p>

<p>But keep in mind, they are very different, not just in location. Stanford is a major university with a huge range of curricular choices. Amherst will have fewer choices, but you’ll end up spending most of your time in small classes. At Stanford, students on average spend more time in large classes than in small classes. </p>

<p>Yes, I know that 68% of Stanford’s classes are small (<20), but that figure is very misleading. It doesn’t mean that students spend 68% of their class time time in small classes. What matters much more for determining how much time students spend in small v. large classes is the number of large classes. [Think about the mathematics of this: each small class is, by definition, small, and therefore doesn’t enroll many students, while each large class is by definition large and therefore enrolls many more students, so the higher the percentage of large classes, the ratio between enrollments in small and large starts to tilt dramatically]. And Stanford has a surprisingly large percentage of large classes—12.2%, which is approaching the level of some public universities. Using data on class size from Stanford’s common data set and some reasonable assumptions about average class size in each size range, I’d estimate that, on average and in the aggregate, students at Stanford spend almost 70% more time in large classes (50+) than in small ones (<20).</p>

<p>At Amherst, in contrast, only 3.3% of the classes have 50+ students, there are NO classes with 100+ students, and only 14 classes with 50-99 students. Using class size data from Amherst’s common data set and the same assumptions about average class size within each size range, I’d estimate that students at Amherst, on average and in the aggregate, spend nearly 4 times as much time in small classes as they do in large (50+) ones—and even the large classes at Amherst are smaller on average, because Amherst has no classes with 100+ students, while Stanford has 75 classes in that mega-class range. </p>

<p>That’s a huge difference between the two schools, and something worth considering if class size matters to you.</p>

<p>apply to all you consider worth going to school at, and let’s talk after admission decisions (and fin aid) are out.</p>

<p>What bclintonk said. Don’t start driving your nuts just yet. Wait until you actually applied and get accepted.</p>

<p>Your odds of getting into Stanford are small. (So are everyone else’s.) </p>

<p>Do more research, and go beyond the “name” of the school. There are excellent film programs in some very fine schools you may not have heard about. If you are serious about film, they should be on your list.</p>

<p>thanks for the replies. a more specific question, and one that i actually need to answer before getting accepted:
where to apply EARLY?
my counselor tells me that Amherst takes over a third of their freshmen from early admissions and that i should definitely apply early if it’s my first choice. which means i do have to decide soon:P</p>

<p>katliamom: the problem is film’s not all that i want to study in college. i think i would want to study film only in grad school but not in undergrad. speaking of the “name” of the school, it has to be one of the very top schools or my parents are not sending me, so what you’re suggesting is not an option… i made a deal with them that i get accepted into the best of the best or i just go to a Korean college since that’d be way cheaper. im sure there are a lot of great schools that are just not as well-known but my parents would be paying a **** load of money for any college i go to if it’s in the states, i need to get into the best.</p>

<p>Early means October. You still have a few months to do research and think exactly what you want. Right now, the schools on your list are all over the place - size/region/type - with little rhyme or reason other than “name.”</p>

<p>Crossposted, OP, sorry. I understand now why you are focusing on name universities. But I still think YOU need to decide what kind of experience you want. There is a world of difference between USC and Amherst.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>While the logic of trying to measure the number of students in each type of classes is sound, such numbers are subject to the interpretation of the person in from the Excel sheet. A decision has also to be made about the division between lectures, classes, and subsections. For instance, Stanford reports both numbers on the CDS while Cal lumps them all together. For this reason, the 12-13 percent at Stanford is NOT comparable to the 15 percent of classes larger than 50 at Cal. </p>

<p>As far as the “70% more time” this represents a rather nebulous way to present the data. For such number to be true, one has to consider that all classes over 100 students would be attended by an average of 380 students, and that 48% of all classes taken by students at Stanford have such high population. </p>

<p>Using a similar extrapolation, but with a more sensible number than 380, the number of students participating in classes of over 50 students at Stanford should be about 52 percent for lectures only and about 44 percent when combined classes and sections. This is also means that students, in theory, spent between 48 to 56 percent of their class time in smaller classes. Not the other way around. </p>

<p>This said the comparison between a LAC such as Amherst and Stanford remain valid.</p>

<p>bclintonk and xiggi, thanks for your long replies, love how you’re referencing specific statistics… i just don’t want four years of ALL of my classes being small and closely knit nor do i want four years of being stuck in the back of a huge lecture hall. as long as i can get a good mix of both large and small classes id be happy.
katilamom: yeah the huge difference is whats keeping me from settling on one type… i get that i have a few months before i have to decide but i hate this uncertainty and constant pondering. id rather have a set goal. could you point out some of the differences between such LACs and places like USC/Stanford? anything that would be valuable info.</p>

<p>The 68% figure also does not include Stanford’s introductory seminars, which are administered under the VPUE. According to other Stanford publications, 75% of its classes have fewer than 15 students. Regardless, bclintonk is right that such figures are largely useless and you need to take into account what the average student’s experience is. By the same token, the 12% figure of large classes is a useless figure, since it indiscriminately lumps all 50+ classes together; in reality, there are major differences in class structure when it gets larger, and only 2% of Stanford’s courses have more than 120 students. That said, it’s difficult to calculate “the average experience” because we don’t know the actual class size distributions for each range, nor the average number of courses students take - both of these are necessary for calculating the class sizes that the average student will have. It will also depend a lot on what department you end up in. Large departments like CS tend to have larger classes; small departments like classics and linguistics tend to have small classes, though even some large departments, like English, have many small classes (since class size also depends on the subject material itself, as well as student interest).</p>

<p>You won’t find an actual film department at most schools. Instead, film programs are usually relegated to art or drama departments. Stanford has Film & Media Studies under its Art & Art History department: </p>

<p>[Stanford</a> Department of Art & Art History](<a href=“http://art.stanford.edu/]Stanford”>http://art.stanford.edu/)
[Film</a> Studies at Stanford](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/group/filmstudies/]Film”>http://www.stanford.edu/group/filmstudies/)</p>

<p>I haven’t seen a film program ranking, but I do know that Stanford’s theater studies program is ranked #2-3 in the country, so that might be something to look into if you’re interested. Those I know in film & media studies at Stanford love it, so apparently its status as a program (as opposed to a department) doesn’t detract from its quality. </p>

<p>You say that you’re interested in more than just film, which is why Stanford works well for you: no matter what you’re interested in, you can bet that Stanford has a top 5 or top 10 program in it, if not #1. Stanford’s English, political science, and philosophy are all ranked either #1 or top 5. Rankings aren’t everything, but it’s something to consider - and it’s definitely a comfort that no matter what your interest is, or how much it changes, you can rest assured that you’ll be studying in a world-class department with the best professors, students, and resources to be had.</p>

<p>Either way, you definitely need to do some more soul-searching as to what exactly you’re looking for. Amherst and Stanford couldn’t be more different. I personally would go stark raving mad at a small LAC; others thrive in such environments. I think most people tend to be one type or the other (few would really enjoy both equally), so you need to find out which one you are.</p>

<p>xiggi,
Just so you know how I got those figures: I ignored “class subsections” which are by definition “supplementary” in nature–labs and recitation sections in large lecture classes, primarily.</p>

<p>Stanford’s CDS reports the number of classes in various class size ranges as follows:</p>

<p>2-9 students: 520
10-19: 541
20-29: 116
30-39: 85
40-49: 54
50-99: 116
100+: 75</p>

<p>Then for each size class, I assumed the average class in that category had the number of students that represented roughly the midpoint in that range. So assume, for example, the average class in the 2-9 range has 5 students; in the 10-19 range, 15 students; in the 20-29 range, 25 students, and so on, up to an average of 75 students in each class in the 50-99 range, and 125 students in each class in the 100+ range (this latter figure may be low because it takes only a few mega-lectures to cause the average to swell).</p>

<p>Then we get the following numbers of student registrations in small (<20) classes:</p>

<p>2-9: 520 classes X 5 student registrations/class = 2,705 student registrations
10-19: 541 classes X 15 student registrations/class = 8,111 student registrations
Subtotal: 10,816 student registrations in small (<20) classes</p>

<p>In large (50+) classes:</p>

<p>50-99: 116 classes X 75 student registrations/class = 8,700 student registrations
100+: 75 classes X 125 student registrations/class = 9,375 student registrations
Subtotal: 18,075 student registrations in large (50+) classes</p>

<p>From that, I concluded that Stanford students spend more time—67.1% more time, or “almost 70%”—in large (50+) classes than in small (<20) ones.</p>

<p>Now you can quibble with my assumptions. Maybe the average class size in the 2-9 range is not 5 but 7; maybe the average in the 10-19 range is 17; maybe the average in the 50-99 range is only 60; maybe the average in the 100+ range is only 115. But make all those assumptions, and students at Stanford are STILL spending considerably more time in large (50+) classes than in small (<20) ones. I just don’t think there’s any refuting that. Unless Stanford is just lying to us in their CDS, but why would they do that?</p>

<p>^ it’s more complex than that. You need to know the average number of classes per student to calculate what the average student might actually encounter in terms of class sizes.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I knew that. And that is why I pointed to the fact that Cal does not separate them, why I also computed the numbers for both classes only and combined classes and sections. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Obviously, I did the same, but use a more generous midpoint. Low level classes that are capped at 10, 20, 30 are rarely attended by 50 percent of the seats. </p>

<p>I also now realize that you based your 70 percent on the ratio of classes over 50 to classes under 20. I recalculated your possible numbers by comparing classes below 50 to classes listed as above 50. I filled the entire row and then tried to come up with a reasonable number of registrations for 6,000 undergraduates. Fwiw, this is extremely speculative as one cannot simply divide 45 credits per annum per UG. </p>

<p>This explains why we had different numbers. I did not read your post closely enough.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The numbers that will be used by USNews in its next edition will indeed reveal that Amherst haa accepted 148 students in ED out of 1,240 total. With an enrollement of about 500 students, ED students do indeed represent about 30 percent of the student body. One salient difference is that the admit rate for ED is about 34 percent and the RD rate is below 14 percent. </p>

<p>In other words, Amherst, as many LACs do, does indeed reward the student who commits to them early. While not the same degree than Wellesley, Davidson, and Haverford that are between 54 and 59 percent admission rate for ED, you will find a real advantage by applying ED to Amherst. </p>

<p>Fwiw, the difference at Stanford for SCEA and RD is roughly 14 percent versus 6 percent. Not exactly the same difference!</p>

<p>So your parents are willing to pay a quarter of a million dollars to send you to a school because of its prestige? </p>

<p>Do they realize that there are hundreds of US colleges and universities where you can get just as good an education as at Stanford or Amherst, many for a lot less money? </p>

<p>It’s their money. But what’s that old saying about a fool and his money being soon parted?</p>

<p>[Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2010-2011](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#financial]Stanford”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#financial)</p>

<p>a) Number of degree-seeking undergraduate students 6879
d) Number of students in line c who received any financial aid 3530
e) Number of students in line d who were awarded scholarship or grant aid 3483
i) On average, the percentage of need that was met of students who were awarded any need-based aid… 100%
k) Average need-based scholarship of grant award of those in line e $37,930
H5. Report the average per-undergraduate-borrower cumulative principal borrowed of those [who borrowed at any time through any loan programs]: $14,058</p>

<p><a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/298341/original/Financial%20Aid.pdf[/url]”>https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/298341/original/Financial%20Aid.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>a) Number of degree-seeking undergraduate students 1897
d) Number of students in line c who received any financial aid 3530
e) Number of students in line d who were awarded scholarship or grant aid 1048
i) On average, the percentage of need that was met of students who were awarded any need-based aid… 100%
k) Average need-based scholarship of grant award of those in line e $39,675
H5. Report the average per-undergraduate-borrower cumulative principal borrowed of those [who borrowed at any time through any loan programs]: $12,843</p>

<p>Out of all the Stanford undergraduates determined to have financial need (51 percent), the average grant award was $37,930.</p>

<p>Out of all the Amherst undergraduates determined to have financial need (55 percent), the average grant award is $39,675.</p>

<p>51 percent of Stanford undergraduates, and 57 percent of Amherst undergraduates, receive some form of financial aid.</p>

<p>Ultimately, truly needy families are treated fairly well by these two schools.</p>

<p>I know enough about fools to recognize one when I see one.</p>

<p>If the OP (an international) qualifies for a lot of need based aid, your point is valid. But the OP indicated her parents would be paying a *<strong><em>load of money. Why pay a *</em></strong>load of money for a name?</p>