<p>
</p>
<p>Check out the admit and yield rates of NE universities/LACs vs. MW universities/LACs. The answer to which is more popular is clear. The college migration from the Midwest to the Northeast is much more pronounced than the reverse. Historically speaking, the top students head east for college, with the main exceptions being Stanford and the UC’s.</p>
<p>Next time, heed your own advice: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t too fun to be pwned by a “■■■■■,” is it?</p>
<p>prodigalson, it is a mistake to directly correlate admit and yield rates --and, for that matter, popularity–with excellence. The University of Chicago and the top women’s colleges are notable examples of how self-selection alone skews such things.</p>
<p>Honestly, I really don’t think that it is worth engaging in yet another circular argument about so-called “prestige.” It proves nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s absolutely true, Pizzagirl. With 25,000 students, DePaul is by a wide margin the largest Catholic university in the U.S. The third-largest (Loyola-Chicago) and fourth-largest (St. Louis U) are also in the Midwest, as are the 9th largest (Notre Dame), 10th largest (Marquette), 12th largest (St. Thomas, in Saint Paul, MN) and 14th largest (U Dayton). And on down the line. Given the comparatively large size of these schools and others like Creighton (Omaha), Xavier (Cincinnati), and University of Detroit Mercy, among others, I wouldn’t be surprised if Midwestern Catholic colleges and universities, which make up 1/3 of the nation’s total, were educating upwards of 40% of all the students enrolled in Catholic colleges and universities in the U.S.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I totally respect the University of Chicago as an academic institution, I do not buy the “Chicago attracts self-selected applicants” argument at all. If they were truly self-selecting, Chicago would not lose almost two-thirds of their admits to other schools. </p>
<p>The self-selecting argument is merely a post hoc explanation employed by Chicago students. It goes something like this: “Yeah, I didn’t really want to go to [insert Ivy or Ivies]. They’re just not intellectual enough for me, blah…blah…blah…”</p>
<p>You’re right that popularity /= excellence, but there is definitely a positive correlation.</p>
<p>Regardless of your opinions about the quality or prestige of MW vs. Northeast or New England school, the fact is that most midwest students think about college differently than many of their counterparts in the east. The vast majority of MW students neither consider nor apply to privates. The focus is almost entirely on state schools for the vast majority of midwest high school students. The percentage of high school students in New England and the mid-Atlantic who apply to private colleges is probably higher than any other area of the country. There are many more privates in those 2 areas than anywhere else in the country. </p>
<p>It creates subtle differences in the private schools in those areas. In the northeast and mid-Atlantic, private schools are basically competing with each other for students. In other parts of the country, most private schools are competing with public schools for students. This is why so many private schools outside of the NE and Mid Atl. have to offer merit aid. It is the only way they can compete financially with the state schools. People in the NE and Mid Atl. sometimes interpret this to mean that the schools are of lesser quality because they need to attract top students, but it is more about competition pools than it is about overall quality. Thus, we often end up with people questioning if it is worth looking at LACs in the midwest or south. In my opinion, lack of prestige of many of these schools does not mean lack of quality.</p>
<p>^^ As a simple matter of fact, it is indisputable that Chicago has had a much higher admit rate and a lower yield than the Ivies. This is not a terrible insult to the school. They still manage to get students with grades and scores as high as or higher than half the Ivies (though, presumably, not quite the eye-popping “leadership” accomplishments). If matriculating students are in fact weaker in some respects than their Ivy counterparts, then it is all the more impressive how well they compare on outcomes (the number of Ph.D.s, professors, University presidents, Rhodes scholars, and Nobel laureates they turn out). According to Forbes magazine, the school is tied for 7th in the number of billionaire alumni. According to one CC post, Chicago also is tied for 7th (with Brown) in the cumulative number of Rhodes scholars (though Brown has 20% more undergraduates even after Chicago’s large enrollment increases in recent years). Not bad, for a smaller school full of Ivy rejects.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to sound grumpy, but it would be nice to get the thread back on track.</p>
<p>Prodigalson seems to want a statistically bulletproof study to confirm that Midwesterners think differently than Northeasterners about college selection…and it’s his perogative to raise the bar of proof that high. Sounds to me like Pizzagirl and shennie and me and some others all have experience in the Northeast and Midwest and have come up with similar conclusions. </p>
<p>My family moved all over, and I’ve lived, worked, studied, and taught all over the country and in several foreign countries…all the while probing people about college issues. But the most stark contrasts were between the small Michigan town where I started high school, and the small Massachusetts town where I finished high school. </p>
<p>In the Michigan town, the valedictorian of the class I would have graduated with went to Central Michigan U., and was very proud to do so. The smartest kid I knew went to Michigan State because “they indicated they wanted [him].” The second smartest person I knew went to Michigan and became an M.D. in their 6-year B.S./M.D. program (now one of the leading neurosurgeons in the country). There was a guy in that town who was considered a rebel/genius because he decided the state of Michigan didn’t have what he was looking for and he went all the way to…the U. of Kentucky!!!</p>
<p>Contrast that with my equally crappy high school in Mass., where UMass was everybody’s last choice. Smart kids went to places like Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Colby,Holy Cross, and W.P.I. Even kids with lackluster grades did the junior college route and ended up at B.C., B.U., Syracuse, etc. Lots went to URI, UConn, UMaine, UVM, UNH…anything but UMass if possible. Some adventurous types were lured away to athletic powerhouses like Purdue, VaTech, Kansas, and Marquette.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I am quite non-committal on this issue, mainly because it is irrelevant. </p>
<p>I don’t really care why MW universities and LACs are less prestigious/selective/popular than their NE counterparts, just that they are…</p>
<p>I think all the poster needed to know was thhat both region are filled with high quality LACs, but generalizing about dozens of schools is unwise.</p>
<p>Bclintok, thank you for bringing some proof to the table instead of just personal impressions, although I disagree that percentages in the high 30’s and above 40% are only “somewhat higher” than percentages in the 20’s or 30% and you omitted those Midwestern states with percentages well below that. If you had found a table of the % of Catholic students attending Catholic colleges in the various states, that might have resolved the question–and I am not assuming that % is higher in the East.</p>
<p>The percentages about yields for in-state flagships are useful. I wold not assume, however, that they are a gague of quality when cross-admits are not involved. The kid who enrolls in Indiana or Penn State may do so because they think it is a great school; they might also do so because it is the best bargain; or better than any private school which would accept them; or they are too provincial to consider other options; or they grew up worshipping Hoosier hoops or Penn State football; or no other similar school is within a reasonable drive.</p>
<p>Similarly, I would not use it as showing Midwestern kids feel their private school options are poor or are narrow in their horizons.</p>
<p>As I mentioned earlier, distance plays a role–in NJ, applying to 3 or more flagships is common, because UConn, Rutgers, UDEl, Penn State and UMD are 4 hours away or less (Rutgers and Penn State being relatively expensive in state may also encourage kids to look elsewhere). New Englanders likely do the same. This may bring down the yield at all these schools.</p>
<p>A unique aspect of NY also affects these numbers–although SUNY schools are good and cheap in state, there is no flagship, so kids who want big time sports look to Syracuse (which is both very expesnive and very snowy) or out of state, again applying to enough different schools to bring down yield numbers. </p>
<p>Milw, you are right about Lutherans (that is part of why the Catholic %s are lower in those states) but remember they built many Eastern schools, too.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, the part of DE which is suburban Philly is only 1 part of a state; the other part share a peninsula with VA and MD and is very different.</p>
<p>It’s true that the MW schools generally are less prestigious/selective/popular than their NE counterparts. If this does not matter to you, you’re lucky, because it means you can get a comparable education at what amounts to an admissions and cost discount.</p>
<p>Even if it does matter to you, in many cases you’ll find a better backup in the Midwest than the Northeast, once you’ve exhausted your top picks. The kinds of students who are attracted to Wesleyan and Vassar may well find Macalester more appealing than most of the other New England LACs. </p>
<p>To make that kind of decision, you need to identify the attractions that interest you, but you’d be wise not to overlook the Midwest. If you want to attend a coed LAC in a decent-sized city, then among the NESCAC schools you have 1 choice. Trinity, in Hartford. Among the ACM schools, you have 2 choices, Colorado College and Macalester. Both are more selective schools in, I think it’s fair to say, more attractive cities. If you want a solid LAC with a music conservatory attached, you have two choices in the MW (Lawrence and Oberlin), none in the NE. Probably the best small college anthropology department in the country is in the MW (Beloit). As far as I know, the only LAC in the country with its own cadaver dissection lab is an ACM school (Colorado, which is also a fine place for geology). St. Olaf graduates more students who go on to earn PhDs in mathematics than any other LAC in the country. If you want the excitement of D1 sports at a cold weather LAC, then ice hockey is your game (with one NESCAC and one ACM college featuring this form of mayhem.)</p>
<p>Most of the top LACs are well endowed, but none more so than Grinnell. In fact, Grinnell has a larger endowment per student than 5 of the Ivies. It has the facilities and financial aid to show for it.</p>
<p>prestige is in the eye of the beholder. I’ll be that in the MW, Carleton, Grinnell and Macalester are considered prestigious, while news of a student going to a Bates, Bowdoin, and maybe even a Williams are met with a blank stare!</p>
<p>Perhaps, but in a neutral territory (the West or the South), Williams et al. will be met with fewer blank stares than the likes of Carleton, Grinnell or Macalester.</p>
<p>Re post #45: Ma and Pa Kettle. Better late than never!</p>
<p>Since a ‘Ma and Pa Kettle’ movie was on TV regularly when I was a kid in Seattle in the late 1960s, I enjoyed them a lot. At one time I read that the Kettles’ farm was supposed to be located in Washington. A not too far feched idea for the time [1930-40s]. For example, there was a community of former Tar Heels who settled in woodland areas of western Washington south of the Canadian border in about the 1920s-30s I believe. They found the hilly forests overlooking Puget Sound somewhat similar to their Appalachian birthplace. A favorite son of these folk went east, first to Washington State University in Pullman. He eventually ended up in London as a legendary war corresponden and later reportedly was a editorialist/commentator in New York. His name? Edward R. Murrow. Don’t know what happened to him after that. He sort of faded away. LOL</p>
<p>There are plenty of educated people even in New England who’ve never heard of Williams. When I lived near Boston, I had an uncle who was a prominent coach at Williams. He’d give me Williams sweatshirts and t-shirts and even game-used basketballs with "Williams College’ carved into them. I never ran into anybody in my crappy little town who knew what Williams was.</p>
<p>This is drifting away from the original question, but I’m curious as to what some of the posters on this thread think.
I’ve lived in the Midwest all my life and my entire education was at Catholic schools. My experience has been that Catholics TEND to be conservative in their views and it seems that conservatives TEND to be distrustful of “intellectuals” and the “academically elite”, so does it follow that families with a conservative bias place less emphasis on the prestige of the educational institution? (Not less emphasis on education, but on the prestige of the school) And does it follow that schools located in conservative leaning areas --really, a huge swath of the interior of the country exclusive of major cities – essentially get dissed by the coastal elites largely based on their location?
My kids go to a non-religious, private school that sends about half of each class to a handful of east coast schools and I found this site as oldest child has Ivy League/East Coast dreams which I fully support. I’ve known of Amherst and Williams for most of my life. It seems as if these schools have a national reputation and network which is undoubtedly of some value. But does Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Trinity, Wesleyen, Middlebury crowd really have that much to offer? Weren’t they largely regional schools until the last several years when this obsession with rankings started? Are they really better schools than the likes of St. Olaf, Grinnell, Macalaster, Carleton, Kenyon, Dennison? Or are they just on the coast?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to the WSJ Ranking of Top Feeder Schools:</p>
<p>Bowdoin > Middlebury > Wesleyan > Macalester > Bates > Trinity > Grinnell > Colby > the rest of the MW LACs you mentioned</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf[/url]”>http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf</a></p>
<p>So only Macalester and Grinnell measure up to the 2nd-tier NE LACs. (The 1st-tier constitutes Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore and Wellesley.)</p>
<p>That WSJ feeder study is the most ridiculous use of statistics I’ve ever seen. </p>
<p>“The percentages about yields for in-state flagships are useful. I wold not assume, however, that they are a gague of quality when cross-admits are not involved. The kid who enrolls in Indiana or Penn State may do so because they think it is a great school; they might also do so because it is the best bargain; or better than any private school which would accept them; or they are too provincial to consider other options; or they grew up worshipping Hoosier hoops or Penn State football; or no other similar school is within a reasonable drive.”</p>
<p>The top 10% of students at any of the Midwestern flagships could easily thrive at the top schools in the Northeast. But it’s almost like academic prestige isn’t on their radar. Athletic prestige often is. So is what-kind-of-car-do-you-drive prestige. And how-hot-you-are prestige. But where-US News-ranks-your-college prestige is, once again, COMMON in very limited areas of the Midwest.</p>
<p>Someone once told me that as a very general rule (with plenty of exceptions), when meeting someone for the first time, a Northeasterner will ask what college you went to, a Midwesterner will ask what kind of car you drive, and a Westerner will ask about your recreational activities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And a Southerner will ask you where you go to church. :D</p>
<p>In reality, a Northeasterner will probably ask you “what you do.”</p>
<p>I think everyone is making this thread much more complicated than necessary. The simple truth is more students with the highest scores on the SATs live on the U.S. coastlines (both east and west) than live in the MW. Those who don’t score so well will often substitute their ACT instead, but, even the ACT tends to be a MW phenomenon, which skews the scores even more heavily. People tend to apply within a reasonable distance of where they live, <em>ispo facto</em>, the eastern LACs (along with Pomona) tend to have a higher profile. I really don’t think this is a reflection of prestige so much as demographics.</p>