<p>i just wanted to know how the individual LACs compare to the LACs of national universities like brown, dartmouth etc..
as in say the top 5 (usnews rankings) LACs would compare to the top 10 LACs of national universities...... is that true? how do they compare?
help me out please!
thanks</p>
<p>Those are this years rankings of the nation's top LAC's. </p>
<p>Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore are usually in the top three- the rest of the rankings can be quite fickle. That said, there is a certain hierarchy of LAC's in terms of selectivity and prestige. Again, Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore are always at the top, but a college usually considered of equal caliber, selectivity and prestige is Pomona, a west coast (Claremont, California) LAC that is part of a 5 college consortium (the Claremont Colleges, which include Pitzer, Scripps, Claremont-McKenna, and Harvey Mudd College). Though Pomona is ranked #7 on the USNWR rankings, I'll be the first to tell you it is harder to get into than Bowdoin, Middlebury, or Carleton, and probably Wellesley, though I don't know much about single sex schools, though I'm going to be a Middlebury student myself. A common acronym on CC is SWAP, which refers to these four highly selective LACs. </p>
<p>How do LACs compare to the top national universities? While they certainly don't have the same name recognition, you might be surprised to know that many of these schools outperform many of the "big name" schools in gradschool placement, all while offering a more intimate learning experience as undergraduate-focused institutions. SWAP, while not as selective as Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, all share students that are of equal caliber of say, Brown or Dartmouth students (Dartmouth, unlike most of the Ivy League, is also very undergraduate focused, and could be considered an LAC). Though I don't have the numbers, it is very common to find students at SWAP that turned down Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Cornell etc and vice versa. Many have also turned down HYP, though fewer than the aforementioned schools. According to the Wallstreet journal, Pomona sent a higher percentage of its students to Harvard Law than Duke last year, and Williams sends nearly the same percentage of its students to top professional programs as Stanford. You can find the study online, I won't link it as it is a very flawed study, but eye-opening nevertheless. (As a side note, my house counselor at boarding school last year turned down Harvard and Princeton for Amherst. He had a 1600 SAT and was a recruited soccer midfielder-- he captained the Amherst team his senior year.) </p>
<p>I for one really like to proselytize the LAC education, because I think so many people overlook these incredible schools simply because they don't have the name recognition as other schools, but they can offer an amazing, intimate education, and (this is a common phrase on CC), while the common layman might not know their names, the people who need to know- gradschools and employers (the type that you'll be interacting with if you're bright enough to get into a top LAC) will know, and respect the names. </p>
<p>Okay, so I've mentioned SWAP, but that's not to mean there is a steep drop off in quality and selectivity after these four, and there are plenty of others to choose from that are excellent, prestigious schools. The USNEWS offers a pretty good approximation of the quality of these schools. The selectivity in the top 5 is different than those ranked, say, 15-20. I'd say right under SWAP in selectivity is Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Middlebury, Carleton, and Claremont McKenna. I'm probably leaving some out, so please don't jump on me. I'd say the difference in the caliber of these students compared to SWAP might be comparable to the difference between students at, say, Dartmouth (these schools) and Princeton (SWAP)- pretty negligible, but a difference nonetheless. </p>
<p>I'd like to take a moment to mention I recognize that I am making very sweeping generalizations right here, but the OP asked a very broad question that I'm doing my best to answer. Being accepted at SWAP does in no way mean you will be accepted at Bowdoin/Middlebury/Wesleyan etc., and there are certainly kids at Bowdoin/Midd/Wesleyan that have turned down SWAP, and kids at Dartmouth who turned down Princeton, vice versa blah blah blah. There's no reason to be offended if you go to any of the schools I've mentioned... they're all incredible, so please, don't get defensive about them.</p>
<p>Couple last things. LAC's are not generally known for engineering, but there are a couple that do have very strong academic programs that emphasize engineering. For instance, Harvey Mudd has very, very strong engineering programs, and is more focused on engineering than any other LACs, while maintaining a commitment to an individualized education (and as a result fulfills a certain niche, and probably suffers as a result in the USNWR rankings). There are plenty of Mudder's who have turned down MIT or Caltech (though the latter do have higher cross admit rates)- it is a very impressive school. Ditto for Olin. </p>
<p>So an sum up an answer- the top LAC's certainly hold their own compared to the top national universities, though because of their small size and lack of graduate programs, enjoy much less recognition. Don't let the fact that none of your friends have heard of some of them deter you from applying. While a liberal arts education isn't for everyone, its intimacy and breadth offers some undeniable benefits compared to top universities, and they will absolutely set you up for unbelievable gradschool/job opportunities, comparable to those offered out of the Ivy League. Lastly, don't focus on just the tip top LAC's, once you're in the top LAC's, it's apples and oranges- "fit" really is important. I applied to Middlebury ED simply because it felt right compared to Williams/Amherst/Bowdoin etc. While they are all very impressive schools with commitments undergraduate education, they all have different atmospheres, and to think they are all the same would be a mistake. Frankly, I would never go to Swarthmore or Wesleyan. And I'm sure many kids at those school's would not really want to go to Middlebury. </p>
<p>Sorry for the length, as you can tell, I'm really believe in an LAC education.</p>
<p>Edit: One more thing. Check out Reed College. USNWR put ranked them at 53 this past year, which is really, really ridiculous. Reed refused to participate in the USNWR info-gathering, because it doesn't believe in rankings (USNWR does kind of suck, ranking colleges does have some major drawbacks), and as a result was...for lack of a better term, ***** slapped... by USNWR.</p>
<p>FreeFree113: You certainly worked hard on this post! You convey a lot of information here and truly attempt to be objective. Congratulations on your acceptance to Middlebury. Have a great year!</p>
<p>It started out as AWS, then, PAWS and WASP and any number of variations. Fact of the matter is, that if you take away the peer assessment portion of the USNWR rankings, the top ten LACs would all be tied for first place.</p>
<p>Mythmom, thank you! I'm usually more of an observer on CC but I really do like educating people about LACs, probably because I was ignorant about them a few years ago. I remember a few years ago when my mom wanted to me to visit Williams- I dismissed her suggestion completely and almost took it as an insult. It's so easy to judge school's based on name recognition, which is too bad.</p>
<p>I would say that the major difference between SWAP and the other highly ranked LACs is their increased selectivity mostly tied to their stronger emphasis on standardized testing. You will notice that these schools have a much higher test score average than many other great schools like Carleton, Reed, Bowdoin, etc. However, this does not at all reflect the educational quality of the college, or intellectual ability of the student body in the least bit.</p>
<p>Actually, standardized test scores at Amherst and Williams are very similar to Carleton's, but that only tells some of the story. I certainly still agree these two are more selective. Included in their large applicant pools are much larger numbers of legacies and recruited athletes (the schools take their NESCAC membership VERY seriously). It takes a lot of bodies to fill slots for 32 teams fielded, especially taking into account their small LAC enrollments. Percentage-wise, this is a number that would make Ohio State look like an athlete-free zone. You also can’t forget that the Northeast and California draw many more applicants. In the Midwest, not just LACs but top universities like Chicago and Northwestern tend to less selectivity than similar bicoastal counterparts. </p>
<p>Finally, I’ll dare to extend johnwesley’s argument and suggest that the superb academic experiences offered at the top 15 or so LACs would be difficult to quantitatively separate. Obviously, specific strengths vary. Atmosphere/social scene/location are probably their most defining differences.</p>
<p>Well written replies from FreeFree113 and 1190. Kudos!</p>
<p>fhqwgads2005, Carleton's test score about the same as SWAP, as 1190 said. they are similar, just because midwest schools tend to have less selectivity.</p>
<p>Note: I apologize for my tendency to overuse parentheses...they're just so darn handy! :)</p>
<p>I think that any of the top 10 or 15 or so (don't want to get overly specific so as to offend anyone!) LACs offer a fabulous education, especially for the right kind of student. I would agree that SWAP, or whatever the preferred acronym of choice, are the most selective of the LACs, but that certainly doesn't discount the education available at the rest of the top LAC's (IMO), besides the fact that they may not be as well known or in as nice of a location as those 4 (The two that I applied and was admitted to--Wellesley and Carleton--being examples of top LACs that are less selective due to type or location). According to USN&WR, the selectivity of the top LAC's goes like this (continued to 14th to include all of the top 10):
1: Amherst, Pomona, Harvey Mudd (has a higher acceptance rate, though)
4: Williams, Swarthmore
6: Haverford
7: Claremont McKenna
8: Middlebury
9: Barnard
10: Bowdoin
11: Wellesley, Davidson, Washington and Lee
14: Carleton, Wesleyan</p>
<p>That's just USN&WR's opinion! And selectivity is not directly equal to quality, of course. Extending what others have said, there is not a huge difference in test scores of any of (again, arbitrarily) the top 10 LAC's...generally the scores are within 50 or so points of each other, which is not a huge difference at all. If we look at Dartmouth's scores for comparison, we see that the school would fit right in with the LAC score ranges. </p>
<p>Additionally, although outstripped by the big dogs (HYPS, basically (and Grinnell!)), the top LAC's generally have endowments to be envied. Pomona, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams all have per student endowments that exceed Dartmouth's, for example, and Wellesley's per student endowment equals that of Dartmouth. These LACs have two and three times the per student endowment of many top universities, including some Ivies. When looking further at money matters, all of the top 10 (and many further down the list as well) LACs have excellent alumni giving rates--the lowest in the top 10 is 48%. Only Princeton and Dartmouth on the universities list have similarly high alumni giving rates. Alumni giving rate isn't everything (ex: Caltech is well-known to have excellent money management and financial resources, despite a relatively modest 30% giving rate), but it still speaks well of a school and it's alumni loyalty. </p>
<p>I didn't apply to the most selective LACs (because they plain didn't appeal to me), but it's my opinion that perhaps with the exception of SWAP, the top LACs are to top students now what Ivies used to be 15 or 20 or so years ago. They are schools were a student such as myself (strong test scores and academics with comparitively mediocre extras) can reasonably expect to find a home, whereas I might be (and was) shut out of Ivies that have grown so selective that just (and I said that facetiously...I certainly did/do have other strong positive qualities besides strong stats) having high scores is not enough. Not very long ago at all, this was true for the Ivies--I can assure you that I'm every bit as intellient as my Princeton eduated parents, and I still got rejected!--but obviously no longer is. Luckily, these LACs still provide a place for someone like me. </p>
<p>I also support the idea that it is not particularly unusual for students at top LACs to turn down top universities. My hostess at Wellesley, for example, turned down Yale, Duke, Cornell, and Northwestern, and I have seen several other similar situations from Wellesley students/applicants. The same could be said of my hostess at Carleton. </p>
<p>Personally, I wish I had applied to more than just 2 LACs, although I certainly considered applying to others. Unfortunately LACs tend to be quite small (Wellesley is actually on the large side with 2300 students) and in relatively isolated areas, so those applicants for whom size and location is a turn off are faced with fewer options. They're not shut-out, though...there are slightly larger and/or more urban or at least suburban options. I would encourage anybody not set on a huge, relatively impersonal school to at least consider LACs...never let fear of the unknown impede you!</p>
<p>As I am new to CC and have only just begun my college search, my comments may seem naive, but here are a few of my recent observations:</p>
<p>1.) The distinction between LACs and national univesities is a little too artificially drawn (in places like US News & World Report). As examples, Dartmouth and Tufts are more like LACs than national universities. While they have some graduate schools and departments, they are either extremely small (Dartmouth) and/or quite separate (Tufts). While these schools are somewhat larger than the typical LAC, the undergraduate experience appears the same. </p>
<p>2.) Many liberal arts college are quite well-funded comparatively (on an endowment per capita basis) and thus faculty have significant resources for research. Undergraduates benefit from this (not graduate students) by getting access to advanced research opportunities early in their career. </p>
<p>3.) While not perfect proxies for academic quality, LACs seem to predominate the list of graduates on a per capita basis who receive Ph.Ds and other lists which look at impacts (Who's Who"s in Business, national fellowships and scholarships, acceptance rates at top law and medical schools, student engagement, etc.).</p>
<ol>
<li><p>While there is a lot of discussion of Williams, Amherst, Swathmore and Pomona on this tread and throughout CC, it is easy to argue that that there are at least three dozen LACs (or more) in the US where the quality of the education would be exactly the same. And lest you think there is a "prestige factor" associated with WASP, forget it, most people (unfortunately) will have never heard of them. By the way this goes for Dartmouth, Tufts, University of Chicago, Rice, UPenn (which is often taken for a state school) and any number of national universities. Don't get me wrong, WASP are all great schools, but not many more people will have heard of them then have heard of Oberlin, Reed, Bates, Grinnell, Carleton, Kenyon, etc.. The distinctions between these schools are what Sigmund Freud onced called the "narcissism of small differences". BTW, much of the discussion on CC and all the associated ranking are replete with this!</p></li>
<li><p>It seems to me, that in terms of getting a rigorous education in the arts and science (not business, not engineering), that LACs are as good, if not better, than national universities if for no other reason than you get the attention of senior faculty, small classes (even in introductory courses), no graduate students teaching your courses and, as mentioned access to research opportunities. </p></li>
<li><p>There is one downside to LACs. In there strength lies their weakness, they are small.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Well said BalletGirl. I particularly like your Freud quote. You (he) expresses my thoughts my efficiently than I have. I have also recoiled at these elements of CC, though they are more prevalent on student threads than parent threads. My way of recently expressing this is far less lofty than Freud's: among the top 30 LAC's each is like a different ice cream flavor, they're all ice cream, yet they all taste different. There is always someone who loves strawberry and there is always someone who hates it. "Tastes differ" asa a favorite fictional character says.</p>
<p>I would include Columbia College and the College of U of C with Tufts and Dartmouth, as LAC-like, although in all cases exrollment is in 4000 range, not 2000 range. However, for those who favor LAC's (my children, my son chose one over Brown and U of C) your point #6 isn't accurate.</p>
<p>Good luck to you in your search. You write beautifully and are an amazing young woman.</p>
<p>Thanks mythmon,</p>
<p>You are always so kind. I love your ice cream analogy. It's perfect.</p>
<p>I amend my point 6. It should rather have read. "In their strength lies their weakness, most are small".</p>
<p>Great posts. The selectivity rankings seem flawed...but then again, it's USNWR & what do I know about that topic anyway.</p>
<p>Yesterday, I came across this nice quote by American poet and Dante translator, John Ciardi:</p>
<p>"A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in the students".</p>
<p>BalletGirl: I've actually read John Ciardi's translations, as well as a few of the cantos in Italian.</p>
<p>Thanks Mythmom,</p>
<p>It is nice to hear from you. I came across Ciardi as I was looking at the courses I'll might take in the fall at Harvard Extension. One of them, a humanities course, covers Dante's Divine Comedy in Ciardi's translation, which I guess is pretty well-regarded, especially for those new to Dante. </p>
<p>Ciardi actually did the translation while teaching at Harvard and used it in his courses. My Dad, an English and Philosophy major in college, is a big Ciardi fan whom he regards as "one of the last great American formalists." He (my Dad) says that one can't consider oneself educated without an immersion in Dante. I am also looking for some inspiation for a small two-person ballet that I am writing. I am intrigued by Dante's relationship with his two "tour guides" (with Virgil for Hell and Purgatory and with Beatrice for Heaven). The Divine Comedy has inspired so many artists including Frank Baum who used it loosely to structure "The Wizard of Oz".</p>