<p>my take:
1. Williams
2. Amherst
3. Swarthmore
4. Wellesley
5. Middlebury
6. Bowdoin
7. Pomona
8. Wesleyan
9. Haverford
10. Carleton</p>
<p>i think colgate is underranek din usnews cause of its student body size throws off the statistics</p>
<p>I would just like to point out that ranking the LACs is really irrelevant to the selection process. It is very important when looking at LACs to give serious consideration to the campus culture -- consideration that will quickly whittle down your list.</p>
<p>For example, if you want an LAC with a heavy drinking scene, your personal ranking will be very different than the list for a student seeking a more moderate drinking scene.</p>
<p>If you want bigtime LAC athletics, your list will be different.</p>
<p>If you want a location near civilization, your list will be different.</p>
<p>If you want frats, your list will be different. </p>
<p>If you want a lot of diversity, your list will be different.</p>
<p>And, so on and so forth.</p>
<p>Sad but true. I thought that $45,000 was for education....</p>
<p>My oldest daughter's first room mate was an alcoholic. Within the first week of her freshman year two kids on her dorm floor were hospitalized for alcohol poisoning and one sent home (expelled). I sat and listened to the president talk about responsibility and the school's policy on underage drinking. Then my daughter told me about her RA drinking with her room mate, in her room. Frat parties were drop-in, drink-until-you-drop affairs. My daughter transferred from this top-15 school after one year. How can kids who are smart enough to get into these schools be so dumb about alcohol? I'm just amazed that much of this doesn't even phase the parents. What a waste.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sad but true. I thought that $45,000 was for education....</p>
<p>My oldest daughter's first room mate was an alcoholic. Within the first week of her freshman year two kids on her dorm floor were hospitalized for alcohol poisoning and one sent home (expelled). I sat and listened to the president talk about responsibility and the school's policy on underage drinking. Then my daughter told me about her RA drinking with her room mate, in her room. Frat parties were drop-in, drink-until-you-drop affairs. My daughter transferred from this top-15 school after one year. How can kids who are smart enough to get into these schools be so dumb about alcohol? I'm just amazed that much of this doesn't even phase the parents. What a waste.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Students drink at every school. In the 5 LACs here, there are no fraternities (to my knowledge), yet there are still parties and yes, still alcohol poisonings. Actually there hasn't been a Mudd student with alcohol poisoning for 5 years, but it does happen someone frequently at the other 4 Cs.</p>
<p>The Claremont Colleges are lightweight contenders compared to the so-called "binge drinking" at some of the LACs. Of course college kids drink even at low to moderate drinking schools (like Pomona). But, there are highly ranked LACs sending 50 or more kids to the hospital in a year with alcohol overdoses.</p>
<p>There are others where it is an extremely rare occurance. None, one, two per year.</p>
<p>Those two schools would be VERY different even though they might be "ranked" nearly identically. Pay attention to the campus cultures. Think about the kind of college experience you want. That stuff is much more important than worrying about which LAC has a "better" economics department.</p>
<p>How can you tell which schools have lots of drinking and which schools don't?</p>
<p>Does Swarthmore have a lot of drinking?</p>
<p>I'll second interestedad's comment about rankings saying little about LAC fit, and add that it applies to academic matters as well. Proud Dad's list, for example, had schools known for academic rigor, close faculty/student interaction, and undergrad research. </p>
<p>If you were looking for schools with strength in the natural sciences, most of his schools would not be on most people's list.</p>
<p>If you're looking for the brightest possible colleagues, you can come up with your top 10 by looking at selectivity. Interested in the college with the most internationally recognized, big-name faculty? That list would look different still. And finally, LACs are differ from one another far more than they did a generation ago. In addition to programs in the traditional academic disciplines, nearly all LACs have carved out specialties via inter-disciplinary programas like international studies, global studies, gender studies, American Studies, area studies, environmental studies, Peace studies, film studies, etc. If you're interested in those, then the list shuffles yet again.</p>
<p>Actually, I was surprised at the success rate W&M quoted for their graduates in medical school acceptance when compared to their rival universities, impressed with the science faculty and facilities at Wellesley, and flat-out astounded at Bard's commitment to science in terms of money, facilities, and faculty. Anecdotal information from Wellesley grads implies a level of knowledge and education in the sciences that had them entering grad schools with a far greater ability to assimilate the information than their peers from institutions known for a rigorous science curriculum. There are a lot of surprises out there. Don't look at just selectivity since many have a self-imposed pre-selection for unique reasons that skew generalized results: Wellesley for single-sex, Sarah Lawrence for quirky no-major, no-grades philosophy, etc. Look at academic ratings and you won't find many schools higher than these two which are often wrongly considered "finishing schools". You just have to do your homework and find what works for you (or your kids).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Students drink at every school.
[/quote]
Yes, but some colleges are a lot worse than others when it comes to alcohol and enforcement. </p>
<p>For an example, you need look no farther than Williams and Swarthmore. Williams has 2124 students; Swarthmore has 1484. In the last three years, the number of Williams students cited for liquor law violations has ranged between 103 and 144. During the same interval, the number of cited students at Swarthmore has ranged between 0 and 15. </p>
<p>For another comparison, look at Northwestern and Chicago. Northwestern has 7826 students; Chicago has 4642. In the last three years, the number of Northwestern students cited for liquor law violations has ranged between 334 and 581. During the same interval, the number of cited students at Chicago has ranged between 4 and 14. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/search.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/search.asp</a></p>
<p>The number of students cited is often a result of the strictness of campus security rather than of the number of students drinking. The degree of enforcement varies widely from college to college.</p>
<p>Enforcement doesn't really stop alcohol use, it just makes it more dangerous. At my school we have tons of freedom and can basically do whatever we want, but it actually makes people safer. When people get really messed up, they aren't afraid to go to their proctors and ask for help because they won't get us in trouble. There are people here to help us, not punish us. You'll also find that people will drink more in public and less in dorms, which also makes it less dangerous because chances are there are experienced and responsible people around if something goes wrong. People will also have an urge to drink because it is so outlawed. It would seem even more fun to drink when you know you are getting away with something. </p>
<p>I'm not sure about other colleges, but it seems to work here at least...</p>
<p>proud dad-- this is not an issue of colleges per se, but of drinking across the world among the college aged demographic. the fact is, 18-22 year-old students will drink. while this is not to say that ALL of these students drink, it is a fact that the vast majority of college students drink with some frequency. example: my older brother attends williams college. i visit every 3 months or so on weekends. pretty much all of my brother's friends (with the acception of one dissenting individual that i can think of), who by the way are extremely driven, intelligent and involved in the school, "binge drink" (not casual) during this break from school. why the alcohol abuse at such a great school (its an amazing school, that is undeniable)? well first of all, they can. parents are a non-factor at college and JA's (equivalent to RA) were once frosh themselves, if you know what im saying....second, these people virtually work themselves to death during the week. granted, alcohol as an escape is not healthy, but its fun. period. i agree with you that drinking in excesive amounts, esp. during the week is disconcerting. but drinking as a rec. activity at colleges will always be ubiquitos on college campuses, from princeton, to harvard, to williams, to yale to wellesley. </p>
<p>to kemet: those facts are misleading. i am sure that swarthmore does not have that much, if any, less drinking that williams. swarthmore simply does not enforce harsh rules against alcohol abuse, as manifested in those stats. for a college campus to say that they have between 0 and 15 cases of reported abuse every year is bogus. if they wanted to, they could probably find that in an hour on a friday night, on any campus. i wouldnt be surprised if this is a tactic they are employing in order to trick parents into believing that their campus is more or less "dry." much like schools are making sats optional to be "more open-minded" (it is really to boost sat averages, and thus move up in u.s. news rankings-damn us news....good ny times article on that), these schools are ignoring alcohol abuse because it has only helped them thusfar.
thanks for reading this...i had to get my two cents..</p>
<p>I think schools in the Midwest like Carleton, Grinnell, Macalester, and to a certain degree Kenyon get underrated because of their rural Midwestern locations. (I know Mac is urban, but the midwestern bit applies.) I think schools get bonus points from a lot of people for being in the Northeast, even if those schools are rural as well. I know US News has Carleton at no. 6 and Grinnell at 14 but people posting rankings here have usually dropped those schools a couple spots, which I think is undeserved. I actually think Grinnell is top ten quality.</p>
<p>hmmm...i dont know much about Grinnell. but, baed on selectivity, its not close to the top ten. you dont have to look farther than sat averages, which are not close to amherst, williams, pomona, etc.. and the early decision acceptance rate is well over 50 percent. that is probably why is it not top ten. i do agree its a great school, but to be that highly ranked, a school needs to be virtually impossible to gain acceptance to.</p>
<br>
<p>to kemet: those facts are misleading. i am sure that swarthmore does not have that much, if any, less drinking that williams. swarthmore simply does not enforce harsh rules against alcohol abuse, as manifested in those stats. for a college campus to say that they have between 0 and 15 cases of reported abuse every year is bogus. if they wanted to, they could probably find that in an hour on a friday night, on any campus. i wouldnt be surprised if this is a tactic they are employing in order to trick parents into believing that their campus is more or less "dry."<</p>
<br>
<p>I think your attitude is understandable in this day and age of gaming the system. But, I stand by Interesteddad's analysis pretty much. Security isn't all that interested in what goes on behind closed doors unless you are unlucky enough to get caught up in a fire drill or something like that. But for certain LACs -- which shall remain nameless -- to report 50, 60, 70 alcohol infractions a year means the individuals involved pretty much had to be walking around stinko drunk, urinating in public, puking in flower beds. That sort of thing does not happen on a regular basis at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>RE: SAT averages:
All right, why not? I've already expressed my opinion on using percent-of-higher-degrees as a viable reference point for ranking LACs, now let's talk SATs. At least two of my top picks don't require standardized test scores for admission and one flat-out tells you they'll chuck 'em in the trash if you send them. Racial/ethnic bias and the ability to teach to the test, or tutor to the test, as well as suspect and capricious scoring of the new SAT writing portion have to some extent buttressed the claim of these schools that standardized tests are not that good an indicator of intelligence, ability to learn---or a student's relative worth to society. Of course we all understand the reality of college admissions and the role SATs and ACTs play in that process today. But the day will come when they'll carry as much weight as "class president" or "national honor society" in evaluating true intelligence, and LACs are leading the way. We're already seeing the repudiation of ED as a fair and equitable admission tool. Standardized tests should be next. For those that will claim I'm bitter, I'll tell you my children are National Merit finalists and semi-finalists, obviously based purely on PSAT scores.</p>
<p>i see what you're saying and agree for the most part. however, you must agree that some type of standardized testing is neccessary. i believe that before u.s news came into the picture, there was no problem at all. they have made colleges way too sat conscious, and have perpetuated a problem that will probably never go away.
the fact is, sats are here to stay. they are the only way to reflect how smart a student body is in a cut and dried, concise manner. yes, i realize that is not ideal, and that it hurts minorities, but omitting the sat entirely would leave colleges without any indication of pure test-taking intelligence, which is not essential, but is undeniably important in college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
swarthmore simply does not enforce harsh rules against alcohol abuse, as manifested in those stats.
[/quote]
Note that Swarthmore had more alcohol-related arrests than Williams, although it had fewer citations. Sure, different colleges enforce alcohol violations to varying extents (as I noted earlier). That doesn't mean there isn't a big difference in drinking cultures.
[quote]
omitting the sat entirely would leave colleges without any indication of pure test-taking intelligence, which is not essential, but is undeniably important in college.
[/quote]
Certain SAT-optional colleges would say otherwise.</p>
<p>to johnwesley--i agree. the reason that swarthmore does not have as many cases of overt, disrespectful alcohol abuse as a college such as williams is probably partly due to the amount of jocks these schools admit. i can tell you first-hand, that most of the students you see urinating in public while holding a beer were not admitted for their academic prowess....williams takes a lot of pride in their dominant d-3 sports program. this is a trade-off they are willing to make.</p>