<p>In selecting a top liberal arts school (Williams, Amherst, or Middlebury) over an IVY or other top school, does one give up much in the way of job prospects. What is lost from doing this instead? It just seems to me that the names of the top liberal arts schools do not carry the same tone as Harvard or Princeton.</p>
<p>Anyone? I notice that Williams has a higher avg. ACT score (32) than most of the Ivies.</p>
<p>I really don't think it would be damaging to your job prospects. Several studies have shown that CEO's are coming more and more from LACs. Furthermore, a lot of LAC students get into very good graduate schools.</p>
<p>prestige might be less among the general population of idiots. But for the people who matter (your future boss, grad schools) the prestige of Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Swat is known.</p>
<p>If you're talking about the top LACs (Amherst, Williams, Swat, Middlebury), there really isn't a big difference. But once you start to go further down the list, a middle-high LAC (like Grinnell or Colby) can't compare to a middle-high school like Chicago or Georgetown in terms of prospects.</p>
<p>If you're applying to grad schools, probably not much. Getting jobs directly out of college may be different.</p>
<p>supposedly LAC grads are very successful when getting into med school..</p>
<p>for chicago, how is the percent admitted 46% (according to cb) and Verbal: 670 - 770 SAT , Math: 660 - 760 </p>
<p>isnt 46% a bit high for those stats.</p>
<p>Top investment bands recruit at the top LACs.</p>
<p>The resources of a large university are amazing (Cornell student speaking), but it's a matter of personal preference. If you want a smaller environment, you're just as well off at a top LAC. I think most people that matter have a great deal of respect for Williams, and Amherst.</p>
<p>Big Universities have more resources but Williams and Amherst are just as good academically. </p>
<p>Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams, Pomona are all great LAC's that should be appreciated as much as Ivy League and Ivy League caliber schools.</p>
<p>However, moving down the list of LACs and the schools get significantly weaker. Plus, you have to look at the top LAC's: Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Wesleyan, etc. compared to top Universities: Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Duke, NU. The name recognition of the latter definetely stands out - though ideally that shouldn't be a factor.</p>
<p>You are right in saying that the name factor of PTon or Harvard, nor the prestige, are shared by top LAC's. Williams and Swarthmore, if anything, are closer to Brown and Dartmouth in both academic quality of students (based on test scores and such) and environment of school.</p>
<p>re mkevb1's question:
I've heard that U Chicago's applicant pool is extremely self-selecting. Only people who are serious about studying hard even bother to apply. Therefore, since the pool is small, they admit a higher percentage.</p>
<p>University of Chicago enrollment rate is not high if you compare similarly sized school Princeton( both jus under 5,00 students), you'll see:</p>
<p>University of Chicago Admissions:
8,751 applied, 3,503 admitted, 1,203 enrolled </p>
<p>Princeton Admissions:
13,695 applied, 1,733 admitted, 1,172 enrolled</p>
<p>I think for the caliber of students UofChicago competesfor, UofChicago ends up getting the shor end of the stick b/c over half the students accepted to Chicago opt out for another University, I'm assuming a peer-institutions. (they list that their fighting for the same students that apply to Brown, Columbia, Cornell, NYU, and BU) I'm guessing they lose a lot of accepted students to those schols as well.</p>
<p>Whereas very few turned down an acceptance to Princeton, b/c it's Princeton.</p>
<p>Plus UChicago doesn't automatically accept the large proportion of athletes present at most smaller private schools.</p>
<p>However, moving down the list of LACs and the schools get significantly weaker.<<</p>
<p>I disagree, schools such as Furman, Kenyon, Franklin and Marshall, St. John's, Puget Sound, are very strong, at the level of similar universities.</p>
<p>Using US News, the top Universities just outside of the top 10 are: Northwestern, Cornell, JHU, Brown, UChicago, Rice, Notre Dame</p>
<p>The top liberal arts colleges just outside the top 10 are: Wesleyan, Vassar, Washington and Lee, Colgate, Grinnell, and Hamilton</p>
<p>I guess you could compare them, but I don't think most students would pick the later cateogry over the top Universities. </p>
<p>Of course, those LAC's are pretty good schools.</p>
<p>I think he means the prestige of the institutions get significantly weaker to the point where it falls off.
[QUOTE]
You went to Furman??? Puget what?
[/QUOTE]
:insert sarcasm:</p>
<p>I'd say Amherst, Swat, Williams, prestige-wise with Wellesley standing on its own as the elite women's college. From there, it goes slowly downhill, all the way up to 20's where you reach Colby, and I think the prestige that degree carries is little to non-existant from that point on. Not saying that a Colby degree is not respected, but it is not a distinctive degree that will seperate you from othe college grads in a large pool. Colby, Bates, Oberlin, Trinity, all top LACs, but none carry any real power to their name. I could say that even down the list, the Colgate and Wesleyan name still have charm but...Furman & Skidmore?</p>
<p>Thethoughtprocess, I don't think it fair to delcare a winner in the 10-19 category b/c their you still have comprable and distinguished institutions. Colgate for instance share much of Brown and Dartmouth's applicant pool and is well recognized. Washington & Lee and Wesleyan as well. It wouldn't be that hard for me to believe that Rice vs. Colgate/W&L/Wesleyan would be a pretty even match up in terms of prestige. I'd say it's when you get to the 20-29 schools that it becomes no contest:</p>
<p>National Universities Outside the Top 20: Emory, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, UVA, Tufts, Michigan, & UCLA</p>
<p>Liberal Arts Colleges Outside the Top 20: Colby, Bates, Bryn Mawr, Mt. Holyoke, Oberlin, Trinity, Macalester, & Barnard</p>
<p>Well, I don't think Brown and Dartmouth caliber students are the same caliber of Washington and Lee students or Wesleyan students, just my opinion and extrapolating from the people I know. Either way, I think at the very top and then past 15-20, the quality of universities is better than that of LAC's</p>
<p>At the top it's courses for horses. I would prefer Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst to HYP myself. Wesleyan is on par with Brown.
I thought Oberlin, Grinnell, Macalester had a lot of recognition to them.</p>