Little Ivies Joint Statement on USNews Boycott

Parents Forum
61

<p>"Prof told son at a signatory school that one of the freshman English seminars was being cappeda at 19 because of mag."</p>

<p>mythmom: This may have been stated facetiously. All of the Williams 100-level English discussion/seminar courses (with stated enrollment priority to/preference for "first-year students") are capped at 19 because they are designated as (W) or writing-intensive -- for the benefit of not only students but professors as well. (Expository Writing, listed as discussion/workshop, is capped at 12.) Your Eph will find later that enrollment in tutorials, which in Div. I and II courses are also writing-intensive, is capped at 10 (actually, a maximum of five 2-person groups.)</p>

62

<p>"There's something different about seeking out new knowledge (the research university mission) as contrasted with passing on known knowledge (which is one way to characterize what an LAC does)."</p>

<p>That may be one reason for Williams's consistently high ranking: as many as 15% of the undergrads (ranging from first-years to seniors) are involved in independent research with professors each summer as summer research fellows. (This doesn't include the school-year independent thesis work of seniors.)</p>

63

<p>Greetings.</p>

<p>I certainly feel encouraged by this letter from some of the more prestigious LAC's. But, like many other posters, I am surprised and disappointed that the presidents made no statement about the reputational part of the USNWR survey. Even if you are OK with the basic concept of rankings (a la USNWR) there are still major problems with this ambiguous, heavily-weighted (25%) factor.</p>

64

<p>Cadbury, why does it surprise you that the "Mini Ivies" statement does not attack the Peer Assessment survey? </p>

<p>Simply stated, they could not possibly get a common statement signed when schools know fully well what the PA accomplished for them. Do you think any of the non-coed school would jeopardize their rankings by working to eliminate an element that favors them, and allows them to punish their foes? What do you think would happen to Wellesley's fourth position in a PA-less ranking? On the other hand, it should be noted that Wellesley is one of those schools that does not believe in making its CDS public. </p>

<p>There is a clear difference between this statement and the one pushed by the Education Conservancy: it pits institutions that BENEFIT from the rankings against less selective schools that do NOT BENEFIT. However, there is one glaring commonality between the two "movements" and that is that they are NOT meant to help the customers at all. What the schools want is to PRETEND that filtering the information is for our benefit. </p>

<p>Right on!</p>

65

<p>Corbett </p>

<p>Not really fair to use one portion of a source to prove your point when the remainer of the source disproves it...I"t is sometimes synonymous with the "Little Three," Amherst, Wesleyan, and Williams.[2][3]<a href="The%20term%20%22Little%20Three%22%20is%20well-defined%20as%20a%20former%20athletic%20league,%5B5%5D%5B6%5D%22%20...here%20is%20where%20you%20stopped...%22and%20has%20often%20been%20used%20to%20identify%20these%20schools%20as%20a%20socially%20and%20academically%20elite%20trio.%5B7%5D%5B8%5D%5B2%5D">4</a>. Encarta defines "Little Ivies" to refer to these three schools, which it characterizes as "small" and "exclusive" and as having "high academic standards and long traditions."[9]
Williams, Amherst and Wesleyan are widely recognized as the elite LAC's (and by many just Williams and Amherst) and often considered in the class just below HPY, this is not true for the rest of the NASCAC schools. Sort of the same as the differences seen between HPY and Cornell or Brown for example. Of course these are all great schools so this is sort of a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguement.</p>

66

<p>No one is going to apply to LAC if it were not for the rankings that categorize these schools.</p>

67

<p>I don't think so BobbyJan; in fact many, like me (who attended a LAC out of choice...before there were rankings... followed by a larger university grad school), believe a LAC can provide a much better learning environment for some kids.</p>

68

<p>onemoremom: The prof. said, "They'll tell you it's because it's writing intensive, but it's really for the USNWR stats." May have been facetious, but DS said, "Isn't that gross?" so he didn't think so. May be right move anyway, I don't know. He was just feeling for the new friends he'd already made who couldn't get into any seminar they liked. DS was very proactive in completing course requests immediately when asked and got all his choices.</p>

<p>On another point: With Papa Chicken on this one. When I was in high schools these LAC's were very attractive options without ratings to legitimize the choice.</p>

69

<p>concur with token (#60). Johns Hopkins was founded on the premise that research is an essential component of the undergrad experience.</p>

70

<p>I believe the "Little Ivies" are traditionally Amherst, Williams, and Swat, not Wesleyan, not that it really matters.</p>

<p>BJ, as original fan of large universities, I've become a convert to LAC's for many students and their US News rankings, or lack thereof, wouldn't deter me one bit in recommending them to students. My D's experiences there are better than those she would have gotten at most research universities, including the Top 25 one that TheMom has worked at for more than a quarter of a century.</p>

71

<p>TheDad: No, it's not Swat, but it's no comment on the relative academics of the schools. Again, it's really just a sports designation, so it couldn't be less relevant.</p>

72

<p>When I was in hs (at the dawn of time - - remember Pembroke?) these LACs were male only and quite popular w/o rankings, but that was primarily b/c we considered the universe of colleges to be only the handful at the top of the USN&WR list. </p>

<p>But the landscape has changed dramatically - - far more applicants, far more schools in play - - even over the past few years. </p>

<p>Davidson was an unknown gem just five years ago.</p>

<p>I guess enough students/parents find the rankings helpful, but as one poster noted earlier, a 2-4 place diff on the list is probab insignif. But there's certainly a diff b/w schools ranked 1-20 and those on the bottom third of the list (#35-50).</p>

73

<p>While the statement issued by the top LACs may be somewhat disingenuous, I don't exactly trust the motives of US News either. That particular issue is the annual goose that lays the golden egg, and they have little incentive to diminish the hype it engenders. How likely would Sports Illustrated put the kibosh on its annual Swim Suit Issue? Like the College Board, I feel that the US News rankings have way too much power over the landscape of college admissions.</p>

74

<p>In actuality the Ivy League is only an athletic conference also. The real differentiation is money. Amherst and Williams like their Ivy counterparts have the financial resources that permit them to offer a higher value education than others LACs. Williams estimates that the annual expenditure per student is approximately $80,000 dollars so even those students paying full price are only footing 2/3's of the cost. And with over 50% of students receiving financial aid of some sort and with the average package at nearly $30,000 it is not surprising that Williams and Amherst not only top the US News list academically, but also appear on many best value lists. They can afford to offer a better education.</p>

75

<p>nyc: I don't agree with variation of LAC's, even if they're twenty spaces a part. Case in point: D attends Barnard. One of her majors is at Columbia, one at Barnard. Both are part of the same college experience. Columbia University #10 for national universities; Barnard College #30 LAC. How does this make any sense? In addition, S is at Williams, #1 school. If anything, Barnard is more rigorous. I don't think the ranking say much about quality of an education. It's like judging a person based on arbitrary data like height, weight, length of hair, color of hair, color of eyes. This data goes on a driver's license but doesn't say much about the qualities we might really care about.</p>

76

<p>"And with over 50% of students receiving financial aid of some sort and with the average package at nearly $30,000 it is not surprising that Williams and Amherst not only top the US News list academically, but also appear on many best value lists. They can afford to offer a better education."</p>

<p>A "better" education? What is your empirical evidence for this assertion?</p>

77

<p>I thought that of the LAC's Grinnell has the largest endowment and the largest per capita student expenditure. I could be wrong, but check it out.</p>

78

<p>From the Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005 stats:</p>

<p>Private institutions </p>

<p>Endowment Enrollment Endowment per student </p>

<p>Rockefeller University $1,556,945,000 193 $8,067,073<br>
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering $419,614,000 204 $2,056,931<br>
Princeton University $11,206,500,000 6,739 $1,662,932<br>
Yale University $15,224,900,000 11,246 $1,353,806<br>
Harvard University $25,473,721,000 19,137 $1,331,124<br>
Princeton Theological Seminary $863,653,000 670 $1,289,034<br>
Grinnell College $1,390,545,000 1,540 $902,951<br>
Pomona College $1,298,629,000 1,543 $841,626<br>
Stanford University $12,205,000,000 14,846 $822,107<br>
Curtis Institute of Music $134,008,000 165 $812,170<br>
Bryn Athyn College of the New Church $300,556,000 374 $803,626<br>
Swarthmore College $1,164,069,000 1,468 $792,963<br>
Baylor College of Medicine $1,008,261,000 1,290 $781,598<br>
Rice University $3,611,127,000 4,810 $750,754<br>
Marine Biological Laboratory (Mass.) $50,149,000 67 $748,493<br>
Amherst College $1,154,570,000 1,644 $702,293<br>
Williams College $1,348,374,000 1,953 $690,412<br>
California Institute of Technology $1,417,931,000 2,171 $653,123<br>
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $6,712,436,000 10,300 $651,693<br>
Webb Institute $51,154,000 82 $623,829<br>
Wellesley College $1,275,529,000 2,213 $576,380<br>
Berea College $861,679,000 1,530 $563,189<br>
Columbia Theological Seminary (Ga.) $152,746,000 280 $545,521<br>
Christian Theological Seminary (Ind.) $97,363,000 196 $496,750<br>
Principia Corporation $513,370,000 1,054 $487,068<br>
Dartmouth College $2,714,300,000 5,704 $475,859<br>
Wabash College $334,142,000 851 $392,646<br>
Washington University in St. Louis $4,268,415,000 11,351 $376,039<br>
Emory University $4,376,272,000 11,704 $373,913<br>
Smith College $1,035,542,000 2,887 $358,691</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
nyc: I don't agree with variation of LAC's, even if they're twenty spaces a part. Case in point: D attends Barnard. One of her majors is at Columbia, one at Barnard. Both are part of the same college experience. Columbia University #10 for national universities; Barnard College #30 LAC. How does this make any sense? In addition, S is at Williams, #1 school. If anything, Barnard is more rigorous. I don't think the ranking say much about quality of an education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Indeed, it does make one wonder how any of this makes sense. </p>

<p>Why is Barnard ranked 30th AND behind the non-coed schools such as Wellesley, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Scripps, Mount Holyoke, especially if its students are interchangeable with Columbia's? </p>

<p>Why is Barnard ranked 29 positions behind Williams if its program is more rigorous? </p>

<p>Which one is more important? That Barnard has the 9th best selectivity ranking or the 102th Faculty Resources. And, for that matter, how is that possible if Barnard is merely Columbia's alter ego? Is Barnard penalized for having a few of the symptoms of larger research universities such as larger classes, fewer classes taught by tenured faculty? Or is that it that "objective" peer assessment again? </p>

<p>Does it make sense that the 30th ranked LAC would be similar to the 10th ranked research university? Not much, unless we ought to give more credit to USNews for correctly evaluating the quality of UNDERGRADUATE education. Maybe, maybe not. Who knows!</p>

80

<p>What is a better education...One method you might consider is from a cost of production perspective...you go into a fancy eating establishment and find that a pb&j is on the menu at the same price as surf and turf both offered at say $40.00. Now you may question the value of surf and turf at $40.00 or you may not have the $40.00 to spend but I think we would all agree that a pb&j at $40.00 does not represent value. In education at private colleges it costs pretty much the same to get a degree from say Holy Cross as it does from say Amherst (and if you are poor the Amherst education assuming you get in would likely cost way less). I don't think you could realistically argue that you get the same quality of education from both schools, and stats like feeder rankings to top graduate schools for example might support that one is in fact better than the other. Now here is where people interject the "fit" theory, that all schools are equal and it is a matter of where the student fits best. This argument mostly fails because at the top schools the college not the student determines the fit 80 to 90% of the time based upon ratios of who they admit relative to applications. You may think that Princeton is a perfect fit but since they only accept 13% of applicants what you think doesn’t matter much. If you go to Bed Bath and Beyond to buy sheets it is generally true that a 500 thread count item will cost more than a 200 thread count since it costs more to make, but in education there is price compression that the market accepts primarily based upon the simple fact than the school you child ultimately goes to magically morphs into the best choice and you then are willing to pay whatever they charge. It is the lower ranked schools that benefit the most from doing away with rankings so that they can continue to overcharge for their product. The best schools can afford to not care much about rankings since their product is oversubscribed by a multiple of 10.</p>