<p>hmm, i don't quite get ur question wasup. do u mean why did i apply ED yet withdraw and apply again? or did u mean why didn't I apply ED this time round?</p>
<p>in any case, i didn't apply Brown ED back then and I didn't this year either. </p>
<p>Didn't apply ED last year even though I knew Brown was my first choice because I was too busy with my prelims and a levels and I didn't want to rush through my college apps. Though I did my research like way, way, before my peers even started thinking about whether they want to go UK or US or overseas at all, I didn't quite have an inspiration for the sickening essays so I decided to leave everything till after A Levels (and prom :p). </p>
<p>Didn't ED this year because of two reasons: 1. By then, I wasn't clear if Brown was still my first choice... I was beginning to like Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan a lot and Brown wasn't exactly a clear favorite like it was between Cornell and Chicago last year. Besides, I was quite sure if Brown did accept me with aid, the aid package is not gonna be very generous anyway. 2. Didn't take the new SAT until October and for some strange reason, I wanted to wait till I receive my results before I file my application. For other colleges which didn't make the new SAT compulsory it's coz I wanted to hide the new scores if they were too lousy... Before I took the new SAT I already sent a set of results to those colleges, so if I screwed it up big time I don't have to tell the colleges I took the new SAT at all. That isn't very applicable for Brown though coz I think they required the new SAT, but it pretty much explains why I didn't ED to other schools. </p>
<p>yes conn coll is another LAC. U conn is probably a state university which probably offers no financial aid for internationals. so no chance of me going there. :)</p>
<p>Is it because of the fin aid that offer in most LACs that attract ppl to attend for a good solid and cheap education? How selective are they for admission anyways? I know I'm going to Mcgill, but just for curiousity sake how selective and how strict are these LACs? </p>
<p>Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Vassar & Grinnell? Does it mean LAC are stronger in arts/humanites?</p>
<p>It depends on whether u r applying for finaid. For internationals who do not require finaid, which are the minority, should get into MOST lacs easily with decent credentials. Coz diversity is a big thing in US and LACs have a little trouble attracting international students like the research universities because of the lack of international reputation. So LACs are generally more willing to give out aid to internationals, and internationals who really want to go US but require financial aid more often than not turn to LACs as an option - an option that's in no way shabby or inferior. Yes, finaid is the main reason why I applied to so many LACs. But I also like the type of education there - small classes, professors who really want to TEACH and are accessible to UNDERGRADS (can you imagine 2 professors from conncoll emailed me and one even offered to meet up with me on his way back to US from Vietnam?) But it's not without its shortcomings either. the fact that the student population is so small might be a boon for some but bane for others. true, classes are small, but there are also less chance of finding similar or like-minded people (which isn't exactly a bad thing coz it forces people to integrate). course offerings are also not as extensive as in research universities. and last but not least the reputation. Though the top LACS (like Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore) are held in EXTREMELY high regard (equivalent to top-tier ivies or better) by the people in the know, such as the people in graduate school admissions, it doesn't quite have a reputation with the general public - not just internationally but also in US. Which is a sad thing really. </p>
<p>Selectivity? Well, if SAT scores are any guage, Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore have a rough 25th-75th percentiles of 1330-1530. Which is not too dissimilar with say, Stanford's 1350-1540, Columbia's 1320-1510, or Duke's 1320-1510. (outdated 2004 data)</p>
<p>And no, liberal arts do not mean, well, arts. Here's a dictionary.com definition for liberal arts: Academic disciplines, such as languages, literature, history, philosophy, mathematics, and science, that provide information of general cultural concern: The term liberal arts connotes a certain elevation above utilitarian concerns. Yet liberal education is intensely useful (George F. Will). </p>
<p>There are LACs which are extremely strong in sciences, like Harvey Mudd College and Swarthmore (which is strong in everything for that matter).</p>
<p>oh, and liberal arts schools are by no means cheap. their tuition is on par with your top ivies' (sometimes more ex) but of course the financial aid makes up for everything. :)</p>
<p>Oic. I didn't know much of LACs. LACs seem really popular with Rj and Vj especially. It's nice that the prof will get to know you. At Mcgill I must really commit to work hard to be known by the prof (only way to get As) rather than just another Asian Boy. Are liberal arts schools good in maths and science? Or buisness for that matter? </p>
<p>It depends on the school itself. Some offers fantastic science (and maths) programs like Harvey Mudd and Swarthmore. Top LACs usually have business in their curriculum.</p>
<p>actually, i don't think most LACs have business in their curriculum... it's too preprofessional and kinda go against that whole intellectual liberal arts vibe...</p>
<p>Not as popular as UoT or UBC... but i am sure you will find some Singaporeans there... or Asians... well certainly much much more than at Conn...</p>
<p>Well, me own peeps at tj tell me that Mcgill is better than UofT. College environment wins UofT. Altho, academically they are rather on par. Which will u choose woebegone?</p>
<p>Yeah I will choose Mcgill because it sounds yummy! :D</p>
<p>But then I guess Montreal is pretty nice although I've never been there before. Just mention Montreal and you come up with images of erm Da Vinci Code.</p>
<p>Compare to Kenyon or Conn, Mcgill would have 100X more Singaporeans.</p>
<p>As for Gambier, images of erm trees, trees and more trees will conjure up in my mind, with a castle on it. =)</p>
<p>What's so good about UIUC that attract so many Singaporeans?
Uiuc Vs Mcgill? I mean they have ppl with 1700 getting in. Quality of student is declining. </p>
<p>I think you probably be the only one at kenyon. lolz. "Hi. I'm from Singapore. " "Hm....where? China? "</p>
<p>I don't actually think UIUC is attracting a lot of Singaporeans? It's more like a safety for most... and even then, most people prefer umich as a safety... Wisconsin-Madison has a lot of singaporeans too... And probably more than half of them are A*Star scholars who didn't manage to get into anywhere else... </p>
<p>"So number of Singapores
NUS>>>>>U Mich>UofT>UBC>>Mcgill>>> Conn" </p>
<p>Yeah I think that's pretty right. </p>
<p>kenyon, i think there's no singaporean at both Conn and Kenyon now at the moment... so they're just as bad.</p>