<p>Looking at the rankings again last night and was wondering why Midd is rated below Bowdoin for top LAC's yet it seems more difficult to get into? Any thoughts. Just curious</p>
<p>Both Bowdoin and Midd, since niether requires SATs, can fudge the SATs that they report (the extent to which either has done so has been discussed in other threads. Searching for Middlebury or Bowdoin and SATs should bring them up). Also, the US News does not rank in terms of difficulty of admission, but by their own nebulous definition of quality. So schools like Harvey Mudd may be harder to get into, but languish in the rankings because many other things are taken into account.</p>
<p>It's hard to go by the rankings because they pretty off, but I think that Bowdoin is further above Middlebury than rankings would suggest. A big part of that is due to the fact that it's just better known--a lot of these LACs are awesome schools, but a lot of employers haven't even heard of them. Bowdoin is among the best known, nationally and internationally. </p>
<p>In terms of your real question, on admission, at my school, the Bowdoin stats are a little higher. They've taken less kids and they have taken arguably stronger candidates. I've always been told that Bowdoin is a little more rigorous, but either way, they're both amazing schools. You can't go wrong with either one. And what's interesting is despite the fact that they're both these outdoorsy, preppy, New England LACs, they're both very different. But yea, I'd say that Bowdoin is tougher to get into and rightfully so. Also keep in mind that they are VERY small and accept very few kids. I think that Bowdoin is a few hundred smaller than Middlebury (total student body is around 1700-1800 at Bowdoin), so that makes it even more selective.</p>
<p>I disagree with danima1s completely. If I had to choose the more difficult school to get into, I'd certainly say Middlebury. I also think that Middlebury is better known that Bowdoin domestically, and I'm quite sure it's better known internationally. </p>
<p>A report issued by Middlebury several years ago noted that 74% of applicants who were accepted to both Midd and Bowdoin chose Middlebury.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that US News rankings flip around quite often. Back in the mid-90s, Middlebury was #5 in US News, while Bowdoin was 8 or 9.</p>
<p>Hmm I'm not too sure. I'm not saying that Bowdoin's allure is more deserved than Middlebury's, I just think it's greater. And one of the reasons for its fame, which is a little stupid, is that it has had a few famous authors graduate. I'm not saying that there is actually a huge gap between the two schools, I just think that Bowdoin is certainly more widely known. And the statistic about the students picking between the two---I can totally understand that. I've visited both and the Middlebury campus trumps the Bowdoin campus ten times over.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, in all fairness, that statistic was from five years ago and referenced the preferences for one specific year (2000, I think).</p>
<p>As for the campuses, it's all a matter of preference. Many people prefer the forest-and-brick of Bowdoin's campus over the mountains-and-stone of Midd. I for one think we could use some more grass space not gobbled up by buildings or pine trees. But that could be because I'm in the treeier part of campus</p>
<p>Over 70% of cross admits choose Middlebury</p>
<p><a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/60B09AAF-FC55-424F-A6E6-678E862136D2/0/june20.ppt#275,27,Fall%5B/url%5D">http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/60B09AAF-FC55-424F-A6E6-678E862136D2/0/june20.ppt#275,27,Fall</a> 2000 Cross Admits</p>
<p>Thats the one I was thinking of. Couldn't find it on Midd's website. Some very interesting stuff there. It would be cool if other colleges posted the information from their post-acceptance surveys more often.</p>
<p>Interesting. There are obviously factors that aren't considered by that website. For instance....financial age packages and recruitment. And btw, did anybody else notice Bowdoin's logo in the top left corner of this slide? <a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/60B09AAF-FC55-424F-A6E6-678E862136D2/0/june20.ppt#277,29,Midd%5B/url%5D">http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/60B09AAF-FC55-424F-A6E6-678E862136D2/0/june20.ppt#277,29,Midd</a> Freshmen characteristics</p>
<p>The 2000 cross-admits link won't open for me. Can someone copy and paste? How does Middlebury fare with, say, Amherst and Williams?</p>
<p>The stats which are old, from Fall 2000 indicate that Midd won most cross-admits relative to most other NESCAC schools. Midd competed less effectively with Williams (24% wins) and Amherst (16% wins). </p>
<p>The win rate is perhaps less significant than the absolute number of admits that are lost. In this case, for example, there were a lot more Midd/Williams cross-admits than Midd/Amherst cross-admits. So Midd actually lost more admits to Williams than to Amherst, even though Midds win rate was higher against Williams.</p>
<p>Midds toughest competitor, based on the 2000 stats, was Dartmouth. In absolute terms, Midd lost as many admits to Dartmouth as to Williams and Amherst (the next two schools) combined. </p>
<p>Cross-admit statistics are (literally) just popularity contests, and should not be the basis of any one individuals college decision.</p>
<p>Quite interesting statistics. Thanks for the information. Still wondering though why Bowdoin is ranked higher!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Looking at the rankings again last night and was wondering why Midd is rated below Bowdoin for top LAC's yet it seems more difficult to get into? Any thoughts. Just curious
[/quote]
If you mean the US News rankings, then the discrepancy presumably reflects the fact that US News considers many factors besides selectivity. </p>
<p>For example, consider Williams and Amherst (because US News posts the full statistics for these two schools in their online rankings as examples). According to US News, Amherst has a higher "Selectivity Rank" than Williams. However, Williams is ahead in areas like "Faculty Resources Rank" and "Financial Resources Rank". When all of the factors are weighted, Williams (at #1) apparently ranks higher overall, despite the fact that Amherst (at #2) is regarded as more selective.</p>
<p>I can't do the same comparison for Midd (tied for #8) and Bowdoin (tied for #6), because I don't have a US News subscription and can't access the full statistics online. But it has to be something similar. If you can find the US News data and ranking methodology, you should be able to work out the reasons for the difference, if you really want to. However, the distinction between #6 and #8 in the US News LAC rankings is of questionable significance, and so it may not be worthwhile.</p>
<p>how is it that you think middlebury is more difficult to get into? </p>
<p>i think these schools are relatively equal in quality which is why they frequently switch places in the rankings. i'm not sure why you're using US News as a barometer to the degree you are. particularly with LACs, it is a deceptive barometer at best. </p>
<p>determining which of these schools is more well known, has better academics, or is more prestigious is difficult if not disingenuous between, say, williams and middlebury, and is downright ridiculous between middlebury and bowdoin. </p>
<p>i know it's difficult to decide between schools, particularly with such good choices. this time of year brings out a need to be especially objective. but bowdoin and middlebury have distinct campus feels and identities. people choosing between these two schools should focus on those differences and not look to this board for opinions on "objective" quality that represents nothing more than veiled bias. </p>
<p>personally, i think US News should be tiered but not ranked within the tier. it tends to confine the ability for schools at the top to experiment, and it tends to be a self-perpetuating system. not good, i don't think, for small schools that seem similar on their face, but have nuanced differences.</p>
<p>IMHO, Middlebury.</p>
<p>The fact that Middlebury is SAT I Optional means a lot of people will apply with less than stellar scores, who would know that admission to some of Midd's competitors would be futile and would not bother applying to them. Being SAT I Optional just opens it up to a lot more marginal applicants, or ones who may be great in all other regards but who would not have a chance at Wellesley or Haverford, for example, because of their low scores.</p>
<p>The lower acceptance rate is the result of the larger group of people who apply, not the quality of the applicants. USNews does not distinguish between those schools who report the scores of all admits and those like Midd (who, for example, just reported the 50% of admitted students in 2004 who submitted SAT I scores for use in the admission process). USNews should make the distinction, but they don't.</p>
<p>I forgot to mention that I do undertstand Bowdoin is also SAT I Optional, but I believe over 70% of admitted students submitted SAT I scores to be used in the admission process. It's not a huge difference, but it is probably significant. It would make a difference to the selectivity rating if USNews were to take the % of admitted who supplied SAT I scores into account. You can't compare apples to oranges.</p>
<p>This year, Middlebury reported the scores of all applicants, not just those who chose to submit them.</p>
<p>Thanks for the update, Arcadia. Do you mean for the new USNews Rankings to be published in August 2006, based on 2005 ? </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what difference it will make to 'selectivity' in the Rankings. The 2005 admit scores shown on the Midd website show mid-ranges as follows: Sat I Verbal 620-710; Math 610-690 (average 1315). This is considerably lower than has been reported in the past. If this is what Midd is reporting this year to USNews, then I would think a change in selectivity will probably be the result.</p>
<p>are the SATs that significant in the ranking? aren't they a part of the large fraction of selectivity (which, i think, makes up 25% of the score)? i'm just not sure SATs like that would matter much. </p>
<p>and, i would argue, that i don't think they should. i think if middlebury thinks, from experience with previous classes, that SATs don't correllate to success in college, nor do they correllate to the type of student they want as leaders, they shouldn't risk dropping the rankings because they choose to make it optional. i realize that some consider making SATs optional a way of gaming the rankings, but, having gone to bowdoin, i know that SATs have been optional since 1969, and for reasons very much independent from the rankings. </p>
<p>furthermore, while i can understand why students who see SATs as the most important measure of intelligence in their entering class would prefer all scores be reported, i can't imagine why students who see the SAT as merely a hurdle, and a sometimes inaccurate one at that, would care whether some or all of the SATs are reported. if one looks to the rankings in part to get a sense of where, based on scores, one should apply, then the average SAT of those submitting scores is all that matters for admissions purposes. </p>
<p>i understand that people often see the SAT (colleges often see it) as the only reliable barometer of intelligence for a country with such diverse secondary education. but i don't think it weakens the strength of bowdoin or middlebury to make them optional, particularly if they know an equal proportion of their graduates who don't submit scores succeed as much as those that do. both schools obviously have a sense of other things that matter, too. </p>
<p>personally, although i did well on the SAT, i would prefer the rankings not fetishize them. i know too many people whose intelligence and creativity and leadership are not well represented on the SAT to think that it should matter more than a fraction of a fraction in ranking very good schools.</p>