<p>My current list includes quirky/artsy schools such as Oberlin, Vassar, and Beloit. However, I'm also interested in the more traditional LACs. So my question: if I don't care to participate in or watch sports, would I still fit in at Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, and the like? (But those three schools specifically.) I have visited Williams and Amherst, only officially toured the former.</p>
<p>Both Williams and Middlebury have big artsy elements. Don't know as much about Amherst.</p>
<p>^ Thanks. I'm not "preppy" either, which I've heard about these schools, but I think I can deal with preppy people as long as they're friendly.</p>
<p>My D isn't "preppy" either but when she visited she really liked Middlebury a lot for its language programs and for theater. Great performing arts facilities in a really cool building. It's also a very "green" campus, aiming to go 100% carbon-neutral within a few years. It seems like a combination of preppy and Birkenstock-crunchy. Amherst strikes me as a little more flat-out preppy, but I could be misinformed.</p>
<p>Hmm, interesting. Thank you! Would you happen to know anything about Haverford and how it compares, to these three schools and on the athletic/preppy spectrum?</p>
<p>Geez, Haverford is #1 on my D's wish list right now. We also visited there this summer.</p>
<p>Well, all these schools have a fairly high "preppy quotient," as I call it: in Haverford's case, 55% of its students went to public schools, which means 45% didn't. [For comparison: Middlebury 52% public; Amherst 61% public; Williams 58% public]. But I don't think Haverford really fits the preppy stereotype. Haverford has a very distinctive student culture reflecting the school's Quaker origins, and centering on its Honor Code (something you'll hear about a lot there). Many schools have academic honor codes. Since the 1940s, Haverford has also had a "social" honor code, reflecting Quaker-inspired values of personal integrity, mutual respect, collaboration, tolerance, and service to the community. People there take it pretty seriously, to the point that some prospective students find it pretty off-putting. My D found it spoke to her own values (although we're not Quakers) in a rather deep way. As she puts it, "Other schools tell you about how they have a strong sense of community but it's as if community is something that just develops and sustains itself; at Haverford they're really intentional about it, and it reflects their deepest values." So I think you need to decide whether that's a good fit for you.</p>
<p>Haverford has its athletes--it has the only varsity cricket team in the U.S. for example--but it didn't strike us as a jock-dominated school at all. It's a pretty intellectual place, and a very peace-and-justice oriented place as you'd expect from a Quaker school (and that also appeals to my D). As for the arts, a lot of that stuff is shared with Bryn Mawr which is about a mile and a half away. Students at each school can cross-register for an unlimited number of classes at the other school, and even elect majors offered only at the other school. Some majors are combined; so, for example, the theater program is at Bryn Mawr, the music program is at Haverford, and both are open to students at either school. A lot of student ECs are also joint Haverford-Bryn Mawr affairs. (Students can also take classes at Swarthmore but that's about 25 minutes away, much less convenient; or if a class is not available at Haverford or Bryn Mawr, they can take it at Penn, a quick 20-minute train ride away). Our impression was there's a lot of theater, music, artsiness in general between the two schools.</p>
<p>If you're in Delaware you definitely should hop up to Haverford and Bryn Mawr and check them out. You really need to see both to get a full sense of what the experience at either would be like, because they're pretty much joined at the hip.</p>
<p>Well, being in Delaware is the reason I haven't visited them yet. The tri-co is close enough that I can pop up any time, no need to plan ahead much--and I'm only a rising junior, so I have plenty of time.</p>
<p>And thank you for the detailed info on Haverford! Of course, I was hoping to eliminate some and it looks like they're all still contenders...</p>
<p>
[quote]
So my question: if I don't care to participate in or watch sports, would I still fit in at Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, and the like? (But those three schools specifically.)
[/quote]
Sure. The percentage of student-athletes at these schools is considered quite high (something like 30-40%), but obviously that still leaves lots of students who aren't athletes.</p>
<p>If you're considering Midd and Williams, you should recognize that these are both relatively small schools in relatively isolated small towns. They both provide great opportunities for outdoor recreation, such as sports, hiking, or skiing, which is why both schools tend to attract athletic and outdoorsy people. But if you prefer indoor recreation, then you may find the opportunities to be more limited. </p>
<p>This is less of a concern at Amherst. Amherst is not a big city, but it qualifies as a major "college town" due to the presence of UMass and other schools nearby. So there are lots of student-oriented places to go.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would you happen to know anything about Haverford and how it compares, to these three schools and on the athletic/preppy spectrum?
[/quote]
An organization called [url=<a href="http://www.nacda.com%5DNACDA%5B/url">www.nacda.com]NACDA[/url</a>] rates the overall performance of college and university athletic programs. The NCAA Division III ratings (which include most liberal arts colleges) for 2008 were as follows:</p>
<h1>1 Williams</h1>
<h1>4 Amherst</h1>
<h1>5 Middlebury</h1>
<hr>
<h1>51 Haverford</h1>
<p>Haverford's performance is certainly respectable (considering that there were 305 schools in the ranking), but it's not one of the top LACs for student-athletes, whereas the other three schools are. At least they buried Swarthmore (#252).</p>
<p>Ah, thank you for the detailed information and statistics, Corbett! Weirdly, on visiting I liked Williams more than Amherst. But I spent less time at Amherst and didn't really go into town at all, so that may account for it.</p>
<p>Would you happen to know how the four schools compare on drinking? I don't drink, don't plan to drink (even when I turn 21, it will require some thinking), and would prefer not to be around (many) people who are drunk.</p>
<p>You'll find a good number of drinkers at any college, but I think their presence would be considerably more noticeable at a rural school, since there are fewer alternatives, and most fun is relegated to campus.</p>
<p>Well, Williams and Midd are obviously rural; but Amherst is in the same town as UMass, a notorious (and huge) party school, and Haverford is still a train ride away from Philly.</p>
<p>you should come to swarthmore.</p>
<p>it sounds like you're describing it. quirky with a lack of sportiness, preppiness, heavy drinkers.</p>
<p>have you considered it? ruled it out?</p>
<p>Keil, I can only speak to Williams.</p>
<p>Williams kids are in general physically active and energetic. All small colleges with 20+ teams have a high percentage of varsity athletes (just do the math) but Williams' athletes take their sports seriously. Having said that they majority of students are not varsity athletes though they may participate in a club sport or some other non-team activity like hiking, winter sports or dancing. They tend to get out there and do something!</p>
<p>2:00 a.m. tension busters would likely be a loony broomball game or a sledding expedition -- and even the least athletically inclined get caught up in the momentum. Kids tend to be health oriented as well and exercise to cut stress and stay in shape.</p>
<p>Plenty of kids are light drinkers or don't drink at all. Some drink far more than is good for them, it's true, but I don't see that as being a deal breaker if other aspects of Williams are positive.</p>
<p>Preppy is to me a fairly meaningless label as even the prep schools aren't preppy any more. All of these schools recruit diversity -- in race, in religion, in ethnicity, in income. Ironically, I think, it's the more liberal colleges that have the most conformity of thought. The left to middle road schools (they are *all *somewhat liberal) are actually more tolerant of a range of opinion -- and for that matter wardrobe.</p>
<p>I like Swat, but I'm kind of afraid of it--I have a perfectionist personality, so I don't know how I would hold up.</p>
<p>momrath, by "preppy" I meant, well, people who dress that way. Because I can't afford to buy anything from J.Crew, and although I like classic styles, I hate popped collars.</p>
<p>Keil:</p>
<p>My S currently attends Williams and he does not wear J Crew or anything like it unless his sister makes him walk in. Usually he runs away. If he does buy anything it is extremely on sale. Usually he wears GAP jeans and a T-shirt. His favorites usually have something to do with the Beatles, though he has recently acquired one of Leonardo Da Vinci's anatomical drawing that he is wearing a lot.</p>
<p>He couldn't care less about clothes and he has many friends and loves Williams. He is a musician/composer, never met a sport he liked and loves Williams.</p>
<p>A friend of his will be a frosh this year and is more alternative than he is.</p>
<p>On move-in day last year I was (pleasantly) surprised to see a lot of guys with long hair. The school did not look preppy at all.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it is an athletic powerhouse. However, from my S's experience the athletes did not overpower Williams at all.</p>
<p>And he, too, preferred Williams to Amherst although he is from public school, not a clothes person and not an athlete.</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<p>"Would you happen to know how the four schools compare on drinking? I don't drink, don't plan to drink (even when I turn 21, it will require some thinking), and would prefer not to be around (many) people who are drunk.</p>
<p>Then at least at the three rural ones, while you will find non-drinkers, you will be around MANY people who are drunk. According to the President of Midd., in his baccalaureate address this year, almost a third of Middlebury students had suffered a alcohol blackout in the two weeks before the survey they undertook. (Blackouts, by the way, cause long-term cognitive damage.) 05/24/08:</a> Baccalaureate Address 2008 Williams, slightly under 30% of the student body are heavy drinkers (meaning either near daily drinking, or binge drinking 3-4 times in a two week period.) At both schools, binge drinking in the previous two weeks approaches 50%, higher for Caucasians and for males. Amherst has not made its survey public, but the numbers are likely similar.</p>
<p>You WILL find some total abstainers - usually 15-20% of the student body. And you will find a minority of moderate drinkers as well. </p>
<p>Only you can decide whether that is a crucial issue for you. I suggest visiting on a Thursday overnight, and then decide. All four of those schools offer a terrific education.</p>
<p>Thanks for the comments, mythmom and mini. I have some pondering to do.</p>
<p>Where did the conception emerge that heavy drinking will be more common in rural areas because "there is nothing else to do?" Does this smell like unsubstantiated prejudice to anyone else? The reason I ask is that the colleges with actual "party school" reputations are on average no more rural than the norm.</p>
<p>I feel as though there's a good bit of misinformation flying around this thread.</p>
<p>^ While the connection between heavy drinking and a rural setting is probably stereotype, I think that in these particular examples, it is substantiated by evidence. Also, heavy drinking and "party school" are not joined at the hip. I don't think any of the elite LACs are considered "party schools," but from my research into Williams and Amherst at least, I have noted disturbing trends regarding alcohol--moreso than at other LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Williams, slightly under 30% of the student body are heavy drinkers (meaning either near daily drinking, or binge drinking 3-4 times in a two week period.) At both schools, binge drinking in the previous two weeks approaches 50%, higher for Caucasians and for males.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem the conclusions reached here is that they conflate and inflate data. There simply is no clearing house for data that compiles and compares the same information from college to college using consistent terms and samples. SAT scores or diversity figures for example are public information and are easily verifiable. </p>
<p>Drinking "scores" are random, use different criteria and are highly subjective.</p>
<p>I have never seen Williams generated statistics that specifically refer to ‘binge” drinking. This is an emotionally weighted term that skews interpretation to suit the agenda of the interpreter. </p>
<p>Several years ago Williams published a survey that classed 29% the respondents as “heavy drinkers” defined by the report as drinking 10 or more drinks per WEEK. NOT NECESSARILY “near daily drinking, or binge drinking 3-4 times in a two week period.”</p>
<p>Another survey, which was actually a study on diversity, polled different ethnic groups and compared behavior in several areas, alcohol consumption being just one of many. Of the 1000 students who responded 27% of all African Americans, 53% of all Latinos, 39% of all Asian, and 58% of all Whites "Had five or more drinks on one or more occasions in [the] last two weeks." NOT “binge drinking in the previous two weeks”</p>
<p>No question but that 10 drinks is a lot of alcohol, but 10 beers spread out over a week is not necessarily abusive. No question but that "five drinks in a row" meaning 5 shots lined up on the bar and chugged one after another is unacceptable and dangerous behavior; however, the Williams College Diversity Initiatives Self Study did NOT imply that scenario. </p>
<p>One thing is irrefutable: We have LOTS of data. What we don’t have is consistent data from school to school or sensible criteria and definitions.</p>
<p>Using Williams own data as a springboard (29% had 10+ drinks a week, 58% had 5 drinks on one or MORE occasions in the last TWO WEEKS) and combining other reports from other schools and other professional surveys which use other definitions amounts to scaremongering by non-sequitur.</p>
<p>Of course, we hate boorish drunken behavior. Of course we hate destruction of property. NOBODY IS DEFENDING SUBSTANCE ABUSE.</p>
<p>Believe me, don't believe me. Love Williams, hate Williams I don't care. But I do care that Williams own statistics are being outrageously and inaccurately manipulated.</p>
<p>There are plenty of reasons to cross Williams off your list: Too cold, too rural, too sporty, too active, too middle of the road politically, too White, too hard to get to, too many cows, too much purple – but too much drinking shouldn’t be one of them.</p>