<p>newmassdad,</p>
<p>So are you saying that every professor/researcher in the US who has never heard of Middlebury College (or [insert any one of top 100 LACs here]) considered uneducated when it comes down to the world of higher education?</p>
<p>@ ticklemepink:</p>
<p>That’s me at every visit I’ve been to. I’m always the poor soul that gets asked: “You go where? Where is that?” Even if you haven’t heard of my school (Xavier) for academic reasons, you should at least know us from basketball since we are in the NCAA tourney almost every year.</p>
<p>masta_ace, If you think about the logic of your question in regard to my posts, you may come to realize why it is a bogus question. If, not, I encourage you to take some courses in logic and reasoning before you graduate. </p>
<p>uefestation, no one is saying that admissions faculty know every school. And I venture to suggest that the sports gene is less common among academic faculty, so they are less likely to know colleges that are mostly renowned for sports than the average joe. </p>
<p>I will tell you that admissions committees are remarkably willing to give a break to applicants from a wide range of backgrounds, but it is up to the applicant to prove their capabilities, often by references. Hopefully you also know that the most powerful way to get admission to a good program is to have one of your current professors go to bat for you - perhaps calling some faculty at good universities that s/he personally knows. </p>
<p>good luck, and as one suggested, spend a few minutes to read any of a wide range of materials to have an idea of who is who in higher ed. It could save you from looking too provincial.</p>
<p>jmilton90, snowcapk and others who haven’t heard of Middlebury. Are you familiar with Williams, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Davidson, Haverford, Grinnell, Colby, or Bates?</p>
<p>^ or Grinnell, Carleton, Furman, Sewanee, Pitzer, Agnes Scott, to add a few well known names outside the northeast.</p>
<p>Don’t miss Colgate! We just build an amazing NEW science center with lots of really cool high tech stuff (only a history major wouldn’t know exactly) including a IMAX-type theater! Lots of money for students to stay on campus and research every summer… <em>winks</em></p>
<p>I am actually quite startled by the answers of those who have never heard of Middlebury. This isn’t #99 on “the list.” This is a top LAC. I went to a small women’s college which I’m sure none of you has heard of, (actually understandable,) and yet I’ve heard of Rose-Hulman, Caltech, etc. I’m not sure what to attribute this to-left coast vs. right coast, sciences vs. non-sciences? I guess I just believed that people involved in academia, especially those already on the graduate school level, would have a broad scope of knowledge about undergrad institutions.</p>
<p>I’ve heard of Caltech :).</p>
<p>I think I know of Swarthmore, Colgate, and Haverford. But besides that, I’m not really aware of the others. I guess when I read journals and articles I don’t come across authors coming from places like these.</p>
<p>But I’m sure if your job is in admissions, you probably will come across these smaller private institutions. I’m just your average Joe grad student from a large research institution in engineering so I’ll leave the arts and history for artists and historians at the LACs. But please don’t demean people because they’ve never heard of your “top” LACs, because frankly, generally most people are not aware of them outside of academia. There is no need to be startled, that is just the way it is.</p>
<p>I have to admit I am pretty shocked by some of the statements made here too. The idea that you have to go to a big research school with recognizable names to go into science is ridiculous. I went to a small LAC in the midwest (though ranked #1 public school in the midwest, and #8 when you include private schools and is recognized for its undergraduate research programs). The biology program is very good there and also fairly well recognized. True, most professors with whom I interviewed were not immediately familiar with it, but those on the ad com seemed to be and it clearly did not hurt my chances for admission. I do not expect other students, or regular faculty outside the midwest, to know where I went to undergrad or how good of a school it was, but it is pretty absurd to think that someone who looks through and <em>evaluates</em> hundreds of applications for admission from all of the world would not become familiar with the top schools, public or private, of any region.</p>
<p>And for the record, I have heard of Middlebury.</p>
<p>Arcadia and newsmassdad, I have heard of:
Williams, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Grinnell, Colby, Colgate (also Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Vassar, and Wellesley, which I’m surprised you didn’t mention)
…but not:
Davidson, Haverford, Bates, Carleton, Furman, Sewanee, Pitzer, Agnes Scott</p>
<p>Sorry to those offended! I am sure these schools all provide excellent liberal arts educations, I have just never had any reason to learn which schools provide excellent liberal arts educations. I’m not trying to be mean, but it just doesn’t concern me.</p>
<p>Does it matter if I don’t know the name of somebody’s school off-hand? If someone wants my respect, they will have to earn it through their accomplishments instead of name-dropping their undergrad. I know a couple of Harvard grads who are worthless as academics - maybe Daddy helped them get in? - so why should I respect someone’s education automatically because of their alma mater? Besides, it’s silly that I should have to learn someone else’s list of “good schools” instead of developing it myself from interactions with alums. And I’m just not interacting with alums from LACs in an academic or research sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Precisely the point. It does not concern you, nor should it - you are not involved in admissions decision making, and probably have no reason to be concerned about higher education. FWIW, when I was in grad school, I had never heard of many of these either. </p>
<p>But since then, I have worked in higher ed; I helped a kid select a college; I read widely and so forth. And my peers on departmental admissions committees have had similar life experiences.</p>
<p>No one is saying you need to be familiar with all the decent colleges in the country. But no one is saying you should be involved in the evaluation of credentials of prospective grad students either. If you planned to do so, you should learn who is who. </p>
<p>Enough said. I will bow out of this debate.</p>
<p>Looking at the USNews rankings for top liberal arts colleges, I can safely say that I know about two-thirds of the schools in the top 40 (I even have good friends at a few of them), but those from 40-122, I can recognize a few here and there. I never discredited the value of a liberal arts education, as my school has extremely strong liberal arts values as well.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is discrediting colleges they haven’t heard of. I’ve never heard of most of the liberal art colleges you guys listed. It’s partly because I never really looked beyond my own state school for undergrad education. Does that mean I think degrees from lesser known colleges are inferior? No! </p>
<p>I think admission people would be more well-versed in these things and will judge everyone individually. I’ve met people from all over the place during interviews this year. Very rarely have I seen more than 2 interviewees (out of ~30) from the same school. In my opinion your school’s pedigree is not really significant, your own research/accomplishments count a lot more.</p>
<p>Just to liven this up a bit,</p>
<p>Can anyone guess what Wake Forest, St. Olaf, University of the South, Wheaton, Gettysburg College, Nebraska Wesleyan, University of Central Florida, Wabash, Whitman an U. of Richmond have in common? Other than not being nationally known?</p>
<p>No idea, what?:)</p>
<p>Each has had a Rhodes Scholar in the past few years.</p>
<p>My point is only that we need not have heard of a place for it to have high quality graduates! And educators pay attention to this stuff!</p>