<p>onilawliet,
An SAT average of 1409, would not put Reed in the top 10 LACs, especially when considering that you do not have to submit your SAT score for admission, which means, only students with higher scores would submit these. This would place the average SAT into the 1300s easily, not top 10 worthy. Reed's GPA of 4.0, just means that they use a weighted scale for AP/IB classes, for admissions to amherst and williams the average would resemble 4.5 or so, i know plenty of people with 4.3s that didnt get into their local state school.
The work load is hard at all top 10 LACs, but people at these schools seem to manage, maybe because their is better advising, and not caliber of studnet body. But wouldn't this better advising and counseling make the school better in a way? So, Reed is listed in the forum at CC, this is an indicator of nothing, especailyl because htere is more than 10 schools listed...</p>
<p>While it's pretty silly to compose lists of Top-10 or Top-25 schools, it is especially so for LACs. LACs tend to be smaller schools that offer dedicated programs. Contrary to much larger universities LACs cannot be everything for everyone. In addition to offering the "typical" liberal arts curriculum, LACs offer programs that DEFINE them quite easily. I don't think that anyone would confuse Harvey Mudd with Swarthmore or Williams with Reed. </p>
<p>In a world that rewards the elusive best fit, it makes no sense to lump schools in broad categories or attempt to rank the "best" 10 schools. Most schools have programs that clearly separate them from more generic programs. A student interested in music might prefer Oberlin or a student deeply interested in obtaining a PhD in a scientific area might prefer Reed. While nothing would preclude someone interested in music to be be happy at Reed, chances are that Oberlin would offer a better program. The same reasoning would apply to almost all subjects: economics, political sciences, dance, sciences, etc. For example, most schools offer classes in economics, but not all schools offer a competitive program as their resources are allocated to different programs. </p>
<p>In so many words, it serves little purpose to answer a question related to the "10 best LACs" ... a better question is "In which areas are schools XYZ very good?"</p>
<p>I'm not a fan of one-size-fits-all rankings, but those who are can note:
[quote]
An even more extreme example is that of Reed College. Among academics Reed is known as a very strong college and one of the greatest producers of future PhD students in the country. When the US News ranking first came out in 1983, Reed was among the top 10 liberal arts colleges in the country. In 1995 Reed decided that it would no longer provide information to US News for the ranking issue. The result was that Reed was dropped in the rankings down to the 4th tier of colleges, the lowest tier published.</p>
<p>College</a> Admissions Counseling|Resources|College Rankings
[/quote]
Reed looks more attractive when its objective statistics are considered, as before 1995 with USNWR. Reed also looks better when a particular outcome is considered; Reed has been third or fourth (depending on years measured) in overall future PhD production percentage (behind CalTech, Mudd and sometimes Swarthmore), and the professors are thus teaching to a corresponding level. Many future-PhD students self-select to such schools, so there's a self-fulfilling prophecy effect, and thus a reputation for it. Schools like this are attractive to students with such interests, and so Reed attracts students with academic and research interests, and perhaps not so many with other interests.</p>
<p>Vossron, people have often used the example of Reed to describe retaliatory tactics by the USNews surveyors. The change in the "ranking" of Reed that followed the school's refusal to provide information amounted to a "delisting." </p>
<p>For the record, this is what happened to Sarah Lawrence not so long ago. While I cannot comment on Reed's situation precisely, the decision to remove SLC from the RANKED listings was the ONLY acceptable in my eyes. SLC tried --without success-- to have its cake and eat it too by playing games. I also believe that USNews should delist every school that uses "fuzzy" admissions criterias or is constantly misrepresenting its admission data by well-chose "omissions" (think Bates, Middlebury, and several others.) </p>
<p>After all, schools that deviate from the norms measured by USNews should NOT be permitted to be included in the ranked list, but should be listed alphabetically. In the case of Reed, since the school insists on NOT being "measured" by USNews, this request should be honored and the school unlisted entirely.</p>
<p>PS Dropping from the "top 10" at USNews is not that rare. A few years ago, Bryn Mawr jumped just behind AWS but promptly returned to a more legitimate position. The early USNews rankings were not above being bizarre, to say the least.</p>
<p>I thought Wellesley was a top LAC.</p>
<p>I can't comment on all of these USNWR factors because, honestly, I don't care for all of these specifics. my own personal list would look something like this...
(no order)</p>
<p>Reed
Swarthmore
Haverford
Vassar
Middlebury
Williams
Amherst</p>
<p>
[quote]
The change in the "ranking" of Reed that followed the school's refusal to provide information amounted to a "delisting."
[/quote]
[quote]
The next year, although the college had asked to be dropped entirely from the ratings, the editors of the newsmagazine assigned the lowest number possible to each variable, thus dropping Reed College to the lowest quartile.
[/quote]
If not retaliatory, it's at least a creative way to perform a delisting!</p>
<p>I still do not see a reason for rankings to not exist and for why a school would not want to be on them</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure of order, but:</p>
<p>Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Carleton, Wellesley, Wesleyan, Vassar...</p>
<p>That's 7 and the first to come to mind.</p>
<p>MeasureYourself, Reed requires the SAT: </p>
<p>Secondly, even if it's true that all the top LACs are hard (which is not true by the way cough* Amherst *cough), some like Reed perhaps are more difficult than others, which would explain the low graduation rate. </p>
<p>Danas, you state that US News unfairly ranks Reed yet you use US News to support your claims against the school! A high alumni contribution rate tells you nothing about the academics at the school. To me, it says two things: 1) Man, school X has a damn good development office and 2) Wow, school X's basketball team must have won the NCAA last year. </p>
<p>Third, acceptance rate is another almost worthless factor when considering the academics at a school. In fact, a reputation for rigor often scares away applicants. The University of Chicago is the perfect example. Your typical student applies to a school for all sorts of reasons that often have nothing to do with the quality of education (i.e. geography, climate, sports, availability of major, brand name, etc.). And doesn't an applicant pool that self-selects for Reed's prodigious ph.d rate indicate that the school must have an excellent academic environment?</p>
<p>Fourth, peer assessment score is a valuable way to measure the quality of a school, but the way US News conducts its survey makes it meaningless in this case. The "experts" US News surveys are ill qualified to assess all these schools because they often know nothing about the schools they're being asked to evaluate. A dean from Lewis & Clark for instance would probably give Reed a very high rating while giving Haverford (or insert some other great school that one may not know anything about) a very low one. I also suspect an east coast bias in effect since many of the most well-known LACs are located in that region. </p>
<p>The most serious charge that can be levelled against Reed is its low graduation rate, and I'm sure a host of factors contribute to this. By the way, Measure what gave you the impression that Reed has a culture of hard drug use? I know it has a reputation for pot, but that's hardly a "hard" drug. If you're referring to the student who died from a heroin overdose, I doubt that incident is representative of the campus culture. Also, the school has been nothing but open about what happened.</p>
<p>My list in alphabetical order would be:</p>
<p>Amherst
Carleton
Haverford
Harvey Mudd
Middlebury
Pomona
Reed
Swarthmore
Wellesley
Williams</p>
<p>Schools that also could be considered top ten would be:</p>
<p>Colgate, Wesleyan, Grinnell, Bryn Mawr, Davidson, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna, Oberlin, and Bates.</p>
<p>i heard reed was like number 2 for LSD</p>
<p>Hard work AND hard drugs? Not a school mine have been interested in. They have friends and a cousin who attend to confirm the stereotypes.</p>
<p>1)Amherst(open curriculum,location,reputation)
2)Bowdoin(my personal number 1)
3)Williams
4)Swathmore
5)Pomona
6)Carleton
7)Claremont McKenna
8)Middlebury
9)Haverford
10)Wellesley</p>
<p>For me?</p>
<p>1) Middlebury
2) Everyone else</p>
<p>Someone mentioned Amherst and the networking. The Claremont Consortium is also a great place to network, with 5 colleges and 2 graduate schools all clumped together. </p>
<p>Amherst (like the open curriculum)
Williams
Swarthmore
Pomona
Bowdoin (hate the weather though)
Claremont McKenna (like the environment)
Haverford</p>
<p>The weather is probably better at Bowdoin (milder winters due to coastal location) than Williams or Amherst</p>
<p>Dartmouth (oldest, largest, created the template)
Wesleyan
Colgate
Amherst
Pomona
Oberlin
Vassar
Swarthmore
Carleton
Davidson, CMC</p>
<p>johnwesley, I like Dartmouth also, and for those who agree, I'd recommend taking a look at Washington & Lee which profiles very similarly IMO.</p>
<p>FLVADAD, W&L and Dartmouth have some similarities, but they are ultimately quite different. Dartmouth students are typically left of center whereas W&L students are conservative. I think schools like Middlebury and Williams have more in common with Dartmouth than W&L.</p>