<p>W and L is no where comparable to Dartmouth in both prestige and academics, and middlebury is way more comparable in all ranges</p>
<p>I agree they are not identical student populations, but as institutions they are similar. Moreover, I honestly believe W&L is over sterotyped in the way you have suggested. A very large percentage of the student body is from the North and West - the same geograhpic areas that these other LACs are pulling from.</p>
<p>I'm not getting into another "prestige" debate since I think that is a very subjective matter when you are talking about schools within the same tier. However, having researched these two schools quite thoroughly, I stick with my assessment of their similarities.</p>
<p>There is no prestige debate: Dartmouth > W&L ..... hands down</p>
<p>drugs? And notice how the two don't really go together-almost an oxymoron. Do you think a school with such allegedly prevalent drug use could have such an impressive output of graduates admitted to top ph.d and professional school programs, awards, etc?</p>
<p>It just gripes me when people evaluate a school based on stereotypes and anecdotal evidence like your statement about a few friends and your kid's cousin. I knew a h.s. teacher who transferred out of MIT to her local college because she thought that there was too much drinking and drugs. Does that mean MIT is a non-top 10 school? Do these people you know who "can confirm the stereotype" survey the student body? Where did they live on campus? How much do they know about the drug culture at other campuses so as to have a basis of comparison? My hallmates my freshman year of college would have given one the impression that my school was big into alcohol, which is not the case at all. </p>
<p>And MeasureYourself, your basing your opinion of the academic quality of a school (which by itself is based on just one factor-perceived hard drug use) on hearsay? Drug use is more of a quality of life issue than a quality of education one anyway. Sure the two are related, but a school can have prevalent drug use just like a school can have a prevalent sports or alcohol scene and still be great at academics so long as there isn't too much of any of these such that they start interfering with academics.</p>
<p>"W and L is no where comparable to Dartmouth in both prestige and academics, and middlebury is way more comparable in all ranges"</p>
<p>I don't think anyone was implying that Dartmouth was less prestigious than W&L, but they are certainly alike in many ways. There's more to comparing schools than the politics of the students, especially in places that are relatively apathetic in the first place. They are both rural, high quality academic schools with a heavy focus on Greek life. I think these similarities are indisputable.</p>
<p>I don't know what you mean by Middlebury is comparable in all ranges is supposed to mean. According to PR, W&L's avg SAT is 37 points higher than Midd (1386 vs 1349).</p>
<p>Also, when I was saying that Reed seemed unappealing, it wasn't because of a perceived low selectivity, but more the prevailing campus atmosphere. Maybe, this both makes it harder to graduate, but more likely that those that do will go on to get a PhD.</p>
<p>Thanks gellino, I think you expressed it more clearly than I did. Measure might be able to get the point now.</p>
<p>What exactly is an LAC</p>
<p>LAC = Liberal Arts College</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, when I was saying that Reed seemed unappealing, it wasn't because of a perceived low selectivity, but more the prevailing campus atmosphere. Maybe, this both makes it harder to graduate, but more likely that those that do will go on to get a PhD.
[/quote]
Campus atmosphere is why an overnight visit is so important, especially at Reed; most seem to come away either loving or hating the place, with few reporting ambivalence. Fit is crucial at Reed, perhaps at most small schools.</p>
<p>Im not saying that the drugs make the academics worse at Reed, im jsut saying if we are making a lsit of the TOP 10 colleges, I would not include it. When your splitting hairs amongst all of these great schools, some thigns need to be taken into consideration, and the LOW graduation rate speaks volumes. The school is not doing something right when not even 4 our of 5 students can graduate.</p>
<p>Reed's selectivity is lower than most top 10 candidates in terms of scores and GPA - bear in mind the difference of stats between those "admitted" in March and (to be) "enrolled" in May or August. Reedies do work very hard for the credit they receive, a good reason to continue to grad school. </p>
<p>"Admitted" stats remind me of another private school that advertised that 25% of its accepted students were valedictorians - to me an interesting advertisement for valedictorian "safety" applications, as well as the puffery.</p>
<p>W&L has a very interesting, and relatively narrow, score distribution. Almost like the scores have been cropped on both the top and bottom. Some of the top 10 LACs have much more evident and substantial admissions outreach efforts with minorities and disadvantaged students in their stats. Viewing the various W&L stats, one gets the impression these are comparative "poster child" cases in an ivory bastion...</p>
<p>To me, Harvey Mudd is usually underrated being left off the top 10 LAC list in terms of its student selectivity and product. I am not so sure how its humanities affect its LAC rating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me, Harvey Mudd is usually underrated being left off the top 10 LAC list in terms of its student selectivity and product. I am not so sure how its humanities affect its LAC rating.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mudd just isn't a pure LAC. It doesn't fit well in either of the two main categories (LAC or University). For this reason it gets screwed in rankings and is ranked lower than it should be. I don't think many informed people really believe that schools like CMC are better institutions than Mudd. They might be better LACs, but that's just because Mudd really isn't a pure LAC.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think many informed people really believe that schools like CMC are better institutions than Mudd. They might be better LACs, but that's just because Mudd really isn't a pure LAC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh AKr, whoops, AF, while your points are well taken and worth noting, I think your conclusions show how you just felt in the perennial trap of placing the silly label of "BETTER Institution" on schools that should not be compared. Go read my post #22 for my views on this.</p>
<p>While HMC compares easily to that little "Junior College in Pasadena," would someone interested in performing arts not find Scripps a ... better institution for her? How do you define what constitutes a "better" institution? Selectivity or graduation rates? Ot that absolutely asinine USNews yardstick of "variances in expected graduation rates which placed Harvey Mudd DEAD LAST in that category? Or dropout rates? Or quality papers written by faculty? </p>
<p>The reality is that there is absolutely no consensus on what matters to ... students! And, fwiw, there is also no definition of what constitutes a **pure **LAC. If that definition is available somewhere on HMC's campus, please share it with us.</p>
<p>PS For the record, I have written many times about HMC being underrated by USNews.</p>
<p>Where would you guys put Colgate and Hamilton?</p>
<p>In case anyone wanted any numbers, here is how the top-ranked LACs compare on standardized test scores:</p>
<p>Rank, Average SAT, LAC</p>
<p>1 , 1485 , Harvey Mudd
2 , 1445 , Pomona
3 , 1430 , Amherst
4 , 1425 , Swarthmore
5 , 1420 , Williams
6 , 1410 , Carleton
7 , 1400 , Claremont McK
8 , 1395 , Haverford
9 , 1390 , Wellesley
9 , 1390 , Bowdoin
11 , 1385 , Wesleyan
11 , 1385 , W&L
13 , 1375 , Middlebury
13 , 1375 , Vassar
13 , 1375 , Oberlin
16 , 1370 , Reed
17 , 1365 , Barnard
18 , 1360 , Hamilton
19 , 1355 , Grinnell
19 , 1355 , Colby
19 , 1355 , Macalester
22 , 1345 , Davidson
22 , 1345 , Colgate
24 , 1340 , Scripps
24 , 1340 , Bard
24 , 1340 , Wheaton (IL)</p>
<p>One lower ranked college that would make this list is Reed. All data is taken from USNWR which reports Reed's avg SAT at 1370 (and overall USNWR ranking of #54). </p>
<p>Rank, Average ACT score, LAC</p>
<p>1 , 31.5 , Claremont McK
2 , 31 , Harvey Mudd
2 , 31 , Amherst
2 , 31 , Middlebury
5 , 30.5 , Pomona
5 , 30.5 , Carleton
7 , 30 , Swarthmore
7 , 30 , Williams
7 , 30 , Wesleyan
7 , 30 , W&L
7 , 30 , Vassar
12 , 29.5 , Reed
12 , 29.5 , Grinnell
14 , 29 , Wellesley
14 , 29 , Macalester
14 , 29 , Davidson
14 , 29 , Bard
18 , 27.5 , Colgate
19 , 27 , Barnard
na , na , Haverford
na , na , Bowdoin
na , na , Oberlin
na , na , Hamilton
na , na , Colby</p>
<p>Hawkette, Not to nit-pick, but here's the press release on Reed's incoming freshman class this year. Average SAT was 1409, ACT 31. If your numbers are older, it is likely, of course, that some of the other schools might have different scores as well.</p>
<p>Reed</a> College | Reed College Class of 2012 Competitively Selected, Diverse Group</p>
<p>Edit: Amherst Math/Reading class of 2012: 1442 The</a> Amherst Student | News | Admission Rate Hits All-Time Low</p>
<p>My numbers are definitely older as they come from the 2008 USNWR edition which is really the numbers for students entering in Fall, 2006. I used these numbers instead because I don't have current numbers for all colleges and thought it best to use one set where the facts are known and all colleges are competing with data from the same year.</p>
<p>I think US News also uses the stats of enrolled students, and not just admitted students. The enrolled student numbers are usually lower. </p>
<p>I do agree with you, though - it is useful to see the numbers, and where various schools fall. :)</p>
<p>Fwiw, the SAT number for Reed that will appear in the 2009 Version of the US NEWS will be a combined 1390. (680/760V and 630/710M.)</p>
<p>One can expect the 2010 Version to be similar to the 2009 version.</p>