Top 25 LACsb

College Search & Selection
41

<p>


</p>

<p>Sorry, but that may be the single worst argument I've ever heard in favor of the efficacy of an institution of higher learning. What would we ever do without such contributions from Wes alumni?</p>

42

<p>Reed obviously ought to be on the list, but USN&WR punishes them for not playing footsie.</p>

<p>Colorado College above Smith and Bryn Mawr? Give me a break. </p>

<p>Middlebury is much too high. I strongly doubt that it is better than Pomona or Carleton, for example.</p>

43

<p>


</p>

<p>Why is that so hard to believe? The entering stats of CC freshmen are superior to its Smith counterparts and basically equal to Bryn Mawr fresh(wo)men. And CC is almost twice as large as BW while supporting two Division I sports (women's soccer and men's hockey, the latter of which isn't exactly known for its brainiacs), so any argument that the women's colleges have a smaller applicant pool doesn't really fly. I don't see anything concrete to support your assertion of CC's inferiority other than it isn't on the east coast and doesn't have the "name brand" of the two more famous women's colleges.</p>

44

<p>Count_MonteFisto wrote:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Obviously, you'd be living in a slightly different world. And, that's the point. Perhaps, the Washington Monthly annual rankings are more to your liking? Wesleyan is, in fact, the only LAC that produces science Ph.Ds on its own campus. It sends more Peace Corps recruits into the world than any other LAC. More women scientists. Take your pick of outputs.</p>

45

<p>^Most importantly, the Pats would never have become a dynasty.</p>

46

<p>consolation Middlebury is generally ranked in the top 5 for best education and professors. As stated earlier there is quite a bit of grade inflation at Carleton.</p>

47

<p>In my humble opinion, the reason why the US News & World Report rankings are so popular is because they confirm what people already know. It's not surprising that from year to year, these same colleges are reshuffled between the same 25 positions. A college may rise or fall 2-3 spaces depending on minor fluctuations, but they will always remain in the same relative position. The rankings aren't exactly arbitrary, but one could argue that there are methodological problems with the rankings system, or that they don't measure what they claim to measure (are not internally valid). For example, a large part of the ranking methodology is based on peer assessment. For the national universities, of course Harvard is going to assess Yale and Princeton higher than...Emory or Vanderbilt, not necessarily because of any objective measures but because it's in their best interests. Or because the rankings are self-perpetuating -- Harvard will say that Yale and Princeton are better than Emory and Vanderbilt simply because that's the way they've always been ranked.</p>

<p>In any event, the absolute position of the schools is less important than the group that they're in. You can't quantify how much better Amherst is than Williams -- in some years, Williams is at the top; in others, it's Amherst. I've even seen Swarthmore top the list before. What's most important is that Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore (along with Wellesley, Middlebury, Bowdoin, Pomona, Carleton, and Davidson) form the tip of the top tier of LACs. From then on, decisions should be based primarily on other personal factors -- for example, if a senior wanted to get out of MA really, really badly, why would they consider Amherst or Williams more than some of the other schools simply because they're #1 or #2? ANy of these colleges will provide an excellent education.</p>

48

<ol>
<li><p>
[quote]
Reed obviously ought to be on the list, but USN&WR punishes them for not playing footsie.
Colorado College above Smith and Bryn Mawr? Give me a break.

[/quote]

Agreed!! Smith and Bryn Mawr have been our nation's best women's colleges and a bunch of First Ladies went there when girls couldn't go to Harvard. Way deeper history, older traditions, tighter almumni network than Colorado. </p></li>
<li><p>
[quote]
Hamilton, Davidson & Carleton are all outstanding schools. Although Bates & Kenyon are good schools, they are not better than Davidson, Hamilton or Carleton by any reasonable standard of measurement of which I am aware.

[/quote]

Obviously. I disagree with OP and believe Kenyon shouldn't be on the list. It's much less well-known compared to others, and it's in the middle of nowhere in Ohio. Frankly, lots of EC people would choose Colgate and Trinity over Kenyon any days. Bates probably should be though, over Scripps, and tied with Colby. I'm not sur eabout Hamilton, but you really can't argue against that Carleton and Davidson are superior to Bates and Kenyon.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
Carleton and Pomona have historically been higher than Middlebury and Bowdoin.

[/quote]

Yeah, seriously. Pomona's admission rate is darn low. But I think they're all equally good schools, and it's difficult to determine which is better. Can't go wrong with any of them besides the location issue.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
Middlebury is much too high. I strongly doubt that it is better than Pomona or Carleton, for example.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Middlebury is a really, really great school. I say this as someone with firsthand experience, one who has visited the campus, sat in on classes, and participated in student events many times.</p>

<p>It might not be as prestigious as Pomona, but I would argue that it deserves a place above Carleton.</p>

50

<p>^^ I think Middlebury's got more prestige than Pomona.....</p>

<p>Carleton and Middlebury have been switching rankings for the past decade or so. Middlebury placed BELOW Carleton from '01 - '06. Then '96, '97, '99, '00 it placed above Carleton. It really goes up and down constantly.
So I don't think Middlebury is any particular better than Carleton.</p>

51

<p>


</p>

<p>I'm not sure how becoming First Lady, especially in the ancient times of which you speak, can be considered any real accomplishment in terms of being a function of excellent education. All it really means is that these women married well - they were the product of proper breeding and lineage, went to the right "finishing school" and learned proper mannerisms. That ranks ever-so-slightly above being born into royalty in terms of the amount of effort required to attain a position of status.</p>

<p>Look, these are all excellent colleges, but if you are going to claim that your school is under-ranked and should definitely be ranked ahead of LAC X or Y, don't be yammering about some famous person who happened to grace your school with his/her presence for four year or that an alumnus made up some silly catch-phrase. That's just weak sauce. Bring us some real facts and logic to back it up.</p>

52

<p>^Count_MonteFisto, perhaps I'd have more sympathy with your intellectual argument if you hadn't prefaced it by snipping my original quote. I happen to appreciate a good book. And, filmmaking happens to form the basis of one of America's biggest industries. If an LAC can claim that it has a network of alumni who regularly find work for each other and impart a significant influence on the popular culture of a country, the educational institution that made that influence possible should be given credit. btw,you still haven't told us what YOU would use to measure the outcome of a liberal arts education?</p>

53

<p>

This guy said it all.</p>

54

<p>Also, there is a difference between name dropping a few famous alums all the time, and pointing out, as Johnwesley does, that the gradates of a particular school continually have a huge influence in certain areas. There have been very few critically acclaimed TV shows in the last decade or so that did not in some way have a Wes alum associated with them, often in pretty influential positions, and there is also a large number of Wes alums in the movie industry. The “Wesleyan Mafia in LA” is a real thing. I think that’s pretty darn impressive for a school of under 3,000 students (of course, I hope to join those ranks, so I’m biased :P). I'm sure other schools can make the same kind of claim about other areas.</p>

<p>Whether or not this should have any actual influence to US News status is another question entirely (I'd say no, it's too hard to measure), but it’s not a ridiculous thing to point to when talking about a University’s success in realtionship to its place on the list.</p>

55

<p>alexkaye I can tell you have a serious North East bias. Here is what is terribly wrong with your points. </p>

<ol>
<li>So what if Kenyon is out in the middle of nowhere? The majority of LACs are. </li>
<li>For educational purposes Colorado College is very underrated. They may not have a great rich alum network like Bryn Mawr, but no doubt they deserve their spot in the top 25.</li>
<li>Trinity College and Colgate University attract different types of people that Kenyon attract. Two very different crowds (Colgate/ Trinity crowd being the crazy drunk party one). Trinity is generally considered a safety school. </li>
<li>Yes Pomona's admission is rate "darn low" but so is every other college on that list.</li>
</ol>

56

<p>Just by reading some of your posts it is very apparent that "prestige" is geographically and demographically determined and to argue a few spots on a ranking list is silly. </p>

<p>I also think to insult and characterize schools using stereotypes that may or may not be factually based is uncalled for... With all the awesomely qualified HS students competing for spots at the top schools, we need more great school on this list not less. </p>

<p>WAY back in my day, I don't recall schools being numerically ranked in this way. We used the selectivity index which group schools in categories from most to least selective. Top students would start their search in the top selectivity range of schools where they could evaluate specific qualities based on what they were looking for in a school. I believe this is a much more reasonable approach.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
WAY back in my day, I don't recall schools being numerically ranked in this way. We used the selectivity index which group schools in categories from most to least selective. Top students would start their search in the top selectivity range of schools where they could evaluate specific qualities based on what they were looking for in a school. I believe this is a much more reasonable approach.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now, USNWR tells you what you should think and obsequious students mindlessly pay heed and follow suit.</p>

58

<p>I don't know a lot about rankings, but I will say my D went to the summer writing program at Carleton, taught by their professors, and it was a transforming educational experience for her; she never considered a LAC before that. She just got admitted to #11 (just couldn't face Minnesota winters) so I give a shout out to Carleton for probably offering a great education.</p>

59

<p>


</p>

<p>Yeah you are probably right, it's possible that I do.
But when it comes to "prestige" factor, it's true that schools on East Coast have more of it than other geographic region. How come is the entire Ivy League located on East Coast? How is it that the first top 3 LAC whose ranking no one argues about - williams, amherst, and swarthmore - are all located on East Coast? I'm not saying prestige is important or anything, but some people still care about it. Universities on North East tend to have a more well-known reputation and longer history than any other region in America. I don't know why that is. Maybe it's just that the first Americans settled down on North East and built Harvard and Yale first and the government and the capital is all located along the coast.
I know those two things(prestige and reputation) are less important than the quality of education the colleges offer, but they certainly are smaller factors that still determine the ranking. Attract more applications may be?
You just wanna go to Kenyon and are rooting for it obviously. I didn't mean to offend any school. Who am I to say this school deserves to be number 7 while this one has to be number 9? Just like you have no saying in determining this clearly flawed USNWR - all ranking is subjective anyway. I was just sharing my personal opinion, and you can ignore it if you dont like it.</p>

60

<p>Gellino, notorious Middlebury hater. Which is your school of choice Gellino? It's Bowdoin isn't it? Look, The top ten LACs are all comparable. That's why fit is so important. They all offer basically the same quality of education (except Bowdoin, Wellesley, Pomona and Carleton, none of which should even be accredited, let alone ranked) LOL.</p>