<p>Although I'm not zealous about the "college rankings," the three LAC's always seem to rank the top 3. What creates this unbreakable barrier between the Little 3 and other schools? Smarter kids? Better professors? Affluency? Name value?</p>
<p>I guess The Little 3 stands for Williams, Wesleyan U and Amherst.</p>
<p>If you're talking about the L3 (Williams, Wesleyan and Amherst) what makes them special is that they are academically impeccable New England colleges with the longest running inter-collegiate athletic conference in the United States.</p>
<p>If you are talking about Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore, you are talking about the three LACs that have finished either first, second or third in the yearly USNews poll for the past twenty years.</p>
<p>jownwesley // Yes, so what is the main factor that makes them rank top in USNews poll?</p>
<p>For most of the run of the survey they have had either the highest endowment per student, the highest SAT scores or the lowest number of kids from inner-city public schools.</p>
<p>There may be other factors as well. For instance, Williams has a tutorial system and a 7 to 1 student faculty ratio.</p>
<p>Grinnell has the largest endowment and I think the second endowment to student ratio.</p>
<p>Mostly I think it's reputation, bias, like any brand. Coke is the most popular cola but blind testers always pick Pepsi, but ask which is best, people will say Coke.</p>
<p>I don't think there is much difference in quality in the top 30 or so LAC's and the ratings are just brand name hooey.</p>
<p>mythmom // But in that way, doesn't the myth consequently become real, as smarter kids are attracted by that brand?</p>
<p>Grinnell is one of the textbook examples of how no amount of merit money can force someone to attend a place that isn't well-suited for them.</p>
<p>Don't you think population density has something to do with it? </p>
<p>I have gotten flamed here before, and not mention any names, I have found classes at some lower ranked colleges to be more rigorous than at higher ranked colleges.</p>
<p>And the differences between the kids the top 30 LAC's is almost nonexistent in my opinion.</p>
<p>Not to take anything away from WAS. My kid actually attends one of them and is deliriously happy there.</p>
<p>mythmom: not that's it's really relevant here, but I've heard that Pepsi tends to win taste tests because it has a sweeter flavor that people like better when they take a single sip, as you do in taste tests. Over the course of an entire can, though, people tend to prefer Coke's more subtle flavoring.</p>
<p>Thanks for the info.</p>
<p>Coke and Pepsi are both carbonated sugar drinks. Now if one of the two was mistaken for Dom Perigon (Dom Perignon champagne bottles are going for 1.26 million yen (about $11,005) a bottle in Nagoya's Sakae-ku at the Matsuzakaya Department Store), or Macallan Scotch Single Malt 30 Yr 750ML ($749.99) then the analogy might make sense. Many brands that have been around for a long time are simply better, Rolex, Patek Philippe, Ritz Carlton. If you believe for a second that there is no difference in schools, save your money and go to a community college. Williams, Amherst, et al are better, that does not mean that others are not excellent. Tradition, resources, selectivity, lots of reasons.</p>
<p>I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate a pretty clear difference between the kids at a top three LAC and the kids at a 27-30 LAC. Selectivity drops off very quickly with the LACs and there's more self-selection going on than with Universities.</p>
<p>Now, that said, "big" differences when it comes to college admissions (like 100 SAT points or all-state recognition in a musical instrument) don't really translate to big differences in real life. In that sense--and I suspect this is the sense that mythmom means--there is very little difference between Amherst students and students at the 28th ranked LAC. </p>
<p>I do think that you'll find that the top five or so school have far superior resources to the 25-30th schools (more recently renovated dorms, more meticulously kept campuses, more generous funding for student orgs)...and I do think that is a strong reason to choose a school, all other things being equal.</p>
<p>Well, D is at Barnard which is ranked 30 I believe but 9th for selectivity, so I think the women are really impressive.</p>
<p>^ stats show barnard to be even more competitive than wellesley (ranked 4th).</p>
<p>My d. turned down W. to attend Smith, primarily on the strength of academics in the areas of greatest interest to her. In Romance Languages, the schools are just not comparable. And the Five-College Opera Consortium and the Early Music program just gave her a host of opportunities - both academic and performance - simply unavailable in the Purple Valley.</p>
<p>Not sure what that has to do with the topic as to what makes the little 3 special, but thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>What it has to do with it is the reality is that they are not particularly special.</p>
<p>Hey, mini, I agree with you and made the same point!</p>
<p>Brand name.</p>
<p>Salut!</p>
<p>Or, they are special, but so are many others.</p>
<p>To the OP: The Little Three (Williams, Amherst, Wesleyan), as others here have stated, actually began as a conference for athletic competition -- exactly like the Ivy League. As part of the NESCAC, the Little Three provide outstanding academic and extracurricular opportunities for all those students who determine that one of these colleges offers them the best possible fit for their particular interests and preferences.</p>