<p>The USNews ranking of "best values" among national universities, based on the precentage receiving grants, the average size of those grants, and the net discount from full price for those receiving aid:</p>
<ol>
<li> California Institute of Technology 53% $13,694 67%</li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) 49% $16,346 63%</li>
<li> Princeton University (NJ) 51% $16,917 61%</li>
<li> Yale University (CT) 42% $16,268 63%</li>
<li> Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 60% $18,587 58%</li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) 43% $18,767 58%</li>
<li> Dartmouth College (NH) 50% $18,804 58%</li>
<li> Rice University (TX) 34% $15,561 52%</li>
<li> U. of North CarolinaChapel Hill * 31% $14,464 47%</li>
<li> Duke University (NC)</li>
</ol>
<hr>
<p>Comparable ranking of the top 10 LACs:</p>
<ol>
<li> Williams College (MA) 43% $15,621 64%</li>
<li> Amherst College (MA) 46% $16,177 64%</li>
<li> Wellesley College (MA) 58% $17,547 59%</li>
<li> Skidmore College (NY) 41% $11,952 66%</li>
<li> Pomona College (CA) 53% $17,740 59%</li>
<li> Swarthmore College (PA) 48% $18,692 57%</li>
<li> Middlebury College (VT) 44% $19,216 56%</li>
<li> Bowdoin College (ME) 44% $18,965 57%</li>
<li> Macalester College (MN) 69% $18,774 51%</li>
<li> Grinnell College (IA) 54% $18,395 49%</li>
</ol>
<p>The highest LAC RD yield rate, I think, with the lowest student/faculty ratio;
SAT median that is high, if not the highest, among LACs; extraordinarily high jock ratio; among LACs, relatively high fraction of grads going into business and professions (vs. PhDs, teaching, etc.). Huge admissions edge for those applying early (related, perhaps, to the large number of recruited jocks in the early pool); high level of esprit, possibly related to the 1/3 of the student body who are varsity athletes, the cohesive nature of the student body in general and the relative isolation of the school. Purple cow mascot. Nice museum.</p>
<p>In the 1999 USNews, Williams ranked #3, behind #1 Amherst and #2 Swat, and also ranked #3 in "selectivity."</p>
<p>In the 2007 USNews, Williams is ranked #1 overall, but tied (with Swat) for #4 in "selectivity" behind - in a 3-way tie for #1 - Amherst, Pomona and Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>"The USNews ranking of "best values" among national universities, based on the precentage receiving grants, the average size of those grants, and the net discount from full price for those receiving aid:"</p>
<p>Totally silly. The net discount is absolutley irrelevant except in the context of those actually receiving aid. A much better measure is the amount of aid divided by the number of matriculants (which would hence be an algorithm incorporating both size of grants and percentage receiving them, though it wouldn't encapsulate differences in list prices.)</p>
<p>By any measure, Berea would top the lists. It might also top the list for actual (rather than perceived) selectively, given that 60% of the population doesn't even qualify to apply.</p>
<p>When they figure "value" they are also considering the perceived quality of the product, and not merely the price. </p>
<p>One man's "need-based financial aid" to ensure that talented applicants are not excluded is another man's "tuition discount" to ensure that all the seats are filled.</p>
<p>Just for the record: Williams certainly does not have the highest median SAT among LACs: Amherst, Pomona, Swarthmore (and Harvey Mudd, too) are higher.</p>
<p>"When they figure "value" they are also considering the perceived quality of the product, and not merely the price."</p>
<p>Perceived by whom? Who is "they"? Certainly not the students at Berea, who are systematically shut out of admissions at many of the institutions named.</p>
<p>How hard would it be for a student who has been living in an Urban setting for most of his/her life and then start to live in such a rural place of Williams College?</p>