<p>^^ I think it's a mistake for US News to rank the service academies alongside other LACs. Their mission and requirements are too specialized to be compared to ordinary undergraduate institutions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok, I see now. It's interesting though. I want to know how Williams and Amherst are "more selective" than West Point (back in the '60's was a consensus top 5 hardest school to get into). In my opinion, it is still the toughest LAC to get into (16% admit rate). Why is that ranked considerably lower than Williams or Swarthmore who have a 19% admit rate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With all due respect, the admission process to the US academies is not comparable to regular colleges. Also, there is case to be made that the admission rate for the Naval Academy is higher than 16% since the number of applicants with an official nomination is 3,838 for the Class of 2012. </p>
<p>Applicants and Nominees
Applicants (includes nominees)............. 10,960
Number of applicants with an
official nomination............................. 3,838
Nominees qualified scholastically,
medically and in physical aptitude..... 2,196
Offers of admission................................ 1,537
Admitted............................................... 1,261</p>
<p>Yeah, but it is not easy to obtain a nomination. I had good stats (1410, 3.9 UW, all state 1000m, etc) and did not get a nomination from one of the sources I applied to. This said, it really doesn't help anyone's argument to say that it's only people with a nomination that count. Even qualified candidates don't get nominations.</p>
<p>Re: post #182,</p>
<p>Those are some pretty good schools. I actually don't have a problem with any of them making that list. I acknowledge they vary in selectivity, but IMO a highly selective college with a middling PA score is very likely an "overrated" college, one that's simply popular for being popular. I say, show me the faculty. That's the core of an academic institution. Smith isn't very selective but it's got an excellent faculty, and if it's a little easier for some academically motivated women to get in there than some more popular (i.e., "selective") LAC, I say they should go for it. There's academic quality to be had there, that others are overlooking.</p>
<p>Personally, I'd rate Harvey Mudd higher on this list. But again, it's not PA that has Harvey Mudd at 15th in US News, it's truly stupid things like faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving, etc. Sure, money is good, but what really matters is how you spend it. If you spend it to get hte best faculty and the best students, then you're spending it wisely and well, especially if you can get better faculty and better students at a lower cost than your competitors. US News assumes just the opposite: it rewards waste and bloat. It's like saying the corporation with the biggest pasyroill and the highest costs of doing business is the best-run corporation. Idiotic.</p>