<p>Some really smart people seem to go for the likes of harvard, upenn, brown etc while others opt for amherst, williams, swarthmore, wesleyan etc. Anyone know the particular reasons why? I mean, obviously colleges are smaller but the two options seem academically comparable. Thanks!</p>
<p>Its all about “fit.”</p>
<p>Personal preference. They offer different kinds of campus life, atmosphere and experience.</p>
<p>Academically, they are indeed comparable.</p>
<p>Well, it’s hard to say. I think that some people are drawn to the liberal arts college model while others may prefer larger schools or more “name brand” prestige. But I think that nowadays in this highly competitive environment, many students apply to a number of Ivy League schools as well as the selective liberal arts colleges in the hope of being admitted somewhere.</p>
<p>With Ivy’s many students are enamored with prestige rather than about whether they are going to like the campus, community, and the students they go to class with. Others who go to smaller liberal arts colleges may prefer a more hands on education where they can really get to know their classmates and professors better.</p>
<p>As someone who chose an LAC over Ivies and similar bigger universities, I can say firsthand that I just felt like it was a better fit. My classes won’t be taught by TAs, because professors are there to teach rather than to do research. There aren’t any grad students, so the focus is on undergrads. The smaller size was also, in my opinion, a plus, since I felt like it was a more close-knit community.</p>
<p>Overall, I just really loved the feel of LACs compared to the Ivies and the like. I think that students at liberal arts colleges are much more self-selecting because there is less of a prestige factor and more of a personal connection with the school itself. God knows that I can’t shamelessly name-drop Carleton like I would have been able to do Cornell, but I really couldn’t care less - for me, the combination of a close-knit environment, challenging academics, and a focus on undergrads was worth it. Just my two cents.</p>
<p>I know that my d may apply to one Ivy but it is the one with a very different profile and more like a LAC. D is going to be applying to a number of places but what she wants is available in not that many schools. So while it looks like she is completely random in her choices, it isn’t random at all. She has certain criteria and prestige on CC or any list is not part of it. Having the characteristics she needs and wants is. Some are strange= she won’t go to school in MA and some are normal- good track record for pre-law. There are a number of schools that meet them but only one of the Ivies. I was actually surprised that one of them did make it. Whether she actually applies will depend on a number of variables but it is a possibility right now.</p>
<p>My experience at reasonably sizable universities was that the professors who were the best teachers were also very productive scholars. They were fully engaged in all aspects of the life of the mind, both as mentors, and as people actively engaged in expanding the boundaries of knowledge.</p>
<p>And yes, some of the best teachers I encountered were graduate students who were working as teaching assistants. Sometimes people who are a little closer to the undergraduate experience themselves have particularly valuable insights. What they had to offer me didn’t supplant what professors had to offer, but it did supplement it. Some insights come only with age; some are best conveyed when the experiences that gave rise to them are fresh.</p>
<p>I understand there are advantages to to attending a stand-alone liberal arts college; there’s more individual attention, and thus more opportunities for in-depth mentoring without the distraction of graduate students; the possibility that a student will get lost in the crowd is more remote. But there are advantages to spending one’s undergraduate years as part of a larger academic community, more diverse in age, experience, and academic focus, that have nothing to do with name dropping or general perceptions of prestige.</p>
<p>I think it really does depend on fit. A small LAC can get REALLY small. But at the same time, the teacher/student relationship can be intense and enriching in a good way, too.</p>
<p>There’s a widespread belief that people who choose Ivies tend to be less intellectual, less risk-taking, more apt to be there for the credential than the actual experience:
[The</a> Disadvantages of an Elite Education: an article by William Deresiewicz about how universities should exist to make minds, not careers | The American Scholar](<a href=“http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/]The”>The American Scholar: The Disadvantages of an Elite Education - <a href='https://theamericanscholar.org/author/william-deresiewicz/'>William Deresiewicz</a>)</p>
<p>You realize just cause its a widespread belief, it doesnt mean its true? Im headed to an Ivy, and I am most definitely NOT only choosing it for career potential – although that is a big plus I have to admit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assure you, I was surrounded by intellectual and risk taking peers, most of whom were around for the experience.</p>
<p>Just because a university has name recognition / prestige, does not mean people are there for those factors. While some students might come to an ivy because it was the best they got into, many made a conscious choice to apply and then to matriculate because they fit the college. I turned down a higher ranked school to attend Columbia and most people I’ve met decide between top schools by searching for fit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole concept of “turning down a higher-ranked school to attend Columbia” itself shows that you were rankings-focused, because when schools are in the top 15 or 20 in the nation, they’re all one big pile and the rankings don’t matter anywhere near as much as individual fit. There is no meaningful difference between Columbia and any school “ranked higher” than it.</p>
<p>JohnWesley - very interesting article. Thanks for the link.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic, I never placed any weight on the rankings and thus chose Columbia, but there were people who told me I should choose the higher ranked school because it was better ranked. It’s one thing to know that the other school was higher ranked, and another to act on that information.</p>
<p>Seriously, JohnWesley, do you think the syndrome the author of that article complained of is any less prevalent at “amherst, williams, swarthmore, wesleyan etc.”, to quote the OP, than it is in the Ivy League?</p>
<p>The experiences of the author of that article don’t match my own, by the way. If he feels he’s so isolated from the working class that he can’t talk to a plumber, that’s his own damn fault, not the fault of the rarefied schools where he’s spent all his time. I went to similar schools, and had lots of meaningful interactions with working class people, on-campus and off-campus. I had a number of on-campus jobs where I worked alongside “locals”, as some people called them. I worked in factories a couple of summers, and had deep conversations with people who worked there full-time; I got to know the janitors who worked at my law school dorm; I paid for law school playing in bands with carpenters, mechanics, pipe fitters, landscapers, and factory workers in working class bars. If the author of that article has lost the ability to hold a conversation with people whose work differs from his, it’s because he’s chosen not to interact with them, not because the schools where he studied and worked somehow deprived him of that ability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a fair question, Greybeard. There was a minor storm on the Williams forum when someone else included Williams with that group of schools [see, post #65]
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/williams-college/907318-minorities-queers-intellectuals-dont-go-5.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/williams-college/907318-minorities-queers-intellectuals-dont-go-5.html</a></p>
<p>My own experience is skewed by years of observation as my own nationally ranked LAC (Wesleyan) bounced around in the USNews rankings from #7 in 1990 before hovering, currently, ~#14. I find that the CC chatter differs slightly as one moves from the #1 ranking toward the lower end of the top twenty. Some observationss are quite predictable, such as the propensity of “chances” threads (they decline as one proceeds down the rankings.) However, I also can’t quite help noting the inverse relationship between a college’s rank and the degree of participation by current students (as opposed to helicopter parents and alumni) – the higher the rank, the fewer current students seem to have helpful answers to prospective applicants.</p>
<p>Maybe, that’s a good thing; it shows they are preoccupied by more important things (like, studying); but, it could also be a sign of apathy. As much as I’d like to see Wesleyan climb higher in the USNews poll, I’ve always had this nagging thought that the people who continue reading, 1) past the first page of the poll that lists all the national universities and , 2) past the first five colleges on the page that lists all the national LACs, really are different people.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you’d think that. I consider the top 30 unis and the top 30 LAC’s (and I’m just guesstimating here; it’s not like #31 on either list is all-of-a-sudden dramatically worse) as all top schools. I don’t particularly distinguish between the lists, except as it relates to personal preference. (I have one kid who prefers LAC’s, the other who could go either way, uni or LAC.)</p>
<p>Personally, Pizzagirl, I agree with you. But, not everyone has the benefit of your advice and experience when applying to colleges. This is especially true of first-gen college goers, internationals, and a whole host of folk who think LACs are a form of junior college. I actually think the CC parents do a much better job of explaining the differences – and similarities – between LACs and top research universities than USNews does.</p>
<p>It is very interesting question; personally I was a paradoxical split in my mind between 5-6 different schools; Cornell - Williams - UChicago - Yale - Princeton </p>
<p>Cornell is a relatively large university in a small “city,” more like large town, Williams is a tiny college in a tiny town, UChicago is a pretty big university in large city, Yale is a medium sized university in a small city, and Princeton is a medium sized university in a large town. In all, It was just a lot of what felt right, and some places felt right. Some places, like Harvard, UPenn, and Swarthmore, despite their similarities to other schools on the list just didn’t click when I visited. </p>
<p>In the end, my choice was sorta simple cause I only got into UChicago and Yale (waitlisted at P and Williams, rejected at Cornell). And the final decision was mostly geography and cost. However, if I were accepted at Williams, I would definitely reconsider and go up to visit and the like. </p>
<p>A lot of people prefer smaller size of the school; my sister (a yalie) in retrospect thought she should’ve gone to Amherst or Williams since she just didn’t like how large Yale was and how little she really interacted with people in her major. She did a UROP at Williams and was stunned at how tight nit the physics community was there. I, though, am really different than her so I don’t know how I will react.</p>