<p>90's. I still generally liked Cornell, except for the size, but wanted nothing to do with city schools like Columbia or Penn, especially since they didn't seem that good anyway. Not that I wanted to go that far away (or south), but Duke seemed to have a student body comparable to Dartmouth, which I considered the fourth Ivy. Many people today seem to consider it the seventh as rural schools have temporarily gone out of favor and fraternity crackdowns continue, which causes these schools to lose some of their lure and uniqueness. MIT and CalTech seemed like great schools with really smart kids, but with my Dad having gone to school in this type of environment, knew it was not what I wanted. Those were probably the only 12 schools with a 1300 SAT avg before the days of recentering and the writing section.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Williams is terrific for astronomy/astrophysics, but the other two?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I dunno. This year's Nobel Prize in Physics went to a Swarthmore graduate for his work at NASA investigating the big bang theory and black matter bodies. So his Physics major at Swat must have prepared him fairly well. The woman who headed the development of the Hubble telescope at NASA is also a Swat grad. Williams and Swarthmore have produced exactly the same percentage of graduates getting PhDs in Astronomy over the last ten years.</p>
<p>As for majors and minors in the music and art history departments at Swarthmore, most of them I have heard from seem to like the departments quite a bit. My daughter absolutely LOVES her art history courses and professors at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>IMO, if you are looking for the largest departments with the broadest range of courses or extreme depth in a specialized subfield, LACs are probably a poor choice in most instances. Conversely, if you are looking for excellent preparation in almost any field and across various fields, these schools are excellent choices.</p>
<p>I honestly think that way too much emphasis is placed on specific departments in the selection department. IMO, the "how is the Physics department" or "how is the Economics department" or "is there an ranking of undergrad History departments" we see so often here are so misguided. Obviously, there are exceptions. If you want to study Engineering, you have to choose a school that has engineering. Or, if you want to study female Italian opera composers, you have to go to a school that has a faculty member knowledgeable about female Italian opera composers. But, these specialized interests aren't typical of most high school seniors.</p>
<p>"5-college courses taken at Amherst</p>
<p>From Hampshire: 462
From Mt. Holyoke: 240
From Smith: 140
From UMass: 311</p>
<p>Total from other schools: 1153</p>
<p>Amherst courses taken at other 5-colleges</p>
<p>To Hampshire: 30
To Mt. Holyoke: 92
To Smith: 60
To UMass: 115</p>
<p>Total to other schools: 297"</p>
<p>Amherst has less than 1/10 the student body, though. All things considered, Amherst students get what they want from the consortium, and can take it or leave it.</p>
<p>I have 1 student from each of Umass, Smith, Hampshire, and Mt Holyoke in 2 of my classes. No they do not detract from the atmosphere there, and all of my peers at Amherst who aren't horrible snobs would back me up. One very intelligent, articulate, fantastic girl is a Umass student. I find it insulting that people would say something like that.</p>
<p>I don't know anything of the Umass president's brother, but I don't see how his blood ties are something that he can be held accountable for. And as a student at Amherst, I can assure everyone that in no way does Umass dominate the social scene - though there have been girls complaining about the prevalence of Mt Holyoke and Smith girls at our parties, but I think that's way overblown.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can assure everyone that in no way does Umass dominate the social scene
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me get this straight? You are claiming that 19,000 undergrads at UMass do not dominate the restaurants and bars in the town of Amherst, Massachusetts? Not the Amherst College events, the town of Amherst?</p>
<p>Again, I find that impossible to believe. If true, it would be the only state university small college town in America that is not dominated by the state university.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that they dominate the restaurants, etc, any more than the townies do, but sure, they're a huge presence. So what? So there are a lot of Umass students sitting at a restaurant when I go there with my friends. So what? They aren't hurting us in any way, they aren't holding massive keggers or rioting in the center of town, or anywhere close to the Amherst campus. I don't even understand what your point is. Yes, there are a lot of college students in this time. Yeah, parking sucks in Amherst. And there are a lot more opportunities to listen to fantastic speakers, musicians, etc...but in what ways would the presence of Umass negatively impact the social scene here? It's just crazy.</p>
<p>And I always mention Umass when talking about the 5-college consortium. Umass has some great offerings that LACs simply can't provide. I don't think that I have been hypocritical here. Yes, it is a big, bureaucratic, underfunded, party school. It's still what you make of it. I know people who have had fantastic experiences at Umass, and I find it insulting that people would speak so harshly about it.</p>
<p>Edit: I have visited a few friends in Big State U towns, and I think the town is much more dominated by them than it is by Umass. Umass is set a bit apart from the town center, Amherst is much closer.</p>
<p>What I have heard from my friends at Amherst is a very similar description to that of unregistered.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it insulting that people would speak so harshly about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let's cut to the chase. Would you pay $40,000 a year (or whatever you are paying at Amherst) to take all of your classes at UMass? If not, why not?</p>
<p>Did anyone in your high school class apply to UMass? If not, why not?</p>
<p>I would not pay $40,000 a year to attend any school. And yes, most of my high school class applied to Umass.</p>
<p>Would you pay what you are paying at Amherst to go to UMass? </p>
<p>Did you apply? If you live in Massachusetts, you probably could have gone to UMass Honors for free. Did you seriously consider that?</p>
<p>Hi, I'm an alien from the planet Gu7hh%. I've been eavesdropping on College Confidential. From what I can tell, there are only 4 types of employment on the planet earth: 1) investment banking, 2) engineering, 3) international relations, 4) flipping burgers. And if a college isn't great in preparing students for any of the first 3, its graduates are destined to be doing #4. Is this correct?</p>
<ol>
<li>Would I pay what I am paying at Amherst to go to Umass? Yes, I would. That says very little, though. </li>
</ol>
<p>No, I did not apply to Umass - I have a unique academic situation, may not have been eligible, and was sure that I would be accepted into a school which I would choose over Umass, for less money. Actually, the situation is overall extremely complicated and while I would be happy to elaborate over PMs, I am not comfortable sharing things on the board. I have heard nothing about being able to attend the honors college for free, and I am paying so little at Amherst that it isn't an issue. </p>
<p>I never said that Umass was as good of a school as Amherst is --- or that it even came close. I said that I would not call Umass "crappy" and I certainly would not say that it detracts from the experience of an Amherst student. Even if I were far wealthier than I am, I wouldn't spend $40,000 a year on most any school --- including all public universities and most "top" privates. That doesn't mean that Umass is "crappy".</p>
<p>My uncle is the head professor of the Philosophy dept at amherst</p>
<p>Don't forget about management consulting.</p>
<p>Gellino,
Why does it seem like people arbitrarily list schools? Out of curiosity you mentioned the "12" Tier One schools? We already have HYP, HYPS, HYPSM, AWS, etc. Now Tier 12??? Also, why would you say Columbia and Penn were not good in your opinion--you tend to lose credibility when statements like this are made? You can't possibly be referring to their reputations. From your tone, it seems because of their urban locations. What may be good for one person may be good for someone else. Also, I think it is sort of silly looking at acceptance rates from the 90s when evaluating schools today. A couple of generations ago, Stanford didn't nearly have the reputation it has today. </p>
<p>BTW, where did you wind up going to college?</p>
<p>"Also, why would you say Columbia and Penn were not good in your opinion--you tend to lose credibility when statements like this are made? You can't possibly be referring to their reputations. "</p>
<p>Reputations are not invariant. When I was applying to colleges, a good deal before Gellino, Penn was undisputably the lowest-regarded school in the Ivy League. Columbia was near the cellar as well, not much different than Cornell. Their acceptance rates matched this perspective. At some point in time their respective cities/ neighborhoods got cleaned up, Wall Street and business gained national esteem, and these schools got hot. Their reputations made a quantum jump. </p>
<p>Not just Columbia and Penn, but , for example, NYU as well. When I was applying to colleges NYU accepted about 75% of its applicants I recall.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Reputations are not invariant. When I was applying to colleges, a good deal before Gellino, Penn was undisputably the lowest-regarded school in the Ivy League. Columbia was near the cellar as well, not much different than Cornell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right. There are actually quite a few surprises in today's rankings. How about BU?</p>
<p>Maybe that's why some of us old-timers take a longer-term view of the "rankings". After all, other than the fact that they started accepting women, UPenn and Columbia haven't really changed. The pace of change at educational institutions is glacial.</p>
<p>The changes are mostly external to the schools: the number of students in the pipeline applying, the overflow from the upper "Ivies", the desireability of NYC, the improvement in urban neighborhoods, etc.</p>
<p>Before the college admission process became such an outrageous multimillion dollar enterprise and the over reliance on rankings, I would think that with the exception of H, Y, and P, most of the other top schools were just that, top schools. MY point is I think it is rather arbitrary to start making list of X number of schools, as if only there is X number of great schools. Why not 14? 12? 9? Get my point?</p>
<p>DO people feel that AWS is equal to HYP?</p>
<p>
[quote]
DO people feel that AWS is equal to HYP?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In what way?</p>
<p>They certainly aren't as hard to get into as HYP. More along the lines of Dartmouth, Brown, Penn, etc.</p>
<p>They certainly don't have the brand-name recognition of HYP.</p>
<p>As for undergrad education specifically, people familiar with these schools often feel they are better than HYP.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hi, I'm an alien from the planet Gu7hh%. I've been eavesdropping on College Confidential. From what I can tell, there are only 4 types of employment on the planet earth: 1) investment banking, 2) engineering, 3) international relations, 4) flipping burgers. And if a college isn't great in preparing students for any of the first 3, its graduates are destined to be doing #4. Is this correct?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hahahaha!
Thank you...it needed to be said.</p>