<p>pirt8528- i tend to agree with you about smith. the average sat score of smith is around 1250, and they accept around 50% of applicants. yet for some reason, a lot of CC posters assume its on par with some of the top LACs due to its overrated unews ranking. im not bashing smith at all, in fact i think its a fine school, just that there are a lot other schools that should be ranked higher, and a lot of students who didnt get accepted to schools ranked below smith who easily get into smith.</p>
<p>I agree with you about Smith, like huskem, but disagree about Reed. Reed may have less name recognition on the East Coast simply because it's a small liberal arts school on the West Coast - and those never get as much recognition as they should. But academically and competitively and statistically speaking, Reed is very much on par with others in the listed tier.</p>
<p>As for liberal arts schools in general - I think that by definition, the idea of liberal arts is that it exposes you to a wide variety of subjects to generally educate you, as opposed to technical practical training in a specific discipline. I think that Harvey Mudd may be liberal arts oriented in some of its philosophy, but all in all, it really isn't a liberal arts school. It's small, which can lend to the misconception.</p>
<p>"momwaitingfornew: how can you place Vassar, grinnell, W&L in a tier BELOW reed and smith with any legitimacy? vassar, grinnell, W&L undoubtedly have more name recognition/ prestige (not that that is very important) and better academics than reed and smith."</p>
<p>Vassar, Grinnell, and W&L do NOT have more name recognition than Smith (Smith has always trumped Vassar). As for Reed, which probably has the same (non)existent reputation on the East Coast as Grinnell, it is one of those up-and-coming top schools that is increasing in reputation.</p>
<p>I didn't base my admittedly non-scientific ratings based on reputation, however. I based it on the quality of the education, as I perceive it, and of the quality of its graduates. Because I have connections to top colleges (I won't go into that here), I am in a good position to see which of those schools are respected by elite graduate schools. Also, having seen the acceptances in my d's high school, I have come to a conclusion about what <em>types</em> of students those colleges accept. </p>
<p>All the schools listed are excellent, of course, but I see some of them as being slightly better than others.</p>
<p>Statistics about outcomes are one good measure of school quality. I'm most familiar with Reed; can those familiar with other schools post relevant data? Reed's current size is 1309 undergraduates (2005-06).</p>
<p>.36 Rhodes scholars per year
1.6 Watson fellowships per year
2.8 NSF fellowships per year
78% acceptance rate (including re-applies) to medical schools
Third in the nation (of all LAC's and U's, behind CalTech and Harvey Mudd) in future PhD production rate (about 25% of all graduates)</p>
<p>All data is from the Reed website (and then my calculator to get per year values).</p>
<p>Smith is easier to get into because it's about twice the size of most LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Vassar, Grinnell, and W&L do NOT have more name recognition than Smith (Smith has always trumped Vassar). As for Reed, which probably has the same (non)existent reputation on the East Coast as Grinnell, it is one of those up-and-coming top schools that is increasing in reputation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Have to disagree, Grinnell and Reed both surpass Smith on name recognition. And I would put Vassar and W&L on equal footing with Smith. All excellent schools in any event.</p>
<p>Any ranking of LAC'S that places Smith and Mt. Holyoke ahead of Bryn Mawr is seriously flawed. Bryn Mawr has significantly higher admissions statistics and an enviable placement record in top graduate and professional schools. It ranks among the top 10 in PHD production and is no. 26 on the Wall Street Journal's survey on prestigious professional schools. Its name recognition factor is also a lot higher than you guys give credit for.</p>
<p>Re PhD production for the schools mentioned (rates, not numbers, and not proof of anything, but indicative of quality academics, and may be self-selecting for those who want a PhD or want to do research):</p>
<p>Reed is in the top ten overall, and for biological sciences, chemistry, humanities, history, foreign languages, political science, physical sciences, math & computer sciences, sciences & engineering, physics, social sciences, anthropology,area/ethnic studies, linguistics, English literature, medical sciences.</p>
<p>Grinnell is in the top ten for chemistry, biological sciences, foreign languages, history, physical sciences, anthropology, economics and linguistics.</p>
<p>Bryn Mawr is in the top 10 overall, and for humanities, foreign languages, anthropology, English literature, and area/ethnic studies.</p>
<p>Mt. Holyoke is in the top 10 for medical sciences.</p>
<p>Smith, Vassar, W&L do not appear in the top 10 lists.</p>
<p>Data from Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium.</p>