<p>I know that these NESCAC schools are all great and have a lot in common, but how would you place them on a spectrum ranging from "athletic/preppie/pre-professional" on one side, and "intellectual/artsy/knowledge-for-its-own-sake" on the other? </p>

<p>I've only visited Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby, and my impression would put Colby on the "athletic/prep/prej-prof" side, and Bates on the other side, with Bowdoin somewhere in the middle. Don't know about Amherst, Midd, and Williams.</p>

<p>I know I'm dealing in generalizations here, and I'm not sure that my initial impressions are trustworthy.... But what do others think?</p>

<p>Acknowleding that these are generalizations, I'd put them as follows ("intellectual/knowledge-for-its-own-sake to preppie/pre-professional"), notice I took out athletic and artsy b/c I think they change things...</p>





<p>Interesting. How would your list change if you put back the "athletic" and "artsy"? Or would you find the generalizations unworkable at that point?</p>

<p>For me they would become almost unworkable. </p>

<p>I don't think of any of those schools as being particularly artsy. On the athletics front, Williams and Middlebury are probably the most "athletic."</p>

<p>If you want more intellectual/knowledge-for-its-own-sake schools, I encourage you to think about Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Reed, and Swarthmore as well. Good luck.</p>

<p>I don't consider any of the NESCACs to be particularly 'knowledge-for-its-own-sake'. Since these schools regularly field competitive athletic teams, recruited varsity athletes generally make up 40% or so of the population, plus all of the club teams (crew, sailing, etc). This certainly gives a pretty athletic vibe. I've found Midd, Amherst, and Williams to be pretty pre-professional. I haven't visited the others so I can't say much for them.</p>

<p>do any of you who don't consider NESCAC schools intellectual go to any of the aforementioned places? or is this by reputation only? </p>

<p>my experience as a bowdoin student was especially "knowledge-for-its-own-sake," and hardly preprofessional. indeed, much of the criticism levied at liberal arts schools like bowdoin is that they are perhaps a little too egg-heady and not preprofessional enough. this was certainly true of my experience.</p>

<p>it may be enlightening to other posters to reveal whether your opinion is based on hearsay or reputation (which is perfectly relevant, so long as its disclosed) or based on experience.</p>

<p>I go to Middlebury. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love it here. My point was that compared to schools that are known for being "knowledge-for-its-own-sake", the above schools are relatively pre-professional. Obviously, compared to state schools, they are extremely intellectual. My classes have been amazing and I have, indeed, had room to pursue knowledge that has no bearing on my future career.</p>

<p>But if you look at the types of careers that students from Midd or Bowdoin pursue, compared to those that students from, say, Swarthmore pursue, I think you will see a noticeable difference.</p>

<p>It should be noted that even in the context of this discussion, 'pre-professional' does not, at least by my definition, automatically mean bad. It means that a large number of students plan to pursue careers in law, medicine, finance, or the like, compared to those who plan to pursue academia or the like.</p>

<p>wait, Bates is arsty and intellectual? haha.</p>

<p>the obvious example of that within NESCAC would be Wesleyan, I think.</p>

<p>^^^agreed. only at Wesleyan would you find this kind of debate concerning a leading donor: Michael</a> Bay Continues To Push The Envelope Of Success - Wesleying</p>

<p>Obvious indeed - which is why I didn't ask about Wesleyan. I was interested in the spectrum as it might apply to the six schools I mentioned.</p>

<p>I think it was mostly in response to the blanket statement in post #5</p>