<p>“In fact, you’re more likely to hear Middlebury grouped with Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore than you are Haverford.”</p>
<p>Uh… and this is based on your experience as a <em>Middlebury</em> student?</p>
<p>First, I think you do a disservice to Middlebury by trying to “lump” it in with those 3 schools. It seems a little insecure… like you’re trying to fit in with the “cool kids.” Well, as I’ve pointed out, at least for 2 of those 3 schools, there are issues (location and size) that can be argued to negatively impact the education received so I don’t know why you assume them as the gold standard. They’re great but not perfect. Instead, you should be arguing what makes Middlebury unique… in the case for HC, it would be a top LAC close to an urban center, provides a small community feel yet offers the resources of a school twice its size, phenomenal sciences and its mission statement. How does Middlebury distinguish itself from Williams? That should be your focus, not on how it can fit in… </p>
<p>CC reminds me of politics. I think for the majority of people, colleges, like candidates, are decided upon 1st and the facts are then selected and interpreted to fit one’s conclusions. Arcadia is probably referencing the US News rankings where Middlebury was #5 for 2 years in a row. I guess I should point out that 20 of these college presidents (from #1 to #20) all stated that the rankings were flawed. For example, “alumni giving rates” may have more to do with how aggressive colleges go after alumni dollars than how happy alumni are with their college education. For example, a few years ago, Pomona sent out $1 bills to their alumni and asked them to mail them back. Regarding selectivity, 2 schools, Amherst and HC have only 1 ED where 33% of an entering class are enrolled. By contrast, other schools, like Middlebury, fill between 39-55% of their classes ED, so there is less risk in the volatile RD pool and less students need to be admitted. This artificially lowers acceptance rates when compared to HC and Amherst (between 2-5%) but considering how close these schools are in terms of selectivity and quality, an unfair tweak here and finger on the scale there can change “ranks” which should really be measured in millimeters and not “tiers”.</p>
<p>If I was biased, I could blindly site ### “rankings” and facts that put Haverford well ahead of Middlebury without explaining their limitations as I’ve done in the past even when the rankings favored HC. For example, the WSJ rankings, HC’s larger endowment per student, PhD rankings where HC is consistently among the top LACs while Middlebury is far behind (even for the humanities which is Middlebury’s strength). I can also point out that the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the primary funder of undergraduate research has given Haverford’s science program $5,450,000 since 1996 (#1 for LACs) while Middlebury hasn’t won a grant since 1996 ($650,000). Again, the WSJ rankings are imperfect, endowment per student is overstated for reasons I’ve listed before and the PhD rankings are powered to show no difference between LACs and the Ivies, not that 1 school is better than another. But at least I’m fair about it. Regarding the HHMI grant $, well… :)</p>
<p>I can also point out that reputations depend more than just 2 years of a US News cycle which is shorter than the lifespan of the Rubix cube. Consistency matters too… that HC has 4 Nobel Prizes, and in the last 10-15 years graduated the chief editors of both the LA Times and the NYT, the chair of chemistry at MIT, the presidents of Cornell, Emory and U Washington, dean of Stanford Business School, current dean of faculty of both Princeton and Williams, the current head of the biomedical research program at Johns Hopkins, the current head of the American Archeology Institute and the congressman who coined the term “partial birth abortion.” Oh yeah, and if you’ve ever heard of Harvard’s Framingham Heart Study and intravenous nutrition, there’s a Haverford alum there too. </p>
<p>I think the top 10 LACs <em>all</em> have notable alumni so I think it’s a little odd to argue that the fleeting opinions of a magazine ranking make a significant difference on reputations that are built upon decades of accomplishment. People, and especially those in positions of power and knowledge, know better.</p>