These schools are especially good if you quality for financial aid or receive merit scholarships (which sadly are not available at Colgate, Carleton, Haverford, Swarthmore, and Williams).
Although in reference to post #102, it seems like rankings often edge out Grinnell and Wesleyan in favor of Claremont McKenna and Davidson recently, at least according to the woefully misguided USNWR rankings.
Virtually all of them also offer small classes, total focus on undergrads, professors with PhDs from top graduate programs, good facilities, high 4 year graduation rates, and a very similar arts & science curriculum. Many of them feature old ivy-covered buildings set around tree-lined quads in sleepy rural or suburban towns. They are all selective, with average entering SAT CR+M scores in most cases above 1300 and admit rates in most cases well under 50%.
So what are we trying to differentiate when we rank these schools?
I don’t mean to suggest there are no significant differences. However, to me, there seems to be much less variation in structure or quality among the top ~40 national LACs than there is among the top ~40 national universities. I doubt a random English major is getting a significantly better education at Williams or Amherst than s/he would at Kenyon, Richmond, or Barnard. Perhaps the main persistent advantage of attending Williams or Amherst is that it telegraphs to the world that you got into Williams or Amherst.
“there seems to be luch less variation … in quality among the top ~40 national LACs than there is among the top ~40 national universities”
USNWR tends to support this numerically. The 40th ranked national university has an overall score of 63; the schools tied at a similar ranking in the NLAC category have scores of 74.
^ But even that overall score may understate the distinction.
If you’re attracted to LACs, then presumably the idea of consistently small classes is very important to you.
Among the top ~40 LACs, there is very little difference in average class size.
Among the top ~40 universities, there are pretty big variations (e.g. between Tufts and GaTech). http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size-p1.html
Look at the spreads in institutional wealth, as measured by endowments per student.
Between Princeton and Boston U ( #1 v. #42 university), the difference is about 71X.
Between Williams and Mt. Holyoke (#1 v. #41 LAC), the difference is only about 3X. http://www.ordoludus.com/quality.php?sort=ES&dir=down#data
@merc81 I agree in terms of the similarity of quality. While there are usually 10 or so considered the highest quality, I know students who considered a whole range of schools regardless of rank and prestige (I know someone who chose Grinnell but heavily considered attending Carleton and Kenyon).
@mollyc890: I could easily see that: Kenyon for Middle Path and its Gothic architecture; Carleton for its impressive students; Grinnell for its off-beat, resist-the-mainstream location; all for their excellent academics – or whatever your friend’s personal considerations were. Rankings – whatever their derivation – can remove imagination from the college selection process.
@urbanslaughter Check the historical data @LACexpert2 posted for Carleton’s #3 rank (it was right around when USNWR started ranking in the late 80s I believe).
Even in selectivity (which seems to correlate strongly with overall USN rankings), the spread among top ~40 LACs is narrower. Between Williams and Mt. Holyoke, the difference in average SAT M+CR is about 110 points. Between HYP and BU, the difference is more than 200 points. Between HYP and UC Irvine, the difference is more than 300 points.
Rather than fret over the “Ivy League of Liberal Arts Colleges”, it would be more meaningful to identify which national universities provide the most LAC-like attention to undergraduates.