In the middle of this page, there is a section entitled “CC Top Liberal Arts Colleges”
How was this list selected - and is it ever revised?
In the event that this list is ever reevaluated, I’d like you to consider Scripps College for inclusion. It is a fine institution which has risen into the top 25 in the USNWR rankings - ahead of several colleges which are on this list.
Thank you for the note. Admittedly, that list has not been revised for quite some time. Initially, it was based largely on forum activity. In other words, school forums with a lot of poster activity were included, so this menu provided a quicker way to access these schools.
Your input on future enhancements to this section is appreciated
I thought I would try to further the discussion on this topic since it is close to home at the moment. My S is very interested in most of the schools that would fall into this category. For me, the definition of the “Little Ivies” starts with three components - small size, northeast location, and liberal arts focus. A generally agreed upon starting place seems to be the “Little Three New England Colleges” of Williams, Amherst and Wesleyan. From a different perspective (but not unlike the underlying structure of the Ivy League) is the New England Small College Athletic Conference of NESCAC. The members consist of the Little Three plus Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Connecticut College, Hamilton, Middlebury, Trinity and Tufts (although Tufts has an undergraduate enrollment of over 5,000 which seems to push it out of the “little” category). The Seven Sisters also come into consideration since there were many direct ties with the Ivies. If we make “coed” a condition of our definition, five of the seven sisters are ruled out as they are still for women only (Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Smith and Wellesley). Radcliffe no longer exists having been merged into Harvard. Only Vassar can be considered. It is also noteworthy that Williams, Amherst and Wesleyan began as all male colleges but became coed. Even at this stage of development, my list has issues. Why Hamilton and not Colgate? What about Swarthmore? How about Haverford?
I think the entire category (possibly in need of new name) might be effectively updated by: eliminating the northeast geographical distinction; and taking some measure of performance into account.
Since no one has made a comment, I will continue. For starters, I assumed my comment requiring any college to be coed would have sparked some discussion. It didn’t. So I will make the comment I was expecting. There is no reason for this restriction. Of course, men will be unable to apply or attend these institutions but they should make the list is they deserve it. The following schools - Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Smith and Wellesley - go back on the last since they deserve to be there.
I also expected some response regarding any geographical restrictions. They are dropped in my following post.
I thought it might be interesting to look at the list of 30 colleges on the CC Top LAC list relative to the two major ranking lists that I am aware of - US News and Washington Monthly. I began by listing the college and rank for the top 100 colleges from each organization. I then averaged the rankings. For example, WM ranks Harvey Mudd 4th and USN ranks Harvey Mudd 19th for an average of 11.5. I than listed the colleges in order by this average rank. The top 26 colleges from this list are all included in CC’s LAC list. Three of the remaining four colleges on the CC list come in 28th (Reed), 32nd (Hamilton), 36th and 40th (Kenyon). Trinity College does not make the average list since WM does not rank it within the top 100 LACs. The notable LACs on the average ranking list that are not covered by CC are Bucknell (27th), Holy Cross (29th), Wheaton IL (30th), Furman (31st), Berea (33rd), Spelman (34th), Occidental (35th), St. John’s MN (36th), Sewanee (37th), Colorado College (38th) and Williamette (39th).
If we look at the list of colleges I have mentioned, Tufts (while clearly excellent) has grown a bit large for inclusion in this group. Connecticut College is not on the CC LAC list and has an average rank of 41 so it isn’t suggested (although it might be close). Trinity might be dropped if we take into account the lack of respect from WM. Kenyon, with an average rank of 40, could also be dropped since it in a situation much like Connecticut College.
Three potential additions might be Bucknell (27th avg rank), Holy Cross (29th) and Wheaton IL (30th).
They’re still one-size-fits-nobody rankings. You wouldn’t buy music based on some formula made up by a magazine, with the data supplied by the record companies.
“You wouldn’t buy music based on some formula made up by a magazine, with the data supplied by the record companies.”
No, I wouldn’t. However, I would certainly take such information into account to help me narrow my search. I would always make my own decision. There is no way to consider every college in the US. There is no way to consider just the LACs.
I would assume everyone would develop their own criteria as a starting point. For example, I would consider: choice of major; size of school; location of school; track record of the school’s graduates; etc. After doing so, I would (and have) taken rankings into account to help define a pool of potentially interesting colleges. The rankings are but one piece of a very personal and complex puzzle.
“However, I would certainly take such information into account to help me narrow my search.”
Why? Why accept someone else’s opinion of what’s important for you? There are excellent sources of info available that don’t assign rank, like Barron’s, College Board’s College Handbook, Colleges that Change Lives, Fiske Guide to Colleges, Newsweek’s College Guide, Peterson’s. They actually tell you about the schools, without the useless “A is ranked higher than B” for some non-existent hypothetical student.
For starters, I have used and would use every available source of information. Having said that, I don’t fully understand why the wealth of information provided by a source such as US News is deemed as someone’s opinion while whatever is written in the other sources you mention is any different. Any grading system is simply a device (e.g., the Princeton Review’s assessments). As long as the methodology is fully explained. a ranking has value (for me). How does it mean more when Newsweek lists the “25 Schools for Powerbrokers” or the “25 Schools for Brainiacs?” Colleges That Change Lives has an interesting perspective but I certainly doubt their objectivity when the STCL home page features a list of it’s members (all colleges). Any source can be challenged and any source can be useful. I find the rankings to be useful.
“… why the wealth of information provided by a source such as US News is deemed as someone’s opinion while whatever is written in the other sources you mention is any different.”
The information that USNWR gathers is excellent; it’s the opinion behind the ranking that is damaging to the uninitiated.
Is your position identical to that found on the Reed College webpages?
"Since 1995 Reed College has refused to participate in the U.S. News and World Report “best colleges” rankings. Several times Reed’s stance on the rankings has put the college in the national spotlight, most prominently in a Rolling Stone magazine article that raised serious concerns about the U.S. News best colleges issue.
Reed does participate in several other well-established college guides that do not assign numerical rankings to institutions, including Barron’s, the Fiske Guide to Colleges, Peterson’s, Colleges that Change Lives, Newsweek’s College Guide, and the College Board’s College Handbook. Each of these guides attempts to describe more fully the experience, student culture, and academic environment at different schools. Consistent with Reed’s non-participation in U.S. News rankings, the college also does not participate in Money magazine’s college-ranking issue."
At this point, it seems we simply disagree. For me, the rankings matter and are an important piece of a multifaceted process. For you, they do not.
While your original approach seemed to measure popularity or interest (a very valid approach), the actual list looks like what it is called - TOP LACs. Since the list appears to be working, there is no real pressure to revise it.
