<p>Totally ridiculous post. The top LAC have incredibly strong graduate placement and do incredibly well with recruiting. I personally favor Dartmouth due to the larger size. There’s, in my opinion, the perfect amount of social activity at Dartmouth. Dartmouth is very integrated, I don;t see this being an issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’m afraid I have to disagree, for one of the reasons that Corbett cited in his argument: most engineering jobs are available to those with just a BS degree. What that also means is that most engineering jobs out there, frankly, have nothing to do with research. Heck, even many MS-level engineering jobs have nothing to do with research. Hence, what does it matter that you had exposure to myriad research facilities if you’re not actually going to be pursuing a research career anyway.</p>
<p>Look, I went to one of the ‘premier’ engineering schools that butchokoy listed, and the truth of the matter is, maybe only 25% of the undergrad engineers there actually cared about research. And yes, those students were the ones who went on to engineering grad school. The vast majority of the eng undergrads didn’t care - heck, most of them didn’t even know where the research facilities were. All they cared about was getting a job after graduation. Yet I am quite sure that they (and I) would take great exception to the notion that they weren’t ‘serious engineering wanna-be’s’. </p>
<p>Engineering employers also usually don’t care very much about research knowledge, instead preferring topical production knowledge. For example, if you want to get a job as a process engineer in an oil refinery, it doesn’t really help you very much to have done engineering research. What helps far more is, unsurprisingly, to have completed a summer internship or a co-op in an actual oil refinery. </p>
<p>One could also note the high level of engineering success enjoyed by Harvey Mudd graduates, despite the fact that Harvey Mudd is a LAC and hence has no graduate programs whatsoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! I think what people meant to say is that grad students are getting more faculty attention than are undergrads, although, granted, that’s not saying much. </p>
<p>Then again, part of it may be purely psychological. Many undergrads wonder why they get no attention at all from the faculty, and they justify it by saying “Well, that’s because the faculty are spending their time with the grad students.” To say that the grad students don’t get much attention from the faculty either is to then raise the very uncomfortable question of what exactly are the faculty doing with all their time anyway? One would then inevitably begin to question the value of the tenure system itself, particularly when you see certain fully tenured professors who haven’t published any academic papers, haven’t pulled in a grant, and haven’t served on a PhD committee in years (or, in a few cases that I know, for over a decade). Yet nothing can happen to them because, well, they’re tenured. </p>
<p>But these questions are simply too subversive to the status quo of academia. It’s better to let undergrads believe that they’re not getting any attention from faculty because they’re “too busy” helping the graduate students. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, mollie, I think you’re telling a story that is highly specific to MIT (and to Caltech). Yeah, you as an undergrad had no problems getting a great research job in a top lab and then getting published simply because not only does MIT have the excellent UROP system that fosters close collaboration between undergrads and faculty, but more importantly, MIT has built a culture that encourages such behavior, such that even if UROP were to be dropped tomorrow, most MIT faculty would still provide plenty of high-quality opportunities for undergrads. </p>
<p>At other prominent research schools, those sorts of opportunities for undergrads are far more sparse, perhaps due to the sheer number of undergrads (i.e. sometimes more than 5-6 times the number of undergrads that MIT has, but with nowhere near a corresponding 5-6 times an increase in faculty size). Heck, I seem to recall you yourself saying that if you had gone to Ohio State, you probably would have ended up just washing test-tubes or other such scutwork instead of actually being given opportunities to perform meaningful research. </p>
<p>The point is this. Sure, MIT (and Caltech) are excellent places to go to do high-quality undergraduate research. But that’s not true of all big-name research universities across the board. In many cases, I would argue that some people may actually have more research opportunities by going to a LAC than by going to certain big-name research universities.</p>
<p>
I agree, though I wouldn’t limit the “good guys” to Caltech and MIT.</p>
<p>I think that any of the smaller research universities are places that foster outstanding undergraduate research – I think the issue is more small vs. big school than research university vs. LAC.</p>
<p>Regarding the ED and financial aid… won’t you be able to get out of the ED contract if the need is not satisfied, sort of?</p>
<p>Yes, that’s why I’m drawn to smaller schools like Williams and Dartmouth.</p>
<p>Reika: I think you can. My friend got into NYU ED but couldn’t go because they didn’t offer enough. But I don’t want it to come down to that ):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why is the acceptance rate for ED triple what it is for RD at Dartmouth? This has to be more than just athletes and legacy admits. These schools are close enough that I would pick one and apply ED to maximize your chances, although this is coming from someone who was W/L applying RD.</p>
<p>Thanks gellino, that’s what I’ve planned to do. As soon as I choose one of the two and work out the financial stuff.
Can anyone tell me anything about the academic rigor of both schools? Are they about the same?</p>
<p>“Regarding the ED and financial aid… won’t you be able to get out of the ED contract if the need is not satisfied, sort of?”</p>
<p>Some schools say - quite clearly - that you can, but only to apply to “non-competitive” schools (i.e. state schools). Remember need is how THEY define it, not how you define it. If, financially, you feel you can do without comparing offers, which can vary quite widely even in “100%-of-need” schools, then go for it.</p>
<p>"Then why is the acceptance rate for ED triple what it is for RD at Dartmouth? This has to be more than just athletes and legacy admits.:</p>
<p>I said absolutely nothing about legacy admits. I said “full-pay” admits. But even then, this provides no evidence regarding international admissions whatsoever. And Dartmouth has said, repeatedly, that the standards they use for admission ED and RD are the same.</p>
<p>Almost 50 percent of the students accepted during the ED round at Dartmouth (178 of 382 students) are athletes or legacies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>for the class of 2012- there were 33 football players admitted and 65 legacies admitted during ED.</p>
<p>23 non-citizens largest number of international students ever admitted ED!
That just shot down all my hopes ):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That still means that the ED acceptance rate for non-athlete, non-legacy applicants is at least double the RD acceptance rate.</p>
<p>This gets 35 posts and my thread on the SAME lines gets 7? </p>
<p>Shame. :(</p>
<p>Okay, I want to ask one thing. I just used the dartmouth EFC calculator and it came up with an EFC of ZERO (probably due to some sinking forex rates nowadays). Will it be safe to apply ED on this account, since they like dont expect my family to pay anything (if the EFC=0 part means that)?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Elastine;</p>
<p>Like I posted on your thread, no one outside of admissions truly knows what discussions take place about internationals that need full rides, even at need-blind schools (altho, in reality, no school is need blind). And, no one outside of FinAid knows how they consider international income/assets and the like. So, IMO, no, it is not “safe” to apply ED.</p>
<p>btw: Mini is correct (the former Dean of Admissions even wrote about it): ED matriculants are much more likely to be full pay than RD acceptees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no such thing as “payng nothing” even at schools that have no loan policies and meet 100% of your demonstrated need with loads of grant aid because each school requires some sort of student contribution, so that students can be active participants in financing their education. Most of the time, the student contribution is used to cover misc. items that are not part of the tuition, room and board.</p>
<p>From Dartmouth’s guide to FA </p>
<p><a href=“Home | Dartmouth Admissions”>Home | Dartmouth Admissions;
<p>
</p>
<p>After 4 years of bills from the school, I can tell you first hand (Blue can also 
) tell you what not covered in the 100% demonstrated need category (this I know because they either showed up on the bill or I paid for them directly)</p>
<p>books
toiletries and other sundry items that you may need to purchase from the CVS or the COOP
DASH - (Dartmouth Cash) to do laundry, you will need to purchase laundry
detergent
Going over on your meal plan (this amount is placed on your next bill and not covered by FA)
Gym- should you decide to take up skiing, snowboarding, horseback riding or some other PE, most of them have a charge associated with them
Student Fees
Student Health Fees (if you don’t have adequate insurance, you will get a grant for 1/2 the cost and you will be billed for the other half)
Dinner in town with the friends
storage costs
reprographic fees
Movies, entertainment
Trips to the airport ($$ rount trip on Dartmouth coach to Logan Airport)
Frat/ Sorority fees (should you decide to go greek)
Additional funds associated with studying abroad; plan tickets, transfer chareges, spending $.
Senior dues
Senior class gift</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is silly. Why not apply to both? Oh, and have some great safeties at hand while you’re at it. Why do you “need” to decide now?</p>
<p>I think that both posters are trying to apply ED</p>
<p>To respond to Gellino, the ED group at any selective top college is largely a self-selecting group of highly qualified applicants who would most likely get in during the RD round anyway. The chances of acceptance when applying ED are not raised significantly for <em>individual</em> applicants; that’s not the way statistics works. For example, the undergrad acceptance rate at Columbia was 8% last year, but that doesn’t mean each and every applicant has an 8% chance of admittance, you see? Some will have higher prospects than others. It’s similar with ED. If you’re absolutely not going to be admitted during RD, you’re not going to be admitted during ED either. The only people for whom it may make a difference is those middle-ground, on-the-fence people who are in between but can demonstrate that they are applying ED because they REALLY REALLY REALLY want to go (and not because they think they’ll have higher chances.)</p>
<p>As mini has been saying forever, there is absolutely no evidence (not even a shred) that applying ED increases one’s chances of admissions. The reason that admissions rates are higher in ED is because ED applicants tend to have better qualifications and know what they want, and tend to be able to pay full sticker price. Call any admissions office that offers ED and they will tell you that.</p>
<p>That said, I don’t think the poster should apply to either school ED. He or she should apply to both schools during the regular admissions cycle and decide in April/May which school is the better for him or her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re never going to know if you’re on the fence or not. I would surmise a relatively high % of applicants are on the fence or else the W/L wouldn’t comprise such a high % of total applicants. Your typical 1450-1500 SAT, top 2% of hs class candidate easily justifiably should be good enough to get into Dartmouth and easily can be rejected. Applying early can certainly be the difference versus a similar 1470 SAT, top 1% candidate who applies RD. </p>
<p>If the OP has honed his choices down to two schools as similar as Dartmouth and Williams, he should easily be able to make the case of why either is his first choice. The only other thing I would say is that generally from my experience I have met more that have been accepted at Dartmouth and rejected at Williams than the other way around. I think the ~3% higher acceptance rate at Williams is more than offset by how much more self-selecting the applicant pool at Williams is and isn’t necessarily as based on another throw-on Ivy application from a mediocre candidate who knows very little about Williams and isn’t good enough to get into either school.</p>
<p>Haven’t studies been done showing avg SAT (after accounting for athletes) is lower for ED admits than RD admits? I thought I’ve seen something like that on here before.</p>