DrStudMuffin wrote: jbagelboy wrote: DrStudMuffin wrote:
The part that I was referring to was the "T3" business. You could've just said "a top LAC". T3 implies you think there's a meaningful distinction between (... checking current USNews rankings...) Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore and a place like Carleton or Wesleyan (*gasp* #17, so pitifully common!), and you want people to know that your school is, like, super elite.
T14 is a meaningful distinction for law school employment. So is YHS. The same goes for the Ivy League and HYPS in terms of lay prestige. The distinction between the #3 LAC and #15 LAC, on the other hand, is only meaningful for USN-conscious high school seniors.
Or he was just trying to let us know that he goes to Williams/Amherst.
I agree with you that there isn't a meaningful distinction between Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore and Bowdoin/Middlebury/Pomona
, but you're simply wrong if you think Williams/Amherst students don't have better access to i-banking/MBB consulting positions and national fellowships/less numbers focused grad schools than Grinnell/Colgate students.
Edit: Either way it is irrelevant for law school admissions, though.
Lol what? this is total bogus. It doesn't seem any of you have researched or attended these schools. The only notable difference between these LAC's is admissions. Pomona, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Claremont McKenna have the most competitive admissions, starting with Pomona as the most competitive at 13%. Williams is slightly less so but in the same vein, along with Middlebury, ect. Then there's a drop off, and schools like Carleton admit a larger % of their applicants (above 20%), but its still the same overall quality of school; maybe slightly lower SAT scores in the student body but most people in the midwest don't even take the SAT anyway.
The reality is, nearly everyone who gains admission to one of the four could have gotten into any of the four. In terms of educational quality, student quality, employment, fellowships, and grad school opportunities they are all nearly identical. Amherst may be a little preppier (more Andover kids), and Swarthmore a little more literary, ect., but its a wash, and it comes down to personal preference not academic superiority (FYI I chose between these schools, and everyone in my freshmen hall had made a similar choice from the same set of options along with Dartmouth, Haverford, Carleton, ect.). I think Amherst and Pomona are the most similar, and they are natural competitors - both are the leaders of 5 college consortiums, both admit very similar profiles of students, a lot of exchange of professors, ect.
Drawing a distinction is stupid. I may very well have been a classmate of OP's...dude, grow up. Take some time off. You need it
I'm not sure if you were using my post just to make your point, or didn't read it closely enough, but I was saying that there *isn't* a meaningful difference between those schools. I think we agree on this.
Now, if you're disagreeing with my point that those schools provide better access to certain "prestigious" jobs/fellowships than colleges like Grinnell/Colgate/Smith, then I have to disagree with you there.
I attended one of the schools you mentioned, but I had a solid contingent of friends at schools in the "15-25" range, and certain banking/consulting/etc. firms either didn't recruit there, or the number of students that went to those firms was significantly lower. If you have data/anecdotes that suggest otherwise do share. I hardly have enough information to say anything definitively and am open to being proven wrong.
All of the schools in this range are pretty similar though, and as I said, this is all irrelevant for law school admissions
The idea that you can rank liberal arts colleges in a similar manner as law schools or group them into "T3", "T6", ect. categories, is what is total bogus. Most of what you said I would agree with, although I don't think any two schools (amherst or williams seem to be what you're indicating?) have any preferential treatment wrt prestigious graduate opportunities, at least relative to Swarthmore, Pomona, ect. The only distinctions I can see are in admissions policies, and that's only relevant for high school seniors: http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/a/s ... lleges.htm
(as one example among many)
Pomona and Amherst have the highest standards, followed by everyone else. This is probably the closest relation to your statement that prestige-driven employers look to these schools first, and that's because the colleges with the most competitive admissions policies serve as the best filters for the best candidates.
As for "lay prestige", the Williams kids will say USNWR
, the Pomona kids will say Forbes Forbes
, Swarthmore kids will say Jonathan Franzen. w.e.
When you say "15-25", are you referring to the USNWR liberal arts rankings? Seems silly to me. It depends on what you want to study, the campus culture, ect. I already addressed the acceptance % issue and how that could relate to selective employers. Besides, at the end of the day, if you want to go into one of those corporate-minded professions like IB or consulting, LAC is clearly not the best way to get there. The only school I would recommend would be CMC since they have their own finance school. Northwestern, Cornell, even Haas at Cal, are all both easier to get into and have a much stronger alumni presence and on campus recruiting in the corporate structures you are referring to than the LAC's do. People don't go to Williams to get a banking job - the same kid could probably go to Columbia and have a much easier time at it. Also, he/she wouldn't be stigmatized for selling out. That's part of the reason why I'm skeptical that students talking about their chances at banking gigs coming from liberal arts schools actually attend those schools, since its a far less common (although far from impossible) pursuit than at the comparably rigorous large universities