Talk:Little Ivies/archive 1

Initial Talk Page Comments
Why remove Amherst, Wesleyan, and Williams? Despite being part of the "little three" they are also part of the better known NESCAC and therefore often referred to as "little ivies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.42.154 (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Little Ivy league" (also, "potted Ivy League") is a nickname for the NESCAC. Whether or not it is an accurate nickname is a whole other, irrelevant, and unimportant argument. All that is needed for relevant information is for this fact to be mentioned on the NESCAC page (which it is). Therefore, this article is unnecessary and should be deleted because, as others have mentioned, it is a nickname and not an official organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.244.234.254 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-named group

The Ivy League was a name created in the 50's by those schools themselves. It seems that the term "little ivy" is nothing more than advertising, made up by schools that want to promote themselves as elite and by college guides which want to sell books to students, and upper middle class parents of students, who aren't academically gifted enough to be accepted into a true Ivy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.19.20 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that ain't true. Acceptance by the best Little Ivies (Williams, Amherst) is in fact much more difficult than acceptance by the "least" Ivy League schools (Penn, Cornell, Brown). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.221.210.74 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

NESCAC As "Little Ivies"
This is a response the the discussion below which stemmed from Tufts' inclusion in the "Little Ivy" list. The association between NESCAC and the Ivy League seems to depend on geography. In the Northeast, especially in New England, there is a strong link between NESCAC and the Ivy League in that students from elite secondary schools attend colleges from the two conferences (Ivy and NESCAC) with much greater frequently than any other schools or league of schools. Students will often choose between Harvard and Williams, or Brown and Wesleyan. The top two schools chosen by last years graduating class at Belmont Hill School, for example, were Harvard and Trinity. Children of New England brahmin who at one time would have attended now less-accessible (via meritocracy) ivy league schools now, instead, often attend schools like Trinity, Connecticut, and Hamilton causing the NESCAC demographic to more closely mirror one that once predominated ivy league schools, and still is still predominant in popular imagination. Case in point, the association between NESCAC and the Ivy League isn't contrived, but instead exists through a number of social and cultural associations, especially in the Northeast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.5.151 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Would Wellesley be considered a "little Ivy?



Apparently IACOBVS does not know the difference between Wellesley and Wesleyan.
 * I do, but that pesky, undiagnosed dyslexia must have crept in, anonymous. IACOBVS (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dyslexia is a manifestation of those who are cognitively differently abled and not a capriciously convenient sardonic foil. Please consider that notion prior to casually invoking an actual condition that people do suffer from before conducting an attempt to expeditiously extricate yourself from a clear blunder.
 * Consider not being anonymous anymore, anonymous. Also, sign your comments. I stand by my sardonic foil. Who are you to challenge my self-diagnosis? Also, who are you anyway? IACOBVS (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Conn and Trinity
The Little Ivy League began as an athletic league, just as the real Ivy League, now referred to as the NESCAC (New England Small College Athletic Conference). The term "Little Ivy League" attained some prestige as a common denominator for most of the member schools were the use of exclusive admissions policies and high academic standards. However, there was always a vast different between the academics of say Williams and Trinity, however they always remained in the league together competing against each other as they were, and still are, similar types of schools. The term Ivy League also refers to an athletic league, and many prestigious institutions do not make that list. Why has there not been an uprising against the Ivy League for not including Duke, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UChicago, and a number of other schohols that have more in common with Harvard, Princeton, and Yale than Brown or Cornell? The answer is because the Ivy League is a historical athletic league, and the Little Ivy League is the same thing. Colgate, Swarthmore, and Haverford are all great liberal arts schools- however they are not members of this league. How could you include only those schools and exclude such great liberal arts schools such as Wellesley, Davidson, Washington and Lee, and many more? The point is- it is nobody's place who edits this page to edit the idea of the Little Ivy League, just as it is no ones place to edit the membership of the actual Ivy League. The Little Ivy League is made up of the NESCAC school members. Colgate, Haverford, and Swarthmore should be removed from this list immediately- and Trinity and Conn should be reinstated. Master20817 13:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as the "Little Ivy League", period! There is, of course, the "Little Three" (Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams).  This is firstly an athletic grouping and has been in place since 1899 (originally the "Triangular League"), but its meaning goes beyond sports competition; it also strongly suggests that these three exceptional liberal arts colleges have a LONG and CONSISTENT history of academic excellence (and ACHIEVEMENT in any number of fields) and also share many similar socio-cultural  traditions.This article really should be deleted...Anthropologique 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is indeed no such thing as the "Little Ivy League" but the term "Little Ivy" has a long currency, although its "members" are debatable because the term is a colloquialism. Also, the "Little Three" which was founded in 1899 as the "Triangular League" no longer exists as it was subsumed into NESCAC in 1971. The Colby-Bates-Bowdoin Consortium, founded in 1870, still exists because it is more than an athletic league. There is however no need to delete this article simply because the term is unofficial. Wikipedia has a myriad number of articles on things colloquial and unofficial. Also, NESCAC is not the sole claimant to the term Little Ivy, so the NESCAC article is not a sufficient substitute. I think the article is useful. As to the colleges that can be referred to as Little Ivies, that remains open to interpretation and popular opinion. IACOBVS (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment
I hear the NESCAC as synonymous with the term "Little Ivy" all the time. Is it because I'm from New England that this is the case? You all seem perplexed, but I grew up with the term. The NESCAC colleges are all brick and stone, ivy covered, (socially) elite schools (regardless of academic rankings). The schools have produced multiple presidents and are filled with students from the most exclusive boarding schools (see matriculation data)... Most of the listed schools are not on par with the ivy league but the association isn't meritocratic, its based on the culture and atmosphere or these schools and this is why there Little Ivies is the NESCAC. I am curious to hear responses to my statement in terms of the geographic location of those who disagree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.5.151 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I attended one of the listed colleges, and I've never really heard it described as a "Little Ivy." Given the vagueness of this category, I think this page ought to be deleted. It's similar to the absolutely useless term "Public Ivy," a label which has probably been applied to virtually every major state university in the United States. This is a somewhat arbitrary list of top liberal arts colleges; let's leave the "Ivy" label to the football conference that bears that name.
 * If you think it should be deleted, you have to follow the procedure at the bottom of the page on Votes for Deletion, and the community will hear what you have to say. -Splash 00:53, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave it as a comment rather than a vote to delete.
 * Ok. -Splash 01:11, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

The difference between the "little ivies" and the "public ivies" is that someone actually wrote a well-researched book in the 80's that coined the term "public ivies" and gave a well-thought-out list of them. "Little ivies" is sort of just a catchall term for northeast liberal arts colleges and I have rarely heard the term used, especially related to specific schools. As far as I know there is no official, cite-able list of "little ivies" (and in my opinion, google results do not count as a citation in and of themselves).


 * This article should be deleted. The term "Little Ivies" is not a widely used term nor is it accepted in the academic community.

- IvyLeagueGrunt 04:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Much of this discussion is pretty meaningless. The term "Little Ivies" is a concoction of insecure admissions officers who represent liberal arts colleges that are less than in the elite category. These are not inferior colleges, just some distance from being "elite".

There are only two elite college and university categories (both, of course, having as much to with athletics as anything else) and these are the Ivy League and the "Little Three" (Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams). Of course, there are other great liberal arts colleges outside of the "Little Three", certainly colleges like Swarthmore, Haverford and Wellesley are overall equals to Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams.

Anthropologique 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) <-Get over Wesleyan.

Anthropologique loves his/her Wesleyan and can't come to terms with the fact that Middlebury, Bowdoin, Haverford, and Swarthmore, all of which are on this list are more "elite" than his/her alma mater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.164.44 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And what criteria do you base that on, Mr. Unsigned? Please, don't fall victim to the ridiculous rankings propaganda produced by US & World News. Have you ever checked the number of Wesleyan graduates who go on to earn PhD's? Do you know that Wesleyan ranks the highest by far of any LAC with respect to scientific papers published, some coauthored with undergraduates. Can you guess which LAC has the highest level of funding from the National Science Foundation? Again, Wesleyan. The bottom line is that the measure of a college's academic PRESTIGE should be based on certain key OUTPUTS, such as the examples I provided. All the colleges you mentioned and Wesleyan are clearly exceptional schools. There is hardly a need to split prestige hairs here. Case closed. London Hawk (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
Now the page makes even less sense than it did before. Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan are the Little Three, not the "Little Ivies." Why Wesleyan and not any number of equally selective schools -- Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley, Haverford, Carleton, Pomona, Vassar, Davidson, etc.?

Redirected from "Little Ivies"?
Why does "Little Ivies" redirect to this page? "Little Ivies" is a term in common use which produces 11 pages of google results. "Little Ivies" may or may not be a useful term, but it is a real term.


 * The history of this page is a little strange. It looks like someone created the article Little Ivies and put a number of small colleges in it. At some later point, this list was trimmed to just three, those in the little three. I guess at that point someone looked at the page and said "those aren't the little Ivies, those are the little three" and changed the name. Little Ivies then automatically turned into a redirect after the page move.
 * I think the Little Ivies page ought to be recreated. According to the first few internet sources, the little ivies consist of Amherst, Bowdoin, Hamilton, Haverford, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Trinity, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Williams. I don't know whether this is a contentious issue (in the page history, you can see people adding their own alma maters in the list...).


 * In fact, to keep the history as relating to the one with the most relevent edits, *this* page ought to be moved back to "Little Ivies", with the names of all the colleges put back, and the "Little Three" page ought to be made with the *current* contents of this page, if that makes any sense.


 * I'll get round to it this evening or tomorrow, unless someone feels like doing it first.
 * &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  9 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

I've written Little Ivies as its own article, distinct from the Little Three.

List of schools
(I think this is what started happening to the article when it was first created) asdf You've listed the little ivies as
 * Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, and Williams.

The first eight internet sources that listed the schools on a Google search listed tham as
 * Amherst, Bowdoin, Hamilton, Haverford, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Trinity, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Williams.
 * Amherst, Bowdoin, Hamilton, Haverford, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Trinity, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Williams.
 * Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, and Williams.
 * Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Middlebury, Wesleyan, Haverford, and Wellesley.
 * Amherst, Middlebury, Swarthmore, and Williams + 2 others not mentioned (The refer to "4 of the 6 little ivies")
 * Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Middlebury, Wesleyan, Haverford and Wellesley.
 * Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury,Tufts, Wesleyan, and Williams.
 * Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams.

Carleton and Pomona aren't listed in any of these lists.

As an aside, doing a quick rank of the schools most commonly in the list:
 * Amherst: 8, Williams: 8, Middlebury: 7, Swarthmore: 7, Wesleyan: 6, Bowdoin: 4, Haverford: 4, Tufts: 3, Hamilton: 2, Trinity: 2, Wellesley: 2

As a further aside, I think the list of schools ought to look more like it did in the original version of the page, to make them stand out more: ·

&mdash; Asbestos | Talk  9 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)


 * Based on this I'm removing Davidson, which was added by an anon. "Little Ivy" + "Davidson College" produces zero relevant google hits. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:58, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

"Midwestern Ivy League" ?
Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:

Midwestern Ivy League

Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 03:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No lists, please
I am very much opposed to attempting to create any sort of list of "little Ivies," as it would be an exercise in editorial opinion and POV, much like the "list of notable colleges" that was VfDed years ago. Unlike Ivy League or Five Colleges or Public Ivies there is no external reference that can be used as an objective list. Having any sort of list will just be an endless temptation to people to assert that their favorite small college is a "little Ivy." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, having a list of the schools commonly referred to as the little Ivies is very useful. The restriction you make that we must have a single external reference that can be used as an objective list would be enormously destructive; we make editorial judgment in making practically every list and category on Wikipedia, and in determining the content of practically every article. I don't see why we should all of a sudden avoid making it here. Having an encyclopedia at all is an endless temptation for people to add their favorite recipe or best friend, and we don't abandon the project, we simply delete the reference, as we could do with incredible ease on this page. I've mostly reverted your changes. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:47, 2005 August 24 (UTC)


 * (Shrug) I agree with your comments that we make editorial judgements all the time. However, my own experience has been that if something is really "common knowledge" it is not all that difficult to find some reasonable outside authority who has put that common knowledge into words. We must agree to disagree. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've changed my mind... having found some sources that do list the "little Ivies" and having added them to the "Examples of use." Most interesting to me is the Boston Globe article that identifies the "little Ivies" with the membership of the NESCAC, which is actually pretty close to lists given by others except that Haverford and Swarthmore are frequently included as well. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Williams and Amherst are iviest?
At this point, I really do think that "Williams and Amherst" are the prototypical "little Ivies." They seem to be the schools that are always cited. I guess Neutrality is right that at this point I haven't found a good source for that, but I'd like people to keep their eyes out.

For what it's worth: Google hits on


 * Williams "little ivies" 149
 * Amherst "little ivies" 146
 * Swarthmore "little ivies" 90
 * Middlebury "little ivies" 77
 * Wesleyan "little ivies" 74
 * Haverford "little ivies" 51
 * Colby "little ivies" 49
 * Bowdoin "little ivies" 39
 * Tufts "little ivies" 38
 * Hamilton "little ivies" 33
 * Trinity "little ivies" 24
 * Bates "little ivies" 20
 * "Connecticut College" "little ivies" 11

This really does seem to put William and Amherst in a class by themselves. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC) The PERCEPTION that Williams and Amherst are in "a class by themselves" has essentially to do with marketing distortions (so many things are terribly distorted today, aren't they?). Amherst, Wesleyan, Williams, Swarthmore and Bowdoin are clearly all equals - and Middlebury and Haverford rate as "very near" equals...and then there are the "Women Ivies", with Wellesley, Smith, etc. right there with the best.

Anthropologique 16:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anthropologique 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NESCAC As "Little Ivies"
This is a response the the discussion below which stemmed from Tufts' inclusion in the "Little Ivy" list. The association between NESCAC and the Ivy League seems to depend on geography. In the Northeast, especially in New England, there is a strong link between NESCAC and the Ivy League in that students from top private and public schools attend colleges from the two conferences much more frequently than any other schools or league of schools. Students will often choose between Harvard and Williams, or Brown and Wesleyan. The top two schools chosen by last years graduating class at Belmont Hill School, for example, were Harvard and Trinity. Children of New England brahmin who at one time would have attended now less-accessible ivy league schools now instead often attend schools like Trinity, Connecticut, and Hamilton causing the NESCAC demographic to more closely mirror one that was once predominant at ivy league schools, and still is predominant in popular imagination. Case in point, the association between NESCAC and the Ivy League isn't contrived, but instead exists through a number cultural associations, especially in the Northeast.

Should Tufts be on this list?
I believe it should be. Although it is a university, its professional programs are not offered on an undergraduate level. It is a very liberal arts intensive school with requirements like a six semester language requirement and an intensive writing requirement that, like in the case of Brown or Dartmouth, create more of a feel of a liberal arts college than that of a research university.

Tufts University is neither small nor a liberal arts college: it has an many graduate students as undergrads, and is probably better-known for its graduate schools and programs (e.g. Fletcher School). I'm not disputing its academic reputation of being worth of a title that suggests an Ivy League-level education, but it seems to be a noticably odd addition alongside small, rural schools like Williams and Amherst. Kane5187 13:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They're on the list because they're part of NESCAC, but you're right: the article should probably be amended to note that, while NESCAC tends to get the blanket reference of "Little Ivies" thrown atop it, Tufts ain't all that little. JDoorj a m    Talk 14:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed Tufts. The way I see it, the article offers the NESCAC as one way to determine a little Ivy, but it's certainly not the foremost definition. Since Tufts is largely recognized as a big research school and nothing close to a "little Ivy," it shouldn't be in the list that largely defines the subjects of the article. Kane5187 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is "the foremost definition" and what is your verifiable source citation for that definition?


 * I disagree strongly and am restoring Tufts and the other NESCAC schools.


 * If you want to note criteria other than NESCAC membership, fine, but stick to verifiable sources, not your personal opinion that Tufts is different.


 * Nobody edit wars over the membership of the Ivy League because everyone agrees that its membership is defined by the athletic conference.


 * Cornell is very different from the rest of the the Ivy League article because it is much newer, having been founded a good century after the others. Should we remove it from the Ivy League article? Stanford ranks a good deal higher in U. S. News than Brown. Should we add Stanford to the Ivy League on the grounds that it really should be considered as a member of the Ivy League because it's a really, really good school?


 * By all means, find verifiable sources that define lists of "little Ivies" and indicate in the article which schools belong to which lists. By all means, annotate individual schools with neutral, noncontroversial characteristics that might explain why Swarthmore might be included or why Tufts might not be.


 * Another thought, assuming we have good criteria or good definitive lists from citable sources, would be to make a table, with the schools down the side and Little Ivy inclusion by different sources as columns. For example, we could have a column labelled "Little Three" that would have checkmarks for Amherst, Wesleyan, and Williams, "NESCAC" that would have checkmarks for the NESCAC schools, and so forth.


 * But the first thing we need to do is have verifiable sources, so that everyone can reasonably agree on which schools should get checkmarks in which columns. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it because its inclusion on the list does not jive with the opening sentence. Read:


 * Little Ivies is a colloquialism often used in reference to a number of small liberal arts colleges in the northeastern United States, meant to imply that they share some characteristics with the colleges of the eight Ivy League universities, but at a smaller institution.


 * Tufts is not a liberal arts college. Tufts does share some characteristics with the Ivy League universities, but is not "a smaller institution" (even Dartmouth and Princeton are smaller). It is fundamentally a research institution like many Ivies, and since we have defined in the first sentence a "Little Ivy" as a liberal arts college, Tufts' inclusion means that our article is not internally consistent.


 * It seems that the only real evidence for Tufts being a Little Ivy is (1) Google hits, which is obviously prone to mistakes and errors, and (2) Tufts' inclusion in the NESCAC. As you pointed out, membership in an organization doesn't prove similarity -- Stanford has virtually all the qualities of an Ivy League school, but it's just not in the club. Cornell does not have some of those qualities, but it is an Ivy. Similarly, just because Tufts is hanging around athletically with a bunch of little Ivies doesn't make it one itself.


 * Tufts doesn't belong here because not only doesn't it fit the description, but its inclusion sets a precedent for including virtually any prestigious university with less than 5,000 undergrads on the list. If Tufts, then why not Rice? Why not Carnegie Mellon? Why not Colgate? Because while you might be able to contort the definition of "Little Ivy" to fit those schools, the purpose of the list is not to mention every single school that might possibly qualify. It is to give a concise list of examples of the schools that most hit the profile of a Little Ivy (or, in the words of the article, those that are "Frequently mentioned institutions"), and while we may disagree on whether Tufts is a Little Ivy at all, you must surely concede that it is not the best example. Kane5187 21:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have made a good and sensible case for putting something in the article pointing out that Tufts is anomalous. As for your last point, this is precisely why it is important to anchor the article in verifiable source citations. If Tufts, then why not Rice? Because Tufts is in the NESCAC and Rice is not. If "Little Ivies" is just a list of schools that are good small schools in the opinion of Wikipedia editors, then the article should not exist at all. Everything depends on demonstrating that it is well-defined phrase with a well-understood meaning.


 * I'm guessing that actually we are essentially in agreement: we want to have some kind of firewall to prevent the article from becoming an arbitrary and ever-expanding list. And I'm guessing that you think I might be a Tufts booster; if so you would be wrong. I personally think "Little Ivies" should be identified with the "Little Three" (Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams) and made that case earlier, but I wasn't able to get that to fly. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand...my only thing with the NESCAC is that it seems arbitrary. Yes, Tufts is in it, but what other than the opinion of a Boston Globe editor connects the NESCAC to Little Ivyhood? The second letter of most of the listed institutions is a vowel (just as most of the schools thought of as Little Ivies happen to be in the NESCAC), but second-letter vowels would obviously be a completely arbitrary way of defining a Little Ivy. While the NESCAC is a fixed organization that can provide an organization foundation, I don't see how it is any more relevant than vowels.


 * Anyway, how about moving Tufts (and maybe some other less-recognized little Ivies like Trinity and/or Hamilton) off the list and to the next line, prefaced with something like "These schools are sometimes but not always mentioned as Little Ivies" ? Kane5187 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You want to remove Tufts because it's not small. What's your reason for removing Trinity and Hamilton, which are?


 * What's wrong with my suggestion of a table, rows = schools, columns = criterion and authority for that criterion, and checkboxes for the schools that meet the criteria?


 * I won't quibble too much with anything that's sourced. You personally don't accept the Boston Globe as a source, fine, but it's a published source and it meets the verifiability policy. That doesn't mean it's the only source or that other sources might not definite it differently. But, it's a source. That's the way verifiability works. We tell people what reputable published source said so, and we let them decide whether they credit that source.


 * What's your source for "the present list minus Tufts, Trinity, and Hamilton?" Dpbsmith (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggested the shift in the Trinity and Hamiltons more for rhetorical effect than a real idea: I think that they're on sort of the lower end of the academic spectrum of the other schools, that are meant to be held to "Ivy" standard (and this is quanitifiable in terms of accepted student test scores, percent of students admitted, etc.). At any rate, I'm just saying that there are other schools on the list that are less established and agreed upon as Little Ivies as, say, Amherst and Williams, and so those schools (whichever we decide they are) might do better off of the main list, but still with mention in the article.


 * I'm fine with the idea of the checkbox system (and perhaps a more in-depth description of why there is controversey and what some of the factors are). Going back to the Tufts thing, though, I don't think it should be in this article at all because it blatantly violates the critera for a Little Ivy that are laid out in the very first sentence. While using the NESCAC is apparently a "verified" way of describing a Little Ivy, it seems that it has only been used as a meterstick by the Globe in that one article. I've never heard of it as a way to decribe a Little Ivy, and it seems that the consensus would be against this method as a widely-used one. Just because this has been published doesn't mean it any way reflects public consensus (which is ultimately what defines a Little Ivy, since there is no official list).


 * If the NESCAC is our only reliable meterstick, why are Haverford and Swarthmore present? Kane5187 04:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * One reason is that I've never made a point of addressing them. They need source citations, and I believe I'll tag them now. However, I'm reasonably sure that good source citations can in fact be found, which is why I've been dilatory about addressing them. No, they are sourced, see below


 * The point is, I'd be very interested in finding other "reliable metersticks." But that's different from using our best efforts to construct a definition (which is what we've done) and then fiddle with the list to match the definition.


 * I can't prove it or source it, which is why it isn't in the article, but I strongly suspect that the situation with respect to the Little Ivies is very similar to that with the Ivy League. Both began as a not-completely-formal group of three schools that played each other in athletic contests (the "Big Three," Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and the "Little Three," Amherst, Wesleyan and WIlliams). The reason that they played each other reflected social structure as much as geographical proximity. As the colleges became engines for the advancement of the white-Anglo-Saxon power structure, both groups of schools also became known for their social prestige. In both cases, the group of three eventually expanded into a larger, more formalized athletic association (the 1950's Ivy League and the ummm-what-year NESCAC). In both cases, the other schools in the larger group became incorporated by courtesy and common usage. Still, Harvard, Yale and Princeton have a special position within the Ivy League, and Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams have a special position within the little Ivies. That's what I suspect. But it's staying on the talk page until I can confirm it by reliable sources.


 * If I'm right, the "Little Ivies" ought to be: a) (primary meaning) Amherst, Wesleyan, and WIlliams; b) (also) by extension, other schools in the same athletic league, i.e. the NESCAC; c) (in common parlance) any good small liberal school that was traditionally male and has former trappings of white Anglo-Saxon social prestige. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I still disagree with using the NESCAC at all. Googling "little ivy" nescac yields only 33 results, while "little ivy" -nescac yields 10,400. I usually don't trust Googling results, but that's such a dramatic difference that it really seems like the vast majority of discussion about Little Ivies completely omits the NESCAC, and whoever dug up the Globe article just happened to stumble across an obscure and little-used definition.


 * On the other hand, I think that the reason why Haverford and Swartmore are here (and I'm guessing that they would be met with much more support for inclusion if someone wanted to remove them) is because we can all just agree that they fit the profile of a Little Ivy: small, elite, Northeastern liberal arts colleges. In my experience (and probably most everyone else's), this is the only real definition.


 * If you want to use the NESCAC, I think you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a commonly-used and agreed-upon definition. One Globe article doesn't do this, and Googling "little ivy" nescac" at 33 results and "little ivies" nescac" at 35 doesn't bode well for it. It seems much too arbitrary and uncommon for inclusion. Kane5187 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a source, Kane5187, and it's a reliable source. And the article states clearly that it is the Boston Globe's authority that's being used. Readers that don't believe the Boston Globe knows what it's talking about don't have to agree.


 * This article was nominated for deletion and one of the reasons was that people were just using it as yet another subjective list and a way to promote their favorite schools.


 * I keep asking you for other sources and your only answer so far is that you don't like this one. Fine, let's add some others. The big advantage of NESCAC is a) it is sourced, and b) everyone can agree on which colleges are in the NESCAC. Nobody is going to agree on which colleges fit the definition of "small, elite, historically male Northeastern liberal arts colleges" and folks are going to keep dropping in and adding any school they like and want to pay a compliment to. ("Historically male" is important; it explains why Vassar, Holyoke, Wellesley, etc. have traditionally been called the "Seven Sisters" and not called "Little Ivies."). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten the article history. The reason why I haven't objected to the inclusion of Haverford and Swarthmore is that they are sourced. The references just weren't connected with their mention in the article. Swarthmore is sourced to an article in The Atlantic Monthly, which is pretty good. Haverford is sourced to the Tamalpais Union High School District's website, probably their guidance department's page, which is fairly sucky; it's a list of terms which is probably borrowed from a better source. But it is sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By using the term "Little Ivy" and comparing it to the Ivy League, it's giving us the parameters right there! Little -- smaller than an Ivy. "Ivy" -- up to the Ivy League standard in terms of admissions and academics (which as you can see from companies like the Princeton Review is quantifiable in every way imaginable). All the others, too, are static, verifiable parameters: in the Northeast, historically male, liberal arts college. The only thing that can reasonably be called into contention about those things is what level of academics befits inclusion on the list, and I think that as a community, we can come to a consensus on each school and whether it is as competitive as the Ivy League. We should expect admissions percentage, SAT scores, etc., etc., etc. to fall in and around the eight Ivies.


 * You seem to be clinging to the Globe because it's been published, but that doesn't make it in any way appropriate for inclusion. I could dump a quote from a book of Jerry Falwell's into the Beliefs section of the Christianity article, but that would be totally unfair because the vast majority of the world's 2 billion Christians probably don't agree with him. Similarly, sticking an obscure opinion that goes demonstrably against or away from the popular opinion on what constitutes a Little Ivy is simply ludicrous.


 * The reason why I'm not suggesting new sources is because it doesn't seem we need them. You and I both seem to have the same list of parameters for a Little Ivy (historically male does seem like a good point), and with that, we don't need a source to give us a list of colleges. If the parameters are acceptable -- and from day 1 of this article, it seems like everyone has a good handle on what they are -- we can deduce the qualifying colleges ourselves without searching for someone else to do it for us. Kane5187 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you'd better reread the verifiability policy. Publication is exactlywhat we need. Point one of the capsule summary is "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." And there's a comment which is very relevant to the Boston Globe example: "Verifiability in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true.... Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, we need to completely excise any mention of critera (e.g. being historically male, in the Northeast, older, academically distinguished, and socially prestigious). If we can only go by what people publish (and we only have, from Atlantic Monthly and the Globe, a list of schools without their criteria), we cannot include that third introductory bullet point. Kane5187 17:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

<<<<<<<<< Resetting margin...

I concur. I just put a tag on it and will remove it in about a week if nobody comes up with a source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disconcur, a stance I do not engage in lightly, because "disconcur" is, in fact, not a word. Greenes' The Hidden Ivies: Thirty Colleges of Excellence (a book I know you to be familiar with, Mr. Smith) says, in its first paragraph, "Other universities such as Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, Virginia, Duke, Georgetown, and the group historically known as 'the Little Ivies' (including Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, and Williams) have scaled the heights of prestige and selectivity and also turn away thousands of our best and brightest young men and women."  (Obnoxious emphasis mine.)  The entire first chapter is excerpted here on Harper Collins' website.  I would think this suffices, gentlemen?  Cheers, JDoorj a m     Talk 20:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I don't see this as a source for a definition of the characteristics of a little Ivy. But it looks like a good source for a competing list. I think we now have the makings of a table with rows for each school and three columns: a) the "Little Three," b) NESCAC (the Globe is not the only source for this but the others I've found aren't very good), and c) the Greenes. (Hey, Swarthmore but not Haverford? Harumph. Why, the name "Haverford" even looks and sounds like "Harvard.") Dpbsmith (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how the "Ivy League" is a NCAA DI atheletic conference, shouldn't we define "little ivy" as a NCAA atheletic conference, ie the NESCAC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.213.222 (talk • contribs) 19:05, November 8, 2006
 * Not necessarily - "Little Ivy" is used in different contexts (as you can see from the article). Since the definition of exactly who is a member of the Little Ivy League varies based on who you ask, it'd be hard to reconcile that with an inflexible definition of an NCAA league. Kane5187 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Little Ivy piggy-backing and sprinkling
"Little Ivies" has been tacked on to "Ivy League" in a significant number of edits. In other places, especially a very significant number of preparatory school articles, language has been added using both terms, such as “Numerous graduates from this school have gone on to Ivy League schools, “Little Ivies,” and other excellent institutions.” As these seem to simply be link-dumping and semi-symbiotic peacockery, it is my intention to remove these links. JDoorj a m    Talk 20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Baby Ivies
As said in the revision history, "Baby Ivies" is, at most, a colloquialism for highly selective pre-schools, not the "Little Ivies". JDoorj a m    Talk 21:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
It's kind of a minor issue, but it should probably be decided upon so that we all know what we're doing. Which shall it be? All three tend to appear from time to time, and I've usually changed them to Little Ivies, but I figure we just might want to get some consensus. Any opinions? Kane5187 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Little Ivies
 * little Ivies
 * little ivies


 * "Little Ivies" seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swampyank (talk • contribs)
 * I concur. JDoorj a m    Talk 00:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Greene and Greene
What does this category mean? Someone please explain or I will be tempted to delete this category of the list seeing how I have done extensive research on the term, Greene and Greene, but still can't find out what it means.
 * It's a reference to a college guide in a well-known series, Greene, Howard and Mathew Greene (2000) Greenes' Guides to Educational Planning: The Hidden Ivies: Thirty Colleges of Excellence, HarperCollins, ISBN 0060953624, excerpt at HarperCollins.com. This wasn't completely clear so I've added a footnote at the column head and tweaked the wording of the third bullet item. And on second thought I'll change it to "Greene's Guides" since that seems to be a better term for the series. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Greene's Guides' "Little" or "Hidden" Ivies are "thirty schools of excellence," listed in one of its college guides, "Hidden Ivies." These schools are mostly small liberal arts colleges, thus, the schools Green's Guides considers constituting the "minor ivy league," so to speak. While the book excerpt quoted above mentions which schools the author notes were viewed as "little ivies" in some circles in the past, the schools Greene's Guides considers as such in the present are detailed in the following list on the cover of their book "Hidden Ivies": HarperCollins.com nywalton (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between the "Little Ivies" and anything else, like "hidden Ivies," "minor Ivies," etc. "Little Ivies" is a common and particular term; "hidden" or "minor" Ivies are just terms for expressing the fact that they're good schools, even without being in the Ivy League. Note the quotation:
 * ...such as Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, Virginia, Duke, Georgetown, and the group historically known as “the Little Ivies” (including Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, and Williams)...
 * The author of the abstract states right there that not all 30 schools in the book are "little Ivies," but that there is a specific, historical group called by many the little Ivies.
 * This should be reverted unless G&G states explicitly that those other schools are "Little Ivies." Kane5187 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

nywalton (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * G&G's comment on what was historically viewed in some circles as "Little Ivies" is an uncited colloquial reference and thus is not a verifiable source. Additionally, the reference says "including..." and thus is not limited to the schools mentioned. I'm not sure how the Google searches listed above were conducted, as all the searches I have conducted on this term have at least included Bates, Colby, and Haverford (and occassionally Hamilton), in this group, all highly selective (and originally majority male) small liberal arts colleges, that are almost always included as "Little Ivies"
 * No, actually that's the definition of a cited source: it's a published, reliable, authoritative source that states what some of the Little Ivies are, and it specifically states that it's not just some term they thought up, but a "group historically known as the 'Little Ivies.'" I agree with you that the "including" means that G&G could think that others are also Little Ivies, but they don't mention any other names explicitly, and it's not our job to guess.
 * Bates, Colby, Haverford, and Hamilton are all in the table in this article, and feel free to add citations in the "Notes" section of the table to support that, but G&G does not refer to them as 'Little Ivies' and I am therefore going to revert the page. Kane5187 11:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

nywalton, we need to have a clean definition of what does and doesn't go in this article so it doesn't revert to its previous state in which people drop in and insert any school they like or to which they wish to pay a compliment. If you want to include other schools, you need to find something that everyone here will accept as a reasonably definitive source. And you need to discuss it and get consensus here.

I'm not sure who keeps removing


 * Greene and Greene's guide, The Hidden Ivies: Thirty Colleges of Excellence uses it to refer to "Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, and Williams," schools which it says have "scaled the heights of prestige and selectivity and also turn away thousands of our best and brightest young men and women."

but that is a direct quote from the excerpt at http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060953624&tc=cx and it is accurate.

You may disagree with Greene and Greene's judgement, but it is an accurate quotation from a print source that is a well-known college guide and has a reasonable claim to authority.

What do you propose as a definitive, citable source as to what the phrase "Little Ivies" does and does not include? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Little Three" (Amherst, Wesleyan, Williams) are the "Little Ivies" or "Potted Ivies" and because of the rich history between them, these schools will ALLWAYS be known as such. There are a only a handful of other liberal arts colleges that meet the FULL "Little Ivy" criteria.

Anthropologique 02:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NESCAC
Master20817 14:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)There are no FULL or PARTIAL criteria for membership in the Little Ivy League. It does not refer to "Hidden Ivies" those are schools judges by one publishing company to be "Hidden Ivies" it does not even try to use the term Little Ivy League. It also does not refer to the "Little Three"- that also refers to exactly what it says- the "Little Three" schools of Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan, which to note, are not by any means the most prestigious schools in the league- Wesleyan's place would be replaced by Bowdoin or Middlybury. The Little Ivy League refers solely to the Athletic league- the NESCAC. The list of schools are slightly eclectic, as Tufts is larger and a university, not a college, Connecticut College is less prestigious, etc. However, this is the league was created and this is what the term refers to, any acadmec merits associated with the league are merely a social construct, as I mentioned above- a common factor in many of the schools is their academic standards and admissions policies.00re

There is no "Little Ivy League"! The term is a vacuous creation by people who want to boost the public perception / image of certain schools. There is ONLY the "Little Three" - yes it is an ancient informal athletic grouping (since 1899), but it also suggests much more: That Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams have a LONG and CONSISTENT history of academic excellence (and outstanding achievment in many fields) and share similar socio-cultural traditions.


 * Before deleting the well-sourced material that's in this article documenting different uses of the phrase, please provide substantial evidence to support your contention that NESCAC is always the only meaning of "Little Ivy." This seems to directly contradict what many of the sources cited in the article (that User:Master20817 deleted!) say about the phrase's meaning. -- Rbellin|Talk 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe that Wesleyan is less prestigious than a Bowdoin or Middlebury you are probably accepting of the woefully distorted marketing garbage that U.S. News puts out every September. Take the sciences for example: Wesleyan overall has by far the strongest science departments of any liberal arts college in the country. It ranks first in NSF (National Science Foundation) funding among its peer institutions (more than double its nearest competitor). Moreover, it is the only liberal arts college to receive funding from the NIH (National Institute of Health); right there with much larger research institutions such as Harvard, Duke, UPenn, Chicago and Johns Hopkins. How about scientific publications? Number one again among liberal arts colleges (more than double of second ranked "Little Three" rival, Williams). Now, that is clearly prestigious! I could go on and on...

Anthropologique 00:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

no connection to the ivy league
swampytalk:

I noticed you reverted the changes made on the little ivies entry (removing dubious claims about these colleges being somehow connected to the ivy league). Unfortunately, you didn't give any rationale for why you did this. I assume you realize that "little ivies" have no actual connection to the ivy league, despite what a college guide book may claim. That's why all references to the ivy league were removed. 75.69.133.211 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The name "Little Ivies" is based on these schools' perceived similarities to the Ivy League and marketed as such. References to the Ivy League are certainly warranted to further inform the reader. Add a criticism section if you disagree instead of censoring legitimate information. Swampyank (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, no NESCAC or other similar college uses the term "Little Ivy" to refer to itself. Thus these colleges do not use the term for marketing purposes. It is used externally or informally, but certainly not officially. IACOBVS (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Plausible but unreferenced material on origin
The term "Little Ivies" was created by marketing groups, journalists, and some educators to promote other colleges as "Ivies" (e.g., Public Ivies; Southern Ivies; and Canadian Ivies). These uses of "ivy" are intended to promote the other schools by comparing them to the Ivy League, but unlike the "Ivy League" label, they have no canonical definition. Although this is plausible, and I personally assume it to be more or less true, I don't think it should go in the article unless it can be referenced. Who coined the term? When did they coin it? And how do we know their intentions? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)}}

What the poster above says is superficially true but essentially false. "Little Ivy" was an adaptation/rehabilitation of "potted Ivy," which was a pejorative used by real Ivy Leaguers to diminish and degrade the smaller and poorer Amhersts, Wesleyans & Williamses. (For a sample use of "potted Ivy", see page 6 of James Reston's book "Collision at Home Plate," discussing Yalie A. Bartlett Giamatti's good-natured ribbing of Williams grad George Steinbrenner.) Of course "Ivy League" started out as a sportswriter's pejorative as well but that's not really relevant here. I think root of all the argument on this topic is that you are trying to document and research a bit of casual, orally passed New England slang, and trying to root your documentation in sources which, however official they might sound, have merely repeated and/or interpreted the slang for ulterior purposes. "Potted Ivy" was the traditional term; it was in use years before the NESCAC was ever founded; apart from the term "Little Three," it was the *only* collective reference to this broader group of schools, and it was orally passed slang. It was a pejorative term to unfavorably distinguish, for example, Tufts from Harvard. (Calm down, Tufts is a great school. It was also a small liberal arts college for most of its history and it bore the brunt of the "potted Ivy" tag because of its perceived status as a safety school for nearby Harvard. Sorry but that's just the way it was.) "Little Ivy" is a created CYA term, used by admissions directors, prep school guidance counselors and people who conduct college surveys to *favorably* distinguish Tufts from, say, Curry College. "Little Ivy" really only shows up in college and school office, in self-serving books about colleges and on the lips of people from New Jersey who like to get exercised about self-serving books about colleges.

"Potted Ivies?" Please provide a citation
I'm sorry, "potted Ivies" sounds too much like a joke to accept without a citation.

I've edited the opening line from to
 * Little Ivies (sometimes 'Potted Ivies) is a colloquialism
 * Little Ivies is a colloquialism.

If anyone can supply a good citation please put it back, and please accept my apologies for deleting the content rather than marking it as uncited. I justify this action by the fact that a Google search on "potted ivies" bates bowdoin colby hamilton turns up only this Wikipedia article and other content derived from it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave such a citation. James Reston, "Collision at Home Plate," 1991 New York Times Co./HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., p. 6. Here's a link. http://books.google.com/books?id=znjlwbfZOTcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=collision+at+home+plate+reston&source=bl&ots=_9zxg3G2Bz&sig=MykbAblsi_A1h9hXd_aioJSNWAY&hl=en&ei=t4E8TLjPG8GC8gbkrvmnBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false You "justifed" your action by simply ignoring the citation provided and supplanting it with your own failed Google search? That is, to put it charitably, daft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.100.194 (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That reference, as you have cited it above, does not contain the cited term. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The link no longer provides the cited term, as the page on which the term was used is overviewed and no longer shown. The book, however, does contain the cited term.


 * The term "potted ivy" had currency in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but has fallen out of use. It was partly negative and partly complimentary, and also used more in a joking manner. No college admissions official would ever have used the term for marketing. It is quite different from "Little Ivy" which generally has a positive implication. IACOBVS (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Little Ivy League - Reverted
I have reverted a move to a new page titled Little Ivy League. There is no such 'League' and the term is not in use by any of the colleges or by NESCAC. IACOBVS (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion of listed schools
Please do not unilaterally delete listed schools. The amorphous and imprecise nature of this category lends itself to contention. However it does seem that the current grid/check feature provides a way in which some schools can be designated a varying number of checks and thus be anointed a "more little ivy" than others. If you truly see a pressing need to completely remove a school, please make your case on the talk page and allow others to respond in kind.
 * This is Wikipedia. Anyone, even you in anonymity, can edit this page. You can even leave undated and unsigned comments. I actually have worked on this paged quite a bit. I reverted the page move when someone, who is not anonymous, opted to invent something called the Little Ivy League and move the page there. I also restored and improved the table when someone deleted some of the categories. I did not delete Union College from the list. Someone else did that. I let it stand as Union left NESCAC in 1977 and was not listed in Greenes' Guide in 2009.IACOBVS (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The unclear nature of this topic lends it to be subject to edit wars. A number of people have worked very hard to try to present an unbiased and inclusive article. Unfortunately, lone individuals take it upon themselves to unilaterally undo the work of others on a poorly thought out whim. Many of these schools have multiple reasons to be on this list. If someone wants to delete them then they should at least put in the effort to thoroughly articulate why some schools are deleted while others are not. It would seem better to engage in a rational talk page discussion than engage in an edit war. Yes, I have also rescued this page from the mass deletion of nearly every school by some prior user who created an account for the sole purpose of manipulating this single page.74.70.116.187 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that you did. Thank you. I also note that a lot of people, possibly alumni, have taken the issue very personally. One need only look at the talk page comments above about Wesleyan. Someone insisted on adding Bates College to a quotation that did not mention Bates and tweaking the 2019 admissions rate downward (full disclosure - I went to Bates). I proposed a new criteria below, but it may not be deemed inclusive enough. However, I thought it was at least a logical option. IACOBVS (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

NESCAC Founding Members vs. Actual Members (aka Union College vs. Connecticut College)
Recent edits, oddly labeled as "vandalism" by an anonymous editor, have centered on an inclusion criterion as a "Little Ivy" based on being as "NESCAC founding member" or charter member (in 1971) rather than on being a "NESCAC actual member." This issue only affects two institutions: Union College (charter member 1971, left 1977) and Connecticut College (joined in 1982). There has been debate on whether these two colleges should be included as "Little Ivies" in the first place, probably based on their admissions rates (both admit more than 35% of their applicants). Neither college is deemed highly selective in this metric and all the other colleges listed in this article admit less than 25% of their applicants, except Bucknell University which admitted 29.5% for the Class of 2019. However, admissions rates are an arbitrary category as this also depends on how many applications the college receives. Neither Union or Connecticut colleges are listed in the latest Greenes' Guide (2009) as Hidden Ivies, but both are listed as "colleges of excellence" in its appendix. This all said, the designation "Little Ivy" is unofficial and colloquial. My edits of this article have mostly been on fine tuning, rather than excluding colleges. I have deleted none, although a recent editor did delete Union College and this was restored by anonymous. IACOBVS (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If perceived academic caliber is the major factor, one ought to consider that the 2015 Forbes ranking of colleges ranks Colgate 40th, Bucknell 43rd, Colby 44th, Hamilton 51st, Union 66th, Bates 70th, Trinity 81st and Connecticut College 92nd. Does this show that lower schools such as Bates, Trinity and Connecticut College should be removed? Should Holy Cross, ranked 55th, be added? 74.70.116.187 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This depends on the (commercial) ranking. The 2016 Forbes list is suspect in my opinion. It ranks Pomona College as 29th and yet Claremont McKenna College as 87th - which is bizarre considering how comparable they are and that they both are tied for the lowest acceptance rate of any of the national liberal arts colleges. It lists the very highly regarded Swarthmore College as 81st. Colby fell to 56th and Bucknell to 47th. Colgate rose to 33rd. Amherst College, usually regarded as the most competitive of the Little Ivies, only came in at 34th, below Colgate. Clearly, Forbes is looking at something besides academics to make its rating decisions. IACOBVS (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are you finding the Forbes 2016 rankings? Please add a reference link. Per the Forbes 2015, Pomoma is 1, Claremont is 18, Swarthmore is 7, and Colby is 44. The LACs actually seem to do fairly well on this combined list. Pomona, William and Amherst are all in the top 10 along with universities like Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford. There does not seem to be anything particularly bizarre about these rankings. Trinity and Connecticut College are the lowest Little Ivies on both lists. Are the rankings exactly the same as US News? No, and they need not be. The Forbes ratings are more concerned with the output of a school rather than its input. They basically look at the ROI of an institution. There are also severe problems with the US News Rankings. A big chunk of their ratings come from institutional peer review whereby educators are asked to evaluate schools that they never attended or worked at and know not of one person who attended or worked at those schools either. In effect, the peer review component is little but hearsay. They also alter the weight given the quantitative factors every year. This produces a slightly different spread of school rankings every year in order to sell more copy and cast the appearance of relevance. 74.70.116.187 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The rankings were from Niche (https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/best-colleges/ not Forbes. Not sure how that happened. Forbes has not released its 2016 list yet. Forbes ranks colleges based on the following formula: student satisfaction (25%), post-graduate success (32.5%), student debt (25%), graduation rate (7.5%) and academic success (10%). It's an interesting formula. IACOBVS (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

New Criteria Proposed
As many have noted, this article is contentious as "Little Ivies" it is a colloquialism and unofficial. However, it should at least have an inner logic. I propose that the following inclusion criteria as a possible solution:


 * that the colleges be geographically located in the northeastern United States, the same location as the Ivy League, hence the adjective "Ivy"
 * that they be small liberal arts colleges - hence the adjective "Little"
 * that they be both charter (1971) and current members of NESCAC, the athletic league associated with the Ivy League in this context
 * if not both NESCAC charter and current members, that they be somehow otherwise designated, as in Greenes' Guide to Hidden Ivies

If this 'standard' is agreed, the following omissions might occur:


 * Connecticut College, as it is a non-charter member of NESCAC (joined 1982) and not listed in Hidden Ivies, except in its appendix II
 * Tufts University, although a NESCAC charter and current member, as it is not a small liberal arts college by any metric
 * Union College, as it is no longer in NESCAC (charter member 1971, left 1977) and is not listed in Hidden Ivies, except in its appendix II

The purpose is not to disparage any institution. It is to create a rational means to designate the term. There are lots of excellent colleges that would not be designated as "Little Ivies" by this criteria (such as Tufts University), but they may well exceed all of them in academic excellence or other criteria.

Is there any concurrence? IACOBVS (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

While the preceding is an interesting set of criteria, there are other standards to be considered. The following criteria also seem worth consideration:

Wikipedia’s definition of the northeastern United States appears to be a bit imprecise as it may include states as far south as Virginia. A geographical extension of this extreme would allow the University of Richmond to be added. As such, it may be reasonable to limit the geography to New England and New York. This would exclude all the Pennsylvania schools such as Bucknell, Haverford and Swarthmore However, both of these geographical limits would seem to exclude some appropriate schools.
 * The colleges be geographically located in the northeastern United States in states that have an Ivy League school. Following such criteria Bates, Bowdoin, Colby and Middlebury would be excluded as neither Vermont nor Maine have an Ivy League School.

Would it make sense to include schools like Holy Cross, Bard, Wheaton and Skidmore based on their geography and academics? Furthermore, membership in an athletic conference does not necessarily instantly diminish or grant prestige to a school. As such, there are other athletic associations aside from NESCAC that contain schools that seem appropriate to be included. Swarthmore and Haverford being two cases in point. Union did not drop in quality when it left NESCAC and Connecticut College did not become an overnight sensation when it joined NESCAC. If whom one is athletically associated with is to be a criteria for listing as a “Little Ivy” then playing actual Ivy League schools would seem to be the highest peak of prestige. Thus, it should be noted that Union College, along with Colgate, plays hockey in the ECAC with the Ivy League schools. Union also continues to play a number of the NESCAC schools in non-conference games. Colgate and Bucknell, as Division I schools, do play some Ivy League schools in other sports, notably football.
 * The schools should be limited to schools classified as 4-year small liberal arts colleges to live up to the term “Little”. Should this be based on the Carnegie Classifications, U.S. News and World Report’s classification or something else? Are schools like Bucknell at 3,600+ and Wesleyan at 3,200+ simply too large to qualify as "little" since most of the other schools hover around 2,000 students?
 * That they include both charter (1971) and current members of NESCAC, the athletic league associated with the Ivy League in this context. This qualification is an extension of the notion that the social elbow rubbing that goes along with athletics translates into collective social prestige. A prior editor removed every noncurrent NESCAC school from this page. That would seem to be a rather drastic action that would have eliminated a number of schools that have many other good cases for being listed.


 * Greenes' Guide to Hidden Ivies, while providing a convenient list, is not in any way an authoritative source. Rather it is nothing more than an individual’s, and now apparently also his son’s, opinion. The Greenes run a lucrative educational advisement company that lives off of the success and cache of their books. Greenes’ guide is thus not necessarily the best source to use to evaluate schools. The Forbes or U.S. News rankings may be better sources for judging academic quality. (Of course this can open up an enormous discussion on what actually constitutes a “good” school that involves notions of value-added and so forth.) Therefore, it would seem that schools included solely based on inclusion in Greenes’ ought to be either completely eliminated or completely added. As it stands Bucknell, Colgate, Haverford and Swarthmore and Vassar would be removed. If Greenes’ is to be the standard then schools such as Lafayette and Lehigh should be added. It also seems that the terms “hidden ivies” and “little ivies” may not necessarily be synonymous.
 * In academia the age of an institution is a substantial measure of its prestige. The Ivy League consists of the oldest private universities in the United States. That is where a sizeable portion of their prestige is derived. Following that example, it would seem that the oldest Little Ivy schools such as Williams(1793), Bowdoin(1794) and Union(1795) ought to be included. Perhaps a cutoff of 1865, the year that the youngest Ivy, Cornell, was founded would be appropriate. Thus, Connecticut College(1911) seems a bit young for inclusion. A bit more arbitrary, but nonetheless valid would be a mid-nineteenth century cutoff of 1850. This would eliminate Bates, Vassar, Swarthmore and Connecticut College from the list.


 * Aside from athletics, one of the longstanding institutions of social connection between the Little Ivies has been the fraternity system. Visiting chapter houses at other schools became a major way in which social connections between the various schools were further forged. The social fraternity system was founded at Union College with the Kappa Alpha Society in 1825. It then spread west to Hamilton where Alpha Delta Phi was founded in 1832 out of a failed attempt by Kappa Alpha Society to form a second chapter on the heels of Union’s Sigma Phi Society’s prior success at Hamilton. Williams College sent delegates to Union to obtain a Phi Beta Kappa charter. Union has the fifth oldest Phi Beta Kappa chapter in the country and the oldest in New York State. Instead the delegates returned with a Kappa Alpha Society charter. This then led to the founding of Delta Upsilon at Williams in 1834 as an opposition to KA. Six of the earliest national fraternities were founded at Union. As such, Union has been at the center of the entire northeast fraternity inter-institutional social network for almost 200 years. This would seem to be reason enough for Union to occupy this list.

The article also discusses the Big Three of Harvard, Princeton and Yale as an analog to the Little Three of Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan. It should be noted that prior to the Civil War that the Big Three included Union College and were known as the Big Four. Thus, Union was associated with the top Ivy League schools before the Ivy League even existed.

Taking all of the preceding into account, we come up with the following list of schools to be considered for omission.
 * Bates College, for academics, geography and history
 * Bucknell University, for geography, zero NESCAC affiliation and size
 * Colgate University, for zero NESCAC affiliation and size (2,800+ students)
 * Connecticut College, for academic, history and non-founding NESCAC affiliation
 * Haverford College, for zero NESCAC affiliation and geography
 * Swarthmore College, for zero NESCAC affiliation, history and geography
 * Trinity College (Connecticut), for academics
 * Tufts University, for size and history
 * Vassar College, for zero NESCAC affiliation, history and social affiliation with the Seven Sisters rather than the Little Ivies
 * Wesleyan University, for size

Schools to be considered for addition
 * Bard College, for geography, size and academics
 * College of the Holy Cross, for academics, size and geography
 * Dickenson College, for academics, size and geography
 * Franklin and Marshall College, for academics, size and geography
 * Lafayette College, for academics, size and geography
 * Skidmore College, for academics, size and geography

Do we have a consensus? As a disclosure, I am not a graduate or an employee of any school mentioned in this article.74.70.116.187 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Well, clearly there is no consensus based on the comments from 74.70.116.187. However, we are talking about a colloquial term "Little Ivy" and not about creating a de novo academically elite league. It is certainly not the job of this article to totally redefine the term. My task was to look for reasonable inclusion criteria, centering on NESCAC as the most logical metric, and moving outward from there.

As for geography, I merely suggested the northeastern United States as a limit. This seems entirely reasonable. As for size, the issue was Tufts University which at 10,000 students is hardly "little" by any measure. Also, if a college does not deem itself a small, liberal arts college (like Tufts), I think that is enough, even though Tufts strangely remains in the New England Small College Athletic Conference.

As for institutional age, there are a lot of institutions that are old, but not exactly stellar while far newer institutions, such as Stanford University, are at the top of the charts. I certainly don't think the fraternity system (apparently centered at Union College) is a criterion. Many Ivy League (e.g., Harvard) and "Little Ivy" colleges have no fraternities.

As for academics, well that varies by whatever commercial list one uses, all of them profit making whether it's Forbes or Greenes' or US News and World Report. Greenes' was useful because it published a book on Hidden Ivies and grouped them geographically. However, the standard metric for elite colleges is the competitiveness of its admissions process. Taking the lists given above, we get these admission rates for the Class of 2019:

Colleges proposed for deletion as Little Ivies (Class of 2019 admission rates):


 * Bates College, 21.4%
 * Bucknell University, 29.5%
 * Colgate University, 23.7%
 * Connecticut College, 36.2%
 * Haverford College, 23.3%
 * Swarthmore College, 14.1%
 * Trinity College (Connecticut), 31.1%
 * Tufts University, 15.8%
 * Vassar College, 23.7%
 * Wesleyan University, 21.9%

From the above proposed deletion list, Swarthmore wins hands down. Tufts is second. Bates, cited by 74.70.116.187 as academically less competitive (really?), is third.

For colleges proposed for inclusion as Little Ivies (Class of 2019 admission rates):


 * Bard College, 32%
 * College of the Holy Cross, 37%
 * Dickinson College, 44.79%
 * Franklin and Marshall College, 32%
 * Lafayette College, 30%
 * Skidmore College, 35%

These admission rates are in the same league as Trinity College (31.1%), Connecticut College (36.2%) and Union College (37%) which are currently on the "Little Ivies" table in this article.

And, lest it is argued that admissions rates are not a valid metric, I will list some highly regarded, academically elite colleges (mixed assortment - some liberal arts, some Ivy League, and some research universities) for comparison (Class of 2019 admission rate):


 * Barnard College, 19.55%
 * Claremont McKenna College, 9.76%
 * Cornell University, 14.88%
 * Davidson College, 22.43%
 * Duke University, 11.35%
 * Harvard University, 5.33%
 * Harvey Mudd College, 12.7%
 * MIT, 8%
 * Pomona College, 9.76%

In summary, of the colleges proposed for deletion as Little Ivies, all are highly selective (admitting less than 25%), except perhaps Trinity and Conn. Swarthmore ranks with Cornell. Bates ranks with Davidson. Of the colleges proposed for addition as Little Ivies, all are less selective than the currently listed colleges except Trinity, Conn and Union. Lafayette ranks with Trinity. Holy Cross ranks with Conn and Union. The others are in between with Dickinson as the outlier. However, all of these colleges are excellent institutions.

In any event, I still think my proposal has merit. I would be interested in other voices. IACOBVS (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply
One of the points that my prior post hopefully illustrates is that a variety of different arguments can be made for the inclusion or exclusion of most of the schools on this list. As such is the case, the current grid and check graphic appears to do as good a job as anything to demonstrate that notion. I took into account academic output; athletic affiliations, including NESCAC; geographical pertinence; historical relevance; and institutional size. I happen to believe that a topic as murky and unclear as this one merits a variety of both quantitative and qualitative evaluations, rather than the mere application of a single metric. As can be clearly seen, most of the candidates were posited for omission were for non-academic reasons. The only schools put up for academic reasons were Connecticut College, Trinity College and, rather surprisingly, Bates College. They were put forth due to being the lowest ranked Little Ivy schools on the Forbes 2015 list. The case of Bates may have been a surprise to those who are only familiar with the US News rankings. Perhaps Bates’ relatively low endowment had a disproportionate impact on the ranking. Schools that perennially top the various academic ranking list such as Swarthmore and Haverford were quite clearly put forward for non-academic reasons.

Athletic affiliations, school history, and social commonality are also a factor. Following the limited criteria of IACOBVS, the US Military Academy at West Point should be a prime candidate for inclusion. With an admissions rate of 9.5% it becomes the best academic school on the list, per that sole metric. With less students than Tufts, a LAC designation and a Hudson Valley location it seems that it should be a surefire bet for inclusion. So why not include this clearly excellent school? Well, it has to do with the social spheres where its students circulate. The school does not rub athletic social elbows with the Little Ivies as it plays division one sports, there have never been any fraternities to facilitate inter-institutional comradery, and the admissions process is probably based more on merit and less on an “old-boy” network than the Little Ivies. It appears that these qualitative measures are not so easily dismissed as one would wish. The geography question was applied to schools such as Swarthmore, Haverford and Bucknell as they are located in Pennsylvania. As such they have never been in NESCAC, nor do they regularly play NESCAC schools. Are they simply too far from the Little Ivies’ Williams-Amherst epicenter to qualify?

Institution size was applied to Wesleyan, Bucknell and Tufts. While Tufts at 10k+ is clearly too large, Bucknell at 3,600+ and Wesleyan at 3,200+ are about three times the size of Haverford at 1,100+. Is that too much of a difference? Does Wesleyan’s focus on research in the physical sciences move it too far away from being a traditional LAC? It would seem that viewing all factors in aggregate could provide a clearer view. For example, does Bucknell’s size, location and division one athletics add up to enough of a collective reason to remove it? If we are including Bucknell then why not Lafayette or Lehigh? It would also seem that my set of criteria are more broad-based than that of IACOBVS. Unfortunately, IACOBVS seems to be transfixed on a single metric –the admissions rates of the schools.

The current Ivy League Wikipedia page does not even mention admission rates at all. Instead, it lists the endowment of each school. Despite their problems, both Forbes and US News at least know enough about the rudimentary use of statistics to understand that to base a ranking upon a single metric would be grossly misleading, at best. For example, Smith College, ranked 14 in US News, holds a 42.2% acceptance rate. Based solely on that one metric, Smith would be considered academically inferior to be a Little Ivy. That notion is obviously wrong. Smith is clearly a better school than that single metric bears out. The use of admission rates as the sole metric for ranking schools reveals two immediate problems. First, it is a metric that is easily manipulated by admissions offices. Admissions offices that have frank and candid discussions with students about their chances will naturally have higher admissions percentages than schools that dangle hope in front of marginal candidates. Furthermore, admissions rates only reflect input and provide no insight into the output of a school. In order to rectify this disparity, it may be reasonable to also look at an output metric such as 6-year graduation rates.

Candidates for omission: Colleges proposed for deletion as Little Ivies (6-year graduation rates):
 * Bates College, 88%
 * Bucknell University, 89%
 * Colgate University, 92%
 * Connecticut College, 83%
 * Haverford College, 94%
 * Swarthmore College, 94%
 * Trinity College (Connecticut), 84%
 * Tufts University, 92%
 * Vassar College, 92%
 * Wesleyan University, 93%

From the above proposed deletion list, Bates, Trinity and Connecticut are the three lowest. The ranks of these three schools do happen to match the same order of their rankings in Forbes. For colleges proposed for inclusion as Little Ivies (6-year graduation rates):
 * Bard College, 75%
 * College of the Holy Cross, 92%
 * Dickinson College, 84%
 * Franklin and Marshall College, 87%
 * Lafayette College, 90%
 * Skidmore College, 87%

From this list we can see that Holy Cross and Lafayette both exceed Bucknell, Bates, Trinty, and Connecticut. In fact, Holy Cross did exceptionally well as it was only exceeded by Swarthmore and Haverford. Franklin and Marshall and Skidmore are up right with Bates while Dickinson is on par with Trinity and Connecticut. Bard appears to be an outlier. In view of the 6-year graduation rates and in conjunction with the Forbes rankings, it seems that Bates, Trinity and Connecticut would be the most likely candidates for omission from the previous proposed list while Holy Cross and Lafayette make strong cases for inclusion. For the curious, here are some 6-year graduation rates at other top schools, lest one think this is not a valid metric
 * Harvard 98%
 * Princeton 97%
 * Brown 96%
 * Williams 95%
 * Amherst 94%
 * Carleton 93%
 * Pomona 93%
 * Davidson 93%

These figures do appear to reflect somewhat reasonable correlations with their respective academic reputations in various published rankings. As an aside, I did fact check IACOBVS on their claim that Harvard has no fraternities. Sorry, but Harvard does. All of the schools mentioned above have excellent reputations for delivering fine educations. I happen to believe that my methodology is more inclusive and takes into account far more nuance with its focus on both qualitative and the qualitative measures –something that the imprecise nature of this topic would appear to require.74.70.116.187 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Reply (or "Kick out Bates")
I confess to 74.70.116.187 and to all that I didn't think Harvard had official frats. As a native Bostonian who frequented Harvard Square, Greek life at Harvard was noticeably absent unlike at Boston University or MIT where it was very visible. I stand corrected.

The interesting thing about Bates College among the Maine LACs is that it serves as a symbol of the difficulty in deciding which colleges are somehow demonstrably "Little Ivies" and which are not. However, this is an unofficial and colloquial term. My solution was to rely on NESCAC as the core and to branch out within reason, using geography, admissions rates, and other factors. Greenes' Hidden Ivies is just one of many ranking systems. All are flawed in some ways. The old standard, once readily cited by colleges, was Barron's Profiles of American Colleges which ranked colleges from "most competitive" to "noncompetitive." It is now in its 32nd year. Bates only reached the "most competitive" designation in 1987. This is rather late in the game when compared to the Little Three of NESCAC or colleges like Swarthmore which had long been deemed to be in this category. Colby College was also quite late to this game, later than Bates. However, Colby is older (by 36 years) but more importantly richer than Bates. Bates tends to attract do-gooder students who often do not seek high paying employment, but rather work in the non-profit sector. Unlike Williams which is known for producing graduates who are high earners and give back generously to Williams as alumni, Bates simply doesn't produce alumni that have this sort of capital. Bowdoin is older and richer than Colby - and it follows that it outranks Colby. Thus, the rankings reflect not simply academic excellence, but both the material success of graduates and college wealth (which is very much tied to alumni wealth). It is not surprising that college endowment will strongly correlate to the various rankings. In the Forbes ranking equation, academic excellence factors in at just 10%.

However, the main thrust here is a logical designator for what constitutes a Little Ivy. NESCAC still remains the core of the Little Ivy group. The idea that the Little Ivies must be small liberal arts colleges with excellent academics located in the northeastern USA also seems to be accepted by all. If we look at the current grid listing of Little Ivies, we can bring two metrics together: acceptance rate (Class of 2019) and 6-year graduation rate.

Current listed Little Ivy colleges - Class of 2019 acceptance rate / 6-year graduation rate


 * Amherst College, 13.7% / 94%
 * Bates College, 21.4% / 88%
 * Bowdoin College, 14.9% / 93%
 * Bucknell University, 29.5% / 89%
 * Colby College, 22.5% / 90%
 * Colgate University, 23.7% /92%
 * Connecticut College, 36.2% / 83%
 * Hamilton College, 23.9% / 91%
 * Haverford College, 23.3% / 94%
 * Middlebury College, 17% / 94%
 * Swarthmore College, 14.1% / 94%
 * Trinity College (Connecticut), 31.1% / 84%
 * Tufts University, 15.8% / 92%
 * Union College, 37% / 86%
 * Vassar College, 23.7% / 92%
 * Wesleyan University, 21.9% / 93%
 * Williams College, 16.8% / 95%

One could argue about which colleges are not Little Ivy based on the above statistics, but it would seem that Bates at least should be able to remain as it is matched with Colby when adjusted. But I may be biased as I went to Bates (a long time ago). However, I am not biased against Union and Conn. I still think my formula works because it allows for other metrics if the NESCAC charter+current member is not met. IACOBVS (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply- Just two metrics, really?
To begin with, Bates should obviously not be kicked out for academic reasons. I also do not believe in kicking out Union, Trinity or Connecticut. The fact that Bates is ranked 25 in the US News rankings should be enough alone to keep it on the list, despite the issues some of us may have with the subjectivity of many rankings. (As an aside, I have a friend who went to Bates and now has two doctoral degrees, so I am aware of the school’s quality.) Kicking out Bates or Union for academic reasons would certainly necessitate also kicking out both Trinity and Connecticut. West Point, Holy Cross and Lafayette do however look rather reasonable for inclusion, based solely on cursory academic overviews. West Point does seem like an odd fit for my previously discussed reasons.

Per US News: Per Forbes: Trinity and Connecticut come up at the bottom of both lists. Any evaluation that does not at least consider these rankings would seem to be out of step with generally accepted practice. By the way, the NESCAC article has the US News ranking of each current school listed. If the Forbes list is so out of line, tell me which Little Ivy schools, current or candidate, are very incorrectly ranked.(By the way, Bates' own Wikipedia page mentions Forbes.) Using pure rankings and numbers, West Point looks like it should be added. However, my previous post has already explained why this would appear to be an incongruent addition. As I will reiterate again, my point was to show that one can cherry-pick a metric or two and put almost any of the listed schools up for consideration for deletion. That is why I have continuously argued the case for a view of an aggregate of various factors, both quantitative and qualitative.
 * United States Military Academy at West Point is 22
 * Bates is 25
 * Holy Cross is 32
 * Lafayette is 37
 * Union is 38
 * Trinity is 43
 * Connecticut is 48.
 * United States Military Academy at West Point is 11 (Only Williams, Swarthmore and Amherst are ranked higher)
 * Lafayette is 53
 * Holy Cross is 55
 * Union is 66
 * Bates is 70
 * Trinity is 81
 * Connecticut is 92

As an example, Bucknell, while an extraordinarily strong school, just seems strange to include based on its size, geography, and division one athletics. (Does Bucknell play any NESCAC schools in anything?) Colgate mirrors many of the same factors as Bucknell, but the New York location and smaller size may tip the balance. I think these are schools are good examples of where such factors as history, tradition, geography, size and athletics may trump pure academics. Union, in contrast to Bucknell, has swim meets with Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and Hamilton. Out of a schedule of nine meets nearly half are against some of the top NESCAC schools- just in this one sport. Of course, any evaluation should also include academic measures. I believe that to try to evaluate schools without a broad consideration of factors is to veer into a rather narrow-minded approach. This article is called “Little Ivies” and not “The Northeast’s Liberal Arts Colleges with the Highest Scores in Two Metrics.” As I have said before, these are all excellent schools that provide top-quality educations and that we are probably engaging in some hairsplitting snobbery on some level. However, I suppose that comes with the territory in this kind of article. 74.70.116.187 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional Metrics: Endowment and Endowment per Student
Looking for an additional metric, it became clear that overall endowment and perhaps more importantly endowment per student are factors when it comes to Little Ivies. I added the 2014 endowment per student to the grid and I added 2014 overall endowment to the table below it with founding dates and church denominations.

It can be clearly seen that the top performers in almost all commercial lists and other rankings are the wealthiest colleges. Swarthmore, Amherst, and Williams have the highest endowments and the highest endowment per student. Bowdoin is not far behind. The middle honors for endowment per student go to Colby, Hamilton, Haverford, Middlebury, and Vassar. On the lower end are Bucknell, Colgate, Trinity, and Wesleyan. In the lowest end, with less than $200,000 of endowment per student, are the relatively impoverished colleges of Union, Bates, Conn., and (surprisingly) Tufts. With 10,000 students, Tufts endowment is spread thin.

What is interesting about this metric is where it makes a difference. Clearly, the wealthiest colleges with over $1 million per student in endowment are the top performers. Bowdoin also trumps its relatively poorer cousins. However, once the range is in the $400,000 per student of endowment or less, the wealth factor has a less pronounced effect. The colleges in the middle of the endowment scale are not necessarily more selective than the poorer colleges. Among the colleges where the endowment is decidedly modest or the number of students drives down the endowment per student (Tufts, Wesleyan), the wealth correlation to selectivity in admissions breaks down. Tufts rejects 84.2% of its applicants, but has a thinly spread endowment. Wesleyan rejects 78.1% of its applicants making it more selective than many of the wealthier colleges in terms of endowment per student. Bates College, poorer than any college except Conn. in terms of endowment per student, still remains very selective in rejecting 78.6% of its applicants. IACOBVS (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Bates only enrolls about 1,700 total, so it only needs about 425 freshmen or so. That is fewer students than any other NESCAC school as well as almost every other school listed. That makes it easier to reject students as the school needs to enroll fewer. 74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, it is interesting that Bates attracts enough applicants to get that percentage, in spite of its relative lack of wealth. If I am correct, the reason that Trinity, Union, and Conn. are less selective in admissions is because they are not (yet) attracting enough applicants. This may change. Academically, I am rather certain that students get the same quality education at all the NESCAC colleges, although they don't have the same prestige level or indeed social class cachet. IACOBVS (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss here before deleting whole sections or tables
Please discuss here before unilaterally deleting entire sections or tables. I have restored the endowment per student to the grid. One editor deemed it completely unnecessary as the total endowment was added to the lower table. I think it is useful as collegiate wealth most certainly is a metric. More so, endowment per student is more telling than total endowment, as can be seen in the case of Tufts University. Williams has the largest endowment, but Swarthmore has the most endowment per student.

While this metric may put Bates in a bad light, Bates has been very open about the issues surrounding its low endowment. Remarkably it is still able to count as peer institutions these far wealthier LACs (e.g., Pomona, Bowdoin, Amherst, etc.). IACOBVS (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with IACOBVS about leaving both endowment tables. The per student average allows some of the smaller schools to demonstrate their true ability to meet student and faculty support needs in relation to enrollment size. I suppose one could get into an argument about the economy of scale, but that would seem to be misplaced in a discussion of LACs. Maybe move the per student endowment down to the table with the total endowment so that both figures may be easily compared? Also, maybe add US News and Forbes ranking to better mirror the NESCAC article? P.S. Bates is far closer to being a peer with Colby than it is with Bowdoin and far closer to Hamilton than it is to Amherst.74.70.116.187 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will move the metric to the table below. I will replace with US News National LAC ranking. I could add Forbes too. As for Bates' peers, I was citing from article and it is based on academics. Bates, Colby and Hamilton are certainly peers. They are certainly outranked by Pomona, Amherst and Bowdoin, but they all still 'in the club' so to speak. IACOBVS (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the Washington Monthly rankings as I wanted an alternate ranking to go along with the more traditional rankings ofUS News and Forbes. There is quite a bit a variability between US News, Forbes, and Washington Monthly. US News rankings are based upon data which it collects from each educational institution either from an annual survey or from the school's website. The problem with this is that many LACs refuse to participate in US News rankings, such as those in the Annapolis Group. Forbes ranks by measuring student satisfaction (which is highly subjective data to collect) at 75% and post-graduate success (as in income) at 32.5% with other metrics making up the rest. Washington Monthly takes a distinctly alternative approach: "[Washington Monthly] rate[s] schools based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country)." See also Washington Monthly's |College Ranking Methodology. This gives two standard rankings that are weighted toward collegiate and alumni wealth and one alternate ranking that is weighted toward societal contribution. IACOBVS (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the Washington Monthly rankings. Calling them an “alternate” ranking would appear to be rather generous. Their rankings are so out of alignment with everyone else as to really be almost laughable. As an example, it seems beyond belief to place Berea and Knox above Williams and Amherst.  The entire section on community service, while surely altruistic, is utterly irrelevant to any useful evaluation of any educational institution and most certainly to the purpose at hand. The huge differences in outlier data points seems to blow the whole table to pieces.


 * For example, Bates gets a huge number of points in the community service coursework and hours categories while posting rather pedestrian scores everywhere else. These outlier scores wildly influence its final ranking. Also, in what way does community service have any bearing on determining Little Ivy qualification?
 * Yes, Bates did well. Bryn Mawr got No 1. Is it No 1 of the LACs? No. But it is an interesting leveler among the ranking systems. I agree with Berea and Knox, although they may be excellent academically even if they are otherwise obscure. They are certainly poor (relatively speaking). However, Washington Monthly college rankings, per Wikipedia "were a deliberate alternative college guide to U.S. News and World Report and Forbes College Rankings. The rankings are based upon the following criteria:
 * "how well it performs as an engine of social mobility (ideally helping the poor to get rich rather than the very rich to get very, very rich)"
 * "how well it does in fostering scientific and humanistic research"
 * "how well it promotes an ethic of service to country".[13]


 * The rankings focus on research outputs, the quality level and total dollar amount of scientific grants awarded, the number of graduates going on to earn Ph.D.s, and the number of graduates that later participate in public service."


 * So while I concede that the formula can prop up lesser known small liberal arts colleges, it does seem to count many academic qualifications beyond community-service style altruism. Also, the only three USA college rankings that Wikipedia has auto-text for are US News, Forbes and Washington Monthly. I still think it is useful. Also, in some cases, the WM ranking was quite close to the US News and Forbes, e.g., Wesleyan and Haverford. What's more interesting is when the three are aggregated, the Little Ivies fall right into place where they are expected to be - Bates, Colby, etc in the middle, the top LACs on top. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Washington Monthy's own comments on their methodology are a bit cringing when they say, “Some schools that dropped in our service rankings this year completed an application in 2010 and therefore received credit in last year’s rankings, but did not submit an application in 2011 and therefore did not receive credit on these measures in this year’s rankings. (Our advice to those schools: If you care about service, believe you do a good job of promoting it, and want the world to know, then fill out the application!)” That last bit demonstrates the kind of bullying and chiding that is rather illustrative of why some schools, namely Reed, have refused to cooperate with ranking promoters.
 * Interesting. It seems odd that WM would not simply omit the colleges that did not submit the 2011 application. Good for Reed. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, Tufts is ranked 39 on their national list, so that could be added with a note or asterisk.
 * Will do. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Also as a fact check, the Annapolis group does not refuse to cooperate with the US News rankings. Per Wikipedia, "...it asks presidents not to participate in the "reputational survey" portion of the overall survey (this section accounts for 25% of the total rank and asks college presidents to give their subjective opinion of other colleges)." The member schools still submit their data for use.


 * Yet another fact check, the student satisfaction part of Forbes is 25% and not 75%. The survey is actually mostly data driven as even that 25% comes mostly from things like transfer statistics. Sorry, but those hard numbers are in no manner subjective. Feel free to follow link and take a look.
 * OK I checked. I am not sure of the source I got the 75%. The Forbes calculation is 25% student satisfaction, 32.5% graduate success, 25% student debt, 7.5% graduation rate, 10% academic success. This would seem to favor student and collegiate wealth above all other factors: student satisfaction is often related to the facilities the college can offer; student debt is mitigated by college resources and family wealth; graduate success is measured by income (but not at successful people are well paid). The last two statistics would reflect academics (17.5%). So, Forbes (a wealth magazine) essentially follows the money. This isn't bad in itself, but it is somewhat skewed. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * With all three rankings present, the Forbes ranking still seems valuable if for no other reason than that it is the only one that allows a direct comparison with Tufts.74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Forbes is valuable, but I think it is heavily weighted towards wealth indicators so you need some other rankings for balance. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that including all three rankings is fine, just do not aggregate them. See my post under aggregation as to why. Yes, Forbes, and other polls, can be somewhat boiled down to the influence of money. Of course, the Ivy League itself can also be boiled down to money as those schools have some of the largest endowments of any schools and benefit immensely from that. The social cachet derived from such wealth goes hand-in-hand with the ability to muster academic resources. That would seem to make those ranking pertinent to an article on Little Ivy inclusion.74.70.116.187 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Aggregated List
This table can't be posted on the page as it constitutes original research because it is analysis of facts and not cited elsewhere. However, I think the results are useful for discussion. The table aggregates the three rankings from US News, Forbes, and Washington Monthly into a single number (rounded up to the next whole integer) with the exception of Tufts where only the rank from US News is used.

Aggregate Ranking
IACOBVS (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I posted in the prior section, the Washington Monthly rankings have problems with outlier data points influencing their ranking. As such, the entire ranking is out of alignment with both US News and Forbes. While an interesting alternative ranking, it is by no means a statistically valid as part of any aggregate score. The outlier data points badly skew the end result so much as to overshadow the other rankings. For example, following this aggregation, Bates, a school that places special emphasis on community service and therefore racking up excessive points on the Washington Monthly ranking, gets ranked ahead of Colby, Colgate and Middlebury even though all of them beat Bates in both the US News and the Forbes polls. Connecticut, ranked behind both Union and Trinity in the US News and Forbes polls, now leaps ahead of both schools. The Washington poll is so out of alignment with the others that it alone slingshots Bates past Colby and Connecticut past both Trinity and Union. This is a prime example of how not to use data. Furthermore, Tufts appears to not even have a Washington Monthly data point included. Understanding how outlier and invalid data measurement can skew a result is a basic principle of statistics. Accordingly, this aggregate table would provide little more than obfuscation to this article.74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But I think it is ok that Washington Monthly is so out of sync with US News and Forbes. It was created for that purpose - as an alternate measure. Neither US News or Forbes are much interested in academics or outputs that are not financial. If you read the critiques of both of their rankings, the mantra is that in both cases it boils down to endowment per student with relatively rare exceptions. Prestige, social cachet, academics, PhDs produced, public good, etc are all pushed aside in favor of cold hard cash. Now, in a capitalist society like the USA, maybe that is perfectly legitimate. I agree that Bates may not be better than Middlebury, but it is certainly a peer with Colby and Colgate. Also, while I understand the statistical principle, each ranking entity is measuring different variables thus the statistical method can't really be used here because the data is suspect in all three rankings. IACOBVS (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From a purely mathematical point of view, the Washington Monthly ranking have range of 179. This is calculated from Swarthmore’s 4 subtracted from Trinity’s 183. The Forbes rankings have a range of 90. This is calculated from Williams’ 2 subtracted from Connecticut’s 92. The US News rankings have a range of 47. This is calculated from Williams’ 1 subtracted from Connecticut’s 48.
 * This difference in ranges gives the Washington Monthly over three times the influence of US News and almost twice that of Forbes on the end result. That would seem to constitute an undue influence that produces a result that is not statistically sound.
 * One could also argue that measures of community service are not pertinent to determining membership in a socially and academically elite (elitist?) group of schools.
 * I hate to say it, but prestige and social cachet are derived in large portion from money and not altruism.
 * It's fine to include the Washington Monthly rankings, just not in aggregation.74.70.116.187 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is another ranking list to consider. This one is from Niche.com. Per the overall and liberal arts rankings.


 * Amherst College, 34-7
 * Bates College, 83-28
 * Bowdoin College, 15-1
 * Bucknell University, 47-13
 * Colby College, 56-18
 * Colgate University, 33-6
 * Connecticut College, -103
 * Hamilton College, 53-16
 * Haverford College, 43-10
 * Middlebury College, 42-9
 * Swarthmore College, 81-27
 * Trinity College (Connecticut), -75
 * Tufts University, 44-Not ranked
 * Union College, 74-24
 * Vassar College, 48-14
 * Wesleyan University, 50-15
 * Williams College, 19-2

Candidate Schools


 * College of the Holy Cross 79-26
 * Franklin and Marshall College 68-21
 * Lafayette College 87-35

The overall rank becomes more useful as it allows Tufts to be included in the same rank list rather than cross-listing from a national university category. Again, Trinity and Connecticut are far back. Holy Cross as well as Franklin & Marshall look pretty good. Lafayette places respectably.74.70.116.187 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought about Niche. I wasn't sure. I was a bit surprised that it rates Bowdoin no. 1 LAC and no. 15 in the nation. Bowdoin is a great college, but is it really better than Pomona, Williams or Amherst? Also, what happened to Swarthmore? It is ranked the same as Bates (+/- 1) and below Union. I think we know it is in the top 5 of the LACs. As for entry candidates, Franklin & Marshall and Lafayette, sure. Holy Cross is different. All the 'Little Ivies' are ex-Protestant and now fully secular. Holy Cross is neither - it is Catholic and Jesuit. I think this places it in a different category from the Little Ivies. There are already the 'Jesuit Ivies' and they are not based on being a small LAC, just on overall quality. IACOBVS (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)