Are Asian Americans not interested in top SLACs?

[Anonymous]

I think one reason is that SLACs as a whole tend to be less racially diverse and in whiter, more remote areas. A fair number of Asian Americans don’t want to go to a college that has a lower percentage of Asian Americans, relatively speaking, and then the percentages remain low so the problem continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians study serious stuff like CS and engineering. That's why.

% STEM majors averaged across Ivy League: 35.1%

% STEM majors averaged across Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, and Grinnell: 38.3%

DP. But STEM majors at SLACs are mickey mouse stuff comparing to ivy schools. I think that's what PP was saying.

Someone forgot to tell the grad schools that.

Science and Eng PhD rate for Ivies: 8%
Science and Eng PhD rate for above 8 LACs: 10.9%

Why is PhD rate important? Is it supposed to be something prestigious? (it's not!) Sounds like some random thinking to me.

STEM PhD programs are highly competitive because they are funded. You effectively get paid to create new knowledge while working with the best and brightest on important and unsolved problems, often brought to you by industry. Upon completion you are in a position to guide a company's R&D in an area you now are expert in, assuming you aren't interested in academia. PhD programs would not year after year pull from the same LACs more than certain well known universities if they were actually less rigorous. If anything, LACs are more rigorous on average, as a study by Vanderbilt economists showing LAC alumni finished econ PhD programs on average a year faster than university alumni. The position that "not everyone is interested in PhDs" though true wouldn't account for LAC alumni being better prepared compared to those who got their undergrad degrees at universities.

But I think if you are asking such a question then you really don't understand the significant of STEM PhDs to the nation's economy and security. Suffice it to say that those interested in LACs are, on average, informed of such matters to a greater extent than those who blindly assume universities are more rigorous.

https://cset.georgetown.edu/article/should-the-us-fear-rising-number-of-stem-phds-in-china/

This statement cannot be more false. It's actually the opposite. As a matter of fact, top STEM talents born and raised in US typically don't do PhDs. So those schools have to recruit heavily from international sources. I won't be surprised if the ivy school PhD applicants are mostly those without a working visa.
One of the only PhD degrees that's competitive is in business school, such as Finance PhDs.

Well actually *you* couldn't be more wrong: yes, STEM PhD programs are almost always funded, and yes they are highly competitive. If you have gone through the process or researched it you will find that the admission rates are very low, typically single digits or close to that, and all the candidates are very academically motivated and self-selecting, far more so than the pool that simply wants to apply to college. They don't just have great grades and sparkling letters of recommendation but also have meaningful research experience. The top universities have a larger percentage of international applicants at the grad than at the undergrad level because they are so competitive, not because they aren't: our STEM grad schools are even more of a draw than our colleges at the global level, so you are competing against the best from everywhere more so than with college admissions. A smaller percentage of US born students will make the cut because the competition is simply fiercer.

[Anonymous]

In order to be a biologist, geologist, astronomer, physicist, mathematician, psychologist, and economist, you need to have a PhD. You also need it if you want to teach computer science, economics, or neuroscience at the university level.

It would be ignorant to say STEM PhD productivity is not important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HYPSM or bust status chasing.

That's why.

SLACs are considered below top50 national universities

Most combined rankings have at least 10 LACs represented in the top 50 colleges in the USA.

The top 5 LACs (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, and Bowdoin) are as difficult to get into as a top 20 national university.

So what is this based off?

Lol no way. SLACs are just another four years of high school. No seriously competitive students would even consider applying there. They purposely designed them differently from nationally universities -making it hard to directly compare - so that academically mediocre students can find their crushed confidence back. These students have no business with top national universities even if they try.

An ignorant post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians study serious stuff like CS and engineering. That's why.

% STEM majors averaged across Ivy League: 35.1%

% STEM majors averaged across Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, and Grinnell: 38.3%

I wrote CS/Engineering, not "STEM". In any case, you had to include 8 slacs to match the % of STEM majors to like 4 or 5 Ivy leagues.

There is a reason why Asian American students don't go to SLACs, and there are very few SLACs they would go to for STEM, like Harvey Mudd.

Actually, you appear to have forgotten you wrote "serious stuff like CS and engineering." It is now your contention that natural sciences and math aren't serious? Good luck with that.

And I used all 8 Ivies. I used 8 LACs ranked in order minus the service academies, who would have made the difference even larger.

Others have provided explanations that are more consistent with actual data for why Asians don't appear to know about and apply to LACs to the same extent as universities than "Asians study serious stuff..."

Funny you should mention math.. DS is a math and CS double major at our state flagship. The ROI is much at a stage flagship than a SLAC. The majority of the CS/math collegiate competition winners aren't from SLACs.

Plus, DS didn't want a tiny university in the middle of nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HYPSM or bust status chasing.

That's why.

SLACs are considered below top50 national universities

Most combined rankings have at least 10 LACs represented in the top 50 colleges in the USA.

The top 5 LACs (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, and Bowdoin) are as difficult to get into as a top 20 national university.

So what is this based off?

Lol no way. SLACs are just another four years of high school. No seriously competitive students would even consider applying there. They purposely designed them differently from nationally universities -making it hard to directly compare - so that academically mediocre students can find their crushed confidence back. These students have no business with top national universities even if they try.

An ignorant post.

Indeed. We are seeing the self-selection in this very thread: there are those who do research and cite facts supporting LACs, and those that just keep pointing out universities are more popular. If it's more comfortable to follow the herd than think critically, LACs aren't the right place for you (hopefully your kid still has some say!). That said, there are good reasons to go to universities, they just aren't usually the ones people cite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think one reason is that SLACs as a whole tend to be less racially diverse and in whiter, more remote areas. A fair number of Asian Americans don’t want to go to a college that has a lower percentage of Asian Americans, relatively speaking, and then the percentages remain low so the problem continues.

Most Asian Americans live in California.

If it not the top national universities, then the large CA state schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians study serious stuff like CS and engineering. That's why.

% STEM majors averaged across Ivy League: 35.1%

% STEM majors averaged across Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, and Grinnell: 38.3%

I wrote CS/Engineering, not "STEM". In any case, you had to include 8 slacs to match the % of STEM majors to like 4 or 5 Ivy leagues.

There is a reason why Asian American students don't go to SLACs, and there are very few SLACs they would go to for STEM, like Harvey Mudd.

Actually, you appear to have forgotten you wrote "serious stuff like CS and engineering." It is now your contention that natural sciences and math aren't serious? Good luck with that.

And I used all 8 Ivies. I used 8 LACs ranked in order minus the service academies, who would have made the difference even larger.

Others have provided explanations that are more consistent with actual data for why Asians don't appear to know about and apply to LACs to the same extent as universities than "Asians study serious stuff..."

Funny you should mention math.. DS is a math and CS double major at our state flagship. The ROI is much at a stage flagship than a SLAC. The majority of the CS/math collegiate competition winners aren't from SLACs.

Plus, DS didn't want a tiny university in the middle of nowhere.

You do realize there are ~50 times more students at universities than LACs, right? So, your math needs to make an adjustment when comparing raw numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians study serious stuff like CS and engineering. That's why.

% STEM majors averaged across Ivy League: 35.1%

% STEM majors averaged across Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, and Grinnell: 38.3%

I wrote CS/Engineering, not "STEM". In any case, you had to include 8 slacs to match the % of STEM majors to like 4 or 5 Ivy leagues.

There is a reason why Asian American students don't go to SLACs, and there are very few SLACs they would go to for STEM, like Harvey Mudd.

Actually, you appear to have forgotten you wrote "serious stuff like CS and engineering." It is now your contention that natural sciences and math aren't serious? Good luck with that.

And I used all 8 Ivies. I used 8 LACs ranked in order minus the service academies, who would have made the difference even larger.

Others have provided explanations that are more consistent with actual data for why Asians don't appear to know about and apply to LACs to the same extent as universities than "Asians study serious stuff..."

Funny you should mention math.. DS is a math and CS double major at our state flagship. The ROI is much at a stage flagship than a SLAC. The majority of the CS/math collegiate competition winners aren't from SLACs.

Plus, DS didn't want a tiny university in the middle of nowhere.

You do realize there are ~50 times more students at universities than LACs, right? So, your math needs to make an adjustment when comparing raw numbers.

I am referring to undergrad university students, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians study serious stuff like CS and engineering. That's why.

% STEM majors averaged across Ivy League: 35.1%

% STEM majors averaged across Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, and Grinnell: 38.3%

I wrote CS/Engineering, not "STEM". In any case, you had to include 8 slacs to match the % of STEM majors to like 4 or 5 Ivy leagues.

There is a reason why Asian American students don't go to SLACs, and there are very few SLACs they would go to for STEM, like Harvey Mudd.

Actually, you appear to have forgotten you wrote "serious stuff like CS and engineering." It is now your contention that natural sciences and math aren't serious? Good luck with that.

And I used all 8 Ivies. I used 8 LACs ranked in order minus the service academies, who would have made the difference even larger.

Others have provided explanations that are more consistent with actual data for why Asians don't appear to know about and apply to LACs to the same extent as universities than "Asians study serious stuff..."

Funny you should mention math.. DS is a math and CS double major at our state flagship. The ROI is much at a stage flagship than a SLAC. The majority of the CS/math collegiate competition winners aren't from SLACs.

Plus, DS didn't want a tiny university in the middle of nowhere.

You do realize there are ~50 times more students at universities than LACs, right? So, your math needs to make an adjustment when comparing raw numbers.

I am referring to undergrad university students, of course.

there are hardly any SLACs represented at these competitions, even for individual level competitions.

[Anonymous]

LAC education is kind of a niche thing. Plus relatively few Asians attending means fewer will want to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Top SLACs are as hard to get into as Harvard. Asian-Americans lack grades and money to get into them.

This is a joke.

Many people consider all SLACs to be below the top 100 national universities

Many people are ignorant. That doesn’t mean they are correct. Those who put in the time to research top schools know that there are some amazing SLAC options that are consistently “ranked” higher than their larger counterparts.

Yeah, I am sure they serve the requirements of other communities.

Many people also don’t want to send their kid to a college with zero name recognition, which would exclude SLACs.

Zero name recognition in *Asia* I think u mean and that's fine - more room for my kids.

Zero name recognition within the USA

Many schools have name recognition for being large and for sports and not for great undergraduate education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians study serious stuff like CS and engineering. That's why.

% STEM majors averaged across Ivy League: 35.1%

% STEM majors averaged across Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, and Grinnell: 38.3%

I wrote CS/Engineering, not "STEM". In any case, you had to include 8 slacs to match the % of STEM majors to like 4 or 5 Ivy leagues.

There is a reason why Asian American students don't go to SLACs, and there are very few SLACs they would go to for STEM, like Harvey Mudd.

Actually, you appear to have forgotten you wrote "serious stuff like CS and engineering." It is now your contention that natural sciences and math aren't serious? Good luck with that.

And I used all 8 Ivies. I used 8 LACs ranked in order minus the service academies, who would have made the difference even larger.

Others have provided explanations that are more consistent with actual data for why Asians don't appear to know about and apply to LACs to the same extent as universities than "Asians study serious stuff..."

Funny you should mention math.. DS is a math and CS double major at our state flagship. The ROI is much at a stage flagship than a SLAC. The majority of the CS/math collegiate competition winners aren't from SLACs.

Plus, DS didn't want a tiny university in the middle of nowhere.

You do realize there are ~50 times more students at universities than LACs, right? So, your math needs to make an adjustment when comparing raw numbers.

I am referring to undergrad university students, of course.

there are hardly any SLACs represented at these competitions, even for individual level competitions.

Not true. Judging by top 500 finishes for Putnam (math) last year, LACs are disproportionately represented at 34/500. For ICPC-NA (CS), Carleton beat out all the Ivies last year except Harvard. The year before Swarthmore beat all 8; in fact they beat every university except MIT.

[Anonymous]

I am Indian, and all I can say is people like OP represent the distilled scum of our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian, and all I can say is people like OP represent the distilled scum of our society.

Sorry OP. Wrong thread.