Are Asian Americans not interested in top SLACs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But now I'm curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But now I'm curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Those are mostly filled by immigrants/international students these days. Look at any PhD programs and see how many American born students there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why exclude MIT? Putnam is dominated by MIT. Any other college representations are trivial.

[Anonymous]

And top talents at high school stage will never attend SLACs, regardless of races, if they have a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Those are mostly filled by immigrants/international students these days. Look at any PhD programs and see how many American born students there.

For a moment, let's assume your oversimplification is correct. Are you saying that's acceptable? For all the STEM PhDs to be foreign born? Yikes. Couldn't disagree more. Industrial tech production follows STEM PhD production. Don't want to rely on visiting students staying permanently, or even for the visitation for US grad school trend to continue if the skills have been transferred/developed abroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why exclude MIT? Putnam is dominated by MIT. Any other college representations are trivial.

So all our advanced math needs will be handled by one school. Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And top talents at high school stage will never attend SLACs, regardless of races, if they have a choice.

Demonstrably false, but those who share your embrace of fact-free reasoning might be better off hiding in the back row of a lecture hall at a large university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Those are mostly filled by immigrants/international students these days. Look at any PhD programs and see how many American born students there.

For a moment, let's assume your oversimplification is correct. Are you saying that's acceptable? For all the STEM PhDs to be foreign born? Yikes. Couldn't disagree more. Industrial tech production follows STEM PhD production. Don't want to rely on visiting students staying permanently, or even for the visitation for US grad school trend to continue if the skills have been transferred/developed abroad.

It's a different question. But no, it's not accept although it's the reality. There are a few reasons for what's going on though. Decades of dumbing down of general population is one of them (so they're not competitive against internationals). A PhD career not being as exciting or lucrative as some other paths is another (so they don't get top American talents).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why exclude MIT? Putnam is dominated by MIT. Any other college representations are trivial.

So all our advanced math needs will be handled by one school. Gotcha.

I don't control that. It was caused by the BS college admission policies that sukk a$$ to wokeness and discount merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Those are mostly filled by immigrants/international students these days. Look at any PhD programs and see how many American born students there.

For a moment, let's assume your oversimplification is correct. Are you saying that's acceptable? For all the STEM PhDs to be foreign born? Yikes. Couldn't disagree more. Industrial tech production follows STEM PhD production. Don't want to rely on visiting students staying permanently, or even for the visitation for US grad school trend to continue if the skills have been transferred/developed abroad.

It's a different question. But no, it's not accept although it's the reality. There are a few reasons for what's going on though. Decades of dumbing down of general population is one of them (so they're not competitive against internationals). A PhD career not being as exciting or lucrative as some other paths is another (so they don't get top American talents).

It's not true that STEM PhD programs don't get top US-born talent. They get what's qualified and interested; we need more that is qualified and interested for the sake of our country. PhDs have been behind many lucrative innovations and will continue to be.

[Anonymous]

I took most of my classes at a SLAC and mechanical engineering classes at a state flagship. Flagship was fun because I could just be anonymous there. On the other hand, I found the ME professors were very helpful and accessible at the flagship IF you went to see them. Most students didn't bother with that, but I was used to doing that at the SLAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asian Americans don't have to/want to pay 90K/year for the privilege of pretending their kids attend some exotic no-name small LAC.

Besides, public universities are cheaper and offer better STEM majors.

Op is comparing private schools to private schools. The schools in the second list are not no-name schools and what about the education? Are you saying that Asian Americans only want the “privilege of pretending” as it relates to larger private schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why exclude MIT? Putnam is dominated by MIT. Any other college representations are trivial.

So all our advanced math needs will be handled by one school. Gotcha.

I don't control that. It was caused by the BS college admission policies that sukk a$$ to wokeness and discount merits.

I don't know what you are trying to say, but if someone is asking "Can one get a competitive CS education at an LAC?" and they use universities dominating competitions as an example that they can not, it's relevant that some LACs, of which there are far fewer, actually beat nearly all universities in such competitions. If that's unclear I give up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why exclude MIT? Putnam is dominated by MIT. Any other college representations are trivial.

So all our advanced math needs will be handled by one school. Gotcha.

I don't control that. It was caused by the BS college admission policies that sukk a$$ to wokeness and discount merits.

I don't know what you are trying to say, but if someone is asking "Can one get a competitive CS education at an LAC?" and they use universities dominating competitions as an example that they can not, it's relevant that some LACs, of which there are far fewer, actually beat nearly all universities in such competitions. If that's unclear I give up.

So you used the number of winners in a GROUP of SLACs to beat that from one single university (except MIT)?