No Schwarzman for Amherst!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I'm sure your feelings are based on empirical evidence and not cranky-old-manism.

I am sure you know tons of the new students yourself and see their GPA's and test scores too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I'm sure your feelings are based on empirical evidence and not cranky-old-manism.

I am sure you know tons of the new students yourself and see their GPA's and test scores too.

These stats are public knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I'm sure your feelings are based on empirical evidence and not cranky-old-manism.

I am sure you know tons of the new students yourself and see their GPA's and test scores too.

I have a DD at another WASP currently. She was valedictorian, scored in the mid-1500's on her SAT, and is otherwise tremendously accomplished. To my knowledge, the students at her college do not segregate themselves into test-submitters and test-optional applicants. Rather, everyone, according to her, is incredibly smart and came to college with a massively impressive resume. I've met several of them on my visits, and to my eyes they're much more impressive than the students at my T20 university in the 90's. Is there anything, beyond the shibboleth of "test optional", that suggests that the quality of students at WASP schools have gone down since 2020? Because they look like amazing kids from my perspective. DCUM commenters, on the other hand, frequently seem out of touch and quick to offer categorical opinions without an adequate basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I agree, my LAC alma matter went test optional a few years before Covid and the four year graduation rate has gone down since then. But I don’t think any LACs are going back to test required because a decrease in applicants, including ED athletes, would not bode well for their survival.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I agree, my LAC alma matter went test optional a few years before Covid and the four year graduation rate has gone down since then. But I don’t think any LACs are going back to test required because a decrease in applicants, including ED athletes, would not bode well for their survival.

Name the alma mater, not like we can track you down from an institution's name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I agree, my LAC alma matter went test optional a few years before Covid and the four year graduation rate has gone down since then. But I don’t think any LACs are going back to test required because a decrease in applicants, including ED athletes, would not bode well for their survival.

I think it's self selection. I don't think SLACs have a problem of decreased applicant pool. They are really small, they can easily fill a class. But their policy favor athletes, FGLI, URM, legacy, e.g., institutional priorities.

DC is not applying to SLACs next year if they are not test required. But if any switches back to test required, DC will apply to it. Different policies attract different applicant pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I agree, my LAC alma matter went test optional a few years before Covid and the four year graduation rate has gone down since then. But I don’t think any LACs are going back to test required because a decrease in applicants, including ED athletes, would not bode well for their survival.

I think it's self selection. I don't think SLACs have a problem of decreased applicant pool. They are really small, they can easily fill a class. But their policy favor athletes, FGLI, URM, legacy, e.g., institutional priorities.

DC is not applying to SLACs next year if they are not test required. But if any switches back to test required, DC will apply to it. Different policies attract different applicant pools.

So you won’t be applying. There’s really no reason for most of these LACs to go back to test required. The only school seriously looking at it is conservative CMC, because the republican student body wants less students of color and more men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I agree, my LAC alma matter went test optional a few years before Covid and the four year graduation rate has gone down since then. But I don’t think any LACs are going back to test required because a decrease in applicants, including ED athletes, would not bode well for their survival.

I think it's self selection. I don't think SLACs have a problem of decreased applicant pool. They are really small, they can easily fill a class. But their policy favor athletes, FGLI, URM, legacy, e.g., institutional priorities.

DC is not applying to SLACs next year if they are not test required. But if any switches back to test required, DC will apply to it. Different policies attract different applicant pools.

So you won’t be applying. There’s really no reason for most of these LACs to go back to test required. The only school seriously looking at it is conservative CMC, because the republican student body wants less students of color and more men.

School caps at 10 applications in total. Can't waste any, knowing chances are small.

[Anonymous]

Amherst 2025 stats:

2 Fulbright research, 9 Fulbright teaching (meh), 1 Fulbright combined, 2 Gaither Fellowships, 2 Critical Language Scholarships, 1 Churchill Scholar, and 1 Rhodes Scholar. (https://www.amherst.edu/news/news_releases/2025/may/the-class-of-2025-and-commencement-by-the-numbers)

Sounds good enough to me. Or is Amherst troll at it again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amherst 2025 stats:

2 Fulbright research, 9 Fulbright teaching (meh), 1 Fulbright combined, 2 Gaither Fellowships, 2 Critical Language Scholarships, 1 Churchill Scholar, and 1 Rhodes Scholar. (https://www.amherst.edu/news/news_releases/2025/may/the-class-of-2025-and-commencement-by-the-numbers)

Sounds good enough to me. Or is Amherst troll at it again?

That's pretty bad for a top lac.
Williams: 1 FAO Schwarz fellow, 1 Critical Language Scholarship, 9 Fulbright teaching, 2 Fulbright research, 1 Fulbright masters, 3 NSF graduate fellowships, 2 Schwarzman scholars, 3 Gates Cambridge Scholars, plus many many more fellowships for post grad study at Cambridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst 2025 stats:

2 Fulbright research, 9 Fulbright teaching (meh), 1 Fulbright combined, 2 Gaither Fellowships, 2 Critical Language Scholarships, 1 Churchill Scholar, and 1 Rhodes Scholar. (https://www.amherst.edu/news/news_releases/2025/may/the-class-of-2025-and-commencement-by-the-numbers)

Sounds good enough to me. Or is Amherst troll at it again?

That's pretty bad for a top lac.
Williams: 1 FAO Schwarz fellow, 1 Critical Language Scholarship, 9 Fulbright teaching, 2 Fulbright research, 1 Fulbright masters, 3 NSF graduate fellowships, 2 Schwarzman scholars, 3 Gates Cambridge Scholars, plus many many more fellowships for post grad study at Cambridge.

0 Rhodes. Womp Womp, seems like a wash to me. Williams always felt like the slightly more academic of the two anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst 2025 stats:

2 Fulbright research, 9 Fulbright teaching (meh), 1 Fulbright combined, 2 Gaither Fellowships, 2 Critical Language Scholarships, 1 Churchill Scholar, and 1 Rhodes Scholar. (https://www.amherst.edu/news/news_releases/2025/may/the-class-of-2025-and-commencement-by-the-numbers)

Sounds good enough to me. Or is Amherst troll at it again?

That's pretty bad for a top lac.
Williams: 1 FAO Schwarz fellow, 1 Critical Language Scholarship, 9 Fulbright teaching, 2 Fulbright research, 1 Fulbright masters, 3 NSF graduate fellowships, 2 Schwarzman scholars, 3 Gates Cambridge Scholars, plus many many more fellowships for post grad study at Cambridge.

0 Rhodes. Womp Womp, seems like a wash to me. Williams always felt like the slightly more academic of the two anyways.

Williams stomps on Amherst in terms of number of Rhodes scholars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst 2025 stats:

2 Fulbright research, 9 Fulbright teaching (meh), 1 Fulbright combined, 2 Gaither Fellowships, 2 Critical Language Scholarships, 1 Churchill Scholar, and 1 Rhodes Scholar. (https://www.amherst.edu/news/news_releases/2025/may/the-class-of-2025-and-commencement-by-the-numbers)

Sounds good enough to me. Or is Amherst troll at it again?

That's pretty bad for a top lac.
Williams: 1 FAO Schwarz fellow, 1 Critical Language Scholarship, 9 Fulbright teaching, 2 Fulbright research, 1 Fulbright masters, 3 NSF graduate fellowships, 2 Schwarzman scholars, 3 Gates Cambridge Scholars, plus many many more fellowships for post grad study at Cambridge.

0 Rhodes. Womp Womp, seems like a wash to me. Williams always felt like the slightly more academic of the two anyways.

You're joking right? 3 Gates Cambridge scholars in one year is insane and much more impressive than a Rhodes scholar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the quality of students has gone down due to test optional - they are less prepared and motivated. Feeling this way as an alum and based on those that reach out to me.

I'm sure your feelings are based on empirical evidence and not cranky-old-manism.

I am sure you know tons of the new students yourself and see their GPA's and test scores too.

I have a DD at another WASP currently. She was valedictorian, scored in the mid-1500's on her SAT, and is otherwise tremendously accomplished. To my knowledge, the students at her college do not segregate themselves into test-submitters and test-optional applicants. Rather, everyone, according to her, is incredibly smart and came to college with a massively impressive resume. I've met several of them on my visits, and to my eyes they're much more impressive than the students at my T20 university in the 90's. Is there anything, beyond the shibboleth of "test optional", that suggests that the quality of students at WASP schools have gone down since 2020? Because they look like amazing kids from my perspective. DCUM commenters, on the other hand, frequently seem out of touch and quick to offer categorical opinions without an adequate basis.

+1

[Anonymous]

People will really reach to anything to shit on Amherst on this website. Get a hobby