Changes in LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona
Claremont McKenna
Wesleyan
Vassar
Haverford
are the schools I see on the rise right now. Wesleyan has invested a ton into new campus resources that go understated on DCUM. Vassar's rank has shot up, and it has improved its financial aid. Haverford will hopefully reel in since its days when its rigor was seen as on the level or even harder than Swarthmore.

Wesleyan's endowment will be subject to tax.

It has a total of 3,253 students, including undergraduate and graduate students. Specifically, there are 3,069 undergraduate students and 184 graduate students.

It's for 3000+ tuition paying students. If Wes gives more students aid or admits more Pell grant students, they'll fall below the 3000 threshold and not pay the extra tax. Better they use it on needy students, and not just give to government.

Speaking of Wesleyan, anyone have insight into the culture! Whenever it’s brought up, people talk about the stats needed to get in, but I really haven’t seen any discussion on the community that exists inside?! Or even really the opportunities- people bring up Lin Manuel Miranda, but he’s not gonna be teaching DD’s classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Way too behind. Starting a school in engineering right now is completely useless- you can never have enough faculty for specialities nor get the research funding/grants that top universities and state schools have. Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math. LACs have a niche, and that niche is served well. For every lac, you run the issue that there a finite amount of lab space and research funding you can spend on STEM.

Harvey Mudd's claim to fame is engineering, and 30% of their class per year is majoring in engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Way too behind. Starting a school in engineering right now is completely useless- you can never have enough faculty for specialities nor get the research funding/grants that top universities and state schools have. Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math. LACs have a niche, and that niche is served well. For every lac, you run the issue that there a finite amount of lab space and research funding you can spend on STEM.

Harvey Mudd's claim to fame is engineering, and 30% of their class per year is majoring in engineering.

It’s much more well known for CS and physics. It literally doesn’t have the engineering specialties to be known for engineering.

Is it noted for being an LAC with engineering? Yes, but that’s not a competitive field. Harvey mudd clears for CS and physics PhDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Way too behind. Starting a school in engineering right now is completely useless- you can never have enough faculty for specialities nor get the research funding/grants that top universities and state schools have. Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math. LACs have a niche, and that niche is served well. For every lac, you run the issue that there a finite amount of lab space and research funding you can spend on STEM.

Harvey Mudd's claim to fame is engineering, and 30% of their class per year is majoring in engineering.

It’s much more well known for CS and physics. It literally doesn’t have the engineering specialties to be known for engineering.

Is it noted for being an LAC with engineering? Yes, but that’s not a competitive field. Harvey mudd clears for CS and physics PhDs.

It's concerning how few Harvey Mudd students major in subjects other than cs and engineering. What's wrong with the natural sciences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Way too behind. Starting a school in engineering right now is completely useless- you can never have enough faculty for specialities nor get the research funding/grants that top universities and state schools have. Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math. LACs have a niche, and that niche is served well. For every lac, you run the issue that there a finite amount of lab space and research funding you can spend on STEM.

I don’t get people on dcum. They’re hellbent on every lac just becoming a research university. It’s okay to decide against an LAC and go on with life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Way too behind. Starting a school in engineering right now is completely useless- you can never have enough faculty for specialities nor get the research funding/grants that top universities and state schools have. Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math. LACs have a niche, and that niche is served well. For every lac, you run the issue that there a finite amount of lab space and research funding you can spend on STEM.

Harvey Mudd's claim to fame is engineering, and 30% of their class per year is majoring in engineering.

It’s much more well known for CS and physics. It literally doesn’t have the engineering specialties to be known for engineering.

Is it noted for being an LAC with engineering? Yes, but that’s not a competitive field. Harvey mudd clears for CS and physics PhDs.

Yes, Mudd is good in CS and Physics, but no one can refute that they are good at engineering too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Way too behind. Starting a school in engineering right now is completely useless- you can never have enough faculty for specialities nor get the research funding/grants that top universities and state schools have. Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math. LACs have a niche, and that niche is served well. For every lac, you run the issue that there a finite amount of lab space and research funding you can spend on STEM.

Harvey Mudd's claim to fame is engineering, and 30% of their class per year is majoring in engineering.

It’s much more well known for CS and physics. It literally doesn’t have the engineering specialties to be known for engineering.

Is it noted for being an LAC with engineering? Yes, but that’s not a competitive field. Harvey mudd clears for CS and physics PhDs.

It's concerning how few Harvey Mudd students major in subjects other than cs and engineering. What's wrong with the natural sciences?

The class size is hardly 230. Their students do major in natural sciences like Physics and Chemistry. Those students go on to study PhD too. Maybe the count is not high in percentages as compared to Engineering, and CS, but a significant percentage do major in natural sciences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Way too behind. Starting a school in engineering right now is completely useless- you can never have enough faculty for specialities nor get the research funding/grants that top universities and state schools have. Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math. LACs have a niche, and that niche is served well. For every lac, you run the issue that there a finite amount of lab space and research funding you can spend on STEM.

Harvey Mudd's claim to fame is engineering, and 30% of their class per year is majoring in engineering.

It’s much more well known for CS and physics. It literally doesn’t have the engineering specialties to be known for engineering.

Is it noted for being an LAC with engineering? Yes, but that’s not a competitive field. Harvey mudd clears for CS and physics PhDs.

It's concerning how few Harvey Mudd students major in subjects other than cs and engineering. What's wrong with the natural sciences?

The class size is hardly 230. Their students do major in natural sciences like Physics and Chemistry. Those students go on to study PhD too. Maybe the count is not high in percentages as compared to Engineering, and CS, but a significant percentage do major in natural sciences.

It’s around 1-2%. That’s really poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A majority of LACs will not experience the endowment tax and have not experienced many research cuts from the government. They seem like they could gain a bit of popularity if they invest in student experience. What LACs do you see rising/have continued to rise? For example, some people think Pomona is Williams and Amherst level, which is REALLY surprising, since it was a party school for dolts when I was applying to college!

Some people have never heard of WASP. Who’s the dolt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more LACs need to strengthen in engineering and CS in order to rise in popularity.

Harvey Mudd is well positioned to rise. And other STEM-oriented LACs like Carleton. Swarthmore too. Wes is also strong in STEM.

Way too behind. Starting a school in engineering right now is completely useless- you can never have enough faculty for specialities nor get the research funding/grants that top universities and state schools have. Both mudd and swarthmore hardly have that many engineering majors compared to cs or math. LACs have a niche, and that niche is served well. For every lac, you run the issue that there a finite amount of lab space and research funding you can spend on STEM.

Harvey Mudd's claim to fame is engineering, and 30% of their class per year is majoring in engineering.

It’s much more well known for CS and physics. It literally doesn’t have the engineering specialties to be known for engineering.

Is it noted for being an LAC with engineering? Yes, but that’s not a competitive field. Harvey mudd clears for CS and physics PhDs.

Yes, Mudd is good in CS and Physics, but no one can refute that they are good at engineering too.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona
Claremont McKenna
Wesleyan
Vassar
Haverford
are the schools I see on the rise right now. Wesleyan has invested a ton into new campus resources that go understated on DCUM. Vassar's rank has shot up, and it has improved its financial aid. Haverford will hopefully reel in since its days when its rigor was seen as on the level or even harder than Swarthmore.

Wesleyan's endowment will be subject to tax.

It has a total of 3,253 students, including undergraduate and graduate students. Specifically, there are 3,069 undergraduate students and 184 graduate students.

It's for 3000+ tuition paying students. If Wes gives more students aid or admits more Pell grant students, they'll fall below the 3000 threshold and not pay the extra tax. Better they use it on needy students, and not just give to government.

It's silly. Wesleyan is a LAC. They need to give more aid to needy students but Williams and Amherst do not? The Williams endowment per student is three times that of Wesleyan. It's over 1.4 million per student. Talk about ability to help needy students.

This tax is just some kind of arbitrary garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona
Claremont McKenna
Wesleyan
Vassar
Haverford
are the schools I see on the rise right now. Wesleyan has invested a ton into new campus resources that go understated on DCUM. Vassar's rank has shot up, and it has improved its financial aid. Haverford will hopefully reel in since its days when its rigor was seen as on the level or even harder than Swarthmore.

Wesleyan's endowment will be subject to tax.

It has a total of 3,253 students, including undergraduate and graduate students. Specifically, there are 3,069 undergraduate students and 184 graduate students.

It's for 3000+ tuition paying students. If Wes gives more students aid or admits more Pell grant students, they'll fall below the 3000 threshold and not pay the extra tax. Better they use it on needy students, and not just give to government.

It's silly. Wesleyan is a LAC. They need to give more aid to needy students but Williams and Amherst do not? The Williams endowment per student is three times that of Wesleyan. It's over 1.4 million per student. Talk about ability to help needy students.

This tax is just some kind of arbitrary garbage.

Why should Williams pay the tax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reed could see a real rise. The college is finally improving its retention and graduation issues, the school is in a beautiful location, and the faculty continue to be extremely strong while also improving its endowment.

+1, I’ve seen a lot of improvement, since when DD1 was applying. It’s a great school, but it needs to modernize a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona
Claremont McKenna
Wesleyan
Vassar
Haverford
are the schools I see on the rise right now. Wesleyan has invested a ton into new campus resources that go understated on DCUM. Vassar's rank has shot up, and it has improved its financial aid. Haverford will hopefully reel in since its days when its rigor was seen as on the level or even harder than Swarthmore.

Wesleyan's endowment will be subject to tax.

It has a total of 3,253 students, including undergraduate and graduate students. Specifically, there are 3,069 undergraduate students and 184 graduate students.

It's for 3000+ tuition paying students. If Wes gives more students aid or admits more Pell grant students, they'll fall below the 3000 threshold and not pay the extra tax. Better they use it on needy students, and not just give to government.

It's silly. Wesleyan is a LAC. They need to give more aid to needy students but Williams and Amherst do not? The Williams endowment per student is three times that of Wesleyan. It's over 1.4 million per student. Talk about ability to help needy students.

This tax is just some kind of arbitrary garbage.

Why should Williams pay the tax?

They're hoarding wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona
Claremont McKenna
Wesleyan
Vassar
Haverford
are the schools I see on the rise right now. Wesleyan has invested a ton into new campus resources that go understated on DCUM. Vassar's rank has shot up, and it has improved its financial aid. Haverford will hopefully reel in since its days when its rigor was seen as on the level or even harder than Swarthmore.

Wesleyan's endowment will be subject to tax.

It has a total of 3,253 students, including undergraduate and graduate students. Specifically, there are 3,069 undergraduate students and 184 graduate students.

It's for 3000+ tuition paying students. If Wes gives more students aid or admits more Pell grant students, they'll fall below the 3000 threshold and not pay the extra tax. Better they use it on needy students, and not just give to government.

It's silly. Wesleyan is a LAC. They need to give more aid to needy students but Williams and Amherst do not? The Williams endowment per student is three times that of Wesleyan. It's over 1.4 million per student. Talk about ability to help needy students.

This tax is just some kind of arbitrary garbage.

Why should Williams pay the tax?

They're hoarding wealth.

In what way? They use a significant endowment withdraw to support the institution. Many sources point to it having the best financial aid program in the country.