WASPB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

yeah why are we worrying about these small guys? they're all nice but not really rankable objectively. big unis are more productive and easier to rank objectively. lacs are basically just cozy boarding schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

yeah why are we worrying about these small guys? they're all nice but not really rankable objectively. big unis are more productive and easier to rank objectively. lacs are basically just cozy boarding schools.

You cannot rank any of the top 20 or so universities or top 10 or so SLACs objectively. They all have similar student bodies, vast wealth, and excellent faculty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

yeah why are we worrying about these small guys? they're all nice but not really rankable objectively. big unis are more productive and easier to rank objectively. lacs are basically just cozy boarding schools.

You cannot rank any of the top 20 or so universities or top 10 or so SLACs objectively. They all have similar student bodies, vast wealth, and excellent faculty.

Then I suppose objective ranking starts at 21 or so for national universities and at around 11 for SLACs. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bucknell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

yeah why are we worrying about these small guys? they're all nice but not really rankable objectively. big unis are more productive and easier to rank objectively. lacs are basically just cozy boarding schools.

You cannot rank any of the top 20 or so universities or top 10 or so SLACs objectively. They all have similar student bodies, vast wealth, and excellent faculty.

Then I suppose objective ranking starts at 21 or so for national universities and at around 11 for SLACs. Got it.

Can't rank any of them in a deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner which results in an objectively accurate stack ranking. They are really in buckets, and the buckets overlap, and the schools within the buckets overlap to the point that there isn't any stack ranking that works. You're trying to be clever but....let's just say you aren't and leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

I completely agree with this, with one exception - Williams. That’s the one school that really is above the rest, and on par with HYPSM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

yeah why are we worrying about these small guys? they're all nice but not really rankable objectively. big unis are more productive and easier to rank objectively. lacs are basically just cozy boarding schools.

You cannot rank any of the top 20 or so universities or top 10 or so SLACs objectively. They all have similar student bodies, vast wealth, and excellent faculty.

Then I suppose objective ranking starts at 21 or so for national universities and at around 11 for SLACs. Got it.

Can't rank any of them in a deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner which results in an objectively accurate stack ranking. They are really in buckets, and the buckets overlap, and the schools within the buckets overlap to the point that there isn't any stack ranking that works. You're trying to be clever but....let's just say you aren't and leave it at that.

You wrote this phrase. Enough said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no "WASPB". It's just the usual annoying Bowdoin booster doing their thing.

The “B” word. Oh, no, you didn’t! Shame, shame, shame…

What’s wrong with Bates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no "WASPB". It's just the usual annoying Bowdoin booster doing their thing.

The “B” word. Oh, no, you didn’t! Shame, shame, shame…

What’s wrong with Bates?

Are you kidding? There’s a heck of a lot wrong with that there motel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

I completely agree with this, with one exception - Williams. That’s the one school that really is above the rest, and on par with HYPSM

While I agree that Williams is above the rest of these lacs, it's a far cry from HYPSM. It doesn't have nearly the resources or name cache or global rep as Harvard etc. It's kind of ridiculous to pretend it's on par.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

I completely agree with this, with one exception - Williams. That’s the one school that really is above the rest, and on par with HYPSM

Stop booster, just stop. You sound desperate and pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

I completely agree with this, with one exception - Williams. That’s the one school that really is above the rest, and on par with HYPSM

While I agree that Williams is above the rest of these lacs, it's a far cry from HYPSM. It doesn't have nearly the resources or name cache or global rep as Harvard etc. It's kind of ridiculous to pretend it's on par.

What is actually ridiculous is to try and pretend that the top SLACs aren't on par with any school. For non-engineering and CS subjects you will get a better education and experience at a top SLAC period. Former grad students, current R1 professors, research studies showing bias towards SLACs among the most educated, and even a recent article by a distinguished professor at a top R1 repeat this time and again but you just don't get it. Says far more about you than anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

I completely agree with this, with one exception - Williams. That’s the one school that really is above the rest, and on par with HYPSM

Not at all. Nowhere near the opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

yeah why are we worrying about these small guys? they're all nice but not really rankable objectively. big unis are more productive and easier to rank objectively. lacs are basically just cozy boarding schools.

You cannot rank any of the top 20 or so universities or top 10 or so SLACs objectively. They all have similar student bodies, vast wealth, and excellent faculty.

Then I suppose objective ranking starts at 21 or so for national universities and at around 11 for SLACs. Got it.

Can't rank any of them in a deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner which results in an objectively accurate stack ranking. They are really in buckets, and the buckets overlap, and the schools within the buckets overlap to the point that there isn't any stack ranking that works. You're trying to be clever but....let's just say you aren't and leave it at that.

You wrote this phrase. Enough said.

Yes I did. and the fact that I can write it and understand exactly what it means and how to execute it is why I make 7 figures and you .....are just you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LACs shouldn't be ranked. They're just small sidecars for unique experiences for students who value an intimate, niche experience. It's really not about better or worse. It's just what is your cup of tea.

Rankings matter more for big time R1 universities.

yeah why are we worrying about these small guys? they're all nice but not really rankable objectively. big unis are more productive and easier to rank objectively. lacs are basically just cozy boarding schools.

You cannot rank any of the top 20 or so universities or top 10 or so SLACs objectively. They all have similar student bodies, vast wealth, and excellent faculty.

Then I suppose objective ranking starts at 21 or so for national universities and at around 11 for SLACs. Got it.

Can't rank any of them in a deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner which results in an objectively accurate stack ranking. They are really in buckets, and the buckets overlap, and the schools within the buckets overlap to the point that there isn't any stack ranking that works. You're trying to be clever but....let's just say you aren't and leave it at that.

You wrote this phrase. Enough said.

Yes I did. and the fact that I can write it and understand exactly what it means and how to execute it is why I make 7 figures and you .....are just you.

Now that you have commented, readers will have to suffer the above phrase yet again. But while they can turn their eyes away, in horror, you will remain blissfully unaware of the nightmare in which your mind lives. Godspeed.