What's the difference between Amherst and Pomona?

[Anonymous]

As someone who knows these schools from the perspective of alum, spouse of alum (different WASP), parent of current WASP student, former employee at a WASP, and employer of multiple recent graduates from the Bowdoin/Carleton/Davidson/Bryn Mawr/CMC ranks, I really believe that the biggest distinguishing factor among all of these S/LACs is the strength and proximity of the 5Cs consortium. While there are parallels to be drawn in theory, in practice the 5Cs consortium is unique in American higher education. How you personally value that as a student or parent is wholly another thread…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

If it weren't for the ranking, I don't think you can pick the 8 out of rest, or it's just your opinion means nothing to others.

It's pretty simple. The 8 have the highest average test scores (and they had the highest test scores before TO), are among the oldest and most established schools in their regions, and are among the wealthiest schools of their type as measured by endowment. Their success rates in lucrative careers and graduate school admissions is well known with placement success as good as any school in many cases. The correlation is very tight. Does that make them the absolute 8 best, maybe, maybe not but they have all been considered the very best or among the very best by reputation for a long time. Six of them appeared in a Life magazine article of the best colleges and universities in 1960 (Pomona and Wellesley were omitted). It is my opinion, but it is an opinion grounded in thought and history rather than hysterical screaming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who knows these schools from the perspective of alum, spouse of alum (different WASP), parent of current WASP student, former employee at a WASP, and employer of multiple recent graduates from the Bowdoin/Carleton/Davidson/Bryn Mawr/CMC ranks, I really believe that the biggest distinguishing factor among all of these S/LACs is the strength and proximity of the 5Cs consortium. While there are parallels to be drawn in theory, in practice the 5Cs consortium is unique in American higher education. How you personally value that as a student or parent is wholly another thread…

The 5C consortium is pretty unique but it's not something that separates these school in any way in terms of quality.

[Anonymous]

Enough with this already, it's getting old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

If it weren't for the ranking, I don't think you can pick the 8 out of rest, or it's just your opinion means nothing to others.

It's pretty simple. The 8 have the highest average test scores (and they had the highest test scores before TO), are among the oldest and most established schools in their regions, and are among the wealthiest schools of their type as measured by endowment. Their success rates in lucrative careers and graduate school admissions is well known with placement success as good as any school in many cases. The correlation is very tight. Does that make them the absolute 8 best, maybe, maybe not but they have all been considered the very best or among the very best by reputation for a long time. Six of them appeared in a Life magazine article of the best colleges and universities in 1960 (Pomona and Wellesley were omitted). It is my opinion, but it is an opinion grounded in thought and history rather than hysterical screaming

Carleton's acceptance rate is 20% - not single digit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

If it weren't for the ranking, I don't think you can pick the 8 out of rest, or it's just your opinion means nothing to others.

It's pretty simple. The 8 have the highest average test scores (and they had the highest test scores before TO), are among the oldest and most established schools in their regions, and are among the wealthiest schools of their type as measured by endowment. Their success rates in lucrative careers and graduate school admissions is well known with placement success as good as any school in many cases. The correlation is very tight. Does that make them the absolute 8 best, maybe, maybe not but they have all been considered the very best or among the very best by reputation for a long time. Six of them appeared in a Life magazine article of the best colleges and universities in 1960 (Pomona and Wellesley were omitted). It is my opinion, but it is an opinion grounded in thought and history rather than hysterical screaming

Carleton's acceptance rate is 20% - not single digit.

The idea that acceptance rates signify excellence is pretty weak sauce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who knows these schools from the perspective of alum, spouse of alum (different WASP), parent of current WASP student, former employee at a WASP, and employer of multiple recent graduates from the Bowdoin/Carleton/Davidson/Bryn Mawr/CMC ranks, I really believe that the biggest distinguishing factor among all of these S/LACs is the strength and proximity of the 5Cs consortium. While there are parallels to be drawn in theory, in practice the 5Cs consortium is unique in American higher education. How you personally value that as a student or parent is wholly another thread…

The 5C consortium is pretty unique but it's not something that separates these school in any way in terms of quality.

How is something unique and not unique? Your comment makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

If it weren't for the ranking, I don't think you can pick the 8 out of rest, or it's just your opinion means nothing to others.

It's pretty simple. The 8 have the highest average test scores (and they had the highest test scores before TO), are among the oldest and most established schools in their regions, and are among the wealthiest schools of their type as measured by endowment. Their success rates in lucrative careers and graduate school admissions is well known with placement success as good as any school in many cases. The correlation is very tight. Does that make them the absolute 8 best, maybe, maybe not but they have all been considered the very best or among the very best by reputation for a long time. Six of them appeared in a Life magazine article of the best colleges and universities in 1960 (Pomona and Wellesley were omitted). It is my opinion, but it is an opinion grounded in thought and history rather than hysterical screaming

Most of you said are based on some kind of ranking, if you never attend those schools, you wouldn't have any thoughts but hysterical screaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who knows these schools from the perspective of alum, spouse of alum (different WASP), parent of current WASP student, former employee at a WASP, and employer of multiple recent graduates from the Bowdoin/Carleton/Davidson/Bryn Mawr/CMC ranks, I really believe that the biggest distinguishing factor among all of these S/LACs is the strength and proximity of the 5Cs consortium. While there are parallels to be drawn in theory, in practice the 5Cs consortium is unique in American higher education. How you personally value that as a student or parent is wholly another thread…

The 5C consortium is pretty unique but it's not something that separates these school in any way in terms of quality.

How is something unique and not unique? Your comment makes no sense.

Reading is fundamental. Uniqueness does not inherently convey quality. I hope you aren’t a graduate of a 5c. Not a good look for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

If it weren't for the ranking, I don't think you can pick the 8 out of rest, or it's just your opinion means nothing to others.

It's pretty simple. The 8 have the highest average test scores (and they had the highest test scores before TO), are among the oldest and most established schools in their regions, and are among the wealthiest schools of their type as measured by endowment. Their success rates in lucrative careers and graduate school admissions is well known with placement success as good as any school in many cases. The correlation is very tight. Does that make them the absolute 8 best, maybe, maybe not but they have all been considered the very best or among the very best by reputation for a long time. Six of them appeared in a Life magazine article of the best colleges and universities in 1960 (Pomona and Wellesley were omitted). It is my opinion, but it is an opinion grounded in thought and history rather than hysterical screaming

Most of you said are based on some kind of ranking, if you never attend those schools, you wouldn't have any thoughts but hysterical screaming.

Is English your first language? You were completely incoherent. None of the above is ranking, it is grouping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who knows these schools from the perspective of alum, spouse of alum (different WASP), parent of current WASP student, former employee at a WASP, and employer of multiple recent graduates from the Bowdoin/Carleton/Davidson/Bryn Mawr/CMC ranks, I really believe that the biggest distinguishing factor among all of these S/LACs is the strength and proximity of the 5Cs consortium. While there are parallels to be drawn in theory, in practice the 5Cs consortium is unique in American higher education. How you personally value that as a student or parent is wholly another thread…

The 5C consortium is pretty unique but it's not something that separates these school in any way in terms of quality.

How is something unique and not unique? Your comment makes no sense.

Reading is fundamental. Uniqueness does not inherently convey quality. I hope you aren’t a graduate of a 5c. Not a good look for them.

So what does it do? Like what would be the purpose of calling the consortium unique just to then walk back on it…? That seems, well, incoherent and mostly like you wanted to diss Pomona or wherever without being explicit.

At best your point is obtuse and pedantic. Either the consortium is unique or isn’t. I’d say it’s pretty damn hard to argue having a top engineering lac that lets you take engineering, CS, physics, math and climate science courses next to a school dedicated to finance and government and a general liberal arts college is not unique and a good quality choice. There just are curricular options in the Claremont schools that are unique to it, and I think downplaying that is, well, incorrect. Unless quality means nothing to you at all, which could be possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

So endowment per student only matters selectively when lac parents can use it to support the heir arguments but somehow doesn’t matter when distinguishing these colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

If it weren't for the ranking, I don't think you can pick the 8 out of rest, or it's just your opinion means nothing to others.

It's pretty simple. The 8 have the highest average test scores (and they had the highest test scores before TO), are among the oldest and most established schools in their regions, and are among the wealthiest schools of their type as measured by endowment. Their success rates in lucrative careers and graduate school admissions is well known with placement success as good as any school in many cases. The correlation is very tight. Does that make them the absolute 8 best, maybe, maybe not but they have all been considered the very best or among the very best by reputation for a long time. Six of them appeared in a Life magazine article of the best colleges and universities in 1960 (Pomona and Wellesley were omitted). It is my opinion, but it is an opinion grounded in thought and history rather than hysterical screaming

Most of you said are based on some kind of ranking, if you never attend those schools, you wouldn't have any thoughts but hysterical screaming.

Is English your first language? You were completely incoherent. None of the above is ranking, it is grouping.

Sorry, it's math, grouping is ranking too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I really preferred Pomona to Amherst when I toured last year and in '23 with two different kids. Amherst does indeed look ... if not dumpy, not investing in their campus.

Pomona is the king of dumpy. Many buildings are 100+ years old and look it. There’s no up-to-date buildings on campus, and some classes even happen outside because they’re lacking space! Would not attend.

You’ve never been to Pomona lol.

Pomona looks like a Taco Bell complex with no green space. Why attend when you can go to a beautiful New England college with better name recognition

This would make sense if the comparison was Yale or Princeton, but Amherst…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I really preferred Pomona to Amherst when I toured last year and in '23 with two different kids. Amherst does indeed look ... if not dumpy, not investing in their campus.

Pomona is the king of dumpy. Many buildings are 100+ years old and look it. There’s no up-to-date buildings on campus, and some classes even happen outside because they’re lacking space! Would not attend.

You’ve never been to Pomona lol.

Pomona looks like a Taco Bell complex with no green space. Why attend when you can go to a beautiful New England college with better name recognition

This would make sense if the comparison was Yale or Princeton, but Amherst…

It doesn’t make sense at all. Pomona isn’t Taco Bell architecture, that’d be Stanford or USC. The whole modern red roof-brown paint aesthetic. Pomona is cream colored for the most part. And the whole area is very green; the campus is covered with trees. Obviously not as verdant as Amherst in the summer but definitely not lacking in greenery by any means.