where would Williams and Amherst rank in the ivy league..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:please - the former CEO of Eli Lilly attended Williams and the former CEO of Amgen attended Bowdoin. SLACs punch well above their weight with biotech outcomes

2 grads in former positions? Harvard has 100s of biotech alum CEOs, founders, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

Why are you so obsessed with putting other schools down? What pleasure does it give you in life? Is there nothing else you could spend your time doing?

time spent preventing kids from making bad slac decisions is worthwhile. luckily most of them are already smart enough to realize this hence the piss poor yield at williams and amherst among other slacs

You're not saying anything of worth, though, just "liberal arts colleges are bad."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

Why are you so obsessed with putting other schools down? What pleasure does it give you in life? Is there nothing else you could spend your time doing?

time spent preventing kids from making bad slac decisions is worthwhile. luckily most of them are already smart enough to realize this hence the piss poor yield at williams and amherst among other slacs

You're not saying anything of worth, though, just "liberal arts colleges are bad."

spend this energy on making SLACs relevant outside of this board in an increasingly stem focused society

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:please - the former CEO of Eli Lilly attended Williams and the former CEO of Amgen attended Bowdoin. SLACs punch well above their weight with biotech outcomes

Is this an AI hallucination? No CEO of Eli Lilly went to Williams College. The current CEO of Amgen attended Amherst, none attended Bowdoin.
I didn't know there were AI bots on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

On top of these, then you have the culture issue.

At R1 Us with huge premed population, the culture tends to be toxic, competitive.
At lacs it's more collaborative.

Premed should be viewed as an investment, a huge one.
Risk management comes in play when you are investing a large amount of capital.

What are they going to do at a R1 U when they are weeded out? With a biology degree (most premed weedouts), you will be thinking research, perhaps a Ph.D down the road. That's a rather poor investment for your 99K per year tuition. That should be done in your in-state flagship then goes on to MIT for Ph.D., not at a private college.

Prestige matters very very little for premed. Sure no one heard about "Haverford" and every one knows Harvard. It doesn't matter once you have the M.D.

As I just posted, the world doesn't end for biology grads at the top colleges. There's more to the world than graduate training.

Another issue is that many (not all) premed kids are interested in a medical career, but not in a research career. Some of them may feel miserable doing wet lab. For these kids the research option is not a natural one. Outside the very top colleges, premed weedouts more often switch to other pre-health fields such as PA and nursing. Again, this is an investment decision. Do you really want to pay 99K per year for a nursing degree, while your in-state flagship provides the same or higher quality nursing program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

Why are you so obsessed with putting other schools down? What pleasure does it give you in life? Is there nothing else you could spend your time doing?

time spent preventing kids from making bad slac decisions is worthwhile. luckily most of them are already smart enough to realize this hence the piss poor yield at williams and amherst among other slacs

You're not saying anything of worth, though, just "liberal arts colleges are bad."

spend this energy on making SLACs relevant outside of this board in an increasingly stem focused society

My recent SLAC grad DC is making six figures in his first job out of college; the "relevance" of his school clearly didn't matter much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

On top of these, then you have the culture issue.

At R1 Us with huge premed population, the culture tends to be toxic, competitive.
At lacs it's more collaborative.

Premed should be viewed as an investment, a huge one.
Risk management comes in play when you are investing a large amount of capital.

What are they going to do at a R1 U when they are weeded out? With a biology degree (most premed weedouts), you will be thinking research, perhaps a Ph.D down the road. That's a rather poor investment for your 99K per year tuition. That should be done in your in-state flagship then goes on to MIT for Ph.D., not at a private college.

Prestige matters very very little for premed. Sure no one heard about "Haverford" and every one knows Harvard. It doesn't matter once you have the M.D.

As I just posted, the world doesn't end for biology grads at the top colleges. There's more to the world than graduate training.

Another issue is that many (not all) premed kids are interested in a medical career, but not in a research career. Some of them may feel miserable doing wet lab. For these kids the research option is not a natural one. Outside the very top colleges, premed weedouts more often switch to other pre-health fields such as PA and nursing. Again, this is an investment decision. Do you really want to pay 99K per year for a nursing degree, while your in-state flagship provides the same or higher quality nursing program?

I can't help you with baseless assertions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:please - the former CEO of Eli Lilly attended Williams and the former CEO of Amgen attended Bowdoin. SLACs punch well above their weight with biotech outcomes

Is this an AI hallucination? No CEO of Eli Lilly went to Williams College. The current CEO of Amgen attended Amherst, none attended Bowdoin.
I didn't know there were AI bots on DCUM.

wow SLAC alumni suck at researching. Imagine that

[Anonymous]

this thread has done amazing damage to the already declining relevance of LACs. fascinating to see

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:please - the former CEO of Eli Lilly attended Williams and the former CEO of Amgen attended Bowdoin. SLACs punch well above their weight with biotech outcomes

Is this an AI hallucination? No CEO of Eli Lilly went to Williams College. The current CEO of Amgen attended Amherst, none attended Bowdoin.
I didn't know there were AI bots on DCUM.

wow SLAC alumni suck at researching. Imagine that

And you suck at being a well-adjusted, normal human being. Oh well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:please - the former CEO of Eli Lilly attended Williams and the former CEO of Amgen attended Bowdoin. SLACs punch well above their weight with biotech outcomes

CEO of Pfizer attended Swarthmore and biotech firm Orna Therapeutics CEO attended Williams. These are the best of the best!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this thread has done amazing damage to the already declining relevance of LACs. fascinating to see

Not as much damage as your idiotic comments have done to your reputation

[Anonymous]

Pomona College grads have a pretty strong track record in biotech, especially Jennifer Doudna, who helped start several major CRISPR companies like Caribou Biosciences, Editas Medicine, Intellia Therapeutics, Scribe Therapeutics, and Mammoth Biosciences, along with Osman Kibar, the founder of regenerative-medicine company Biosplice Therapeutics. Amherst College grads, like David Sable, co-founder of Hydrosat, which uses satellite imagery for agricultural insights, are also active in health and biotech, though there aren’t as many well-known biotech startups from Amherst as there are from Pomona.

[Anonymous]

I like how people here casually act as if the majority of the world has terrible colleges for teaching, since most countries have no need or reasons for LACs. Research universities are the best model everywhere else and universities like Oxford, Cambridge, ETH Zurich, PSL all operate without needing to be tiny colleges with little research opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like how people here casually act as if the majority of the world has terrible colleges for teaching, since most countries have no need or reasons for LACs. Research universities are the best model everywhere else and universities like Oxford, Cambridge, ETH Zurich, PSL all operate without needing to be tiny colleges with little research opportunity.

The model is different. Germany for example, all universities are state-funded. In many countries they have teaching faculty that are more focused on teaching the undergraduates. Their research universities' experience resembles more of a liberal arts education.

In US, the professors are a lot more focused on writing grants, and managing their postdocs and graduate students. It's more like a sweat shop if you ever worked in a lab, the owner (the professor) has to spent a lot of time working in "his" or "her" own shop. Teaching is a side kick.