WASPB

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were properly educated you would understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were properly educated you would understand it.

”deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner”

The nightmare continues…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were properly educated you would understand it.

”deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner”

The nightmare continues…

DP

They transposed two words but MECE is a foundational consulting approach to achieving deterministic results. Their point is correct.

[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.

Cache of what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were properly educated you would understand it.

”deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner”

The nightmare continues…

DP

They transposed two words but MECE is a foundational consulting approach to achieving deterministic results. Their point is correct.

Your phrase is barely an “improvement.” The “point” — apparently lost on you - is that there is no there there.

But forget WASPB. Now we have DMEECM. Or should it be FCAADR?

Figure this out with your little friend, then get back to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were properly educated you would understand it.

”deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner”

The nightmare continues…

DP

They transposed two words but MECE is a foundational consulting approach to achieving deterministic results. Their point is correct.

Your phrase is barely an “improvement.” The “point” — apparently lost on you - is that there is no there there.

But forget WASPB. Now we have DMEECM. Or should it be FCAADR?

Figure this out with your little friend, then get back to me.

Not my phrase, it is a McKinsey concept, one that seemingly distresses you. Don’t know my “little friend” as you named them but probably a consultant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were properly educated you would understand it.

”deterministic mutually exclusive exhaustively comprehensive manner”

The nightmare continues…

DP

They transposed two words but MECE is a foundational consulting approach to achieving deterministic results. Their point is correct.

Your phrase is barely an “improvement.” The “point” — apparently lost on you - is that there is no there there.

But forget WASPB. Now we have DMEECM. Or should it be FCAADR?

Figure this out with your little friend, then get back to me.

Not my phrase, it is a McKinsey concept, one that seemingly distresses you. Don’t know my “little friend” as you named them but probably a consultant.

Yes, and I get the gist that you “McKinsey” folk think objective college rankings are impossible, so you are completely worthless on this front. Let me give you a hint: epistemology and ontology are not a McKinsey construct. In other words, stay in your fool’s gold lane. And don’t sell yourself short: you have undoubtedly met several incarnations of your “little friend” many times before, if only in the bathroom mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does WASPB stand for?

seriously? you couldn't google this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does WASPB stand for?

seriously? you couldn't google this?

It’s far more complicated than that, as McKinsey will tell you for top dollar. Above all, it’s a DMEECM issue.