Most over-ranked/under-ranked LACS on USNWR?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

I would go so far as to say an applicant to the same law school with the same (very high) LSAT score and the same (very high) GPA would be in more or less equal position coming from a T30 LAC as a T5 LAC. More pressure perhaps on that T30 LAC applicant to show a high test score.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

Harvard vs Wake is extreme example. And the debate isn't really Williams vs. Denison either. The debate is #12 vs #28.

But even with Harvard vs Wake, yes, the top Wake students (the ones who are Ivy caliber but ended up at Wake for whatever reason) will end up with similar outcomes to the majority of Harvard/Ivy students. There just aren’t that many of them at Wake, so on average the Wake outcomes aren’t as good. But we aren’t talking about the students at the average.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

I would go so far as to say an applicant to the same law school with the same (very high) LSAT score and the same (very high) GPA would be in more or less equal position coming from a T30 LAC as a T5 LAC. More pressure perhaps on that T30 LAC applicant to show a high test score.

Law school isn’t the same as graduate programs. We’re talking about PhDs, not pre professional programs.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

Harvard vs Wake is extreme example. And the debate isn't really Williams vs. Denison either. The debate is #12 vs #28.

Wake forest was in the top 30 for three decades. The new ranking reflects changes with us news flavor of importance (dei)

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

I would go so far as to say an applicant to the same law school with the same (very high) LSAT score and the same (very high) GPA would be in more or less equal position coming from a T30 LAC as a T5 LAC. More pressure perhaps on that T30 LAC applicant to show a high test score.

Law school isn’t the same as graduate programs. We’re talking about PhDs, not pre professional programs.

Only 5-10% of students get PhDs. Who really cares? Even then, a brilliant kid will likely find his or her way to a top PhD program regardless of where the LAC ranked in USNWR.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

I would go so far as to say an applicant to the same law school with the same (very high) LSAT score and the same (very high) GPA would be in more or less equal position coming from a T30 LAC as a T5 LAC. More pressure perhaps on that T30 LAC applicant to show a high test score.

Law school isn’t the same as graduate programs. We’re talking about PhDs, not pre professional programs.

Only 5-10% of students get PhDs. Who really cares? Even then, a brilliant kid will likely find his or her way to a top PhD program regardless of where the LAC ranked in USNWR.

Np. A much higher percent get them out of lacs? That’s why it’s being brought up. It’s like you people just speak with no thoughts running through your head.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

Harvard vs Wake is extreme example. And the debate isn't really Williams vs. Denison either. The debate is #12 vs #28.

But even with Harvard vs Wake, yes, the top Wake students (the ones who are Ivy caliber but ended up at Wake for whatever reason) will end up with similar outcomes to the majority of Harvard/Ivy students. There just aren’t that many of them at Wake, so on average the Wake outcomes aren’t as good. But we aren’t talking about the students at the average.

my top stats kid applied to some T10 schools AND wake.....no harvard. absolutely would pick Wake over Harvard these days.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

I would go so far as to say an applicant to the same law school with the same (very high) LSAT score and the same (very high) GPA would be in more or less equal position coming from a T30 LAC as a T5 LAC. More pressure perhaps on that T30 LAC applicant to show a high test score.

Law school isn’t the same as graduate programs. We’re talking about PhDs, not pre professional programs.

Only 5-10% of students get PhDs. Who really cares? Even then, a brilliant kid will likely find his or her way to a top PhD program regardless of where the LAC ranked in USNWR.

Np. A much higher percent get them out of lacs? That’s why it’s being brought up. It’s like you people just speak with no thoughts running through your head.

At most it's like 15%. PhD participation is interesting but does not define how good a school is. The vast majority are going on to the work force or professional degrees. Very few parents are gunning for Williams so junior can get accepted into some ridiculous academic graduate program.

[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:

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:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

I would go so far as to say an applicant to the same law school with the same (very high) LSAT score and the same (very high) GPA would be in more or less equal position coming from a T30 LAC as a T5 LAC. More pressure perhaps on that T30 LAC applicant to show a high test score.

Law school isn’t the same as graduate programs. We’re talking about PhDs, not pre professional programs.

Only 5-10% of students get PhDs. Who really cares? Even then, a brilliant kid will likely find his or her way to a top PhD program regardless of where the LAC ranked in USNWR.

Np. A much higher percent get them out of lacs? That’s why it’s being brought up. It’s like you people just speak with no thoughts running through your head.

At most it's like 15%. PhD participation is interesting but does not define how good a school is. The vast majority are going on to the work force or professional degrees. Very few parents are gunning for Williams so junior can get accepted into some ridiculous academic graduate program.

Yeah cause it’s not about the parents. If everyone did what parents demanded we wouldn’t have humanities programs and no one would enter a PhD. Get over yourself.

[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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve seen an admissions committee bend a few rules for certain ivies and graduates of LACs that they’ve had great students from in the past. Hell, my Alma mater has a direct pipeline PhD program they ask their students to go to, because all the faculty have graduated from there, and quite a few come back to teach again at the same school. The faculty difference at LACs pulls its weight. I really don’t get your POV, because we all know a Harvard and Wake forest grad will not have close outcomes, even if the wake forest grad is top, but it’s all up for contention.

I would go so far as to say an applicant to the same law school with the same (very high) LSAT score and the same (very high) GPA would be in more or less equal position coming from a T30 LAC as a T5 LAC. More pressure perhaps on that T30 LAC applicant to show a high test score.

Law school isn’t the same as graduate programs. We’re talking about PhDs, not pre professional programs.

Only 5-10% of students get PhDs. Who really cares? Even then, a brilliant kid will likely find his or her way to a top PhD program regardless of where the LAC ranked in USNWR.

Np. A much higher percent get them out of lacs? That’s why it’s being brought up. It’s like you people just speak with no thoughts running through your head.

At most it's like 15%. PhD participation is interesting but does not define how good a school is. The vast majority are going on to the work force or professional degrees. Very few parents are gunning for Williams so junior can get accepted into some ridiculous academic graduate program.

Yeah cause it’s not about the parents. If everyone did what parents demanded we wouldn’t have humanities programs and no one would enter a PhD. Get over yourself.

Random deflection. The point is 85% plus of these students are not going to pursue a PhD program.

[Anonymous]

What about Soka University of America? I never hear a word about this school, but it's #45 in USNWR, tied with Kenyon, Sewanee, Dickinson, and Furman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about Soka University of America? I never hear a word about this school, but it's #45 in USNWR, tied with Kenyon, Sewanee, Dickinson, and Furman.

Ran by a cult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Soka University of America? I never hear a word about this school, but it's #45 in USNWR, tied with Kenyon, Sewanee, Dickinson, and Furman.

Ran by a cult.

Really? Graduation rate, retention rate look good, hence the ranking. Is that because once you're in you can't get out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Soka University of America? I never hear a word about this school, but it's #45 in USNWR, tied with Kenyon, Sewanee, Dickinson, and Furman.

Ran by a cult.

Really? Graduation rate, retention rate look good, hence the ranking. Is that because once you're in you can't get out?

Soka Gakkai controls Soka University. It's a cult.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

The Amherst kid with the goods is going to be looked at by grad school committees before a kid from a lower-ranked LAC. My kid who graduated from Amherst got interviewed/invited for a visit by every PhD program he applied to, and had multiple offers. His friends at other less well-known schools did not.