The rigor of LACs

[Anonymous]

What makes Amherst and Pomona less rigorous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If rigor is defined as workload, I don't think there's a meaningful difference among the top LACs. For instance, Pomona and Swat have an exchange program and, by most reports, the workload is the same. Both are great schools, but Pomona is culturally akin to Stanford--it's culturally laidback but there is a little bit of the duck syndrome in which the easygoing attitude we see above the water belies the furious paddling underneath. Swat is more like Chicago, where there's long been a culture of outward intellectual bootcampism. I think both schools are fantastic. My DS initially committed to Swarthmore but decided to go to Pomona for geographic reasons. And, FWIW, DS studies a ton (so much reading) and much more than I did at my T20 undergrad.

You wouldn't go to Pomona expecting to get any of the work done at the level of Swarthmore.There's a big difference in rigor like comparing UIowa to Princeton.

It's hard to have a discussion when one's interlocutor communicates exclusively in sweeping conclusions. But, for the record, consider my DS as one datapoint against your theory. And, again, there's an exchange program between the two schools. I've never heard anyone participant claim that Pomona is a cakewalk compared to Swat. Rather, the anecdotal reports are that the two schools have similar workloads but somewhat different cultures--both lean more intellectual/academic/progressive than preprofessional/preppy but Pomona is more laidback and Swat is more outwardly "intense." My impression is that putting aside location and the 5C Consortium, Pomona and Swat are similar as any two LACs in the top 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a few LACs known for their intense rigor such as Harvey Mudd, Reed, and Swarthmore, but really how much more rigorous is Swarthmore to Amherst or Harvey Mudd math to Pomona Math? Obviously, there are big differences between these hard schools and the non-rigorous top lacs like Pomona, Amherst, and Bowdoin, but do you think there are some LACs that are underrated for their rigor and intensity?

I have taken math classes at Harvey Mudd and Pomona. No difference in rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes Amherst and Pomona less rigorous?

It's just another random thought thrown around on this forum by people who know nothing about either school; pay it no mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If rigor is defined as workload, I don't think there's a meaningful difference among the top LACs. For instance, Pomona and Swat have an exchange program and, by most reports, the workload is the same. Both are great schools, but Pomona is culturally akin to Stanford--it's culturally laidback but there is a little bit of the duck syndrome in which the easygoing attitude we see above the water belies the furious paddling underneath. Swat is more like Chicago, where there's long been a culture of outward intellectual bootcampism. I think both schools are fantastic. My DS initially committed to Swarthmore but decided to go to Pomona for geographic reasons. And, FWIW, DS studies a ton (so much reading) and much more than I did at my T20 undergrad.

+1

[Anonymous]

My DD is at Swat. It's more academically intense than my SLAC was, and also a lot less social. The students tend to be pretty serious about their studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that most accredited colleges, LAC or otherwise, offer students more educational opportunities than they can take advantage of. I think that the quality of education any student at any college receives is determined more by the extent to which they apply themselves and take advantage of those opportunities than by the name of the institution awarding their diploma. Therefore, I think it is better to find the best college for a student, that will best motivate and facilitate that particular student, than to assume that some published ranking of “best” colleges will provide that particular student with the best outcome.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

A better undergraduate education? Probably not. What would actually make you believe that you would get a better education at either school? The faculty aren't superior for undergraduate teaching than at a top SLAC. The resources aren't superior to a top SLAC. The student bodies are basically identical to those at a top SLAC. The class sizes are smaller at a top SLAC. The access to professors is actually better at a top SLAC. The access to research opportunities that are actually appropriate to level of experience are typically higher at a top SLAC. Overall a top SLAC provides a superior educational environment for student outside of those looking to study CS or engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes Amherst and Pomona less rigorous?

The blithering of the troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes Amherst and Pomona less rigorous?

They aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that most accredited colleges, LAC or otherwise, offer students more educational opportunities than they can take advantage of. I think that the quality of education any student at any college receives is determined more by the extent to which they apply themselves and take advantage of those opportunities than by the name of the institution awarding their diploma. Therefore, I think it is better to find the best college for a student, that will best motivate and facilitate that particular student, than to assume that some published ranking of “best” colleges will provide that particular student with the best outcome.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

A better undergraduate education? Probably not. What would actually make you believe that you would get a better education at either school? The faculty aren't superior for undergraduate teaching than at a top SLAC. The resources aren't superior to a top SLAC. The student bodies are basically identical to those at a top SLAC. The class sizes are smaller at a top SLAC. The access to professors is actually better at a top SLAC. The access to research opportunities that are actually appropriate to level of experience are typically higher at a top SLAC. Overall a top SLAC provides a superior educational environment for student outside of those looking to study CS or engineering.

The research opportunities available are significantly less, and there's also much better undergraduate teaching at Stanford and especially MIT than at these SLACs for STEM subjects. I'm sorry, but you seem more biased than anything else; MIT is pretty much the gold standard for providing STEM education with significant depth and breadth, while also maintaining work that an undergraduate student can handle, often pushing more towards graduate level education in its problem sets and pedagogy. SLACs are great if you aren't sure you want to do STEM and need 1-on-1 to solidify your choice, but if you know what you're getting into, you have a much better experience and education coming out of Stanford or MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that most accredited colleges, LAC or otherwise, offer students more educational opportunities than they can take advantage of. I think that the quality of education any student at any college receives is determined more by the extent to which they apply themselves and take advantage of those opportunities than by the name of the institution awarding their diploma. Therefore, I think it is better to find the best college for a student, that will best motivate and facilitate that particular student, than to assume that some published ranking of “best” colleges will provide that particular student with the best outcome.

What a ridiculous statement. You're going to get a better education at Stanford or MIT than Williams.

That is a ridiculous comment.

[Anonymous]

Professors are not going to dumb down their subject because an anonymous troll thinks there is a strict hierarchy of rigor among U.S. colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few LACs are anywhere near the rigor of top engineering universities. That's what happens when your school is mostly "soft" subjects.

Bull crap.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes Amherst and Pomona less rigorous?

Amherst isn’t about the rigor it’s about the pipeline to the street!

[Anonymous]

It’s insane how overrated Williams is just because USNews ranks it 1st