Which among WASP would you choose to ED and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.

8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd

Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.

You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.

Evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.

8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd

Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.

You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.

Evidence?

You don’t seem to have reason to suspect other than contrarianism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.

8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd

Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.

You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.

Evidence?

You don’t seem to have reason to suspect other than contrarianism

Which translates to you have no evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/

Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate

Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate

Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate

Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate

Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate


Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.

In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.

Great to see actual data, thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.

8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd

Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.

You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.

Evidence?

You don’t seem to have reason to suspect other than contrarianism

Which translates to you have no evidence?

And you’re an unnecessary contrarian who has no source either?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams and Amherst boosters typically punch up and highlight comparisons to ivies; Bowdoin Wes Middlebury punch up with comparisons to Williams and Amherst. Rarely if never do you hear Williams or Amherst booster saying “we are just as good as Bowdoin or Middlebury!”

One thing about Pomona boosters: they don’t go there at all. They don’t need to, being in California. That’s part of the reason Pomona is so on the rise, with no end to that trajectory in sight.

Pomona to me is more of a direct peer or West Coast version of Haverford - not
any of the upper nescacs

If Williams is an east coast version of Occidental lmao. Maybe next Carleton will be a Midwest version of Hampshire!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/

Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate

Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate

Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate

Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate

Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate


Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.

In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.

Great to see actual data, thank you!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/

Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate

Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate

Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate

Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate

Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate


Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.

In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.

Thanks for this. But don’t they all have recruited athletes, except for maybe Pomona?

Yes, but Williams and Amherst (and Bowdoin) have nearly double the percentage of recruited athletes: 30+% vs. 17% Swarthmore and 8ish% Pomona. Significant difference.

I think Swat is higher than this but I get your point. Bowdoin is very high in recruited athletes, though.

I've seen 15-17% for recruited athletes at Swarthmore, on a few sites.

This website has 447/1626 = 27% https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details
Can’t use site for Pomona because it shares sports with Pitzer but Pomona is probably closer to the 17% you had for Swat
FWIW, Williams is 33% (680/2060) but 39% of males enrolled (388/1004)
Amherst is 32% (605/1907) but 40% of males enrolled (354/882)
Swat percentage males is more even, 29% (no football team)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/

Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate

Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate

Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate

Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate

Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate


Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.

In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.

Thanks for this. But don’t they all have recruited athletes, except for maybe Pomona?

Yes, but Williams and Amherst (and Bowdoin) have nearly double the percentage of recruited athletes: 30+% vs. 17% Swarthmore and 8ish% Pomona. Significant difference.

I think Swat is higher than this but I get your point. Bowdoin is very high in recruited athletes, though.

I've seen 15-17% for recruited athletes at Swarthmore, on a few sites.

This website has 447/1626 = 27% https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details
Can’t use site for Pomona because it shares sports with Pitzer but Pomona is probably closer to the 17% you had for Swat
FWIW, Williams is 33% (680/2060) but 39% of males enrolled (388/1004)
Amherst is 32% (605/1907) but 40% of males enrolled (354/882)
Swat percentage males is more even, 29% (no football team)

Pomona and Pitzer combined is 516/2798 or 18%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My eldest DS just graduated Williams and had a wonderful experience. Prof's were so kind and accessible, he was able to participate in quite a bit of research connected to his degree. In a job he's happy with now. No regrets.

I'm sure all the popular LACS are equally strong on academics and student experience.

My second two kids want nothing to do with being in a small LAC, so they're looking for much bigger schools!

Athlete? Thought I’d take the 4 in 10 chance on this. A professor there did not famously call it a “Nike camp with enrichment classes” without reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.

8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd

Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.

You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.

Evidence?

It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class

Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/

Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate

Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate

Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate

Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate

Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate


Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.

In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.

Why does Pomona take so few

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.

8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd

Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.

New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.

You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.

Evidence?

It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class

Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard

Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/

Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate

Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate

Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate

Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate

Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate


Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.

In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.

Why does Pomona take so few

They prefer DC private schools, and take from Maret

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/

Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate

Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate

Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate

Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate

Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate


Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.

In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.

Middlebury: 57/7/2 12% acceptance rate. That 5 of 7 accepted kids went elsewhere suggests they were RD admits, not ED.