Are Asian Americans not interested in top SLACs?

[Anonymous]

*above any public one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HYPSM or bust status chasing.

That's why.

SLACs are considered below top50 national universities

Most combined rankings have at least 10 LACs represented in the top 50 colleges in the USA.

The top 5 LACs (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, and Bowdoin) are as difficult to get into as a top 20 national university.

So what is this based off?

Lol no way. SLACs are just another four years of high school. No seriously competitive students would even consider applying there. They purposely designed them differently from nationally universities -making it hard to directly compare - so that academically mediocre students can find their crushed confidence back. These students have no business with top national universities even if they try.

Are you trolling? The caliber of a students attending the elite LACs is extremely high. Many of them have under a 10% acceptance rate.

Did you go to a SLAC? No wonder you can’t assess things critically. Acceptance rate fat Fromm the golden rule for college selectivity due to self selection bias.

Well you sound pretty illiterate.

That was iPhone autocorrect. Another evidence that you are too superficial to have any business with top national universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that SLACs will be the next white people’s hiring pool (like the Ivies once were) now that the Ivies are letting in so many people from outside the old boy white people club.

I don’t think that’s how it should be but I would not be surprised.

It’s already so, IFYKYK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The average SAT and ACT for enrolled students is comparable to any top private university, and any public one.

The point about acceptance rate is that these schools have tons of viable candidates to pick between. You cannot get into Williams unless you are a top student academically.

SAT is just a baseline that top colleges look at. There are way more things that a competitive student needs to show their talents and effort in order to get admitted . This is exactly why SLACs are just a Mickey Mouse when it comes to student quality comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Best Undergraduate CS programs
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1156992.page

Only one SLAC in like top 80 not to mention engineering.

SLACs are not to be taken seriously.

You really expect top administrators to be familiar with specific departments at schools where publishing isn't the priority? How would they be?

The most objective third party data that exists is from the NSF when detailing undergrad origins of PhD programs. CS PhD programs pick only the best and skew towards top LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Best Undergraduate CS programs
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1156992.page

Only one SLAC in like top 80 not to mention engineering.

SLACs are not to be taken seriously.

Says someone who takes USNews surveys seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian Americans don't have to/want to pay 90K/year for the privilege of pretending their kids attend some exotic no-name small LAC.

Besides, public universities are cheaper and offer better STEM majors.

+1000

Asians have grit. We are strong and don't need the relentless coddling and hand-holding of Middlebury or Vassar.

Besides, UMD has much better STEM.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian Americans don't have to/want to pay 90K/year for the privilege of pretending their kids attend some exotic no-name small LAC.

Besides, public universities are cheaper and offer better STEM majors.

+1000

Asians have grit. We are strong and don't need the relentless coddling and hand-holding of Middlebury or Vassar.

Besides, UMD has much better STEM.

Then why is there an epidemic of suicide attempts among Asian college students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian Americans don't have to/want to pay 90K/year for the privilege of pretending their kids attend some exotic no-name small LAC.

Besides, public universities are cheaper and offer better STEM majors.

+1000

Asians have grit. We are strong and don't need the relentless coddling and hand-holding of Middlebury or Vassar.

Besides, UMD has much better STEM.

Then why is there an epidemic of suicide attempts among Asian college students?

White people don't commit suicide?
And just because there are white person sex offenders, does it mean all white people are sex offenders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average SAT and ACT for enrolled students is comparable to any top private university, and any public one.

The point about acceptance rate is that these schools have tons of viable candidates to pick between. You cannot get into Williams unless you are a top student academically.

SAT is just a baseline that top colleges look at. There are way more things that a competitive student needs to show their talents and effort in order to get admitted . This is exactly why SLACs are just a Mickey Mouse when it comes to student quality comparison.

?? Your first two statements are true for top slacs as well.

My daughter got into Columbia but was rejected from Amherst and Swarthmore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian Americans don't have to/want to pay 90K/year for the privilege of pretending their kids attend some exotic no-name small LAC.

Besides, public universities are cheaper and offer better STEM majors.

+1000

Asians have grit. We are strong and don't need the relentless coddling and hand-holding of Middlebury or Vassar.

Besides, UMD has much better STEM.

Then why is there an epidemic of suicide attempts among Asian college students?

White people don't commit suicide?
And just because there are white person sex offenders, does it mean all white people are sex offenders?

Not claiming anything like that. Reacting to previous post her statement that Asian students don’t ever need personalized attention or help. Sometimes they do – just like everybody else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asian Americans don't have to/want to pay 90K/year for the privilege of pretending their kids attend some exotic no-name small LAC.

Besides, public universities are cheaper and offer better STEM majors.

+1000

Asians have grit. We are strong and don't need the relentless coddling and hand-holding of Middlebury or Vassar.

Besides, UMD has much better STEM.

Then why is there an epidemic of suicide attempts among Asian college students?

What's the college student suicide rates by race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average SAT and ACT for enrolled students is comparable to any top private university, and any public one.

The point about acceptance rate is that these schools have tons of viable candidates to pick between. You cannot get into Williams unless you are a top student academically.

SAT is just a baseline that top colleges look at. There are way more things that a competitive student needs to show their talents and effort in order to get admitted . This is exactly why SLACs are just a Mickey Mouse when it comes to student quality comparison.

?? Your first two statements are true for top slacs as well.

My daughter got into Columbia but was rejected from Amherst and Swarthmore.

That's called yield protection, you stupid.
My DC was also admitted by multiple top 10s but was rejected by VT level schools.

[Anonymous]

Let’s generalize an entire group as one person!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Best Undergraduate CS programs
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1156992.page

Only one SLAC in like top 80 not to mention engineering.

SLACs are not to be taken seriously.

You really expect top administrators to be familiar with specific departments at schools where publishing isn't the priority? How would they be?

The most objective third party data that exists is from the NSF when detailing undergrad origins of PhD programs. CS PhD programs pick only the best and skew towards top LACs.

Top talents in CS/Engineering don't stay in academics