LACs strong in STEM vs Humanities

[Anonymous]

As an opinion, I wouldn't regard a school as being broadly strong in sciences unless it offers a geosciences department. Some excellent LACs, such as Swarthmore, Grinnell and Reed, do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an opinion, I wouldn't regard a school as being broadly strong in sciences unless it offers a geosciences department. Some excellent LACs, such as Swarthmore, Grinnell and Reed, do not.

Why? Nothing uniquely important about geoscience. You could get a degree in chemistry and do an REU in geology and easily get into a good grad program in geology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the alumni/friends/boosters on here for SLACs aren't presenting very well for the SLACs.

Honestly, if this is how you turn out, I hope my kids don't go to one of these schools.

SLACs are great but there are a few idiots on this thread. The Amherst booster is an embarrassment to the entire NESCAC.

Can’t be any worse than the Pomona loser who thinks more smaller buildings are better

The argument is not more “smaller buildings” but more than 1 single building for very space intensive majors, The argument is clear that there is more space at peer institutions for majors because they aren’t constrained to a single building. Why you’ve gone so far to misinterpret it is the real question.

It is you who keeps moving the goalpost

By…you just are saying things without making any connections. Reported for trolling.

[Anonymous]

Oooh, so scared. It’s you who keeps changing tune about what is and what isn’t important for STEM. You seem to have your own alternative facts and can’t stand it when you’re wrong. If you’re in love with a school where the STEM program is so spread out, go for it. No one cares!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oooh, so scared. It’s you who keeps changing tune about what is and what isn’t important for STEM. You seem to have your own alternative facts and can’t stand it when you’re wrong. If you’re in love with a school where the STEM program is so spread out, go for it. No one cares!

You can’t consistently make an argument. Please shut up if you are just gonna throw around terms lazily without qualifying them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooh, so scared. It’s you who keeps changing tune about what is and what isn’t important for STEM. You seem to have your own alternative facts and can’t stand it when you’re wrong. If you’re in love with a school where the STEM program is so spread out, go for it. No one cares!

You can’t consistently make an argument. Please shut up if you are just gonna throw around terms lazily without qualifying them.

You first

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooh, so scared. It’s you who keeps changing tune about what is and what isn’t important for STEM. You seem to have your own alternative facts and can’t stand it when you’re wrong. If you’re in love with a school where the STEM program is so spread out, go for it. No one cares!

You can’t consistently make an argument. Please shut up if you are just gonna throw around terms lazily without qualifying them.

You first

I’ve explained my argument various times to you. If you cannot read, go get some books or consider enrolling in a school for the blind.

[Anonymous]

You have explained exactly nothing except YOUR opinion which you are entitled to but not not your own facts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

These would also be strong for humanities.

Carleton MUCH LESS so compared to good lacs like Amherst.

English Ph.D.s per capita:
#3 Carleton
#9 Amherst

History Ph.D.s per capita:
#3 Amherst
#11 Carleton

Do you count that as MUCH LESS?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

Not to mention that Carleton is a MUCH more effective PhD feeder program than Amherst in every STEM category based on the data shared here. As are, in most cases, at least 40 other schools. Amherst definitely would win the most arrogant awards though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

These would also be strong for humanities.

Carleton MUCH LESS so compared to good lacs like Amherst.

English Ph.D.s per capita:
#3 Carleton
#9 Amherst

History Ph.D.s per capita:
#3 Amherst
#11 Carleton

Do you count that as MUCH LESS?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

Not to mention that Carleton is a MUCH more effective PhD feeder program than Amherst in every STEM category based on the data shared here. As are, in most cases, at least 40 other schools. Amherst definitely would win the most arrogant awards though.

Many more Amherst students go into finance where a PhD is not necessary. Not sure they even heard of Carleton on Wall Street

[Anonymous]

By STEM do you mean more engineering/CS or more physics and math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an opinion, I wouldn't regard a school as being broadly strong in sciences unless it offers a geosciences department. Some excellent LACs, such as Swarthmore, Grinnell and Reed, do not.

Why? Nothing uniquely important about geoscience. You could get a degree in chemistry and do an REU in geology and easily get into a good grad program in geology.

Such a student would lack critical knowledge in core geosciences topics, such as hydrogeology, sedimentology, stratigraphy, mineralogy, petrology, structural geology, tectonics and paleontology.

[Anonymous]

Wow, these threads about SLACs are so over the top and telling. I’ve never heard of most of these SLACs nor visited any but posters sure make them all look bad.
I never understood the appeal but now I know why.. I just wouldn’t fit in with the arrogant pettiness vibe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For other stem majors, I think almost all lacs provide a reasonably good education. I like WASP, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton.

These would also be strong for humanities.

Carleton MUCH LESS so compared to good lacs like Amherst.

English Ph.D.s per capita:
#3 Carleton
#9 Amherst

History Ph.D.s per capita:
#3 Amherst
#11 Carleton

Do you count that as MUCH LESS?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs

Not to mention that Carleton is a MUCH more effective PhD feeder program than Amherst in every STEM category based on the data shared here. As are, in most cases, at least 40 other schools. Amherst definitely would win the most arrogant awards though.

Many more Amherst students go into finance where a PhD is not necessary. Not sure they even heard of Carleton on Wall Street

That’s a feature, not a bug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, these threads about SLACs are so over the top and telling. I’ve never heard of most of these SLACs nor visited any but posters sure make them all look bad.
I never understood the appeal but now I know why.. I just wouldn’t fit in with the arrogant pettiness vibe.

Oh there’s no lack of “arrogant pettiness vibe” with large universities. Just search for it on DCUM