WASP? Is this a real thing, or recent construction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is like a Brown booster trying to say that HYPSM should be HYPSMB. Brown is a great school, as is Bowdoin. But historically it dosen’t have the same cache as the others. I know that hurts your feelings, but that’s just the way it is. You wishing it so doesn’t make it so.

No, selectivity and yield do…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMC is also rising fast. Then we will have to add a C to the acronym. WASPBC?

I think the reason for WASP is based purely on the endowment size. WASP have the largest endowment in the lac world.

cmc is not a full service lac. it's specialized for some subjects and their new science experiment is subpar so far.

so it's really not on the same plane as Wasp. I'd put cmc below bowdoin, wellesley, and carleton too.

Their new “science experiment” is less than a year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMC is also rising fast. Then we will have to add a C to the acronym. WASPBC?

I think the reason for WASP is based purely on the endowment size. WASP have the largest endowment in the lac world.

cmc is not a full service lac. it's specialized for some subjects and their new science experiment is subpar so far.

so it's really not on the same plane as Wasp. I'd put cmc below bowdoin, wellesley, and carleton too.

Their new “science experiment” is less than a year old.

I think this makes sense, but then the same reasoning would have to apply to Mudd and Wellesley. From an admissions selectivity standpoint, though, CMC is well above Carleton and Wellesley. Bowdoin, admissions-wise, really stands with WASP. And it would not be the lowest of the WASP schools, either — that would probably be Swarthmore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMC is also rising fast. Then we will have to add a C to the acronym. WASPBC?

I think the reason for WASP is based purely on the endowment size. WASP have the largest endowment in the lac world.

cmc is not a full service lac. it's specialized for some subjects and their new science experiment is subpar so far.

so it's really not on the same plane as Wasp. I'd put cmc below bowdoin, wellesley, and carleton too.

Their new “science experiment” is less than a year old.

I think this makes sense, but then the same reasoning would have to apply to Mudd and Wellesley. From an admissions selectivity standpoint, though, CMC is well above Carleton and Wellesley. Bowdoin, admissions-wise, really stands with WASP. And it would not be the lowest of the WASP schools, either — that would probably be Swarthmore.

The same logic applies how? CMC just created a new science program from scratch with a ton of advising from various leading scientists. I don’t think a year is long enough to decide whether or not the program is quality.

I’d say cmc is narrowing in on being a full service lac. Currently it offers a very strong Econ and government department and you get outsized resources and faculty support if you choose basically any other major- Literature, Philosophy, Mathematics, History… I see them eclipsing Pomona in the near future if Pomona doesn’t get its act together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I’m sympathetic to OP’s concern that our yearning for linguistic shortcuts has inadvertently left her school out of a reference to highly selective LACs, I’m disappointed that her real motivation seems to be the inclusion of her school. Instead of being enlightened, OP turns out to be a snob begging for a ticket to the WASP party. Is that the typical Bowdoin product?

I (OP) have already stated I am just bemused by the whole concept of ‘WASP’ rather than “begging for a ticket” to anything.

Maybe the facetiousness of my earlier comment about “our failing” wasn’t obvious (this was my only comment btw, in case you are misattributing someone else’s words to me) but no, I am not actually upset that we are excluded from this special club haha

I have worked on the east coast in a snobby industry for over a decade since I graduated, and my school is recognized plenty enough to satisfy me!

I think the real reason they don’t like to include Bowdoin is that they like using Bowdoin to make the Middlebury tier sound better. But we all know Midd is a step down. I think the only contender to join WASP-B is Claremont McKenna - in about 10 years.

Booster just stop. Midd isn’t a step down from anyone and CMC isn’t yet the equal of Midd, Bow, or Carleton. Great school but your constant boosting isn’t going to work. And WASP-B exists only in your mind.

Case in point.

NP: I went to one of the other schools being discussed, not Midd. I have an issue with fools trying to create bucket like WASP or HYPSM or lesser Ivies. You cannot stack rank any of these schools in a meaningful way. They are all excellent.

No “meaningful” difference between HYPSM and other schools? Er, OK. While you undoubtedly have an issue, applicants resoundingly disagree with you, as do yield rates; this is a “you” issue.

Keep telling yourself that little guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I’m sympathetic to OP’s concern that our yearning for linguistic shortcuts has inadvertently left her school out of a reference to highly selective LACs, I’m disappointed that her real motivation seems to be the inclusion of her school. Instead of being enlightened, OP turns out to be a snob begging for a ticket to the WASP party. Is that the typical Bowdoin product?

I (OP) have already stated I am just bemused by the whole concept of ‘WASP’ rather than “begging for a ticket” to anything.

Maybe the facetiousness of my earlier comment about “our failing” wasn’t obvious (this was my only comment btw, in case you are misattributing someone else’s words to me) but no, I am not actually upset that we are excluded from this special club haha

I have worked on the east coast in a snobby industry for over a decade since I graduated, and my school is recognized plenty enough to satisfy me!

I think the real reason they don’t like to include Bowdoin is that they like using Bowdoin to make the Middlebury tier sound better. But we all know Midd is a step down. I think the only contender to join WASP-B is Claremont McKenna - in about 10 years.

Here's a fun fact for you. Since 2000, Middlebury has ranked in the top five LACs in USNews 12 times. In the same time period, Bowdoin has ranked in the top five 8 times. CMC has never ranked in the top 5. Its highest ranking was 6 in 2021.

And UChicago, the king of ED — Midd is the ED queen — is likewise a top 10 school, since US News says so, right?

USNWR, no……it has been that way since the first attempts at rankings over 100 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMC is also rising fast. Then we will have to add a C to the acronym. WASPBC?

I think the reason for WASP is based purely on the endowment size. WASP have the largest endowment in the lac world.

cmc is not a full service lac. it's specialized for some subjects and their new science experiment is subpar so far.

so it's really not on the same plane as Wasp. I'd put cmc below bowdoin, wellesley, and carleton too.

Their new “science experiment” is less than a year old.

I think this makes sense, but then the same reasoning would have to apply to Mudd and Wellesley. From an admissions selectivity standpoint, though, CMC is well above Carleton and Wellesley. Bowdoin, admissions-wise, really stands with WASP. And it would not be the lowest of the WASP schools, either — that would probably be Swarthmore.

All of the international need blind schools have artificially low admissions rates because of the excess numbers of internationals applying. This includes all of the Ivies as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMC is also rising fast. Then we will have to add a C to the acronym. WASPBC?

I think the reason for WASP is based purely on the endowment size. WASP have the largest endowment in the lac world.

cmc is not a full service lac. it's specialized for some subjects and their new science experiment is subpar so far.

so it's really not on the same plane as Wasp. I'd put cmc below bowdoin, wellesley, and carleton too.

Their new “science experiment” is less than a year old.

I think this makes sense, but then the same reasoning would have to apply to Mudd and Wellesley. From an admissions selectivity standpoint, though, CMC is well above Carleton and Wellesley. Bowdoin, admissions-wise, really stands with WASP. And it would not be the lowest of the WASP schools, either — that would probably be Swarthmore.

All of the international need blind schools have artificially low admissions rates because of the excess numbers of internationals applying. This includes all of the Ivies as well.

This would only include Bowdoin and Amherst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:few care about LACs outside this forum. wasp in particular are struggling to attract top talent as the future is more stem focused

hahahaha

[Anonymous]

OP, I’d like to know what your experience was like. DD is a California public school kid who is really taken with the idea of Bowdoin. DH and I are both from New England, but I feel it would be total culture shock for her.

[Anonymous]

It is a real expression that has been around a long time. I think Bowdoin's reputation is different, less hard core intellectual, more like Dartmouth to WASP's HYP. One difference worth pointing out is that Bowdoin has been test-optional since the 60s while the other 4 only switched during COVID. Bowdoin was always, to its credit, trying for something a little different from the others.

But you are right that in terms of rates it is just as selective and just as much a first-choice school as the other four.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’d like to know what your experience was like. DD is a California public school kid who is really taken with the idea of Bowdoin. DH and I are both from New England, but I feel it would be total culture shock for her.

OP here. Bowdoin was a huge change in all respects vs my upbringing (NE climate, culture). Definitely experienced a bit of a shock when I got there, but after some adjustment, I grew to really appreciate it. A NESCAC school in Maine perhaps less racially diverse than most places in California, but the student body comes from all over the US & the world which adds its own dimension of diversity that I hadn't experienced before. And California students are actually highly represented, so many were in my/your daughter's shoes. My personality is a bit introverted, but even then still made great friendships that have lasted to this day. Wouldn't worry at all unless your daughter hates snow or needs Greek life as part of her college experience (no sororities at Bowdoin).

This link has more detail on class composition

https://www.bowdoin.edu/ir/data/enrollment.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMC is also rising fast. Then we will have to add a C to the acronym. WASPBC?

I think the reason for WASP is based purely on the endowment size. WASP have the largest endowment in the lac world.

cmc is not a full service lac. it's specialized for some subjects and their new science experiment is subpar so far.

so it's really not on the same plane as Wasp. I'd put cmc below bowdoin, wellesley, and carleton too.

Their new “science experiment” is less than a year old.

I think this makes sense, but then the same reasoning would have to apply to Mudd and Wellesley. From an admissions selectivity standpoint, though, CMC is well above Carleton and Wellesley. Bowdoin, admissions-wise, really stands with WASP. And it would not be the lowest of the WASP schools, either — that would probably be Swarthmore.

The same logic applies how? CMC just created a new science program from scratch with a ton of advising from various leading scientists. I don’t think a year is long enough to decide whether or not the program is quality.

I’d say cmc is narrowing in on being a full service lac. Currently it offers a very strong Econ and government department and you get outsized resources and faculty support if you choose basically any other major- Literature, Philosophy, Mathematics, History… I see them eclipsing Pomona in the near future if Pomona doesn’t get its act together.

CMC is not and will never be a full-service LAC any more than Mudd. But it doesn’t matter, as they are part of the 5C consortium and great schools. The.CMC science thing is more to support the CMC policy wonks with background knowledge and analytical skills; it does not pretend to cater to science majors. This is wise and practical. Integrated policy and science makes a lot more sense than some silly Biology Lab gen ed. Look it as a way to enhance the specialization further - not as a way of diversifying. If you ask me, that makes it an even better school. Don’t go if those aren’t your interests…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CMC is also rising fast. Then we will have to add a C to the acronym. WASPBC?

I think the reason for WASP is based purely on the endowment size. WASP have the largest endowment in the lac world.

cmc is not a full service lac. it's specialized for some subjects and their new science experiment is subpar so far.

so it's really not on the same plane as Wasp. I'd put cmc below bowdoin, wellesley, and carleton too.

Their new “science experiment” is less than a year old.

I think this makes sense, but then the same reasoning would have to apply to Mudd and Wellesley. From an admissions selectivity standpoint, though, CMC is well above Carleton and Wellesley. Bowdoin, admissions-wise, really stands with WASP. And it would not be the lowest of the WASP schools, either — that would probably be Swarthmore.

All of the international need blind schools have artificially low admissions rates because of the excess numbers of internationals applying. This includes all of the Ivies as well.

Whoa! Selectivity does not equal admit rates. It is part of it. When I say “selectivity,” it encompasses actual slots for domestic non-hooked students, yield, percent of class ED, rounds of ED, percent of athletes, percent of first gen etc. I am not doing the algorithm for you, but there is a marked drop off after WASP-B. Ergo, it should be WASP-B. And for anyone saying there is “no difference,” please don’t give such silly advice to potential applicants: the “difference” is often being rejected or getting in.

[Anonymous]

The term WASP came into more common usage after Lisa Birnbach's Preppy Handbook which was published in or around 1980

I consider it to be in the same category as acronyms like JAP or phrases like Boston Brahmin or Kennedy (liberal) Catholics

I'd be surprised if my kids (20s/30s) ever used any of those, they not only show your age but that you somehow pay undue attention to those things. It doesn't reflect well on you