Why is Pomona so special?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs and grad school.

It's 10 year out median earning is mediocre at $69,149

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?121345-Pomona-College

Seems comparable to other top slacs?

You can always ask if they will share some data on earnings by major with you. College-wide earning comparisons are truly idiotic. A CS major or Econ major at Pomona is going to do quite well but lots of students go into lower earning fields or choose less lucrative majors unlike at Harvey Mudd or MIT. I know multiple large tech companies recruit from Pomona (and other LACs like Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams). Remember that the founders of KKR (the top or one of the top few private equity firms) went to Claremont McKenna and Swarthmore for undergrad.

+1 It's all major/field dependent. I don't see any specific breakdown for Pomona (probably not enough data available to disclose publicly), but Williams (overall salary 71.6K) has 99K for CS grads and 91K for econ grads. Schools that have more finance/tech oriented types will naturally do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Location isn't that great either. Very far from the beach and downtown LA, very smoggy.

It's one of those cases where "it's great because everyone thinks it's great".

Basically the beaches are at one end of LA county and the school is at the other. DD really liked the campus - as well as Pitzer - but the drive from our hotel in Santa Monica to the Claremont campuses, then back in one hot afternoon was not lost on her.

Yeah, it makes sense that the beaches are in part of LA county that’s … by … the … ocean.

LA is one of the US' largest counties and is roughly 800 square miles larger than a combined Delaware and Rhode Island. Most 17 and 18 year olds don't know that. They hear LA, they think of Hollywood, the beaches, so yeah, they are not imagining driving 50 miles from one end of the county to the other.

They're 17-18, not 7, and hopefully a child who is considering Pomona has the good sense to look at a map before booking the tour or putting down the deposit.

I think the Stanford comparison is a good one. It also has a better location than its peers (though not near any beaches) and is unique in being in California, which makes it attractive to west coast kids wanting to get the best educational experience and others looking to get away to get the same!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing professors, small class sizes, tons of resources (large endowment), great diversity, excellent outcomes, large variety of classes because of the consortium, beautiful campus...

Are there research opportunities similar to UMich or UMDCP even? This is kind of key for students who hope to get into a good grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing professors, small class sizes, tons of resources (large endowment), great diversity, excellent outcomes, large variety of classes because of the consortium, beautiful campus...

Are there research opportunities similar to UMich or UMDCP even? This is kind of key for students who hope to get into a good grad school.

Yes - there are no graduate students so any professor wanting help will hire undergrads. It's a "thing" to spend Soph summer working on campus doing research with a prof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like what makes it stand out? Why is demand so high?

Prestige huggers. Truth is, no pristige. Just imagination.

Lol. People don't pick Pomona thinking it's prestigious. They pick it for a myriad of other great reasons.

Know tons who've turned down ivies or equivalent for Pomona. Pomona decidedly attracts a distinct group of students who are focused but not prestige obsessed.

For every 1 who turned down an ivy, 10-20 turn down Pomona for ivies or their equivalents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Location isn't that great either. Very far from the beach and downtown LA, very smoggy.

It's one of those cases where "it's great because everyone thinks it's great".

Basically the beaches are at one end of LA county and the school is at the other. DD really liked the campus - as well as Pitzer - but the drive from our hotel in Santa Monica to the Claremont campuses, then back in one hot afternoon was not lost on her.

Yeah, it makes sense that the beaches are in part of LA county that’s … by … the … ocean.

LA is one of the US' largest counties and is roughly 800 square miles larger than a combined Delaware and Rhode Island. Most 17 and 18 year olds don't know that. They hear LA, they think of Hollywood, the beaches, so yeah, they are not imagining driving 50 miles from one end of the county to the other.

Why does everyone assume this is why a student wants to go to Pomona OR that students/families who consider Pomona do not know where it is located? Perhaps your view if LA is beaches and Hollywood...but that doesn't mean everyone else's does.

Our child is interested in Pomona and the only way LA is remotely involved is that it makes it close enough to transportation so that getting there from accoss the country is not a nightmare. They have no interest in the beach or Hollywood. They like the idea of nice weather and are far more interested in exploring internal land features of CA via trips while they are there (Joshua Tree/Yosemite/Redwoods/Desert). They like the school because of the small size of the college with access to 7000 kids over multiple schools. They like a place where kids live on campus 4 years as a community.

Please. DC lives on the East coast and had never been to California, but is a creature of social media. So yeah, thoughts of the beach popped when they first heard that Pomona, which was suggested to them by their college counselor, is in LA. That doesn't seem so far-fetched.

DC ultimately decided they wanted a school that was not that far from home as well as easily accessible to the outdoors - right outside their dorm door. They are now at a top NESCAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like what makes it stand out? Why is demand so high?

Prestige huggers. Truth is, no pristige. Just imagination.

Lol. People don't pick Pomona thinking it's prestigious. They pick it for a myriad of other great reasons.

Know tons who've turned down ivies or equivalent for Pomona. Pomona decidedly attracts a distinct group of students who are focused but not prestige obsessed.

For every 1 who turned down an ivy, 10-20 turn down Pomona for ivies or their equivalents.

Great! If only that meant my Pomona applicant with no Ivy interest has more of a shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a little concerned that Pomona is a recruiting ground for Antifa. More than one Antifa agitators arrested lately seem to have privileged backgrounds and Pomona on their resume.

You should be more concerned that their most famous alum is known as someone who is married to Ted Cruz. That's how far Claremont can take you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big university comparison with those top few liberal arts colleges, just for comparing how the SLACs relate to each other, does kind of make sense and is interesting to think through for minute. Williams would be the Harvard OG; Amherst the Yale with great recognition and reputation but always comparing itself in relation to the rival OG; Swarthmore the Princeton that is maybe the best of the group now and farther south but without quite as much name recognition and history as a non-rival; and Pomona the up-and-coming western Stanford.

Princeton grad here- sort of bristling at the comparison to Swat although Princeton is also pretty close to Philly. Curious though why one would assert that Swat is now the best of the group? (My beef with Swat is that it seems to have a rep of being painfully competitive and dull - a real grind)

Swat is highly selective and has tended to win the head-to-head admissions "battles" against Amherst and Williams (pretty significantly on the imperfect Parchment site). I guess I'm probably off about Princeton being that way relative to Yale and Harvard though. Looking at Parchment, both are preferred to Princeton by a statistically significant margin. Swat might not like that comparison now other than the more southern location . It was mostly that the primary names and rivalry in the Ivy League involve Harvard and Yale (and not Princeton), despite Princeton being a great school that many find at least on par with the other 2 for undergrads). It is like that for SLACs where Williams and Amherst have a huge rivalry (that carries on in sports today too) and many mention them if they only say two names and are asked about the best small schools.

Hmmm. I don't think Parchment is really accurate or scientific. I've seen some really odd results there. I don't know of anyone who did or would choose Swat over Williams/Amherst and can't imagine why you would (maybe because of science or engineering?) Swat seems most often compared to Chicago-- very academic, intense, intellectual, maybe not so fun. Princeton has ranked #1 on US News for decades. I really don't think it lags H or Y in any sense and trounces them both in terms of the focus on undergraduate education and endowment per capita. Certainly, different students will be drawn to different schools, and culturally they can be very different. I think Princeton/Dartmouth are more like Williams (a little more traditional and up the middle and pre-corporate), while Amherst/Brown are more like Yale (artsty and lefty). I don't know what Harvard is. Prob closer to Amherst too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The factors that make it #1 on this ranking that includes both LACs and universities explain at least part of it.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/blog/6/

That is a very odd list.

I thought it was an interesting set of criteria, and one that I think my kid would also value in a school (small class sizes yet also a wide variety of available courses; diversity among both professors and the student body; well-educated professors; general student satisfaction). It's at least as valid as the factors that US News values heavily.

But the results are ridiculous, which suggests the methodology is flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. Way too much emphasis (as always nowadays) on diversity, especially when all these schools are committed to diversity. Anyone who chooses a school based on diversity stats is a true imbecile

There's actually a wide diversity of success in achieving diversity on college campuses. And how can a methodology be flawed based on someone's opinion of the results? It is what it is, just like USNWR.

I think even the diversity stats could be misleading- I noticed west coast schools fared relatively well- this could just be a result of a higher level of Hispanics and Asians in California. Is Scripps better than Williams because of that?

It's better than Williams in terms of diversity, but diversity isn't everything. The ranking shared above is based only 20% on diversity, though, so Pomona beats out Williams (and everyone else) based on the totality of the specific set of factors included. If you prefer USNWR's factors, use that. If you like Niche (not sure why you would), use that. If you like Barron's or Forbes or whatever, use them. Or, as ranker above says, make your own list.

I get the idea that we can all draw our own conclusions but we look to these lists because we think they have some kind of credibility or value. Even if I cared a great deal about diversity, I would be hesitant to rely on the particular metrics used. Maybe for example these west coast schools have much lower Black student and professor populations. They are just score well because there are a lot more Hispanics and Asians out west. A methodology is only as good as what it produces, and a cursory glance at this list makes it seem very fishy. Like is Richmond a high diversity school?

You've got it reversed. What is produced is only as good as the methodology. The methodology perhaps seems fishy because you've always assumed USNWR's method defines some absolute truth. It doesn't, and this ranking shows how different the outcome can be if you care about different factors than USNWR does. It also actually encourages you NOT to use it for yourself but to create your own list, which is something I've never seen any other ranking do. They even give suggestions on how to make your own ranking. Why would you not want to do this for something you're going to spend over $100k on?

BTW, Richmond doesn't show up on the diversity lists they provide, so that's not the criteria that give it its high ranking. It's #1 on the class size list, though, and also does well in terms of student happiness.

What this amounts to is really just telling kids to come up with their own list of criteria and run the screens on that. I don’t like it because a kid might have a sense of what he or she prioritizes but the metrics they choose may not perfectly capture that. This list for example has a west coast and all female skew. Given the priorities embodied in the criteria, I don’t think the list does it justice.

One thing about USNWR is that it does at least assign weight even if indirectly to things of practical importance that may not be trendy. Things like test scores, which reflect student quality and should be more heavily weighted, and endowment per capita, which reflects resources. And academic reputation. Real variables. So I think it is bad advice to tell a young person to devise their own goofy methodology (where data quality can be iffy and lead to misperceptions) and then take that list seriously. I would be pretty upset if some adult authority figure convinced my kid that Scripps was a better option than Williams. Because every grown up in the real world knows it’s not and if some kid chose Scripps over Williams based on this advice, that kid will be pretty resentful when she turned 25 and realized her college degree has less value in the real world than it could have.

A few thoughts:

1) You're arguing that data shouldn't have yielded the results it did. But data is what it is, so you're arguing that your opinion reflects reality better than data does.

2) Suggesting you know the opinion of "every grown up in the real world" regarding Scripps vs. Williams seems pretty presumptuous, as does saying you know that Williams would have greater value for every student than Scripps.

3) You argue that USNWR uses real variables, but imply that those used by this ranking and any created by an individual for themselves are not. Why are you so convinced USNWR has "the truth", and no one else is capable of discovering other ways of looking at the world?

4) I really like the idea of each kid creating their own ranking. If my kids' education is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, I want their choices to be based on what matters to them, not what some "authority figure" (as you say) says should matter to them. How is an authority figure (USNWR) saying Williams is better than Scripps any better than another authority figure saying the opposite?

1) Because the specific metrics might not be perfect ways to capture the thing you are hoping to measure. For example, one might look at "acceptance rate" as a measure of selectivity--but it is distorted by things like a large percentage of garbage international applications, yield control games and doesn't reflect quality of the applicants. I noted how diversity metrics could skew favorably towards west coast schools because of larger Asian and Hispanic populations but that might not really capture what the student is thinking. The devil is in the details with these metrics and as you noted some schools don't even report. Arbitrary cutoffs like 10% or 20% can be problematic. The fact that you are referecning some data set doesn't make the analysis higher quality--just provides a false sense of scientific precision. Common sense can tell you which schools have better or worse diversity, paired with a sensible interpretation of various metrics. I really think all these schools are aggressively committed to diversity for the most part, so it shouldn't be a variable.

2) I am indeed making an assumption that most grown up who live in the real world understand one school has a significantly stronger reputation and alumni network than the other. Ok, so maybe Scripps has a better Aztec pottery program than Williams. Who cares?

3) I am saying USNWR uses important variables that any sensible person would consider. I cant' get into an epistemological debate over the nature of truth. Folks can agree or disagree with my judgment call here.

4) I am all for kids using their own judgment. My advice to a kid would be to look at the best schools they can get into in a conventional sense such as USNWR and then within fairly wide bands pick the one that is most appealing to you. So if you are top 10 LAC kid, focus on the ones you like best. If you are 10-30, focus on those. 30-50 focus on those. But don't pick a 50th ranked school when you got into Amherst because you ran some goofy screen. You don't have to be a slave to the conventional perceptions but don't ignore them. You will regret having done so when you hit the real world 5-10 years later. In general, the conventionally higher ranked schools have stronger students, more resources, better networks and better reputations. All of which means they have more to offer everyone. This doesn't mean automatically favor school 11 over school 12 just because it is ranked higher.

I'm not confident anyone but you and me are taking the time to read this, but here goes.

1a) "Because the specific metrics might not be perfect ways to capture the thing you are hoping to measure."

Yes, this is true, and it's equally true for USNWR as has been discussed in many forums both inside and outside DCUM.

1b) "The fact that you are referencing some data set doesn't make the analysis higher quality--just provides a false sense of scientific precision."

See response to 1a.

1c) "Common sense can tell you which schools have better or worse diversity."

Why would anyone want to rely on 'common sense' when the colleges provide the data for us in their common data sets?

1d) "I really think all these schools are aggressively committed to diversity for the most part, so it shouldn't be a variable."

Yes, they are all committed to diversity, but that doesn't mean they're all equally successful at achieving it (although it looks like Scripps and Williams aren't all that different). This matters to some people. Nothing says you have to use it for your own ranking.

2) Even if you're right about this, many people don't care about reputation and alumni network as much as they do about other factors that might be better at Scripps. Despite your derisive Aztec pottery comment, Scripps has a lot to offer that beats Williams hands-down.

3) I guess I'm not sensible then, and if more than one percent of people who use USNWR actually read the methodology and gave it thought, many of them would be considered not sensible, too. But for those it does make sense to, use it.

4) So the young woman who wants an empowering environment for women without competition from men in the classroom, hates the cold and loves the sun, has the numbers to earn a scholarship offer at Scripps so that it costs $20k less than Williams, loves the idea of having the resources of a university while having the feel of a small college, likes the coach of her sport way better at Scripps, etc. should always pick Williams over Scripps because it's a guarantee that her life will be better 5-10 years later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs and grad school.

It's 10 year out median earning is mediocre at $69,149

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?121345-Pomona-College

This can’t be true. 22-year old Accounting majors from JMU or Loyola make that.

Accounting is a pretty good major.

Pomona is not special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like what makes it stand out? Why is demand so high?

Prestige huggers. Truth is, no pristige. Just imagination.

Lol. People don't pick Pomona thinking it's prestigious. They pick it for a myriad of other great reasons.

Know tons who've turned down ivies or equivalent for Pomona. Pomona decidedly attracts a distinct group of students who are focused but not prestige obsessed.

For every 1 who turned down an ivy, 10-20 turn down Pomona for ivies or their equivalents.

pomona has a yield rate of 55%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jobs and grad school.

It's 10 year out median earning is mediocre at $69,149

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?121345-Pomona-College

This can’t be true. 22-year old Accounting majors from JMU or Loyola make that.

Accounting is a pretty good major.

Pomona is not special.

If Pomona isn't, no LAC is. Is that a fair assessment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The factors that make it #1 on this ranking that includes both LACs and universities explain at least part of it.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/blog/6/

That is a very odd list.

I thought it was an interesting set of criteria, and one that I think my kid would also value in a school (small class sizes yet also a wide variety of available courses; diversity among both professors and the student body; well-educated professors; general student satisfaction). It's at least as valid as the factors that US News values heavily.

But the results are ridiculous, which suggests the methodology is flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. Way too much emphasis (as always nowadays) on diversity, especially when all these schools are committed to diversity. Anyone who chooses a school based on diversity stats is a true imbecile

There's actually a wide diversity of success in achieving diversity on college campuses. And how can a methodology be flawed based on someone's opinion of the results? It is what it is, just like USNWR.

I think even the diversity stats could be misleading- I noticed west coast schools fared relatively well- this could just be a result of a higher level of Hispanics and Asians in California. Is Scripps better than Williams because of that?

It's better than Williams in terms of diversity, but diversity isn't everything. The ranking shared above is based only 20% on diversity, though, so Pomona beats out Williams (and everyone else) based on the totality of the specific set of factors included. If you prefer USNWR's factors, use that. If you like Niche (not sure why you would), use that. If you like Barron's or Forbes or whatever, use them. Or, as ranker above says, make your own list.

I get the idea that we can all draw our own conclusions but we look to these lists because we think they have some kind of credibility or value. Even if I cared a great deal about diversity, I would be hesitant to rely on the particular metrics used. Maybe for example these west coast schools have much lower Black student and professor populations. They are just score well because there are a lot more Hispanics and Asians out west. A methodology is only as good as what it produces, and a cursory glance at this list makes it seem very fishy. Like is Richmond a high diversity school?

You've got it reversed. What is produced is only as good as the methodology. The methodology perhaps seems fishy because you've always assumed USNWR's method defines some absolute truth. It doesn't, and this ranking shows how different the outcome can be if you care about different factors than USNWR does. It also actually encourages you NOT to use it for yourself but to create your own list, which is something I've never seen any other ranking do. They even give suggestions on how to make your own ranking. Why would you not want to do this for something you're going to spend over $100k on?

BTW, Richmond doesn't show up on the diversity lists they provide, so that's not the criteria that give it its high ranking. It's #1 on the class size list, though, and also does well in terms of student happiness.

What this amounts to is really just telling kids to come up with their own list of criteria and run the screens on that. I don’t like it because a kid might have a sense of what he or she prioritizes but the metrics they choose may not perfectly capture that. This list for example has a west coast and all female skew. Given the priorities embodied in the criteria, I don’t think the list does it justice.

One thing about USNWR is that it does at least assign weight even if indirectly to things of practical importance that may not be trendy. Things like test scores, which reflect student quality and should be more heavily weighted, and endowment per capita, which reflects resources. And academic reputation. Real variables. So I think it is bad advice to tell a young person to devise their own goofy methodology (where data quality can be iffy and lead to misperceptions) and then take that list seriously. I would be pretty upset if some adult authority figure convinced my kid that Scripps was a better option than Williams. Because every grown up in the real world knows it’s not and if some kid chose Scripps over Williams based on this advice, that kid will be pretty resentful when she turned 25 and realized her college degree has less value in the real world than it could have.

A few thoughts:

1) You're arguing that data shouldn't have yielded the results it did. But data is what it is, so you're arguing that your opinion reflects reality better than data does.

2) Suggesting you know the opinion of "every grown up in the real world" regarding Scripps vs. Williams seems pretty presumptuous, as does saying you know that Williams would have greater value for every student than Scripps.

3) You argue that USNWR uses real variables, but imply that those used by this ranking and any created by an individual for themselves are not. Why are you so convinced USNWR has "the truth", and no one else is capable of discovering other ways of looking at the world?

4) I really like the idea of each kid creating their own ranking. If my kids' education is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, I want their choices to be based on what matters to them, not what some "authority figure" (as you say) says should matter to them. How is an authority figure (USNWR) saying Williams is better than Scripps any better than another authority figure saying the opposite?

1) Because the specific metrics might not be perfect ways to capture the thing you are hoping to measure. For example, one might look at "acceptance rate" as a measure of selectivity--but it is distorted by things like a large percentage of garbage international applications, yield control games and doesn't reflect quality of the applicants. I noted how diversity metrics could skew favorably towards west coast schools because of larger Asian and Hispanic populations but that might not really capture what the student is thinking. The devil is in the details with these metrics and as you noted some schools don't even report. Arbitrary cutoffs like 10% or 20% can be problematic. The fact that you are referecning some data set doesn't make the analysis higher quality--just provides a false sense of scientific precision. Common sense can tell you which schools have better or worse diversity, paired with a sensible interpretation of various metrics. I really think all these schools are aggressively committed to diversity for the most part, so it shouldn't be a variable.

2) I am indeed making an assumption that most grown up who live in the real world understand one school has a significantly stronger reputation and alumni network than the other. Ok, so maybe Scripps has a better Aztec pottery program than Williams. Who cares?

3) I am saying USNWR uses important variables that any sensible person would consider. I cant' get into an epistemological debate over the nature of truth. Folks can agree or disagree with my judgment call here.

4) I am all for kids using their own judgment. My advice to a kid would be to look at the best schools they can get into in a conventional sense such as USNWR and then within fairly wide bands pick the one that is most appealing to you. So if you are top 10 LAC kid, focus on the ones you like best. If you are 10-30, focus on those. 30-50 focus on those. But don't pick a 50th ranked school when you got into Amherst because you ran some goofy screen. You don't have to be a slave to the conventional perceptions but don't ignore them. You will regret having done so when you hit the real world 5-10 years later. In general, the conventionally higher ranked schools have stronger students, more resources, better networks and better reputations. All of which means they have more to offer everyone. This doesn't mean automatically favor school 11 over school 12 just because it is ranked higher.

I'm not confident anyone but you and me are taking the time to read this, but here goes.

1a) "Because the specific metrics might not be perfect ways to capture the thing you are hoping to measure."

Yes, this is true, and it's equally true for USNWR as has been discussed in many forums both inside and outside DCUM.

1b) "The fact that you are referencing some data set doesn't make the analysis higher quality--just provides a false sense of scientific precision."

See response to 1a.

1c) "Common sense can tell you which schools have better or worse diversity."

Why would anyone want to rely on 'common sense' when the colleges provide the data for us in their common data sets?

1d) "I really think all these schools are aggressively committed to diversity for the most part, so it shouldn't be a variable."

Yes, they are all committed to diversity, but that doesn't mean they're all equally successful at achieving it (although it looks like Scripps and Williams aren't all that different). This matters to some people. Nothing says you have to use it for your own ranking.

2) Even if you're right about this, many people don't care about reputation and alumni network as much as they do about other factors that might be better at Scripps. Despite your derisive Aztec pottery comment, Scripps has a lot to offer that beats Williams hands-down.

3) I guess I'm not sensible then, and if more than one percent of people who use USNWR actually read the methodology and gave it thought, many of them would be considered not sensible, too. But for those it does make sense to, use it.

4) So the young woman who wants an empowering environment for women without competition from men in the classroom, hates the cold and loves the sun, has the numbers to earn a scholarship offer at Scripps so that it costs $20k less than Williams, loves the idea of having the resources of a university while having the feel of a small college, likes the coach of her sport way better at Scripps, etc. should always pick Williams over Scripps because it's a guarantee that her life will be better 5-10 years later?

The merit aid possibility is the most persuasive thing you said.

Look-- I think what this comes down to is I am kind of old school about college. It's a very big investment. The more reputable a school is, the better. The conventional rankings do a good job of ranking the schools primarily by selectivity and resources. There are certainly many other variables to consider and emphasize but I think 17 years olds may be at risk of overweighting what I might consider minutia. I consider Aztec pottery minutia. I consider the percentage of professors with this or that skin color minutia. I think kids should find the best school for them that pairs with their academic caliber. So if you are going to turn down Williams for Scripps, you should be able to make a really compelling case and discuss it with a lot of well informed people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a little concerned that Pomona is a recruiting ground for Antifa. More than one Antifa agitators arrested lately seem to have privileged backgrounds and Pomona on their resume.

You should be more concerned that their most famous alum is known as someone who is married to Ted Cruz. That's how far Claremont can take you.

That's unfair, anyone considering a career that requires balancing a coke habit, should have CMC on their list.