LACs strong in STEM vs Humanities

[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.

+1
I wanted my DC to consider SLACs, but the more I read comments on such threads, the more I wonder if it's a breeding ground for insecurity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
I wanted my DC to consider SLACs, but the more I read comments on such threads, the more I wonder if it's a breeding ground for insecurity.

Sure Karen

[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.

The arrogant pettiness vibe of...anonymous posters on an anonymous forum? On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Why do you assume that these annoying posters represent the SLACs or their graduates?

I went to one of the schools mentioned, and the students weren't arrogant or petty. But we did have the good judgment not to make broad assumptions based on anonymous online posts.

[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.

That’s just the craziness of DCUM. Most LAC students I have met are pretty kind and down to earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

You are quite obviously not in science research and know little to nothing about it. There is nothing wrong with what was said.

What? I just told you why you’re wrong. Count the amount of buildings that make up those 4 main departments at a peer of Amherst like Pomona and you”ll see yourself that there is a lot more space at Pomona than Amherst, for example. Same is true for Bowdoin and Williams

Crunching the numbers here. Amherst's science center includes Biology, Biochemistry & Biophysics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Studies, Neuroscience, Physics & Astronomy, and Psychology, which translates to the following Buildings at Pomona: Seaver North, Seaver South, Seaver Biology, Seeley Mudd hall for Environmental Analysis, Estella hall of Math and Physics, Andrews Science building, and Lincoln and Edmunds Hall. According to Pomona:

The Sciences District is north of Marston
Quadrangle, across Sixth Street. Seaver
Laboratories, Millikan Laboratory and
Seeley Mudd flank College Avenue on its
way through the campus. Lincoln and
Edmund Halls and Skyspace in Draper
Courtyard anchor the eastern end of the
Sciences District. The Sciences District
accounts for forty-six percent of the aca-
demic square footage on the campus.

The total academic campus square footage is 1.2 mil and so in total that is 552,000 square footage of academic space. Amherst's science center is only 250,000 sqft, so less than half that of Pomona. One could do this for other colleges, but the point is clear that this isn't a lot of academic space for all for these subjects.

It doesn't matter. I'm currently at Amherst, majoring in one of the relevant subjects, and doing academic research with a professor in my field on campus. There is no "crowding."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
I wanted my DC to consider SLACs, but the more I read comments on such threads, the more I wonder if it's a breeding ground for insecurity.

You steered your DC away from a whole category of schools based on anon comments on a chat board? I think you have some issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

You are quite obviously not in science research and know little to nothing about it. There is nothing wrong with what was said.

What? I just told you why you’re wrong. Count the amount of buildings that make up those 4 main departments at a peer of Amherst like Pomona and you”ll see yourself that there is a lot more space at Pomona than Amherst, for example. Same is true for Bowdoin and Williams

Crunching the numbers here. Amherst's science center includes Biology, Biochemistry & Biophysics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Studies, Neuroscience, Physics & Astronomy, and Psychology, which translates to the following Buildings at Pomona: Seaver North, Seaver South, Seaver Biology, Seeley Mudd hall for Environmental Analysis, Estella hall of Math and Physics, Andrews Science building, and Lincoln and Edmunds Hall. According to Pomona:

The Sciences District is north of Marston
Quadrangle, across Sixth Street. Seaver
Laboratories, Millikan Laboratory and
Seeley Mudd flank College Avenue on its
way through the campus. Lincoln and
Edmund Halls and Skyspace in Draper
Courtyard anchor the eastern end of the
Sciences District. The Sciences District
accounts for forty-six percent of the aca-
demic square footage on the campus.

The total academic campus square footage is 1.2 mil and so in total that is 552,000 square footage of academic space. Amherst's science center is only 250,000 sqft, so less than half that of Pomona. One could do this for other colleges, but the point is clear that this isn't a lot of academic space for all for these subjects.

And yet Pomona's outcomes are not superior to Amherst's.

[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: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.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

You are quite obviously not in science research and know little to nothing about it. There is nothing wrong with what was said.

What? I just told you why you’re wrong. Count the amount of buildings that make up those 4 main departments at a peer of Amherst like Pomona and you”ll see yourself that there is a lot more space at Pomona than Amherst, for example. Same is true for Bowdoin and Williams

Crunching the numbers here. Amherst's science center includes Biology, Biochemistry & Biophysics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Studies, Neuroscience, Physics & Astronomy, and Psychology, which translates to the following Buildings at Pomona: Seaver North, Seaver South, Seaver Biology, Seeley Mudd hall for Environmental Analysis, Estella hall of Math and Physics, Andrews Science building, and Lincoln and Edmunds Hall. According to Pomona:

The Sciences District is north of Marston
Quadrangle, across Sixth Street. Seaver
Laboratories, Millikan Laboratory and
Seeley Mudd flank College Avenue on its
way through the campus. Lincoln and
Edmund Halls and Skyspace in Draper
Courtyard anchor the eastern end of the
Sciences District. The Sciences District
accounts for forty-six percent of the aca-
demic square footage on the campus.

The total academic campus square footage is 1.2 mil and so in total that is 552,000 square footage of academic space. Amherst's science center is only 250,000 sqft, so less than half that of Pomona. One could do this for other colleges, but the point is clear that this isn't a lot of academic space for all for these subjects.

And yet Pomona's outcomes are not superior to Amherst's.

In stem? They very much are.

[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: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.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

You are quite obviously not in science research and know little to nothing about it. There is nothing wrong with what was said.

What? I just told you why you’re wrong. Count the amount of buildings that make up those 4 main departments at a peer of Amherst like Pomona and you”ll see yourself that there is a lot more space at Pomona than Amherst, for example. Same is true for Bowdoin and Williams

Crunching the numbers here. Amherst's science center includes Biology, Biochemistry & Biophysics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Studies, Neuroscience, Physics & Astronomy, and Psychology, which translates to the following Buildings at Pomona: Seaver North, Seaver South, Seaver Biology, Seeley Mudd hall for Environmental Analysis, Estella hall of Math and Physics, Andrews Science building, and Lincoln and Edmunds Hall. According to Pomona:

The Sciences District is north of Marston
Quadrangle, across Sixth Street. Seaver
Laboratories, Millikan Laboratory and
Seeley Mudd flank College Avenue on its
way through the campus. Lincoln and
Edmund Halls and Skyspace in Draper
Courtyard anchor the eastern end of the
Sciences District. The Sciences District
accounts for forty-six percent of the aca-
demic square footage on the campus.

The total academic campus square footage is 1.2 mil and so in total that is 552,000 square footage of academic space. Amherst's science center is only 250,000 sqft, so less than half that of Pomona. One could do this for other colleges, but the point is clear that this isn't a lot of academic space for all for these subjects.

And yet Pomona's outcomes are not superior to Amherst's.

In stem? They very much are.

In this list, Pomona is superior in grad school admission for Biological Science, Chemistry, Mathematics and Statistics, Physics, and Psychology

[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:

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.

Give it a rest. Amherst is not all that — the location sucks and the athlete/non-athlete divide is way too pronounced.

Amherst has an amazing science center and strong outcomes. Carleton has wonderful outcomes, with lots going on to PhDs. Oberlin, too. Wellesley students can take courses at MIT. They also participate in the Twelve College Exchange Program. Kids can get great STEM and/or humanities educations at just about any high-ranked LAC.

Science center is overcrowded with too many departments. Many other schools give chem and bio individual buildings.

The Amherst interdisciplinary science center is larger than the science centers of the other LACs mentioned here. There is a reason to put all the sciences together in one roof: for easy collaboration. Science and research do not work in silos

Every peer of Amherst has whole buildings for biology and chemistry. Some have more than one. This is wrong. Also collaboration isn’t difficult across a liberal arts college campus.

You are quite obviously not in science research and know little to nothing about it. There is nothing wrong with what was said.

What? I just told you why you’re wrong. Count the amount of buildings that make up those 4 main departments at a peer of Amherst like Pomona and you”ll see yourself that there is a lot more space at Pomona than Amherst, for example. Same is true for Bowdoin and Williams

Crunching the numbers here. Amherst's science center includes Biology, Biochemistry & Biophysics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Studies, Neuroscience, Physics & Astronomy, and Psychology, which translates to the following Buildings at Pomona: Seaver North, Seaver South, Seaver Biology, Seeley Mudd hall for Environmental Analysis, Estella hall of Math and Physics, Andrews Science building, and Lincoln and Edmunds Hall. According to Pomona:

The Sciences District is north of Marston
Quadrangle, across Sixth Street. Seaver
Laboratories, Millikan Laboratory and
Seeley Mudd flank College Avenue on its
way through the campus. Lincoln and
Edmund Halls and Skyspace in Draper
Courtyard anchor the eastern end of the
Sciences District. The Sciences District
accounts for forty-six percent of the aca-
demic square footage on the campus.

The total academic campus square footage is 1.2 mil and so in total that is 552,000 square footage of academic space. Amherst's science center is only 250,000 sqft, so less than half that of Pomona. One could do this for other colleges, but the point is clear that this isn't a lot of academic space for all for these subjects.

And yet Pomona's outcomes are not superior to Amherst's.

In stem? They very much are.

In this list, Pomona is superior in grad school admission for Biological Science, Chemistry, Mathematics and Statistics, Physics, and Psychology

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

[Anonymous]

As the parent of a kid at one of two, the whole Amherst vs. Pomona debate that some insecure weirdo recently started is incredibly dumb. They're both incredible schools with strong programs across the board. It's embarrassing that people affiliated with either school would participate in such an inane dispute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the parent of a kid at one of two, the whole Amherst vs. Pomona debate that some insecure weirdo recently started is incredibly dumb. They're both incredible schools with strong programs across the board. It's embarrassing that people affiliated with either school would participate in such an inane dispute.

It’s funny you think people affiliated with either are posting. I’ve sadly been watching this $hitshow from a distance, but many of us are just as shocked as you.

[Anonymous]

Bucknell and Union both are strong in STEM and have engineering. So is Lafayette, but their engineering offerings are a bit more limited.

[Anonymous]

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.

A new troll has emerged. Pay no attention, Carleton is a great school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
I wanted my DC to consider SLACs, but the more I read comments on such threads, the more I wonder if it's a breeding ground for insecurity.

It absolutely is. Look at all the SLAC-focused threads lately. I don't think I've ever come across a more insecure group of people.