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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

You clearly didn’t read this whole thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Keep trying, we appreciate your enthusiasm and persistence but there is no difference in academics, resources or student quality among any of the top dozen or so SLACs except the size of their endowments which drives the rankings. We know that you are desperate to be believe otherwise so you be you an the rest of us will live in the real world.

Same goes for those who believe that there are differences between the T15 R1s or between the combined group as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Thanks OP. Doesn’t hate snow (likes snow sports) and lack of Greek life is a plus, but she isn’t outdoorsy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Thanks OP. Doesn’t hate snow (likes snow sports) and lack of Greek life is a plus, but she isn’t outdoorsy.

I am not outdoorsy either. They were many opportunities for me to become so, but it did not take haha. One of my biggest regrets is not learning to ski while I was in college. Really missed out. But for the urban-inclined, there is conveniently an Amtrak station right next to campus that takes students through Freeport (nice shopping outlets), Portland (not large, but still a city), all the way down to Boston in about 2.5 hours! I think it costs $20-30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand what any of you are talking about.

I didn't, either, and commented about it a few WASP posts ago and got yelled at. We can sit together at the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand what any of you are talking about.

I didn't, either, and commented about it a few WASP posts ago and got yelled at. We can sit together at the party.

Don't feel bad... I never heard WASP until DCUM, which is why I (OP) made this thread to begin with!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand what any of you are talking about.

I didn't, either, and commented about it a few WASP posts ago and got yelled at. We can sit together at the party.

Part of the DCUM culture; ask - first post get yelled at, second post someone complains why you didn't do your research, then finally someone answers. After that it's 200 posts on why College X is better than College A,B, and C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell that to rejected applicants. Something tells me they know the difference.

Keep trying, we appreciate your enthusiasm and persistence but there is no difference in academics, resources or student quality among any of the top dozen or so SLACs except the size of their endowments which drives the rankings. We know that you are desperate to be believe otherwise so you be you an the rest of us will live in the real world.

Same goes for those who believe that there are differences between the T15 R1s or between the combined group as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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…

It seems to offer a decent amount of majors with superior faculty resources in Philosophy, History, Literature, Religious studies, and Psychology than Pomona. It definitely could surpass Pomona if it keeps at its current pace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…

It seems to offer a decent amount of majors with superior faculty resources in Philosophy, History, Literature, Religious studies, and Psychology than Pomona. It definitely could surpass Pomona if it keeps at its current pace.

You don’t understand the 5Cs. It is not a competition: a rising tide lifts all boats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…

It seems to offer a decent amount of majors with superior faculty resources in Philosophy, History, Literature, Religious studies, and Psychology than Pomona. It definitely could surpass Pomona if it keeps at its current pace.

You don’t understand the 5Cs. It is not a competition: a rising tide lifts all boats.

Sure? Doesn't mean CMC cannot surpass Pomona.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…

It seems to offer a decent amount of majors with superior faculty resources in Philosophy, History, Literature, Religious studies, and Psychology than Pomona. It definitely could surpass Pomona if it keeps at its current pace.

You don’t understand the 5Cs. It is not a competition: a rising tide lifts all boats.

Sure? Doesn't mean CMC cannot surpass Pomona.

You are getting to be as bad as the Bucknell booster. Give it a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…

It seems to offer a decent amount of majors with superior faculty resources in Philosophy, History, Literature, Religious studies, and Psychology than Pomona. It definitely could surpass Pomona if it keeps at its current pace.

You don’t understand the 5Cs. It is not a competition: a rising tide lifts all boats.

Sure? Doesn't mean CMC cannot surpass Pomona.

You are getting to be as bad as the Bucknell booster. Give it a break.

No you’re just incredibly immature and can’t handle someone with a different opinion than you. It is very likely this could happen. CMC is a hot college right now with strong tailored programs and other majors that are particularly strong without being the institutions focus. There’s no reason Pomona has to be the best lac on the west coast other than tradition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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…

It seems to offer a decent amount of majors with superior faculty resources in Philosophy, History, Literature, Religious studies, and Psychology than Pomona. It definitely could surpass Pomona if it keeps at its current pace.

You don’t understand the 5Cs. It is not a competition: a rising tide lifts all boats.

Sure? Doesn't mean CMC cannot surpass Pomona.

You are getting to be as bad as the Bucknell booster. Give it a break.

+1

[Anonymous]

When you folks pontificate about one school or department being better than another school or department, do you really know what you’re talking about? I mean, do you really have a reasonable basis for such opinions that isn’t based on USNWR or internet gossip? The confidence with which y’all make such statements seems directly correlated to the lack of serious thought behind them.