Pomona Vs Claremont Mckenna

[Anonymous]

“trying to make extravagant admitted students events”

There was nothing extravagant about CMC admitted students day that we attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“trying to make extravagant admitted students events”

There was nothing extravagant about CMC admitted students day that we attended.

Word is they spent $575,000 on the fan fair. Seems pretty flashy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was interesting that Pomona College among LACs was tied for 8th place for undergraduate teaching quality, while CMC was all the way down tied for 48th place for undergraduate teaching by USNWR.

(Carleton fyi was rated #1 for undergrad teaching.)

Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“trying to make extravagant admitted students events”

There was nothing extravagant about CMC admitted students day that we attended.

Word is they spent $575,000 on the fan fair. Seems pretty flashy to me.

I'm sure they are all good schools in their own way. But my opinion after touring and researching both is that CMC is very tacky and not much better than U of Santa Clara. Pomona is the closest thing the west coast has to a New England style true liberal arts college. The reality is that CMC was a 3rd rate mens college until they decided to pull some tactics to climb up the rankings. The first one (falsifying admitted student SAT scores) went on for awhile before their fraud was discovered. Since then they've played with whatever criteria the rankings officials favored at the time (small classes of 2-3 students when class size was incented), or pushing students away from interests in philosophy and history and towards corporate consulting jobs so that average salary was higher, or jumping on the AI bandwagon by tying their so-called "integrated sciences" (with a flashy building) into a python meets biology mashup and eliminating the environmental engineering and other majors students really wanted. They also really focus on developmental donors and athletes. Pomona, in contrast, is not flashy and has always been the real deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that Pomona students have to submit SAT scores. I think at Claremont McKenna only 25% actually submitted an SAT, so if you are a high SAT scorer you won't find too many at Claremont. Claremont's class size is 325 and only about 20 score at or above 1550.

Pomona is test optional.

According to Pomona's common data set:
https://tableau.campus.pomona.edu/views/CDS2025-26/C_First-timeFirst-yearadmission?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y

Only 156 freshman enrolled submitted an SAT. And of those 156, fewer than 30 scored above 1550. This out of a total freshman class size of 420.

Pomona's drive towards diversity, equity and inclusion is admirable but it comes at an academic cost which is apparent in these numbers.

[Anonymous]

That is no different from most peer LACs. Williams, Amherst, etc are only 40% submitting SAT, while Pomona is 37%. A lot of people in California apply test optional since the UC system is, so that explains the little gap almost entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that Pomona students have to submit SAT scores. I think at Claremont McKenna only 25% actually submitted an SAT, so if you are a high SAT scorer you won't find too many at Claremont. Claremont's class size is 325 and only about 20 score at or above 1550.

Pomona is test optional.

According to Pomona's common data set:
https://tableau.campus.pomona.edu/views/CDS2025-26/C_First-timeFirst-yearadmission?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y

Only 156 freshman enrolled submitted an SAT. And of those 156, fewer than 30 scored above 1550. This out of a total freshman class size of 420.

Pomona's drive towards diversity, equity and inclusion is admirable but it comes at an academic cost which is apparent in these numbers.

Does this mean applicants with 1550+ are rare in the applicant pool and have a higher chance of standing out and getting in? Or does it mean that Pomona doesn’t care about SAT and reject a lot of kids with high scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is no different from most peer LACs. Williams, Amherst, etc are only 40% submitting SAT, while Pomona is 37%. A lot of people in California apply test optional since the UC system is, so that explains the little gap almost entirely.

Then why do we/most people assume Williams and Amherst are academically rigorous and have high concentration of intellectual kids? Is this just based on pre-Covid, pre-test optional prestige? We know Caltech kids are smart bc they have high mid-50% SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is no different from most peer LACs. Williams, Amherst, etc are only 40% submitting SAT, while Pomona is 37%. A lot of people in California apply test optional since the UC system is, so that explains the little gap almost entirely.

Then why do we/most people assume Williams and Amherst are academically rigorous and have high concentration of intellectual kids? Is this just based on pre-Covid, pre-test optional prestige? We know Caltech kids are smart bc they have high mid-50% SAT.

I don't know. I generally look at test optional schools as more rigorous if at least a majority of admitted students submit scores. For LACs that are well below the 50% mark (Claremont McKenna, Pomona, Williams, Amherst, etc.) I suspect the "test optional" loophole has been serving them so they can bring in some recruited athletes with lower scores.

In contrast, many in the Ivy Plus/New Ivy crowd have 70+% submitting scores out of admitted students. That speaks volumes to having an objective standard on academic preparedness.

[Anonymous]

Word is they spent $575,000 on the fan fair. Seems pretty flashy to me.

Any actual evidence? I saw nothing that would cost this versus you hearsay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is no different from most peer LACs. Williams, Amherst, etc are only 40% submitting SAT, while Pomona is 37%. A lot of people in California apply test optional since the UC system is, so that explains the little gap almost entirely.

Then why do we/most people assume Williams and Amherst are academically rigorous and have high concentration of intellectual kids? Is this just based on pre-Covid, pre-test optional prestige? We know Caltech kids are smart bc they have high mid-50% SAT.

Because they (along with Pomona, Harvey Mudd, Swarthmore, and Haverford) consistently ranked among the top 25 colleges and universities for highest test scores in 2007-2015, when they were required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that Pomona students have to submit SAT scores. I think at Claremont McKenna only 25% actually submitted an SAT, so if you are a high SAT scorer you won't find too many at Claremont. Claremont's class size is 325 and only about 20 score at or above 1550.

Pomona is test optional.

According to Pomona's common data set:
https://tableau.campus.pomona.edu/views/CDS2025-26/C_First-timeFirst-yearadmission?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y

Only 156 freshman enrolled submitted an SAT. And of those 156, fewer than 30 scored above 1550. This out of a total freshman class size of 420.

Pomona's drive towards diversity, equity and inclusion is admirable but it comes at an academic cost which is apparent in these numbers.

Does this mean applicants with 1550+ are rare in the applicant pool and have a higher chance of standing out and getting in? Or does it mean that Pomona doesn’t care about SAT and reject a lot of kids with high scores?

The latter.

Pomona and the other top 5 LACs could make their whole class 1550+ SAT or 35+ACT if they wanted to, but there are too many institutional priorities.

They have to field competitive d3 teams (the proportion of athletes at top universities is comparatively much smaller), fill their music classes with distinct interests, want all 50 states represented, take ~25% first gen or low income, Pomona has two Posse cohorts for students of high leadership from underserved communities, and they need representation for all of their majors.

There are hardly any slots left after all these considerations, which is why many kids who get into Ivies/Stanford etc get WL or rejected by those top LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that Pomona students have to submit SAT scores. I think at Claremont McKenna only 25% actually submitted an SAT, so if you are a high SAT scorer you won't find too many at Claremont. Claremont's class size is 325 and only about 20 score at or above 1550.

Pomona is test optional.

According to Pomona's common data set:
https://tableau.campus.pomona.edu/views/CDS2025-26/C_First-timeFirst-yearadmission?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y

Only 156 freshman enrolled submitted an SAT. And of those 156, fewer than 30 scored above 1550. This out of a total freshman class size of 420.

Pomona's drive towards diversity, equity and inclusion is admirable but it comes at an academic cost which is apparent in these numbers.

Does this mean applicants with 1550+ are rare in the applicant pool and have a higher chance of standing out and getting in? Or does it mean that Pomona doesn’t care about SAT and reject a lot of kids with high scores?

The latter.

Pomona and the other top 5 LACs could make their whole class 1550+ SAT or 35+ACT if they wanted to, but there are too many institutional priorities.

They have to field competitive d3 teams (the proportion of athletes at top universities is comparatively much smaller), fill their music classes with distinct interests, want all 50 states represented, take ~25% first gen or low income, Pomona has two Posse cohorts for students of high leadership from underserved communities, and they need representation for all of their majors.

There are hardly any slots left after all these considerations, which is why many kids who get into Ivies/Stanford etc get WL or rejected by those top LACs.

Pomona is not all that and a bag of chips, but this Pomona booster sure acts like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is no different from most peer LACs. Williams, Amherst, etc are only 40% submitting SAT, while Pomona is 37%. A lot of people in California apply test optional since the UC system is, so that explains the little gap almost entirely.

Then why do we/most people assume Williams and Amherst are academically rigorous and have high concentration of intellectual kids? Is this just based on pre-Covid, pre-test optional prestige? We know Caltech kids are smart bc they have high mid-50% SAT.

I don't know. I generally look at test optional schools as more rigorous if at least a majority of admitted students submit scores. For LACs that are well below the 50% mark (Claremont McKenna, Pomona, Williams, Amherst, etc.) I suspect the "test optional" loophole has been serving them so they can bring in some recruited athletes with lower scores.

In contrast, many in the Ivy Plus/New Ivy crowd have 70+% submitting scores out of admitted students. That speaks volumes to having an objective standard on academic preparedness.

Pomona has a pretty tiny athlete population. More likely the DEI admits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is no different from most peer LACs. Williams, Amherst, etc are only 40% submitting SAT, while Pomona is 37%. A lot of people in California apply test optional since the UC system is, so that explains the little gap almost entirely.

Then why do we/most people assume Williams and Amherst are academically rigorous and have high concentration of intellectual kids? Is this just based on pre-Covid, pre-test optional prestige? We know Caltech kids are smart bc they have high mid-50% SAT.

Because they (along with Pomona, Harvey Mudd, Swarthmore, and Haverford) consistently ranked among the top 25 colleges and universities for highest test scores in 2007-2015, when they were required.

Interestingly, it was during this period that CMC had their fake SAT score scandal. In 2012, Claremont Mckenna admitted they had been falsely inflating SAT scores on the Common Data Set for many years to to move higher in the rankings.