Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd? Insiders know it's great, but normies have never heard of it and the name sounds sus to them. A true stealth school: zero branding with a silly name, so undetected by normie radar.
Anonymous wrote:Oh boy. This one is going to be a long thread.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Top 20 LACs are not equal to T25 colleges. Pomona/Wellesley are the same level as Georgetown/Emory.
You are nonsensical and stupid…..enough said
The PP is correct. Based on pre-TO data the SAT range for students at Gtown/Emory is around the same as Pomona/Wellesley. The top SAT lacs, WAS, are a little higher but not ivy/stanford/duke level. Lacs around top15 correlate to T30 unis. Only the top3 lacs are on par w T20 as far as peer group. A lot is because of the high percentage of athletes at WAS compared to ivies and the standards are lower. The non-recruited peers are about the same. However when 1/3 of the school is recruited athletes with lower scores it dilutes the average peer group and can slightly affect the classroom. Or it can be seen as an advantage for the non-recruits at williams: guaranteed bottom group on curved classes.
That would be true only if one is foolish enough to believe that there is a real difference between kids scoring in the 97th percentile and the 99th percentile on the the SAT. But ther actually isn’t a measurable difference and the curve of scores and GPAs actually overlap for the majority of the student bodies at any of these schools.
Professor here. There is a difference when the college average is 1400 vs 1500. It is most noticeable in stem.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Top 20 LACs are not equal to T25 colleges. Pomona/Wellesley are the same level as Georgetown/Emory.
You are nonsensical and stupid…..enough said
The PP is correct. Based on pre-TO data the SAT range for students at Gtown/Emory is around the same as Pomona/Wellesley. The top SAT lacs, WAS, are a little higher but not ivy/stanford/duke level. Lacs around top15 correlate to T30 unis. Only the top3 lacs are on par w T20 as far as peer group. A lot is because of the high percentage of athletes at WAS compared to ivies and the standards are lower. The non-recruited peers are about the same. However when 1/3 of the school is recruited athletes with lower scores it dilutes the average peer group and can slightly affect the classroom. Or it can be seen as an advantage for the non-recruits at williams: guaranteed bottom group on curved classes.
That would be true only if one is foolish enough to believe that there is a real difference between kids scoring in the 97th percentile and the 99th percentile on the the SAT. But ther actually isn’t a measurable difference and the curve of scores and GPAs actually overlap for the majority of the student bodies at any of these schools.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Top 20 LACs are not equal to T25 colleges. Pomona/Wellesley are the same level as Georgetown/Emory.
You are nonsensical and stupid…..enough said
The PP is correct. Based on pre-TO data the SAT range for students at Gtown/Emory is around the same as Pomona/Wellesley. The top SAT lacs, WAS, are a little higher but not ivy/stanford/duke level. Lacs around top15 correlate to T30 unis. Only the top3 lacs are on par w T20 as far as peer group. A lot is because of the high percentage of athletes at WAS compared to ivies and the standards are lower. The non-recruited peers are about the same. However when 1/3 of the school is recruited athletes with lower scores it dilutes the average peer group and can slightly affect the classroom. Or it can be seen as an advantage for the non-recruits at williams: guaranteed bottom group on curved classes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
lol, I have a kid at Middlebury as well. One who turned down MIT and was recruited by multiple Ivies.
I turned down Harvard, Princeton for Colby. My kid was recruited by Ivies and Stanford but chose Vassar. We don't care for prestige, only untruths.
I’m not sure about your untruths but mine made their choice for very specific reasons. Decided that they didn’t want to play D1 because they wanted a more typical college experience so that meant that the two Ivies were out. They also wanted to play and it might take a couple of year at the D1 level. They didn’t feel like MIT was a fit after their visit and figured a sure thing was better than a 60% chance with coach support.
Many kids aren’t as shallow as the parents and kids on DCUM.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
lol, I have a kid at Middlebury as well. One who turned down MIT and was recruited by multiple Ivies.
I turned down Harvard, Princeton for Colby. My kid was recruited by Ivies and Stanford but chose Vassar. We don't care for prestige, only untruths.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:in terms of education rigor, quality of peer group, faculty, campus experience, research opportunities, employment outcome, networks…but just not as prestigious? We want very high-stat DC to apply to the best quality schools without wasting REA/ED for the brand name
Since you did not indicate geographical preference i would add:
Oxford
Cambridge
Imperial
LSE
St Andrews
UCL
Edinburgh
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who cares what the people in Walmart think? It’s not like they know about quality education.
Be careful about making assumptions about people outside your bubble. We’re all guilty of being ignorant about the world outside our respective bubbles (UMC, Asian, East Coast, New England, Silicon Valley, white, old money, new money, tech immigrant, fed employee, soccer mom, URM, etc.) Let’s try not to be that way. People and their bubbles are complex. The cashier at Wal-Mart may be pushing her kids towards college.
Anonymous wrote:Who cares what the people in Walmart think? It’s not like they know about quality education.