Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opportunities are nowhere near competitive enough. DD was able to work at Yale law during the summer and get funding to examine legal theory across 5 different countries with an experienced, decorated law faculty member. During the school year, she has a grant to do bioethics policy work with a New York think tank that reached out to Yale for students, leads a club where she’s able to invite major speakers in ethics and other philosophy faculty, and was able to take a course in the SOM to fulfill her interest in bioethics. At Williams, she could’ve gone to class and taken a wide range of philosophy courses unrelated to her interest and maybe joined/started a club.

Her friends at LACs are academically impressive but that’s about it. They don’t have the experiences that signal impact. At best, they can get into an REU hosted at an institution like my daughters.

I have a kid at Yale (freshman) and Wiliams (junior) so maybe I can speak about this a little. They're both terrific.

Yale has more of a wow factor when you talk to your friends. No doubt. And they have big name speakers on campus every week. I like what a bigger school provides ie more dining options etc, but that's not a Yale thing. Would have been more food options are Syracuse etc. The kids are happy, lots of connections if you want them, lots to do on weekends (although more frat life than I realized)

The downside is the very competitive club culture. If you get into the top finance (theater, law, political, improv black) etc club, then you're on easy street. But the top finance club takes 12 kids (per year) and 2000 applied this year. So you try to get into the top 3 clubs and that can be hard too. My kid was applying to clubs nonstop and got into a good one and a couple okay ones. It's competitive. You have to be good at xyz if you want to get into the xyz club.

Williams can be an unknown to your friends, but not employers. Fewer resources on campus, fewer big names, fewer dining halls, fewer parties on weekends (but there are some, every weekend) and you're tucked away for a long winter. Those are the downsides. Upsides: more of a personal connection to teacher (ie they make calls for you). There are a ton of nepo kids there which has been an upside -- roomies dad can get you a summer gig at Blackstone. And the alumni network is very receptive. Reaching out to a rando on LinkedIn who went to yale would be weird. at Williams, totally normal. Also, you can do ANYTHING. Never done improv, who cares. Never looked at a P&L statement, you can do the January term at a hedge fund and get an internship from that.

They're very different with different ways of accessing opportunities. But both great.

Professors reach out to colleagues at other ivies and "known" industry people all the time at both of my kids' ivies, as well as our niece's T10 non-ivy. Summer internship, summer research, grad school, even introduce undergrads at conferences: lots personal connections (emails not calls these days). Almost every professor has been interested in helping undergrads, all one has to do is go to office hours and get to know them. Some even announce at the start of term that they are happy to help anyone interested in their field, and can connect to open research spots on campus. Each of my kids has reached out on Linked in to alums and gotten very positive responses. One of the ivies arranges zoom meetings with alums within the department/major/concentration. Clubs are fun and many are competitive, but none are necessary to achieve a top job/top grad program at these schools.
Even our neighbor's UVA kid had a professor reach out to a T5 faculty to get a foot in the door for summer research. They got the spot.
If Yale professors do not do any of that, which I doubt, that is wrong.

Well my kid is a freshman so maybe you're right. They go to office hours and like the teachers, so no complaints. But at williams, even in freshman year, the professors were reaching out to the kids saying, "ever thought about spending the summer doing xyz". It's different. Again, happy with both schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t pay a dime for those two schools in the title.
And I would happily pay full price for any of the ivies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opportunities are nowhere near competitive enough. DD was able to work at Yale law during the summer and get funding to examine legal theory across 5 different countries with an experienced, decorated law faculty member. During the school year, she has a grant to do bioethics policy work with a New York think tank that reached out to Yale for students, leads a club where she’s able to invite major speakers in ethics and other philosophy faculty, and was able to take a course in the SOM to fulfill her interest in bioethics. At Williams, she could’ve gone to class and taken a wide range of philosophy courses unrelated to her interest and maybe joined/started a club.

Her friends at LACs are academically impressive but that’s about it. They don’t have the experiences that signal impact. At best, they can get into an REU hosted at an institution like my daughters.

I have a kid at Yale (freshman) and Wiliams (junior) so maybe I can speak about this a little. They're both terrific.

Yale has more of a wow factor when you talk to your friends. No doubt. And they have big name speakers on campus every week. I like what a bigger school provides ie more dining options etc, but that's not a Yale thing. Would have been more food options are Syracuse etc. The kids are happy, lots of connections if you want them, lots to do on weekends (although more frat life than I realized)

The downside is the very competitive club culture. If you get into the top finance (theater, law, political, improv black) etc club, then you're on easy street. But the top finance club takes 12 kids (per year) and 2000 applied this year. So you try to get into the top 3 clubs and that can be hard too. My kid was applying to clubs nonstop and got into a good one and a couple okay ones. It's competitive. You have to be good at xyz if you want to get into the xyz club.

Williams can be an unknown to your friends, but not employers. Fewer resources on campus, fewer big names, fewer dining halls, fewer parties on weekends (but there are some, every weekend) and you're tucked away for a long winter. Those are the downsides. Upsides: more of a personal connection to teacher (ie they make calls for you). There are a ton of nepo kids there which has been an upside -- roomies dad can get you a summer gig at Blackstone. And the alumni network is very receptive. Reaching out to a rando on LinkedIn who went to yale would be weird. at Williams, totally normal. Also, you can do ANYTHING. Never done improv, who cares. Never looked at a P&L statement, you can do the January term at a hedge fund and get an internship from that.

They're very different with different ways of accessing opportunities. But both great.

Professors reach out to colleagues at other ivies and "known" industry people all the time at both of my kids' ivies, as well as our niece's T10 non-ivy. Summer internship, summer research, grad school, even introduce undergrads at conferences: lots personal connections (emails not calls these days). Almost every professor has been interested in helping undergrads, all one has to do is go to office hours and get to know them. Some even announce at the start of term that they are happy to help anyone interested in their field, and can connect to open research spots on campus. Each of my kids has reached out on Linked in to alums and gotten very positive responses. One of the ivies arranges zoom meetings with alums within the department/major/concentration. Clubs are fun and many are competitive, but none are necessary to achieve a top job/top grad program at these schools.
Even our neighbor's UVA kid had a professor reach out to a T5 faculty to get a foot in the door for summer research. They got the spot.
If Yale professors do not do any of that, which I doubt, that is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is full of insecure Ivy alums who can't accept that there are good non-Ivy schools out there.

williams and amherst are barely 10% test optional and sub 40% yield. the only secure ones are lac students who couldnt get into ivies which would be almost all of them

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Children must learn to self-soothe.

lol, we went to schools far better than your shit lacs dont worry.

You most assuredly didn’t go to a better school than the top SLACs.

I actually went to a non-selective public but I’m comfortable with the reality that top SLACs are as good or better than any school or group of schools for undergraduate education.

Once again, no actual proof they have better teaching. No reason to believe so either.

As opposed to your "rock solid" proof that Ivies have better teaching and resources? Proof which is non existent.

Anyway, here is some actual material from strong sources along with a research paper explicitly pointing out that the incentives for teaching are misaligned at R1s.

https://www.macfound.org/press/press-releases/creativity-benefit-liberal-education

https://www.aei.org/politics-and-public-opinion/why-are-liberal-arts-college-faculty-building-better-relationships-with-their-students/

https://www.hillpublisher.com/UpFile/202405/20240521181851.pdf

R1s range from Harvard to ASU. It’s a bit disingenuous to say you’re going to give sources and then not compare the topic at hand. The ivies have undergraduate colleges that are highly focused on teaching while connecting undergraduate students with research institutes.

What makes you think Princeton is a worse teaching institution than Williams?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

You sound like you go to Johns Hopkins. Not a compliment. Yes, Johns Hopkins has a spectacular endowment per student. They have been need blind — forever.

Nope try again. I went to a top school with above 80% yield. Amherst and Williams at 39 and 40% for a reason

https://www.ivywise.com/blog/college-yield-rates/

This begs the question: why are you a dingleberry?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

You sound like you go to Johns Hopkins. Not a compliment. Yes, Johns Hopkins has a spectacular endowment per student. They have been need blind — forever.

Nope try again. I went to a top school with above 80% yield. Amherst and Williams at 39 and 40% for a reason

https://www.ivywise.com/blog/college-yield-rates/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

You sound like you go to Johns Hopkins. Not a compliment. Yes, Johns Hopkins has a spectacular endowment per student. They have been need blind — forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.