Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

There's not much to say. There's been Pomona alum that are professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford...
I'd also argue that CRISPR is more consequential than both the Amherst alum PP was bragging about, and that both schools are great in their own respects.

A random alum or two is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pomona_College_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amherst_College_people

Looks like Amherst outcome is better.

Really? Just checked both sources. Amherst has a boost from being 60 years older than Pomona, so many of these alum are either before Pomona is an institution or before it has any real time to establish itself.

They both are incredibly weak when it comes to modern alum (class of 1990 and above). Schools like Stanford and Harvard are always pumping out the best next talent.

I guess we look at different things.

Nobel Prize winner, Amherst 5 (from 1990 - 2017), Pomona 1 - 2020
Pulitzer Prize winners, Amherst 12 (1968 - 2007), Pomona 4 (1951-2012)

And Amherst's strength is supposed to produce lawyer, banker and wall street investor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

There's not much to say. There's been Pomona alum that are professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford...
I'd also argue that CRISPR is more consequential than both the Amherst alum PP was bragging about, and that both schools are great in their own respects.

A random alum or two is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pomona_College_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amherst_College_people

Looks like Amherst outcome is better.

Really? Just checked both sources. Amherst has a boost from being 60 years older than Pomona, so many of these alum are either before Pomona is an institution or before it has any real time to establish itself.

They both are incredibly weak when it comes to modern alum (class of 1990 and above). Schools like Stanford and Harvard are always pumping out the best next talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

There's not much to say. There's been Pomona alum that are professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford...
I'd also argue that CRISPR is more consequential than both the Amherst alum PP was bragging about, and that both schools are great in their own respects.

A random alum or two is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pomona_College_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amherst_College_people

Looks like Amherst outcome is better.

Really? Just checked both sources. Amherst has a boost from being 60 years older than Pomona, so many of these alum are either before Pomona is an institution or before it has any real time to establish itself.

They both are incredibly weak when it comes to modern alum (class of 1990 and above). Schools like Stanford and Harvard are always pumping out the best next talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

There's not much to say. There's been Pomona alum that are professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford...
I'd also argue that CRISPR is more consequential than both the Amherst alum PP was bragging about, and that both schools are great in their own respects.

A random alum or two is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pomona_College_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amherst_College_people

Looks like Amherst outcome is better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

There's not much to say. There's been Pomona alum that are professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford...
I'd also argue that CRISPR is more consequential than both the Amherst alum PP was bragging about, and that both schools are great in their own respects.

A random alum or two is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pomona_College_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amherst_College_people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

There's not much to say. There's been Pomona alum that are professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford...
I'd also argue that CRISPR is more consequential than both the Amherst alum PP was bragging about, and that both schools are great in their own respects.

A random alum or two is meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

There's not much to say. There's been Pomona alum that are professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford...
I'd also argue that CRISPR is more consequential than both the Amherst alum PP was bragging about, and that both schools are great in their own respects.

A random alum or two is meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

There's not much to say. There's been Pomona alum that are professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford...
I'd also argue that CRISPR is more consequential than both the Amherst alum PP was bragging about, and that both schools are great in their own respects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

I guess no more arguments, lol.

Anonymous wrote:Probably the most famous Pomona alum is Jennifer Doudna. Meanwhile, Amherst has changed American history with alum like Calvin Coolidge and Harlan Fiske Stone. Hell the most famous faculty member of Pomona, David foster Wallace, is an Amherst alum! There’s not a single Pomona alum who is a current professor at Amherst

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

If it weren't for the ranking, I don't think you can pick the 8 out of rest, or it's just your opinion means nothing to others.

It's pretty simple. The 8 have the highest average test scores (and they had the highest test scores before TO), are among the oldest and most established schools in their regions, and are among the wealthiest schools of their type as measured by endowment. Their success rates in lucrative careers and graduate school admissions is well known with placement success as good as any school in many cases. The correlation is very tight. Does that make them the absolute 8 best, maybe, maybe not but they have all been considered the very best or among the very best by reputation for a long time. Six of them appeared in a Life magazine article of the best colleges and universities in 1960 (Pomona and Wellesley were omitted). It is my opinion, but it is an opinion grounded in thought and history rather than hysterical screaming

Most of you said are based on some kind of ranking, if you never attend those schools, you wouldn't have any thoughts but hysterical screaming.

Is English your first language? You were completely incoherent. None of the above is ranking, it is grouping.

Sorry, it's math, grouping is ranking too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I really preferred Pomona to Amherst when I toured last year and in '23 with two different kids. Amherst does indeed look ... if not dumpy, not investing in their campus.

Pomona is the king of dumpy. Many buildings are 100+ years old and look it. There’s no up-to-date buildings on campus, and some classes even happen outside because they’re lacking space! Would not attend.

You’ve never been to Pomona lol.

Pomona looks like a Taco Bell complex with no green space. Why attend when you can go to a beautiful New England college with better name recognition

This would make sense if the comparison was Yale or Princeton, but Amherst…

It doesn’t make sense at all. Pomona isn’t Taco Bell architecture, that’d be Stanford or USC. The whole modern red roof-brown paint aesthetic. Pomona is cream colored for the most part. And the whole area is very green; the campus is covered with trees. Obviously not as verdant as Amherst in the summer but definitely not lacking in greenery by any means.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 comments and most comments don’t mention either of the 2 schools that are of interest, and most of the ones that do are brain dead prestige takes that make 0 freaking sense

The vast majority of this thread is two boosters going at each other.

Everybody knows difference between two schools are slim, but, we like ranking, don't we?

Majority people will look into ranking when choosing college, of course, depends on your interests, talent, career goal, it would be wise not based on ranking alone.
Factual and data based discussion are helpful, people will come and read.

Ranking is just foolish at these levels. Boosters from various schools whine, yell, and fight but there isn't much actual difference. This poster had it right.

"There are eight SLACS (Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams) which average single digit rankings over the last 35 years of USNWR rankings. Two aren't mentioned too of which aren't mentioned much on this forum Wellesley and Carleton. Wellesley because of it being a Women's college and Carleton because of location in the Midwest. There is no real difference in them except for their wealth and location. They may have some different strengths but they are all universally excellent. CMC, Davidson, Vassar, W&L, and Wesleyan are close to this group as well with CMC floating around the top 10 for years with particular strengths in finance. Hamilton, Grinnell and Smith hang out with this group as well."

The WASP supporters hate hearing it but there isn't a real difference in resources. A few things here and there but far more similarities than differences. They all spend large amounts of money educating their students (more than most Ivies) and they all provide excellent experiences.

But, let the games continue.

So endowment per student only matters selectively when lac parents can use it to support the heir arguments but somehow doesn’t matter when distinguishing these colleges?