Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

Your kid will not get into Williams/Amherst without a hook.

My kid’s paid college advisor told us that every year there are about 50-75 unhooked spots at each of these two schools. And about 15,000 applications at each. So what I’m telling you is, there IS a chance! LoL.

I call bs on those numbers - that simply can’t be true

250 athletes (50 percent), 75-100 Posse, other FGLIs and geographic diversity, 75-100 relevant legacies and other VIPs.

amherst was one of the first to eliminate the legacy benefit

And as soon as Amherst did that, back in think 2021 or so, the following happened:


Amherst College admitted a record 25% of first-generation and low-income (FGLI) students for the Class of 2029, a significant increase from the 19% of the Class of 2027 and 13% of the Class of 2023, reflecting the college's continued efforts to increase access for underrepresented students


Newsflash: your kid is not getting in unless they can make a team.

Amherst has a substantial endowment but it will rapidly deteriorate over the next few decades. Alums will cease donating when their kids get no legacy benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Then why is Wellesley still ranked so highly?

Wellesley is also playing with fire. I know many Wellesley women as family and friends, and none of them- *none*- are interested in sending their daughters there. I'd expect Wellesley's ability to place students into top-tier jobs and graduate schools to degrade significantly over the next 30 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

Your kid will not get into Williams/Amherst without a hook.

My kid’s paid college advisor told us that every year there are about 50-75 unhooked spots at each of these two schools. And about 15,000 applications at each. So what I’m telling you is, there IS a chance! LoL.

I call bs on those numbers - that simply can’t be true

250 athletes (50 percent), 75-100 Posse, other FGLIs and geographic diversity, 75-100 relevant legacies and other VIPs.

amherst was one of the first to eliminate the legacy benefit

And as soon as Amherst did that, back in think 2021 or so, the following happened:


Amherst College admitted a record 25% of first-generation and low-income (FGLI) students for the Class of 2029, a significant increase from the 19% of the Class of 2027 and 13% of the Class of 2023, reflecting the college's continued efforts to increase access for underrepresented students


Newsflash: your kid is not getting in unless they can make a team.

Amherst has a substantial endowment but it will rapidly deteriorate over the next few decades. Alums will cease donating when their kids get no legacy benefit.

Which is why MIT and Hopkins are dying, right? Oh wait

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

Your kid will not get into Williams/Amherst without a hook.

My kid’s paid college advisor told us that every year there are about 50-75 unhooked spots at each of these two schools. And about 15,000 applications at each. So what I’m telling you is, there IS a chance! LoL.

I call bs on those numbers - that simply can’t be true

250 athletes (50 percent), 75-100 Posse, other FGLIs and geographic diversity, 75-100 relevant legacies and other VIPs.

amherst was one of the first to eliminate the legacy benefit

And as soon as Amherst did that, back in think 2021 or so, the following happened:


Amherst College admitted a record 25% of first-generation and low-income (FGLI) students for the Class of 2029, a significant increase from the 19% of the Class of 2027 and 13% of the Class of 2023, reflecting the college's continued efforts to increase access for underrepresented students


Newsflash: your kid is not getting in unless they can make a team.

Amherst has a substantial endowment but it will rapidly deteriorate over the next few decades. Alums will cease donating when their kids get no legacy benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

Your kid will not get into Williams/Amherst without a hook.

My kid’s paid college advisor told us that every year there are about 50-75 unhooked spots at each of these two schools. And about 15,000 applications at each. So what I’m telling you is, there IS a chance! LoL.

I call bs on those numbers - that simply can’t be true

250 athletes (50 percent), 75-100 Posse, other FGLIs and geographic diversity, 75-100 relevant legacies and other VIPs.

amherst was one of the first to eliminate the legacy benefit

And as soon as Amherst did that, back in think 2021 or so, the following happened:


Amherst College admitted a record 25% of first-generation and low-income (FGLI) students for the Class of 2029, a significant increase from the 19% of the Class of 2027 and 13% of the Class of 2023, reflecting the college's continued efforts to increase access for underrepresented students


Newsflash: your kid is not getting in unless they can make a team.

Amherst has a substantial endowment but it will rapidly deteriorate over the next few decades. Alums will cease donating when their kids get no legacy benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

I agree. I have lived and worked abroad and no one in London, Middle East, Brussels or Paris seems to have heard of Pomona, Carleton, Haverford, Grinnell, Middlebury, CMC or Scripps. They have definitely heard of Williams and Wellesley.

Facts. I'd also add few business contacts I've worked with internationally have heard of Bowdoin either. I mention the LACs my DC is considering to my business contacts who've asked and they just return a blank stare like huh what college is that?

But does it matter? I work with Canadians and I’d never heard of the universities they attended before getting to know them, but I know they’re brilliant and excellent at what they do. Why would it be important?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

Your kid will not get into Williams/Amherst without a hook.

My kid’s paid college advisor told us that every year there are about 50-75 unhooked spots at each of these two schools. And about 15,000 applications at each. So what I’m telling you is, there IS a chance! LoL.

170 athletes, not 250. The school says about 30%.
I call bs on those numbers - that simply can’t be true

250 athletes (50 percent), 75-100 Posse, other FGLIs and geographic diversity, 75-100 relevant legacies and other VIPs.

Neither Williams or Posse students to posse and posse isn’t even FGLI; it’s a merit scholarship. And no liberal arts college accepts more than about 20 or so posse scholars a year. Williams has not released an official number of legacies or vips, and similar liberal arts colleges have no where near 75 students in a single class at legacy (peer CMC only gave admission to 15 legacy students: https://tsl.news/5c-students-weigh-in-as-california-ends-legacy-admissions/amp/). So you’ve just made up a bunch of crap.

So out of 15,000 applications and 50 percent athletes and 25 percent FGLI (FG and/or LI) and a class enrollment of ~500, exactly how many unhooked spots are there?

Way more than you’re willing to admit.

Seriously, offer up a number if you don’t agree with mine. My daughter was heavily recruited for a sport at Amherst but passed and ended up at an Ivy. My next child looked at the school during that time and loved it. Better grades and test scores than the older but we realized she could not get in and in fact our school’s Naviance scattergram showed no one had ever gotten in without a sport. Our school does not have FGLI kids but it can produce athletes. I had no idea how selective it was until I took that deep dive.

So what is your number?

You know your claims can be wrong without their being a precise number.

But they aren’t wrong. Or at least they are directionally correct. 125 FGLI (per their web site), 250 athletes (per common knowledge that it’s 50 percent) = 375. Even if no VIPs and no geographic diversity, that leaves about 100 spots right? Assume some overlap and if you have say 50 VIPs you are left with ~75 unhooked spots. Where’s the flaw in my logic? Yes there is some overlap between VIP and athlete or athlete and FGLI, but having had a child go through the recruiting by process, I can attest very little. Again, where’s the flaw in the logic here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

I agree. I have lived and worked abroad and no one in London, Middle East, Brussels or Paris seems to have heard of Pomona, Carleton, Haverford, Grinnell, Middlebury, CMC or Scripps. They have definitely heard of Williams and Wellesley.

You can continue to delude yourselves into thinking that Williams and Amherst are widely known and the others mentioned aren’t but it’s not true. People can also delude themselves into believing that the Ivies carry some magic weight. That also isn’t true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

Your kid will not get into Williams/Amherst without a hook.

My kid’s paid college advisor told us that every year there are about 50-75 unhooked spots at each of these two schools. And about 15,000 applications at each. So what I’m telling you is, there IS a chance! LoL.

I call bs on those numbers - that simply can’t be true

250 athletes (50 percent), 75-100 Posse, other FGLIs and geographic diversity, 75-100 relevant legacies and other VIPs.

amherst was one of the first to eliminate the legacy benefit

And as soon as Amherst did that, back in think 2021 or so, the following happened:


Amherst College admitted a record 25% of first-generation and low-income (FGLI) students for the Class of 2029, a significant increase from the 19% of the Class of 2027 and 13% of the Class of 2023, reflecting the college's continued efforts to increase access for underrepresented students


Newsflash: your kid is not getting in unless they can make a team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

I agree. I have lived and worked abroad and no one in London, Middle East, Brussels or Paris seems to have heard of Pomona, Carleton, Haverford, Grinnell, Middlebury, CMC or Scripps. They have definitely heard of Williams and Wellesley.

Facts. I'd also add few business contacts I've worked with internationally have heard of Bowdoin either. I mention the LACs my DC is considering to my business contacts who've asked and they just return a blank stare like huh what college is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a huge believer and proponent of the SLAC model, but really do worry that name recognition will be a handicap throughout life. The exceptions are probably limited to only Williams and Amherst imo, and unfortunately those will be a crapshoot for my unhooked high stats kid. Do either of those schools try to yield protect during RD by rejecting ivy-looking kids? May call me myopic or narrow minded, but I’ve told him those are the only 2 SLACs he can apply to

I agree. I have lived and worked abroad and no one in London, Middle East, Brussels or Paris seems to have heard of Pomona, Carleton, Haverford, Grinnell, Middlebury, CMC or Scripps. They have definitely heard of Williams and Wellesley.

Anonymous wrote:Just trying to digest all of these comments (wow, I mean…). So, our two kids both applied to Pomona and were rejected. Admittedly, it was a super reach for both of them, but even if they had struck gold and gotten in somehow, academically it would have been a challenge, perhaps even overwhelming. Which leads me to my point - they’re both happy and thriving where they are and I think meant to be (large school in Boston, LAC in PA). I don’t think anything less of the schools they didn’t get into (including Pomona). If anything, our family’s admiration for these schools has grown immeasurably. Seriously!

Anonymous wrote:What is it about Pomona that generates so much hate?? I don’t have a dog in this fight but I always thought of Pomona as an equivalent warm weather alternative to the top Northeastern SLAC’s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real bargain is Grinnell. Excellent school that automatically gives $20k in merit aid to any student accepted ED and typically awards even more. Many are turned off by the location, but it's not like the other top LACs are in or near major metropolitan areas either. Our kid from the DMV attended and loved it.

Pomona, Wellesley, Barnard, Davidson…

Carleton, Williams, Amherst, Middlebury

I was specifically pointing out the LACs with locations near major metropolitan areas.

Duh. Very typical of DCUM. I never meant to suggest that none of the top LACs are near metropolitan areas. Obviously some are -- as you couldn't wait to jump up and prove me wrong. My point was meant to be more general. Grinnell is almost uniquely discounted for its rural location.

The only LACs that can truly take advantage of their urban locations (within 15-ish minute drive of downtown) are Macalester, Occidental and maybe Reed. Mac and Oxy kids can hop over downtown to do internships in between classes the way the DC kids can at American or GW.

DD is at Pomona and they take advantage of LA all the time. I really doubt that students choosing to live near a major metropolitan go 4 years ignoring it.

Pomona (in Claremont) is 1 hour away from LA same as Carleton (in Northfield) is 1 hour away from Minneapolis. Yes they can take advantage of being an hour out from a city from time to time, but by no means are either in "urban" locations where they can be in the middle of the city within 15 minutes. C'mon now.

My kid goes all the time. It’s a direct train to LA. oxy isn’t even in a nice area of LA- it’s going to take you an hour from oxy to get somewhere decent that isn’t silver lake and even that is an annoying bus ride.

If you’re allergic to long trips, LA isn’t for you, but there are nearly weekly trips from Claremont to LA, and students now have direct access to Pasadena due to the A line extension.

This ideas that Claremont students don’t go to LA often is strange. Pomona used to do challenges where students had to go to LA. This may blow your mind, but tens of thousands of people commute to LA everyday from the IE. it’s not exactly a harrowing journey.

I have worked in LA so my mind is hardly blown. I was responding to a comment about LACs in urban locations. No one has ever called Claremont suburbs an urban location. Oxy is in Los Angeles, is 15 minutes by car from Pasadena and 15-20 minutes by car from DTLA. 5Cs just are not. Of course they go to LA sometimes but not 1-2x/daily for interviews or internships. My kid has friends at both schools. I currently live in CA and have visited both campuses multiple times.

Well for one, interviews these days are almost entirely virtual. No where did you originally say Urban, you said near a major metropolitan area- which crazy thing, Claremont is in LA county. No one is going to la everyday for interviews, even when they were in person. These sound like phantom luxuries that you made up on the spot. It gets tiring dealing with people like you who try their hardest to lie as much as possible. Getting to Pasadena or la these days isn’t a problem for a Claremont student- it isn’t the early 2010s.