Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Maybe that’s the case in science and math. It definitely isn’t the case in social sciences or humanities at all. Most of the professors are not well known researchers.

For a while, Reed was sending a ton of history PhD candidates to Princeton. And I know of two English.

It wasn’t a point about Reed and sending kids to phd programs. It was about the research reputation of the professors at LACs.

Just incorrect. Maybe they arent the first known historians you find on Google (if that mattered Berkeley and Yale would be the only important research universities for the humanities), but they’re definitely known in their respective fields.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Because they do what most good SLAC, ivies & other good schools do and funnel money to financial aid. It’s tough for families that don’t qualify for aid but can’t afford the typical tuition for good schools.

As a result the school consists of rich kids and poor kids - so much for diversity

This is an issue at all the "competitive" schools.

I went to Reed and have had some contact with current students, the drug and mental health stuff is there, although a lot of people go through four years without ever being affected. I would not send a kid with any existing issues there.

But the massive class gap is the real problem at all of those schools. It causes a lot of performative shuffling, as students try and figure out how they too are also oppressed, or how they top can fit in with peers who have summer houses and ski. It's not healthy in our culture to have this massive wealth disparity, and it's not healthy in a college.

I was kind of glad when our kid didn't have the stats for those schools. They ended up going to a CTCL, one with much less toxic socioeconomic differences.

Basically this is the reality of almost ALL private colleges… it’s half kids who can afford 90k a year, which generally means quite affluent except for the donut hole families who choose to go into debt, and half kids who qualify for a full ride or near full ride.

That might be true for the non-merit aid schools, but at many of the merit aid schools you can attend for around or even less than your instate public. This changes the income distribution and vibe. A school like St Olaf for example has everything you’d want in an LAC, with a much less intense/ performative social vibe

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Because they do what most good SLAC, ivies & other good schools do and funnel money to financial aid. It’s tough for families that don’t qualify for aid but can’t afford the typical tuition for good schools.

As a result the school consists of rich kids and poor kids - so much for diversity

This is an issue at all the "competitive" schools.

I went to Reed and have had some contact with current students, the drug and mental health stuff is there, although a lot of people go through four years without ever being affected. I would not send a kid with any existing issues there.

But the massive class gap is the real problem at all of those schools. It causes a lot of performative shuffling, as students try and figure out how they too are also oppressed, or how they top can fit in with peers who have summer houses and ski. It's not healthy in our culture to have this massive wealth disparity, and it's not healthy in a college.

I was kind of glad when our kid didn't have the stats for those schools. They ended up going to a CTCL, one with much less toxic socioeconomic differences.

Basically this is the reality of almost ALL private colleges… it’s half kids who can afford 90k a year, which generally means quite affluent except for the donut hole families who choose to go into debt, and half kids who qualify for a full ride or near full ride.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Maybe that’s the case in science and math. It definitely isn’t the case in social sciences or humanities at all. Most of the professors are not well known researchers.

For a while, Reed was sending a ton of history PhD candidates to Princeton. And I know of two English.

It wasn’t a point about Reed and sending kids to phd programs. It was about the research reputation of the professors at LACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Because they do what most good SLAC, ivies & other good schools do and funnel money to financial aid. It’s tough for families that don’t qualify for aid but can’t afford the typical tuition for good schools.

As a result the school consists of rich kids and poor kids - so much for diversity

This is an issue at all the "competitive" schools.

I went to Reed and have had some contact with current students, the drug and mental health stuff is there, although a lot of people go through four years without ever being affected. I would not send a kid with any existing issues there.

But the massive class gap is the real problem at all of those schools. It causes a lot of performative shuffling, as students try and figure out how they too are also oppressed, or how they top can fit in with peers who have summer houses and ski. It's not healthy in our culture to have this massive wealth disparity, and it's not healthy in a college.

I was kind of glad when our kid didn't have the stats for those schools. They ended up going to a CTCL, one with much less toxic socioeconomic differences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Maybe that’s the case in science and math. It definitely isn’t the case in social sciences or humanities at all. Most of the professors are not well known researchers.

For a while, Reed was sending a ton of history PhD candidates to Princeton. And I know of two English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Maybe that’s the case in science and math. It definitely isn’t the case in social sciences or humanities at all. Most of the professors are not well known researchers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Because they do what most good SLAC, ivies & other good schools do and funnel money to financial aid. It’s tough for families that don’t qualify for aid but can’t afford the typical tuition for good schools.

As a result the school consists of rich kids and poor kids - so much for diversity

Anonymous wrote:This is accurate. I am an Ivy professor in biomedical sciences who does PhD program admissions. We care a lot more about research experience and letters of recommendation from research advisors vs where the undergrad degree comes from. We absolutely do not differentiate between top 30-40 LACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

The Amherst kid with the goods is going to be looked at by grad school committees before a kid from a lower-ranked LAC. My kid who graduated from Amherst got interviewed/invited for a visit by every PhD program he applied to, and had multiple offers. His friends at other less well-known schools did not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

The Amherst kid with the goods is going to be looked at by grad school committees before a kid from a lower-ranked LAC. My kid who graduated from Amherst got interviewed/invited for a visit by every PhD program he applied to, and had multiple offers. His friends at other less well-known schools did not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMHO they are all basically the same academically, so choose the one your kid likes best.

+1 it’s all angels dancing on the head of a pin at this level

So Kenyon is the same level as Pomona? Yeah…right

Yes.

This is delusional. Someone is Kenyon boosting for no reason.

Not PP - but honestly what greatness is going to befall a Pomona grad that will elude a Kenyon grad? The percentage of the population that has heard of these schools or can meaningfully differentiate among them (including educated people) is very small. Frankly the debates that take place here - where there is vast disagreement about the schools among people who are weirdly obsessed with them - prove the point. It’s like asking which of two obscure cheeses nobody heard of is definitively better.

I can’t tell if this is the DC bias or an honest opinion. There’s quite a bit of professional and academic outcome difference. I get that most people haven’t heard of them, but any recruiter would see the difference, unless you’re applying for a job in Cincinnati.

+1, saying that you can’t tell the difference between Williams and Oberlin or Pomona and Kenyon is a ridiculous statement. It’s definitely an incorrect and dumb assessment by a mom “fed up” with LAC talk.

Honestly, you take the same kid, put him or her at any of these schools, they will likely end up in the same place.

100% true as long as you aren’t majoring in Econ, political science, bio, thinking about grad school and want to go to a good one, or want a nice fellowship post grad! Otherwise, the exact same places.

You think a grad from say a t35 lac is going to be at a disadvantage to one from a t15 lac when say applying to law school if lsat scores are same; gpa is same; essays are same?

The main reason outcomes are better at higher ranked schools is that student quality is on average higher.

It’s actually possible that a student might have a shot at a better outcome coming from a school where the competition is less fierce.

Look, all things being equal, there is value in having a marginally stronger brand… but let’s not get carried away with the impact.

+100

Maybe, but if you're in the top 10% at a T5 LAC you will have better outcomes than if you're top 10% at a T35 LAC. There is a difference. Employers and grad schools know it.

Most grad school admissions are not focused on undergraduate school rank (within reason). And if you’re a top 10% student at a T5 LAC you would likely be a top 1/2/5% student at a T35. We are talking about the same student just in different places.

This is actually a real poor understanding of the differences between faculty. It sounds nice and all that everything is equitable, but the reality is that the top lacs have better research faculty than most lac that means their recommendations carry heavier weight when you’re applying to a grad program. Especially the lacs with their own REUs benefit, because that indicates they have teaching faculty that also have decent research output.

Nope, I’m actually well aware of that. The problem with your take is that you are going to have tons of strong students at a top LAC all competing for those same recs from a few truly top profs, with most likely needing to settle for recs from the “lesser” profs. In the end there won’t be that big of a difference with the strong kid at the somewhat lower ranked LAC that can get the department head to provide a rec, for example.

There’s quite a few hard-hitting prof in each department, at least in science and mathematics) LACs have stumbled a bit in the humanities). Not everyone is gunning for those profs as advisors as most, presumably, aren’t going to grad school. No LAC is producing 10 incoming PhD candidates in every department in 1 year, so any “competition” is artificial.

And to the other comment, while the lac phd producing list isn’t an exact replica of the USNews list, it’s pretty damn similar. The only shocking difference is Reed, who has been explained 1000 times as a previous top 10 LAC.

Honestly if your kid wants to pursue a PhD for whatever reason- you pick the school based on department strengths and characteristics - I don’t think you have to worry too much over the USNWR prestige game which matters more for business arguably because of network and brand

And the best departments track pretty well with the most well known schools. You’re making a pizza and putting all the toppings in the middle.

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Reed, Carleton and Harvey Mudd are gonna be a good boost to your application.

But again, you’re just assuming that because kids from top undergrad go to top grad, that’s *because* they went to a top undergrad. But it mostly isn’t. It’s because top students predominantly go to top undergrads, and because they are top students they also go to top grads. Admissions committees are not like, “oh golly gee whiz, this kid went to AMHERST I am blown away.” They mostly don’t care so long as you didn’t go to some backwater or place they’ve barely heard of. They want to see your test scores, grades, interest/background, recs.

The Amherst kid with the goods is going to be looked at by grad school committees before a kid from a lower-ranked LAC. My kid who graduated from Amherst got interviewed/invited for a visit by every PhD program he applied to, and had multiple offers. His friends at other less well-known schools did not.

Anonymous wrote:Overrated- all lacs. The best lac would be a bottom t100 university.