Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you get a pass for Wiliams and Amherst. But otherwise SLACs aren't really taken seriously
What do you think makes the education one receives at a SLAC different from an Ivy League school which I presume you think people take seriously? Like is an Econ degree at Swarthmore bs while it’s serious business at Brown?
30 or 40 years ago I might have understood what you mean. The leaders and people making hiring decisions back then that went to Harvard may not have heard of most LACs but with the major changes in college admissions since the late 80s, nearly everyone who attended an elite school is well aware of the other top schools. People at Stanford know Pomona is a great school and people at Harvard and Yale know Swarthmore and Amherst well.
30 years ago when the high school population was at a generational low it was pretty easy for a solid student to get into a LAC while ivies were more competitive and only the top of the class got in (but they could get in without a hook, just excellent grades and scores). Now in order to get into an Ivy you need all that plus hooks and same goes for top 5/10 SLACs. When you go down the SLAC list the need to have a hook declines but the basic academic credentials basically hangs in there, with more tolerance of imperfections. So there is less disparity in terms of the academic caliber of the students than there used to be.
I don't think you know actually what you are talking about TBH. It sounds pretty good though!
Well I got into HYP almost exactly 30 years ago, and know where my high school friends landed, and the background of my college classmates, and I just lived through my DD’s application cycle with all her friends, and I’ve studied all the CDS data… so actually I think I have a pretty good grip on this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you get a pass for Wiliams and Amherst. But otherwise SLACs aren't really taken seriously
What do you think makes the education one receives at a SLAC different from an Ivy League school which I presume you think people take seriously? Like is an Econ degree at Swarthmore bs while it’s serious business at Brown?
30 or 40 years ago I might have understood what you mean. The leaders and people making hiring decisions back then that went to Harvard may not have heard of most LACs but with the major changes in college admissions since the late 80s, nearly everyone who attended an elite school is well aware of the other top schools. People at Stanford know Pomona is a great school and people at Harvard and Yale know Swarthmore and Amherst well.
30 years ago when the high school population was at a generational low it was pretty easy for a solid student to get into a LAC while ivies were more competitive and only the top of the class got in (but they could get in without a hook, just excellent grades and scores). Now in order to get into an Ivy you need all that plus hooks and same goes for top 5/10 SLACs. When you go down the SLAC list the need to have a hook declines but the basic academic credentials basically hangs in there, with more tolerance of imperfections. So there is less disparity in terms of the academic caliber of the students than there used to be.
I don't think you know actually what you are talking about TBH. It sounds pretty good though!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU
Chicago has the same issues as LACs. People just don't know them name wise. Chicago is like UDC or a CUNY, right?
They have prestige in elite circles but not with most people.
Honestly anyone who hasn’t heard of University of Chicago is an imbecile and their opinion is meaningless
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you get a pass for Wiliams and Amherst. But otherwise SLACs aren't really taken seriously
What do you think makes the education one receives at a SLAC different from an Ivy League school which I presume you think people take seriously? Like is an Econ degree at Swarthmore bs while it’s serious business at Brown?
30 or 40 years ago I might have understood what you mean. The leaders and people making hiring decisions back then that went to Harvard may not have heard of most LACs but with the major changes in college admissions since the late 80s, nearly everyone who attended an elite school is well aware of the other top schools. People at Stanford know Pomona is a great school and people at Harvard and Yale know Swarthmore and Amherst well.
30 years ago when the high school population was at a generational low it was pretty easy for a solid student to get into a LAC while ivies were more competitive and only the top of the class got in (but they could get in without a hook, just excellent grades and scores). Now in order to get into an Ivy you need all that plus hooks and same goes for top 5/10 SLACs. When you go down the SLAC list the need to have a hook declines but the basic academic credentials basically hangs in there, with more tolerance of imperfections. So there is less disparity in terms of the academic caliber of the students than there used to be.
Anonymous wrote:Elon
Anonymous wrote:Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU
Chicago has the same issues as LACs. People just don't know them name wise. Chicago is like UDC or a CUNY, right?
They have prestige in elite circles but not with most people.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Increasingly less enamored with prestige and more focused on outcomes.
+1
Anonymous wrote:Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke and JHU
Anonymous wrote:Increasingly less enamored with prestige and more focused on outcomes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think you get a pass for Wiliams and Amherst. But otherwise SLACs aren't really taken seriously
What do you think makes the education one receives at a SLAC different from an Ivy League school which I presume you think people take seriously? Like is an Econ degree at Swarthmore bs while it’s serious business at Brown?
30 or 40 years ago I might have understood what you mean. The leaders and people making hiring decisions back then that went to Harvard may not have heard of most LACs but with the major changes in college admissions since the late 80s, nearly everyone who attended an elite school is well aware of the other top schools. People at Stanford know Pomona is a great school and people at Harvard and Yale know Swarthmore and Amherst well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What’s admirable about the Williams & Amherst students is that they probably could have gotten into more-famous schools that would be more impressive to friends, relatives, and employers who are not familiar with how elite the top liberal arts colleges are.
In an era when so many are ostentatious, this is no small matter.
Why is this admirable ?
+1
"Admirable" - I'm still laughing.![]()