Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/
Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate
Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate
Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate
Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate
Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate
Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.
In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.
Why does Pomona take so few
Because it is a great school?
Pomona seems to prioritize California in admissions.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/pomona-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Amherst doesn't reflect any one large regional percentage in the same way. Though its second highest percentage of students is from CA!
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/amherst-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Almost a 1/5 of the class from New York…shows a pretty large bias.
Sure, but 18% is not 34%.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/
Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate
Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate
Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate
Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate
Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate
Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.
In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.
Why does Pomona take so few
Because it is a great school?
Pomona seems to prioritize California in admissions.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/pomona-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Amherst doesn't reflect any one large regional percentage in the same way. Though its second highest percentage of students is from CA!
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/amherst-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Almost a 1/5 of the class from New York…shows a pretty large bias.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/
Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate
Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate
Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate
Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate
Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate
Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.
In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.
Why does Pomona take so few
Because it is a great school?
Pomona seems to prioritize California in admissions.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/pomona-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Amherst doesn't reflect any one large regional percentage in the same way. Though its second highest percentage of students is from CA!
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/amherst-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Almost a 1/5 of the class from New York…shows a pretty large bias.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/
Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate
Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate
Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate
Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate
Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate
Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.
In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.
Why does Pomona take so few
Because it is a great school?
Pomona seems to prioritize California in admissions.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/pomona-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Amherst doesn't reflect any one large regional percentage in the same way. Though its second highest percentage of students is from CA!
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/amherst-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/
Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate
Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate
Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate
Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate
Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate
Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.
In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.
Why does Pomona take so few
Because it is a great school?
Pomona seems to prioritize California in admissions.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/pomona-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-breakdown.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WASP-B data on MCPS applications/admits/attending from the most recent cycle.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/
Amherst, 52 /4 /4 7.7% acceptance rate
Bowdoin 47/ 10/ 7 21% acceptance rate
Pomona 34 / 2/ 1 5.8% acceptance rate
Swarthmore 64/ 10/ 5 15.6% acceptance rate
Williams 54 / 5/ 2 9% acceptance rate
Swarthmore is the most popular application, Pomona the least. Amherst and Bowdoin have the highest yield.
In terms of strategy, Bowdoin then Swarthmore are the way to go. PAW very tough admits, keeping in mind that AW stats definitely include recruited athletes as well.
Why does Pomona take so few
Because it is a great school?
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
I know what a strawman is, because I am not a middle schooler. But they clearly don’t, and just throw it out whenever they disagree with someone, because they’re apart of the logical fallacy=> automatically wrong, which is actually a fallacy in itself. You have to qualify the fallacies, otherwise you aren’t making an argument.
Back to the reality, it’s been explained time and time again that lac students get into grad school, but not the best grad schools
You claiming you are intelligent and posting pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo (that is a technical term) is a fallacy.
Having dinner next weekend with a friend who went to to a PAWS undergrad and MIT for grad school. I will tell them they do not exist. And I will do the same to the several Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore alums that I went to H/W/S b-school with (and those are just the ones in my specific class who I can think of off the top of my head).
Not sure why some people are so obsessive about hating on other schools. It just showcases their ignorance but more importantly their misplaced angst. Sorry you didn't get in. Get over it.
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
I know what a strawman is, because I am not a middle schooler. But they clearly don’t, and just throw it out whenever they disagree with someone, because they’re apart of the logical fallacy=> automatically wrong, which is actually a fallacy in itself. You have to qualify the fallacies, otherwise you aren’t making an argument.
Back to the reality, it’s been explained time and time again that lac students get into grad school, but not the best grad schools
You claiming you are intelligent and posting pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo (that is a technical term) is a fallacy.
Having dinner next weekend with a friend who went to to a PAWS undergrad and MIT for grad school. I will tell them they do not exist. And I will do the same to the several Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore alums that I went to H/W/S b-school with (and those are just the ones in my specific class who I can think of off the top of my head).
Not sure why some people are so obsessive about hating on other schools. It just showcases their ignorance but more importantly their misplaced angst. Sorry you didn't get in. Get over it.
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
I know what a strawman is, because I am not a middle schooler. But they clearly don’t, and just throw it out whenever they disagree with someone, because they’re apart of the logical fallacy=> automatically wrong, which is actually a fallacy in itself. You have to qualify the fallacies, otherwise you aren’t making an argument.
Back to the reality, it’s been explained time and time again that lac students get into grad school, but not the best grad schools
You claiming you are intelligent and posting pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo (that is a technical term) is a fallacy.
Having dinner next weekend with a friend who went to to a PAWS undergrad and MIT for grad school. I will tell them they do not exist. And I will do the same to the several Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore alums that I went to H/W/S b-school with (and those are just the ones in my specific class who I can think of off the top of my head).
Not sure why some people are so obsessive about hating on other schools. It just showcases their ignorance but more importantly their misplaced angst. Sorry you didn't get in. Get over it.
The anti-LAC posts are 95% nonsense, with zero data to back up their baseless assertions.
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
I know what a strawman is, because I am not a middle schooler. But they clearly don’t, and just throw it out whenever they disagree with someone, because they’re apart of the logical fallacy=> automatically wrong, which is actually a fallacy in itself. You have to qualify the fallacies, otherwise you aren’t making an argument.
Back to the reality, it’s been explained time and time again that lac students get into grad school, but not the best grad schools
You claiming you are intelligent and posting pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo (that is a technical term) is a fallacy.
Having dinner next weekend with a friend who went to to a PAWS undergrad and MIT for grad school. I will tell them they do not exist. And I will do the same to the several Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore alums that I went to H/W/S b-school with (and those are just the ones in my specific class who I can think of off the top of my head).
Not sure why some people are so obsessive about hating on other schools. It just showcases their ignorance but more importantly their misplaced angst. Sorry you didn't get in. Get over it.
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
I know what a strawman is, because I am not a middle schooler. But they clearly don’t, and just throw it out whenever they disagree with someone, because they’re apart of the logical fallacy=> automatically wrong, which is actually a fallacy in itself. You have to qualify the fallacies, otherwise you aren’t making an argument.
Back to the reality, it’s been explained time and time again that lac students get into grad school, but not the best grad schools
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
I know what a strawman is, because I am not a middle schooler. But they clearly don’t, and just throw it out whenever they disagree with someone, because they’re apart of the logical fallacy=> automatically wrong, which is actually a fallacy in itself. You have to qualify the fallacies, otherwise you aren’t making an argument.
Back to the reality, it’s been explained time and time again that lac students get into grad school, but not the best grad schools
The reality you live in is solely and entirely your own.
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
I know what a strawman is, because I am not a middle schooler. But they clearly don’t, and just throw it out whenever they disagree with someone, because they’re apart of the logical fallacy=> automatically wrong, which is actually a fallacy in itself. You have to qualify the fallacies, otherwise you aren’t making an argument.
Back to the reality, it’s been explained time and time again that lac students get into grad school, but not the best grad schools
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
I know what a strawman is, because I am not a middle schooler. But they clearly don’t, and just throw it out whenever they disagree with someone, because they’re apart of the logical fallacy=> automatically wrong, which is actually a fallacy in itself. You have to qualify the fallacies, otherwise you aren’t making an argument.
Back to the reality, it’s been explained time and time again that lac students get into grad school, but not the best grad schools
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.
Different poster, but don’t be so obvious that you had to google “strawman.”
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:Not many top talent phds coming from the “good” lacs.
8 out of top 10 per capita are SLACs. You are an idiot.
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#total-phd
Okay? You didn’t combat my point. Please work on your reading comprehension.
New poster, here. You made a claim without any support about lack of “top talent” from SLACs. Do you have evidence for this assertion? I went from a top 10 SLAC to a fully funded top 5 PhD program. SLACs were extremely well represented in my cohort.
You will not find lac grads at the top PhD programs in STEM.
Evidence?
It's not true. My D went to Pomona and these were some of the PhD destinations from peers in his graduating class
Astrophysics Berkeley
Math MIT
Math Berkeley x 2
Math Stanford
Chemistry Princeton
Chemistry CalTech
Chemistry Stanford
CS Carnegie Mellon
MD PhD Harvard
Pomona has not had a math major go to MIT in the last Decade…
The one I know is in class of 2018 (Pomona) so, actually, they have.
So mythical people
Several people above have posted links to Pomona grads at MIT right now. You've lost this one, buddy. Beat it.
LinkedIn profiles with no photo and identifiable information. It’s really obvious these are bot accounts.
Get a life, loser. Stop with the pathetic strawmen, then refusing to admit that you were beaten with your own strawman. Your goalposts are on skates.
So I’m glad you learned a few logic terms, but you’re heavily abusing/misusing them.