Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the top 10-15 SLACs (remove military academies), the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids. Together, that puts all these colleges above the Ivies for an undergraduate experience.

Ivies excel at graduate and professional school. Did you know that most of Harvard’s endowment contributions come from HBS and HLS, not the plain undergraduates?

I love the SLAC I attended and have posted many times in this thread to defend it, but this simply isn't true

The kids at the SLACs implied give no ground to Ivy students academically and the SLACs themselves give no ground to any Ivy when it comes to undergraduate instruction and support. Regarding "the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids." I would say that there will be some differences between the groups but they are much more alike than different.

PP. Agreed. Calling one group or the other "more interesting" just feels wrong

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the top 10-15 SLACs (remove military academies), the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids. Together, that puts all these colleges above the Ivies for an undergraduate experience.

Ivies excel at graduate and professional school. Did you know that most of Harvard’s endowment contributions come from HBS and HLS, not the plain undergraduates?

Incorrect.

Undergraduate students at Ivy League schools are more interesting, more academic, and more accomplished than SLAC/LAC students (unless you prefer cliquish athlete bro culture at which SLACs excel).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the top 10-15 SLACs (remove military academies), the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids. Together, that puts all these colleges above the Ivies for an undergraduate experience.

Ivies excel at graduate and professional school. Did you know that most of Harvard’s endowment contributions come from HBS and HLS, not the plain undergraduates?

I love the SLAC I attended and have posted many times in this thread to defend it, but this simply isn't true

The kids at the SLACs implied give no ground to Ivy students academically and the SLACs themselves give no ground to any Ivy when it comes to undergraduate instruction and support. Regarding "the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids." I would say that there will be some differences between the groups but they are much more alike than different.

Anonymous wrote:I think there's a real difference btw Williams and Amherst these days. Am I the only one? Put Pomona with Williams and I'd have no argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the top 10-15 SLACs (remove military academies), the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids. Together, that puts all these colleges above the Ivies for an undergraduate experience.

Ivies excel at graduate and professional school. Did you know that most of Harvard’s endowment contributions come from HBS and HLS, not the plain undergraduates?

This is an optimistic take. I don't think students at Vassar and Hamilton are the same as those that choose Princeton and Yale.

For bright non-STEM students, Williams and Pomona definitely compete with top 20 schools for students. And Bowdoin sometimes too. Harvey Mudd will get good STEM kids that want the SLAC experience. But otherwise? These are different student populations.

And no one knows what Amherst is doing these days. Seems to be FGLI and rich prep schools today. So hard divides with no attempt to make a coherent whole. I wouldn't put Amherst in any kind of category today.

Anonymous wrote:At the top 10-15 SLACs (remove military academies), the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids. Together, that puts all these colleges above the Ivies for an undergraduate experience.

Ivies excel at graduate and professional school. Did you know that most of Harvard’s endowment contributions come from HBS and HLS, not the plain undergraduates?

Anonymous wrote:I think there's a real difference btw Williams and Amherst these days. Am I the only one? Put Pomona with Williams and I'd have no argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am glad, after some mind-numbing insights, that we have all decided that WASP-B is comparable to the lower Ivies and Duke, albeit higher than Johns Hopkins, Chicago, and that there lowest Ivy - Cornell.

It is rare for this kind of consensus to be achieved on this site. Sometimes, we really can all get along.

Go AuH2O!

Nobody said anything about WASP or your ongoing infantile attempts to attach Bow to them. Even the supporters of SLACs find your nonsense annoying.

Anonymous wrote:At the top 10-15 SLACs (remove military academies), the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids. Together, that puts all these colleges above the Ivies for an undergraduate experience.

Ivies excel at graduate and professional school. Did you know that most of Harvard’s endowment contributions come from HBS and HLS, not the plain undergraduates?

Anonymous wrote:Well, I am glad, after some mind-numbing insights, that we have all decided that WASP-B is comparable to the lower Ivies and Duke, albeit higher than Johns Hopkins, Chicago, and that there lowest Ivy - Cornell.

It is rare for this kind of consensus to be achieved on this site. Sometimes, we really can all get along.

Go AuH2O!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the top 10-15 SLACs (remove military academies), the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids. Together, that puts all these colleges above the Ivies for an undergraduate experience.

Ivies excel at graduate and professional school. Did you know that most of Harvard’s endowment contributions come from HBS and HLS, not the plain undergraduates?

I love the SLAC I attended and have posted many times in this thread to defend it, but this simply isn't true

Anonymous wrote:At the top 10-15 SLACs (remove military academies), the kids are Ivy-smart but more interesting, more academic, and less performative than the Ivy kids. Together, that puts all these colleges above the Ivies for an undergraduate experience.

Ivies excel at graduate and professional school. Did you know that most of Harvard’s endowment contributions come from HBS and HLS, not the plain undergraduates?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Goldwater Scholars count over last 5 years:

Amherst 11
Williams 5
Harvard 21
Hopkins 20
MIT 19
Columbia 23

A school can only nominate 4 applicants per year so again size does not matter.


Past 5 Years:

William and Mary 10
UVA 9
VT 9
Berkeley 8

The only logical conclusion is Berkeley sucks at STEM. . .

Been watching this for days......

NewsFlash!

Nobody gives a rats ass about Goldwater scholars. They have nothing to do with school quality or any of this ranking nonsense.

And, nobody cares about USMAO either

It also tells us nothing about the quality of the school but says much about yourself, but not anything good.

Same goes for Apkers They're cool but say nothing about a school. A kid from Houghton won a few years ago in 2021 it was Kutztown and UMass-Boston. None of those awards resulted in a new deluge of applications to the new 'it' school for Physics.

So Please, just calm down and go back to arguing about whether or not top SLACs are the equals of the Ivies.

I imagine the students who went through the Goldwater process probably thought it was worthwhile. Money + a leg up on graduate school admissions.

I imagine that they do, it is a great prize. But to somehow equate any of these individual awards to school rankings and equality is beyond stupid. There have been Goldwater winners with B average GPAs.

There have been Goldwater winners with B average GPAs.

Cite some. You won't because you are full of shit.

That is easy, last line on the eligibility page. You might want to do a better job at hiding your stupidity.

"In recent Goldwater competitions, GPAs have ranged from 3.15 to 4.95 on a 4.00 scale."

https://goldwaterscholarship.gov/eligibility/

Also, the award is great recognition for the winners but has zero reflection on the school itself. Whoever added "The Goldwater" to this thread obviously had no clue as to what they were actually talking about. They truly had their heads stuck up their ass because they were so desperate to "prove" that the Ivies are better than the top SLACs (NewsFlash, they aren't) by pulling out an award won by a kid at Pasadena City College, Louisiana Ag & Tech, CUNY Borough of Manhattan Community College, and Grand Valley State University as a point of Ivy superiority.

If I, someone from a non-selective public can whack you (and this subject) around so easily I shudder to think about what a kid from Williams would do to you. They would most definitely eat.

Don't wrench your shoulder trying to pat yourself on the back. The text you referred citing a minimum of 3.0 GPA was in the eligibility section as in the minimum to be eligible for a Goldwater nomination. It did not say anything about winners. Winners typically have much higher GPAs between 3.7 and 4.0.