Anonymous wrote:^^ This. Not good colleges. Great colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

They also both have higher average ACT scores than Williams, lower acceptance rates and higher yields. Pretty safe to say that the Williams booster was wrong, and that those schools aren't only appealing to "idiots," those struggling with "teen pregnancy" and "obesity," or are boorish "NCAA/NFL" fans who are only good at partying and sports.

I'm confused why you would even justify that position, PP. The unprovoked ranting lowers my opinion of LAC grads, quite frankly.

You base your view of a category of colleges on what an anonymous internet poster writes. Lord you’re a moron.

And you're a certified idiot. Keep at it, Jessica, you're doing a stellar job of making your alma mater look great!

From all of the rest of us, can you just go away? You’re so tiresome.

From all of the rest of us, can you go away? And take your relentless, mean-spirited boosterism with you.

Uh, I went to a public university. Just take a deep breath. Go read a book. It’ll be okay. You can feed your LAC hatred again tomorrow. It’s not going anywhere.

Is it possible for just one second for everyone to acknowledge that Duke, Northwestern, Swarthmore, Amherst et al pass the good college test? I mean what is all of your metrics for acceptable? Lamborghini to take the kiddos to school? Maybe a rowboat is a 37.5 foot dual console Grady White? I mean c'mon folks, this is just strange hyperbolic ridiculousness only bolstered by anonymous posts where individuals have no accountability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

They also both have higher average ACT scores than Williams, lower acceptance rates and higher yields. Pretty safe to say that the Williams booster was wrong, and that those schools aren't only appealing to "idiots," those struggling with "teen pregnancy" and "obesity," or are boorish "NCAA/NFL" fans who are only good at partying and sports.

I'm confused why you would even justify that position, PP. The unprovoked ranting lowers my opinion of LAC grads, quite frankly.

You base your view of a category of colleges on what an anonymous internet poster writes. Lord you’re a moron.

And you're a certified idiot. Keep at it, Jessica, you're doing a stellar job of making your alma mater look great!

From all of the rest of us, can you just go away? You’re so tiresome.

From all of the rest of us, can you go away? And take your relentless, mean-spirited boosterism with you.

Uh, I went to a public university. Just take a deep breath. Go read a book. It’ll be okay. You can feed your LAC hatred again tomorrow. It’s not going anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

They also both have higher average ACT scores than Williams, lower acceptance rates and higher yields. Pretty safe to say that the Williams booster was wrong, and that those schools aren't only appealing to "idiots," those struggling with "teen pregnancy" and "obesity," or are boorish "NCAA/NFL" fans who are only good at partying and sports.

I'm confused why you would even justify that position, PP. The unprovoked ranting lowers my opinion of LAC grads, quite frankly.

You base your view of a category of colleges on what an anonymous internet poster writes. Lord you’re a moron.

And you're a certified idiot. Keep at it, Jessica, you're doing a stellar job of making your alma mater look great!

From all of the rest of us, can you just go away? You’re so tiresome.

From all of the rest of us, can you go away? And take your relentless, mean-spirited boosterism with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

They also both have higher average ACT scores than Williams, lower acceptance rates and higher yields. Pretty safe to say that the Williams booster was wrong, and that those schools aren't only appealing to "idiots," those struggling with "teen pregnancy" and "obesity," or are boorish "NCAA/NFL" fans who are only good at partying and sports.

I'm confused why you would even justify that position, PP. The unprovoked ranting lowers my opinion of LAC grads, quite frankly.

You base your view of a category of colleges on what an anonymous internet poster writes. Lord you’re a moron.

And you're a certified idiot. Keep at it, Jessica, you're doing a stellar job of making your alma mater look great!

From all of the rest of us, can you just go away? You’re so tiresome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

They also both have higher average ACT scores than Williams, lower acceptance rates and higher yields. Pretty safe to say that the Williams booster was wrong, and that those schools aren't only appealing to "idiots," those struggling with "teen pregnancy" and "obesity," or are boorish "NCAA/NFL" fans who are only good at partying and sports.

I'm confused why you would even justify that position, PP. The unprovoked ranting lowers my opinion of LAC grads, quite frankly.

You base your view of a category of colleges on what an anonymous internet poster writes. Lord you’re a moron.

And you're a certified idiot. Keep at it, Jessica, you're doing a stellar job of making your alma mater look great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Proportion of students they send to law and med schools are also closely matched, if not more favorable to Duke and NU. So, it looks like the LAC boosters are wrong there, too.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-medical-school
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-law-school

Now do graduate school.

Anonymous wrote:
Proportion of students they send to law and med schools are also closely matched, if not more favorable to Duke and NU. So, it looks like the LAC boosters are wrong there, too.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-medical-school
https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-law-school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

They also both have higher average ACT scores than Williams, lower acceptance rates and higher yields. Pretty safe to say that the Williams booster was wrong, and that those schools aren't only appealing to "idiots," those struggling with "teen pregnancy" and "obesity," or are boorish "NCAA/NFL" fans who are only good at partying and sports.

I'm confused why you would even justify that position, PP. The unprovoked ranting lowers my opinion of LAC grads, quite frankly.

You base your view of a category of colleges on what an anonymous internet poster writes. Lord you’re a moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

They also both have higher average ACT scores than Williams, lower acceptance rates and higher yields. Pretty safe to say that the Williams booster was wrong, and that those schools aren't only appealing to "idiots," those struggling with "teen pregnancy" and "obesity," or are boorish "NCAA/NFL" fans who are only good at partying and sports.

I'm confused why you would even justify that position, PP. The unprovoked ranting lowers my opinion of LAC grads, quite frankly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

They also both have higher average ACT scores than Williams, lower acceptance rates and higher yields. Pretty safe to say that the Williams booster was wrong, and that those schools aren't only appealing to "idiots," those struggling with "teen pregnancy" and "obesity," or are boorish "NCAA/NFL" fans who are only good at partying and sports.

I'm confused why you would even justify that position, PP. The unprovoked ranting lowers my opinion of LAC grads, quite frankly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

Why would anyone deign to entertain any of these wildly misinformed stereotypes? Both Duke and Northwestern have higher test scores on average than Williams, even despite the bigger class sizes.

https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-accept-students-with-the-highest-sat-scores-2016-8#16-duke-university-7

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more just annoyed at the general dickishness of the LAC boosters on this forum. Some of them come out swinging, claiming they're the absolute best and that other schools are filled with "idiots."

I am not saying those posts aren't here, but I haven't really seen them. Can you point a few out?

Peruse the latter half of the W&M and VT thread...

OK I see what you mean, although the only time I saw "idiot" referenced was WRT applicants to Northwestern in a discussion about the "mechanics of yield". I certainly would not have used that word even though I agree with the yield explanation. I did see a lot of people saying "Williams > Duke" etc., which is a legit opinion, even though I think it it depends on the student myself.

I will politely suggest responding in kind without specifics not only doesn't help your opinion, it strengthens the position of those you oppose. Why not try refuting with facts?

I mean did you miss all of the stuff about drunkenness, obesity, teen pregnancy, good at nothing but sports...?