Anonymous wrote:this is the weirdest thread ever. someone on here hates the most competitive, single digit admit SLACs and is rage-baiting these responses, it's bizarre.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety schools for Ivy students. I don't understand the purpose of the liberal arts colleges, other than this purpose-ivy league rejects, who need a separate system to show off how intelligent they are, while signaling an embarrassing, crippling self-esteem issue.

tremendous post - no one chooses Williams over an ivy, even cornell. The pretentiousness at Williams is overwhelming- big big chip on everyone’s shoulder about how it’s just as good as ivy. DC made it halfway thru tour, and we left. Wound up at Vandy and luving life -

But many many people do chose top LACs over ivies? Definitely more representative by percentage of pop than Vandy lmao.

Many, many? That isn’t even possible given how few kids actually attend the four lacs under discussion.

Many for their populations, sure. Do you need a certain quota for it to be significant enough for you or what? It just seems really weird to pose that top LACs are ivy reject schools to then bring up and boost an alternative ivy reject school. DP.

let me put it a different way - no one on earth has every uttered the following phrase “I turned down Williams for *** ivy” - and do you know why? because kids who actually choose to attend ivies never see Williams as an alternative, and never struggled with that decision. Same can’t be said for 90%+ Williams undergrads. Every athlete - which makes up between 35%-40% of the population at Williams - would have attended an ivy if they were good enough and recruited by and offered a spot by an ivy coach - that’s just a fact

Hard to argue with this logic

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASPs.

All of these colleges are significantly less white and wealthy than many other t20s. Not really the vibe. Pomona had a recent class that is less than 25% white.

Majority of white kids at these schools are athletes. Weird dynamic for non-athlete white kids…avoid.

Weird dynamic if you're scared of non-white people, sure.

Right? What a weird, racist thing to say. And not true.
Signed, white, non-athlete Swarthmore grad who loved my time there and had a lovely diverse group of friends

It is most definitely true. Go see for yourself. It is not even close.

Interesting that you are taking a social justice stance on this: the fact that the majority of white kids at these schools are athletes means diversity has failed. Let me spell this out, because you seem slow: when D3 athletes are 80% or more white (and 90% non-URM), and athletes make up 30-35% of the school, it is impossible to have a significant portion of URMs and first gens unless the proportion of non-athlete, non-hooked students is tiny. What we are left with is affirmative action for whites on one end, and discrimination against all non-first gen students (whites, yes, but including Asian and Indian Americans) on the other.

If you really cared about social justice, you would not be defending white affirmative action at these schools. And you would look at your beloved Swarthmore’s athletic team pages and learn how to count.

This is true. SLACs have a weird fixation with athletes even though no one really cares about SLAC sports. It is a huge turnoff.

Anonymous wrote:Safety schools for Ivy students. I don't understand the purpose of the liberal arts colleges, other than this purpose-ivy league rejects, who need a separate system to show off how intelligent they are, while signaling an embarrassing, crippling self-esteem issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASPs.

All of these colleges are significantly less white and wealthy than many other t20s. Not really the vibe. Pomona had a recent class that is less than 25% white.

Majority of white kids at these schools are athletes. Weird dynamic for non-athlete white kids…avoid.

Weird dynamic if you're scared of non-white people, sure.

Right? What a weird, racist thing to say. And not true.
Signed, white, non-athlete Swarthmore grad who loved my time there and had a lovely diverse group of friends

It is most definitely true. Go see for yourself. It is not even close.

Interesting that you are taking a social justice stance on this: the fact that the majority of white kids at these schools are athletes means diversity has failed. Let me spell this out, because you seem slow: when D3 athletes are 80% or more white (and 90% non-URM), and athletes make up 30-35% of the school, it is impossible to have a significant portion of URMs and first gens unless the proportion of non-athlete, non-hooked students is tiny. What we are left with is affirmative action for whites on one end, and discrimination against all non-first gen students (whites, yes, but including Asian and Indian Americans) on the other.

If you really cared about social justice, you would not be defending white affirmative action at these schools. And you would look at your beloved Swarthmore’s athletic team pages and learn how to count.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASPs.

All of these colleges are significantly less white and wealthy than many other t20s. Not really the vibe. Pomona had a recent class that is less than 25% white.

Majority of white kids at these schools are athletes. Weird dynamic for non-athlete white kids…avoid.

Weird dynamic if you're scared of non-white people, sure.

Right? What a weird, racist thing to say. And not true.
Signed, white, non-athlete Swarthmore grad who loved my time there and had a lovely diverse group of friends

It is most definitely true. Go see for yourself. It is not even close.

Interesting that you are taking a social justice stance on this: the fact that the majority of white kids at these schools are athletes means diversity has failed. Let me spell this out, because you seem slow: when D3 athletes are 80% or more white (and 90% non-URM), and athletes make up 30-35% of the school, it is impossible to have a significant portion of URMs and first gens unless the proportion of non-athlete, non-hooked students is tiny. What we are left with is affirmative action for whites on one end, and discrimination against all non-first gen students (whites, yes, but including Asian and Indian Americans) on the other.

If you really cared about social justice, you would not be defending white affirmative action at these schools. And you would look at your beloved Swarthmore’s athletic team pages and learn how to count.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety schools for Ivy students. I don't understand the purpose of the liberal arts colleges, other than this purpose-ivy league rejects, who need a separate system to show off how intelligent they are, while signaling an embarrassing, crippling self-esteem issue.

tremendous post - no one chooses Williams over an ivy, even cornell. The pretentiousness at Williams is overwhelming- big big chip on everyone’s shoulder about how it’s just as good as ivy. DC made it halfway thru tour, and we left. Wound up at Vandy and luving life -

But many many people do chose top LACs over ivies? Definitely more representative by percentage of pop than Vandy lmao.

Many, many? That isn’t even possible given how few kids actually attend the four lacs under discussion.

Many for their populations, sure. Do you need a certain quota for it to be significant enough for you or what? It just seems really weird to pose that top LACs are ivy reject schools to then bring up and boost an alternative ivy reject school. DP.

let me put it a different way - no one on earth has every uttered the following phrase “I turned down Williams for *** ivy” - and do you know why? because kids who actually choose to attend ivies never see Williams as an alternative, and never struggled with that decision. Same can’t be said for 90%+ Williams undergrads. Every athlete - which makes up between 35%-40% of the population at Williams - would have attended an ivy if they were good enough and recruited by and offered a spot by an ivy coach - that’s just a fact

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety schools for Ivy students. I don't understand the purpose of the liberal arts colleges, other than this purpose-ivy league rejects, who need a separate system to show off how intelligent they are, while signaling an embarrassing, crippling self-esteem issue.

tremendous post - no one chooses Williams over an ivy, even cornell. The pretentiousness at Williams is overwhelming- big big chip on everyone’s shoulder about how it’s just as good as ivy. DC made it halfway thru tour, and we left. Wound up at Vandy and luving life -

Huh? I turned down Williams for an Ivy, in large part because Williamstown was so remote. Otherwise, I loved everything about the school and, if I were fortunate to be faced with the same choice today, I'd pick Williams. I'd get just as much attention as an undergraduate, if not more, and the students seem to be diverse and to have diverse interests, while being slightly less focused on competitive networking.

Vanderbilt would not have entered the equation, then or now. Duke, yes, but Vanderbilt doesn't hold the same appeal. It's super expensive, like Emory, Tulane, and Washington U, but it doesn't have the academic chops of an Ivy or a Williams, nor offer the mix of academics and fun of Duke. It's a somewhat high-end education that lets people know your parents have a lot of money and are prepared to spend it quickly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WASPs.

All of these colleges are significantly less white and wealthy than many other t20s. Not really the vibe. Pomona had a recent class that is less than 25% white.

Majority of white kids at these schools are athletes. Weird dynamic for non-athlete white kids…avoid.

Weird dynamic if you're scared of non-white people, sure.

Right? What a weird, racist thing to say. And not true.
Signed, white, non-athlete Swarthmore grad who loved my time there and had a lovely diverse group of friends

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the distinct differences between the 4, and why do students chose these over ivies or other t20s sometimes?

Smart D3 athletes may choose these schools. Not quite good enough for Princeton or Vanderbilt or Duke, but definitely a competitive athlete that wants to continue. That's roughly 25-35 percent of all students at these schools. After that it's going to vary. Each SWAT attracts different kinds of students.

Not many of them though these days.

A majority of their applicant pool is clearly not athletes, and they have gained in applications year over year, so clearly someone else is attracted.

Anonymous wrote:Pomona has academic/course offering/scheduling issues that are starting to negatively creep into its rigor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety schools for Ivy students. I don't understand the purpose of the liberal arts colleges, other than this purpose-ivy league rejects, who need a separate system to show off how intelligent they are, while signaling an embarrassing, crippling self-esteem issue.

tremendous post - no one chooses Williams over an ivy, even cornell. The pretentiousness at Williams is overwhelming- big big chip on everyone’s shoulder about how it’s just as good as ivy. DC made it halfway thru tour, and we left. Wound up at Vandy and luving life -

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread derailed, so I'll answer OP.
Students who really want to learn a lot in college academically. Students who aren't naturally competitive. Students who have interest in higher education.

maybe at wesleyan or bowdoin - this isn’t true for Swat or Williams