<p>Pomona is already at the AWS level. Harvey Mudd is superior to all LACs in the STEM fields. CMC is not far behind. In fact, no LAC is better than CMC in IR or Economics. </p>
<p>4 of the 5 of the most selective LACs this year were Claremont Colleges (CMC- 10%, Pitzer- 14%, Pomona- 12%, Mudd- 14%). Scripps ties with Wellesley in terms of acceptance rate (both 28% this year) and is therefore the 2nd most selective womenâs college after Barnard. Their reputation is growing faster, especially nationally- virtually all of them took less people in-state and more out of country/out of state.</p>
<p>Pomona is already at or above AWS level and has already reached Ivy status by objective numbers. Its endowment per student, the highest of the LACs, is 4th in the nation for any school after HYP, and very close to Stanfordâs. Selectivity wise, Pomonaâs SAT averages are the highest of any LAC not named HMC, and similar or higher than Brown/Dartmouth/Penn/Cornell. Itâs not HYPS level [no LAC is], but it is definitely similar to B/D/P, and above Cornell. Even though it has already firmly established itself as a top tier LAC, it has an accelerating reputation compared to its primary peers (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore). This year, the yield jumped to 50%, despite Pomona accepting the smallest number of students in 30 years, and based on a survey which was circulated to 115 students, nearly 40 of them turned down an Ivy.</p>
<p>HMC has a student body more selective than any of the Ivies, and similar to MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>CMC was more selective than Dartmouth and Cornell this year, and similar to UâPenn in acceptance rate. Their acceptance rate just keeps falling- 13.6 --> 12.4 --> 11.7 --> 10.1% in these four years. Things that really help them are Princeton Review Rankings, in which they perform strongly in. </p>
<p>Pitzerâs acceptance rate is quite low, but it has some ways to go before it can catch up to an Ivy- the average test scores and high school rank donât compare. Of course, I donât think Pitzer wants its admission process to become like that of Pomona or the Ivies.</p>
<p>Pomona and HMC are indeed legit, although the former has certainly not dethroned AWS and the latter doesnât have a lot of competition (as a tech/eng-only undergrad-only school). CMC, as terrific as it is, is not thought of as AWSâ equal by anyone particularly credible (and its SAT score inflation scandal a couple years ago is a good example of its occasionally overenthusiastic striving).</p>
<p>I actually think that Pomona has a decent shot at catching Swarthmore, if only because Swarthmore has become so insanely politically correct and left-wing, itâs reputation for serious scholarship can only deteriorate as a result. Tradition alone will keep it in the Top 5 for a very long time, but it will be interesting to see what the reaction is if/when it drops below Pomona, Bowdoin, and Middlebury.</p>
<p>In many respects Pomona has outscored AWS. In both objective numbers (SAT scores, selectivity, endowment), and Including rankings (Forbes, Kiplinger, Parchment). US News rankings is not the gospel source of determining where a school is. Nor is it to say that are the other rankings, but Pomona does equally better if not better in just about any ranking.</p>
<p>The reasons Pomona does weaker is due to a weaker alumni group and due to historically entrenched systems of rankings (as in the past, Pomona was not as elite as it is now) Those who evaluate the schools at this point and stage, as well as the accomplishments and fellowships won by recent alumni, will see that Pomona has caught up to the other three. I can do a statistical comparison in a variety of ways, but Iâd like not to because I have finals that I need to study for 
</p>
<p>
Source? Some right wing rant about how itâs divesting from oil or prides itself on gay friendly policies doesnât count. </p>
<p>Whatâs your source? I was stating my opinion and can cite repeated examples of intellectual jihadism at Swarthmore - and not just right-wing rants. Swarthmore is becoming so intellectually uncurious that in the long run, it will only drive more and more scholars and potential students from the campus as they seek a less politically charged atmosphere. Not to mention running kangaroo courts that violate due process seven ways to Sunday. As a parent, I would seriously think twice before letting any male child of mine near the place - unlikely it would happen to them, but why take the chance? PC Headquarters used to be Antioch, and where is it now?</p>
<p>Of all the top LACs, only Swarthmore has the reputation of being intellectually intolerant, or perhaps more correctly, it has the reputation of being the most intellectually intolerant. Yes, the others have strains of that, all college campuses do, but most people donât want identity politics shoved down their throat 24/7, and in only one flavor. The more qualified people that choose not to even consider your school because of real or perceived threats to their academic pursuits will in the long run only degrade the institution. Perhaps Swarthmore wants to merely be a highly regarded bastion of progressive orthodoxy - but that will come at a price that will become more evident over time as the very people it needs to maintain its reputation flee for competitors with freer and less contentious pastures. Nothing lasts forever.</p>
<p>First, I care about Swarthmore about as much as I care about Chalderon State U. Second, I didnât make any claims about Swarthmore one way or the other. I was just wondering if you could back up the assertions about Swarthmore with any newspaper article, or really anything which indicates that youâre correct about the school. Plenty of schools have reputations which are just complete bull, so I donât take much stock in your claims unless you happen to have some strong affiliation with the college.</p>
<p>Again, give me something that isnât from a place like the Blaze, Fox News, or another obviously biased right wing source.</p>