<p>it’s very difficult to compare Pomona to non-consortium, stand-alone LACs like Wesleyan and Middlebury. Pomona shares a library, cross-registration as well as other campus amenities like dining services and some athletic squads, with 4,000 other students .</p>
<p>These analyses also fail to take into consideration economies of scale. The more students you have (Wesleyan and Middlebury are significantly larger than Pomona), the less you have to spend per student to get the same services and amenities.</p>
<p>Actually Middlebury is often complimented for its fabulous science building and its increasing emphasis on science since its construction. My daughter says there are a lot of science kids. The school is especially know for its environmental studies program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That depends on whether you perceive “economies of scale” as a plus or a minus. Strictly speaking, by that standard, all liberal arts college students should prefer the University of Nebraska or somewhere with similarly huge economies of scale. On the other hand, it seems to me that the number one feature/benefit of a liberal arts college is its small personalized, interactive, undergrad-focused boutique scale. In this case, larger would not be better.</p>
<p>okay, how about “The Law of Diminishing Returns”?</p>
<p>This is not a thread about endowment totals or their fall from grace. interesteddad has been on a virtual crusade to champion this issue often above all else on these boards. </p>
<p>Arcadia is right: “I challenge you to visit Middlebury and Pomona and provide any tangible evidence that Pomona will offer you twice the academic experience that Middlebury will because its per student endowment is twice that of Middleburys.” </p>
<p>Couldn’t agree more. Same can be said of innumerable other college comparisons. Schools survived, students thrived, when endowments (in the stone age) were a fraction of their now (even post recessionary debacle) still inflated selves. Brown may be the best example of this. Lousy, lousy endowment numbers for eternity in comparison to peers. But with a student body easily among the most insanely happy and satisfied with their campus experience.</p>
<p>Among top-tier well endowed colleges, not those with marginal resources to begin with, cuts will amount to two more kids in your Art of Southern Lichtenstein seminar class, fewer sushi bar offerings, toilets cleaned only once a week, and generic chips and salsa come movie nights. Sacrifices, yes. But these colleges will be fundamentally little changed. The things of substance, not superficiality, that attracts a particular student to a particular academic venue will survive - quite intact.</p>
<p>Look at the culture and settings of these three schools - very different - and let that guide your decision. As far as the details of science opportunities, agree with posters that Pomona and Wes offer a more complete palette. But in biology you’ll see little difference among the three and environmental science is certainly at least as strong at Midd as the competition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>wink, arcadia, wink.</p>
<p>You can pooh-pooh it and that’s fine. The differences in per student spending, however, are real. Pomona really is spending more money on stuff for each undergrad than Middleburya nd Wesleyan:</p>
<p>It is up to each invidiual shopper to consdier where the extra money is being spent and whether it means anything. It may be spent on more diversity. It may be spent (as it is in Pomona’s case) with a hiring a very highly qualified faculty member to devote full-tiime to the writing fellows academic support program. It may be on spent on having a smaller student body and a smaller student to faculty ratio. It’s a thousand little things. I’m not saying that Middlebury and Wesleyan aren’t great schools or that they they wouldn’t be better schools than Pomona for a particular student. </p>
<p>I’m just saying that, if somebody likes all three equally, follow the money. That’s true always, but in this budget-cutting environment, it has to be taken very seriously. These budget cuts are real. These schools will offer less four years from now than they offer today.</p>
<p>Actially, I don’t think all spending is equal. Some schools spend fewer dollars more wisely than others. Yes, you may have to survive without the rock-climbing wall or with 26 varsity teams rather than 30 (or pick your other example), but it’s a mistake to think that more spending is necessarily better spending.</p>
<p>I’m also curious about how Pomona’s consortium relationships affect the school in general (finances, student body, etc.). For example, Pomona shares sports teams with the other Claremont schools. The football team is jointly made up of students from Pomona and Pitzer. They’ve found a clever way to host a football team without having to use as many athletic tips as Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Bowdoin, and other non-consortium schools. [perhaps Swat should have formed a joint football team with Haverford and used Haverford to absorb all the low-scoring recruits]. Are athletic budgets merged? What about cross-registration and the impact on student-faculty ratios and class size? Shared libraries and other facilities? To be sure–all of these things are to Pomona’s advantage. They can offer the resources of a much bigger college, while keeping enrollment down and SAT scores up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alas, Haverford dropped football 25 years before Swarthmore, so that idea wouldn’t work. Actually, the wisdom of Swarthmore’s decision to axe football nine years ago is starting to become more apparent. The idea was to stop spending precious admissions slots on a program that had no prayer of ever being successful (requires too many players relative to the size and academic standards of the school) and spread the athletic tips evenly to improve the other men’s and women’s teams. Swarthmore has about 55 to 60 tips in each first year class, all of them going to mens and womens teams other than football. That is starting to pay off as some of Swat’s teams are increasingly competitive. Men’s soccer, for example, hosted a sweet 16 round of the NCAA mens soccer championships last year and is currently ranked #6 in the country this year. Dropping football has been a positive thing for Swarthmore athletics.</p>
<p>All those schools are so selective that unless you are going ED, you’d best apply to all three. At some level, unless you are an ethnically interesting platform diving hacky-sack champ who has composed a symphony played by the Boston Pops last July 4th, it’s a crap shoot…</p>
<p>“perhaps Swat should have formed a joint football team with Haverford and used Haverford to absorb all the low-scoring recruits”</p>
<p>LOL… perhaps… but this team would be composed of individuals who have the same SAT range as the one Middlebury selects to report but with more racial and economic diversity to boot… and more likely to go on to get a PhD, attend a “top” law/ med/ business school per WSJ rankings and win a Nobel Prize as well (HC=4, MC=0).</p>
<p>^^ Good point!!!</p>
<p>Easy pal. This wasn’t a dig against Haverford. I just chose the closest school to Swarthmore that had similar academics. I would have substituted "Ford with Middlebury if Midd were near Swat.</p>