<p>The “academics” at MHC include course options at Smith…as well as Amherst, Hampshire and UMass. And there are men at the latter three, obviously. MHC seems the clear choice for all kinds of reasons. </p>
<p>All kinds of reasons that would go poof in a nanosecond if fin aid was equal everywhere. But there are times when compelling reasons to pick the financial and academic safety school arise. This is about dollars and cents. </p>
<p>I don’t understand the negative characterization of Mount Holyoke, which has a reputation of providing stellar academics. The student did not apply to the school as a “financial safety” - she happens to have been offered a full tuition scholarship, but there is no way that she could have anticipated that before applying… However, based on the other schools she applied to, it looks like the family expected to see more generous need-based offers from the other schools – perhaps, like many, their FAFSA EFC is significantly lower than the amount that the CSS/Profile schools define as “need”. </p>
<p>It’s true that her parent reported that among the colleges she applied to, MHC was not her top choice - all finances being equal, she’d probably go with her favorite. (But it is unclear from the posts whether the “favorite” would have ended up being Pomana or Wellesley, as the OP said the d. was equally “attached” to both).</p>
<p>But this is simply not a situation where the finances are forcing the daughter to attend an inferior institution. It’s not the kid in the other thread who wants to go to Barnard but may very well end up at U of Wyoming - nor is it the situation that thousands of kids face each year when they must turn down admission to selective private colleges and attend a local commuter college for financial reasons. </p>
<p>Wellesley and Pomona are elite private liberal arts colleges. Scripps and Mount Holyoke are elite private liberal arts colleges. They all offer top level academics, and all are prestigious. There may be marginal qualitative differences among them, but that’s all they are: marginal. The only truly significant difference is geography, climate, and proximity of males. </p>
<p>US News sells magazines by purporting to numerically rank colleges to draw some sort of distinction between schools that are within the same class and substantially similar. They have some sort of academic reputation factor that they assign to each school, but they hide their numbers behind a paywall so I have no idea as to what numbers lead them to rank Mount Holyoke the same as Bard but below Trinity and above Occidental. I do know that next year they will reshuffle the deck and sell more magazines.</p>
<p>Princeton Review also assigns an academic rating to schools, using a scale of 60-99. They base their ranking information on a combination of statistical data and student survey results. They don’t require a paid subscription, so here is the academic rating they apply to each of the 4 schools that were mentioned in the OP:</p>
<p>Wellesley: 99
Mount Holyoke: 98
Scripps: 98
Pomona: 96</p>
<p>My point isn’t to try to impose another arbitrary ranking hierarchy, but merely to show that these schools are generally regarded as being academically equivalent. </p>
<p>Princeton Review also assigns numerical ratings based on quality of life and admissions selectivity factors – and the numbers come out somewhat differently – but again 4 colleges still fall within 4 points of one another. </p>
<p>There are other college sites that provide comparative information and student reviews of colleges, and they are all consistent – all of these colleges are substantially equivalent. They are all highly selective, elite LAC’s which offer strong academics. If this student opts to go to Mount Holyoke, she will not be “settling” for anything – she will simply be making a very financial decision. I’m sure that many students who are offered generous merit scholarships from well-regarded colleges make similar decisions.</p>
<p>Colleges especially small LACs can be academically equivalent (or close enough) and still be vastly different in culture and environment. </p>
<p>Most posters on this thread seem to think that the OP’s daughter would hardly notice the difference between Holyoke and Pomona, between rural Massachusetts and suburban Southern California, between coed classes and living arrangements and mostly all women. </p>
<p>I disagree. I think these distinctions matter. I have certainly heard every excuse in the book for why students wouldn’t consider Williams, my son’s alma mater – too remote, too cold, too sporty, too many cows – none having to do with academics. I may think their complaints are marginal, but I know that once they get the impressions in their heads, they can’t be persuaded, regardless of the quality of education.</p>
<p>Admittedly this case is somewhat muddled by the daughter’s shortlist with three out of four being women’s schools. But we don’t know the whole history of where she applied and what offers she received. The OP writes: “The ‘feel’ of the other kids on campus is very important to her” and that “Pomona has been [her] dream school for years.” So that’s what I’m going by.</p>
<p>Debt does have impact on life, but I would still maintain that a $16K debt will have minimal impact on the life of a reasonably motivated graduate of a top college. A $2K debt would have no impact at all. So I don’t think we can eliminate Pomona or Scripps based on the daughter’s potential debt.</p>
<p>The parents’ $184K, on the other hand, is a whole lot of money. It appears that they were, at one time, prepared to spend this amount on their daughter’s undergraduate education. Then Holyoke came along and made them an offer that they may not be able to refuse.</p>
<p>I’m still unconvinced that Holyoke is the right decision for this student, but then again, I’m not privy to the family’s financial situation. The reason I would choose Pomona (or Scripps) over Holyoke is based on environment and culture. The daughter may be willing to accept that Holyoke makes more sense financially – for her parents and by extension for herself – but may later regret the decision. </p>
<p>I sense that the parents realize this and that’s why they started this thread. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But we know the OP’s daughter applied to at least 4 women’s colleges; that she is “leaning towards” MHC and the parent feels that some aspects of MHC make it a “super fit” for the daughter. So yes, the schools are very different, but from what we are told, this is a student who would probably be very happy at MHC. </p>
<p>The OP didn’t ask about campus culture or feel --the OP asked for ways to differentiate the schools academicall. The OP said that the D. is getting pressure from peers at school to make a choice based on perceived prestige and rankings – so the question as framed was, based on academic considerations, is Pomona worth $142,000 more than MHC?</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying about the fit factors – I mentioned above that my urban-focused D. would not have wanted nor considered MHC – but there is no hint of that being a barrier for the D. That she likes Pomona (climate and all) does not necessarily equate to disliking a rural campus in western Massachusetts.</p>
<p>And its not just a comparison of $2 or $16K of debt with -0- the cost differential is a substantial sum of money in the bank. It appears that some of that is in 529 funds, so the d may be facing a choice of exhausting a college savings plan plus incurring debt - as opposed to having a nice nest egg down the line that can fund graduate school. </p>
<p>calmom is spot-on. And her post about the folly of putting so much weight in rankings should be printed out and put on the refrigerator of everyone who is swayed by them. And again, the D is {i]getting pressure from peers at school to make a choice based on perceived prestige and rankings*? Really? Would any of us let our kids make such an important life decision based on what a bunch of other high schoolers think??</p>
<p>Also, remember that in this case we are debating a situation in which the student is expected to go into a non-lucrative career after college. Who in their right mind would suggest incurring $184K in debt for that?</p>
<p>Excellent points @calmom & @momrath. </p>
<p>You can look at any factor you want: ranking/prestige, intellectual stimulation, grad school acceptance, career potential, cultural fit, regret, peer pressure; this family has to weigh these things out and place an approximate monetary value on School A vs School B. It’s impossible for that value not to be relative depending on household net worth (and liquidity), how you grade one school over another, and even how you value a dollar. </p>
<p>In the OP’s case, where “significant sacrifices” need to be made, the answer is clear to me, but then again, I’d have the same opinion if the household in question had a net worth of 20M. I have no precise idea at the moment how much more money Pomona is “worth” than MHC, but it’s not worth $142K more or $184K or in that vicinity. Not even close. That’s my assessment of value, I know, but I’m guessing that would be the majority opinion.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This conversation is all about justifying the decision to pick the best financial package. Is there anyone who has opined that MHC should NOT be picked? </p>
<p>We simply disagree on some elements of the justification presented by outsiders. Obviously, the parents -professors with doctoral degrees- understand the finances, but needed support from a crowd different from thei daughter’s high school. </p>
<p>Fwiw, some here have run with the scholarship route. Probably the right aid, but could the package include a faculty discount or cooperative agreement. </p>
<p>Not that it matters much anymore. The decision was made, and probably before the OP.</p>
<p>I’m a Mount Holyoke grad, with a daughter at Wellesley, who was also accepted to Mount Holyoke (merit $), Bryn Mawr (merit $) and Scripps. This is a tough decision, but if money is a factor, I’d strongly recommend Mount Holyoke. Why have any debt at all if it is possible not to?</p>
<p>All of the schools on her list are very good and all have good name recognition among grad schools. Scripps isn’t as well known among east coast people in general, but among those who need to know (employers), it is. She will have opportunities no matter which school she chooses.</p>
<p>If the OP’s D is interested in linguistics, it is relevant that U Mass Amherst has one of the highest-ranked graduate departments in the country. Another point for MHC. :)</p>
<p>They aren’t exactly across the street though. The bus ride itself takes 35 minutes travel time, each way, .</p>
<p>My d thought she wanted to study linguistics until she actually took a course in it. Turns out that linguistics is very math-y – not at all what my d. expected. I don’t think that my d’s experience is unique. </p>
<p>Pomona for the prestige, Mt Holyoke for the money. Offer her the differential in cost between the two payalbe when she gets her degree.</p>
<p>The prestige differential isn’t that great. Not everyone on their planet draws their collegiate knowledge from US News. Pomona is fairly well known and respected on the west coast – although even in California, I suspect that some people will assume that a student who says they attend Pomona is enrolled at a Cal Poly campus - but on the east coast it is likely that Mt. Holyoke would have more name recognition. It’s been around a whole lot longer.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that there was a time that the Seven Sister colleges were the Ivy equivalent for women, back in the days when most of the Ivies were male-only. Those were the colleges that were perceived as the very best in the nation for women, at a time when attending Harvard or Yale was impossible. Times have changed, but theremaining women’s colleges of that network still have a certain cachet. </p>
<p>I think it’s a huge mistake to confuse “ranking” with “prestige” – probably one that has disappointed more than a few graduates of top-ranked LAC’s that no one outside of the bubble has ever heard of. </p>
<p>What does that matter?</p>
<p>Neither Pomona nor MHC nor any of the LACs have good general prestige.</p>
<p>On the other hand, for those who know both institutions (elite circles, top companies, graduate programs), Pomona is unanimously considered the better institution. Pomona’s been a top 10 LAC for a really long time- it hasn’t just recently gotten a bump in reputation and prestige. The women’s college which is comparable in prestige is Wellesley and Wellesley only. MHC- not so much. </p>
<p>How much better Pomona is considered than MHC is probably not an important thing for individual decision. But Pomona is, and has been, a stronger institution than MHC, and I’m not sure why you’re using vague generalities and questionable methods to undermine that. I personally don’t think the difference warrants 125K extra, but that definition depends from person to person. Plenty of Pomona students have turned down extremely prestigious full rides like Washington and Lee Jeffersons, UNC Morehouse Cain, etc to pay full cost at Pomona- not saying that I agree with it, but they see Pomona being worth 60K more a year, and I’m sure they have their reasons for doing so. Some posters here see Pomona being worth it for the prestige, some look at it with a more practical approach like you and I. OP has gotten enough opinions and perspectives from both sides- now it’s up to her and her daughter to try to put down a value for Pomona’s greater prestige, undergraduate resources, stronger students, and more career-based opportunities (I have already summarized the objective difference between the two schools in another post).</p>
<p>I personally think Pomona (and the other four Claremont Colleges) are quickly becoming a much more prestigious and well known group than just about any other elite liberal arts college in the country. Just this year, 4 of the 5 most selective LACs by admit rate were Claremont Colleges. With more selectivity comes stronger student bodies than before, who are going to contribute to making institutions look better in some part (Pitzer in the last three years jumped to the number 1 producer of Fulbrights, HMC jumped to 1 for the highest starting salary of grads, Pomona has two graduates represented in the 30 Top Thinkers under 30 in Pacific Standard Magazine for 2014). The rapid changes in selectivity coming to these schools, and that they are now recruiting less and less students in-state (this year’s accepted class had only 25% in state for Pomona, compared to 35% just two years ago), seem to suggest that their national reputation is increasing at rates faster than any other elite liberal art colleges. It’s not a big factor, but it is one to think about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The prestige differential is small enough between the two in the real world that unless MHC is completely ill suited for academic offerings reasons…MHC with money is the better bet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like how many CS majors…especially whose exposure is from playing hours of computer games react once they start their first CS 101 type courses. </p>
<p>@nostalgicwisdom <a href=“I%20have%20already%20summarized%20the%20objective%20difference%20between%20the%20two%20schools%20in%20another%20post”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you summarized a bunch of facts and statistics, none of which had any direct bearing on the OP as an individual. As an example, one of the “objective” facts you listed was:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does the OP care about “average” financial aid packages, when she is looking at an annual price differential of $36K? </p>
<p>It’s sloppy thinking to project broad statistical facts down to the individual level. It’s also a mistake to think that academic prestige or a school’s rejection rate corresponds to quality of academic experience – it can, but very often that isn’t the case. </p>
<p>The issue isn’t whether one school is “more” prestigious than another, it is what weight should be assigned to marginal differences in prestige, and how that should be valued by the student. </p>
<p>Calmom: it may have been the linguistics course she took – perhaps a preparation for computational linguistics? I have family members who both study and work in linguistics and your statement doesn’t bear out, at least from what I’ve seen. (not to get this thread off-track, but i’m not comfortable letting this statement hang out there.)</p>
<p>Gosh, a 35 minute bus ride to a top 2 or 3 linguistics program. Insurmountable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Linguistics is a very broad field, verging into philosophy, anthropology, neuroscience, etc. Computational linguistics is only one aspect of it.</p>
<p>My daughter did not take computational linguistics. She took the course listed on this page:
<a href=“http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/depts/ling.php?tab=courses”>http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/depts/ling.php?tab=courses</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As you can see from the page I linked, Columbia doesn’t offer courses in computational linguistics. I don’t know why my d. thought it was to math-y – maybe she was thrown off by the heavily analytic focus and required forms of notation. All I know is that it was a very tough course-- and my d. found it very challenging, possibly in part because she opted to take the course the first semester of her freshman year. </p>
<p>But you are right that the focus of linguistics can be different at other schools. I think my daughter would have been more interested in psycho-linguistics. I just offered my comment because I think it’s fairly common students to be surprised at what the field entails once they actually take a course. But your comment does bring up the importance of looking not just at whether a linguistics major or concentration is offered, but also at what the focus of the department is. </p>
<p>The OP wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That actually is very close to my d’s set of interests going into college - I think that any LAC is going to basically meet the needs of that sort of student. It’s a broad set of interests. Given that list, I might think it worthwhile for a student to check on what particular languages are offered, if there are is an interest in studying any less-commonly taught language. </p>