<p>Caltech appeals to a unique subset of the high-achieving student population, and really doesn't compete against Stanford or the Claremont schools. It's self-selective. I also find it funny that people here on the east coast don't seem that familiar with it -- it certainly has the reputation for academic prestige on the west coast.</p>
<p>Oh, people on the east coast are certainly familiar with CalTech! It's viewed as the alternative school if you don't get into Georgia Tech or MIT.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Caltech appeals to a unique subset of the high-achieving student population,<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree. </p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>and really doesn't compete against Stanford or the Claremont schools.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Now I disagree. Caltech competes directly with Harvey Mudd and the science and engineering programs at Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA for the high-end science-minded kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sleep-deprived manipulative schemers
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are we sure he is not referring to admissions deans after implementing "enrollment management" and reading too many essays from the increase in college applications they generated from their scheming? ;-)</p>
<p>I guess he is criticizing the results of a good education and the ability to read, reason and discern what is happening.</p>
<p>In Poch's own words, note it was that other board he was dissing:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In Pochs chapter, entitled Sanity Check, he questions the college ranking system, criticizes college internet message boards such as those on the Princeton Review website and encourages students to ask themselves what they personally want out of a college.</p>
<p>Students have learned to become supplicants rather than applicants. They can lose their soul in the process or, in what may be even more frightening to the obsessed parent, they may lose their appeal to admissions officers at many colleges, Poch said. So, what is Pochs advice? What would he tell his child about college admissions?</p>
<p>In the vast majority of cases, the admitted students werent programmed. They did what they loved, did it well, and even if rough around the edges, they did it naturally, he wrote.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I admit that the college admissions process did not bring out the best in me. I did not discover CC until after it was over, and I still haven't decided if that was a good or not good thing.</p>
<p>In the vast majority of cases, the admitted students werent programmed. They did what they loved, did it well, and even if rough around the edges, they did it naturally, he wrote.</p>
<p>He forgot to add, "and they're in the top 10% of the class, preferably the top 5%, with top scores and plenty of the right kind of ECs".
All done "naturally" of course.
I have to admit I enjoyed listening to Poch at a college session for prospective students because he does have a way with words and he seemed to have a good sense of humor. He, however, is in no way "rough around the edges," but is very polished and reveals very little that would be of help for parents or students trying to discover what kind of kid would be a good fit with Pomona.
When asked what Pomona is looking for in their students, his only reply was, "Smart ones." Helpful...not.</p>
<p>*I do agree with Mini that Pomona's diversity is not as strong as it could be given the demographics of its surrounding region. *</p>
<p>How much fun is it to play with semantics. Diversity is one word that is thrown around but loses all meaning when used in the context of enrollment at chosen schools. We all know that we use this figure to measure the school commitment to enroll minorities, and we all know that not all minorities are the same. Some schools present their figures for URM, while others prefer to use the misleading ALANA figures to crow about a diversity that is not that apparent. What is the difference: the statistics of Asian-Pacific enrollment. Counting the Asian population in the context of diversity in California is ridiculous: they are a de facto majority in several California schools. </p>
<p>Calling Stanford MORE diverse than Pomona based on the ALANA criteria is highly dubious. In reality the URM enrollment is very comparable (11 to 10 latinos and 8 to 8 Blacks.) By the way, Smith similar figures are 6% and 7%. </p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, schools like Wellesley with 28% Asians plus 12% Latinos/Blacks combined or Caltech with 39% Asians and less than 7% Latino/Blacks are the ones that show a lack of diversity, despite remarkable ALANA figures. </p>
<p>Are you suggesting that Pomona would be more diverse after doubling its Asian population? Are you suggesting that a school would be MORE diverse by departing farther from the United States population distribution? In this regard, CMC is even more guilty. Yet, I consider the distribution of the student body -which is far from being accidental- as one of the best attributes of the school along the fact that CMC mirrors the political affinity of the country at large. I assume that we must have different definitions of what constitutes a real diversity. </p>
<p>By the way, the comparison Occidental-Pomona reeks of a glaring similarity to the attempt to compare Smith/MHC to the Ivies. Pretending that the student body are interchangeable is as unfounded as pretending that Pomona and St Olaf share the same attributes. Occidental is a wonderful school that provides a great education to many students, but if you want to compare it to one of the Claremont schools, you sure picked the wrong one.</p>
<p>Coureur:</p>
<p>Of course, Caltech! That was just a pure forgetful moment on my part.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>You make an interesting point about Asian-American enrollment. The whole issue strikes me as reminiscent of the 1930s when a different ethnic group was heavily "over-represented" due to academic achievement. </p>
<p>The question I have is why do we see such differences in Asian-American enrollment? Obviously, there are regional differences. For example, schools in the midwest and south tend to have low Asian-American enrollments, reflective of the underlying regional population. Conversely, California schools tend to have high Asian-American enrollments, again reflective of the regional population. But, even within a region, there are noticeable differences.</p>
<p>For comparison, here's the Asian-American enrollment at several California schools:</p>
<p>UCB: 41%
UCLA: 37%
CalTech: 31%
Stanford: 24%
USC: 21%
Harvey Mudd: 18%
Pomona: 13%</p>
<p>BTW, the more noticeable number at Pomona and several of the Claremont colleges is the lack of international students. 2% is pretty low. I suspect there may be some old, dusty provision in the by-laws that ties the schools' hands on financial aid for internationals because I can't think of any reason the administrators at the colleges would want to limit internationals relative to their peer institutions. </p>
<p>For example, tied to a some huge scholarship endowment gift 100 years ago at Swarthmore was a provision that financial aid for internationals could not exceed 6% of the entire aid budget. At the time, nobody even thought about it because 6% was a number they never dreamed of exceeding. Now, of course, international enrollment remains constant at 6% to 7%, and that old by-law is a very real constraint.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are we sure he is not referring to admissions deans after implementing "enrollment management" and reading too many essays from the increase in college applications they generated from their scheming?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. I imagine what really gets Poch's goat is that consumers have finally caught on to the hypocrisy of the admissions professionals. I can't count the number of times I had to choke back a "guffaw" in info sessions when an adcom had the nerve to stand there and say, "we are need-blind" or "no, we don't have any quotas".</p>
<p>The increasing transparency, particularly as it relates to enrollment management techniques, must be very threatening to the admissions professionals. Knowledge empowers consumers.</p>
<p>A concrete example is the increasing number of applicants who refuse to check an ethnicity box. The adcoms know that this is an explicit rejection of an admissions policy.</p>
<p>If Poch (or any of his counterparts) wants to have some real fun in a parent discussion group, maybe he could come here and explain how it is that a "need-blind" school just happens to have exactly the same percentage of full-price customers, year after year after year. Just coincidence, I suppose.</p>
<p>Occidental's median SAT score this year is 1340. With 74% of Occidental students on financial aid, and 26% on Pell Grants, the premium for the Pomona well-endowed student body quickly shrinks into nothingness. Even putting aside the "low-income disease" that much of the Occidental student body is afflicted with, the upper 50% of Occidental's student body's SAT scores easily overlap with Pomona's lower 50% (and Swarthmore's, too, for that matter) Corrected for family income, the figure would likely be closer to 70%. (Frankly, I don't think they are really comparable: from what I've seen, I think Occidental is a far more interesting place to get an education.)</p>
<p>Pomona gets the student body they want. They've got a huge endowment, plenty of money to burn, a population base in one of the most diverse areas of the country, and a very active admissions/recruiting department. The reason they don't have the students Occidental has is because they don't want 'em. (That's almost a tautology.) That's likely something Bruce doesn't want you to know.</p>
<p>Mini-- 1340 is admitted, not enrolled.</p>
<p>Hardly matters. All that tells us that those lucky to have avoided low-income disease were more likely to go elsewhere.</p>
<p>The point is not to compare, but to point out the extraordinarily self-serving (and somewhat hypocritical) nature of Poch's remarks.</p>
<p>I agree; the point is not to compare. I have no argumentwith your take on Poch, just think that facts are important, though I think your characterization of the other students is a bit rough.</p>
<p>Everytime I start giving you credit for a couple of points, you revert to your usual self. That income level card you keep on playing must be quite scratched. I won;t even debate that item with you: if you think it to be important, power to you. I'll just ignore it as it should. </p>
<p>As far as your numbers, let's stick to verifiable numbers as some schools -including Oxy- have developed a habit to announce numbers that are quite different from the CDS numbers and are mostly wishful thinking.. </p>
<p>According to the latest numbers, the lowest percentiles of Pomona are HIGHER than the highest scores of Oxy. Pomona scores on the SAT are 690-770 and 680-760 while Oxy scores are 590-690 and 580-670. Further, the Oxy admits a whopping 45% of its candidates. I realize that by comparison to a most cherished school of yours that sounds great, but in reality it is well below a good three dozens schools. Then, you have the percentage of students in the top 10% of their graduating class in HS. Again, there is quite a noticeable difference for whomever bothers reading the statistics. </p>
<p>Lastly, I am quite convinced that your only basis for comparison started and ended at the notorious Pell grantee comparison, unless you borrowed some points from the equally misinformed Oxypomona poster. As I said you picked the wrong school to drive your point home. Occidental is far from being at the same level of Pomona on ANY level, be it in selectivity, quality of education, reputation, and recognition. </p>
<p>FWIW, I happen to agree that Pomona's admission office is not the most caring, and that may be part of that East coast wannabe image. However, that is hardly a reason to tarnish its image with lousy comparisons.</p>
<p>Oh, BTW, the following quotation is absolutely contradicted by the actual facts: no amount of dishonest reporting could propel Oxy SAT medium score at the level you represent. Easily overlap? What did you put in your pipe tonight?
[quote]
Even putting aside the "low-income disease" that much of the Occidental student body is afflicted with, the upper 50% of Occidental's student body's SAT scores easily overlap with Pomona's lower 50% (and Swarthmore's, too, for that matter) Corrected for family income, the figure would likely be closer to 70%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>sjmom
Count this East Coaster as someone quite familiar with CalTech. The absolutely, hands-down, most brilliant student we have ever met is at Cal Tech.</p>
<p>Me, too. H is a scientist, so we are very familiar with Caltech's reputation in math and science and have been for a long time.</p>
<p>I went to the Info Session at Pomona two years ago and asked the admission officer why there were so few international students. I was told that international students require too much financial aid because they have almost 100% need. Obviously Pomona is utilizing enrollment management techniques. They would rather give 8 scholarships for $5,000, which will generate $280,000 in tuition income from those students (8 x $35,000), than give one full ride to a totally destitute foreigner.</p>
<p>To be fair to Pomona, not many colleges are need-blind when it comes to internationals, and for merit aid, the internationals would need to be spectacular. Internationals tend to be swayed even more than Americans by the brand name. So if few East Coasters have heard of Pomona, how many internationals have? But the gossip mills also work well abroad. Brandeis's Wien Scholarship, wholly dedicated to internationals, attracted some 900 applications for 2o+ slots back in the 1990s. It might be attracting more apps currently. BU has conducted an aggressive campaign of recruitment among wealthy international students. If the local papers are to be believed, they practically support the Boston night scene and the luxury goods boutiques.</p>
<p>Late to this thread, I have thoroughly enjoyed it & the dry humor contained in comments -- & implied by the very introduction of the topic. </p>
<p>The Admissions guy would prefer that, perhaps, instead of venting & dialoguing among ourselves, & sharing info, we would flood his office instead with questions, complaints, suggestions? Helicopter Parents anyone? Sir, you cannot have it both ways. [Sybbie, that's the epithet you omitted. :-) ]</p>
<p>While just reading the title of the thread on the PF, & before entering to read one post, my very first thought was the words interesteddad "stole" -- knowledge being power. OF COURSE that's what adm. officers don't like.</p>
<p>As to interestddad's post #35, it's right on, & its effects are visible on every forum of CC. CA has WAY too few top-notch privates to serve even an In-State population, let alone a nat'l population. The Public/Private ratio is inverse to the East Coast, and I don't like either imbalance. It's just one more thing that contributes to the "frenzy," to the messageboarding so loathed by our Pomona friend (so threatened by it, whoever accurately said that), and to the "excessive" applications.</p>