Scripps vs. Bowdoin

College Search & Selection
81

<p>stickypenguin: you argued that many scripps alum go on to top grad schools but seems like wsj disagree, scripps doesn't make top 50 while bowdoin is #19, check it out;</p>

<p>The top Feeder School per capita at sending their students to "top graduate schools", a list relased by the Wall Street Journal:</p>

<p>Top 50 Feeder Schools
1) Harvard
2) Yale
3) Princeton
4) Stanford
5) Williams
6) Duke
7) Dartmouth
8) MIT
9) Amherst
10) Swarthmore
11) Columbia
12) Brown
13) Pomona
14) University of Chicago
15) Wellesley
16) University of Pennsylvania
17) Georgetown
18) Haverford
19) Bowdoin
20) Rice
21) Northwestern
22) Claremont McKenna
23) Middlebury
24) Johns Hopkins
25) Cornell
26) Bryn Mawr
27) Wesleyan
28) Cal Tech
29) Morehouse
30) University of Michigan
31) New College of Florida
32) Vassar
33 University of Virginia
34) United States Military Academy
35) University of Notre Dame
36) Emory University
37) United States Naval Academy
38) Macalester
39) Brandeis
40) Bates
41) University of California, Berkeley
42) Barnard
43) Trinity
44) Grinnell
45) Tufts
46) Colby
47) Washington University
48) Washington and Lee
49) Case Western Reserve
50) Reed</p>

82

<p>You can't come to the conclusion that Scripps students are happier than Bowdoin students based on your argument of retention rate. In spite of the fact that I already discussed issues with women's colleges and retention rates in my previous post, you accept these reasons as valid for leaving. The comparison to other women's colleges is important because you'll notice that all women's colleges have a lower retention rate than their co-ed counterparts. You really cannot compare the two. I will concede to you that, strictly according to numbers, sure Bowdoin students are happier. However, I strongly disagree with the blanket statement that because Bowdoin has a higher retention rate the students are automatically happier.</p>

<p>I can't for the life of me figure out your argument that "scripps is a good school but to say it's as good or better than bowdoin is ridiculous." Retention rate (or happiness, as you seem to view it) has nothing to do with the academic rigor or quality of a college. Your argument is completely unfounded. You have not spoken of the qualities of Bowdoin that would make it a better school, whether they be academic or otherwise. You just keep saying that some students prefer Bowdoin, Bowdoin students are happier based on the retention rate, and my personal favorite, "Scripps is for B students while Bowdoin is for A-/A students." </p>

<p>Give me an argument we can work with that isn't based on your personal opinion and then we'll talk.</p>

83

<p>If you read what the WSJ study was testing, you would know that it is inherently flawed. From the article:</p>

<p>"We focused on 15 elite schools, five each from medicine, law and business, to serve as our benchmark for profiling where the students came from."</p>

<p>If you read that, you would know that the methodology is extremely flawed. The sample size was miniscule, focusing on five schools for each of three categories of PROFESSIONAL school. It excludes any form of graduate school except for medical, business, and law. And I will say that, at Scripps, business school is not high on the list when you ask a student what she plans to do after graduation.</p>

<p>CP&R, the career planning and resources office, posts a list of what Scripps students are doing after graduation. The notables this year were students being accepted to top law programs at Columbia, NYU, UCLA, Boalt Hall (Berkeley), and Michigan. Students were also accepted to the medical schools at WUSTL, UCSF, UChicago, USC, and UCLA, to name a few. It is important to note that while the study was based on a per capita rate, the small size of Scripps (800 students) and the varied interests and number and type of schools applied to would make the number of students accepted/attending the top programs even smaller. We simply don't have a large number of students applying to all of the top professional programs, in addition to the fact that many choose to attend graduate programs in other areas (humanities, social sciences, fine arts) and consequently fewer end up attending the top professional programs WSJ studied.</p>

<p>The most important thing to note is that the WSJ rankings don't look at the top graduate programs in the humanities and social sciences, some of the strongest and most popular majors at Scripps, as I just mentioned. There are Scrippsies doing graduate work at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Brown, UPenn, Michigan, Berkeley, and UCLA to give you an idea of the notables (this seems to be important to you).</p>

<p>I am sure that Bowdoin graduates attend many of the same schools, probably many of the same programs, that Scripps graduates do. However, find a new study to prove your point because the WSJ doesn't focus on the graduate schools where most LAC graduates attend.</p>

84

<p>Oh, and FYI - the necessity of showing where Scripps students were accepted for undergrad is important in fending off your argument (#72) that the quality of students at Scripps is lesser than the quality of students at Bowdoin. Obviously Scripps students are intelligent enough to get into the top LACs, including Bowdoin (one of my best friends was accepted but chose Scripps instead). I'm just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a huge difference in quality of students from an objective viewpoint.</p>

<p>Also, it would be nice if you could explain to me why you have a lot of respect for Wellesley, Smith, and Barnard (#52) but seemingly much less for Scripps?</p>

<p>Lastly, I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that most students would choose Bowdoin over Scripps if given the choice between the two (#80).</p>

85

<p>stickypenguin; are you saying that a typical student who attends scripps also got into schools like wellesley, pomona, amherst and swarthmore? i doubt it. this arguement, again, does not show the quality of students at scripps. like i mentioned in my previous post, i know someone from my high school who got into harvard and mit but now attending a local school, does this also make this school harvard calibre?</p>

86

<p>I am indeed arguing that, and know it from both speaking to my friends at Scripps, as well as through my job in the admissions office. I know for a fact that we lose many accepted students to top LACs but I also know that we manage to steal quite a few away from them as well. I know that nothing I can say will change your opinion, you have already made that explicitly clear, but I hope that others that read this thread can identify the strongest arguments presented. You simply refuse to accept or acknowledge that the majority of Scripps students may be of equal caliber to Bowdoin students. The Harvard/MIT argument is old; you and I both know that Scripps, or any other top LAC, is of a different cloth than a "local" (presumably public state) school. You are once again comparing apples and oranges. Bowdoin and Scripps are both $40000+/year; a student is not likely to turn down Bowdoin because Scripps is cheaper (they are both need-blind). They will turn down Bowdoin (or AWS, Carleton, Pomona, Grinnell, what have you) for Scripps if they find it to be a better fit (that may include being closer to home for personal reasons, as your Harvard/MIT gone local classmate).</p>

<p>Just for sake of argument and consistency, let's compare SATs:
Scripps (25-75, Common Data Set): 1280-1450
Bowdoin (25-75, US News): 1290-1460</p>

<p>I don't really see a big difference, do you? I don't think that SATs are the best predictor of intelligence or success in school, but for this purpose it seems to indicate that the students that are accepted and attend these schools are of similar caliber, no?</p>

<p>How would you suggest we determine or compare the quality of students at the two schools? And I'm still waiting on the answers to my previous questions.</p>

87

<p>what about acceptance rate? last time i checked, scripps' acceptance rate is more than twice that of bowdoin.</p>

88

<p>When there is a stalemate like this, and it involves an all-female school and a coed school, I always recommend the "Nine-and-a-half Weeks" test. Rent the movie "9.5 Weeks" and watch it. If you'd rather be Mickey Rourke, go to the all-female school. If you imagine yourself in Kim Basinger's shoes, go to the coed school.</p>

89

<p>'You simply refuse to accept or acknowledge that the majority of Scripps students may be of equal caliber to Bowdoin students. '
- i don't think i'm the only one of that. i'd say some scripps students not majority.</p>

<p>'The Harvard/MIT argument is old; you and I both know that Scripps, or any other top LAC, is of a different cloth than a "local" (presumably public state) school.'
- if we're talking about financial difficulty of a student i don't think there's that much of a different between lac's and state schools. many students ended up going to schools that offer them most fin aid because they have no choice. not everyone can afford to attend their #1 schools. so if one were to choose scripps over swathmore based on fin aid, i don't think it's fair to conclude that scripps is better than swarthmore. i don't think i'm comparing apples and oranges here.</p>

<p>'a student is not likely to turn down Bowdoin because Scripps is cheaper (they are both need-blind). '
- seems like you don't understand what 'need blind' means. say scripps offers a student $20,000 in grants and merit based scholarships while bowdoin offer the same amount of money in loans, does this mean both schools meet the need of this student? yes. but where do you think this student will choose if money is her major concern? scripps of course.</p>

90

<p>2004 graduation rate.
scripps: 74% (the lowest among top 50 lac's)
bowdoin: 90%</p>

91

<p>'Just for sake of argument and consistency, let's compare SATs:
Scripps (25-75, Common Data Set): 1280-1450
Bowdoin (25-75, US News): 1290-1460'</p>

<p>usnwr2006: please use the same source when comparing.
scripps: 1240-1440 avg.~ 1340
bowdoin: 1290-1460 avg.~ 1375 (sat not required)</p>

92

<p>Acceptance rate between women's colleges and co-ed schools cannot be compared. Women's colleges attract a self-selecting applicant pool - those that think that can handle the women's college experience. They also attract only half of the college-bound population - women. With that said, Scripps' acceptance rate last year was 44%, lower than all east coast women's colleges except for Wellesley and Barnard. And that's wihout saying that a low acceptance rate does not a good college make.</p>

<p>The chance that a school like Scripps would offer more financial aid to a student than Swat or Bowdoin is, in reality, unlikely. The endowments of both schools are much larger than that of Scripps. If anything, Scripps is more likely to offer aid in loans rather than grants. And while Scripps does offer merit scholarships, they are few and far between (perhaps 10 per class). So perhaps in a very few cases, Scripps is cheaper to attend. However, for the majority who apply for need-based aid it is probably more likely that you would get more grants from Bowdoin than from Scripps. And I do understand what need-blind is; most schools usually follow a similar formula when determining aid, so it would make sense that a school that had a bigger endowment could offer more free money than loans. I doubt that there would be a situation in which a student was offered $20000 in loans from bowdoin and $20000 in grants from Scripps.</p>

<p>I don't know where you got that graduation rate, but the one I have (from the Common Data Set) gave Scripps a graduation rate of 86%.</p>

93

<p>I don't see the necessity of using the same source when comparing, but even with the numbers you gave the difference is negligible (within the 30 point +/- error range). The fact that SATs aren't required only works in Scripps' favor; it is highly unlikely that a student with really high SATs would choose to not submit their scores, wheras a student with lower scores would probably be more than willing to bypass submitting their scores. Thus, you have the lowest quartile of students not submitting their SAT scores and skewing the range.</p>

94

<p>'I doubt that there would be a situation in which a student was offered $20000 in loans from bowdoin and $20000 in grants from Scripps.'
- lower ranked schools usually steal students from higher ranked schools by giving them more money(grants). grinnell has considerably less money than harvard but it is willing to pay more for a student in order to attract her away from harvard.</p>

<p>'I don't know where you got that graduation rate, but the one I have (from the Common Data Set) gave Scripps a graduation rate of 86%.'
- i got mine from us news, the same source you got your bowdoin test scores.</p>

<p>'I don't see the necessity of using the same source when comparing'
- why don't you want to use the same source of data when you can? maybe us news reports much lower sats for scripps, that's why.</p>

<p>'the numbers you gave the difference is negligible (within the 30 point +/- error range). '
- 35 points difference! so how could it be within the 30 point +/- error range? this may not be such a significant different when talking about 900 and 935.</p>

<p>'Acceptance rate between women's colleges and co-ed schools cannot be compared. Women's colleges attract a self-selecting applicant pool - those that think that can handle the women's college experience. '
- or maybe people apply to scripps as a safety school. that's why the yield is so low and the acceptance rate is so high. </p>

<p>'With that said, Scripps' acceptance rate last year was 44%, lower than all east coast women's colleges except for Wellesley and Barnard. '
- the seven sisters have high acceptance rates because students applying to these schools also look at the ivies+aws and tend to prefer the ivies+aws. i doubt that this is the case with scripps.</p>

95

<p>Grinnell has one of the highest endowments of any LAC. It has the money to lure students away from top schools like Harvard. However, they don't lure students using financial aid - they lure them with merit scholarships, something Grinnell is known to do frequently. Scripps does the same thing, but to a much smaller extent (very few scholarships offered every year). Financial aid manipulation is looked down upon and does not happen frequently. Additionally, Scripps' endowment is much, much smaller. Colleges that have more money can afford the top students - it's not rocket science.</p>

<p>I don't see the difference between 900/935 and 1340 /1375. Still only 35 points different.</p>

<p>"or maybe people apply to scripps as a safety school. that's why the yield is so low and the acceptance rate is so high."
And maybe they apply to Bowdoin as a safety school - what's your point?
People apply to Scripps as a safety school just like they apply to Wellesley, Smith, Barnard, Bryn Mawr, and MHC as a safety school. Women's colleges are historically safer to apply to.</p>

<p>Since you seem intent on playing a numbers game:</p>

<p>SATs:
Wellesley: 1280-1460
Smith: 1160-1370
Bryn Mawr: 1220-1410
Mount Holyoke: 1190-1380
Barnard: 1270-1430
Scripps: 1240-1440 (even though US News said they didn't have the correct data for the year)</p>

<p>Students from top 10%:
Wellesley: 75%
Smith: 59%
Bryn Mawr: 66%
Mount Holyoke: 54%
Barnard: 72%
Scripps: 67%</p>

<p>% Yield:
Wellesley: 41%
Smith: 41%
Bryn Mawr: 39%
Mount Holyoke: 34%
Barnard: 46%
Scripps: 24%</p>

<p>I will give you credit for pointing out that Scripps has the lowest yield out of any of the schools. However, it is worth noting, as I have already, that Scripps is a good 60-80 years behind the rest of the women's (and most other) LACs. Establishment helps in name recognition and consequently in yield. Scripps doesn't have the same alumna base (yet!) that other elite colleges have because of its relatively young age and isn't well recognized throughout the country (as evidenced by your ignorance). Additionally, location is key. It makes sense that more people are willing to go to school in NE/the northeast. Students may want to go to school away from home, but perhaps they don't want to take a six hour plane ride to get there. The convenience factor is important. Going from Maine to Pennsylvania for school is a big enough leap for most, or even from New York to Massachussetts. But it's a much bigger committment to go to school in California from the East Coast.</p>

<p>Looking at the SAT scores and students in the top 10% of their class, the students at Scripps are obviously of equal caliber to those at the seven sisters colleges you claim are worlds better.</p>

<p>Looking at the "Students that applied here may also have applied to" category you may notice something interesting:
• Wellesley: Not listed.
• Smith: Barnard College, Brown University, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Wellesley College
• Bryn Mawr: Haverford College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, Swarthmore College, Wellesley College
• Mount Holyoke: Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Smith College, Vassar College, Wellesley College
• Barnard: Brown University, Columbia University, Harvard University, New York University, University of Pennsylvania
• Scripps: Mount Holyoke College, Pomona College, Smith College, University of Southern California, Wellesley College </p>

<p>There seems to be quite so overlap, wouldn't you say? I don't see a lot of the AWS+ivies cross-applications you claim exist (with the exception of Barnard, which attracts students who want to be in the city and seem to prefer a larger school). While I know that students from all the colleges apply to top LACs, I don't see how Scripps is any different than the seven sisters schools. </p>

<p>Please clarify your argument about the high acceptance rate for the seven sisters schools. That was completely lost on me. Are you saying that those schools accept more students because they know they will lose them to AWS+Ivies? And why do you think Scripps is any different?</p>

96

<p>Stickypenguin-I just want to point out that you use Scripps' size, age, and location as reasons why its reputation is lower than supposedly peer schools (be that for yield rates, WSJ, peer ratings, etc.). However, Pomona and CMC, which are of similar size, location, and age, do not seem to have this problem. Pomona's peer rating is only .1 behind Bowdoin, and is ranked higher than it on the WSJ's feeder schools listing, with CMC coming only two places behind. Even other (older, Northeastern) womens schools do better than Scripps, so that can't be it either. Not that reputation really means much when we're talking LACs.</p>

<p>Ok, go back to arguing.</p>

97

<p>I understand your points, however there are a few points that I would like to make.</p>

<p>First, the fact that Scripps is a young women's college does impact its peer rating (essentially, how it is viewed by other colleges/how well it is known). The fact that northeastern women's colleges were once essentially considered the ivy league for women drastically helps their reputation and how well the do in the ratings. </p>

<p>Pointing out the obvious, Pomona and CMC are co-ed, which, as I have discussed extensively already, is a large factor in how they play out in the rankings. Pomona was established in 1887, almost 40 years before Scripps was established, so it really isn't of equal age (though CMC is of similar age to Scripps). Back to the rankings, aside from Wellesley (#4), the next closest women's college on the list is Smith (#19), and most women's colleges have a lower peer rating than their co-ed counterpoint. Pomona is also almost twice the size of Scripps and CMC is a good 300-400 students larger (just FYI).</p>

<p>As far as I know, people within New England are aware of the top schools on the East Coast (even LACs). People in southern California think that if you go to Pomona you are going to CSU-Pomona and that if you go to Scripps, you are studying marine biology at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla. People simply haven't heard of the Claremont Consortium in California, let alone the rest of the country,
but most have at least heard of the Seven Sisters colleges.</p>

<p>I think I've said enough about the Wall Street Journal ranking to make a point, though I'm not surprised CMC is up there as their strengths are in leadership and government, which lead right into business or law school. I really can't speak for the other women's colleges except to note that with the exception of Bryn Mawr, all have enrollments of 2000+.</p>

98

<p>you gave me all these excuses why scripps is not as well recognized or not as selective as bowdoin. give me some solid stats why you think scripps is better than bowdoin (not interested in age, location, weather, co-ed vs single sex, or personal preference) </p>

<p>bowdoin is more selective, has a much larger endowment, higher, freshman retention rate, more diversity, better grad school placement rates, higher phd productivity, better academic reputation (among peer institutions and grad schools), higher graduation rate and etc. don't you think it's fair to say most students would choose bowdoin over scripps should they have to decide between these two? of course scripps is probably better than bowdoin in some aspects but overall bowdoin is just better.</p>

<p>what do you think is scripps' win rate against bowdoin? 10%? 20%? 40%?</p>

99

<p>At this point, I'm less concerned with Bowdoin being "better" than Scripps than I am with the argument that Scripps is lesser than its Seven Sisters counterparts. </p>

<p>There was one point in time where I would have argued that Bowdoin was undoubtedly better/superior to Scripps. However, now I am a firm believer in "fit". What is best for one student may not be best for the next. I think that I can get an equally good education with equally intelligent classmates from Scripps than I could get from Bowdoin or one of the other colleges we have discussed on this thread. I don't think that they are all that different in academic quality (which you seem to). I don't think that because it is "more selective" it is automatically a better school, either. I think that's a common misconception the majority of the population holds. Every school has its strengths and weaknesses; I just feel that in this case there has not been an argument made or evidence presented that convinces me that "overall bowdoin is just better."</p>

<p>I'm not in it to argue "win rate" (whatever that means). I honestly don't think it's my place to say (mostly due to the fact that I only think for myself, and not for other students), nor do I know for sure, that students would choose Bowdoing over Scripps in a heartbeat. I don't think that this is true, but I'm only speaking from my own personal experience. I don't think that a lot of students apply to both Bowdoin and Scripps, so it would be very difficult to judge its "win rate", which I assume is the percent of students who choose Bowdoin over Scripps. </p>

<p>I'm just curious, but where did the higher Ph.D productivity data and better grad school placement come from (I'm assuming not WSJ because that was only professional school)? On the same lines, how do you know that Bowdoin has a better academic reputation than Scripps for grad schools? It really is for curiosity/my own sake because I have had a hard time finding this information and am interested in knowing how different colleges are viewed by the various grad programs.</p>

100

<p>'At this point, I'm less concerned with Bowdoin being "better" than Scripps than I am with the argument that Scripps is lesser than its Seven Sisters counterparts. '
- i thought we're arguing scripps vs bowdoin?</p>

<p>'I am a firm believer in "fit"'
-again i'm not talking about preference here, one can say she likes ucla better than harvard but does it make ucla a better school? we're talking about what most people perceive as a better school here.</p>

<p>'I think that I can get an equally good education with equally intelligent classmates from Scripps than I could get from Bowdoin '
- that's your opinion not a fact. i have given you pure stats that suggested bowdoin students to be of higher calibre than scripps'.</p>

<p>'I don't think that they are all that different in academic quality (which you seem to). '
- they may not be that different in academic quality considering scripps students can also take classes at pomona, cmc and harvey mudd but we're tlaking about scripps vs bowdoin here not claremont colleges vs bowdoin. even if you think scripps is as strong as bowdoin academically, the students are not as smart as you can see by its low graduation rate= 74%(the lowest among top 50 lac- bowdoin= 90%, wellesley=91%, smith=84%, bmc- 83%, narnard=89%)</p>

<p>'I don't think that because it is "more selective" it is automatically a better school, either.'
- you are right but it tends to be that way. smart students want to get into good schools and that makes these schools 'more selective.' these students greatly contribute to the quality of education of the school especially in the case of lac's where students learn a great deal from class discussions. </p>

<p>'I just feel that in this case there has not been an argument made or evidence presented that convinces me that "overall bowdoin is just better."'
- what more stats do you want? i have given you plenty to support my claim that 'overall bowdoin is just better' why don't you give me some stats to support your claim that scripps is just as good?</p>

<p>'I'm only speaking from my own personal experience'
-then maybe you should just accept that for most students bowdoin is a preferable choice. again, we're not talking about personal preference. and 'win rate' is the rate which a student chooses scripps over bowdoin has she been accepted at both places. in this case i think it's lower than 20%</p>