Trip Report- Pomona, Scripps, Pitzer

Parents Forum
1

<p>Just returned from a Thursday-Saturday visit to the Claremont Colleges. We first visited Scripps (a "target" for my daughter). She liked it much more than she thought she would. We were most struck by the friendliness of the students; they were more warm and welcoming than any other school we visited. There was also a variety of different "types" of students- from activist to wholesome (not a continuum :)). Beautiful grounds, beautiful dorms, peaceful surroundings, and wonderful food. All in all, the physical space and tone is like a sanctuary. No rowdiness. My daughter sat in on a required freshman writing class and she liked the quality of the discussion and the engagement of the students. It was quiet on Thursday night, but there were students (male and female) hanging around the lovely coffee shop. Students were milling about in groups of 3 or 4 (generally all girls) chatting pleasantly. Almost surreal in its serenity. </p>

<p>We went to Pomona the next day. Students were friendly, but not nearly as much as Scripps. Every student we spoke to mentioned, in one way or another, their assessment of Pomona as "better" than the other Claremont schools. As un-PC as this may be, elitism was alive and well there. The school feels like a first-rate institution, but we liked it less than we imagined we would. </p>

<p>Pitzer was a bit of a disappointment. Students were friendly, but not overly so. Campus was quiet. The dining hall was empty on Friday night at 6 PM. There were a few bare foot drummers outside the dining hall, but other than that, it was very, very quiet. The few Pitzer students we spoke to were quick to report the sterotypes of the various schools: " Pomona is snobby and separate, Scripps is 50% radical feminists, 50% 18th century finishing school girls, CMC is conservative rowdy drinkers, and Pitzer are hippies." Just about everyone at each school was somewhat willing to stereotype the other schools even as they said they had "friends" all over. </p>

<p>Our biggest disappointment was that the interaction and cross-fertilization between the schools seemed not as seamless as we were led to believe. Most students make their friends in their own college and may occassionally take classes elsewhere. Sure, there are big parties on CMC that everyone can go to, but it doesn't exactly sound like a way to meet people since the parties are loud and impersonal. Only Pomona seems able to stand on its own two feet as a complete (non-specialized) institution; the rest are strong in certain areas but unable to stand alone for many others areas. Maybe someone familiar with Pomona can speak to this, but it seemed that they don't have single-sex bathrooms. I guess the freshman "sponsor groups" vote on whether the bathrooms are coed or single-sex and most students vote for coed. ( I doubt too many students will care to be singled out as the lone vote for modesty). Call me old fashioned, but I just can't get comfortable with coed bathrooms. Overall, we left with conflicted feelings about it. We left wishing the Claremont Colleges were one major university without the boundaries and segregation. Feel free to ask if you have any additional questions about our trip.</p>

2

<p>would you mind breaking this into paragraphs?</p>

3

<p>My d. liked Scripps much more than Pomona. Overall, I think they are all much less than they could be. And, frankly, I thought the biggest loser was Pomona (which is, nonetheless, a great school.) Instead of joining with Scripps and producing a fabulous art department, they end up with a mediocre one. If they joined with the other schools, they could have an opera program, and baroque chamber orchestra, etc.; instead they have a music program excellent for a small LAC, but still much less than they could be. Same in languages. Scripps, CMC, and Pitzer have joined to form a first-rate sciences consortium, but the duplication between it and that which exists at Pomona is pretty overwhelming. Overall, if you look at the cooperative arrangements Scripps has forged, and Pomona has not, it would be hard to argue that the Pomona education is superior in virtually anything, or so I thought. </p>

<p>It's a shame, too, because the combined resources are so huge!</p>

4

<p>My d. liked Scripps much more than Pomona. And the core at Scripps is unique, and very strong.</p>

<p>Overall, I think they are all much less than they could be. And, frankly, I thought the biggest loser was Pomona (which is, nonetheless, a great school.) Instead of joining with Scripps and producing a fabulous art department, they end up with a mediocre one. If they joined with the other schools, they could have an opera program, and baroque chamber orchestra, etc.; instead they have a music program excellent for a small LAC, but still much less than they could be. Same in languages. Scripps, CMC, and Pitzer have joined to form a first-rate sciences consortium, but the duplication between it and that which exists at Pomona is pretty overwhelming. Overall, if you look at the cooperative arrangements Scripps has forged, and Pomona has not, it would be hard to argue that the Pomona education is superior in virtually anything, or so I thought. </p>

<p>It's a shame, too, because the combined resources are so huge!</p>

5

<p>Any reason why Harvey Mudd isn't mentioned in this discussion?</p>

6

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>Of course, the other side of the argument is that if Pomona integrated completely with its younger siblings, you would have Emory. That's fine, and arguably better in some ways. However, it's also no longer a small liberal arts college. Seems to me that the California market is served by no shortage of excellent medium and large universities. However, it is tremendously underserved by true small liberal arts colleges. So, in the grand scheme of things, Pomona becoming Emory may not make much sense.</p>

<p>BTW, the fact that Pitzer, Scripps, and CMC don't have their own science departments also means that they are not true liberal arts colleges, either. For example, their shared Joint Sciences Department has very limited offerings in Physics -- about half the number of courses that a place like Pomona or Swarthmore offers. It makes sense, Scripps and Pitzer have very few science majors (only 5.4% each, about one third the percentage at Swarthmore or Williams, for example). Scripps and Pitzer clearly have strong specialized emphasis in the Visual and Performing Arts and we know that CMC is heavily focused on political science, government, and econ.</p>

<p>This, of course, is only an issue if you plan to major in Physics, just as having more offerings in Art would matter if you plan to major in Art. Each of the Claremont Colleges serves a distinct market. Rather than trying to make them one homogenous blob, it seem to me that each of the schools tries for as much differentiation as possible. In other words, they don't want Pomona to be just like Scripps or CMC to be just like Harvey Mudd.</p>

<p>The truth of the matter is that, if you want depth and breadth in every possible program, you have to go to a larger school. Pomona could use its huge endowment to subsidize more shared programs with the other Claremont Colleges, but then it would become something it doesn't want to be. Since Pomona's endowment is double the size of all of the other Claremont colleges combined, additional integration would likely dilute much of what they offer their students.</p>

7

<p>You see, and I find the opposite message, namely, of what little importance the size of an endowment can be when, as Scripps has done, they use it so wisely and well. They don't need to be a homogenous blob to find shared opportunities for joint faculty (as Scripps has done, and which is common in the 5-Colleges), or to provide depth to faculty offerings without giving up what the individual college has. (They can have separate introductory history courses, but do they both need faculty specializing in German history between the wars?) Scripps would be in no danger of losing its uniqueness, not only because it is all women, but because of its absolutely unique approach to a common humanities core.</p>

1 Like
8

<p>
[quote]
You see, and I find the opposite message, namely, of what little importance the size of an endowment can be when, as Scripps has done, they use it so wisely and well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"Wise" or "unwise" are in the eye of the beholder. From a performing arts standpoint, Scripps has used its endowment well. But, not from a sciences standpoint, where their offerings (and their financial commitment) are extremely weak. For example, they have no advanced Physics courses at all...and they don't need them because only one half of one percent of their students major in the physical sciences combined.</p>

<p>I don't know that you can say that Scripps offers "so much more" because they offer a lot of performing arts courses but little in the way of science, and then turn around and say that Pomona doesn't offer "so much more" when they invest more heavily in their very expensive science programs than they may in their performing arts programs.</p>

<p>It's not a case of "so much more". It's a case of different choices and the students should select whichever flavor is more suitable to their interests.</p>

9

<p>Regarding Harvey Mudd, we only briefly walked through the campus because my daughter is interested in English as a major and hopes to have as little to do with math and science as possible after high school. It was an "interesting" scene there though. From what we could tell, the dorms look like motel rooms with doors that open to the outside, facing a outdoor courtyard filled with all manner of old, broken-down, Salvation Army upholstered and duck-taped furniture- mostly sofas and recliner chairs. Many of the courtyards seemed to have the remains of what looked like firepits or bonfires. My husband jokingly remarked that it had a "post-apocalyptic" feel to it. The buildings are mostly linear cinderblock. Very functional and masculine. Lots of students on unicycles with strange facial hair. Lots of skateboarders. Quirky in a science-y kind of way. What a different feel than Scripps! One of the many stereotypes we heard about "Mudders" was that they were "antisocial" and tended not to go to the other college activities. We were told that one of the major social events at Mudd is some sort of reenactment of Star Wars using Foil Wrap Lasers. (!!) The girls we spoke to on Mudd campus (Mudd students) were less "polished" than those at Scripps, but pleasant and more or less friendly. </p>

<p>As for the duplication of resources between Pomona and the other schools, it does seem a bit of a shame to us, too. I think of all the waste in administration costs with the duplication of all those administration personnel, department heads, etc. I don't think that joining together would necessarily dilute the individual nature of the colleges. They could retain their distinct identities, but have a common university administration and reduce duplication. But I suppose those who make such decisions benefit from keeping things the way they are. </p>

<p>By the way, I don't think California has many good medium sized non-sectarian universities. Stanford, USC, what else? The few others are just so-so. Same with small schools- a few decent ones, the rest mediocre. The UC's are jumbo-sized and don't offer the residential life that the private colleges do. So I think a medium sized private university such as could be imagined if the Claremonts joined forces, would be much needed and valued in our state.</p>

10

<p>Students at Pomona do use resources at the other schools and take classes with their neighbors and Pomona students are extremely friendly. I would encourage your D to spend a night there and see if her opinion changes. The friendliness and student's acceptance of everyone is one of the reasons my S picked Pomona. He is simply thrilled with his courses and his professors. It is amazing to me that even with the huge amount of work he takes it in stride and is stimulated and very excited about his classes. My D visited Scripps and spent a night and many of the students she met were not happy there. My H and I both were impressed with the school, it is the prettiest of the Claremonts and even Pomona students will agree with that but students are not as happy overall.( again I said overall, many love it) Students at all the Claremonts love to stereotype each other but it is usually done in a spirit of fun. Even administrators join in but students by the time they are upperclassman do interact more. If a student applies to one of the Claremonts and does not get accepted there can be some resentment and many at the other colleges have also applied to Pomona.( I am not saying that some don't pick the other Claremonts over Pomona ) Pomona also spoils their students, they have a lot of expectations but are given so much by administration in the form of perks with recreation and outings and special events at virtually no cost to students . Educationally you can not go wrong with any of the Claremonts although Pitzer was not very attractive to my D and we saw it in its worst light with broken dorm windows and beer bottles thrown everywhere, the student center reeked of alcohol. I do hear they are renovating it and you will get a good education there. My S had a lot of good choices in colleges but once he visited Pomona he was sold. He told me that if he could go to any school in the country he would still pick Pomona and feels it was the best decision of his life. Most students there feel the same way.</p>

11

<p>shojomo, Thanks very much for the informative, fair, and balanced report on your Scripps visit. Scrippsies certainly seem to have the best of all worlds for a engaged female interested in serious academics. A nurturing and studious environment, a unwavering commitment to liberal arts education, the joint science center and Mudd right next door. I don't think a science undergrad will be struggling to find courses and the website, recent grads and present students we have spoken to confirm that thought. As my daughter told the Scripps adcom Saturday, Scripps is the smallest and largest school she would consider attending. It is her only college choice west of home.</p>

12

<p>Actually, admin and infrastructure is where the Claremont Colleges do share resources: joint library system, shared campus security, shared health care facility, shared dining services, shared IT services, shared buildings and grounds department. I find this model of shared infrastructure cost to be quite intriguing.</p>

<p>I don't think that the Claremont Colleges do a particular effective job in marketing what the consortium really is. The impression they give, it seems to me, is a group of five liberal arts colleges. But, that is not really the case.</p>

<p>Instead I see the group as one coed liberal arts college and four specialty schools:</p>

<p>1) A woman's college, heavily oriented towards humanities and social sciences with little in the way of science.</p>

<p>2) A coed college heavily oriented towards pre-professional government, law, and business training with little in the way of science or arts.</p>

<p>3) A science and technology college with little in the way of humanities and social sciences.</p>

<p>4) A "counter-culture" school with an unstructured curriculum in the humanities and social sciences and little in the way of science.</p>

<p>Each of these specialty schools is wonderful in its own way, but none of them are a "full-service" liberal arts college like Pomona. None of them are Pomona and Pomona is none of them.</p>

<p>Sharing a campus location and infrastructure with Pomona has probably been a blessing and curse. It allowed each of these schools to grow without huge endowments because they don't even make an effort to cover all the bases in depth. On the other hand, the proximity to Pomona also forced them into niche product offerings because, frankly, what would be the point of duplicating Pomona across the street?</p>

<p>Each represents a trade-off. If you want the broadest assortment of poli sci and econ courses, then go to Claremont McKenna. If you are female and want a heavy assortment of art and humanities courses, Scripps is the answer. For students who want to focus exclusively on science and engineering, Mudd is one of the top schools in the country. If you want a traditional, full-service LAC where your roomates are likely to include majors from across the board, then Pomona offers that.</p>

13

<p>I would agree with interesteddad. D has reported that she has made friends at her home school (Pomona) but also at Pitzer (through dance and a mentor program) and Scripps (a HS friend there has introduced her to other students) since she arrived on campus this year. In a recent phone conversation, she did stereotype the "Mudders" as nerds and the CMC students as jocks, but we encouraged her to be receptive to all students as individuals and not necessarily as representatives of their schools. The son of some friends graduated from Harvey Mudd last year, and I would not typify him as a nerd. He's definitely scientifically minded, but he also has a rock band and many other non-scientific interests.</p>

14

<p>Undoubtedly there are students at each school who defy the stereotypes. I guess I was just dismayed that there was such blanket and pervasive stereotyping which seemed, to me, to be the result of the separation of the schools and the lack of intimate interaction among the student bodies. In the end, Scripps or Pomona may be where my daughter decides to attend, and I would not be unhappy about that. I was just kind of surprised at how separate they seem, and how much more free-standing Pomona is than the other colleges. The students we spoke to at Scripps and Pitzer were excited about sharing resources; the Pomona students seemed to respond as though it were a charitable act. But we encountered some Claremont-Mckenna college elitism as well. Once CMC student we spoke to said "We don't tend to interact with Pitzer students because, well, let's face it, their SAT scores are a good 2-300 points lower than the rest of ours." The Scripps student who was at the table with us appeared to wince. Anecdotal, I know. </p>

<p>I suppose I'm also struggling with the fact that Pomona seems to offer more (academically and socially), but my daughter liked the "feel" of Scripps better. I liked it better too, but I wonder whether it will feel claustrophic after a while. I suppose if one feels confined, one could then reach out more to the other schools academically and socially, but that doesn't seem to be quite as easy as just "walking across the street." </p>

<p>I think these schools do as well as they do because they are in California and because there is such a dearth of mid-sized schools. The Claremonts approximate a mid-sized school, but as interestedad said, it is really one coed LAC and the other are more or less specialty schools that can not stand independently. </p>

<p>One interesting fact I gleaned: Scripps early admission acceptance rate is 40%. The regular admission acceptance rate is 49%. I'm not sure what others make of this, but I'm concluding that Scripps knows they can get a stronger student body after students are rejected from their first choice schools. This leads me to think that there is no rush (assuming you are a strongish candidate for Scripps) to apply early there for any advantage.</p>

15

<p>"The Claremonts approximate a mid-sized school, but as interestedad said, it is really one coed LAC and the other are more or less specialty schools that can not stand independently."</p>

<p>I made a point never to discuss my school in great details, and engage in debates about measuring my schools against others. However, before decreeing that the other four schools cannot stand independently, one ought to establish the criteria. Is there a definition of a "real" LAC that is more acceptable than another? </p>

<p>All I have to say, is that the many comments throughout this thread shine by their inaccuracy. With all due respect to the original poster, I believe that all the reported sterotypes came from your pen, and your report is a glaring eveidence that a short visit is not sufficient to understand the schools, their interaction, and the real fabric of the students. </p>

<p>As far as a correct analysis of Pomona versus the other schools, one should read the comments of Arizonamom for the correct picture. </p>

<p>All I have to say is that the schools you describe are not the ones I see everyday!</p>

16

<p>xiggi- shhh.. quiet. My son just discovered the beauty of the Claremont schools this weekend, and he doesn't want everyone applying.</p>

17

<p>My d has asthma and we haven't looked at these schools because of our worry about air quality. Lately, though, we have been slogging through the data for the area ( particulates data is most important) and the schools don't look at bad as we thought.</p>

18

<p>xiggi,
I'm glad you responded to this thread, despite your general reluctance to comment on your school. I concluded that Scripps could not stand on its own based on the experiences of a few Scripps students I spoke to. They both chose majors that had only ONE professor in the department ( Religious Studies, Writing) and were "forced" to go to the other colleges for most of the classes in their major. Doing so was not as easy as they had hoped; both described having to "massage" the system at Scripps (e.g. "make nice to the administration") to get the release necessary to take more than the stated number of classes allowed outside of one's own college. I admit that we only spoke to one CMC student ( my d isn't interested in applying to CMC) and that one student seemed satisfied with her CMC experience; she reported that she didn't feel the "need" to go to other schools for classes. She was interested in Government and Public Policy, and felt her academic needs were met at her college. </p>

<p>With all due respect to you too, xiggi, I did not generate the stereotypes from my "own pen." When I quoted students, it was the words they said to me directly. ( I'm not sure I could make up "50% radical feminist, 50% 18th century finishing school"). How these general stereotypes translate into behavior, I'm not sure. All I can say though is that stereotypes are generally based on some exaggerated element of reality, but the stereotypes are usually quickly dispelled with familiarity. If the stereotypes persist, I was assuming it was because the students had limited experiences with the other student bodies to challenge the stereotypes. </p>

<p>I'm sure that arizonamom is reporting her son's experience accurately (and I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am reporting my experience accurately as well), but of the 3 seniors at Pomona we spoke to (and I prefer to talk to seniors because the honeymoon period is over, they are more familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the school) none took many classes outside of Pomona and their closest friends were Pomona students. Sample of 3, but consistent information. </p>

<p>I agree with you that a very brief visit to a campus is insufficient to really know a school and the student bodies, and unfortunately it's pretty much the best we can go on right now. (I hope to send my daughter to an overnight at both Scripps and Pomona after her first semester of 12th grade is completed). But even that can be misleading. When my oldest daughter visited Stanford on an overnight, she was hosted by some heavy-duty party girls who showed her the side of Stanford student life that my daughter didn't particularily connect with, leaving my daughter with some major doubts about whether the school was the right place for her. Now entering her senior year, she sees a much bigger picture and has had little of the experience she had during her prospective student visit. </p>

<p>I'm very much interested in your experience at the Claremonts. I want to like it because it meets some of my daughters interest in remaining in California, her desire to attend a residential college, and she LOVED the feel at Scripps. She was concerned about the interaction among the students at the different schools, and I would be grateful to hear your comments about the quality and quantity of interaction among the student bodies.</p>

19

<p>Well, we know that the athletes interact. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps compete under the same banner, and Pomona-Pitzer also compete together. I think the fact that Pomona and Claremont compete against each other in sports contributes to their friendly rivalry. </p>

<p>We visited Claremont this weekend as well, and I didn't pick up on some of the things that Shojomo noticed. Our tour guide from Claremont said he spends time at the Scripps swimming pool, often eats in their dining hall and is taking a class at Pomona this term. He said it was really easy to take any class at any of the colleges and that he meets new people every day because of the set up. The fact that 97% of students live on campus all four years really adds to the residential feel of the colleges. </p>

<p>Early Saturday morning the campus was very quiet, but by noon it had picked up a lot. The students seemed very friendly and helpful-a nice mix of activity - frisby on the field, and some studying in the outdoor areas, a barbeque in one quad that looked like some kind of club gathering, and people walking around in groups all over campus seemingly enjoying the day and each other. The faculty we met appeared to enjoy teaching and also praised the advantages of the combined facilities from a faculty point of view (sharing among their peers). The weather was ideal.<br>
My son was quite taken with the place.</p>

20

<p>At the admitted student reception we attended last spring, the recent grads there all attested to the fact that they have friends from throughout the 5 C's. I gather that it is a friendly rivalry with respect for one another.</p>