<p>Anyone can help me out with this question? Are the classes a lot more rigorous compared to UCB or UCLA? I didn't know about this college until senior year of HS and now im really interested. Thanks in advance</p>
<p>One thing - I think if you look at its selectivity (16.5% accepted, 23% valedictorians, etc.) the teaching has to be rigorous just to keep up with the students.</p>
<p>SATs aren't everything. But for whatever it's worth, the "average" Pomona College student has significantly higher SAT scores than the "average" Berkeley or UCLA student, based on the data at collegeboard.com</p>
<p>Verbal scores:</p>
<p>690 - 770 Pomona College
580 - 710 Berkeley
570 - 690 UCLA</p>
<p>Math scores:</p>
<p>680 - 760 Pomona College
620 - 740 Berkeley
600 - 720 UCLA</p>
<p>The top private colleges in California (like Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd, Stanford, Deep Springs, and Caltech) easily outstrip the top UC schools in terms of average SAT scores. Big schools like Berkeley or UCLA do, of course, get large numbers of students with >750 SATs; however, they also admit lots of students with <650 SATs. So average SATs are lower for the UC schools.</p>
<p>I would say Pomona is underrated when comparing it with other schools like UCB, UCLA...If anyone wants to dicuss that...</p>
<p>How about the UCs collect SAT score data in a way that greatly reduces the average number they would have if they used best combined and not best single sitting? Some students report SAT scores hundreds of points off because of this. To some students, it would be the same, but you really must remember this. The sat scores aren't really comporable because the UCB/UCLA/UC ones are innaccurate.</p>
<p>I have a friend who taught at Pomona and now teaches at one of the UC's. He says that the top end students at both places are great. Pomona's bottom end students were signifcantly better than his bottom students at the UC. Of course, he got to know a lot of his students a lot better at Pomona as well.</p>
<p>University of California system schools are good for public institutions that serve many constituents, but for undergraduate education you get a lot more at good liberal arts colleges. Of course you pay for that value, or someone else does if you get scholarships.</p>
<p>But liberal arts colleges are not the colleges you see on tv or playing in big college sporting events (with few exceptions), so most high school students overlook them.</p>
<p>Ratings, as noted above, are based on SAT and grades of the incoming freshman class. so Pomona has the numbers that put it where it is. </p>
<p>Not to be presumptuous, but I think your real question is why is Pomona so "first rate". You have a very small school, but with the support of 4 other schools immediately adjacant. The entire focus is on undergraduate education. You have very small classes, individual attention, no teaching assistants, amazing professors, the ability to take classes at all 5 of the claremont colleges, essentially limitless resources.</p>
<p>You also have a school with about 1.5 billion endowment for about 1400 students. An amazing physical plant/campus (designed by the same architect who designed Stanford), beautiful weather, great location.</p>
<p>I think the real question is why isn't the school ranked higher and why isn't it more well known.</p>
<p>^ Great post, bullwinkle! I completely agree. I know Pomona is a great school, so it doesn't bug me that it doesn't have very good name recognition. But it just seems to me that being such a high-quality, unique school, Pomona DESERVES more attention from the general public.</p>
<p>I just spent the afternoon at a private-scholarship reception for about 500 HS seniors, each of whom announced plans for Fall. Altogether about a dozen kids said they were planninng to attend LACs, and the rest, state schools. The crowd (mostly parents) recognized Yale and Harvard, but not Pomona, Scripps, Harvey Mudd, Reed, Tufts -- even Amherst. So ... I think one answer is that the people with a professional interest in education (i.e., grad school admissions, college presidents, corporate HR pros, et al) know what we know about the "best" schools. Certainly SATs and GPAs figure in there, along with endowment and consequently the best teachers, labs, libraries, etc. People with a passing interest can check the ratings (U.S. News & World Report, Princeton Review, etc.) and get some idea of quality. Notice though that Reed College (Princeton Review's pick for #1 in the country for overall undergraduate academics) has for years refused to submit stats to U.S. News & World Report, because of a philosophical disagreement with their methods, and thus lands low on their list (47). Pomona is #6.</p>
<p>Everyone I have told, or my son has told, about his Pomona plans responded with "Oh, what a great school! My (fill in the blank) went there and loved it!"</p>
<p>I haven't run across anyone who doesn't know Pomona, but then I'm from SoCal. I'm sure it's different in other parts of the country.</p>
<p>I'm also form Socal and everytime i bring up Pomona they think im talking about Cal- Poly Pomona. I know how difficult it is to get into the school, I was just merely wondering how come most parents do not know about this? Or at least with the people I have spoken to</p>
<p>Anyone who knows colleges, especially grad programs and employees know Pomona but all LAC's have the same issue with name recognition. This is improving and I know it is a goal of the school to improve name recognition but it is slow in coming. Without a powerhouse football or basketball team schools are less known to the average person. My S's high school girlfriend went to an Ivy and it was quite humorous the difference in reactions they recieved from folks who asked each of them where they were going to college. His girlfriend got oohs and ahhs and my S got blank stares and polite inquires. Those that matter know though and students that go there love it and that is truly all that matters.</p>
<p>I don't really think its that big of an issue. It forces people to seek out their education, and in turn pulls up an applicant pool that is relatively self selecting, wants to go for the atmosphere, education...not becasue their parents one them to go or becasue they want to go because the school's relative presitge. For one, I think it helped me get into a great school and personally, I kind of enjoy wearing my sweatshirt around telling people I'm going to some school named Pomona out in California, neglecting to mention the fact that it happens to be one of the best rated liberal arts schools in the country.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I haven't run across anyone who doesn't know Pomona, but then I'm from SoCal. I'm sure it's different in other parts of the country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you'll find plenty of So Cal people unfamiliar with it.</p>
<p>waszou7303, I think plenty of people are at Pomona because of its prestige (being known as one of the best liberal arts colleges), especially as seen by graduate and professional schools, or there parents want them to go. At the very least, people are able to comfort themselves with the lack of name-recognition to the mass populous by thinking about how good it is to those who know, how highly rated it is, and also how great the atmosphere is and education is, but I don't think the first two are too different from people knowing and being impressed, really.</p>
<p>DRab's concern about how SATs affect college ratings is understandable. However, we should realize that admissions offices see the College Board's full score reports and the high schools' transcripts and use their own protocols to assess them. Best scores from a single sitting, or best combined scores? Doesn't really matter, does it, if the same protocol applies to everyone. Same goes for grades/class standing -- each college uses its own standards for weighting, so all applicants have a level field. Top 5% at some high schools is roughly equivalent to bottom 5% at others; the admissions folks know this. Pomona is indeed very selective (D's GPA is 4.6, SATs 2170, + arts talent, and she didn't even make Pomona's wait list), and they know just what they're looking for for incoming classes. </p>
<p>decide to rate them internally. ow about the UCs collect SAT score data in a way that greatly reduces the average number they would have if they used best combined and not best single sitting? Some students report SAT scores hundreds of points off because of this. To some students, it would be the same, but you really must remember this. The sat scores aren't really comporable because the UCB/UCLA/UC ones are innaccurate.</p>
<p>I won't disagree with you on that one, DRAB, but I think its occurance (presitige seeking) is much less than that of the Ivies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I won't disagree with you on that one, DRAB, but I think its occurance (presitige seeking) is much less than that of the Ivies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, we should realize that admissions offices see the College Board's full score reports and the high schools' transcripts and use their own protocols to assess them. Best scores from a single sitting, or best combined scores? Doesn't really matter, does it, if the same protocol applies to everyone. Same goes for grades/class standing --
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I know you can pay the college board even more money (that's what they do best, right? receive funds?) to hide scores, and while the inclusion of all scores might show a really poor sitting, I think that the admissions officers at a place like Berkeley are told to only think about and keep in mind the best single sitting, even if there were combinations of 200 200 800 in all three possibilities, although this would probably affect perception somewhat. And I think during the decision for most applicants besides those that have additional review, the score reports don't have to be sent in (or grades, or AP scores), but are self-reported, and later the documents must be sent in to be verified. Anyway, my point is, while they might generally see all the scores, I think they're told to ignore certain ones, and by the time the reports generally come about, I think people are already admitted or not- unless I have forgotten that score reports are a mandatory part of the application at Berkeley, which I don't think is so.</p>
<p>I agree with you, as long as the same protocol applies to everyone, things are drastically mitigated, and I hope and think that adcoms know the difference between being at the top 5% at certain schools vs. others and what it means, but where the different score reporting comes into play is when it's compared against other places and people don't consider the reality, which I think some other top publics (other than UCs) use, which is the process of SAT reporting, and this affects US News ratings (as meaningless and meaningfull as it is, it could be mroe accurate), and comparing this factor of student body, although I think it's only somewhat meaningful, to some people it's the most meaningful factor. And why doesn't US News or other ratings use the SAT II? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The sat scores aren't really comporable because the UCB/UCLA/UC ones are innaccurate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's the key point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you'll find plenty of So Cal people unfamiliar with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess I travel in knowledgeable circles. :)</p>
<p>Our dentist's sister is a graduate.
Our neighbor across the street is a graduate.
Another neighbor's best friend, and best friend's husband are both graduates.
The former Chairman of the Board of my husband's company is a graduate.
My daughter's best friend's dad (and family friend) is a graduate.
My son's high school Admissions Director is a graduate.
My son's previous math teacher and club advisor is a graduate.
A member of my son's Eagle Board of Review is a graduate.
And I could go on. In LA county, Pomona is known and respected by business people, educators, and anyone who has reason to pay attention to colleges for any reason. In greater SoCal, like O.C. and S.D. county, I don't know, but the school has been around for a long time, and there really aren't that many LACs in SoCal. </p>
<p>I agree with the poster who said that those for whom name recognition is a primary concern usually don't opt for LACs.</p>
<p>I'm from right outside Boston. There's a LAC about every 15 minutes on the highway! The only people I've met who know about Pomona when I tell them that that's where I'm going are people who know someone who went there. I'd say three people have said "oh yea! out in California!" Everyone else looks slightly confused, smiles and asks "Where's that? Why did you decide to go there?" Would anyone ask me "Why did you decide to go to Harvard?" (actually, for a long time, people asked me why I DIDN'T apply to Harvard. After looking into the school, I wonder why the hell any serious student WOULD). I don't mind it though. I say "It's a small liberal arts college." They say "oh, like Hamilton or Providence college?" I say, "Um, kind of, maybe more like Williams... or Bowdoin?" THEN they get wide eyed and go "oooooo!"</p>
<p>I don't really like all that attention. People make assumptions about you if they know what school you are going to, even if it is a "good" assumption, like "oh, you're really smart." I've been ranked 1/300 for two years and I'm really tired of my friends introducing me to strangers as "the valedictorian." People get caught up on stuff like that. I'd prefer that people get to know me for who I really am. I don't FEEL like a valedictorian or supersmart or anything like that. I guess I'll get the name recognition in california, but I'm kind of enjoying the anonymous school name right now.</p>
<p>I must say I feel the same. You throw titles like valedictorian around and people automatically judge you.</p>
<p>As for name recognition, I live in Pomona, California and some students here (if not most) have no idea how great Pomona College is or it's location.</p>