The Pomona community was shocked this week when a new report found that Pomona students are not, in fact, any more privileged or entitled than their peers at the other Claremont colleges.
The report was released by the Committee to Explore Self-Important Provincialism at Pomona (CESIPP). In it, researchers announced that the long-standing stereotypes distinguishing the various 5-C student bodies from one another are largely mythical.
CESIPP Director Dr. David Robins concluded that these myths are perpetuated by the respective schools themselves. "Pomona students may like to think they possess certain characteristics that set them apart from, say, CMC kids, and vice versa," Robins said.
In fact, he announced, "it turns out they're a pretty homogenous bunch. Put together, they're all basically sheltered upper-middle class kids from the suburbs."
Pomona spokeswoman Cynthia Peters expressed indignation and attempted to discredit the findings. "This is ludicrous," she said. "It is a widely accepted fact that Pomona students are the most sheltered and privileged by a long shot."
"And what's more," she added, "we're going to install a multimillion-dollar golf course on south campus to prove it."
Robins stood by the study's findings. However, he did offer Pomona one small glimmer of hope.
"Look, we're not saying Pomona isn't more elitist than the other schools," he said. "It's an important distinction. We didn't examine the snobbery variable; that's a whole different study entirely."
Other Claremont colleges echoed Pomona's outrage at the findings. Bridget Lewison, Pitzer's Associate Director of Public Affairs, said that Pitzer students and faculty were livid about the announcement.
"Pitzer has a long and celebrated history of aligning itself with the proletariat," she sniffed. "Everybody knows our students are the self-appointed representatives of the working class. They are not members of the bourgeoisie. They have rejected all those things that their parents embody."
Many Pitzer students also seemed to feel they'd been misjudged.
"Nah dude, they've got it all wrong," Nate Birkenstock PI '05 claimed. "We're hippie slackers. I mean, it's obvious: we sit around smoking out and getting really trashed while our families fritter away large sums of money on a private-school education. How dare they imply that we're spoiled rich kids like those Pomona preppies?"
But Pitzer and Pomona were not the only schools to decry CESIPP's findings. A Scripps spokeswoman also challenged the study.
"Scripps women are independent, empowered individuals," said Director of Public Relations Mary Bartlett. "They aren't sheltered; on the contrary, Scripps strives to develop a commitment to social responsibility in our students. Not to mention, of course, refined taste and sophisticated aesthetic sensibilities."
Many Scripps students, such as Stephanie Somersby SC '06, offered to back Bartlett up. Somersby said she feels she and her Scripps peers possess a certain savoir-faire that Sagehens lack.
"Scripps students are totally confident and savvy," she asserted. "We're so not sheltered. We're very worldly. Like, I've been to the Caribbean with my parents at least a dozen times."
Meanwhile, the reaction to CESIPP on CMC's campus provided a noteworthy contrast to the outrage and indignation of other schools. In fact, the mood among students there bordered on celebratory.
"All I can say is, it's about time," said Biff McKinley CMC '03. "We've been Pomona's attention-starved little brother for too long."
"Amen," Chet Carruthers CMC '05 chimed in. "Even our knee-jerk conservatism and pugnacious frat-boy attitudes don't earn us a reputation for entitlement like the one Pomona enjoys. We come from money, too, you know. Thank goodness for this study!"
Ultimately, Pomona spokeswoman Peters remained defiant and dismissive.
"They can spout whatever lies they want, it doesn't matter," she said of CESIPP. "We have the biggest endowment, and U.S. News & World Report still likes us best. That's all that really counts."
