<p>Having FINALLY read all the way through this thread, I really don’t see much worth dramatizing (and I say this even as an avid Claremont supporter). Though very little that’s blatantly negative has been said, there have been a few misunderstandings, but they’ve basically been corrected. I can’t speak for the Bi/Tri-Co, but I do know that the Claremont Consortium suffers <em>terminal</em> misunderstanding and misrepresentation on these boards (which is both understandable and unsurprising…it’s difficult to grasp without living in it). It can be flustering to read such misconceptions passed off as fact, and to see the various schools analyzed ONLY as individual entities, without regard to the consortium.</p>
<p>That said, I have to reemphasize that as someone who just jumped in and has no real investment in this debate, my semi-objective view is that this thread hasn’t reflected particularly negatively on ANY of the schools with which it deals. So worry not and carry on ;-)</p>