Amherst makeover

Parents Forum
21

<p>
[quote]
The biggest disservice the US News report does to schools such as Smith, and to a lesser extent Wellesley, is maintaining them in the same category as the coed LACs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I totally agree with that. The rankings do a great disservice to the womens colleges. </p>

<p>First, the admissions dynamics at schools with half of the potential customer base skew many of the ranking criteria.</p>

<p>Second, I would love to see if there is gender bias in peer ratings portion of the USNEWS survey. I have a sneaking suspicion that we would see significant disparity in the ratings awarded by male and female raters.</p>

<p>Third, the relationship between "stats" and academic intensity is atypical at women's colleges. From the per capita PhD production numbers, it is quite clear that many of the women's colleges have a disproportionately high campus culture of academic engagement compared to similar coed schools with comparable incoming "stats". Carolyn touched on this issue once by proposing that colleges have degrees of "maleness" and "femaleness" in their campus cultures. It seems to me that the "femaleness" quotient correlates with things like less drinking and more academic engagement -- something is probably tied into the overall trend of women outperforming men scholastically.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I personally think the womens college probably made a mistake in not going coed back in the 1970s.</p>

22

<p>"Having said all that, I personally think the womens college probably made a mistake in not going coed back in the 1970s."</p>

<p>Frankly, I would have thought the same. But looking at Vassar today relative to the way I remember it (still a great school, but I didn't perceive the same level of intellectual excitement), and looking at what I perceive to be the distinct underwhelming career outcomes of women (relative to men) at our common alma mater over the past 30 years (as well as at Amherst), I suspect I would have been mistaken. (Smith, and I presume, Wellesley, and Scripps, are much better institutions than they were back in my day, if I can remember back that far! :o)</p>

23

<p>I think that Vassar is in a stronger marketing position today because of going coed. </p>

<p>For example, only one of the remaining non-coed Seven Sister schools is even close to Vassar's median SAT figures. The rest trail by 100 points. None of them are close to Vassar's 29% acceptance rate. I don't recall the specific pecking order thirty-five years ago, but I don't remember Vassar being more selective than Smith or Wellesley at the beginning of the "co-ed" transformation.</p>

<p>I do think Vassar illustrates the difficulty of going from a womens college to a coed college. It may well take them half a century or more to overcome the reluctance of male students. But, Vassar is pretty nicely positioned now.</p>

<p>It's all academic. I doubt that the alumna of the remaining single-sex schools would allow a change any more than the alumni at Williams or Amherst would consider dropping football.</p>

<p>What kills the single-sex colleges from a marketing standpoint is the number of potential customers who "just say no" to a non-coed school.</p>

24

<p>"Second, I would love to see if there is gender bias in peer ratings portion of the USNEWS survey. I have a sneaking suspicion that we would see significant disparity in the ratings awarded by male and female raters."</p>

<p>When it comes to peer ratings, there is an evident bias, but it is far from being a negative one for non-coed schools. Without the overly subjective and highly dubious peer assessment, the best ranked single-sex schools would drop considerably. </p>

<p>Wellesley College (MA)
Peer assessment 3
Selectivity 12
Overall 4 </p>

<p>Smith College (MA)<br>
Peer assessment 7
Selectivity 38
Overall 19</p>

<p>Bryn Mawr College (PA)<br>
Peer assessment 13
Selectivity 25
Overall 21 </p>

<p>Mount Holyoke College (MA)<br>
Peer assessment 18
Selectivity 45
Overall 23</p>

25

<p>"What kills the single-sex colleges from a marketing standpoint is the number of potential customers who "just say no" to a non-coed school."</p>

<p>and, as their ED performance illustrates dramatically, that almost nobody considers them a true first choice.</p>

26

<p>"The biggest disservice the US News report does to schools such as Smith, and to a lesser extent Wellesley, is maintaining them in the same category as the coed LACs."</p>

<p>I think this is true, but in a more profound sense than anything to do with USNWR, and is something frankly neither my d. nor I considered when she was looking at colleges. She wasn't looking for a women's college, and I'm not sure the gender factor played into her decision much at all (other than she didn't like the athletics/alcohol-driven activity that she saw at some of her other choices.)</p>

<p>But the reason I think the categories don't work so well, having now spent more time at my d's place, is that the emphasis is now much more on being a women's college that happens to emphasize the liberal arts, as opposed to a liberal arts college that happens to be all women (which is what it was when I went to the men's version of same.) The change can actually be dated to 1975-1980, when the college reinvented itself under Jill Ker Conway. (her book is extraordinary, by the way.) The faculty is now more than half women (it had been 85% men before her time, which would have been my time), which is particularly striking in disciplines where men have long predominated. The mentoring of women by female faculty makes a huge difference. The trustees are almost all women, managing the billion-dollar plus endowment, and raising the largest capital campaign in LAC history - out of women alumnae. Virtually all the executive offices are held by women. The programs are slanted toward the needs of women - ranging from the Women's Financial Independence Network, to the internship opportunities often geared toward women looking at male-oriented professions. The overemphasis on the hard sciences (including research in the first two years), and now in engineering. It even shows up in the little things: there were plenty of underperformed/unperformed Renaissance/baroque operas my d. could have been working on - but they chose the first one ever written by a woman, and which came out of the court of Cosimo II (essentially a female patriarchy - they brought in the leading female musicologist of the period to discuss it.) </p>

<p>If you read the viewbooks, Smith and Wellesley and Bryn Mawr, etc. simply seem like liberal arts colleges without men and football. I am sure that is the way they are largely perceived by high school students and their parents. I know that is the way my d. saw it from the outside until visiting, and now being there. It isn't the Smith I remember - with the table clothes, and lessons in deportment, preparing for a life as the ambassador's wife.</p>

<p>(A side note: my personal opinion is that Vassar is in a much weaker position today. (Selectivity is simply a function of their location.) After 30 years, they still have trouble attracting men. It's a wonderful school, with excellent faculty and talented students, but they offer nothing that differentiates them from 30 equally wonderful similar schools.)</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
Selectivity is simply a function of their location.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you kidding? Wellesley and Smith have much more desireable locations among elite college customers. Both in the heart of the prized New England territory.</p>

28

<p>For coed colleges.</p>

<p>People forget that Wellesley, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Vassar were not grouped as liberal arts colleges until relatively recently. They were grouped as "Seven Sisters", which included women's colleges affiliated with universities and others, such as Radcliffe, Pembroke, Barnard, Jackson, Douglas.</p>

29

<p>For coed colleges.</p>

<p>People forget that Wellesley, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Vassar were not grouped as liberal arts colleges until relatively recently. They were grouped as "Seven Sisters", which included women's colleges affiliated with universities and others, such as Radcliffe, Pembroke, Barnard, Jackson, Douglas. But for some reason, I don't remember folks making a big deal about Williams being a "liberal arts" college when I was there either. It was, of course, but folks no more compared their experience with that of Swarthmore studnts than they did with those at Harvard, and certainly no mor than with Dartmouth. As so many other folks have noted, some of the LACs have more in common with certain Ivies (Williams and Dartmouth, as opposed to Princeton and Cornell) than they do with each other. I understand the Carnegie classifications, but they may be missing important stuff. </p>

<p>None of this takes away from Xiggi's larger point - these colleges have so few students that, while it is nice to see experimentation such as that at Amherst, it's not like the future of education hangs in the balance. ;)</p>

30

<p>mini - I know one who fits that middle class income (low end), #1 ranking - my D who is there now. And she received Early Write and phone call from Marx. Have heard Marx speak a couple times. He is VERY impressive and very professional. They are lucky to have him.</p>

31

<p>Kate, thanks for posting this article. I found Marx’s concept, aside from the undeniable altruistic sentiment, provocative. If Amherst does barrel ahead with the plan of targeting a 25% matriculation rate for kids from low income families, I would hope that they’re prepared to absorb the shockwaves that such a radical change will have on the overall Amherst experience. Some positive, some negative, but for sure different!</p>

<p>I believe that the article (maybe the fault of Business Week, maybe fuzzy thinking from Amherst) conflates two separate but related issues: helping kids from low income families get quality educations and keeping SAT scores at USNWR award levels. The two are not mutually exclusive and at least some of the Pell Grant recipients and many of the Quest Program candidates (and evitajr1’s daughter:)) are NOT going to drag down Amherst’s SAT average. On the contrary these kids are smart and accomplished and will have no problem keeping up in class. </p>

<p>What we’re talking about here is increasing the already expanding pool of kids who, although perhaps intelligent enough, score in the low band SATs and presumably haven’t been challenged enough in high school. </p>

<p>Whether they come families that earn under $40,000 a year, or play football or the clarinet, the professors worry that these kids will have a hard time keeping up academically with their peers. In a school like Amherst where it’s not unusual to have a class of 15-20 students, if 25% don’t easily grasp the material, you’re going to have a problem. By adding a critical mass of kids who suffer from inadequate high school environments to an existing percentage that includes some of the sports and arts admits they may end up with more than 25% who are academically weak. </p>

<p>I have no argument that diversity of all sorts contributes to the quality of education. I also have no argument that smart kids from disadvantaged backgrounds deserve a break. What would concern me had I any personal involvement in Amherst would be what would happen to the academic rigor and faculty resources if 25% of the students found it so challenging that they couldn't succeed without special accommodation. </p>

<p>I think the remedies suggested -- like the ten student section for under-prepared first years and the summer catch up sessions -- are going to be onerously expensive and long term not practical if a quarter of the student body is in need of special consideration. The idea of having 25% of a student body of 1650, or even 2000, who need some kind of remedial help to do the work, is tantamount to a tidal wave of social and educational change.</p>

<p>After my son had graduated, his high school undertook an initiative that radically changed the demographic of the student body. The teachers were not opposed to the change per se but were puzzled and worried that it hadn’t been thought through and that the ramifications of the change for them and for the students would be enormous. As one teacher who had been with the school for over a decade said to me, “I can teach anyone, but the administration has to decide whom they want to admit and structure the school accordingly.” </p>

<p>It seems to me that Amherst hasn’t thought through the effect of this well intentioned egalitarianism.</p>

32

<p>While I do not disagree with Momrath's main points, I think it is important to repeat that Amherst is not going from 0 to 25% of lower SES students. The school ALREADY has a substantial percentage and seems to be able to graduate them. The increase will be gradual. </p>

<p>Also, lowering the selectivity of the school may actually help Amherst in the ranking by boosting their "expected" graduation rates in such a way that it increases their overall ranking. For an illustration of this, simply compare the USNews rankings of Wellesley and Harvey Mudd or follow the ups and down of Middlebury. Smoke and mirrors are well and alive in the "illustrious" rankings.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
By adding a critical mass of kids who suffer from inadequate high school environments to an existing percentage that includes some of the sports and arts admits they may end up with more than 25% who are academically weak.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Marx is going to run into the same problem that every tiny college faces when they try to commit more "slots" than they have. Simply put, with only 430 slots in the freshman class, Amherst does not have enough for a major commitment to athletic slots, legacy slots, diversity slots, socio-economic slots, arts slots, science slots, music slots, and high academic achiever slots. Between the current 66 low-band athletic slots, and the 125 Pell Grant slots Marx is pushing for, and the 44 legacy slots, you've just committed half of the freshman class each year -- before considering the minority slots, the 30 international slots, and so on and so forth. Marx's initiative is going to ultimately come down to a board level choice between the low-band athletic slots and the socio-economic slots. The Amherst board is not going to drop football.</p>

<p>The other problem is that "soc-ec" recruiting is the latest rage at all of the super-elite schools. Just like with minority recruiting, the schools are going to find that they simply can't fill the slots with qualified candidates in the face of heavy competition. Schools like Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore can't beat Harvard in a bidding war for these kids. They'll have to dip deeper into the pool to meet the quotas and that means letting the median SATs drift downward to fill all these tipped "slots".</p>

<p>The dilemma is laid out quite succinctly in last year's faculty report on admissions:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amherst.edu/%7Edeanfac/adm%20finaid%20report.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amherst.edu/~deanfac/adm%20finaid%20report.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The faculty report included this paragraph:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of somewhat greater concern to us are three aspects of such a change in admission policy that we have not heard discussed in the broader community, viz., who these students will displace, what their curricular choices are likely to be, and what additional institutional support they will need. Our sense is that displacing academic [reader rating] RR2’s would not be a good choice, since we wish to retain the academic core of the institution. Indeed, many in the faculty feel that the academic core has already been compromised too far by the athletic admits. The alternative would seem to be to weigh our policies on athletics and socioeconomic diversity and decide what balance can be struck between the two; i.e., to displace some of the more modestly qualified athletes. There is simply too little room in the accepted cohort to accommodate all of these interests without sacrificing either academic or athletic quality. Some tough choices, which we hope will be based primarily on academic (and not athletic) values, lie ahead.

[/quote]
</p>

34

<p>excuse me, interesteddad? barnard, which is one of the remaining seven sisters, has a lower acceptance rate than vassar's (27% according to collegeboard.com) and the exact same composite sat score, 1450, of the 25th percentile. wellesley also has comparable stats (34% and 1500), and it's not like the other top schools (scripps, bryn mawr, spelman, etc) are lacking in applicants. women's colleges are thriving today, so is vassar, but i don't think the decision to not go coed has hurt any of the remaining seven sisters. i know barnard alumnae would be outraged if that happened.</p>

35

<p>I'm not sure what data you are looking at.</p>

<p>According to the 2004/05 Common Data Set info published by USNEWS, here are the SAT medians:</p>

<p>Vassar: 1310-1460
Wellesley: 1280-1460
Barnard: 1270-1430</p>

<p>I agree that Wellesley, Barnard, Smith, Bryn Mawr, and Holyoke are doing quite well -- Radcliffe and Pembroke, well, not so good. Someone had suggested that Vassar has not been successful as a coed college. I was simply pointing out that they seem to be doing as well, at least from an admissions standpoint, as the Seven Sister schools that did not go coed. I don't recall exactly where they started, but my sense from the pre-coed days was that Smith and Wellesley were more selective than Vassar.</p>

<p>I also agree Barnard's alumna would surely be outraged at the thought of going coed, just as Williams' and Harvard's alumni were outraged when they admitted women.</p>