<p>Yes. Agnes Scott has bounced back dramatically, more than doubling its enrollment from a low point of less than 500 students in 1987. Their endowment is healthy indeed, funded from the same Woodruff Family/Coca-Cola wellspring that keep Emory flush with cash.</p>
<p>In the 1960s, early 1970s, Agnes Scott was very white. Although I am not familiar with its history, my guess is that the current president made the same transformation as Smith in response to declining demand in single-sex colleges: tap new and diverse markets a key part of the enrollment strategy. </p>
<p>Agnes Scott is in a great position. Strong endowment and a great location. But, it faces a different scenario than colleges that would be financially better off (at least in the short term) by concentrating its recruiting efforts on wealthy white students. When you only have 500 students and need 1000 to be viable, then you have no choice but to expand the recruiting base to financial aid students. That's a different challenge than a college that loses tuition revenue (and SAT scores) every time an additional low-income or URM student replaces a wealthy white customer.</p>
<p>Glad to hear you're coming around - "the little you know" is right. </p>
<p>Why such enmity to the military? The United States military has been the bulwark for freedom - all types of freedom including freedom of speech. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are protecting your freedoms. They're not politicians and they will readily say that they think Reps. Murtha and Pelosi have the right to say anything they want and that they in the the military to defend that right.</p>
<p>The U.S. is 76 percent Caucasian. West Point is 73 percent Caucasian. African-Americans and Asians and Native Americans and other minorities are well-represented at West Point. As are women. </p>
<p>Your comment about favoritism in nominations to the Academies is insulting but I'm sure borne out of ignorance - again, "what little you know" - virtually every Congressman and Senator has a comittee of retired military (officers and enlisted) to interview and recommend students for nominations. I ran a Congressional Office for a Member of Congress for five years - we had an Academy committee set up and not once in five years did anyone approach my boss for special favors for a child's nomination. She just reviewed and approved the nominations that were given to her by her committee. Please post what "little you know" - some reference - about the rich and famous and campaign contributors getting special favors on Academy nominations. Unfortunately the "intelligentsia" send few of their children into the military. Thank G-d you/they don't yet run this country. You're going to be very disappointed in the coming years - a lot of our current soldiers are going to come back from overseas assignments and they're going to run for office. And win. Who better to understand the menaces we face, i.e. the Taliban who beheaded a schoolteacher in Afghanistan this past week because he had the temerity to teach WOMEN! Who do you think is manning the gates to protect you from this barbarism.?</p>
<p>Internationals - there are about 45 students at West Point from other countries - they are selected by their home countries. But West Point is the UNITED STATES Military Academy - not the International Military Academy. </p>
<p>As for socioeconomic status - "Pell grants" - West Point and the other Academies are "free" to the students - so financial cost is not a consideration and family wealth plays NO role in admissions or the decision to attend. Can you name another institution of high education like this?</p>
<p>BigGreen, a side note: you're right about a lot of veterans running for office. The Dems have at least 10 Iraq vets, including career officers, headlined by Paul Hackett, running on an anti-Bush platform for Congress this year. You can't swiftboat 'em all. At a guess, this is going to be one of the story narratives in the press along about October.</p>
<p>Side note #2: anyone who uses the locution "Democrat party" a) isn't a member and b) is hostile to it. Democrat is the noun, Democratic the adjective.</p>
<p>No emnity here - I asked a simple question - evidence for the economic diversity at the military academies. I read your latest missive, and I didn't see any. I think it might be true, I imagine it might be true, I hope it is true, but I still don't see any evidence for it.</p>
<p>"family wealth plays NO role in admissions or the decision to attend. Can you name another institution of high education like this?"</p>
<p>ALL of the so-called "need-blind" institutions claim this, though as you know I don't believe it for a second. (And to be fairer to them as well, I doubt there is a single college except perhaps Berea that would deny they have preferential treatment for "developmental admits".) But if the military academies are in fact economically diverse, I'm sure there must be some evidence for it.</p>
<p>Would be interested in seeing where Oberlin and Grinnell would fit on this list -- and what their numbers might say about some of the theories that are being advanced here. </p>
<p>Oberlin has accepted African American students since 1835 and, according to their website, "by the turn of the century one-third of all African American graduates of predominantly white institutions in the United States had graduated from Oberlin." The also graduated the first women with BA degrees in the country. Very progressive. If their numbers are low now, it is most certainly not because of a historical bias. </p>
<p>Grinnell was the first college west of the Mississippi to graduate an African-American and a stop on the underground railroad. Also progressive in many social issues. They are need blind, meet 100% of need, and generous with merit aid. Grinnell works hard to recruit minority students to campus, but I don't imagine they've had much more success than other LACs that are not in the elite category or located near a big city.</p>
<p>GRINNELL
African-American 4%
Asian-American 5%
Hispanic 4%
Native American 1%
White 76%
International 11%
Total minority w/out international= 15%
...mid-range</p>
<p>Pell Grants= 12% (again, mid-range)
Those determined to have financial need: 50% (on the high end)</p>
<p>OBERLIN
African-American 6%
Asian-American 8%
Hispanic 5%
Native American 1%
White 74%
International 6%
Total minority w/out international= 20%
...closer to high end</p>
<p>Pell Grants= 16% (again, above the median)
Those determined to have financial need: 60% (on the very high end)</p>
<p>So, from these numbers, relative to the previously posted LAC group, Grinnell is middle of the road to slightly more diverse, and Oblerlin is definitely on the diverse end of the spectrum, both racially & economically.</p>
<p>I was just about to write the same thing, with Grinnell close to the middle (except for internationals), and Oberlin toward the upper middle part of the pack. (I was actually surprised by the relatively low percentage of Asian-Americans at Oberlin, given the presence of the Conservatory.)</p>
<p>I'm sure somebody will pop on quickly to decry and debunk the mention of Grinnell (one of my favorite schools) as it is not selective enough to be considered in the rarefied air of this topic . After all, they accept half of those who apply :eek:. Oh, wait. Maybe not. Iowa is not in the South, is it? Maybe Grinnell will escape the "repentant southerner" treatment of all things not yankee.</p>
<p>LOL! Too funny! Actually, all it really means is that when colleges reject lots of applicants and are still not particularly diverse, it means they aren't diverse "by choice". ;)</p>
<p>Undergraduates in the College only - 2224
Undergraduates in the Conservatory only - 415
Undergraduates pursuing degrees in both - 168
Total Undergraduates - 2807</p>
<p>While I could not find the breakdown of ethnicities for Con vs College on the web site, I have personally observed that the Conservatory has a relatively high percentage of both native Asians and Asian-Americans. Since only about 20% of Oberlin students are registered in the Conservatory, it does not have a large effect on the overall diversity numbers.</p>
<p>Was also wondering about Carlton. Can you tell I'm from the midwest? US News puts it at about #5, I think - so that should qualify it as "elite," but not sure how well they are able to recruit minorities away from the coasts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Heres' the LAC list, ordered by greatest minority + international percentage, with Pell and financial aid data:</p>
<p>College/Pell Grants %/ qualifying for financial aid %
Swarthmore 12% 48%
Occidental 24% 65%
Amherst 15% 46%
Williams 10% 42%
Pomona 10% 53%
Haverford 12% 43%
Wesleyan 13% 48%
Macalester 13% 69%
Bowdoin 12% 46%
Vassar 11% 54%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Papa Chicken, what kind of methodology did you use to compose your list? </p>
<p>It took me about ten seconds to note how inconsistent this list is. Not that it matter much at all, since the dierction seems awfully familiar to the typical horse manure list Mini likes to pepper our board with. </p>
<p>By now, we all know the story and the erroneous conclusions. Smith and Mt Holyoke are more diverse than Williams and Swarthmore. Smith and Mt Holyoke are more generous in financial aid than Williams and Swarthmore. Smith and Mt Holyoke are aware of their social responsibilities while others are not. And, then comes more hollow blah blah. </p>
<p>And at no time will he accept that the schools HAVE to drag their fishnets a LOT lower to fill their classes and that financial aid/diversity are simple stragetic moves recommended by their high priced enrollment consultants. Check the strategic plan of Mt Holyoke and it will give plenty of insights as whay the school has to rebate 45% of its tuition income to survive. </p>
<p>Mini's short list of favorites ain't disciples of Mother Teresa any more than other schools.</p>
<p>xiggi-- the college list was not composed to do a general assessment of diversity, its a list that started as the beginnings of a candidate list for my S, with several schools (at their mention by other posters) added in for comparison purposes as the thread proceeded. The common element in the original list which you will have a hard time deducing is that all but one college have a team in my son's sport, most D3 level, a few club. My purpose was merely to get a relative handle of the diversity picture with that original group (and to learn how to assess diversity), as I had not really dug into the issue in a systematic way until now (i.e., I am apparently the only one here who didn't "know the story"). I have learned more than I thought I would in the last few days, so thanks all.</p>
<p>Xiggi - I don't have a clue as to why you think private colleges have "social responsibilities" regarding diversity. I certainly don't think that. The only social responsibility (separate from those expected of any business) that I would ascribe to them is toward their students. I certainly don't think that. I believe colleges make choices based on their institutional priorities, about which they are free (and should be free) to choose, and parents can make choices among them as they choose.</p>
<p>Papa Chicken, I thank you for your reply. Unless I missed it, I did not see any mention that this list was developed according to individual criteria. Without this added qualification, the list intimated to be a ranking of the LACs. I realize that all lists are very subjective, and that is why it is critical to detail the methodology used and avoid misdirection.</p>
<p>Mini, what confuses me about your positions is that you seem ambivalent about the "social responsibilities" of colleges. Based on your latest post, colleges do not have any such responsibilities. But, if that is the case, why do you love to question "apparent" discrimination in college admissions or financial aid? I do not think I make things up when I read your posts discussing what happens at Williams versus Berea. I also do not think that I invent your questioning of the 568 group truthfulness regarding their need-blind admissions. </p>
<p>Oh heck, I may simply miss the sarcasm and finer points of your positions.</p>
<p>Whether Xiggi or anyone else thinks LACs have a social responsibility to promote diversity may be beside the point. There are very few colleges in America who don't name diversity among students and faculty as part of their mission or values. Admissions officers live and die by their diversity numbers.</p>
<p>Mini - in the past 50 yrs I have known many cadets and not one of them had any political connection of any kind.... save their own from participating in ASB and other leadership positions in their respective schools & communities... each has been bright & strong in areas that might surprise you. one even said his main reason to go to West Point was he wanted to make sure peace was always in the forefront of decision making. still feels that way today.... & has had a strong Army career.... fwiw</p>
<p>"Whether Xiggi or anyone else thinks LACs have a social responsibility to promote diversity may be beside the point. There are very few colleges in America who don't name diversity among students and faculty as part of their mission or values. Admissions officers live and die by their diversity numbers"</p>
<p>Snorky, did I say that LACs had or did NOT have a social responsibility to promote diversity? I don't think so.</p>
<p>FWIW, we may start by defining what diversity truly is. Are Berkeley, UC-Irvine or UCLA diverse because they have high numbers of non-white students? From my vantage point, the answer is NO.</p>
<p>Is the United States diverse as a country? That answer may vary, depending if you find yourself across the UN building or in Montana. My version of diversity includes a student population that mimics as closely as possible the population distribution of the US. An index that consists of adding non-whites and international students does not come close to represent a diversity but is simply a meaningless number.</p>
<p>xiggi-- that kind of simple statistic may be meaningless to you, but its certainly helped me put the list I started with in some context & allowed me to begin formulating questions about diversity at the respective colleges. Any index, just like USNews rank, has its limitations, but you gotta start somewhere. We need to take the "index" for what it is, however, just one angle on the issue.</p>