<p>par-- I was thinking about the football element as well, although the other end of the spectrum. I figure that schools that flat out do NOT have football teams (e.g., Skidmore, Vassar) will have less fall-festival hubbub, and perhaps feel smaller.</p>
<p>Xiggi,
Thanks for the list. That is worth saving and I appreciate the time you took to put it together. It was very interesting to see the actual size variations among LACs.</p>
<p>one of the things that has always concerned me about small LACs, is the lack of diversity of majors (and classes for that matter). Since many students change their major 2-3 times, a larger school just has more opportunities to try different types of classes and for a student to find thier academic place wherever that might be. For example, I'd love to see some data that shows the number of kids who matriculate as premed but end not applying since they have no shot after inorganic and/or organic chem. </p>
<p>I'm remember one tour guide who started as Frosh premed, but shifted to a Spanish/Language major after the second semester....</p>
<p>Xiggi - great list. Thank you so much.</p>
<p>Holy Cross and Colgate usually have 2 of the highest alumni giving rates and in 2005 both schools were in the top 15 among LAC's in total $ contributed. Williams with a highly respected Div 3 program is another school that has a bigger feel to it.</p>
<p>Pomona was left off the list when I doubled up Oxy. No malice intended. :D</p>
<p>Pomona had 1559 students in that list.</p>
<p>PapaClucker, in the student store, Smith sells a t-shirt that says "Undefeated in Football Since 1871."</p>
<p>My fave is the "More Than A Century of Women on Top"...with the propsective student elbowing her Mom, "Do you get it, Mom?"</p>
<p>Here's an interesting article about how many LAC's are trying to increase their size, and the pro's and con's of doing so:</p>
<p>TheDad...lol....I reckon if my son could be admitted to Smith, his experience would be larger than life....</p>
<p>carolyn-- very interesting article, thanks. Makes me ponder more what will happen in the undergrad "market" so to speak after the bubble has peaked in 2009 or so. The response I have contemplated thus far with increasing competition has been a steady rise in admissions hurdles, as evidenced by standardized test score growth. Now, if the market responds to more demand by increasing enrollment, as the article discusses, there will also be more capacity in the system. Just makes me wonder what will happen once demand starts abating.....will the the admissions standards recede and enrollment shrink at these schools, or will the more selective providers of undergrad education retain their new positions, and recession occur with the less selective?</p>
<p>PC, there is little reason to believe that the demand will change a whole lot for the hyper-selective schools. Some patterns in applications have little to do with the growth or decay of the larger population. </p>
<p>For instance, check the changes at Harvard and Cornell for the past 20-25 years. You will find a steady increase at Harvard with a few spurs. The change to EA and then SCEA accounted for more changes than how many hundreds of thousands students joined the overall pool of applicants. Then look at Cornell: they remained flat for the best part of the past twenty years -actually started a pattern of losing applicants- but are experienced an unprecedented boom for the classes of 2009 and 2010 with an increase of 35% (from fewer than 21,000 to over 28,000.) The reasons behind the changes are probably a bit more complex than I suspect, but the change to accept the Common Application may have played a substantial role. </p>
<p>Obviously, the changes in population and demand will have a more profound effect on the schools that still need the spill-over from better known and more popular schools.</p>
<p>Just to add a small note on the discussion about growing the size of the student body, one of the issues that troubles current student is the impact of new construction. When a school adds 70 or 100 students, new buildings are needed, starting with new dorms. Unless the school disposes of a large inventory of land, it means that the new dorm(s) will be built on open space or ... parking spaces. Selfish and spoiled as it may sounds, current students do not look forward to attend class and live in the mddle of a construction site. Heck, we just learned about the power of NIMBY!</p>
<p>pc:</p>
<p>just happened to be in a meeting with an admissions guy from a school that xiggi refers to as "spill-over"....the rep's take was that the baby bust would cause them to seek more international students, so his college is actively building relationships with foreign unis to build brand awareness.</p>
<p>Blue,
That makes sense. There has been incredible attention focused on attracting international students in the academic media lately. They're all planning ahead, I suppose.</p>
<p>Carolyn, xiggi, & blue....this (undergrad market dynamics) is a very interesting subject in its own right, at least IMO, & Ill go ahead & post another thread on the subject (although this may have had much CC attention in the past.)</p>
<p>I can't testify about the difference in attending a 1900 vs 2300 size school, but they can sure "feel" different visiting. But as a visitor much of your impression is based on the facilities. In some cases (Susquehanna for example) I have been surprised that such great and extensive facilities serve only 1900 students, while to me Muhlenberg felt much smaller than 2446 students. (Not criticizing the facilities, the campus just felt small and compact) Bucknell markets itself as "the largest LAC" and to me did feel like a large university. (Huge athletic complex) It does boggle your mind to think of some of these schools with fewer than 3000 students involved in many D1 sports. What % of the student body is on the football team, on an athletic scholarship, admitted with below average academic stats? Seems like it could be a huge influence on campus culture.</p>
<p>Good point. The percentage of recruited jocks at, say, Williams, is much higher than at the University of Michigan. The Williams jocks may be better students than the Michigan jocks, but there are a lot of them, proportionately.</p>
<p>"What % of the student body is on the football team, on an athletic scholarship, admitted with below average academic stats? Seems like it could be a huge influence on campus culture."</p>
<p>I do not know of any school that does not admit close to 50% of above average students and close to 50% of below average students. However, the definition of a below average student AT Williams might be a misnomer. As far as influence on campus culture, the total absence of athletics would have quite a negative impact. And then, you'd have to measure the effect on alumni donations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
PC, there is little reason to believe that the demand will change a whole lot for the hyper-selective schools. Some patterns in applications have little to do with the growth or decay of the larger population.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree. The last time there was a period of declining college age students came at the end of the baby boom in the early 1970s, demographics had a massive impact on elite colleges. Do you think it is just a coincidence that all of the elite colleges decided to accept women at the same time? Nope. </p>
<p>They had all done the demographic studies and realized that they faced a rapidly declining customer base. Allowing women to enroll was a quick and easy way to offset declining market conditions by doubling the potential customer base overnight.</p>
<p>Today, the elite northeast colleges are looking at a declining number of college age customers in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic regions -- for centuries the two regions that have driven their applications. They are also looking at a demographic shift in the customer pool towards more Latino and Asian American high school graduates. Many of them are tailoring their long-range sales and marketing efforts accordingly.</p>