Holy Cross vs Grinnell

[Bill_Marsh]

@nibbie

@Harold_Dutch

@nibbie;d-2186972

The biggest downsides to Holy Cross are the disparity in selectivity and being a D1 college. I’ve researched a bit into Holy Cross’ athletics and how it relates to the college, and it seems as though athletes are given priority in aid over incredibly accomplished scholars. There was a thread a few years back that pointed out how Holy Cross did not have a single National Merit Scholar. 1/4 of the school are D1 athletes, which also is a huge issue for me, and makes the previous points a bit more potent. Obviously Holy Cross is not easy to get into, but Grinnell simply has a higher aggregate in GPA/Test Scores. This isn’t to say I dislike Holy Cross – I wouldn’t have applied if that wasn’t the case. The academics seem to be very rigorous, the campus appealing, student body seems quite inclusive, etc. As I mentioned earlier the location is a general positive.

Merged two threads
ED

To begin, Grinnel and Holy Cross are both fantastic LACs to attend!

One of your worries was about the disparity in selectivity among the two schools. However, selectivity can often be a disingenuous measure of a school. For example, Holy Cross and Grinnel are quite close in the number of applications they receive, yet Grinnel’s acceptance rate is lower, thus making it appear more selective. However, Grinnel aims to maintain a student population of 1,800 while Holy Cross maintains a student population of 3,200. Thus, Holy Cross will always accept more than Grinnel because it seeks a larger student body (while still maintaining small class sizes).

Additionally, selectively among the two schools in regards to SAT is unhelpful. Grinnel requires SAT scores while Holy Cross does not. Despite this, the NCAA requires all division 1 schools to report the SATS of student-athletes. So those slightly lower SAT scores of Holy Cross are greatly derived from athletes, which tend to hold lower SAT scores than your average student.

While Holy Cross is a D1 school, this shouldn’t make it appear any less prestigious academically. According to the NCAA, Holy Cross holds one of the nation’s top athlete graduation rates, and for the last decade it has also been ranked in the top 15 for APR of schools where it is in good company with the Ivies.

Further, it is important to acknowledge that Holy Cross, like the Ivies, does not hand out merit aid. The College is committed to meeting 100% of demonstrated financial need. The school does not sacrifice lower-income students to attract high school students that are better off and tend to have higher stats, thus highlighting the school’s commitment to social justice.

Finally, the perception that Holy Cross is conservative and forces religion upon its students seems to be greatly misplaced. After a little of research, in the past few decades, Holy Cross has sported 6 different congressmen, all who were democrats. Also, Obama’s speech a writer and current political commentator Jon Favreau graduated from the college.

In regard to religion, while the school is Catholic, it appears that they do not force any religious views upon its students. Rather, they seem dedicated to having a multicultural student body through its support of other faiths on campus.

I totally agree with your point on the religious aspect of Holy Cross, HC is a religiously inclusive environment and is in no way ‘conservative.’ However, for those who might be considering HC, some of the points you have do not hold much weight. I’m no longer considering Holy Cross because of the stark differences in financial packages but will comment on these points for anyone who might view this thread in the future. My criticisms are as follows: Holy Cross not giving merit yet giving football full rides is odd (and is precisely a very valid concern), if anything Grinnell being self-selective because of the location makes its selectivity even more noteworthy (reference @merc81 's post), and I already mentioned why HC being compared to the ivy league is not relevant (no athletic scholarships in the ivy league).

I get your point about HC granting a full ride to some student athletes and then not having enough financial aid available for good students who are need eligible. Good point.

But for the record, let’s not kid ourselves about the Ivy League. The “no scholarships” has become a PR tactic that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It should be no “official” scholarships. All Ivy League students get a full ride if their family income is low enough. That includes incomes up to $100,000 depending on the school. There are a whole lot of athletes in that group.

The real issue at Ivy League schools in the first place is admission in and of itself - admission to schools which reject 90-95% of their applicantss. The seats thAt sshould be going to many highly qualified students are going to athletes instead. Every single one of the Ivy League athletes is a high priority admit, who then becomes eligible for 100% of demonstrated need being met with no loans. Many of the best, brightest, and most qualified students in the country are being turned away from these same schools in favor of far less qualified students just because they happen to be athletes. At Dartmouth, for example, where the enrollment is a little over 4000, there are more than 1000 athletes. At the Little Ivies, it gets even worse. 35-40% of the spots at schools like Williams and Grinnell go to athletes when enrollment is 2000 or less. At Holy Cross, athletes ae a little over 25% of enrollment and a number of them are not on scholarships at all. It’s not as simple as D1 vs “no (official) scholarships”.