I was going to mention Rutgers. It certainly had the potential to be an Ivy League college; it was a stone’s throw from Princeton; had a national football reputation - which was the sine qua non for membership; and, was already two centuries old by the time the phrase “Ivy League” began gaining traction in the 1930s and 40s. But, it’s never been able to shake the idea that it was “rescued” by the state in 1948.
Also, consider Dartmouth. There was significant conjecture whether, despite its colonial roots, it was too small to join the conference in full round-robin play; by almost any standard in 1954, it would have been considered a LAC. Technically, it’s still a member of the Twelve-College Exchange which is nothing but New England LACs and had a regular round-robin schedule with Wesleyan, Amherst, Williams and Bowdoin in several team sports as late as the 1960s.
Cornell places at the top of the Ivies in academic areas such as engineering and computer science, as well as in, subjectively, campus appearance. I haven’t heard that UC–Merced can claim similar distinctions among its peers.
I used an understated expression to mean that W&M does quite well at raising money, all things considered.
If the thread is about why W&M doesn’t play in the Ivy League, then that question was answered. I thought we were having some good natured conversation about the idea of the “Ivy League” and what it means. (Old? Classic? Hung with ivy?)
I don’t think it’s off topic to say that my family (5 of us are alumni or current students) love W&M the way it is, without the heightened prestige of America’s wealthiest, most elite schools.
I guess my question is, given how old W&M is, why isn’t its endowment bigger and its profile higher? Most of the schools founded in that era have experienced greater growth and success in almost every category.
Are there successful W&M alumni? If so, are they not generous with the school?
Is the school small/low profile by choice, or is there a history of mismanagement?
I can think of a lot of older, public universities (UVa and Rutgers have already been mentioned) which are not has old, but have larger endowments, and have higher global profiles.
W&M is a public school. Some of its policies are set by the Commonwealth (tuition, who gets instate tuition, budget). Its board might be elected officials (they are in my state), employees are govt employees for some things (maybe pensions, other benefits).
(1) public
(2) small - compare endowment per student. College Endowments
(3) Just a guess, but W&M historically is more of an undergraduate institution. Yes, it has a law school and a business school, but no med school.
I guess someone should get on Jefferson, Washington, Madison et al re: their alumni donations. Slackers.
i mean, something else that i feel like others fail to consider is the fact that W&M also takes pride in serving the students of virigina first over students from other states. the ivy league schools, which others have pointed out are private and are just a part of a sports conference, take students in from everywhere.
W&M has a comparable (and sometimes identical) ratio of in-state:out-of-state students (67:33) to that of virigina’s flagship university, uva (70:30). it’s funny, though, because for a university that is both public and nondenominational, it is constantly mistaken as being both private and religiously affiliated. (i don’t think the name helps, lol.)
also, i’m firm in believing that W&M students and alumni wouldn’t really want to be part of the ivy league. i’m not sure if any college with a solidified identity would want to join the ivy league brand. i mean, st. john’s college in maryland was established before yale, uofdelaware and moravian college were established before princeton, and washington and lee uni was established before columbia. should they also have a rite of passage? it just is what it is.
