<p>I am a William and Mary alumnus (late 1980s). Now my son is looking at colleges and I have to say, I can’t recommend Their Majesties’ Royal College to him. </p>
<p>While I have always felt pride at being able to call the college my alma mater, and although I feel it prepared me well for an extremely varied career path, the college has changed since I attended; and not for the better. It has become increasingly corporate and elitist. The commitment to “building the college” has eclipsed the commitment to educating the undergraduate. </p>
<p>Does it have a great faculty? Yes. Does it have a unique cache? Certainly. Does it attract a certain type of student who is bright yet willing to work? Sure. But the soul has gone. Simple examples of how things have changed include the institution of an honors program and a deans list. You might ask, “Aren’t these good things?” I’ll answer, “No.” </p>
<p>It used to be about education for education sake, education that lifted the spirit and encouraged students to explore their world and themselves. Now its about being slavishly indentured to one’s studies, grade inflation, and self-promotion.</p>
<p>Quagmiro, could you be a bit more specific about the honors program you dislike? A quick search of the website doesn’t show a college-wide program, but rather departmental honors programs and an Honors Fellows program for students working on honors theses. Is this what you find objectionable? Or might you be referring to the Monroe Scholars program, which offers a few of the perks found in actual honors colleges (i.e., one semester of preferential registration, housing with other Monroes, a summer study stipend?).</p>
<p>For many people, a school with a great faculty, unique cachet, and bright and hard-working student body will still be of great interest despite the Dean’s List and honors programs. Indeed, some might even think these increase the school’s value. I don’t at all question your perceptions. I do wonder where one finds those other schools that are still about education for education’s sake, where students are not indentured to their studies.</p>
<p>Also…what is your specific issue with Dean’s list? I found that comment interesting, because, while W&M does indeed have a Dean’s list…it seems, to me at least, very under the radar. No public fanfare, no certificate offered, etc. The only designation that I can see is the one that is placed on the achieving student’s transcript. What is wrong with that? </p>
<p>I’m just trying to understand, after all the wonderful qualities you listed, why you seem to have a strong dislike for your alma mater.</p>
<p>It is the Monroe honors I’m talking about. </p>
<p>It is difficult to convey the difference in the intellectual environment to people who can’t compare the college today to back in the day. I can say that the main reason I had a sense of belonging when I attended was the allowance for students to explore their intellectual curiosity on their own without worrying about how competitive they would be with their peers. Its why the professors were always referred to as, for example, Professor Tiefel as opposed to Dr. Tiefel. By the way, the fact that I could withdraw passing from his class on the last day of the semester is yet another piece of anecdotal evidence of how the college is less supportive of taking intellectual chances. Its why there wasn’t a Dean’s List and why when I was in SGA I argued strongly against creating one. </p>
<p>There used to be a sense of community and egalitarianism that I now find lacking.</p>
<p>It used to be work hard, play hard, find some balance; now it seems work hard and work harder, often not in a direction about which the student is passionate.</p>
<p>It used to be more “Swarthmore-ish”; now it is more “Carnegie-Mellon-ish” (both great schools but with very different vibes)</p>
<p>It used to be smaller by more than a thousand undergrads.</p>
<p>It used to be “ivory-tower” in the best sense of that term and now it is corporate (fight for USN&WR rankings, increase the endowment, etc.)</p>
<p>None of these things make the College a bad place to go, just very different than a place I would choose to go today if I were to do it all over again. I think the college gave up on what I feel were its core strengths to become a poor public imitation of an ivy-league school.</p>
<p>W&M is a great community… students are very helpful and supportive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>W&M students are some of the best of the best in the country. It is true that they work extremely hard, but that is their choice. Those are the students W&M attracts. Every year tons of W&M students do everything from study abroad to literally hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really know what this means, but I can tell you that obviously W&M is very interested in increasing its endowment.</p>
<p>I feel like at 20-30 years out, you might be 1. remembering back to the “glory days”, and 2. if you aren’t there every day, you aren’t as tied to the community and what is going on so you become more detached. That said, as time goes on, some things do change and no school is for everyone.</p>
<p>As a parent of a Monroe scholar, I can tell you there was little difference in the life of a Monroe scholar and everyone else. Except for her freshman dorm, (itself not exclusively Monroe scholars), I doubt many of DD’s classmates would have had a clue of that status. </p>
<p>OTOH, she appreciated that almost-token acknowledgement of her high school academic achievements. In her high school, they, IMO, took “egalitarianism” a bit too far; for example, they didn’t acknowledge valedictorians, etc, and the student who gave the “valedictory” speech was actually elected by popular vote, while the “Honor Graduate” was a proto-gang-banger who was getting “D’s” and “F’s”, but through hard work, and perseverance, raised his grades to “C’s” and graduated. Athletes and “service club” members carried away thousands in school-awarded scholarships, while the academic achievers, including State Science Fair winners, received nothing (from the school, anyway.) The administration made the rather dubious claim that top academic students would probably receive scholarships, anyway, and so, for the scholarships that were delegated to the school to select, students with the characteristics like the best “school spirit” were chosen, despite most of the money being earmarked by their donors for Science and Technology achievements. </p>
<p>So, when colleges like W&M and UVA offered such a token recognition, it made her feel like <em>someone</em> finally noticed how hard she worked, and she appreciated it. </p>
<p>And if I had to choose one word to describe the students at W&M, “egalitarian” would do nicely. The “sense of community” is often remarked upon by students who attend.</p>
<p>I’d agree with the complaint over the increase in the admissions class size, and I wouldn’t doubt there are some negative effects - who knows, perhaps it’s eroding that “sense of community” - I couldn’t say. But you can thank the VA legislature for that increase. It’s a public university, and taking it private is a unrealistic fantasy, short of some Stanford or Harvard-sized endowment. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a self-selecting group - most students gain admission to W&M precisely because they work hard - they bring that trait with them, it’s not imposed. And, like it or no, it’s a competitive world out there - if a student wants to go onto graduate studies in law, medicine, physics, etc, I don’t think 120 hours in “Modern Dance” is going to help them achieve that goal. To gain acceptance to those programs, hard work and yes, good grades in relevant classes <em>is</em> required. Certainly my impression was that the school offered many extra-curricular activities to provide balance, but for most, W&M <em>is</em> academically-intense, and most students who elect to attend do so <em>because</em> of that reputation, not despite it. </p>
<p>But again, it’s their choice what they work on, and how hard (well, “120 hours in Modern Dance” is an obvious exaggeration.) </p>
<p>Some do complain about the area requirements, because they have to fill their schedule with subjects they may not be “passionate” about, like Literature, Performing Arts, and Philosophy. But that Liberal Arts curriculum is a consciously-chosen feature of W&M, most people think it a positive, but surely some don’t. Is that what you mean by “often not in a direction about which the student is passionate.”?</p>
<p>No place can be perfect - at least, not for several thousand undergraduates. But there <em>can</em> be a “best fit” - for thousands of students every year, they decide that W&M is that “best fit” for them, while many others find it elsewhere.</p>
<p>I was friends with multiple W&M Scholars (or, whatever they call the ones that they give out only 4 of each year) and I had no clue the kids had that honor until I saw their names on the website.</p>
I can’t compare W&M today to the way it was several decades ago, as our experience there began in 2001. But I agree with soccerguy and others here that the sense of community at W&M is one of its strongest and most apparent attributes. I think most students there would be surprised to learn that some alums find their sense of egalitarianism lacking.</p>
<p>The school has had to respond to today’s economic realities. The Monroe Scholars program is obviously an attempt to entice high-performing students who will surely be considering acceptances at other highly-regarded schools. As these programs go, it doesn’t offer much in the way of a cash incentive. Though she appreciated the summer study stipend, my d felt that most of the impact came on the day she got the Monroe notification. She thought “these people really like me” and pretty much made her decision that day. It was a good use of the school’s money, in her case.</p>
<p>My oldest d’s experience as a Monroe in no way limited her interactions with non-Monroe students. I remember that on freshman move-in day, none of the kids would mention whether they were Monroes or not (she was not in Monroe Hall). Several of the parents did, though, to their kids’ exasperation. :)</p>
<p>Since college has become so very expensive, I do think that there is more of a pre-professional, “what am I going to do with this degree when I get out?” atmosphere on campuses that might once have been more of an ivory tower environment. Perhaps, as Quagmiro indicates, things are different at a Swarthmore?</p>
<p>If you’re there and you like it, I’m glad for you. You should feel no need to defend the experience. It’s just not the same experience as what it was when I went there. Some might like it more, I like it less. I read the article that originated this post and found truth in it. (Although, I question the thought process behind such a rant.) I’ve tried to provide concrete examples of why I make the statements I do. If you don’t know what you don’t know, you might not understand how these differences have changed the culture. I don’t think the qualities (academic or moral) of the undergraduates have decreased (in fact the opposite is likely true). But, I think that is in spite of the changes rather than because of them. I do think that the administration has purposefully created a less optimal and more “cookie cutter” institutional climate in an effort to “keep up with the Jonses” when they should have looked at what characteristics set the College apart in the first place. I still am fairly closely connected with undergraduates at the college. It is largely this connection that has allowed me to discern the differences.</p>
<p>“I still am fairly closely connected with undergraduates at the college. It is largely this connection that has allowed me to discern the differences.”</p>
<p>How are you connected? I am honestly curious. I can only see through the lens a parent of a current student - which is obviously slanted towards one (or a few)students experiences and what I read as a parent. You make some sweeping observations which made me think…“Well, how could he know all this about a school he hasn’t attended in 20 (or 30?) years? What’s the connection?”</p>
<p>I suppose you may not want to share details…but thought I’d ask!</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to belittle anyone’s opinions… obviously what you feel is what you feel. I’m just saying I don’t think most people feel this way.</p>
<p>I was just on campus and met with some current students through the alumni association and I am going back in a couple weeks to spend time at the career center to help and offer insight to undergrads… for whatever that’s worth.</p>
<p>I did think it was funny that I read in the paper that PIKA lost their brand new fraternity house before they even got to live in it though.</p>