<p>"Academically, there's quite a spread? Haverford.....Hampshire"</p>
<p>I'm curious why you'd say that. I don't know Haverford, but it does have a good reputation academically. Hampshire definitely has its own artsy/outdoorsy feel but the students aren't slouches.</p>
<p>They are connected, both on S's list. If you think intellectual, off-beat, non-prep, light on sports, no Greek, You will get a list with both of these schools. Not by internet, but by Mom-net.</p>
<p>Animal House was (partially) shot at U of O, not at Reed. E.g., in the president's office with booties on the horse. The field is/was Hayward Field. The Animal House frat is across the street off Franklin Blvd. Who keeps bumping this drivel?</p>
<p>"But like many very expensive schools ( including my daughters) it certainly is possible that they attract students who equate net worth, with worth ."</p>
<p>I suppose it's certainly possible, but IMO highly unlikely overall at this school. The prior posts in this thread advance the image that this group tends more towards Birkenstocks and less towards BMWs. Relatively more Peace Corps volunteers here, and relatively fewer investment banker wannabes. There are bad apples who come out of every school, but as a general stereotype, the above quote is probably less applicable to this school than it would be to most of the other private colleges in America that have comparable educational standards.</p>
<p>IMO.</p>
<p>Regarding Reed, IMO there are some areas of similarity, and also some significant differences. As is the case with the other colleges such as those listed above. I would imagine that some students interested in Oberlin would also be looking at Reed, and others wouldn't be. Depending on how they weigh the similarities and the differences.</p>
<p>monydad, I'm curious to know what significant differences you see (aside from the Conservatory). D applied to both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Academically, there's quite a spread? Haverford.....Hampshire"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would agree that Haverford and Hampshire are very, very different schools. </p>
<p>It is true that the three Philadelphia Quaker-founded LACs (Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Swarthmore) have long traditions of progressive political leanings on certain issues: anti-war, women's rights, anti-McCarthyism, anti-slavery among others.</p>
<p>However, academically all three fall into a more traditional "old-school" column in terms of being demanding, heavy workloads, rigorous. There is nothing "touchy-feely" about the academic standards at any of these three schools.</p>
<p>I guess if there is any similarity to Hampshire, it would be that the the 3 Phila LACs are all of a scale that encourages independent study with one or two students and a professor in a seminar or thesis setting. But, honestly, I see these schools at the opposite end of the spectrum from Hampshire in terms of academics. While all three attract some "quirky" kids, there isn't anything "quirky" about the academics at Bryn Mawr, Haverford, or Swarthmore.</p>
<p>BTW, I don't know a great deal about Oberlin. But, based on the per capita PhD production rates, it is very clear that Oberlin's academics must be pretty hard-core, too. I would assume a lot of similarities to the 3 Phila LACs in terms of academics.</p>
<p>I would also put Oberlin, Vassar, and Wesleyan into a similar category - lots of overlap in applications there.</p>
<p>Oberlin and Wesleyan were very popular with my daughter's friends, and a lot of them applied to both. They have very similar appeals -- intellectual, arty, lefty. Reed, too -- all of them thought about it, and some applied, but only one kid went there. I see it as a little quirkier, smaller, and maybe more academic, but definitely part of the same universe -- selective, demanding LACs that are not too preppy but not Bennington, either. Carleton belongs there, too. And Haverford and Swarthmore, although Haverford seems a lot more buttoned-down and Swarthmore maybe a little too full of itself for kids who are really responding to Oberlin. For my D's crowd, the signature "famous alum" for Oberlin was Karen O. of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.</p>
<p>I have a sense that Oberlin has more serious athletics than some of those other schools, but that may be because one of the kids I know there now is a serious athlete. Her team is a big part of her life, they win a lot, and her times are pretty impressive. </p>
<p>I know lots of Oberlin graduates, ancient and modern. Universal love, and they represent it well.</p>
<p>When we toured Oberlin, the tour guide made it a point to bring up the fact that it was not an athletic school. I think of all of them, Wesleyan prides itself the most on its athletics.</p>
<p>When WE toured Wesleyan, all we heard about was the co-ed water polo team. (But, yes, Wesleyan has a real athletic tradition as part of the "Little Three" with Amherst and Williams. But my sense is that it's been a while since Wes beat either of them in football. Wes was 0-8 last year.)</p>
<p>Oberlin may win at a few sports, but it is definitely not an athletic school. They had a famous AD briefly (Vin Lanana), but he left to go coach at Oregon.</p>
<p>The "problem" -- if you want to call it a problem -- isn't that Wesleyan doesn't have good athletes , or recruit them. For some people (in fact, for most people), college may be the first time in their lives that they have their intellectual curiosity piqued by something completely unforeseen and the choice between academics and total devotion to the team may just be too much. No one gets kicked out for not wanting to pursue full-time sports at Wesleyan. Wesleyan does not have athletic scholarships. So, a wrestler does not depend on wrestling for his continued existence here. For some it may just be one of those life decisions.</p>
<p>johnwesley:</p>
<p>I don't think there is a "problem" with athletics at Wesleyan. Without a lot of detailed research, I would guess that Wesleyan devotes a very typical amount of resources to athletics and athletics recruiting for a liberal arts college. Let's not forget that two recent Wes grads are currently head coaches in the NFL, one of which has won 3 SuperBowls in the last 5 years and 5 SuperBowls overall.</p>
<p>The "problem" is that Wes is in a conference that emphasizes LAC athletics to the extreme. Specifically, they are in a conference with one school where athletics is a major institutional priority. With a higher percentage of varsity athletes and athletic recruits in each freshman class than any other college or university in the country. And, a school that spends double on the athletic budget than most other top LACs. Wesleyan is definitely not the "outlier" in this equation.</p>
<p>It's kind of like Vanderbilt in the SEC. It would totally undermine their academic mission to actually try to compete with the likes of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama on the football field. Similarly, it would be a mistake for Wesleyan to attempt to keep up with the Jones in the NESCAC.</p>
<p>Does that apply to Duke basketball too? The reason for failure may be as related to lack of commitment ($$$) as to other factors.</p>
<p>Definitely resources:</p>
<p>Wesleyan spends $3.1 million per year on athletics, at the high end of the scale for top academic LACs nationally.</p>
<p>Oberlin spends $1.3 million.
Pomona spends $1.6 million
Grinnell spends $0.94 million
Swarthmore spends $2.2 million
Amherst spends $3.0 million
Wash & Lee spends $2.9 million</p>
<p>The problem Wesleyan faces is that long-time Little Three rival Williams spends $5.7 million a year. Nearly a third of its freshmen every year are recruited athletes. 40% of the student body plays on a varsity sports team. Although it's a bit of an exaggeration, one member of Williams' faculty has described the school as a "Nike camp with enrichment classes".</p>
<p>To be competitive, Wes would have to double its athletic budget and revamp its admissions priorities, just to match up with an extreme outlier school in LAC athletics. It doesn't make any sense. Doing the things it would take to be competitive in that conference run counter to the mission of the school.</p>
<p>Back to Oberlin, a post elsewhere on CC from a current student:</p>
<p>" The school tends to rally around non-traditional athletics like ultimate (frisbee), rugby (we only have a women's team), field hockey (our most successful varsity sport), etc. Even so there isn't a huge sports following on campus."</p>
<p>Over the past year or so the administration has been making noises about increasing the school's sports presence. This may impact admissions a bit, and I understand not everyone is thrilled with the plan. Personally, IMO, given where they are starting from, a modest increase in athletics emphasis should not have a drastic impact on the overall campus culture. There are undoubtedly kids who like music, and the rest of Oberlin's package, and can also throw or kick a ball.</p>
<p>The PE offerings there seem excellent to me. And there are athlete-types there now.</p>
<p>Monydad:</p>
<p>As I read Oberlin's strategic plan, their goal is to achieve financial equilibrium by reducing the tuition discount rate. </p>
<p>They plan to reduce enrollment by cutting the number of financial aid students while keeping the number of full-fare students the same.</p>
<p>Their goal is to reposition the school to be more attractive to wealthy students. I think the increased emphasis on athletics is part of that plan.</p>
<p>I wouldn't go quite that far. Per capita, Swarthmore spends about three times what Oberlin does on sports, and it hardly makes them well-known for "the sporting life".</p>
<p>The thing is, if Oberlin had as small a percentage of students receiving need-based aid as Swarthmore, and didn't have to offer so much one-on-one teaching as is required in a conservatory, they wouldn't have anything to worry about.</p>
<p>Actually, Oberlin cites two components to their "discount rate problem". One is that they are not attracting enough wealthy students, thus too high a percentage of their students qualify for need-based financial aid. An issue they talk about in some detail is the additional burden of merit aid discounting (10% of the student body). Specifically, they cite competition in this area with schools like Grinnell.</p>
<p>Their solution is to downsize the undergrad enrollment and the size of the faculty by about 5%; thus, increasing their per student endowment resources. They intend to multiply this benefit by lopping off 100 need-based aid students and keeping the same number of full-pay students.</p>
<p>They understand that, to accomplish this, they will need to offer more of the things that attract wealthy students.</p>
<p>The plan seems quite reasonable to me. It's the same plan that virtually every college in America seeks to implement. Smith has a similar plan.</p>
<p>The motivation in Oberlin's case is that they are currently spending endowment returns at a rate that is not considered sustainable (6.5%). The target these days is 4% to 5% of endowment based on projections of investment return and inflation. It's by no means a serious issue for Oberlin as it is a very well endowed school.</p>
<p>I think it's important to note that an increasing tuition discount rate is really just another way of saying that colleges have gone too high with their sticker prices. The market will no longer pay the asking price.</p>
<p>BTW, I'd have to think about whether looking at athletic spending on a per capita basis makes sense. With the exception of the NESCAC schools, most liberal arts colleges have the same fixed number of mens and womens sports and, therefore, roughly the same fixed number of varsity athletes. I'm not sure that it's a variable expense that could be expected to change with increasing or decreasing enrollment in exactly the same way as, for example, the Economics department.</p>
<p>BTW 2, from everything I have read about Oberlin (academic outcomes, financial data, strategic plans, etc.) I am very impressed with the school. It is a school I would strongly recommend that students consider.</p>