Share Your Thoughts - A Discussion on Amherst's Future

Hey all,

I’m currently a high school senior in California who was accepted to a number of fantastic private and public schools, Amherst being among them. I came to visit Amherst at their on campus open house on April 11th and absolutely fell in love. Amherst and the neighboring town of Northampton were the sort places that I’d longingly stare at in passing through the car window on vacations from the city. The students were all extremely smart, warm, and charming. I found the classes to be very engaging and interaction between students and professors compelling. Hell, I even formed a circle of friends at orientation! It took me almost a full year in high school to accomplish the same feat. I stepped off the plane at SFO deposit in hand.

But…

I began to research. And browse College Confidential. A rather unwise choice for an insecure guy like me. My concerns began to mount, and here I am on the verge of collapse. I never post on these forums, and only came here in the hope that perhaps my distress would be assuaged.

  1. It seems as though Amhersts status on a few rankings lists has been steadily declining (Parchment, Forbes, WSJ, Selectivity Lists). Although one can debate the merit of individual rankings, this seems to be indicative of a larger trend. Could Amherst be losing its perch on top of the LAC mountain? Doomed to fall into obscurity? Could it be because...
  2. The physical sciences are pretty weak. Not only relative to research universities, but other LAC's. I did not see this at Amherst (FYI, I intend on pursuing some form of biological research), and the current science center is adequate, if unimpressive. But from what I gather, Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona are all considerably stronger. Why go to Amherst if you could have equally strong humanities and considerably better sciences at Pomona/Williams? Maybe it's the appeal of the consortium...
  3. Except it's really not that good. That was my only gripe which became apparent right off the bat at open house. The commuting times are simply too long for a cohesive schedule. Pomona's is much better, with all of the colleges located on a single campus.

I believe that Amherst has been resting on the laurels of its prestige for far too long. It would be a shame to see such a fine instution fade away. I am still excited to attend in the fall, but wary nonetheless, prepared to transfer if it all goes down the tube. There’s a stipulation at the end of my acceptance letter which states that I must continue to provide the same level of academic excellence for which I was admitted throughout the remainder of the year. I’m willing to uphold my end of the bargain, but Amherst must uphold theirs. I would like to see their status improve, if at all possible.

This post is a little ridiculous. Amherst is at the top of the LAC mountain- always has been, and will likely always be. What does the top even entail? No LAC is the best at every factor. Pomona is the most endowed per student. Claremont McKenna has the lowest admit rate. Harvey Mudd has the highest SAT averages. Williams has the best general reputation. Amherst is the most diverse among its peers. Swarthmore has the highest PhD rates.

If anything, I think Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore/Pomona/Bowdoin will maintain their positions in the top 7 (which I would call the most elite group of LACs), whereas Carleton, Middlebury, and Wellesley will be replaced by CMC and Harvey Mudd due to their rise in prestige and endowment.

Amherst does lag behind in the sciences but its investment in the new science building will put it back on track in a few years.

Amherst2019 - I understand your concerns. You have done a fair amount of research, but I would characterize it as in the realm of anectotal, which is valuable to some extent, but can be dangerous if it is the only thing you do.

One thing you can do is to learn as much as you can about the current president (this is Biddy Martin, I looked it up). I personally believe that the leader of the institution can make a big difference over time. To some extent I agree with the poster above. Any changes to Amherst, real or perceived, will not happen precipitously (1-3 years). But the leader(s) of the institution can make a big difference in the long term trajectory of the school. And once that trajectory is changed, it takes a long time to reverse it for better or for worse. Think of the metaphor of turning an aircraft carrier.

President Martin has been there going on 4 years. So if she does a decent job, you can expect her to be president through your period of attendance and at least 4-8 years beyond. What is her vision for the college? How about the trustees or governing body? What is their vision and how harmonious is it with the President’s? How does the strategic vision for Amherst square with what you believe to be important the next 25 years in society in general and higher education specifically. How is she at fundraising? What are her relations with the faculty and students? And so on. If you start getting a good feeling about these things, than you can be reasonably assured that Amherst will continue to occupy a position among the top 5 LAC’s for the long term (20 - 25 years).

Beyone the above, it sounds like you found a lot to like during your visit to Amherst. This is powerful first hand information. Try and search your thoughts about the visit. Were they real and sustainable feelings? Are you too affected by a gauzy view of LAC’s in New England? Or do you feel that you saw what will be real about Amherst for you the next 4 years? If so, then you are probably well on your way to choosing Amherst.

One last thing. Are you and your family okay with the commute from CA to Amherst, financially and time-wise?

Best of luck to you.

Amherst is known for its teachers and this has not diminished. Your experience will be determined more by your teachers than the facilities. The facilities are getting a major upgrade (reflecting Amherst’s commitment to the sciences) and it should be ready for your senior year.

In case you haven’t read this post (http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/amherst-college/904517-science-at-amherst.html), it talks about science at Amherst and students speak highly of the biology department.

Congratulations on your acceptance(s) and it sounds l like you have made the choice to attend Amherst. Don’t put too much weight into ratings - relative positions in the top LACs are arbitrary. Once you’ve made the choice, celebrate and don’t look back.

Endoftheworld, your comment made me laugh out loud. You start by telling the OP that the statement is ridiculous (which it is - the gap is narrowing as students become more familiar with the top LACs. Besides does anyone really think there is a real difference in quality among the top 10-15 LACs?) but you then go on to say,

“If anything, I think Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore/Pomona/Bowdoin will maintain their positions in the top 7 (which I would call the most elite group of LACs), whereas Carleton, Middlebury, and Wellesley will be replaced by CMC and Harvey Mudd due to their rise in prestige and endowment”

I’m not sure what this statement is based on. Wellesley and Middlebury have always been ranked up with your “most elite group of LACs” and, at times, ahead of Pomona and Bowdoin. Additionally, what do you think has been happening to the prestige and endowment at these schools? Do you think it’s been falling. They’re rising just like all the others. Middlebury and Wellesley, like your other top five have endowments over 1B. Now that Hillary is running for President do you believe wellesley’s prestige will fall?

All these schools are great. It’s ludicrous for students, parents or guidance counselors to search for reasons to characterize one as better or worse than the others. Amongst this group, fit should be the only consideration.

My face was in my palm at just about the point where the OP implied they would transfer if Amherst ever began to slide from its perch atop the USNews rankings. My advice would be to nip this attitude in the bud right now because if it doesn’t stop, it will only get worse. Put away childish things and concentrate on enjoying your first year at a great college.

I agree with @circuitrider in that any decline will not be evident next year or even the year after…it will take many so it is silly to talk about transferring for that reason. All the LACs need to watch their endowments and although needs blind is an excellent thing- it also may turn out to be a risky thing. However, Amherst and other schools in consortiums or partnering with universities early are in a good position and better poised for the future. The single sex and rural school without partnerships will be the first ones in serious trouble. My hope is that there are enough smart alum (and I believe there are) that Amherst will ride this wave.

Is Amherst in some kind of financial trouble or is this just speculation that a need-blind and generous FA policy might eventually land it in trouble?

It seems kind of silly to speculate without some evidence, given that only Swat has a higher per student endowment, of all US LACs. http://www.reachhighscholars.org/college_endowments.html

…and i note all of the highest on that list, including the Us, are need-blind and very generous with FA. I’d question why Amherst wasn’t doing what the others with that level of money do, if it didn’t.

I hope they have improved the facilities - DS and I weren’t very impressed with them back in 2009 when we visited. He was a recruited runner who did get accepted there. We were shocked, though, when the coach told us he had to lay rubber mats around the perimeter of the building housing the volleyball courts in order for the athletes to have a place to run during the winter! It sounded like a not-so-well-off high school. And we weren’t impressed with the dining facilities, either. Even the info session was a little off-putting - “We’re glad you’re visiting, but you probably won’t get in.” OK, great!

As I understand it, new frosh and upperclass dorms opened in 2010, a new science building opens in 2017 and new dorms are being built now. Not sure what else is going on there building-wise but htere’s a page on their site and it appears the athletic/track facilities are not as they were then: https://www.amherst.edu/offices/facilities/depts/designconst/capital_project/completed_projects/prattfield

…and all improvements, completed and planned: https://www.amherst.edu/offices/facilities/depts/designconst/capital_project

I agree about the info session. In 2014 we were told something similar and I also found it kind of off-putting. If the goal of an info session is to get kids to apply, that’s an odd thing to say. I think everyone knows their admit rate is low, no need to bring it up, I felt.

I have no reason to believe that Amherst is in trouble financially. I think they rank second or third for strong endowments amongst the LACs. I just meant it is something all school need to watch. The goal is a good one- to reach and help as many students as possible, it’s just a balancing act.

I also believe Amherst is in a particularly strong position being in a consortium (Swat and Haverford too).

All of the dorms have been recently renovated and although I’ve only seen one, it was the nicest LAC dorm I’ve been in. Some of the bigger and newer school (Vandy, Emory, Wash U) have pretty amazing dorms because they are newly built.

Lastly, I disagree about the athletic facilities, but I suppose it depends on one’s sport. It’s not MIT, but for the size of the school, I was blown away. Certainly if you are a tennis player, squash player- the courts are tops. There are running trails all over the place in nature conservancy so I’m surprised a XC runner wouldn’t like the space. I’m not as sure about the fields, but the view of them is fabulous. I also like how close the gym is to the campus so in the winter months it’s easily accessible. Bowdoin’s gym is a real hike. Bowdoin has put an updated work out facility centrally located on campus which adds real value for the students though, but if you play on a team, you still need to hoof it.

The new football stadium/track just opened in 2013 so that was definitely after @mainelonghorn was there.

You can’t run on those in the winter. Too much snow and ice. You need an indoor space. For example, at my son’s high school, during the winter the indoor track team often had to run in the school hallways!

@MaineLonghorn - I’ve found running in the winter ice and snow with microspikes to be one of my top winter hobbies. I’m not sure if it would be ideal for a varsity athlete, but it would allow them to log a lot of miles.

@CHD2013, I am also a runner who enjoys running during the winter. But it’s the high school and Amherst coaches who told me they are not comfortable with their athletes running outside during a good bit of the northeast winters - that’s why the kids are running indoors in not-so-great facilities. Does the new stadium/track have indoor facilities?

Sorry, my comment was more of a general nature. I’m not sure about the new facilities.

My D runs track. The new outdoor track and stadium is state of the art. The cross country trails are top tier. The indoor track space remains mediocre, just like several other D3 schools we visited. There is no perfection in this world, but overall, the athletic facilities are pretty darn good and extremely well located on campus.

This whole thread mystifies me.

This thread mystifies me too. Having just visited Amherst, williams, Cornell, Dartmouth and Emory (as a recruited athlete) much said here makes no sense.

The facilities at Amherst are top notch. It’s obvious they spend a ton of money on facilities. The attention to detail is incredible, it is so clean, groomed and maintained it almost feels like Disneyland. Of my visited schools, it feels the “richest.” The surrounding town is also very tidy and we’ll kept.