<p>What's the Wesleyan student body like? How academically intense, quirky, and intellectual would you say the students are? (Clearly, that's what I'm looking for. . .) Is there a work-hard/play-hard atmosphere, or not so much? Also, which direction does the school generally sway, politically?</p>
<p>Appreciate any help. :).</p>
<p>I don’t completely understand this question, but I’ll attempt an answer anyway.</p>
<p>Academically intense:
I think this is more a characteristic of a curriculum, not a student body. The curriculum is pretty open and can be as intense as one wants it to be. So, not as intense as Reed, Chicago, or Swarthmore’s (to use schools that sometimes share applicants with Wes). If you meant how intellectual/nerdy the students are, I’d say somewhere between Brown and UChicago (again, to use peer schools), judging by percent of students going on to grad school/earning a PhD and also by personal experience. I think in general, though not always, liberal arts colleges are going to have a more intellectual student body than universities, because students are sacrificing name recognition for smaller classes, being taught by professors, etc. Notable exceptions are MIT, Chicago, etc.</p>
<p>Quirky:
Probably most similar to Carleton in terms of quirkiness, in my experience. Maybe slightly more – these things are hard to measure (what does quirkiness really mean anyway?). They are both quirky in a kind of playful, intellectual way, though Wes is more artsy and obviously less Midwestern. I’ve also heard people group Wes with Vassar in terms of student quirkiness, but I personally got pretty different vibes when I visited (besides both being “artsy” and “liberal,” which is why they maybe look similar on paper), so I’ll let you decide for yourself. Sarcasm, witty banter, and quirky humor abound, for sure – I feel like making too fine distinctions between varieties of college quirkiness gets silly after a certain point.</p>
<p>Atmosphere:
I do think there is a work hard play hard atmosphere, but like I said, the workload varies a lot depending on what courses you select, and there’s variety in “play” also.</p>
<p>Politics:
The school sways unapologetically hard left, without a doubt, though there is the occasional conservative. There’s a lot of discussion and interest in current events and politics on campus.</p>
<p>I think the website U N I G O .com does a very good job of describing the student body of different places, but I see you’re just a sophomore so I wouldn’t get your opinions/perceptions of schools too set-in-stone until you have some time to visit and see what feels right, and develop some ideas of what you want in a college. Example: When I was a sophomore, Williams was my dream school. My, how things change 
Seeing where my friends were applying also helped me to gauge what schools would be a good fit (it helps put school stereotypes into perspective/understanding when people you know personally apply to those schools).</p>
<p>Good luck! And try not to come down too hard with the college admissions bug, especially as a sophomore!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a great point. School stereotypes – and that * is * what they are – become much more real when someone you know personally enrolls.</p>
<p>Also, I had never heard of Wesleyan as a sophomore. Or Williams. Or any liberal arts school. There’s much time.</p>
<p>To flying pig: what would you say Wes’ strongest departments are? Also (though you might be biased, I know), where would you rank Wes among the other notable LACs like Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Bowdoin, and others, in terms of academics, things to do, athletics, etc?</p>
<p>I think they are all comparable academically. Statistically, Amherst is the most selective. Culturally, Wes is different from the 4 schools you mentioned. Williams has a unique, strong connection with Oxford.</p>
<p>@rachel, i think it’s good you’re starting the college search early. you should really try to visit when wes is in session if you can. it’s the best way to get a feel for a school’s student body, i think. (i wish i did that for wes)</p>
<p>@ParkB0: I’m just a prefrosh, so I wouldn’t know about the best departments. I do know Wesleyan is great in the sciences, especially the natural sciences, and especially compared to other liberal arts colleges. I’ve also heard that a lot of the smaller, "liberal arts"y departments have a very familial feel.</p>
<p>Among Amherst, Williams, Midd, and Bowdoin? I think Amherst and Williams are the most selective (though I don’t think selectivity is a perfect test for how intellectual or “academic” the school is, not to say that Amherst or Williams don’t have incredible academics, obviously). I think Wesleyan is similar to Middlebury and maybe Bowdoin, selectivity-wise. Wesleyan being slightly larger than other LACs also helps it have more course offerings, which is good if you’re like me and are interested in a smaller major. I found Wesleyan students more “intellectual” than students at other schools, but obviously that means different things to different people. I’ve heard that Wesleyan students often discuss class topics outside of class, and people get into “deep” discussions over dinner, etc. Just on the student blog and stuff I definitely have noticed that people enjoy a good debate.</p>
<p>In terms of “things to do”, Wesleyan being a bigger school and being in a slightly more urban setting gave me the sense that it was more “active” as a campus – it seemed very “buzzy” and like there was a lot going on, though the vibe was still very relaxed and comfortable. I agree that Wes’ atmosphere is different than those mentioned schools.</p>
<p>In terms of athletics, Wesleyan has a beautiful new athletics facility, but there’s a lot less support and interest (from the student body) of athletics than you’d find at other schools. I think a lot of Wes students are kind of sick of the whole social scene that revolves around athletes and athletics. There are plenty of student athletes, but it’s not the same culture where the football player gets all the girls and the guitar guy is the loner in the corner. “Jocks” are looked down upon.
In exchange, Wesleyan has much stronger support of the arts. Not to say those opportunities aren’t available at other schools, but I think Wesleyan’s students and administration have a special commitment to the arts (they won’t be the first things cut in times of financial crisis, for example, like they are at so many schools). The Center for the Arts gets a lot of great performers, in part because of its location – groups traveling between NYC and Boston stop at the CFA, I’m told, and it’s seen as a major arts venue by the whole region, not just in Middletown or the Wes community.</p>
<p>God, this is a giant post again. Feel free to skim; I’ll never know ;)</p>
<p>To Flying Pig - Yes, yet ANOTHER giant post - you just can’t seem to help yourself!</p>
<p>For a pre-frosh who has yet to “really” experience Weslyan you are not shy in the least about offering strong, but generally uninformed, opinions, observations, insights, etc.</p>
<p>“Jocks” are looked down upon. - Are you serious? Where did you get this? My son is a Wesleyan athlete and neither he nor his friends are “looked down upon” as you say. Neither are they given or do they expect special treatment. The Wesleyan community is very supportive of its varsity athletics and the men and women who participate.</p>
<p>You’re right, I am just a pre-frosh, and I should probably let others respond to these kinds of threads. I apologize. Any current Wesleyan students should feel free to correct what I’ve said.</p>
<p>in fairness to FP, many current students have no idea how many varsity sports are played at Wesleyan and to what extent their classmates are involved. It’s not that athletes are “looked down upon” so much as the fact that their talents are often on display at an hour when many of their classmates are still catching up on sleep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re equating all athletes with jocks in the most stereotypical sense of the term. The Wesleyan athletes that I have met are not bumbling meatheads. I assume your son doesn’t conform to that stereotype, either.</p>
<p>No one said athletes are looked down upon.</p>
<p>ParkB0 - Some of Wesleyan’s strongest departments are: economics (<strong><em>), political science, history, Asian studies, religion, music, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, neuroscience, astronomy (</em></strong>). Also, depending on your interests, be sure to check out the College of Social Studies. This is one of the most rigorous programs in the country of its type.</p>
<p>Weak programs: psychology, anthropology and sociology.</p>
<p>(Those who disagree are free to flame away!)</p>
<p>(z) Soory to disagree, but I guess it depends on how you define “jock”</p>
<p>Encarta - athlete: an athlete, especially a male athlete in college</p>
<p>Merriam-Webster - athlete ; especially : a school or college athlete</p>
<p>My other point is that FP makes many bold statements and observations about doings and life at Wes (see other Wes threads) when, in fact, she has never really experienced Wes yet.</p>
<p>I would just think that a pre-frosh would be seeking information at this stage as opposed to dispensing unfounded advice, opinions and observations.</p>
<p>wesfather – There was a time about a decade ago when there were culture clash issues at Wes between <em>some</em> varsity athletes and the general student culture. However, to the great credit of the athletics folks and the Wes administration, those issues are a thing of the past. It’s just like you say, the varsity athletes at Wes are consistently supported and integrated into the general Wesleyan community. They are a source of pride to the community.</p>
<p><a href=“z”>QUOTE</a> Soory to disagree, but I guess it depends on how you define “jock”</p>
<p>Encarta - athlete: an athlete, especially a male athlete in college</p>
<p>Merriam-Webster - athlete ; especially : a school or college athlete
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yes, but in popular speech, ‘jock’ carries a drastically different connotation than ‘athlete.’ Urban Dictionary writes:
</p>
<p>I don’t think you meant to imply that Wesleyan athletes fit within that former definition.</p>
<p>Um. So my point is: no, it is not unreasonable, even for a non-student, to suggest that a high school jock – one who is “rude, arrogant, stupid,” values testosterone over intellect – would not be so welcomed at Wesleyan. That does not, obviously, mean athletes all fit that description.</p>
<p>re: Athletes: Athletes are not looked down upon here. They aren’t revered, either; they are just like anyone else. Is the stereotypical jock? Maybe a little, but most people at Wes don’t fit into stereotypical boxes like that, anyway. </p>
<p>Re: Strong departments. midatl_dd has a pretty good list, though I don’t think of psyc as particularly weak (we do offer a masters in it, which is nice for undergrads, since not amny grad students+grad school funding = opportunities for undergrads). It is larger major, though. </p>
<p>To the list of strong majors, I would add college of letters along with CSS – it is also a very cool, rigorous interdisciplinary program. And midatl_dd did forget one of Wes’s unquestionably strongest departments: Film Studies. (We are also very good at fine arts, for a LAC/non-art school).</p>
<p>Arrggh! How could I forget Film Studies. Thanks for the correction. Fantastic program. Not heavily promoted because it is very difficult to get into.</p>
<p>“Weak programs: psychology, anthropology and sociology.”</p>
<p>You’re right, I do disagree. As a soc major who took a lot of psych classes and worked in a psych lab, I think you’re very mistaken. In the psych department, it’s very easy to get involved in research and get published and go to conferences - for a small liberal arts school, the number of psych students who get published and do serious, important research is insane. There are a number of very strong established Psych professors, such as Seamon, as well as young professors who are just starting to be at the top of their game and are eager to work with students (Barth, Schusterman, Stemler, etc).</p>
<p>As for sociology, we have a very strange program. Like most liberal arts schools, it’s very theory and ethnography heavy, with relatively little quantitative stuff (Long is really the only professor who does much quant research). But on the theory side, we have some heavyweights, especially Lemert, who is super famous (and one of the most interesting teachers I’ve had at wes). Though some of the professors aren’t especially famous, they’er fantastic teachers, which is kind of what’s really important at an undergrad level. Dupuy, Cutler, and Rosenthal are some of the most loved professors at Wes.</p>
<p>In terms of weakest programs, I might include anthropology, and also computer science (which really needs to get on its game to hire some great new professors, though Danner and Aaron aren’t bad. And Lipton is interesting and smart, even if his teaching is all-over-the-place)</p>
<p>Eh the stuff i’ve been hearing about the hostility towards athletes worries me (I play lacrosse), but what worries me more is the radicalism that most Wes students seem to exhibit. I’m a leftist all the way, so thats not an issue, but I still encourage a conversation between varied political views and I REALLY don’t want to be somewhere where students create a hostile environment with radical political jargon.
Also–would you guys consider wes to be a “hipster”-esq school?
Thoughts?</p>