<p>mini...
I understand that you are defining Smith as exceptional in its commitment to lower income students. And it does have a higher percentage of Pell grant kids than its sister schools.
But the OTHER women's colleges are right behind it.
I understand that many would not consider a single sex college. This explains high admissions rates vis a vis similar "status" schools. It doesn't explain why there would be fewer affluent students than other LACs.
I'm open to other ideas. But I'm not open to the idea that single sex colleges are generically morally superior to others.
Until interseteddad's supposition of a looming shortage of "rich white kids" in the Northeast, I didn't view women's colleges from this perspective. I wondered whether girls from single parent families might prefer/feel safer at women's colleges, and that this might be why there were more kids from modest incomes at these institutions.
Frankly, I don't know. But I think that these are open questions.</p>
<p>danas:</p>
<p>I think that what happened is that the women's colleges got whacked with a double whammy in the 1970s. Not only did the huge baby boom glut subside, but dozens and dozens of elite competitors (all the Ivies, all the New England LACs, UVa, Duke, and on and on) pulled the rug out from under the Seven Sisters previously captive market. The all male schools offset the falling demand by admitting women. The women's colleges (and to a certain extent the co-ed colleges) not only got whacked by falling demand, but by a tsunami of competition for their women applicants.</p>
<p>Some, like Vassar, went co-ed....a process that has taken a long time and still doesn't produce anywhere close to equal numbers of men. Others, like Smith, decided to respond to the erosion of their traditional customer base by repositioning to tap new markets (older students, lower income students, etc.) in order to keep their demand up.</p>
<p>It's not correct to look at any decisions such as these as either purely altruistic or cynically revenue-stream driven. It's a combination of both. Smith has done an incredible job repositioning itself from the ultimate white-gloves rich girl school to a school that recruits low income students as hard as any school in New England. They should be applauded. But, it is not without financial pressure. In fact, Smith's strategic plan cites the need to reduce tuition discounting and lop off some faculty slots to address some concerns about the balance sheet....and this is a huge per student endowment school. If Smith had anything to do over, I suspect they would rather have held the enrollment number in the 2000 range which would have given them even more per student endowment leverage.</p>
<p>It's not the Smiths that will be in danger a decade from now. It's the lower per student endowment schools that simply don't have the reserves to weather declining demand (demand correlates with the ability to enroll full-pay or nearly full-pay customers). A lot of schools from the second tier on down rely on tuition revenues for essentially all of their operating expense. These schools face some serious challenges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't view women's colleges from this perspective. I wondered whether girls from single parent families might prefer/feel safer at women's colleges, and that this might be why there were more kids from modest incomes at these institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. I don't see any evidence of that. I think that virtually nobody starts their college search with the top priority of going to a womens college. Instead, there is a continuum from students who say "no way, no how" to those who are open to the possibility.</p>
<p>The Seven Sisters get great students for the same reason any other school does: at the end of the day, when the options are on the table, a Seven Sisters school offers the most attractive "package" to an individual student. In some cases, the package results from historical strength in certain curricula directions. For example, Williams didn't offer as much in the way of Italian opera compared to Smith. In other cases, it's merit aid money -- the Seven Sisters is the best dollar value. In other cases, it's admissions value -- the "best" school (usually defined as "highest per student endowment") a particular applicant got into. In other cases, it's campus culture -- the Seven Sisters schools have very strong academic focus and less of the blotto party scene.</p>
<p>Going back to the previous discussion on changing demographics:</p>
<p>The reason that the demand among the Hispanic and Asian student population is growing so quickly is because the number of people in that demographic is also growing quickly.</p>
<p>Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic group in the nation. This country has become more southern and western, more suburban and ex-urban; the nation more spanish-speaking and immigrant. </p>
<p>The transformation of our people is creating is a new kind of demographic: currently 70 of the 100 largest cities are located in the South and West. Three of the ten largest cities are in Texas alone. California is the most populous state--and this growth is continuing. In 2032, if the U.S. Census projections continue, Arizona will have as many people as New York; Hispanics will be 25 percent of the American populace. Today, they represent 9 percent.</p>
<p>It should come as no surprise that the Hispanic population already strives for the "elite" schools (and will continue to do so in greater numbers) the same as the Asian population did when their population numbers increased. Since we are a nation of diversity, that is what one would expect. It may be that in the future the Ivies will be putting forth diversity guidelines to guarantee that they get an entering class that has enough whites and blacks and native Americans to counterbalance the predominantly Hispanic and Asian student population--and thus allow for "all points of view" as they do now by admitting URMs. But that may not be needed if we become a truly homogenous culture. Time will tell.</p>
<p>A schools "eliteness" is defined in the quality of it's student body, not its selectivity. More applicants due to the common app, etc just means a diluted applicant pool.</p>
<p>In short, after skimming these many analytical posts regarding changing demographics, it really comes down to more kids of every demographic, from "rich white" to "Latino" competing for the same number of spaces at top colleges.</p>
<p>The waters are muddied further by fear (of rejection) and the online common app, which propel most students to apply to more schools than they need to. </p>
<p>Existing colleges won't expand to add seats because they don't need to and it's outrageously expensive to do so. New schools may start up, but will take years to really get going. Will be interesting to watch. </p>
<p>What will continue happening is that the Northeastern's, and other previously Tier II schools will continue to advance as the quality of their applicant pool increases. It's really supply and demand. More applicants equals a higher cost of acceptance, as measured by acceptance rates. </p>
<p>This trend has been happening for years, and is a reason schools like Maryland are currently challenging to get admitted to, even in-state. Thirty years ago, a 2.0 moved you into Maryland. Now the average SAT is 1310.</p>
<p>Expect this trend to continue for several years, then hopefully we'll stabilize a bit! (Till the Baby Boom Echo produces their own applicant pool!).</p>
<p>I do agree with AdvisorMom regarding the predictably greater quality of Tier II schools in the future, a trend which is observed currently, as you say. I think we'd all agree that's a good thing, as resources, faculty, & offerings will be affected positively as a result, in response. Anything to reduce the pressure on admissions at a relatively few number of colleges will benefit all students & their families. It's not that the current elites will not continue to be viewed as elites, but I'm hoping that there will be less of a do-or-die mentality about it all.</p>
<p>To restate the obvious, population shifts, & increases, really do affect the marketplace, including the marketplace of education. Where I differ with i'dad is that I do not necessarily anticipate a radical change in the ethnic makeup of the NE elites in the near-term (10 yrs). Rather, just as commerce, transportation, and k-12 schooling has followed the family market, so too will higher education. The response to pressures <em>both</em> in the NE <em>and</em> in the Southwest, South, and Far West, will be to enhance first the regional offerings in higher education, both publicly and privately. As to whether any of these will become "elites" of their own is still to be seen. But all one has to do is look at U.C.'s expansion over the last 10 yrs in response to a burgeoning population. It will happen, too, in other States. </p>
<p>What would really interest me, though, is to see whether there would ever be interest by a place like Harvard with its huge endowment, to develop a "sister" campus anywhere, but particularly West of the Mississippi. Or for the Ivies to cooperate in such a joint venture. </p>
<p>Just some thoughts to mull over on a Sunday morning....</p>
<p>
[quote]
What would really interest me, though, is to see whether there would ever be interest by a place like Harvard with its huge endowment, to develop a "sister" campus anywhere, but particularly West of the Mississippi. Or for the Ivies to cooperate in such a joint venture.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard is plannng to build another campus across the river -- the Charles River. They are (well, at least Summers was) contemplating a substantial increase in the size of the undergrad enrollment, targeted at enrolling many more international students. </p>
<p>Given the nature of development in Boston, it is anybody's guess how these plans will evolve over the coming decades.</p>
<p>In the southwest, Rice has already announced a massive increase in undergrad enrollment (30%, if I recall). UChicago has grown by a similar amount over the last decade.</p>
<p>It's a tricky business because enrollment growth for a elite college actually undermines the financial position of the school (because it costs more to educate each additional student than the incremental revenues, assuming no reduction in quality.)</p>
<p>Interesting, interestedad. :)</p>
<p>Thanks for that info.</p>
<p>After reading this im questioning whether it would be worth be paying 45k to go to cornell undergrad or whether free tuition in state for University of florida which is on the rise?</p>
<p>"worth it" is in the minds and pocketbooks of thems thats got the choice.</p>
<p>"It's a tricky business because enrollment growth for a elite college actually undermines the financial position of the school (because it costs more to educate each additional student than the incremental revenues, assuming no reduction in quality.)"</p>
<p>Doesn't follow. Depends heavily on how the institution amortizes fixed costs. It can actually substantially improve quality by increasing the core of students say, for example, in language programs, where there are now sustainable lunch tables, possibilities for language halls, expansion in use of already existing but underutilzied facilities, at virtually no incremental cost.</p>
<p>A better question might be "What makes an elite school if acceptance rates are plummeting everywhere?"</p>
<p>and perhaps the answer is quality of education, not prestige or acceptance rates, which mean less and less every year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Depends heavily on how the institution amortizes fixed costs. It can actually substantially improve quality by increasing the core of students say, for example, in language programs, where there are now sustainable lunch tables, possibilities for language halls, expansion in use of already existing but underutilzied facilities, at virtually no incremental cost.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The falacy of that argument is the assumptiont that there won't still be underutilized departments after the expansion of the school. So, you expand to ensure the size of the Italian department, but then find out that the new larger size demands an underutilized Japanese department, so you expand again, chasing optimimum utilization, but then the new Film and Media studies department is underutilized. Meanwhile, each expansion, assuming the same student-faculty ratio, requires the hiring of additional faculty, the cost of which outpaces the incremental revenue gains.</p>
<p>Why do you think so many schools are including reduction of enrollment and/or reduction of faculty in their strategic planning (including Smith)?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that colleges with high levels of diversity today will probably fair pretty well because they learned a hard lesson in the early days of diversification. You can't just enroll minority students and call it a day. You have to make fundamental changes in the nature of the school (deans, faculty, advising, student groups, etc.) so that the new students you are enrolling feel like they have a stake in the college and aren't just visiting aliens from another planet. Unfortunately, that's probably a lesson that can only be learned the hard way. Colleges trying to move from an all-white to a diverse model today probably won't find it as easy as a recruiting exercise. There are so many subtle undercurrents in campus cultures that just plain take a long time to change.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can tell you that amongst Latino parents, the concept of LACs is seen with skepticism if not outright dismissal. Only Amherst, Williams, Wellesley and perhaps Wesleyan have the cachet to attract their interest. The well-known universities, and the up and coming ones, should be in good shape on the other hand.</p>
<p>I'll take your word for it. However, that seems to be contradicted by the fact that the four New England schools you mention are not among the top-50 LACs that currently have double-digit percentages of Latino/a students (Swarthmore 10%, Pomona 11%, Claremont McKenna 12%, and Occidental 14%).</p>
<p>Amherst has 6%.
Wellesley and Wesleyan 7%
Williams 9%</p>
<p>Intersting point ID, however the fact that three of the four w/ double digit latino/a populations are located in California may actually support Dwincho's larger point, not contradict it.</p>
<p>I am not quite sure what it means when you say Latino parents dismiss LAC's. The WSJ study listed Williams as the #5 feeder school to top graduate programs. Larry Summers late of Harvard indicated that Harvard with its vast resources could be both Harvard (best University period, including grad school) and Williams (best undergrad education). Prestige Magazine rated Amherst and Williams in the top 10 schools in the nation. US News listings, etc. In addition these amazing schools are not exactly a new phenom, subject to a revisionist viewpoint, having been around for a couple hundred years. One may chose an Ivy (and hope to be chosen back) if that's what fits the need or a Little-Ivy (no easier entry there) if that is a better fit. However to suggest that the flagship state U's or the new Ivy's as the magazines have dubbed them, are superior to the Williams, Amherst, Swath, Wells, Pomona, etc. is wishfull thinking and misguided.</p>
<p>I don't think Dwincho is dissing the little ivies; he's simply stating a matter of fact: that certain parents are harder to sell on the idea of LACs than others. There are reams of threads about this from kids from Asian American households, for example.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that sentiment is limited to ethnic groups. It's a pretty widespread belief among white applicants, too. A signficant percentage of CC posters don't even understand what a liberal arts college is. Many have no idea that many of the top private universities, including most of the Ivies, teach a liberal arts curriculum. Many have no idea that a liberal arts curriculum includes science and math.</p>
<p>Those who seek to attend the top LACs should thank their lucky stars. If these schools weren't ignored by Joe Public, the acceptance rates would be even more daunting.</p>
<p>Amen, brother.</p>