LACs are not fungible.
Dartmouth is a research university, not a LAC.
@PurpleTitan : Big time sports are a negative for many prospective college applicants.
Merc- no need for sarcasm. You object to the way I use the word niche- fine, pick another word. You seem to find great meaning that MIT has a smaller percentage of math majors than Williams- and completely dismiss my point that there is no need for a “mathy” kid at MIT to major in math- he or she can major in something else entirely and STILL do all the math they want without ever running out.
Gotcha. I think I shall start referring to LAC’s as “small”. Then we can debate “smaller than what” and so on. But since the typical LAC is smaller than the typical research U- do you find “small” to be judgmental or just descriptive?
@Pizzagirl: You ignored my considered reply to your direct question, and concentrated on a few numbers I posted.
Ultimately, for all too many families, the LACs are just plain too expensive. Yes, they let their kids apply, and the kids fall in love and all that, but when the aid packages hit the kitchen table, the kid heads off to Big Cheap State U. This is not going to change in the foreseeable future. Unless and until more families can more readily afford the LACs, the LAC numbers will continue to dwindle.
@Hanna
LOL. And, I think we can agree that people who don’t know about Williams aren’t likely to apply to it. The point is that as long as there is a demand for strong arts and science curricula - whether they exist within research universities, or not - there will be a concomitant demand for stand alone liberal arts colleges.
As it happens, Bryn Mawr College is a university, too. It has PhD programs in many liberal arts fields as well as a graduate school of social work that offers master’s and doctoral degrees.
@Pizzagirl: You are correct. My sarcasm, slight I hope, was uncalled for. The problem is that the longer posts I have written have been basically ignored, while my briefest statistical posts have been the equivalent of Rorschach test for those reading them.
I don’t object to niche when used properly. Nor would I object to “small” or “smaller,” if used with an understanding of historical context . For example, prior to 1945, the vast majority of colleges would have been classified as small by modern standards.
To back up @Hanna’s point, if you look at alumni achievements, the elite LACs more than hold their own: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1682986-ivy-equivalents-p3.html
However, if you look at a ranking that is more of a popularity contest, they do not: http://www.businessinsider.com/best-colleges-in-the-us-2014-9
BTW, the perception of whether LACs are niche may vary by geography and SES as well. There are a ton of LACs in the Northeast, and it isn’t uncommon to encounter graduates or students at LACs there. Likewise if you attend or send a kid to a boarding/day school (even outside the Northeast).
I’m from the Midwest and from my HS, a decent number of kids chose LACs, though I’ve encountered only a handful of LAC alums in all of the places I’ve worked in the Midwest.
Go out to CA, and LAC alums are pretty scarce. Tons of UC and CSU alums. Many from other state schools and private unis. Don’t recall meeting anyone who attended any LAC when I was out there.
“This discussion is brain dead.”
Except for your comments, I’m sure, @northwesty.
@Pizzagirl: Certainly sarcasm was warranted in this extreme case?
There’s a difference between niche the noun and niche the adjective. Every college should know what its niche might be. Even big state universities have a niche–large, good sports, affordable.
I think that an excessive focus on yield can be very misleading. An often quoted reference is that the University of Nebraska has a very high yield. The yield represents very different things at different schools: it can reflect a high popularity or a position at the pinnacle of selectivity. Or it can represent the simple fact that the students admitted have fewer … better choices! Yield is also a factor of admissions’ policies and can be boosted via aggressive waitlist movements in addition to binding admissions. Both crutches work well, including at the Ivy League.
Further, although the point remains the same, Williams is really in the 40 percent yield rate and does not enroll 50 percent of its class via ED. Just from memory --you may want to look up more CDS-- there are schools with higher yields. I am familiar with the latest yields at Pomona (450/842) and Claremont McKenna (327/651 - over 6,000 applicants) and both are above 50 percent. This year CMC attracted more than 7,000 applications, and its admit rate should be a single digit.
On a further note, a yield above 50 percent is a very recent affair at Chicago. Georgetown is exactly at 50 percent. The University of Texas has historically higher yield than both --courtesy of a strong autoadmit pool. What do those yield numbers reveal when removed from their direct context? Not much!
Lastly, there are very few schools that have a yield above 50 percent. Not to mention schools with single digit admissions. Very few.
The bottom line? Again, not all LACs are created equal and are faring equally well or poorly. Some face dwindling application numbers and other are seeing greater demand. Does not take a Rhodes Scholar to realize that. Or even a Rhoads one.
@merc81, words have different meanings in different contexts. Niche certainly has more than one meaning. In this case, I think a lot of us are using a marketing term, where the word means “an area of the market specializing in one type of product or service.” Within the niche of liberal arts colleges (a subset of four-year undergraduate institutions), there is a smaller niche of schools that, for one reason or another (unusually small size, specific location, single-sex mission, limited scope of majors, etc.), may be vulnerable in the long-term if they aren’t hyper-vigilant in maintaining a healthy business model that can survive demographic shifts and economic crises. Someone might, thus, use the term “niche” or “niche product” to describe a school of that type.
You’re right, that probably doesn’t fit the Merriam-Webster definition, but it is a term that is used quite widely in business vernacular:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/niche-product.html
Also, consider the context of this conversation, which is taking place within the Parents Forum. I’m just guessing, but some parents may be ignoring a few of your finer points because they come across as slightly condescending, and most parents don’t appreciate being talked down to by a high school student. I love having students participate in these discussions, but be careful of coming across as a pedant.
To clarify, I posted some statistics on math majors because @Hunt had brought up STEM majors in relation to this discussion.
“there are very few schools that have a yield above 50 percent. Not to mention schools with single digit admissions. Very few.”
Sure – the very top of the national universities category. The schools that dominate the very top of the LAC category have a lot less drawing power. If you talk to Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc., they’ll be the first to tell you that they consider their academics peers to be HYPS etc., which I agree with. That’s why I think it’s fair to compare the best to the best.
The Nebraskas, BYUs, etc. are not germane to the debate, which is why I didn’t bring them up. Yield means pretty much the same thing at Williams and at Harvard. To a large extent, they want the same kids, and the kids they want are in a position to choose.
@LucieTheLakie
That’s my exact point: a niche product is defined by its market. No one in this thread has been able to adequately explain how the potential market for an arts and science education differs just because some are located inside a university and some are stand alone institutions. You can’t argue that the product defines the market; that would be a circular argument.
At least we’re not discussing ugly Virginia towns any more, eh?
Yes and no!
Yield should mean the same thing, but there are few comparisons between how yield work at both schools. To fully understand the differences --which I know you are not oblivious to-- you need to look at the size and dynamics of the ED pool. Let’s add another example in the mix that reflects Sweet Briar a little better: let’s look at Smith and Wellesley. How large is their pool of applicants that are happy to make a deliberate first choice to attend either and thus not throw their hat in the RD ring? And, most importantly, how high are the admission rates.
In the end, the dynamics of Harvard are much different with an extremely low admit rate and a low admit rate in REA that is combined with an expected yield that is at the very top in its class. The yield stories at Wellesley or the remaining WASP is much different as a lot fewer students are willing to commit to a LAC as an irrevocable first choice.
usage (upthread): “more anecdote [than] analysis.”
@blossom : My posts 627 and 629 were intended for you, though I mistakenly used @Pizzagirl’s user name. Again, I understand that my sarcasm may have been gratuitous.
@Pizzagirl: The above posts were not intended for you. Post 623 was intended for you. I was hoping you would focus on my longer reply to your question.
@LucieTheLakie: Your comments were obviously well meaning. I’m nonplussed, however, that you can take particular exception to my posts within the context of another poster, parent or not, who interjected with a comment suggesting the entire discussion, i.e., a reference to all adjacent posters, is “brain dead.”