Yes, the Stone Age when a college where all the professors taught undergraduates; amateur athletics prevailed, and the liberal arts and sciences were at the center of the academic enterprise was actually considered “mainstream”.
I am still puzzled by all the distinctions of size, experience, and niche. How is the experience different at Circuitrider’s favorite school than at many smaller research universities? His Wesleyan admits a number of students that is similar to Princeton and Dartmouth (albeit enrolls a smaller number) and others. If there are substantial differences, is it really about size and enrollment? I think one has to look at different elements to underscore why LACs differ from most universities.
Yes, and the Ivies (save Cornell) admitted only women, and a gentleman’s handshake between your father and the headmaster was the most important …
Despite not having known it, I can see why the epoch when the earth was still cooling causes nostalgia. And for good reasons!
“in that it emphasized the social aspects of college selection over the pedagogical ones, even if only on its surface.”
Well, we enjoy an embarrassment of riches in higher education in this country. My clients have an array of choices where they can find outstanding academics. Those who choose LACs do so as much for social/community/experiential reasons as for academic ones. The LACs themselves sell this point hard.
“Four seasons is niche precisely because … [they offer] premium service and facilities”
What you have done is to define Four Seasons as niche based at least partially on the breadth and comprehensiveness of their services and facilities. This is, indeed, the precisely opposite reason they should be considered so.
It is entirely possible that ease of getting into classes has more to do with the school’s wealth than its size – a wealthy (well endowed) school can afford to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in classes to accommodate every student’s desire to take popular classes while still being able to have faculty to teach classes with only a handful of students, while a less wealthy school may have to enroll every class as close to the limit as possible to make efficient use of its faculty and facilities.
Small schools are not exempt from class access issues, as shown by those where junior/senior level courses are offered only once every two years, or the situation described in http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1556885-no-calc-101-for-you-p1.html where an incoming frosh was forced out calculus 1 even though he had the catalog-stated prerequisites (high school precalculus).
I have to say @lookingforward, it’s been a long time since I’ve heard reference to “running into butter” 
As was said WAY up-thread, you can call it anything you want to but some market segments are more popular than others. Yes, almost everything can be called a niche or specialty but it you have cornered yourself into a smaller and smaller marked that doesn’t have enough customers then it’s tough to get back out again.
LOL @ucbalumnus! My mother, and likely many Sweet Briar alums, have a very different definition of “well endowed”. It’s an important feature if you are seeking an MRS degree.
“ease of getting into classes has more to do with the school’s wealth than its size”
Agreed. My point about being extra sure you’re the right fit for the small school has academic applications, but at the well resourced schools, it’s less about getting into the classes you want and more about whether the classes you want exist. This has to do with the pickiness of the student, too. A kid who will shrug and be happy with whatever topic they’re covering in the senior seminar in his major doesn’t have to worry about this – and he’s a better fit for a small school in my book. At these prices, I’m picky. An LAC is only going to work for me academically if they’ve got exactly what I want.
My point was that YMMV and that large schools do not necessarily present more workable solutions. People here often paint stories in black and white and reach unfortunate conclusions. The small schools = difficulty in getting into classes is a canard at most residential schools that graduate most of their students in the four stated years, and often without the crutch of quasi colleges courses cooked in the AP or IB weak sauce.
It is also not necessarily an issue of wealth as getting in a number of classes can be hard at … Stanford. For instance, no amount of wealth will make it is easier for an UG to get into a class taught by Hoxby.
Getting into a class is not the same as getting into a class one WANTS to take. And we all know that avoiding the TA of hell is just as hazardous as avoiding road bombs in Iraq.
“no amount of wealth will make it is easier for an UG to get into a class taught by Hoxby.”
Not a seminar, maybe, but a lecture? At Harvard, the way the wealth comes in is through the flexibility of adding additional sections to courses that grow in popularity. I was initially lotteried out of Stephen J. Gould’s (may he rest in peace) large Core class, but I and several other students complained, and they hired additional TAs at the last minute to allow all the interested students to take it. They also had the physical resources to move the course to a larger hall.
The only course I actually failed to get into in 4 years of college was a seminar capped at 12 students taught by a star professor in History of Science. She decided to give priority to applicants who were seniors majoring in that field. I was pretty sad about it, but couldn’t say that that was unfair.
Best class I took at Harvard was a five person graduate level seminar in Chinese painting taught by a visiting professor. I wasn’t an art history major, but all I can say is they missed a fabulous class!
I loved going to lectures by famous professors - some classes I took officially others I just audited. I never had a really terrible TA. There was at least one class (Shakespeare) where I gave up on the professor’s lectures and only attended the TA led sessions which were very good.
Hanna, again, YMMV.
Hoxby operates differently at Stanford. As far as adding TA sections, you probably know what I am thinking about the value of such practice outside the paint by the numbers STEM courses. BA and MA candidates grading humanities’ papers in subjects taught by Hoxby should raise eyebrows. Being a very competent student does not make one a competent teacher or someone qualified to judge the work of peers. This part of the MA funding model is a disgrace for the students.
This is NOT to say all TAs are poorly trained or I’ll-equipped for their role. Here’s a look at a TA in Hoxby class. http://web.stanford.edu/~mdiner/
He would have plenty to add to THIS discussion.
@Englishman2, a small endowment isn’t a problem so long as you can keep bringing in students who are willing to pay (which goes back to acceptance rate and discount rate). For instance, Georgetown has a much smaller per student endowment than Rochester.
Also, that list is very incomplete. There are a ton of schools with a per capita endowment below $100K.
^^
Excellent point.
Fwiw- William and Mary, Barnard, Carnegie Melon, Bates, Kenyon, Boston College, Tufts, Johns Hopkins, BU, et al. have endowments of less than $250,000 per student. Cornell’s endowment per student is only $281,000.
http://www.reachhighscholars.org/college_endowments.html
Englishman2 – As long as some of those colleges can continue to fill 40% – 60 % of their classes with full-pay students I doubt there is much chance of their closing.
And why the figure $250K? That appears completely arbitrary. (And why the gratuitous mentioning of Wesleyan in this context? So maybe the figure was not so arbitrary …)
About the “Starbucks Factor.” Apparently, 80% of Americans live within 20 miles of a Starbucks: http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/10/80-americans-live-within-20-miles-starbucks/57618/. The chain is ubiquitous. It is therefore not surprising that college applicants might use them as a measure of a location’s degree of “civilization.”
I don’t know any details about Starbucks franchises. Would it be possible for small, isolated colleges to set up a Starbucks franchise to make their campus more appealing to students from, well, just about anywhere in the continental US?
“low endowment = Higher risk for students”
You really need to analyze that. “Low,” if the threshold which constitutes low can be defined, equals higher risk. “Lower” may present no clear risk at all.