<p>Oh, god. That would be embarrassing.</p>
<p>Corbett (or anybody else),</p>
<p>Why are Wesleyan, Amherst and Williams the "Little Three"? The Little Three what? that's how you referred to them in post #15. Isn't it Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore?</p>
<p>As I understand it, the term "Little Three" is not just a term of endearment for the 3 most selective small liberal arts colleges. It was a reference, back in the day, to sports teams fielded by Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan. They were the "Little Three" (three elite small colleges); Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were the "Big Three".</p>
<p>Wikipedia has a good entry on the Little Three.</p>
<p>Wesleyan, Williams, and Amherst still hold Little Three events in track, crew, golf, etc. All other sports (i.e. basketball, ice hockey, lacrosse, etc.) have Little Three titles that go to the winner of the head-to-head competition.</p>
<p>Still scratching my head over Wesleyan's rise in applications. Not even the "girls luv us" theory holds water when one considers how badly Swarthmore, Middlebury and, Carleton -- all traditional favorites among women applicants -- have fared this year:</p>
<p>Bloomberg.com:</a> News</p>
<p>Obama definitely contributed somewhat, but I don't think he can account for all 22%...</p>
<p>In my opinion, it may have more to do with the incoming class than with Wesleyan (no offense, Wes). The recent election has made HS seniors very political, I think. There's an unusually high number of kids in my class who I don't think would have ever identified themselves as "activist" types had it not been for the election, but who got really involved -- lots of phonebanking, interning, rallying, etc.
So, I think more students than usual looked for an activist/liberal school when they were searching. This would explain the rise in applications to Brown as well.</p>
<p>I'd be interested in seeing if apps rose in other election years (even though they were definitely not as "big" as the recent election!)</p>
<p>My brother goes to a Quaker school, and they say their application levels skyrocketed after the Obamas chose to send their kids to a Quaker school, and the same happened when the Clintons chose a Quaker school. It's the same effect at Wes, I think.</p>
<p>Johnwesley:
Just read your link to the article in Bloomberg earlier today. It is indeed curious.</p>
<p>Hm, anybody consider that Wesleyan doesn't require a supplement?</p>
<p>It sounds shabby, but that's part of the reason why I applied. Or rather, why I didn't second guess my decision to apply to Wesleyan, and why I ended up withdrawing my app from schools like Carleton and Amherst that I liked almost as much as Wes. In the end, it was a question of effort. After all, I was up on New Year's Eve finishing my apps... and finally went out at 11pm. </p>
<p>Wes is a great school, but if I went down my list of schools and honestly told you the circumstances leading up to my applying to so-and-so school... (and I bet, you seniors, that if you did too) the selection process would seem completely irrational. </p>
<p>Anyway, I think yield numbers might change how you guys are approaching the dramatic increase in Wes apps. How many of the admitted actually want to attend Wes?</p>
<p>ED apps went up just as much as RD apps, so I think the proportion of applicants that "actually want to attend" is pretty consistent.
There was no supplement last year either, so that wouldn't really explain the growth in applications.</p>
<p>Must be a combination of all these factors -- no supplement, election interest in politically minded schools, press from the Obama commencement, maybe even MGMT/Santagold love.</p>
<p>^Finding out MGMT and Santo went there definately upped the cool factor I associated with this school ;)</p>
<p>Meh to MGMT. "Kids" is a fantastic song, but they seem like such a one-trick pony.</p>