<p>"A generation ago, elite schools were a clearly defined group: the eight schools in the Ivy League, along with such academic powerhouses as Stanford, the University of Chicago, MIT and Caltech. Smaller liberal-arts colleges—like Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Swarthmore and Wesleyan—were the destinations of choice for top students who preferred a more intimate campus. "</p>
<p>They're actually taking this as a slap in the face on the Bowdoin CC board:</p>
<p>To be honest, I would have been insulted, too. OTOH, the day we start taking Newsweek seriously as an arbiter of 1) what's old 2) what's new and 3) what's ivy, is the day we should all hand over our a capella club keys. :)</p>
<p>You make a good point, johnwesley. The reason I agreed so vehemently with Newsweek was that, in my opinion, they were stating an established fact (ie, that Wes has always been an elite school). However, I do agree that when it comes to the grey areas of deciding what is and is not elite, NW is in over their head. That's the sort of thing that history and alumni records decide, not a corporate news magazine.</p>
<p>While Wesleyan probably is on a lower tier, it is part of the Little Three and so I can see why it would be included over Bowdoin. Why Middlebury, though?</p>
<p>The big assumption she also makes is that these students chose to attend these schools (as opposed to having the decision made for them, which is usually the case).</p>
<p>It seems like Wes's prestige, however, has fallen considerably. You really hear about Amherst and Williams. I don't know why this happened. Does anyone know??</p>
<p>I'm not sure I accept the premise that "Wesleyan's prestige has fallen considerably". I think that if you look beyond the usual rankings you'll find lots of people who apply to Wesleyan who wouldn't dream of applying to any other LAC; Wesleyan loses most of its cross-admits not to Amherst or Williams, but to much bigger universities. </p>
<p>Among some upper middle class families -- the people who can afford to send their kids to college consultants and aptitude test coaches -- sure, there may have been some hesitation surrounding Wesleyan's reputation for nudity, pot, and left-leaning politics. They form the backbone of any expensive college's applicant pool and Wesleyan is no different in its desire for its share of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems like Wes's prestige, however, has fallen considerably. You really hear about Amherst and Williams. I don't know why this happened. Does anyone know??
[/quote]
Wesleyan is a great school, but it lags behind the other members of the Little Three in one respect: </p>
<p>Data from wikipedia. The differences are even more pronounced on a per-student basis, because Wesleyan is the largest of the three schools. The Williams and Amherst endowments amount to ~ $700,000 per student, while the Wes endowment is more like ~ $180,000 per student. This is nearly a fourfold difference.</p>
<p>Don't know if this discrepancy is historical, or relatively recent. In any case, Wes has actually done a pretty effective job of maintaining prestige given their financial resources.</p>
<p>Corbett is correct. Wesleyan's endowment is small in comparison to the schools he names. In answer to his question, it depends on how you define "historically". The last twenty years? Then, yes historically Wesleyan has had a smaller endowment than its Little Three rivals. The "why" is not that complicated; Wesleyan administrators over the years have had a predilection for "spending first" and raising money later. This places a good deal of pressure on the endowment and has been the subject of much controversy on campus.</p>
<p>I'm no authority but certainly thirty-five years ago Wesleyan was one of THE most well-endowed colleges in America. Perhaps their reliance on investments in Xerox was not very forward-thinking and cost them some bucks? Just a thought.</p>
<p>The article titled "Patient Investor" in <a href="http://www.wesleyan.edu/magazine/%5B/url%5D">http://www.wesleyan.edu/magazine/</a> is pretty interesting on the Wesleyan endowment. Thirty-five years ago Wesleyan did indeed have one of the largest endowments among its peer institutions. According to this article, the biggest factor in Wes' falling behind "was inadequate gifts to the endowment and therefore less compounding of endowment value" during a period of strong equity markets. Specifically, from 1984-2004, "Wesleyan raised $105 million in gifts to the endowment" while its more successful peers were raising three times that amount; "Wesleyan's more recent strong fund-raising results could not erase the advantage competitors had attained."</p>
<p>Are endowments really important for academic quality? I would say definitely.</p>
<p>For example, although Wesleyan is easily one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country, I am sure that Wesleyan's academic quality is relatively affected by the disparity of endowment per student between it and, say, Princeton or Yale (which have the largest endowments in the country on a per-student basis). The funding gap between Wesleyan and Princeton is much larger than the one between Wes and Amherst. Fewer fellowship advisors? Are grants for free travel all over Africa or Asia available to any student who wants them, like they are at Yale?</p>
<p>Unless Amherst is radically different in its spending than Swarthmore, Wesleyan probably spends twice as much on faculty, library acquisitions, "institutional research" and "auxiliary enterprises" (the cafeteria, the college store, student housing.) Since Wesleyan is just under twice Amherst's size that would amount to per capita academic and student life expenditures of fairly equal proportions.</p>
<p>The one place where Wesleyan lags is in the area of "institutional support" which is just a nicer word for <em>administration</em>. Swarthmore (and I'm assuming Amherst) spends about $4M a year more to administer a college half Wesleyan's size. Are all of those extra deans, provosts and VPs really necessary? That's something I can't answer.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, posterx. Re-reading my reply in the clear light of day, I don't think I answered your question: yes, Yale is no doubt the greatest research university in the world. :) But frankly, I think it still would be with even half the endowment it has today. Where its endowment will make a noticeable difference will be in holding out the promise of free tuition for middle class families:
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512382%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512382</a></p>
<p>In the interest of full disclosure, Bill Blakemore is an alum, Class of `65. Seems as if neither Middlebury nor Wesleyan are ashamed to use all of the media contacts at their disposal.;)</p>
<p>In all seriousness, Wesleyan has been so conservative in its building programs over the last century that it's central campus actually does resemble Yale's Old Campus as it existed in the 1860s. The irony of course is that is that if they ever needed to shoot a movie scene that included Yale's "Brick Row" which, at one time, included Connecticut Hall, they'd have to film it at Wesleyan because the original was demolished by the turn of the twentieth century.</p>