Why is the acceptance rate at Williams (relatively) higher?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Williams College
41

I think douggy91 amply addressed the high applications at Middlebury and Bowdoin, etc. I personally think the admission rate is of little relevance - GPAs and the score ranges are a better indicator for class quality.

Regarding ease of admission, I think we need to first proceed by first addressing the quality of matriculated students. I think that the quality of matriculated students at Williams is extremely high. I personally think Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore have essentially the same quality student body in their classes (I have my reservations about Pomona, which I have touched upon earlier).

My original point, responding to the post, was that Williams has a self-selecting applicant pool, particularly compared to Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona. However, given that, there is a high degree of randomness in college admissions everywhere (an admissions officer has a bad day - there are three accomplished oboe-playing applicants and the admissions office can only admit one; four tennis players for two spots) a smart applicant will learn to play the odds to dampen randomness.

As for Akqj1, there is no harm in filing a hail mary application now and visiting after admission. College these days is so expensive that there is a high guarantee a well-endowed school like Williams will offer generous financial aid upon admission. A decision can then be made pending a visit following admission.

42

May I ask what your reservations are on Pomona have a comparable enrolled student body, @newyorker01 ? I did see mention of the way they may send athletes who’re not as qualified over to Pitzer, but that doesn’t really make much sense when a majority of Pomona-Pitzer athletes are from Pomona, their admissions processes have no cross-collaboration (none of the 5 colleges do, contrary to what is commonly believed), and Pitzer is in and of itself a super selective school with a lower admissions rate than Williams and most liberal art colleges. They don’t really prioritize athletics and neither does Pomona.

Maybe the pool of students applying isn’t as strong as Williams- I could believe that and not be surprised- but the students who are admitted to and enroll at Pomona are just as strong as A/W/S.

Just to compare:
Pomona Class of 2020 Enrolled- 2040-2300, 30-34, 92% in top decile
Williams Class of 2020 Enrolled- 2000-2330, 31-34, 93% in top decile
Swarthmore Class of 2020 Enrolled- 2020-2290, 30-34, 88% in top decile
Amherst Class of 2020 Enrolled- 2040-2330, 31-34, 86% in top decile

43

I would gently encourage a person who, after all of this chat about the usefulness of acceptance rates, brings up Pitzer’s lower acceptance rate to enroll there over Williams or Amherst or Swarthmore. I might even insist on it. The person might even avail themselves of Pitzer’s test-optional policy too while they are at it, keeping in mind the chatter about test-optional policies at, for example, Middlebury and Bowdoin, on this very thread.

Then, when the person is a student at Pitzer I would encourage that student to take classes at Pomona, and to not worry about Pomona students looking down upon cross-registers from other schools: http://tsl.news/news/3792/

A student academic experience is not about who is admitted to the school; it is comprised of the actual caliber of student sitting in the classroom. Accounting tricks do not do it for me. Applicants who think otherwise are encouraged to put their money where their mouth is.

44

Further, to answer the question directly, Pomona’s 25th percentile SAT score has always been higher that that of other LACs, stretching back decades (you can check the data). The only explanation is farming off recruiting elsewhere. At a small school of roundabout 1600 students, even giving up on recruiting 25 athletes for a class for 410 will significantly shift your SAT ranges (with a bigger impact on the 25th percentile, and a smaller impact on the 75th).

45

The question posed by @nostalgicwisdom in #41 was focused on why your earlier posts seemed to express “reservations” about the caliber of the enrolled students at Pomona vs. A/W/S, not the question of how or why Pomona has a lower acceptance rate. I have to admit the recruiting angle is a new theory that I haven’t heard before. The usual theory is that Pomona, as well as CMC/Pitzer/Scripps, all get a large number of applicants by virtue of being among the very few traditional LAC’s in the west. That pool of applicants probably includes a greater number of people who are unqualified and may not be applying to any other LAC’s but just want to stay in the west. @nostalgicwisdom (who I believe is a recent Pomona graduate) acknowledged that Pomona’s applicant pool is not as self selecting as that of Williams but simply made the point, which you have not refuted, that the caliber of the enrolled student body at Pomona is academically very comparable to that of A/W/S.

While I think Nostalgicwisdom is right in saying that the admissions departments at the 5C’s don’t collaborate, I could definitely believe that a Pomona-Pitzer coach might do a pre-read (or whatever it is that athletes do) and steer a potential recruit to Pitzer instead of Pomona if he or she believes the recruit won’t meet the admission standards of Pomona.

46

@newyorker01 Let me speak to your subtle disparagement of Pitzer as a student who just graduated from Pomona myself, because I’m honestly tired of seeing it.

You don’t state it explicitly, but it’s pretty evident that you’re implying that the quality of the academics at Pomona are marred by the presence of cross-enrollment at the other five colleges. You believe that the fact Pomona is comparable to A/W/S in enrolled student profile doesn’t quite matter (a so called “accounting trick”) when the student quality in the classroom is diluted by “weaker” students at the other colleges. Or when Pomona students have to take courses at one of the other institutions.

The Claremont Colleges, unlike other comparable systems, are exceedingly unique in their individual focuses. Claremont McKenna brings a student body that is entrepreneurial, well-acquainted with business and politics, and has strengths in leadership. Harvey Mudd has pioneers, well-versed in math and science yet also in touch with the liberal arts. Pitzer students are deeply reflective and engaged with the societies and communities they are a part of, and place an emphasis on social justice, interdisciplinary studies, and environmental responsibility. Scripps students are well-rounded with an emphasis on advocating for gender equality/women’s rights, and perhaps the most artistic/creative of the colleges. Pomona is on the whole difficult to characterize and comparable to elite east coast liberal art colleges- something I know from personal experience given that I myself turned down Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams after visiting those schools.

Taking courses in which I was surrounded by multiple students from the other colleges made me realize the true significance of the consortium. Take for example Anthropology of Biomedicine at Havey Mudd, filled with students from all of the colleges, where I saw this first-hand. We’d discuss complex bio-political and ethical topics related to the changing field of medicine. This is definitely simplifying the individuality of each member of the class a bit, but I noticed the Mudders would emphasize technology and innovation. The CMC’ers would bring forth their real world experiences in interning for health corporations and industries and mention the economics/sustainability of various concepts. The students from Scripps cared deeply about race, class, and gender dynamics. The students from Pitzer often reflected on their volunteer experiences in the states or abroad, as well as the ethical and social responsibilities of companies and doctors. Such a rich diversity of perspective meant far to my own growth academically than the supposed SAT/class rank of the students in my class. In fact, I can think of a number of courses in which it was a student from the other colleges, and not Pomona, who was the most insightful/articulate contributor. That’s something special that you can’t really find at any other liberal arts college- Swarthmore and its peers are much more similar, and Amherst and its peers are somewhat diverse but separated by distance.

You don’t need to take my word for it. The article you linked cites a Pomona student who says: “Taking classes at the other colleges…gives you a chance to deal with students who think in different ways because each one has its own philosophy.”

Acceptance rates don’t really mean much. I mentioned that above. But in the case of CMC, Mudd, and Pitzer, a low acceptance rate does indicate something. These three schools do a rigorous and thorough job identifying students who are a good fit for them and their core values. A 10-13% acceptance rate means- even if the Pitzer student isn’t as “strong” as the Pomona student statistically- that there was probably a rather significant reason they were taken over, on average, 7 other applicants.

Furthermore, cross-enrollment seems to have no negative impact on the outcomes of Pomona students. Forbes is an explicit outcome based ranking, and Pomona ranks 2nd among all the liberal arts colleges in it. There is no objective evidence that Pomona students’ prospects are hindered by the other Claremont Colleges, and anecdotes such as my own add to the likelihood that they far more enrich the experience.

47

As to your unfounded claims that recruitment occurs elsewhere- I worked at the Pomona Admissions Office for several years. The only time the 5 College Admission Offices interact together is with staff gatherings and 5C conferences for counselors. Everything that happens in the Pomona office related to individual applicants stays within that office and its communication, as governed by strict confidentiality rules. There is no collaboration between the admissions offices on which students they admit. What @Corinthian mentions may be true- coaches acting as the link between “weaker” students and where they choose to apply- but Pomona will not know if they applied to Pitzer (I’ve seen the coach pre-read form and there’s no place for it) and acts only on its own volition as to whether the student is a good fit for the institution. Furthermore, I found the actual number (that’s why I took a bit to post), and 75% of Pomona-Pitzer athletes are from Pomona when it should be 60% if athletic recruitment was proportional between the two schools. So I don’t think it really means much at all.

The 25% SAT issue? Seriously? Pomona is either tied to or 10-20 points higher than the next liberal arts college in that respect. It’s just noise and likely meaningless. A more likely assumption would be that Pomona has higher standards on low-end athletes than Williams and Amherst- something which makes sense given the low ED acceptance rate at the former and the higher percentage of varsities at the latter schools.

Lots of posting about Pomona for a Williams thread, and I’m venturing off-topic from the original question especially after it was answered- so I’ll stop now.

48

“Being quant plays little if any role in getting into investment banking. GS, JPM, MS and all the EBBs don’t care about your math ability. That’s a completely different aspect of finance.”

As a man who has spent much of his life working with investment banks and their friends in private equity, I’m just going to make this simple and say, “WRONG”.

49

"@nostalgicwisdom

The real reason that Bowdoin/Middlebury/Wesleyan etc get more applicants and thus have lower acceptance rates are that those schools make it easier to apply.

…

Middlebury and Wesleyan both have no supplemental essay, so anyone who is remotely interested can just add them to their commons app last minute and apply in <5 minutes."

I agree with you for the most part. This is the ‘UCLA factor’. Every kid whose real long-shot is UC Merced or Santa Cruz will also apply to UCLA and Cal with the click of the mouse. Why not? It’s free and easy. There’s a bit more involved to send transcripts, letters of rec etc. to another Common App school, but I get your drift and agree it factors in.

Having said that, for the caliber of kids who are looking at these places, writing a supplement to the Williams ad com is not a big deal. So there is self-selection, and Williams does make it harder to apply, I agree. But it’s not a significant barrier.

One thought on W’s higher admit % - no idea how much of a driver it is - is athletic recruiting. I know from going through the DIII recruiting process multiple times that Williams is an aggressive recruiter of athletes. Of course you need to pass muster academically, but they build a lot of their incoming class on athletics, and that plays a role in admissions. How much I don’t know, but being on the list with admissions is a powerful variable in the formula. Williams is dominant on the field … they didn’t get that way by accident. There are no doubt kids there who wouldn’t be ‘but for’ athletics. Who knows - maybe it has the opposite effect. With all those athletes getting in, the larger pool of non-athletes have virtually no chance. Someone who really knows W’s admissions process would have to validate this point one way or the other. But it is a difference between Williams and some of the other schools mentioned.

I don’t have the sense that the Pomona/Claremont, Carleton, Swat and other schools care that much, and I know Amherst doesn’t. Historically, Wesleyan has not either, but that is changing. Middlebury sure as hell does.

50

LOL @klingon97 's classic immediate and forceful defense of Penn. There is no hiding from this poster if you’re going to talk %$^#! about Penn or Wharton - or even if you’re showing less than the required degree of respect.

Guy, it’s coming off a little defensive.

The truth is, iBanks hire from a lot of places, and yes, Williams is one of them. They hire from BC, Lafayette and Lehigh … no doubt HYP and Wharton are very nicely represented on Wall Street, but there are plenty of ways to get there, and they’re not all that difficult. Majoring in math or physics helps, and if you’re at a selective school - even if not HYP or Wharton - you can get there.

51

So getting back to the topic. For my daughter we drew a line of where she realistically can get in. She’s is in the top 2% for SAT’s. We drew the line under Williams and Bowdoin, and over Hamilton, Smith, Vassar and Colby. Colby should have more kids apply than Williams, because twice as many kids should have a realistic shot of getting into Colby than getting into Williams. It being easier to apply does have a factor in her applying to say the last two schools on her list, but kids applying to these schools don’t mind a little extra work for their top choices. I’ve yet to see a school listed on the thread that I would not want my daughter to attend. Happy New Year.

52

MiddleburyDad2, your info on athletic recruiting is at least a decade outdated. Williams has severely cut back on concessions to athletes during the same time period as many of its peers have emphasized recruiting in high profile sports. It’s not by accident that Amherst in just the last five years won a soccer national title, a basketball national title, and posted back to back undefeated seasons in football. Similarly, Tufts has multiple national titles in both lacrosse and soccer during the same period of time. Wesleyan has been recruiting like crazy for football for around five years now. Williams is only really dominant anymore in sports like tennis, XC and swimming that require no or very limited academic concessions.

In all events, Williams had a massive volume of applicants in this year’s ED round, so this trend may well be changing. And in the end, so long as Williams is enrolling the strongest aggregate group of students (along with A, S, P) of any liberal arts school each year, it really doesn’t matter that it rejects fewer applicants who never had much of a shot anyway.

53

Williams appears as the first NESCAC LAC here (a standardized scoring analysis), followed by Amherst, Hamilton and Middlebury:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-50-smartest-colleges-in-america-2016-10

(Bowdoin’s absence may be a result of either their test optional policy or an oversight.)

54

Acceptance rate is one factor. Selectivity is another.

This fall, when helping my son put together his list of colleges to visit and apply to, both Williams and Colby were among the candidates. Looking at their similar acceptance rates, our original impression was that he may have similar chances for admission at both. Then we looked at the scattergrams in Naviance and observed that students matching my son’s stats were rarely admitted at Williams whereas they were often admitted at Colby. That led him to decide that Williams was a reach school for him whereas Colby was a match school. Since he had a couple reach schools picked out, he visited Colby (and would have applied had he not been accepted elsewhere EDI) but decided to take Williams off the list. I suspect that many students come to similar conclusions. Williams is more of a reach for most and no one would think of it as a safety, hence acceptance rates are similar to Colby even though it is much more selective.

Looking at the scattergrams, Williams is as selective if not more selective than Amherst or Swarthmore. Perhaps the difference in acceptance rate is due to marketing and location.

55

@Ephman wrote

I’m pretty sure Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams have the same number of “athletic concessions”:
http://www.gamedayconsultant.com/news-articles/nescac-division-iii-athletic-slots-bands

56

@Ephman “Williams has severely cut back on concessions to athletes during the same time period as many of its peers have emphasized recruiting in high profile sports. It’s not by accident that Amherst in just the last five years won a soccer national title, a basketball national title, and posted back to back undefeated seasons in football.”

I’m pretty sure that’s not accurate, at least vis a vis Amherst. My D was recruited by both Williams and Amherst, and the coaches’ pitch was exactly the same. Remember - by agreement amongst themselves, the Little Three all have the same number of athletic slots.

Williams is one of the great colleges, and Williams and Amherst are mirrors of each other in every way that matters. Williams might be a little stronger in Math, Amherst might be little stronger in English, whatever. That’s why the rivalry is so great: like Yale and Harvard, they know they are peers and respect each other accordingly.

IMO, the only reason Williams gets fewer applications than Amherst is because it is so much more isolated, and that turns off a few students. And a bit of the higher acceptance rate is also because Amherst has a slightly smaller entering class to fill. The same caliber of student is interested in both of them, for the same reasons. Period, end of story.

57

“MiddleburyDad2, your info on athletic recruiting is at least a decade outdated. Williams has severely cut back on concessions to athletes during the same time period as many of its peers have emphasized recruiting in high profile sports. … Williams is only really dominant anymore in sports like tennis, XC and swimming that require no or very limited academic concessions.”

@Ephman, that is simply not true. Just from the sports I know well, women’s soccer and crew, Williams is a NESCAC bully. Unitl Wesleyan caught Williams this fall at the head races with an unusually fast varsity eight, Williams absolutely owned the NESCAC in women’s crew, having been to and won the NCAAs multiple times. For women’s soccer, they won a national title in 2015, made another trip this year, have been a fixture in the NCAA tournament since 2001, and won seven outright NESCAC titles since 2004. And that, even though NESCAC is indisputably the toughest DIII conference in the country for women’s soccer. Williams picked off Audrey Thomas from Seattle, who was our Gatorade Player of the Year and a national recruit with multiple legit D1 offers. They didn’t do all that w/o recruiting.

No, it’s not just xc, tennis and swimming. That is an absurd exaggeration. That other NESCAC schools are doing a better job of competing does not mean, even by implication, that Williams is trying less hard.

Note, I was careful in my post to say that sports recruiting was just one angle or idea about why the higher acceptance rate. I’m pretty well informed about what Williams is and what it is not. I get it. It wasn’t meant as a knock on Williams by any stretch. But we do know that some schools, like Vassar for example, just don’t care that much about their sports teams competing at the tippy top level. You are sorely deluded if you think Williams is like Vassar in this regard. They are the opposite of Vassar.

I just went through women’s soccer recruiting with Williams over the course of the last three years, and baseball recruiting before that. I’ve been to this rodeo.

58

@ThankYouforHelp , you are one of the really good posters on this forum. Well said. Well said.