<p>Huh? How did this become a debate over whether Williams and Dartmouth handle apps the same way and whether someones kid was more special?</p>
<p>My statement was to simply say what an inane comment it was by the Williams dir of admissions to imply they lost the least competitive applicants this year.</p>
<p>I agree with hmom5 regarding the admissions directors comment. It came across as snobby, though he probably did not mean it to sound that way. To say that the only ones who didn't apply were the "bottom" is insulting and a stretch. He has no idea who decided not to apply to his school. It could have been those who applied to schools of the same caliber (or better in their estimation) but decided to limit the number of applications and Williams was cut. Not every great student has Williams at the top of their list. It is also entirely possible and probable that those for whom williams is a reach may not have applied. So, these kids won't be great college students? That is also not true. No one knows why Williams had less applications. To assume the bottom of the barrel of applicants dropped out - to even refer publicly to former applicants to the school so derisively - tells me quite a bit about Williams. And, it's not good.</p>
<p>wihs:</p>
<p>I think that you have made a fair response to the comment of the admissions Dean at Williams, especially since it is well known that he takes a spatula to scrape the bottom of the academic barrel every year to stock the ice hockey team. He has been known to say some pretty disingenuous stuff over the years.</p>
<p>I think his larger point is reasonable: that beyond a certain point, additional applications probably undermine the process and hinder optimal matching of students and colleges. He could have phrased it better, I think!</p>
<p>Come now, interesteddad, must you always to condescend to schools like Williams and Amherst, where recruited athletes do come from "the bottom of the academic barrel," as you so eloquently put it?</p>
<p>Remember that these recruits are human beings, and many of them are especially aware of their own intellectual shortcomings (true or not) relative to the rest of the student body. Most of them struggle very bitterly to balance their athletic success with their academic aspirations: they deserve our compassion, not our scorn.</p>
<p>Would anyone like to offer speculation as to why Amherst's RD pool dropped only 1 percent compared to Williams' noticeably steep decline? Alphabetic supremacy in the USNWR rankings, perhaps?</p>
<p>Lastly, "Ivy League" is a pretentious label and those who wear it proudly merit our pity.</p>
<p>It was my impression that he was suggesting where applications fell off were from those who probably wouldn't have attended Williams anyway. It was said in context of kids applying to 10-13 schools and so those who had Williams lower down on THEIR lists probably didn't apply. Perhaps it was quoted out of context or I am giving the guy too much credit, but I read the entire article and it didn't come off as overtly snobby to me.</p>
<p>However, if you want to pick a fight. Just try and convince me that my son, just because he is an athlete isn't as smart or academically talented as some other brainiac in the regular pool. Until you've physically and mentally exhausted yourself for well over 20 hours a week and still gotten A's in honor's and AP classes, it's not a fair comparison. This is the first quarter my son hasn't played a sport and he was so bored in just getting his work done and all A's that he picked up the guitar and is apparently months ahead according to his instructor. So maybe SOME athletes are not the brightest bulbs on the tree, but that certainly doesn't apply to all.</p>
<p>lastly, I agree with KWU.. why only the 1% decrease at Amherst when so much of those two schools intersect? Because you certainly can't point to an additional essay there as Amherst had one that was, in my opinion, a lot more specific (vs open-ended).</p>
<p>
[quote]
What a PR spin! I think the Williams pool is highly likely to be self selected for income as opposed to capability. From what I see it still tends to be popular with the prep school and elite public high school set. The rest of the world never heard of it!
[/quote]
hmom^^^</p>
<p>Pomona is more selective (16.2% accept rate ) than either Amherst & Williams (18%) or Swarthmore (17%) and no one has heard of them outside of CC and elite private preps. Even in Cali, everyone thinks you mean Cal Poly Pomona. I was asked by a friend from Ventura County why my son wanted to go to school in Pomona. I wonder what has happened to their app rate this year. Unreported so far, I suppose.</p>
<p>No wealthy slackers here, hmom:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Huh? How did this become a debate over whether Williams and Dartmouth handle apps the same way and whether someones kid was more special?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It isn't. What I found contradicting was to suggest that Williams was down in apps simply because people had decided they didn't want to pay the tuition. At one point, Dartmouth was claiming a double digit increase in applications. This fell considerably because their double digits were counting pre-applications and not completed applications that would include fees. I think the biggest advantage to those schools seeing big increases is their no-loan policies in financial aid and nothing more. But they will not be able to sustain those programs forever (if even for four years) unless the economy turns around. </p>
<p>Truth is, I never got the comparison between williams and dartmouth, although plenty fo people make it. Frankly, I see them as nothing alike.</p>
<p>I have my doubts that there will be an upswing in applications to Flagship State U's given the economy. Most kids at S1 and S2's HS who ultimately attend a top U or LAC also applied to the State U as a safety. What may change is the yield. More students may accept that admission offer than typical causing some real overcrowding problems.</p>
<p>As for name recognition, outside the east coast and transplants from there, typical folks know just about nothing about most Ivy League schools or just about any LAC. Over the years, I have talked to kids who have been accepted at Brown and Dartmouth who never heard of either before they applied, but did so at the suggestion of a GC, or because a friend was applying. Friend's D wanted to go to Western Washington, even though she was accepted at Dartmouth, Pamona, Scripps, Rice, UPenn, UW, etc. until dad intervened to say he wouldn't pay for WWU. She said she just knew more about WWU and liked what she heard. After visiting them all, she chose Rice because of the students and faculty she met when visiting. Many of these apps are coming from kids who have little vested interest in going to the school, and will just say no if the $$ aren't there, so I doubt applications will drop that much.</p>
<p>The question is: Will admission stats decline this year at Liberal Arts Colleges?</p>
<p>I guess after four pages, one might ask.. which stats? We already know applications are off and according to a number of selective schools (Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin and I think Midd) they are already planning on increasing class size (where someone said they would probably pull from weight lists so as to guarantee revenue). And because of this little loop hole, you can probably keep to the same selectivity as in previous years unless your numbers are WAY off and at a school like Williams, I wonder if they will take total applications (which would include their high ED numbers) and calculate admit rate there.</p>
<p>A few points:</p>
<p>-There is no doubt in my mind that the healthy admissions numbers at Dartmouth and other ivies is due to the generous need based aid to the middle class and to internationals.</p>
<p>-I do believe that even the non HYP ivies are known more than ever because of the internet, sites like this one, well publicized new financial aid initiatives, outreach to international and low income kids,etc. I don't think this "publicity" extends to the equally good LACs.</p>
<p>-When I say I believe the Williams/Amherst/Swathmore type schools are popular with the prep school crowd, I do not mean this to imply these kids are slackers in any way! I think it is just fact that these schools are best known to kids with highly educated "in the know" parents who highly value what these schools offer and are not concerned with obtaining a big name, the same parents who often chose elite prep schools for their kids. Having parents that were not college educated, I never heard of these schools until later in life when I met their grads on Wall Street. I'd never heard of Andover or Exeter where a lot of these kids went either. In fact, I think for many an affluent background and observing the success of grads lets them see past the big names. AWS were as popular as any ivy at my kids' different elite high schools.</p>
<p>-I do believe in some populations parents will stretch to pay for an ivy plus SM and not other colleges.</p>
<p>-I have no idea where AWS fall in terms of financial aid packages, but I do think applications being down at many LACs totally correlates with the economy.</p>
<p>I don't think this year will be the year to judge. If the
economic situation persists both colleges and families
will make adjustments and it will probably take 4 or 5
years to see a long term trend. It will be interesting to
see how much LACs raise prices this year. Because of
the yearly raise in Stafford Loan limits they are locked into
at least $1,000. How much more after that will be interesting
We may see in the next few years some real differentiation
in LAC price. Some midwestern LACs may still be in the 40's
while top schools on both coasts could be into the 60's very
soon. (When you're priced over 50, a 6% raise is around
3 grand)</p>
<p>Modadunn said:</p>
<br>
<p>I wonder if they will take total applications (which would include their high ED numbers) and calculate admit rate there.<</p>
<br>
<p>I always assume the admit rate is a combination of the two, unless the source specifies otherwise. I can certainly understand why analyzing them separately sometimes makes sense; but, for the sake of making simple comparisons, I don't see the harm in combining all applicants (ED and RD) into one denominator. </p>
<p>It's complicated enough with Middlebury's February matriculants -- I mean, do you count them or not (just when do they decide they are Febbies, anyway -- at the outset of the process, the middle, or after they've been accepted? )</p>
<p>
[quote]
-I have no idea where AWS fall in terms of financial aid packages, but I do think applications being down at many LACs totally correlates with the economy.
[/quote]
^^^hmom</p>
<p>They are very generous. If you scroll down the link I posted you on Pomona, you'll see what their financial aid looks like. I'm pretty sure AWS is comparable. All of the top LACs including Davidson, Bowdoin, Bates, Colby, etc. have a no loan policy. They fill all need with grants. This is a recent trend, and it may be the word isn't out yet to all of those who have never heard of these schools in the first place , and assume they can't afford them, if they have. I hope it's a trend that survives this economy.</p>
<p>I agree Speedo in that for us personally, the current economy did nothing that changed where our son applied. I will say, however, that while we do not qualify for any financial aid based on last year (which is how aid is calculated for 2009-10 year), I have looked at the current financial aid policies at all of his schools and will absolutely look closer at the one(s) that seems to currently be the most generous to their current students. Even if those schools change their policies, they will be in a better position than perhaps others if, for some truly downward spiral of our assets, we were to need it or qualify for it. Also, for S's senior year in college, we will also have a freshman somewhere. I would be beyond naive to not worry about any sort of financial fall when so so many families are being decimated with lost jobs that pretty much will eventually affect every single business in the country. </p>
<p>HMom.. we see eye to eye on all of your points. Absolutely. And I think you are right in that I am probably more willing to spend 50K on a well known and reputed school than I would be willing to spend 50K elsewhere this year. But does that really explain Williams to the degree its applications have decreased? Middlebury as well? Son applied to Amherst, Middlebury, Colgate as well as Johns Hopkins and Georgetown. If I were to be really honest, I would admit that I am looking very very closely at all of these schools' need for and/or postponed capital improvements because who knows when those will get back on the agenda. So when I look at Gtown and know it to be a great school, I also have to recognize that it has put off quite a few capital improvements in the past which only makes their current need that much larger than perhaps Middlebury or Colgate. Add to that that their improvements are noted for coming way in over what they budget (which will only tend to keep them on the backburner longer - which is also why my kitchen sits with a need to be updated in a big way as well. :-) and you're correct in that I think, "where will my son get the most bang for the money invested - both in academics and reputation. </p>
<p>And had he gotten into Dartmouth it would have been a slamdunk, yes. The decisions now will be far more muddled. Without a doubt we look at our children's education as an investment into their future human capital. And I admit that we are definitely banking on being able to traverse the downturn in the economy while holding true to our original hopes and plans for our kids.</p>
<p>By the way Moda, I also have a special kid at Amherst, I'm just not allowed to write about her:) They look to be in fairly good shape to ride this out.</p>
<p>To be forthright.. I would probably not be allowed to write about Son, but he just doesn't know that I do!!</p>
<p>Amherst is actually experiencing some significant financial stress, more than the other big endowment LACs. Despite the huge endowment, they have a triple whammy of cash flow liquidity issues.</p>
<p>$80 million stuck in the closed Common Fund at the end of the year.</p>
<p>$160 million or so of Variable Rate Demand Bond debt. The rates spiked on these during the credit freeze, but more problematic, Colleges have to have cash reserves (or lines of credit) to buy back any of these bonds in their entirety with one or seven days notice. Cash flow constraint.</p>
<p>$503 million in outstanding cash call commitments to private equity funds, hedge funds, and other investment vehicles. This is an astonishing number on an endowment that is now worth $1.2 billion tops. Less than 40% of Amherst's endowment is invested in publicly traded liquid stocks, bonds, etc.</p>
<p>The obvious liquidity problem was quietly confirmed in last week when Amherst mentioned that they are likely to start issuing taxable bond debt (as opposed to tax-free bonds for capital construction) to cover some cash requirements.</p>
<p>Does anyone (interesteddad?) know how Grinnell stands in comparison with other deep-pocketed LACs? I know they've posted on their website, but idad seems to have access to more detailed info.</p>
<p>Wow interesteddad, half a billion in cash calls? I had no idea. How on earth is that possible? I'm sure many of those "calls" will never come because many don't have the cash and many of the funds know they'll fold if they try, but still!</p>
<p>Exactly HMom! Read this thread..</p>
<p>And while I admit to understand little of this stuff, InterestedDad has not got me learning about Bond Ratings!!!! </p>
<p>The thing is, there is so much to understand that I've quit doing it for every school on S's list and will wait to see where his schools are come the beginning of April. I think what will also be interesting is to see where their tuition increases fall.</p>