<p>Not really. It’s a fairly recent phenomenom – early 20th century or so. By the 1920s, the top colleges were hiring professional athletes to come be students for a year or two before moving on to work for … er… I mean, “continue their studies” elsewhere. Sports at Division III schools were still largely walk-on endeavors as recently as the 1970s. The whole recruiting game is very recent for Division III schools – really just in the last 25 years. Heck, it was only 12 years ago that Williams changed a long standing ban and allowed its sports teams to compete in NCAA championships. Before that, it was considered too disruptive of academic and exam schedules and placed too much emphasis on recruiting national championship caliber athletes.</p>
<p>Can’t speak for any of them, but of the three, I don’t believe Middlebury has ever had a no-loan policy. And while it’s need blind for us students, that is not the case for international students. However, the loan policy is a graduated one based on family income.</p>
<p>As for J-term. S had a pretty rigorous class for Jterm that based on the amount of work he invested, was not considered a joke. However, it did allow him to delve far more deeply than he would have been able had he had a usual semester load. I find Jterm to be a great opportunity to enjoy “college” without the intense load of the semester. Sure beats him sitting around here for an extra two or so weeks that so many other kids did.</p>
<p>Is my school the only one where Wintersession classes are, well, actual classes, just taught over an intense, accelerated period (a la Colorado College and Cornell College)?</p>
<p>I visited Williams a couple months ago. The 35-year-old library they are tearing down is a red-brick eyesore in a VERY prominent location in the middle of campus. It’s not one of those concrete Brutalist things that mar many a campus, but it’s still horrible, and clashes with the stately buildings around it. In any other time, demolishing it would bring applause, but I agree with those who question the intelligence of doing so in this economic slump.</p>
<p>The athletic dept. is indeed pretty plush. The number of assistant coaches is amazing for a school that size. But football would seem to be untouchable from a social and alumni standpoint. Some of the Title IX women’s sports with tiny participation and tiny spectator attendance would seem to be more logical, if it’s legally possible.</p>
<p>Didn’t Dartmouth College try to change the campus culture a few years ago? How did that work out? Why do I sense that one poster’s ulterior motive could be a screenplay for a “Revenge of The Nerds” sequel? Probably because I keep recalling the Swarthmore party video.</p>
<p>I think Dartmouth met a lot of resistance trying to end the annual contest to see how many students could fit inside a Volkswagen Beetle and the wearing of saddle shoes. Change comes slowly in New Hampshire.</p>
<p>*I really thought Williams would cut need-blind for internationals first. Unlike no-loan, there are only two LACs touting need-blind for intls and Williams is spending a fortune on intl aid to enroll 143 students. *</p>
<p>Spending $6.4 million a year to educate 143 int’l students (not counting the ones in the other 3 years) is ridiculous! Especially when many int’ls from certain countries can rather easily hide income and assets. There can be little “checks and balances” when dealing with verification of claimed low incomes/assets or even number of people in one’s family. I can understand why many schools can’t/won’t give even “non fed aid” money to int’ls; it’s too hard to determine/verify their need…</p>
<p>But, as a private they can do what they want.</p>
<p>I am in favor of granting financial aid to deserving international students. I haven’t heard or read of any scandals involving fraudulent financial aid requests from abroad. Did I miss something?</p>
<p>Many boarding prep schools, colleges & universities recruit abroad. Petty, narrow-mindedness & provincialism is no way to run an institution of higher learning in an increasingly interdependent international world.</p>
<p>Williams College currently is ranked number 1 in the country for LACs by USNews why are so many trying to take it apart?</p>
<p>To the post below: The culture of Williams College has not shifted significantly in the last several decades. And the poster who wants to do away with football is affiliated in some capacity with Swarthmore College which did just that, but has a very different culture than Williams College.
P.S. You are way too sensitive.</p>
<p>“Basically I interpret your advice to Williams College as suggesting that now is the time for financial panic so let’s cancel the building plans and change the culture of the school so that it becomes another Swarthmore College. Well, just try to get that many effeminate male students to rural Massachusetts. It just won’t happen & it shouldn’t happen. And I do not mean to offend anyone regardless of sexual orientation.”</p>
<p>Well, you have offended someone. And you deserve to be taken to task for it.</p>
<p>Williams is a wonderful place–I know that firsthand–but the culture of the school has been shifted, by design from above, toward a place more exclusively for jock-scholars. This is a point much discussed by alumni and students alike. While the school has always been a preppy sort of place, with lots of LLBean clothes and such, only a couple of decades ago it was actually a little eccentric. Athletics and athletes, though strong, did not dominate social life. The culture of the school HAS been changed, and I believe the stagnation in admissions we are beginning to see reflects the growing awareness of this among prospective applicants. It is time to adjust the balance.</p>
<p>Williams is not without the foundation for this balance to occur: sorry, Gifford, but there are in fact gay students at this rural Massachusetts college, some effeminate and some not. There are artists and geeks and future politicians. But the school itself needs to let up a little on the inexorable quest for excellence in athletics and give the rest of the school a chance to thrive.</p>
<p>“Although I understand your argument, I am not sure that families with incomes up to $200,000 per year are receiving aid without having multiple children in private schools simultaneously in which case financial aid may be necessary & warranted.”</p>
<p>The idea that financial aid is “necessary” to any family with an annual income of $200,000 is complete, unadulterated garbage. Their children always have the option of attending state schools and if they are Williams material, can probably get substantial merit aid at those schools to boot.</p>
<p>Not true. Tell that to a family in NYC or Connecticutt or in Southern California with more than one child in college. The rudeness of your post speaks volumes. No need to over-react. I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are. At least one of us has the decency to respect the other’s opinion.</p>
<p>Yes, we do live in a global world, but do you know many countries where our zero EFC students can go study for four years with a foreigner picking up the tab? Should it not be the responsibilities of the foreign governments to help their meritorous and needy students to study here instead of focusing on a few “chosen” ones. Are those countries also known to exhibit “Petty, narrow-mindedness & provincialism and oblivious to an increasingly interdependent international world?”</p>
<p>Also, I do not think you understood my point very well. If “the hope is they may go back and do good in the third world in many cases” we should give them every opportunity do so, hence being able to pay off their loans by volunteering at one of the many NGOs or accepting to use their acquired skills as teachers or social workers. On the other hand, is they decide to NOT return to their country they can do what all the American students with loans have to do … and that is repay the generosity of people who LOANED them the money. </p>
<p>Nobody advocates to bring an end to seek diversity, but with the incredible challenges faced by our own students who are not full pay, policies of offering need-blind and no-loans packages to international does not make any sense and is borderline perverse and cynical. Simply stated, there should be nothing wrong for Williams to convert every one of their foreign packages into a Tyng scholarship reserved to US citizens only. Every one of them.</p>
<p>Yes, there are several but the only example that I have on the tip of my fingers is the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Additionally there are many universities that charge fees less than a typical community college. These came up a year or two ago in threads discussing study abroad programs. Some of the U.S. based study abroad programs utilize these essentially tuition free universities to charge American students hefty fees to get credit at their U.S. based university. I can’t recall whether or not some Scandinavian Universities were free or not, but this topic also came up on CC some time ago.</p>
<p>Anyway, your quote above is not from me, but from another poster.</p>
<p>Gifford, how much do you think it would cost one of your children to attend UBA for one year? In theory, the UC system does not charge tuition, but I do not think that you will find many Californians to think attending Cal or UCLA is free.</p>
<p>Do you know any foreign government who will pay for four years of COMPREHENSIVE costs comparable to our COA? </p>
<p>I also hope you realize that the UBA model is one of “providing minimal services to the students, by paying full-time faculty salaries that are inadequate, and exploiting large numbers of part-time teachers who are happy to have a UBA affiliation. Money is saved by not investing in libraries, laboratories, or information technology. At UBA, “distance education” means that students and staff travel long distances to sit in crowded lecture halls.”</p>
<p>Xiggi: I don’t expect any country to pay comprehensive costs to attend a university in their country. Do any such programs exist? Sure, just ask any Rhodes scholar. As I wrote above, your quote was not mine, but as a citizen of the wealthiest country in the world with the wealthiest colleges & universities in the world, I am not going to be so short-sighted or narrow-minded as to deny a well qualified, deserving international student the opportunity to study here. However, it is not my decision. It is up to the Board of Directors of each private university how they spend their money. For public universities, it should be up to the taxpayers of that state or other jurisdiction.</p>
<p>That’s for the entire school. 134 of them receive financial aid with an average Williams grant of $45,000. Their own admissions director said last year that it would be easy to reduce the percentage receiving aid, simply by focusing international recruitment towards countries with full-pay students – I believe South Korea would be an example of one of these countries.</p>
<p>Nice effort to skirt the question in its context! But try again!</p>
<p>Do you know many countries where our zero EFC students can go study for four years with a foreigner picking up the tab and that this tab includes four years of COMPREHENSIVE costs comparable to our COA?</p>
<p>By the way, we can end this ping pong game as both of us know the answer to the question. Foreign countries have a different model on education than ours. The issue here is about how a private school such as Williams decides to reallocate its resources in light of a financial reduction in their budgets. Obviously some people are opining that it is important to maintain the message sent to Bhutan or Norway. I disagree and more than ever considering the cuts made elsewhere.</p>
<p>And, fwiw, I am not “deny[ing] a well qualified, deserving international student the opportunity to study here.” I am only expecting him or her to shoulder the same responsibilities than full-pay students in the United States, and having to assume the responsibility of repaying the cost of his education in case he does not return home, and if does to have to repay in some fashion by doing good in his own country. Is that really provincial and narrow-minded? </p>
<p>In addition, we could even include a path to residency for students (and dropping the cynical illusion that we offer grants to students who we want to return home) by expecting them to participate in public service in the United States after graduation. Want to come to Williams for free for four years. Sure, all you need is to stay five years as a teacher in Detroit or Toledo. Don’t we need well educated young people with a passion to help our young?</p>