Williams = White Jock School??

Colleges and Universities A-Z Williams College
61

<p>"Looking back at my experience, I can say without question that this affected the quality of discourse in the classroom."</p>

<p>howso?"</p>

<p>My favorite example (there were many) was a Poli. Sci. class with a well-known professor where we discussed "The Autobiography of Malcolm X". There was one African-American student (of high income background) who was expected to speak for all AAs. There were no low-income students (I was the only one who was borderline), there were no students who had ever spent any significant time in a ghetto (most had never even seen one, even to drive through); no students had gone to an inner-city high school. I was the only one who had ever met a Black Muslim. No students could name a relative who had ever been in prison.</p>

<p>The prof's own experience was similarly limited. All the students were very well-spoken, but the quality of discourse was stilted, to say the least. Many were well-meaning, and some hoped to make careers in public service, which was (and is) a scary thought, given the lack of experience with those they hoped to be serving. And it was sad that their college experience didn't help. This is not a put-down of the faculty (excellent!) or the student body (intelligent and well prepared), but of admissions policies over which students have no control, and faculty precious little input.</p>

<p>The lowering of loan expectations is WONDERFUL - for middle income students. It has no impact whatsoever on students who need to send money home from work, or who must use summer work to supplement their family's incomes. Note the differences in new policies at Princeton and at Brown. Princeton eliminated loan expectations entirely, and it had no impact on the percentage of low-income students. Brown, in contrast, where the President is the daughter of a sharecroppers, did something quite different: they eliminated work expectations for first-year students, and summer earnings expectations for low-income ones.</p>

<p>The proof is in the numbers. The percentage of students attending Williams who are Pell Grant recipients has not changed in years (and is 40% lower than Amherst's, just to use an example.)</p>

62

<p>I agree with Mini. Not having poor black students with relatives in prision definately affectes discussion of topics such as Malclom X. Students just can't relate at Williams. But this is just the tip of the iceburg. Williams does not actively recruit British Royalty and British pesants. Williams students are unable to fully comprehend Shakespeare because of this. Williams has also failed miserably to recruit Confederate soldiers. Williams students have little understanding of the depth and meaning of the Civil War because they do not have Confederate soldiers mixed in their classes. Most Williams students doubt there really was a Civil War given that they have never seen or spoken with a real Rebel.</p>

63

<p>LOL. That was a funny post.</p>

64

<p>LOL, TOL! (That was all I wanted to say but the CC filter needs 10 characters. Heck, there are 100's here.)</p>

65

<p>haha, nice call thinking out loud, but each sides got valid points, im sure the real situation lies somewhere in the middle of the road</p>

66

<p>hmm, funny post, "Thinkingoutloud." I wouldn't describe my situation as "middle class" and I consider the additional aid that's given a great boon to my family's financial situation. </p>

<p>I'm from a town that borders a "ghetto." I've taught at a reform school. I have seen the worst of the worst and the best of the worst. I would describe my HS as one that just sees too many bright students end up on the wrong side of the tracks. The student body has changed since you have graduated. Could it change even more? Yes, and the college is making an active effort at recruiting more students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds.</p>

67

<br>


<br>

<p>That number is probably comparable to a lot of other similar sized LACs ... which interestingly tend to have many more varsity sports then big sports universities like SEC or Big-10 schools ... my guess while the big schools are looking (at least somewhat) for TV exposure and tournament/bowl money the little schools are more focused on a developing many facets of their students. I think what separates Williams from the other LACs is that it focuses on recruiting for these sports more than most other LACs.</p>

68

<br>


<br>

<p>howso?</p>

<p>I had a similar experience at Cornell in the late 70s/early 80s ... discussions in class or in dorms are richer if the students bring a wider variety of viewpoints to the table. I remember one midnight dorm discussion on welfare and one kid was saying that all people needed to do was go out and get a job and if they worked hard they could work up the ladder ... this kid went to expensive prep school and had worked at brokerage house during the summer after his dad arranged an interview with one of his golfing buddies ... and he just did not understand it's a tad more difficult for a kid from a broken home and going to a cappy inner city school to get that first big break. Having viewpoints from all angles makes for a much better experience ... and is one of the reasons Mini's entitlement index (trying to look at the economic diversity of a school) is one of my main take aways from CC.</p>

69

<p>Williams has made concerted effort to recruit and admit kids from low income families. It’s difficult for all LACs to do this, but especially for a school that is in a rural environment. There are so few kids that can handle the academic requirements and this limited pool gets tapped by all the top colleges. If given the choice of HYP or some little college in the middle of no where that they’ve never heard of they would most likely not opt for Williams. Same goes for minorities. Never the less, Williams has made immense progress in both areas. The student body is definitely not sheltered or elitist. </p>

<p>For their ED class of 2009, Total admits 210:</p>

<p>“One of the achievements of the admission office this year is the acceptance of 26 students from what it classifies as socio-economic group one. Students from within this group are the first in their families to attend college and have family incomes below $35,000 per year. In the past five years, the number of students accepted early from group one has fluctuated at just above a dozen. </p>

<p>“In large measure, this reflects our partnership with Questbridge, an organization that helps to identify high ability, low income students and match them with highly selective colleges and universities,” Nesbitt said. “We’re very pleased with the high academic quality of this group because Questbridge offers a very intense screening process through which it selects qualified students who come from less advantaged households, and this is for students across all races.” </p>

<p>Out of these 26 students, 21 were admitted through Questbridge. For student applicants, one of the benefits of Questbridge is a higher chance of receiving financial aid. For those students who have been admitted to Williams, 13 will receive full scholarships and eight will receive generous financial aid packages, calculated according to the College’s standard need-based financial aid formula.</p>

<p>American students of colors make up 19 percent of the early decision group. 12 African-Americans, 16 Asian-Americans, 11 Latinos and two Native Americans are included in that percentage. </p>

<p>While the figures for admitted students of color are consistent with those in previous years, the number of international students admitted early is remarkably higher than in the past. For the last four years the number of international students admitted early remained between four and six; this year the count reached a total of 14. The admission office accepted applicants from Canada, China, Columbia, Ghana, India, Korea, Mexico, Nepal, Norway and Thailand.”</p>

70

<p>It's kind of interesting that athletics at Williams are such a big topic of discussion and, in particular, critique, when Amherst seems largely immune from such commentary. Actually, the problem athletes are a bigger problem at Amherst. Why? In recent years, Williams has definitely cut back on how far into the applicant population it will dip to take athletes; Amherst has not. I have it on very good authority that guys who can't get into Williams for basketball or football have been admitted to Amherst in recent years, some with SAT's well below the 1200 level. Also, the "average" Williams student is more interested in fitness / outdoors activity / athletics than the average non-jock at Amherst, so there is a bigger chasm on campus. Finally, Amherst has essentially the same number of varsity sports / varsity athletes as Williams, but the school is 25 percent smaller. Thus, recruited varsity athletes, and TIPS in general, form a more substantial percentage of athletes at Amherst than Williams. In recent years, in the high profile, "helmet" sports that require the greatest admissions concessions, Amherst has held its own against Williams, or has even exceeded Williams' level of success in the past year -- those being Basketball, Football, Hockey, and Lacrosse. </p>

<p>So, while folks like Mini continually like to trash Williams as a school full of drunken jocks, the school has been very diligently addressing these issues, both by serious introspection about alcohol on campus, and tightening the screws on athlete admissions over the last five years (less tips, and less low band tips in particular). As an example, look at the highest profile sport at Williams -- Men's Basketball. The two top recruits this year both had 1400 plus SAT's. I guarantee you can't say the same for Amherst, let alone Williams' other primary athletic rivals (Middlebury, Wesleyan, and Trinity). Meanwhile, the percentage of internationals, minority students, and in particular this year, very low income students, has steadily increased. Finally, with the amazing new science, theater, and studio art facilities on campus, Williams is sure to continue to attract more and more students for whom those areas are paramount. </p>

<p>In short, the stereotype of Williams as a drinking, jock school is just flat out false. Sure, perhaps ten percent of the campus are hard-core jocks, and maybe a similar percentage are hard-core partiers, but just as many are hard-core artists / theater / writing / cultural studies types, or hard core outdoorsy / crunchy environmentalists. I really feel that Williams students tend to be amazingly well-rounded, and that is the school's greatest strength. For awhile, athletics was becoming too prominent on campus, but that has really changed. The sports at which Williams continues to dominate, like cross country, swimming, and tennis, aren't exactly magnets for dumb jocks. In fact, many of the best students on campus play these sports. And Williams has really returned to the NESCAC pack in the sports where real concessions need to be made if you want to compete, let alone dominate. </p>

<p>In terms of national science fellowships, Rhodes and Marshall Scholars, and prestigious math and physics fellowships, Williams has dominated all of its liberal arts peers in recent years, including Mini's beloved Swarthmore. Just shows you don't have to adopt a self-consciouslessly intellctual (aka, haughty and pretentious) image to produce outstanding scholarship on the part of the undergrads. </p>

<p>This is not to say that someone who absolutely hates athletes and athletics will be comfortable at Williams. But they'd be no more comfortable at pretty much any comparable NESCAC school, that I can guarantee. Recruited low-band athletes are of lower caliber, and form a higher percentage of the student body, at Amherst, Trinity, Bowdoin, and several other liberal arts schools. So please don't expose Williams to special scrutiny in this regard.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
It's kind of interesting that athletics at Williams are such a big topic of discussion and, in particular, critique, when Amherst seems largely immune from such commentary. ...</p>

<p>So, while folks like Mini continually like to trash Williams as a school full of drunken jocks, the school has been very diligently addressing these issues, both by serious introspection about alcohol on campus, and tightening the screws on athlete admissions over the last five years (less tips, and less low band tips in particular).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Mini and I are not Amherst alumni and, therefore, don't have as much interest in Amherst as we do in Williams. To be perfectly honest, I have virtually no interest in Amherst. Mini may have slightly more since his daugther goes to college at a neighboring school in the 5-college consortium.</p>

<p>I would also point out that the impetus for reflection on the potentially excessive role of athletics at Williams resulted from expressed alumni concern from people like Mini. President Shapiro has said that concern about an over-emphasis on athletics is the most frequent question he receives at alumni gatherings. It became such a visible issue that the Williams Alumni group scheduled a panel discussion on the role of athletics at a large alumni conference in Williamstown a couple of years ago.</p>

72

<p>To be fair to Morty, I NEVER expressed ANY concern to him about athletics. I live 3,000 miles away, don't follow college sports - Williams or otherwise. I have no great love for Swarthmore one way or the other (are you mistaking me for Interesteddad?) Nor did I follow any stereotypes - I'm too far away to have seen any; folks from schools in my area don't apply, and as far as I know, I am the only alum in my town. I have been to exactly one alumni gathering in 30 years (which was on Russian art in the 1920s.). In fact, on the contrary, my d. first met David Kechley when she was 13, and we know his brother (who is a Seattle musician), and my old classmate Huntley Beyer, who is a local composer. We had it "stereotyped" as the best small college for a budding composer. And then we saw what we saw, and others might see differently. My d. was one of three students I know who last year turned down Williams for similar reasons. I'm sure Williams had no problem filling the spots with students equally qualified. I did write a letter to Morty AFTER my d. turned them down (last April), and received a very warm, very thoughtful response, expressing the College's own concern.</p>

<p>But both athletics and alcohol have become very visible issues. I didn't make them visible issues. Morty and the board of trustees (and, from what I remember, I didn't vote for 'em) have run both up the totem poll. These are very busy, high-powered people; they don't spend a lot of time blowing smoke, and they don't act on hearsay without data in front of them. In the case of both athletics and alcohol, they had plenty.</p>

<p>If you have issues with Morty and the trustees, I'm sure you'll take it up with them.</p>

73

<p>I think Ephman has provided an accurate picture of Williams vis-a-vis sports, ca. 2005 :)</p>

<p>And Morty is a huge sports fan, and a real booster of the scholar-athlete concept at Williams.</p>

74

<p>who cares if a school is athletic? It's a good thing!!! Why so much fuss? I wouldn't want to go to a school where everyone can do nothing but study. I'd rather have a variety of friends, including those who can play football, basketball, tennis, etc. and have slightly less SAT/GPA. Many people who complain probably aren't interested in sports, but sports is good for your body which would correlate to your endurance in studying. Also, you won't get fat.</p>