WaPo feature on bad economic outlook for colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article also mentioned Bucknell didn't meet their enrollment target.

That surprised me. It seems like a competitive school at least to me. Oberlin is surprising as well. It is a known school. I hate saying this, but I wonder if the social justice outrage of several years ago turned people off to certain schools. I think people are willing to bite the bullet for schools like Harvard and Yale, but not for Oberlin?

And yet Bucknell is not at all that kind of place. This is a yield miscalculation, nothing more.

No it’s d-bag school in the middle of nowhere that has hard time luring bros from the state school experience. Different vibe, same issue.

Wow, your kid was rejected from Bucknell? Sorry about that.

No one was rejected form Bucknell. That's the point. They couldn't even fill their freshman class.

You fail to understand statistics or yield. Learn to read a common data set and then get back to me.

And my comment was about it being a “d-bag school” which is only something an idiot would say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article also mentioned Bucknell didn't meet their enrollment target.

That surprised me. It seems like a competitive school at least to me. Oberlin is surprising as well. It is a known school. I hate saying this, but I wonder if the social justice outrage of several years ago turned people off to certain schools. I think people are willing to bite the bullet for schools like Harvard and Yale, but not for Oberlin?

And yet Bucknell is not at all that kind of place. This is a yield miscalculation, nothing more.

No it’s d-bag school in the middle of nowhere that has hard time luring bros from the state school experience. Different vibe, same issue.

Wow, your kid was rejected from Bucknell? Sorry about that.

No one was rejected form Bucknell. That's the point. They couldn't even fill their freshman class.

You fail to understand statistics or yield. Learn to read a common data set and then get back to me.

And my comment was about it being a “d-bag school” which is only something an idiot would say.

Yet the 2nd article says their students cross admit at state schools. When yield didn't come through, it was students who choose a cheaper state option. Bucknell is a good school, but it's remote, fratty, and drunken. Maybe, nothing wrong with that, but state schools can do it better for less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article also mentioned Bucknell didn't meet their enrollment target.

That surprised me. It seems like a competitive school at least to me. Oberlin is surprising as well. It is a known school. I hate saying this, but I wonder if the social justice outrage of several years ago turned people off to certain schools. I think people are willing to bite the bullet for schools like Harvard and Yale, but not for Oberlin?

And yet Bucknell is not at all that kind of place. This is a yield miscalculation, nothing more.

No it’s d-bag school in the middle of nowhere that has hard time luring bros from the state school experience. Different vibe, same issue.

Wow, your kid was rejected from Bucknell? Sorry about that.

No one was rejected form Bucknell. That's the point. They couldn't even fill their freshman class.

70% of applicants were rejected from Bucknell. They just miscalculated yield. You sound unbelievably dumb.

And what's the solution going to be next year? Lower standards. It wasn't a fluke there were problems all round: https://www.inquirer.com/education/college-enrollment-student-bucknell-muhlenberg-ursinus-dickinson-20190930.html

At Bucknell University last spring, prospective admissions were tracking similar to last year through most of April.

Then, a few days shy of the May 1 deadline for students to accept an admission offer and pay a deposit, "the spigot just turned off,” said Bucknell president John C. Bravman.

The university found itself short of its freshman enrollment target and turned to the prospective students it had put on a waiting list. Instead of admitting 35 students off that list, as it usually does, the selective liberal arts university in central Pennsylvania took about 100. And it still started the fall a dozen students below its target...

Bucknell suspects it lost students to cheaper public universities. Last year, four of the top six schools where Bucknell overlapped in enrollment offers were public.

Wow! I can see that. I have always thought of Bucknell as a good school not quite like Middlebury, but a solid Mid-Atlantic private university. Are there other schools like Bucknell that are having these issues? I am thinking Lehigh or Lafayette?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article also mentioned Bucknell didn't meet their enrollment target.

That surprised me. It seems like a competitive school at least to me. Oberlin is surprising as well. It is a known school. I hate saying this, but I wonder if the social justice outrage of several years ago turned people off to certain schools. I think people are willing to bite the bullet for schools like Harvard and Yale, but not for Oberlin?

And yet Bucknell is not at all that kind of place. This is a yield miscalculation, nothing more.

No it’s d-bag school in the middle of nowhere that has hard time luring bros from the state school experience. Different vibe, same issue.

Wow, your kid was rejected from Bucknell? Sorry about that.

No one was rejected form Bucknell. That's the point. They couldn't even fill their freshman class.

You fail to understand statistics or yield. Learn to read a common data set and then get back to me.

And my comment was about it being a “d-bag school” which is only something an idiot would say.

Yet the 2nd article says their students cross admit at state schools. When yield didn't come through, it was students who choose a cheaper state option. Bucknell is a good school, but it's remote, fratty, and drunken. Maybe, nothing wrong with that, but state schools can do it better for less.

I won't argue the valaue of state schools. The statement "No one was rejected form Bucknell" is stupid because their acceptance rate is below 30%, meaning that 70% were rejected. Simple facts and figures.

Yes, it has a strong greek system, and many people don't care for that (like me). But if you think there is less drinking at State U than Bucknell you are probably drinking yourself.

[Anonymous]

If you aren’t googling the student newspaper articles from the last few admissions cycles (they all write something about it) you’re missing important data. Should be part of anyone’s research.

[Anonymous]

Some of it is satire like hiring actors to play frisbee. I was surprised that there was a student saying Heather McDonald shouldn't speak because I always thought of it as slightly conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article also mentioned Bucknell didn't meet their enrollment target.

That surprised me. It seems like a competitive school at least to me. Oberlin is surprising as well. It is a known school. I hate saying this, but I wonder if the social justice outrage of several years ago turned people off to certain schools. I think people are willing to bite the bullet for schools like Harvard and Yale, but not for Oberlin?

And yet Bucknell is not at all that kind of place. This is a yield miscalculation, nothing more.

No it’s d-bag school in the middle of nowhere that has hard time luring bros from the state school experience. Different vibe, same issue.

Wow, your kid was rejected from Bucknell? Sorry about that.

No one was rejected form Bucknell. That's the point. They couldn't even fill their freshman class.

You fail to understand statistics or yield. Learn to read a common data set and then get back to me.

And my comment was about it being a “d-bag school” which is only something an idiot would say.

Yet the 2nd article says their students cross admit at state schools. When yield didn't come through, it was students who choose a cheaper state option. Bucknell is a good school, but it's remote, fratty, and drunken. Maybe, nothing wrong with that, but state schools can do it better for less.

I won't argue the value of state schools. The statement "No one was rejected form Bucknell" is stupid because their acceptance rate is below 30%, meaning that 70% were rejected. Simple facts and figures.

Yes, it has a strong greek system, and many people don't care for that (like me). But if you think there is less drinking at State U than Bucknell you are probably drinking yourself.

The statement that everyone was admitted is farce, but where are they going to get an additional 100+ interested students next year, without loosening standards? I'm certainly not saying, state school is a way to avoid drinking and greek life, just that it's a more direct path, if that is the goal. State school is Bucknell's competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that many universities are now run like corporations. Thus have marketing departments, high end financial portfolio managers, managers to run their country club like amenities for students and faculty, and just layers upon layers of useless managers and departments where staff make 6 figure salaries. You could prob get rid of half of the useless jobs on campus and the university would still function fine. The problem is that you have so much stupid emphasis on University rankings by dumb publications like USNWR that pump the whole system up, and it factors things like endowment sizes and amenities for students into the ranks of perceived desirability to go to such a school by prospective students. Everyone has their hand in the cookie jar in order to pay themselves large salaries while running educations like a Fortune 500 company. The whole system will implode when jobs and salaries no longer keep up to pay for all of the debt now required to support this massively over bloated system. Same thing happens often in healthcare.

+ 100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article also mentioned Bucknell didn't meet their enrollment target.

That surprised me. It seems like a competitive school at least to me. Oberlin is surprising as well. It is a known school. I hate saying this, but I wonder if the social justice outrage of several years ago turned people off to certain schools. I think people are willing to bite the bullet for schools like Harvard and Yale, but not for Oberlin?

And yet Bucknell is not at all that kind of place. This is a yield miscalculation, nothing more.

No it’s d-bag school in the middle of nowhere that has hard time luring bros from the state school experience. Different vibe, same issue.

Wow, your kid was rejected from Bucknell? Sorry about that.

No one was rejected form Bucknell. That's the point. They couldn't even fill their freshman class.

70% of applicants were rejected from Bucknell. They just miscalculated yield. You sound unbelievably dumb.

And what's the solution going to be next year? Lower standards. It wasn't a fluke there were problems all round: https://www.inquirer.com/education/college-enrollment-student-bucknell-muhlenberg-ursinus-dickinson-20190930.html

At Bucknell University last spring, prospective admissions were tracking similar to last year through most of April.

Then, a few days shy of the May 1 deadline for students to accept an admission offer and pay a deposit, "the spigot just turned off,” said Bucknell president John C. Bravman.

The university found itself short of its freshman enrollment target and turned to the prospective students it had put on a waiting list. Instead of admitting 35 students off that list, as it usually does, the selective liberal arts university in central Pennsylvania took about 100. And it still started the fall a dozen students below its target...

Bucknell suspects it lost students to cheaper public universities. Last year, four of the top six schools where Bucknell overlapped in enrollment offers were public.

Wow! I can see that. I have always thought of Bucknell as a good school not quite like Middlebury, but a solid Mid-Atlantic private university. Are there other schools like Bucknell that are having these issues? I am thinking Lehigh or Lafayette?

Bucknell was a popular solid option for a mid Atlantic LAC, not Middlebury or Bowdoin level but a step up from Franklin & Marshall and Dickinson. So the school as attracted mostly students from UMC families who could pay full freight.

But the UMC are now increasingly resistant to paying full freight for the obvious reasons, tuition has soared far beyond inflation for the last 25 years. It's really hitting the point where enough donut hole or even full freight families are saying no. The cohort of full freight who will find Bucknell worth the money is shrinking. And this is probably just the beginning of the wave. If they don't do something in the next few years, namely control tuition and even get it down, I see more schools struggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The statement that everyone was admitted is farce, but where are they going to get an additional 100+ interested students next year, without loosening standards? I'm certainly not saying, state school is a way to avoid drinking and greek life, just that it's a more direct path, if that is the goal. State school is Bucknell's competition.

State schools are (and should be) EVERY private college's competition, and always have been. Not sure what the revelation is.

Also, there are many ways other than "loosening standards" to increase yield. Merit aid, better marketing, increased international reach, increased demonstrated interest metrics, elimination of application fees (esp in ED), improvement and expansion of high-demand programs....

These are realities for all colleges as the number of college bound students is expected to decline. That was the point of the article, not "Bucknell Sucks".

[Anonymous]

Honestly what do these colleges expect? I am not paying $70k a year for a useless degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly what do these colleges expect? I am not paying $70k a year for a useless degree.

Wow, thanks for telling us what you will do, we've all been wondering in painful anticipation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement that everyone was admitted is farce, but where are they going to get an additional 100+ interested students next year, without loosening standards? I'm certainly not saying, state school is a way to avoid drinking and greek life, just that it's a more direct path, if that is the goal. State school is Bucknell's competition.

State schools are (and should be) EVERY private college's competition, and always have been. Not sure what the revelation is.

Also, there are many ways other than "loosening standards" to increase yield. Merit aid, better marketing, increased international reach, increased demonstrated interest metrics, elimination of application fees (esp in ED), improvement and expansion of high-demand programs....

These are realities for all colleges as the number of college bound students is expected to decline. That was the point of the article, not "Bucknell Sucks".

Some privates have more cross admits with other privates. Bucknell is unusual in that respect. They can increase yield in other ways, assuming they aren't already doing these things. The point isn't that Bucknell sucks, it's that these pressures aren't just hitting schools with alternative styles like Hampshire. It may be just as hard for a school like Bucknell to maintain their brand going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly what do these colleges expect? I am not paying $70k a year for a useless degree.

Wow, thanks for telling us what you will do, we've all been wondering in painful anticipation.

Poster makes a point. No amount of trying to educate a dunce would be worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement that everyone was admitted is farce, but where are they going to get an additional 100+ interested students next year, without loosening standards? I'm certainly not saying, state school is a way to avoid drinking and greek life, just that it's a more direct path, if that is the goal. State school is Bucknell's competition.

State schools are (and should be) EVERY private college's competition, and always have been. Not sure what the revelation is.

Also, there are many ways other than "loosening standards" to increase yield. Merit aid, better marketing, increased international reach, increased demonstrated interest metrics, elimination of application fees (esp in ED), improvement and expansion of high-demand programs....

These are realities for all colleges as the number of college bound students is expected to decline. That was the point of the article, not "Bucknell Sucks".

Some privates have more cross admits with other privates. Bucknell is unusual in that respect. They can increase yield in other ways, assuming they aren't already doing these things. The point isn't that Bucknell sucks, it's that these pressures aren't just hitting schools with alternative styles like Hampshire. It may be just as hard for a school like Bucknell to maintain their brand going forward.

+1 Colleges are really going to have to change their model to become more financially viable. They do offer discounts but at the same time expect parents to shell out $70 K.