Why don't more kids want Wesleyan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed that Wes' campus could be cuter but, as a top-10 R1 professor, I'll say that its faculty is far and away superior to nearly all but the best SLACs. That's where they put their money and effort...not a bad decision IMHO.

Evidenced by what? What are the tangible differences in faculty at Wesleyan versus Barnard or Middlebury?

+1, even better- what are the differences between faculty at Pomona or Amherst and Wesleyan? They all share from the same pool of top faculty who aren’t lightning rod R1 hires

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think its peer schools having much nicer campuses has an effect. Vassar is probably its closest peer and while Poughkeepsie is no great shakes either, that campus is gorgeous. Amherst is picturesque and in a lovely area, etc.

Amherst is not a great example, and picturesque...really? It has some ugly buildings spread throughout campus, and I'd look at Smith for a central mass beautiful campus.

Wesleyan does suffer in that it has a very wonky campus layout- they really should move the baseball field and develop a nice quad there. They should find a way to tie together the buildings on top of the hill, and the ones below the hill, because the current design just feels like walking across various buildings from different campuses. Wesleyan actually has a few spectacular buildings and the occasional oddball that would be interesting on any other campus (their arts buildings for example, some may find them ugly, but they are pretty interesting and the theater is quite beautiful). Wesleyan isn't designed like most colleges, and that takes points off, because we don't expect to just have buildings sporadically thrown about.

Agree, I felt this, didn't seem like a cohesive campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Campus, location and town left a lot to be desired. It was depressing, similar to Bucknell tbh.

speaking from firsthand experience with both schools… Bucknell nicer town, nicer kids, and better outcomes. Wesleyan kids are like the town - gloomy and depressing

Only problem is that Wesleyan is an infinitely better school...unless you want to be a soulless frat-bro banker.

not true - Wesleyan has em too - lax bros and athletes mostly skate through a soft econ major. My kid was a TA and visiting professor was shocked by the class distribution - genius kids from China who had insane work ethic but barely spoke the language on the high end, and dopey jocks who struggled through with minimal effort at the bottom end. Sorry for the tropes. The jocks at Wes are woefully unprepared for real life, and if parents can’t secure a wall street internship they underperform. Bucknell business school kids are on point from frosh year - say what you want about Bucknell, but the outcomes are terrific for a small Pa LAC

[Anonymous]

As a student I liked the lack of cohesion. It was all over the place - the old buildings of college row and Olin library, the brutalist architecture of the CFA, and the utilitarian design of the science center.

The hodgepodge seemed to reflect the fact that you didn’t need to fit a mold & Wes was happy to entertain all sorts of people.

Also, I knew several conservative kids and a lot of totally apolitical kids when I was there. It was not a liberal monolith. At all. My political science profs just talked about facts and history - we read a bunch of Supreme Court decisions and I remember learning a lot about gerrymandering and PACs, but it’s was facts with analysis - there wasn’t a clear “right answer”. In fact I remember one old poli sci prof was rumored to lean more conservative, but if you set up your argument and defended your position skillfully then you got an A regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think its peer schools having much nicer campuses has an effect. Vassar is probably its closest peer and while Poughkeepsie is no great shakes either, that campus is gorgeous. Amherst is picturesque and in a lovely area, etc.

Amherst is not a great example, and picturesque...really? It has some ugly buildings spread throughout campus, and I'd look at Smith for a central mass beautiful campus.

Wesleyan does suffer in that it has a very wonky campus layout- they really should move the baseball field and develop a nice quad there. They should find a way to tie together the buildings on top of the hill, and the ones below the hill, because the current design just feels like walking across various buildings from different campuses. Wesleyan actually has a few spectacular buildings and the occasional oddball that would be interesting on any other campus (their arts buildings for example, some may find them ugly, but they are pretty interesting and the theater is quite beautiful). Wesleyan isn't designed like most colleges, and that takes points off, because we don't expect to just have buildings sporadically thrown about.

Agree, I felt this, didn't seem like a cohesive campus.

That's a good description of it. It just seemed not great to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Campus, location and town left a lot to be desired. It was depressing, similar to Bucknell tbh.

speaking from firsthand experience with both schools… Bucknell nicer town, nicer kids, and better outcomes. Wesleyan kids are like the town - gloomy and depressing

Only problem is that Wesleyan is an infinitely better school...unless you want to be a soulless frat-bro banker.

Definitely better for frat-bro banking as well even though it has no frats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed that Wes' campus could be cuter but, as a top-10 R1 professor, I'll say that its faculty is far and away superior to nearly all but the best SLACs. That's where they put their money and effort...not a bad decision IMHO.

no not a bad decision at all. i imagine Wes also has an advantage being in the middle of Connecticut vs someplace rural like Midd or Williams.

But this thread is about why don't more kids want Wes. that's why you're hearing the negatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Campus, location and town left a lot to be desired. It was depressing, similar to Bucknell tbh.

speaking from firsthand experience with both schools… Bucknell nicer town, nicer kids, and better outcomes. Wesleyan kids are like the town - gloomy and depressing

Only problem is that Wesleyan is an infinitely better school...unless you want to be a soulless frat-bro banker.

not true - Wesleyan has em too - lax bros and athletes mostly skate through a soft econ major. My kid was a TA and visiting professor was shocked by the class distribution - genius kids from China who had insane work ethic but barely spoke the language on the high end, and dopey jocks who struggled through with minimal effort at the bottom end. Sorry for the tropes. The jocks at Wes are woefully unprepared for real life, and if parents can’t secure a wall street internship they underperform. Bucknell business school kids are on point from frosh year - say what you want about Bucknell, but the outcomes are terrific for a small Pa LAC

This is some serious Bucknell copium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Campus, location and town left a lot to be desired. It was depressing, similar to Bucknell tbh.

speaking from firsthand experience with both schools… Bucknell nicer town, nicer kids, and better outcomes. Wesleyan kids are like the town - gloomy and depressing

Only problem is that Wesleyan is an infinitely better school...unless you want to be a soulless frat-bro banker.

not true - Wesleyan has em too - lax bros and athletes mostly skate through a soft econ major. My kid was a TA and visiting professor was shocked by the class distribution - genius kids from China who had insane work ethic but barely spoke the language on the high end, and dopey jocks who struggled through with minimal effort at the bottom end. Sorry for the tropes. The jocks at Wes are woefully unprepared for real life, and if parents can’t secure a wall street internship they underperform. Bucknell business school kids are on point from frosh year - say what you want about Bucknell, but the outcomes are terrific for a small Pa LAC
The TA comment is a dead giveaway that you’re a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Campus, location and town left a lot to be desired. It was depressing, similar to Bucknell tbh.

speaking from firsthand experience with both schools… Bucknell nicer town, nicer kids, and better outcomes. Wesleyan kids are like the town - gloomy and depressing

Only problem is that Wesleyan is an infinitely better school...unless you want to be a soulless frat-bro banker.

not true - Wesleyan has em too - lax bros and athletes mostly skate through a soft econ major. My kid was a TA and visiting professor was shocked by the class distribution - genius kids from China who had insane work ethic but barely spoke the language on the high end, and dopey jocks who struggled through with minimal effort at the bottom end. Sorry for the tropes. The jocks at Wes are woefully unprepared for real life, and if parents can’t secure a wall street internship they underperform. Bucknell business school kids are on point from frosh year - say what you want about Bucknell, but the outcomes are terrific for a small Pa LAC

Went to Wes. One of my hallmates was a swimmer who had to do the lower level Econ because he couldn’t hack math-Econ.

But, he has great social skills and an impressive social network, and is doing very very nicely for himself in business 25 years later.

Seriously, when you are 50, no one asks you to do some multivariable calculus to prove your worth. At that point EQ > IQ, and many of the “dopey jocks” excel at the EQ thing.

Also, what the heck is a “TA and visiting professor”. That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed that Wes' campus could be cuter but, as a top-10 R1 professor, I'll say that its faculty is far and away superior to nearly all but the best SLACs. That's where they put their money and effort...not a bad decision IMHO.

However, U.S. News survey results placed 65 LACs ahead of Wesleyan for "Best Undergraduate Teaching."

[Anonymous]

I think the premise of the post is a little off. Lots of kids want Wesleyan. ED numbers suggest that is it not less popular than other small liberal arts colleges. But I'm sure it is less popular among certain subsets, like preppy pre-finance types, or kids that love to ski and want to be near slopes, etc.

[Anonymous]

Vassar is an amazingly intellectual environment: https://miscellanynews.org/2025/11/20/arts/chamber-music-program-dazzles-on-the-bridge/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed that Wes' campus could be cuter but, as a top-10 R1 professor, I'll say that its faculty is far and away superior to nearly all but the best SLACs. That's where they put their money and effort...not a bad decision IMHO.

I'm also an R1 prof (not at a top-10, fwiw) and concur totally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed that Wes' campus could be cuter but, as a top-10 R1 professor, I'll say that its faculty is far and away superior to nearly all but the best SLACs. That's where they put their money and effort...not a bad decision IMHO.

I'm also an R1 prof (not at a top-10, fwiw) and concur totally.

Can you say more then? In what ways are Wesleyan Faculty a cut above their relatively elite peers?