This is an interesting article on why some LACs are struggling with enrollment, most LACs lag R1s on yield
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Some highlights:
As a group, selective LACs are not collapsing—but they are falling behind, steadily and measurably, in the enrollment competition with research universities. And within the LAC category itself, a widening gap has opened between a handful of ascendant schools and a larger cohort that is quietly struggling. The Yield Gap The clearest sign of the LAC’s eroding competitive position is yield. Over the past decade, the average yield at the 43 selective liberal arts colleges in our dataset has slipped from about 35 percent to 33 percent—a modest decline that obscures considerable turmoil within the group. Over the same period, the average yield at 33 selective research universities climbed from 46 percent to 55 percent. The gap between the two categories has roughly doubled, from 11 points to 22 points. In 2015, a research university was about a third more likely than a liberal arts college to convert an admitted student into an enrolled one. By 2024, it was about two-thirds more likely. |
Anonymous
|
Two Kinds of LACs
The thriving LACs share several common features. They tend to be the wealthiest (by endowment per student), the most selective, and the most nationally branded. Colby’s application surge followed a multi-billion-dollar campus investment and a deliberate strategy to raise its national profile. Williams, Amherst, and Bowdoin—the so-called “Little Ivies”—maintained their high yields and saw strong application growth (124 percent for Williams, 95 percent for Bowdoin, 60 percent for Amherst). Pomona, Middlebury, and Davidson also held or gained ground. These schools are running the same prestige flywheel that benefits Harvard and Stanford: lower acceptance rates generate more media attention, which drives more applications, which pushes acceptance rates lower still. The struggling LACs form a larger and more diverse group. Oberlin, Kenyon, Reed, Union, Connecticut College, Dickinson, Colorado College, and Scripps all saw their yields decline—in some cases dramatically. Their application growth, while positive, lagged far behind the category average. Several saw their acceptance rates rise, the opposite direction from the broader trend at selective schools. These institutions are not in crisis—their academic programs remain strong, their campuses are well-maintained, and their graduates do well. But they are losing the enrollment competition for the students they most want. The pattern is almost perfectly correlated with endowment wealth. The five LACs with the largest endowments per student—Amherst ($1.75 million), Swarthmore ($1.65 million), Pomona ($1.59 million), Williams ($1.58 million), and Grinnell ($1.41 million)—all maintained or gained yield. Schools with smaller endowments per student, despite comparable academic reputations, disproportionately populate the declining group. Money, it turns out, buys not just financial aid but also the campus investments, marketing capacity, and brand-building that drive enrollment success. |
Anonymous
|
The Application Gap
The yield divergence is partly a consequence of a deeper problem: liberal arts colleges are not attracting applications at the same rate as research universities. Between 2015 and 2024, the average selective research university saw its application volume grow by 66 percent. The average selective LAC grew by 50 percent. A 16-point gap in application growth may not sound dramatic, but compounded over a decade and multiplied across dozens of schools, it represents a fundamental shift in where students are choosing to apply. The variation within the LAC category is more telling than the average. Colby’s applications more than doubled. Williams grew 124 percent, Bowdoin 95 percent. But Kenyon grew just 16 percent, Dickinson 20 percent, Oberlin 35 percent. The application boom that has reshaped admissions at research universities has been highly uneven at liberal arts colleges—lifting the boats with the strongest brands while leaving others with only modest tailwinds. |
Anonymous
|
What’s Behind the Shift?
Size is a structural disadvantage in the attention economy. A school with 2,000 undergraduates produces fewer alumni, generates less media coverage, fields fewer Division I sports teams, and has a smaller social media footprint than a school with 15,000. In a world where institutional visibility is increasingly driven by online presence and viral moments, small schools face a permanent headwind. This is not a reflection of educational quality—but in the admissions marketplace, visibility matters. Career anxiety favors universities. Today’s applicants and their families are more career-focused than perhaps any previous generation. The appeal of a research university—with its pre-professional programs, business and engineering schools, urban internship pipelines, and corporate recruiting presence—resonates with students who see college primarily as a pathway to employment. The liberal arts pitch—that broad intellectual exploration produces adaptable, creative thinkers who succeed in any field—is harder to make in a 30-second elevator conversation, even though there is substantial evidence supporting it. Location increasingly matters. Among the LACs losing yield, a disproportionate number are in small towns or rural areas: Oberlin (Ohio), Kenyon (Gambier, Ohio), Grinnell (Iowa), Reed (Portland, which is mid-size), Dickinson (Carlisle, Pennsylvania). The thriving LACs are either in or very near desirable locations (Claremont McKenna near Los Angeles, Barnard in New York City) or have invested so heavily in campus life that the location becomes secondary (Colby, Middlebury). For a generation of students raised on urban culture and anxious about geographic isolation, a small-town setting is a harder sell than it was twenty years ago. |
Anonymous
| This trend is due to STEM being pushed in grade school and high school. Now that is slowly reversing, so the tide will turn again. |
Anonymous
|
dVisit before you judge. The liberal arts model—small classes, close faculty mentorship, a residential community centered on learning—is fundamentally different from the research university experience. Some students flourish in one setting and wilt in the other. Statistics cannot tell you which one your child is. A campus visit to a strong LAC, even one with a declining yield, can clarify whether the model is right for your family in ways that no amount of data analysis can.
Methodology: This analysis draws on IPEDS institutional data (2015–2024) for approximately 113 selective colleges. Liberal arts colleges (n=43) were identified as small, primarily undergraduate, residential institutions with a liberal arts mission. Research universities (n=33) include Ivy League schools, major research institutions, and large selective universities. Endowment-per-student figures are from the College Insights 2025 panel. Application growth and yield calculated from IPEDS admissions data. Some schools appear in both the “thriving” and “struggling” discussions to illustrate the range; these labels describe enrollment trends, not academic quality. |
Anonymous
is it reversing tho? |
Anonymous
|
The key take away from the article:
"These institutions are not in crisis—their academic programs remain strong, their campuses are well-maintained, and their graduates do well." |
Anonymous
| This is yet more evidence that yield and selectivity tells you very little about the quality of education. |
Anonymous
Well that's one takeaway but hardly the main one. The main one is that outside of a few hyper selective ones with big endowments, most LACs are struggling with enrollment. But the ones that are struggling are often the ones that can offer you more merit aid. Also, LACs across the board lag R1s in yield rate increases. |
Anonymous
yes |
Anonymous
Temporarily perhaps. You can only deny the reality of the truths of science for so long before they become painfully obvious. You can take away the funding, but you can't take away the facts. |
Anonymous
People who major in humanities/non stem fields aren't science deniers! |
Anonymous
The current environment is anti-science in terms of federal support for research and hostility to certain science based policy agendas. I suppose when we get rid of the current administration we can get rid of some of that anti-science environment. |