Most over-ranked/under-ranked LACS on USNWR?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

That is an unfair assessment of merit aid. All colleges want to attract the best students they can (and climb the rankings). Need blind financial aid is also a tool to attract students who might otherwise feel disadvantaged in the application process. Does merit aid really target the wealthy? All things being equal, a wealthy kid would go to the most prestigious school he gets into, not the one that is providing the largest discount. Merit aid therefore really targets the middle class or upper middle class kid who qualifies for little or no financial aid. In the context of LACs, a family that is borderline for need based aid would probably hesitate to shell out 80k a year (versus much cheaper in state alternatives, for example) and would be wise to do so. So if such a kid wants the LAC experience, merit aid may be the only possibility. Should this kid be denied that opportunity? Only lower middle class and wealthy kids should have access to it?

Your attitude is very snotty. Schools that provide merit aid are doing a tremendous service to families in the middle and appropriately rewarding some of our country's best, hardest working kids.

DP. You're talking about how you'd like the world to work to benefit you. Ideally merit aid should be unrelated to need, meaning it's given to any applicant the school wants to attract. That includes many wealthy applicants, and yes some some schools specifically target wealthy families, why wouldn't they? Coupons often encourage people to spend more, they often are handed out selectively, this isn't unique to colleges.

Not really. My DC is headed off to a school that provides merit aid but we will not be getting any. I am happy this school provides merit aid because it means DC will be surrounded by many strong students from middle class/upper middle class backgrounds, some of whom probably got into very top ranked schools. The school provides both need based aid and merit aid. Again, wealthy people don't really care about 10-30k discounts. Perhaps some of the merit aid does go to what you might consider a "very wealthy" kid - so be it. He or she earned it. The savings can be spent on grad school.

That's wishful thinking. Merit aid is not tied to income, so nothing saying it brings more MC families in. Merit aid is something schools offer when they are trying to grow their applications, but by design it's a limited time offer (at least they'd like it to be). A school like Reed has exited that phase, and can focus all their aid into need. The next level is to offer even more need based aid, like packages with zero loans, and to more income levels.

Nothing saying it will bring more middle class families in but... logic! If someone is a mega-millionaire, do you think they care about saving $20k a year on their kid's education? Do you think they would turn down Williams because they got $35k from Dickinson? of course not. Merit aid appeals to families for whom $50-100K is a lot of money and for whom that kind of money is so important they are willing to accept a lower "prestige" degree. Rich people apply ED and that is half the class. They are price insensitive and just want their kid to go to the best school possible. Not so rich people evaluate offers RD. There are some exceptions where rich people are swayed by the merit award, but I think it's odd to argue that these sums of money matter more to people who have a lot of money as opposed to people who don't have a lot of money.

LOL that "Reed has exited that phase." Reed is dog poop compared with the list of schools that offer merit aid provided above. Reed's test score profile is inferior to all of them.

The merit aid schools will win long-term because there will be no reason for top students to pay a premium for what will be a non-premium product.

They've exited because they don't do it, and yet still stay afloat, that's an observation. Logic is fine, but how about comparing enrolment demographics? Sounds like, for whatever reason, you're interested in schools where family incomes over 110K but under maybe 500K are well represented (top 20% but not top 1%-ish)? That's Reed. By the numbers, the families you want to be around are willing to full pay at Reed, while much wealthier families end up at Dickinson. This is even more pronounced at a school like Kenyon, which is also known for merit. Offering coupons to wealthy families is very much a thing, maybe they're amused, but they take them.

You cannot possibly have access to any data that show there is a greater proportion of 100k to 500k kids at Reed versus Dickinson and Kenyon. It is beyond irrational to speculate that middle class plus families are happy to go into debt for a Reed degree (not particularly known for having a lot of commercial value) while the families drawn to merit awards at Dickinson or Kenyon are fat cats who just love a good bargain when it comes their way (and will turn down higher ranked schools for that amusing coupon). You are just making completely unsubstantiated statements that defy common sense.

I'm interested in schools that find the most talented interesting kids across the income spectrum. Merit aid schools do a good job of that. They do offer significant need based aid. They offer ED to wealthier families who are willing to pay full price if they get in. And they offer merit aid to appeal to kids of all economic backgrounds who will lift up the academic profile of the school.

Google broken? Check the access numbers here, for example. Doesn't check with your *logic*. Maybe the families that pay for Reed are chumps, but they're the demographic you're looking for, yet they weren't baited with merit aid:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/reed-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/dickinson-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/kenyon-college

Ok, you have the data, but it doesn't prove your point. Yes, Kenyon has a larger portion of its class coming from top 1% families than Reed does at 20%. But there is no reason to assume merit aid is why. No more than 25% of the students receive merit aid. And it is well known that wealthier families go ED, when you are committing without knowing if you will get merit aid and when merit aid awards are probably less frequent (because they already have you). 45% of Kenyon is admitted ED normally. So it's not logical to assume merit aid is the reason Kenyon skews very wealthy. Dickinson has merit aid as well but its student body composition more closely resembles Reed.

I did not claim that merit aid is why a school leans 1%, simply that it was faulty logic to assume middle class families write off Reed due to lack of merit aid, they don't. Applying ED does not preclude merit awards. Kenyon absolutely gives them out during that round including to wealthy families. Merit aid is not need and sometimes it's unneeded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think that the focus of popular universities is moving west and south.

A lot of factors here but the fact that the northeastern schools have become irredeemably woke is a major one. Parents know garbage when they see it.

OK Donald, thanks for your insights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I prefer A/S/P over Williams but objectively, there's no denying Williams is superior. In fact, Williams consistently wins cross admit battles against Amherst and hit a much higher yield recently (59% vs Amherst and Swat's 40-45%).

Williams has a smaller student to faculty ratio, smaller classes (nearly 80% under 20 vs 65-75% at the others), better maintained facilities (Swat might be prettier but the buildings themselves aren't in the best physical shape), winter study and tutorials for truly distinctive academic experiences, the top d3 athletic program, stronger students by academic standards, and better outcomes based on most outcome oriented rankings. You also get access to the most comprehensive network of Oxford/Cambridge fellowships and study away of any school in the country.

It's a really good school. If it were in a suburban area or had the consortium access the others do, it'd crush the competition.

It's best to be careful when arguing for prestige from published yield numbers for SLACs (or any selective university with ED, for that matter). Yield numbers include those accepted through ED, for whom the yield is typically above 95%. Many selective colleges and universities recruit more than half their classes through ED, boosting their yield numbers. Schools like Chicago and Tulane are infamous for this practice. However, when one looks at yield in regular decision, where there is actual customer choice involved (and hard choices are made regarding cost/benefit), the numbers tell a different story. Here's a list of elite SLACs, with their RD yields (all these numbers are from published institutional data for class of 2026):

Wesleyan 0.19
Middlebury 0.21
Williams 0.21
Swarthmore 0.26
Haverford 0.28
Carleton 0.28
CMC 0.28
Amherst 0.29
Pomona 0.29

Bowdoin 0.41

For comparison, here are RD yields for some highly selective universities with ED:
Duke 0.44
Northwestern 0.44
Brown 0.49
Cornell 0.50
Columbia 0.50
Dartmouth 0.52
UPenn 0.58

Yieldwise, the SLACs (with the exception of Bowdoin) aren't even in the same league as the selective universities. Make of this what you will.

I think more people who ED a particular SLAC love that SLAC whereas people who ED a selective university often want to go to a high-ranked university. So I think it's wrong to think about ED in your somewhat dismissive way when it comes to SLACs. SLACs are crafting a small class of qualified people who really want to be there--that's why ED figures so strongly. I don't think the same is quite as strongly true with the larger, more generally popular selective universities.

These %s alone are not very helpful either. For example, Hillsdale has a yield of over 50%! There is nothing about what schools students have been admitted to and are attending instead. The top 3-4 LACs likely have crossover with a different group than even say, a Bowdoin or Middlebury. Penn's yield being higher than Duke's or Cornell's being higher than Brown's is hardly informative without more info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

38% is quite low for a top 30 SLAC which tend to be in the mid 40s. 40% is the danger zone when both girls and boys are turned off by the imbalance. So Vassar must be stretching hard to get boys if it can only muster up 38%. The percentage of gay males also appears to be very high for any school--further exacerbating the lack of diversity.

Haven't looked at data for all the top 30 SLACS. But if overall only 40% of college students are male, and this fraction is falling, then lots of colleges are, or will be, in your "danger zone"! Curious to know what you envision happening in your "danger zone"--do applications and/or enrollments plummet?

Looking at the data for Vassar available online, their acceptance rate for males has been falling in recent years; perhaps to bring it more in line with the acceptance rate for females. As has been true for other schools, including Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Richmond, and Boston College, Vassar's acceptance rate has been higher for men than for women.

The number of applications overall is up at Vassar (as is true for most places) and yield has held steady in the low 30s and is very similar for males and females. Vassar's draw rate (= yield rate/acceptance rate), which some admissions professionals view as a measure of a school's market power, is higher now than it was 20 years ago.

I don't know of any data on the percentage of gay males, so can't comment on that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed is the most underrated (and intentionally so).

Sigh....Why is Reed 80,000 a year with no merit aid? Super sad to take it off the list.

Merit aid is not based on the price of tuition. Merit aid offered by colleges is used to game the rankings. Reed is wholly uninterested in giving money to wealthy, high stats kids to up its rankings on USNews. Also, many, many highly regarded colleges and universities are now charging around $80K for tuition, room, and board--regardless of whether they offer merit aid or not.

That is an unfair assessment of merit aid. All colleges want to attract the best students they can (and climb the rankings). Need blind financial aid is also a tool to attract students who might otherwise feel disadvantaged in the application process. Does merit aid really target the wealthy? All things being equal, a wealthy kid would go to the most prestigious school he gets into, not the one that is providing the largest discount. Merit aid therefore really targets the middle class or upper middle class kid who qualifies for little or no financial aid. In the context of LACs, a family that is borderline for need based aid would probably hesitate to shell out 80k a year (versus much cheaper in state alternatives, for example) and would be wise to do so. So if such a kid wants the LAC experience, merit aid may be the only possibility. Should this kid be denied that opportunity? Only lower middle class and wealthy kids should have access to it?

Your attitude is very snotty. Schools that provide merit aid are doing a tremendous service to families in the middle and appropriately rewarding some of our country's best, hardest working kids.

DP. You're talking about how you'd like the world to work to benefit you. Ideally merit aid should be unrelated to need, meaning it's given to any applicant the school wants to attract. That includes many wealthy applicants, and yes some some schools specifically target wealthy families, why wouldn't they? Coupons often encourage people to spend more, they often are handed out selectively, this isn't unique to colleges.

Not really. My DC is headed off to a school that provides merit aid but we will not be getting any. I am happy this school provides merit aid because it means DC will be surrounded by many strong students from middle class/upper middle class backgrounds, some of whom probably got into very top ranked schools. The school provides both need based aid and merit aid. Again, wealthy people don't really care about 10-30k discounts. Perhaps some of the merit aid does go to what you might consider a "very wealthy" kid - so be it. He or she earned it. The savings can be spent on grad school.

That's wishful thinking. Merit aid is not tied to income, so nothing saying it brings more MC families in. Merit aid is something schools offer when they are trying to grow their applications, but by design it's a limited time offer (at least they'd like it to be). A school like Reed has exited that phase, and can focus all their aid into need. The next level is to offer even more need based aid, like packages with zero loans, and to more income levels.

Nothing saying it will bring more middle class families in but... logic! If someone is a mega-millionaire, do you think they care about saving $20k a year on their kid's education? Do you think they would turn down Williams because they got $35k from Dickinson? of course not. Merit aid appeals to families for whom $50-100K is a lot of money and for whom that kind of money is so important they are willing to accept a lower "prestige" degree. Rich people apply ED and that is half the class. They are price insensitive and just want their kid to go to the best school possible. Not so rich people evaluate offers RD. There are some exceptions where rich people are swayed by the merit award, but I think it's odd to argue that these sums of money matter more to people who have a lot of money as opposed to people who don't have a lot of money.

LOL that "Reed has exited that phase." Reed is dog poop compared with the list of schools that offer merit aid provided above. Reed's test score profile is inferior to all of them.

The merit aid schools will win long-term because there will be no reason for top students to pay a premium for what will be a non-premium product.

They've exited because they don't do it, and yet still stay afloat, that's an observation. Logic is fine, but how about comparing enrolment demographics? Sounds like, for whatever reason, you're interested in schools where family incomes over 110K but under maybe 500K are well represented (top 20% but not top 1%-ish)? That's Reed. By the numbers, the families you want to be around are willing to full pay at Reed, while much wealthier families end up at Dickinson. This is even more pronounced at a school like Kenyon, which is also known for merit. Offering coupons to wealthy families is very much a thing, maybe they're amused, but they take them.

You cannot possibly have access to any data that show there is a greater proportion of 100k to 500k kids at Reed versus Dickinson and Kenyon. It is beyond irrational to speculate that middle class plus families are happy to go into debt for a Reed degree (not particularly known for having a lot of commercial value) while the families drawn to merit awards at Dickinson or Kenyon are fat cats who just love a good bargain when it comes their way (and will turn down higher ranked schools for that amusing coupon). You are just making completely unsubstantiated statements that defy common sense.

I'm interested in schools that find the most talented interesting kids across the income spectrum. Merit aid schools do a good job of that. They do offer significant need based aid. They offer ED to wealthier families who are willing to pay full price if they get in. And they offer merit aid to appeal to kids of all economic backgrounds who will lift up the academic profile of the school.

Google broken? Check the access numbers here, for example. Doesn't check with your *logic*. Maybe the families that pay for Reed are chumps, but they're the demographic you're looking for, yet they weren't baited with merit aid:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/reed-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/dickinson-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/kenyon-college

Ok, you have the data, but it doesn't prove your point. Yes, Kenyon has a larger portion of its class coming from top 1% families than Reed does at 20%. But there is no reason to assume merit aid is why. No more than 25% of the students receive merit aid. And it is well known that wealthier families go ED, when you are committing without knowing if you will get merit aid and when merit aid awards are probably less frequent (because they already have you). 45% of Kenyon is admitted ED normally. So it's not logical to assume merit aid is the reason Kenyon skews very wealthy. Dickinson has merit aid as well but its student body composition more closely resembles Reed.

I did not claim that merit aid is why a school leans 1%, simply that it was faulty logic to assume middle class families write off Reed due to lack of merit aid, they don't. Applying ED does not preclude merit awards. Kenyon absolutely gives them out during that round including to wealthy families. Merit aid is not need and sometimes it's unneeded.

Reed can do whatever it wants, I don’t care. A range of negative things were said however about merit aid. I expressed a positive view of merit aid. And that I think schools that deploy it can be stronger and it provides a social good (making private colleges and liberal arts colleges available to kids other than the low income or the very affluent- or the children of upper middle class parents who are willing to make extreme financial sacrifices and go into lots of debt, which isn’t everyone, and a kid can’t control what his parents are willing to do for him).

Sure merit aid is sometimes provided ED and sometimes a wealthy family could get a merit award. Is that really such a big deal? Is it really the end of the world if a kid whose parents have resources pays 60k a year for college instead of 80k because of his excellent grades and test scores - when 50-60k may be the average amount paid by all students net of need based aid?

While some wealthy folks may be happy to get a little discount, I am confident that merit awards are financially impactful to the majority of kids who receive them. And btw these wealthy families also tend to give millions every year to their alma maters possibly including those who receive merit awards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

38% is quite low for a top 30 SLAC which tend to be in the mid 40s. 40% is the danger zone when both girls and boys are turned off by the imbalance. So Vassar must be stretching hard to get boys if it can only muster up 38%. The percentage of gay males also appears to be very high for any school--further exacerbating the lack of diversity.

Haven't looked at data for all the top 30 SLACS. But if overall only 40% of college students are male, and this fraction is falling, then lots of colleges are, or will be, in your "danger zone"! Curious to know what you envision happening in your "danger zone"--do applications and/or enrollments plummet?

Looking at the data for Vassar available online, their acceptance rate for males has been falling in recent years; perhaps to bring it more in line with the acceptance rate for females. As has been true for other schools, including Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Richmond, and Boston College, Vassar's acceptance rate has been higher for men than for women.

The number of applications overall is up at Vassar (as is true for most places) and yield has held steady in the low 30s and is very similar for males and females. Vassar's draw rate (= yield rate/acceptance rate), which some admissions professionals view as a measure of a school's market power, is higher now than it was 20 years ago.

I don't know of any data on the percentage of gay males, so can't comment on that!

I can’t think of a top LAC that has less than 40 percent males other than Vassar. (To be fair Vassar is the only top 30 LAC that was once a woman’s college.) Better LACs are able to attract more qualified male students so they should be able to exceed national averages.

As far as the danger zone, it’s consensus among admissions departments. For example:

“At some point — whether that’s 60/40 or beyond — interest in enrolling at any institution could be impacted negatively for all students if that balance disappears,” Tim Wolfe, dean of admissions at the College of William & Mary, said in an email.

https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

38% is quite low for a top 30 SLAC which tend to be in the mid 40s. 40% is the danger zone when both girls and boys are turned off by the imbalance. So Vassar must be stretching hard to get boys if it can only muster up 38%. The percentage of gay males also appears to be very high for any school--further exacerbating the lack of diversity.

Haven't looked at data for all the top 30 SLACS. But if overall only 40% of college students are male, and this fraction is falling, then lots of colleges are, or will be, in your "danger zone"! Curious to know what you envision happening in your "danger zone"--do applications and/or enrollments plummet?

Looking at the data for Vassar available online, their acceptance rate for males has been falling in recent years; perhaps to bring it more in line with the acceptance rate for females. As has been true for other schools, including Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Richmond, and Boston College, Vassar's acceptance rate has been higher for men than for women.

The number of applications overall is up at Vassar (as is true for most places) and yield has held steady in the low 30s and is very similar for males and females. Vassar's draw rate (= yield rate/acceptance rate), which some admissions professionals view as a measure of a school's market power, is higher now than it was 20 years ago.

I don't know of any data on the percentage of gay males, so can't comment on that!

Wesleyan has changed their approach and seems to want a 50-50 class. Male admissions much more favorable now. Check out the newly released CDS. My daughter has now ruled out applying ED as the odds went down too much and they were already low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education should allow freedom of speech, respect differing opinions, and encourage intellectual discourse presented from a variety of perspectives. Ultra-liberal, leftist schools are intolerant of opposing thought.

And schools that fail to promote this type of environment will suffer in the marketplace. How many non-LGBTQ males who get 1500 on their SATs would choose Vassar over all their other options? Oberlin is way off the charts now, and Wesleyan has plunged as well. Haverford has declined, now tied with Richmond (which has a conservative reputation). Reed is nowhere to be found. W&L is thriving. Southern schools in general are thriving. Who wants to go to school with a bunch of angry single minded activists who can't even have a conversation but can only call you names?

Whoah you are so clearly in a suburban bubble. Vassar and oberlin are very popular with the boys in our Brooklyn crowd

That is exactly my point. They are ONLY popular with the Brooklyn crowd.

A quarter of Vassar comes from NY - so it's even a larger percentage of the domestic student population. It basically just draws from 5 states where wokeness prevails.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/vassar-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-diversity.html

Whatever. These are private school kids with all the professional connections that are so coveted on here. Send your kid to High Point instead!

I will concede that Vassar- as a NYC centric school like an NYU or Columbia- has an angle into NY finance. I know this personally. It may be its only redeeming feature. But it’s not the only school that does

DS liked Vassar quite a bit, including its proximity to home. If his GPA had been slightly higher, he would have gambled on applying, as he had a high ACT score and great ECs. Strangely enough, another classmate applied, coach told him he was in, then rejected in ED. Neither heads up from coach nor a follow up email.
d

The LAC coach saying you are in and then rejection thing - I heard that more than once this year.

I do wonder how difficult it is for a male to get into Vassar. Def has to be easier than female.

Probably so, but college counselor still thought the GPA may have been too low.

This was for prior school year. For their school, it was the only "you're in, you're not" that happened to an athlete, but was still a pretty big broad side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

38% is quite low for a top 30 SLAC which tend to be in the mid 40s. 40% is the danger zone when both girls and boys are turned off by the imbalance. So Vassar must be stretching hard to get boys if it can only muster up 38%. The percentage of gay males also appears to be very high for any school--further exacerbating the lack of diversity.

Haven't looked at data for all the top 30 SLACS. But if overall only 40% of college students are male, and this fraction is falling, then lots of colleges are, or will be, in your "danger zone"! Curious to know what you envision happening in your "danger zone"--do applications and/or enrollments plummet?

Looking at the data for Vassar available online, their acceptance rate for males has been falling in recent years; perhaps to bring it more in line with the acceptance rate for females. As has been true for other schools, including Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Richmond, and Boston College, Vassar's acceptance rate has been higher for men than for women.

The number of applications overall is up at Vassar (as is true for most places) and yield has held steady in the low 30s and is very similar for males and females. Vassar's draw rate (= yield rate/acceptance rate), which some admissions professionals view as a measure of a school's market power, is higher now than it was 20 years ago.

I don't know of any data on the percentage of gay males, so can't comment on that!

Wesleyan has changed their approach and seems to want a 50-50 class. Male admissions much more favorable now. Check out the newly released CDS. My daughter has now ruled out applying ED as the odds went down too much and they were already low.

That’s crazy - page 4. https://www.wesleyan.edu/ir/data-sets/CDS_2022-2023.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

38% is quite low for a top 30 SLAC which tend to be in the mid 40s. 40% is the danger zone when both girls and boys are turned off by the imbalance. So Vassar must be stretching hard to get boys if it can only muster up 38%. The percentage of gay males also appears to be very high for any school--further exacerbating the lack of diversity.

Haven't looked at data for all the top 30 SLACS. But if overall only 40% of college students are male, and this fraction is falling, then lots of colleges are, or will be, in your "danger zone"! Curious to know what you envision happening in your "danger zone"--do applications and/or enrollments plummet?

Looking at the data for Vassar available online, their acceptance rate for males has been falling in recent years; perhaps to bring it more in line with the acceptance rate for females. As has been true for other schools, including Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Richmond, and Boston College, Vassar's acceptance rate has been higher for men than for women.

The number of applications overall is up at Vassar (as is true for most places) and yield has held steady in the low 30s and is very similar for males and females. Vassar's draw rate (= yield rate/acceptance rate), which some admissions professionals view as a measure of a school's market power, is higher now than it was 20 years ago.

I don't know of any data on the percentage of gay males, so can't comment on that!

I can’t think of a top LAC that has less than 40 percent males other than Vassar. (To be fair Vassar is the only top 30 LAC that was once a woman’s college.) Better LACs are able to attract more qualified male students so they should be able to exceed national averages.

As far as the danger zone, it’s consensus among admissions departments. For example:

“At some point — whether that’s 60/40 or beyond — interest in enrolling at any institution could be impacted negatively for all students if that balance disappears,” Tim Wolfe, dean of admissions at the College of William & Mary, said in an email.

https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/

Thanks for the link to the article. Vassar might well be unusual given its origins as a women's college, and perhaps because of its historical strength in the "arts" (these days the most popular majors are econ, math, psych, biology, computer science, and poli sci, according to their factbook).

The quote indicates that interest in enrolling "could be" impacted negatively. Based on the data on Vassar's website that doesn't seem to be the case, at least for Vassar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

38% is quite low for a top 30 SLAC which tend to be in the mid 40s. 40% is the danger zone when both girls and boys are turned off by the imbalance. So Vassar must be stretching hard to get boys if it can only muster up 38%. The percentage of gay males also appears to be very high for any school--further exacerbating the lack of diversity.

Haven't looked at data for all the top 30 SLACS. But if overall only 40% of college students are male, and this fraction is falling, then lots of colleges are, or will be, in your "danger zone"! Curious to know what you envision happening in your "danger zone"--do applications and/or enrollments plummet?

Looking at the data for Vassar available online, their acceptance rate for males has been falling in recent years; perhaps to bring it more in line with the acceptance rate for females. As has been true for other schools, including Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Richmond, and Boston College, Vassar's acceptance rate has been higher for men than for women.

The number of applications overall is up at Vassar (as is true for most places) and yield has held steady in the low 30s and is very similar for males and females. Vassar's draw rate (= yield rate/acceptance rate), which some admissions professionals view as a measure of a school's market power, is higher now than it was 20 years ago.

I don't know of any data on the percentage of gay males, so can't comment on that!

I can’t think of a top LAC that has less than 40 percent males other than Vassar. (To be fair Vassar is the only top 30 LAC that was once a woman’s college.) Better LACs are able to attract more qualified male students so they should be able to exceed national averages.

As far as the danger zone, it’s consensus among admissions departments. For example:

“At some point — whether that’s 60/40 or beyond — interest in enrolling at any institution could be impacted negatively for all students if that balance disappears,” Tim Wolfe, dean of admissions at the College of William & Mary, said in an email.

https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/

Thanks for the link to the article. Vassar might well be unusual given its origins as a women's college, and perhaps because of its historical strength in the "arts" (these days the most popular majors are econ, math, psych, biology, computer science, and poli sci, according to their factbook).

The quote indicates that interest in enrolling "could be" impacted negatively. Based on the data on Vassar's website that doesn't seem to be the case, at least for Vassar.

The good news is with a 1.4B endowment they will always be able to buy a lot of male students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

38% is quite low for a top 30 SLAC which tend to be in the mid 40s. 40% is the danger zone when both girls and boys are turned off by the imbalance. So Vassar must be stretching hard to get boys if it can only muster up 38%. The percentage of gay males also appears to be very high for any school--further exacerbating the lack of diversity.

Haven't looked at data for all the top 30 SLACS. But if overall only 40% of college students are male, and this fraction is falling, then lots of colleges are, or will be, in your "danger zone"! Curious to know what you envision happening in your "danger zone"--do applications and/or enrollments plummet?

Looking at the data for Vassar available online, their acceptance rate for males has been falling in recent years; perhaps to bring it more in line with the acceptance rate for females. As has been true for other schools, including Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Richmond, and Boston College, Vassar's acceptance rate has been higher for men than for women.

The number of applications overall is up at Vassar (as is true for most places) and yield has held steady in the low 30s and is very similar for males and females. Vassar's draw rate (= yield rate/acceptance rate), which some admissions professionals view as a measure of a school's market power, is higher now than it was 20 years ago.

I don't know of any data on the percentage of gay males, so can't comment on that!

I can’t think of a top LAC that has less than 40 percent males other than Vassar. (To be fair Vassar is the only top 30 LAC that was once a woman’s college.) Better LACs are able to attract more qualified male students so they should be able to exceed national averages.

As far as the danger zone, it’s consensus among admissions departments. For example:

“At some point — whether that’s 60/40 or beyond — interest in enrolling at any institution could be impacted negatively for all students if that balance disappears,” Tim Wolfe, dean of admissions at the College of William & Mary, said in an email.

https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/

Thanks for the link to the article. Vassar might well be unusual given its origins as a women's college, and perhaps because of its historical strength in the "arts" (these days the most popular majors are econ, math, psych, biology, computer science, and poli sci, according to their factbook).

The quote indicates that interest in enrolling "could be" impacted negatively. Based on the data on Vassar's website that doesn't seem to be the case, at least for Vassar.

The good news is with a 1.4B endowment they will always be able to buy a lot of male students

^^from the website: Around two thirds of Vassar students receive financial aid and the average Vassar scholarship award is $51,508.

At the end of the day if half the school is getting a full ride or thereabouts, there will be demand more or less no matter what. Free is very compelling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher education should allow freedom of speech, respect differing opinions, and encourage intellectual discourse presented from a variety of perspectives. Ultra-liberal, leftist schools are intolerant of opposing thought.

And schools that fail to promote this type of environment will suffer in the marketplace. How many non-LGBTQ males who get 1500 on their SATs would choose Vassar over all their other options? Oberlin is way off the charts now, and Wesleyan has plunged as well. Haverford has declined, now tied with Richmond (which has a conservative reputation). Reed is nowhere to be found. W&L is thriving. Southern schools in general are thriving. Who wants to go to school with a bunch of angry single minded activists who can't even have a conversation but can only call you names?

Whoah you are so clearly in a suburban bubble. Vassar and oberlin are very popular with the boys in our Brooklyn crowd

That is exactly my point. They are ONLY popular with the Brooklyn crowd.

A quarter of Vassar comes from NY - so it's even a larger percentage of the domestic student population. It basically just draws from 5 states where wokeness prevails.
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/vassar-college/student-life/diversity/chart-geographic-diversity.html

Whatever. These are private school kids with all the professional connections that are so coveted on here. Send your kid to High Point instead!

I will concede that Vassar- as a NYC centric school like an NYU or Columbia- has an angle into NY finance. I know this personally. It may be its only redeeming feature. But it’s not the only school that does

DS liked Vassar quite a bit, including its proximity to home. If his GPA had been slightly higher, he would have gambled on applying, as he had a high ACT score and great ECs. Strangely enough, another classmate applied, coach told him he was in, then rejected in ED. Neither heads up from coach nor a follow up email.
d

The LAC coach saying you are in and then rejection thing - I heard that more than once this year.

I do wonder how difficult it is for a male to get into Vassar. Def has to be easier than female.

I knew of this happening to someone 4 years ago. Sounds like this coach/program is a repeat offender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Middlebury is a funny one because I'd say it is underrated now at 11 but was overrated by USNWR for so long in the 4-6 range.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona should be above, or at least with, Williams at this point. Williams and Princeton have been USNWR darlings for a decade+ but people are still choosing to go to Harvard and Stanford instead for national universities and to Amherst and Swarthmore for SLACs.

I prefer A/S/P over Williams but objectively, there's no denying Williams is superior. In fact, Williams consistently wins cross admit battles against Amherst and hit a much higher yield recently (59% vs Amherst and Swat's 40-45%).

Williams has a smaller student to faculty ratio, smaller classes (nearly 80% under 20 vs 65-75% at the others), better maintained facilities (Swat might be prettier but the buildings themselves aren't in the best physical shape), winter study and tutorials for truly distinctive academic experiences, the top d3 athletic program, stronger students by academic standards, and better outcomes based on most outcome oriented rankings. You also get access to the most comprehensive network of Oxford/Cambridge fellowships and study away of any school in the country.

It's a really good school. If it were in a suburban area or had the consortium access the others do, it'd crush the competition.

That’s just because USNEWS tailors their rankings towards their golden child university (Princeton) and college (Williams) every year. They aren’t actually better. Williams has some dilapidated facilities (looking right at you Willy hall) and the tutorial program is really what keeps the class size so low. The Oxbridge fellowships aren’t distinct and every other lac has access to them; Pomona actually has 1 that Williams doesn’t even have access to. Cross admit numbers change year over year and a majority of WASP is not cross choosing Williams.