Why apply to an Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell

[Anonymous]

Denison and Grinnell both are 80k schools that offer 25-30K off in merit - in this way they're similar.

For my kid, coming from a NYC private, I made him pick a couple financial fits and he preferred Denison's location and vibe. It's a bit more straight ahead, whereas Grinnell can be a bit kookier. I wouldnt be shocked if others from the NE preferred it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rate at Colby and Bowdoin - 9%
Acceptance rate at Hamilton - 14%
Acceptance rate at Bates - 17%

Acceptance rate at Kenyon and Oberlin - 35%
Acceptance rate at Grinnell 11% but fewer east coast applicants than the ones you asked about.

This may be part of your answer.

Colby and Bowdoin - no merit aid
Hamilton - no merit aid
Bates - no merit aid

Kenyon and Oberlin - merit aid available
Grinnell - merit aid available

There you have your answer.

Colby may not give merit aid but they have committed to being one of the most affordable small colleges in the country. Families that make less than $150K (which is a lot outside of the DC bubble) pay no more than $15k per year and more than 70% of families receive financial aid. Plus, the facilities are extraordinary. It does have the drawback of being in the middle of nowhere.

That is irrelevant for families in the donut hole. For them, it's all about merit aid.

This seemed false and it is. 46 pct of Colby students receive need based aid in line with most of these schools. Colby’s financial aid is typical among SLACs. https://afa.colby.edu/apply/college-profile/

Looks like someone doesn’t know what the donut hole is.

Colby says: "Colby College meets 100% of demonstrated need without student loans. Families with a total income of up to $75,000 with typical assets can expect a parent or guardian contribution of $0. Families earning $65,000 to $150,000 with typical assets will have a parent or guardian contribution of $15,000 or less. In recent years, more than 95 percent of families with a total income of $200,000 or less have qualified for financial aid."

The say the annual cost is $86k and it looks like a donut hole family would end up paying $35-50k, which is not terrible considering that lots of "affordable" options are still $40k per year.

A donut hole family is a family that doesn't qualify for aid. They get zero aka a donut hole. Usually refers to a family that is just above the threshold.

A family like mine, with three kids and $225,000 in annual household income, gets zero financial aid. We cannot pay $85,000 per year, times three kids, for undergraduate education. It's not possible.

And you are the classic donut hole family. Just enough money to qualify for nothing. I do think those merit aid LACs address an important niche - kids who want to attend a LAC but whose families can’t swing it. And while Bates may in theory be slightly more prestigious than Denison, in the scheme of things they are the same. So it’s great that schools with merit aid policies are out there because not every kid wants to attend a large state school.

You're much kinder than me: there are options for donut hole families, but many just don't want to take them. They want their kids at prestigious schools and most of those only offer FA. And a subset of folks I know in that category were full pay as kids and they can't possibly accept that their kid may attend a "less prestigious" school than they did because of money. And they whine about this to folks who attended these "less prestigious" schools yet are living perfectly fine lives. The horror.

-1. My kid has ADHD and a SLAC with smaller classes was a better fit. It isn’t a prestige thing. For us, it was an academic fit thing. And we are so thankful we chased merit and make it work. The semester my kid went abroad and studied at a large uni (in English) with large classes, TAs etc, his ADHd got overwhelming, he had an enormous amount of anxiety and his grades tanked. He was lucky his college records classes from other colleges as P/F credit, and does not show the grade on the transcript. Because he struggled to pull out the C-s he needed to transfer classes back as a P.

Also, we are very lucky he got great merit to all three of the SLACs on this thread, and chose one. We still paid about 200k in tuition. Which is still tough x2 kids. Colleges with no merit aid get wealthy kids. And MC kids and below, if they’re generous with need based aid. But truly UMC kids can’t afford to attend without a lot of funding from owns, grandparents, etc. There are some articles out there about issues that arise when schools have a lot of wealthy kids. And a lot of URM/1st Gen/ Pell/ MC. But no kids with UMC parents. Having an environment of haves and have nots only isn’t great for the school.

This is one reason why the better merit aid SLACs are such strong schools. It’s a smart policy. They are attracting a segment of high performing students who are neglected by the other schools. Hard to imagine why anyone price sensitive should choose a school like Bates versus a large discount at one of these schools. As tuition goes up and up, offering merit aid will become an even more valuable strategic advantage. The New England SLACs want to emulate the Ivy League in not offering merit but it may be unsustainable for many of them

A policy of mostly full pay kids plus some “need based” URMs (and maybe athletes) is totally sustainable for small SLACs. It just means middle class kids get shut out. They’re already heading in that direction.

For the very top ones but schools like Trinity have issues - you end up accepting and all full pay kids with half decent records. Quality slips and it becomes a vicious cycle. You end up with rich dummies + diversity.

Sorry, but I just don't feel it. There are lots of smart kids out there who are not full pay. They go to their in-state flagship or a lower ranked LAC with generous merit. Much better to apply to law/med school when you are a big fish in a small pond. The admission committees at these schools are not wringing their hands on "quality slips" applicants, but taking the cream across many schools.

I don’t know that we are disagreeing. The second and third tier schools that don’t offer merit aid are not going to get the better students from 150k plus households. Why would you pay full freight for Trinity if you could get $30k merit somewhere equivalent?

Agree. There are some core Midwestern LACs offering merit as has been covered in this thread. My takeaway from here, however, is that a group of folks, some who identify themselves as "donut hole" families, they don't want these LACs. They want merit from NESCACs, etc. and they are not happy that these schools solely award money based on need. And they are not happy that middle class families are being shut out (though my guess these HHIs do not track with the USG definition of a middle class family).

Until colleges became more mindful of COA, poor and working families were shut out of them for decades - both private and public. A more robust aid system would be great, but the donut hole families definitely have more options than poor and working families did historically. Maybe not NESCACs, but not nothing.

How on earth is this your takeaway?!

+1. Donut hole family here. I’m so happy one of these Midwestern SLACS gave my ki the merit money we needed to mak a SLAC possible. 45-50k/year was a stretch (more than 50k by year 4) was a stretch, but we did it x2 kids, no undergrad debt for either, which feels pretty good And at the time, I felt bad the some privates were off the table because of no merit money. But in the end, it was go the best. My kid got a fantastic, rigorous education and had a really nice peer group. Private schools without merit schools end up being barbell shaped in terms of family income. I don’t necessarily think a college that has very wealthy kids and MC and lower kids, but is impossible for the UMC kids in between would have Ben a great fit for my kids or our family. And those schools clearly believe doing fine with a two tiered system of social class, and without UMC kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Denison and Grinnell both are 80k schools that offer 25-30K off in merit - in this way they're similar.

For my kid, coming from a NYC private, I made him pick a couple financial fits and he preferred Denison's location and vibe. It's a bit more straight ahead, whereas Grinnell can be a bit kookier. I wouldnt be shocked if others from the NE preferred it.

Did your kid apply to both? Or did your kid just apply to Denison? You have no way of knowing if he would’ve gotten the same amount of money from Grinnell.

[Anonymous]

Dartmouth is surrounded by trump signs and gun shops.

More DCUM ignorance. Dartmouth is actually located right in the heart of one of the largest Biden-voting rural areas in the country. Biden won Dartmouth's Grafton county by a margin of 25% (for perspective, there were five times as many Trump voters in Montgomery County MD as in Grafton County NH) and won adjacent Windsor County VT, a quarter-mile from Dartmouth's campus, by a margin of 39%. Biden won eight of New Hampshire's ten counties, and 13 of Vermont's 14 counties. Apart from considerably more urbanized Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Trump carried a smaller number of counties in New Hampshire and Vermont (and CT) than in any other state in the continental US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol please don’t tell me there’s a poster who seriously believes that Denison is attracting and enrolling stronger students than Grinnell. What a joke.

Grinnell is more than a “Midwest merit” liberal arts colleges. It is generally regarded by academics as a true peer of the very best liberal arts colleges in the entire country, including the best in the NE. Denison doesn’t even come close.

Sigh. I know many people on this site have no worries about paying the sticker prices on the top LAC’s. And that’s fine. But a lot of us aren’t in that position. I take exception to the posters that denigrate very good schools. Denison is a great school for many kids. If you think your kid is too good for it, fine. But have some sensitivity (or humanity) to people who are not in the same situation as you are. I think parents here are all trying to the best they can, and comments like yours could be hurtful to some people. We all want the best for our kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol please don’t tell me there’s a poster who seriously believes that Denison is attracting and enrolling stronger students than Grinnell. What a joke.

Grinnell is more than a “Midwest merit” liberal arts colleges. It is generally regarded by academics as a true peer of the very best liberal arts colleges in the entire country, including the best in the NE. Denison doesn’t even come close.

Sigh. I know many people on this site have no worries about paying the sticker prices on the top LAC’s. And that’s fine. But a lot of us aren’t in that position. I take exception to the posters that denigrate very good schools. Denison is a great school for many kids. If you think your kid is too good for it, fine. But have some sensitivity (or humanity) to people who are not in the same situation as you are. I think parents here are all trying to the best they can, and comments like yours could be hurtful to some people. We all want the best for our kids

And also, at a certain point, the quality of the education is more about what the student brings than what the school “is.” So if the PP whose son attends Denison is better able to bring his best self/make stronger connections/participate more fully in community life, then for him Denison IS a better school than Grinnell. Quality is active, not passive. (I am a Grinnell alum)

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rate at Colby and Bowdoin - 9%
Acceptance rate at Hamilton - 14%
Acceptance rate at Bates - 17%

Acceptance rate at Kenyon and Oberlin - 35%
Acceptance rate at Grinnell 11% but fewer east coast applicants than the ones you asked about.

This may be part of your answer.

Colby and Bowdoin - no merit aid
Hamilton - no merit aid
Bates - no merit aid

Kenyon and Oberlin - merit aid available
Grinnell - merit aid available

There you have your answer.

Colby may not give merit aid but they have committed to being one of the most affordable small colleges in the country. Families that make less than $150K (which is a lot outside of the DC bubble) pay no more than $15k per year and more than 70% of families receive financial aid. Plus, the facilities are extraordinary. It does have the drawback of being in the middle of nowhere.

That is irrelevant for families in the donut hole. For them, it's all about merit aid.

This seemed false and it is. 46 pct of Colby students receive need based aid in line with most of these schools. Colby’s financial aid is typical among SLACs. https://afa.colby.edu/apply/college-profile/

Looks like someone doesn’t know what the donut hole is.

Colby says: "Colby College meets 100% of demonstrated need without student loans. Families with a total income of up to $75,000 with typical assets can expect a parent or guardian contribution of $0. Families earning $65,000 to $150,000 with typical assets will have a parent or guardian contribution of $15,000 or less. In recent years, more than 95 percent of families with a total income of $200,000 or less have qualified for financial aid."

The say the annual cost is $86k and it looks like a donut hole family would end up paying $35-50k, which is not terrible considering that lots of "affordable" options are still $40k per year.

A donut hole family is a family that doesn't qualify for aid. They get zero aka a donut hole. Usually refers to a family that is just above the threshold.

A family like mine, with three kids and $225,000 in annual household income, gets zero financial aid. We cannot pay $85,000 per year, times three kids, for undergraduate education. It's not possible.

And you are the classic donut hole family. Just enough money to qualify for nothing. I do think those merit aid LACs address an important niche - kids who want to attend a LAC but whose families can’t swing it. And while Bates may in theory be slightly more prestigious than Denison, in the scheme of things they are the same. So it’s great that schools with merit aid policies are out there because not every kid wants to attend a large state school.

You're much kinder than me: there are options for donut hole families, but many just don't want to take them. They want their kids at prestigious schools and most of those only offer FA. And a subset of folks I know in that category were full pay as kids and they can't possibly accept that their kid may attend a "less prestigious" school than they did because of money. And they whine about this to folks who attended these "less prestigious" schools yet are living perfectly fine lives. The horror.

-1. My kid has ADHD and a SLAC with smaller classes was a better fit. It isn’t a prestige thing. For us, it was an academic fit thing. And we are so thankful we chased merit and make it work. The semester my kid went abroad and studied at a large uni (in English) with large classes, TAs etc, his ADHd got overwhelming, he had an enormous amount of anxiety and his grades tanked. He was lucky his college records classes from other colleges as P/F credit, and does not show the grade on the transcript. Because he struggled to pull out the C-s he needed to transfer classes back as a P.

Also, we are very lucky he got great merit to all three of the SLACs on this thread, and chose one. We still paid about 200k in tuition. Which is still tough x2 kids. Colleges with no merit aid get wealthy kids. And MC kids and below, if they’re generous with need based aid. But truly UMC kids can’t afford to attend without a lot of funding from owns, grandparents, etc. There are some articles out there about issues that arise when schools have a lot of wealthy kids. And a lot of URM/1st Gen/ Pell/ MC. But no kids with UMC parents. Having an environment of haves and have nots only isn’t great for the school.

This is one reason why the better merit aid SLACs are such strong schools. It’s a smart policy. They are attracting a segment of high performing students who are neglected by the other schools. Hard to imagine why anyone price sensitive should choose a school like Bates versus a large discount at one of these schools. As tuition goes up and up, offering merit aid will become an even more valuable strategic advantage. The New England SLACs want to emulate the Ivy League in not offering merit but it may be unsustainable for many of them

A policy of mostly full pay kids plus some “need based” URMs (and maybe athletes) is totally sustainable for small SLACs. It just means middle class kids get shut out. They’re already heading in that direction.

For the very top ones but schools like Trinity have issues - you end up accepting and all full pay kids with half decent records. Quality slips and it becomes a vicious cycle. You end up with rich dummies + diversity.

Sorry, but I just don't feel it. There are lots of smart kids out there who are not full pay. They go to their in-state flagship or a lower ranked LAC with generous merit. Much better to apply to law/med school when you are a big fish in a small pond. The admission committees at these schools are not wringing their hands on "quality slips" applicants, but taking the cream across many schools.

I don’t know that we are disagreeing. The second and third tier schools that don’t offer merit aid are not going to get the better students from 150k plus households. Why would you pay full freight for Trinity if you could get $30k merit somewhere equivalent?

Agree. There are some core Midwestern LACs offering merit as has been covered in this thread. My takeaway from here, however, is that a group of folks, some who identify themselves as "donut hole" families, they don't want these LACs. They want merit from NESCACs, etc. and they are not happy that these schools solely award money based on need. And they are not happy that middle class families are being shut out (though my guess these HHIs do not track with the USG definition of a middle class family).

Until colleges became more mindful of COA, poor and working families were shut out of them for decades - both private and public. A more robust aid system would be great, but the donut hole families definitely have more options than poor and working families did historically. Maybe not NESCACs, but not nothing.

You are seeking an issue where none exists. No one on this thread has said this or insinuated it. On the contrary, a number of people have commented on how the Midwest LACs work out well for their kids.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rate at Colby and Bowdoin - 9%
Acceptance rate at Hamilton - 14%
Acceptance rate at Bates - 17%

Acceptance rate at Kenyon and Oberlin - 35%
Acceptance rate at Grinnell 11% but fewer east coast applicants than the ones you asked about.

This may be part of your answer.

Colby and Bowdoin - no merit aid
Hamilton - no merit aid
Bates - no merit aid

Kenyon and Oberlin - merit aid available
Grinnell - merit aid available

There you have your answer.

Colby may not give merit aid but they have committed to being one of the most affordable small colleges in the country. Families that make less than $150K (which is a lot outside of the DC bubble) pay no more than $15k per year and more than 70% of families receive financial aid. Plus, the facilities are extraordinary. It does have the drawback of being in the middle of nowhere.

That is irrelevant for families in the donut hole. For them, it's all about merit aid.

This seemed false and it is. 46 pct of Colby students receive need based aid in line with most of these schools. Colby’s financial aid is typical among SLACs. https://afa.colby.edu/apply/college-profile/

Looks like someone doesn’t know what the donut hole is.

Colby says: "Colby College meets 100% of demonstrated need without student loans. Families with a total income of up to $75,000 with typical assets can expect a parent or guardian contribution of $0. Families earning $65,000 to $150,000 with typical assets will have a parent or guardian contribution of $15,000 or less. In recent years, more than 95 percent of families with a total income of $200,000 or less have qualified for financial aid."

The say the annual cost is $86k and it looks like a donut hole family would end up paying $35-50k, which is not terrible considering that lots of "affordable" options are still $40k per year.

A donut hole family is a family that doesn't qualify for aid. They get zero aka a donut hole. Usually refers to a family that is just above the threshold.

A family like mine, with three kids and $225,000 in annual household income, gets zero financial aid. We cannot pay $85,000 per year, times three kids, for undergraduate education. It's not possible.

And you are the classic donut hole family. Just enough money to qualify for nothing. I do think those merit aid LACs address an important niche - kids who want to attend a LAC but whose families can’t swing it. And while Bates may in theory be slightly more prestigious than Denison, in the scheme of things they are the same. So it’s great that schools with merit aid policies are out there because not every kid wants to attend a large state school.

You're much kinder than me: there are options for donut hole families, but many just don't want to take them. They want their kids at prestigious schools and most of those only offer FA. And a subset of folks I know in that category were full pay as kids and they can't possibly accept that their kid may attend a "less prestigious" school than they did because of money. And they whine about this to folks who attended these "less prestigious" schools yet are living perfectly fine lives. The horror.

-1. My kid has ADHD and a SLAC with smaller classes was a better fit. It isn’t a prestige thing. For us, it was an academic fit thing. And we are so thankful we chased merit and make it work. The semester my kid went abroad and studied at a large uni (in English) with large classes, TAs etc, his ADHd got overwhelming, he had an enormous amount of anxiety and his grades tanked. He was lucky his college records classes from other colleges as P/F credit, and does not show the grade on the transcript. Because he struggled to pull out the C-s he needed to transfer classes back as a P.

Also, we are very lucky he got great merit to all three of the SLACs on this thread, and chose one. We still paid about 200k in tuition. Which is still tough x2 kids. Colleges with no merit aid get wealthy kids. And MC kids and below, if they’re generous with need based aid. But truly UMC kids can’t afford to attend without a lot of funding from owns, grandparents, etc. There are some articles out there about issues that arise when schools have a lot of wealthy kids. And a lot of URM/1st Gen/ Pell/ MC. But no kids with UMC parents. Having an environment of haves and have nots only isn’t great for the school.

This is one reason why the better merit aid SLACs are such strong schools. It’s a smart policy. They are attracting a segment of high performing students who are neglected by the other schools. Hard to imagine why anyone price sensitive should choose a school like Bates versus a large discount at one of these schools. As tuition goes up and up, offering merit aid will become an even more valuable strategic advantage. The New England SLACs want to emulate the Ivy League in not offering merit but it may be unsustainable for many of them

A policy of mostly full pay kids plus some “need based” URMs (and maybe athletes) is totally sustainable for small SLACs. It just means middle class kids get shut out. They’re already heading in that direction.

For the very top ones but schools like Trinity have issues - you end up accepting and all full pay kids with half decent records. Quality slips and it becomes a vicious cycle. You end up with rich dummies + diversity.

Sorry, but I just don't feel it. There are lots of smart kids out there who are not full pay. They go to their in-state flagship or a lower ranked LAC with generous merit. Much better to apply to law/med school when you are a big fish in a small pond. The admission committees at these schools are not wringing their hands on "quality slips" applicants, but taking the cream across many schools.

I don’t know that we are disagreeing. The second and third tier schools that don’t offer merit aid are not going to get the better students from 150k plus households. Why would you pay full freight for Trinity if you could get $30k merit somewhere equivalent?

Agree. There are some core Midwestern LACs offering merit as has been covered in this thread. My takeaway from here, however, is that a group of folks, some who identify themselves as "donut hole" families, they don't want these LACs. They want merit from NESCACs, etc. and they are not happy that these schools solely award money based on need. And they are not happy that middle class families are being shut out (though my guess these HHIs do not track with the USG definition of a middle class family).

Until colleges became more mindful of COA, poor and working families were shut out of them for decades - both private and public. A more robust aid system would be great, but the donut hole families definitely have more options than poor and working families did historically. Maybe not NESCACs, but not nothing.

I won't speak for all the posters here, but I've commented in this thread, and for the record, I am absolutely delighted by these merit schools. I love the pressure they've taken off the admissions process. I love the relaxed vibe of our visits. I love the midwestern friendly. I love that my kid goes to these campuses and already feels successful and wanted. And I love that some of them will be options for less than the cost of our public flagship. I truly haven't seen whining in this thread, it's actually hard for me to fully understand what the PP sees, but maybe that's bc I'm reading the posts through my own eyes.

This Thanksgiving I actually felt genuinely thankful my child attends one of these schools, for the reasons cited above. We didn't get merit aid, but certainly the schools are better off because other students did (who in fairness probably worked harder than my son to get straight As). Maybe the experience would have been the same at a Nescac-type school, but I can't imagine a better scenario in terms of the quality of education being delivered and the quality of people surrounding him. These schools are really a secret weapon in the college game-- a little easier to get into, maybe a little cheaper if your kid gets a merit award, educationally just as strong with a little more of a relaxed vibe--just a bit of a pain in the arse to get to from the east coast.

[Anonymous]

Nearly every kid I know at Kenyon is a recruited athlete. So there's that if playing at the college level is important to the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nearly every kid I know at Kenyon is a recruited athlete. So there's that if playing at the college level is important to the kid.

The percentage of athletes is no different versus other LACS. But outside swimming and maybe a couple other sports, the teams are generally not as competitive which means it could create an opportunity for a student to participate in college sports who might not otherwise make the cut at a more intense d3 school (eg Nescac).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol please don’t tell me there’s a poster who seriously believes that Denison is attracting and enrolling stronger students than Grinnell. What a joke.

Grinnell is more than a “Midwest merit” liberal arts colleges. It is generally regarded by academics as a true peer of the very best liberal arts colleges in the entire country, including the best in the NE. Denison doesn’t even come close.

How would you objectively measure the teaching quality of Grinnell vs Kenyon vs Denison vs northeastern LACs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol please don’t tell me there’s a poster who seriously believes that Denison is attracting and enrolling stronger students than Grinnell. What a joke.

Grinnell is more than a “Midwest merit” liberal arts colleges. It is generally regarded by academics as a true peer of the very best liberal arts colleges in the entire country, including the best in the NE. Denison doesn’t even come close.

How would you objectively measure the teaching quality of Grinnell vs Kenyon vs Denison vs northeastern LACs?

Idk but Carleton, Grinnell, Macalester, Kenyon and Wooster all rank well here. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/undergraduate-teaching

[Anonymous]

Grinnell’s recently adopted strategic plan inexplicably recommends placing more — not less — emphasis on sports. Looks like they did not get the post-affirmative action memo, the fact that SLACs are justifiably being criticized for sports preferences in admissions, and the fact that the majority of Grinnell’s student body is, well, non-jock. Grinnell is trending backwards, trying to be more like NESCAC:

https://thesandb.com/44652/news/three-years-of-president-harris-culminate-in-grinnell-colleges-knowledge-into-action-2030-plan/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grinnell’s recently adopted strategic plan inexplicably recommends placing more — not less — emphasis on sports. Looks like they did not get the post-affirmative action memo, the fact that SLACs are justifiably being criticized for sports preferences in admissions, and the fact that the majority of Grinnell’s student body is, well, non-jock. Grinnell is trending backwards, trying to be more like NESCAC:

https://thesandb.com/44652/news/three-years-of-president-harris-culminate-in-grinnell-colleges-knowledge-into-action-2030-plan/

It talks about increasing spectatorship - it doesn’t mention recruitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grinnell’s recently adopted strategic plan inexplicably recommends placing more — not less — emphasis on sports. Looks like they did not get the post-affirmative action memo, the fact that SLACs are justifiably being criticized for sports preferences in admissions, and the fact that the majority of Grinnell’s student body is, well, non-jock. Grinnell is trending backwards, trying to be more like NESCAC:

https://thesandb.com/44652/news/three-years-of-president-harris-culminate-in-grinnell-colleges-knowledge-into-action-2030-plan/

It talks about increasing spectatorship - it doesn’t mention recruitment.

It talks about increasing emphasis on sports. Yes, that will have recruitment implications, i.e., more money for sports, coaches, and recruiting. That doesn’t mean that more athletes are going to be recruited; it means better ones will be. This also means those “better” athletes will have even more of an admissions edge.