Why apply to an Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell

[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.

Then look at the strategic plan itself. Page 7, objective 1-3: “… institutional vision for athletic excellence to attract qualified students who are competitive athletes” (emphasis added).

Incomprehensible to me that this could seriously be a part of a school like Grinnell’s newly adopted strategic plan in this day and age, but whatever…

https://www.grinnell.edu/sites/default/files/docs/2023-11/%2824-0126%29%20Knowledge%20Into%20Action-v18%20-Final_Accessible-v2.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

We first looked at Grinnell in 2018 for Kid 1. When we looked back then and continuing through last year, it seemed like both Grinnell was a NESCAC wannabe. So, not shocked they are focusing on athletics. But, because they have a crappy location, they have to discount tuition. Their merit aid/ tuition discounting has very little to do with attracting UMC kids or making Grinnell possible for them. It has everything to do with not being able to get decent kids without merit aid. Grinnell doesn’t want to be considered on the same list as Oberlin and Kenyon (and I’d add Macalaster).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

Relax. You’re talking like strengthening the athletic program is the centerpiece of the strategic plan. It isn’t. It’s one item among many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

There’s a difference between having some more kids who enjoy watching a game vs. doubling your number of recruited athletes to near half the student population. But yes, I would have a problem if they tried to change the entire character of the student body. I’m guessing they want a few more kids who will add happiness and excitement about watching games. Glue kids who promote school spirit. That’s healthy. This also probably increases alumni involvement and donations long term, a likely bigger part of the long term plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

There’s a difference between having some more kids who enjoy watching a game vs. doubling your number of recruited athletes to near half the student population. But yes, I would have a problem if they tried to change the entire character of the student body. I’m guessing they want a few more kids who will add happiness and excitement about watching games. Glue kids who promote school spirit. That’s healthy. This also probably increases alumni involvement and donations long term, a likely bigger part of the long term plan.

I understand the fear (they will just let in a bunch of dumb jocks) but I think athletics is an important element of the LAC experience, where as much as one-third of the students are competing. Much higher than the general university population. Students want the opportunity to continue their athletic careers into college, and it's a healthy mindset. This is an area where LACs can attract strong students who want to have that as an element of college life (instead of just going to the football game on Saturday). It's smart for Grinnell to lean into athletics a bit, lest it get a reputation as a school that is too lopsided.

[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/

Why do you compare to a NESCAC?

[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/

Why do you compare to a NESCAC?

Why wouldn't you? NESCAC is probably the cluster of LACs that includes the most schools with top reputations. This is not to say that all top LACs are NESCACs or that all NESCACs are top LACs (but even the bottom of the barrel are decent).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

Relax. You’re talking like strengthening the athletic program is the centerpiece of the strategic plan. It isn’t. It’s one item among many.

Love to see another SLAC strategic plan, newly adopted, that is prioritizing athletics. SLACs are trying to deal with the post-affirmative action world, and athletics at Division 3 SLACs heavily skews white. If anything, there is talk about making athletics less important — not more. Let’s just say Grinnell’s approach here is…unique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

Relax. You’re talking like strengthening the athletic program is the centerpiece of the strategic plan. It isn’t. It’s one item among many.

Love to see another SLAC strategic plan, newly adopted, that is prioritizing athletics. SLACs are trying to deal with the post-affirmative action world, and athletics at Division 3 SLACs heavily skews white. If anything, there is talk about making athletics less important — not more. Let’s just say Grinnell’s approach here is…unique.

No. It’s predictable. Grinnell is an NESCAC wanna be. And “diverse” students aren’t heading to Iowa in huge numbers anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

Relax. You’re talking like strengthening the athletic program is the centerpiece of the strategic plan. It isn’t. It’s one item among many.

Love to see another SLAC strategic plan, newly adopted, that is prioritizing athletics. SLACs are trying to deal with the post-affirmative action world, and athletics at Division 3 SLACs heavily skews white. If anything, there is talk about making athletics less important — not more. Let’s just say Grinnell’s approach here is…unique.

“Prioritizing” is your word. It’s not one I’m seeing in the strategic plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

Relax. You’re talking like strengthening the athletic program is the centerpiece of the strategic plan. It isn’t. It’s one item among many.

Love to see another SLAC strategic plan, newly adopted, that is prioritizing athletics. SLACs are trying to deal with the post-affirmative action world, and athletics at Division 3 SLACs heavily skews white. If anything, there is talk about making athletics less important — not more. Let’s just say Grinnell’s approach here is…unique.

“Prioritizing” is your word. It’s not one I’m seeing in the strategic plan.

Sounds like you don’t know what a strategic plan is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do have a low recruitment budget. That’s fine if they want better athletes. But I wouldn’t want the number of recruited athletes to significantly increase. Not interested in a school with 40% recruited athletes. My kid does enjoy watching games and cheering them on. I think the character of the student body impacts spectatorship though regardless of strength of program. Though winning does help.

But, don’t you see, the strategic plan, by your own logic, is for the character of that student body to change. That’s not a problem for you?

Relax. You’re talking like strengthening the athletic program is the centerpiece of the strategic plan. It isn’t. It’s one item among many.

Love to see another SLAC strategic plan, newly adopted, that is prioritizing athletics. SLACs are trying to deal with the post-affirmative action world, and athletics at Division 3 SLACs heavily skews white. If anything, there is talk about making athletics less important — not more. Let’s just say Grinnell’s approach here is…unique.

It’s hilarious to me that so many DCUMers genuinely believe there is a white supremacist plot in college admissions offices to get “more whites” through nefarious means like athletics and legacies. Have you ever met an AO? Most of them are nice educated Democrats just like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Why do you compare to a NESCAC?

Why wouldn't you? NESCAC is probably the cluster of LACs that includes the most schools with top reputations. This is not to say that all top LACs are NESCACs or that all NESCACs are top LACs (but even the bottom of the barrel are decent).

But Grinnell is already higher ranked than ~half the NESCACs so….