Why apply to an Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell

[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.

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

Tell us you know nothing about Grinnell demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Tell us you know nothing about Grinnell demographics.

51% white. But not more than 7-8% each Asian and Hispanic. Less than 5% Black. 5% multiracial. He6 wait, those numbers don’t come close to 100%. More than 25% of students are unaccounted for. That’s because 20% of their students are “non-resident aliens,” and Grinnell classifies them as non-white students. Does anyone really think their non-resident aliens are all from Mexico and Africa and none are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe?

They are playing the game of lies, d*mn lies and statistics.

Not sure I’d want to be a Black kid at a school that can’t hit 5%.

https://datausa.io/profile/university/grinnell-college#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Grinnell%20College%20is%2051.5%25%20White,4.18%25%20Black%20or%20African%20American.

[Anonymous]

“Does anyone really think their non-resident aliens are all from Mexico and Africa and none are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe?”

Uhm. You forgot about Asia. Likely far more students from Asia than Europe/Aus/NZ combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The vibe is different. My student was looking for a change from the east coast. Enjoyed the four years and returned to DC after graduation.

Mine did the same! Loved his 4 years at Grinnell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oberlin has a top conservatory. It's very appealing to musicans who also want a broader liberal arts education.

Had two family members who went to Oberlin for music and then straight into orchestras. It’s a lot of musicians top choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone clutching their pearls about gun shops in Iowa should check yelp for gun shops near their kids school. There are at least a dozen gun shops in Boston, oh no better take Harvard MIT BU and Tufts off the list, right?

Big difference in gun culture. In iowa you can go in to store buy a gun and take home in the same day.

Not so in Massachusetts. Some of the strictest gun laws are in Massachusetts. Some of the loosest are Iowa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Tell us you know nothing about Grinnell demographics.

51% white. But not more than 7-8% each Asian and Hispanic. Less than 5% Black. 5% multiracial. He6 wait, those numbers don’t come close to 100%. More than 25% of students are unaccounted for. That’s because 20% of their students are “non-resident aliens,” and Grinnell classifies them as non-white students. Does anyone really think their non-resident aliens are all from Mexico and Africa and none are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe?

They are playing the game of lies, d*mn lies and statistics.

Not sure I’d want to be a Black kid at a school that can’t hit 5%.

https://datausa.io/profile/university/grinnell-college#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Grinnell%20College%20is%2051.5%25%20White,4.18%25%20Black%20or%20African%20American.

Again, tell us you know nothing. Many students from Asia. Also Africa and the Middle East. Roughly 25% of the student body is comprised of international students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Does anyone really think their non-resident aliens are all from Mexico and Africa and none are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe?”

Uhm. You forgot about Asia. Likely far more students from Asia than Europe/Aus/NZ combined.

Do you believe 0% of international students are white students from places other than Europe/Australia/NZ combined? Because that is what is what Grinnell’s data seems to be saying.

And we don’t know where Grinnell internationals come from/their race because Grinnell isn’t reporting it. That, alone, makes me believe that most Grinnell internationals are white. If they were other races, Grinnell would disclose the ethnicities and take the DEI win.

Plus— internationals from Asia don’t tend to go to SLACs. They like the larger schools/ National Us. 2 kids at 2 different SLACs. For both, the majority of international students are white. These schools just aren’t on international students radars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Tell us you know nothing about Grinnell demographics.

51% white. But not more than 7-8% each Asian and Hispanic. Less than 5% Black. 5% multiracial. He6 wait, those numbers don’t come close to 100%. More than 25% of students are unaccounted for. That’s because 20% of their students are “non-resident aliens,” and Grinnell classifies them as non-white students. Does anyone really think their non-resident aliens are all from Mexico and Africa and none are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe?

They are playing the game of lies, d*mn lies and statistics.

Not sure I’d want to be a Black kid at a school that can’t hit 5%.

https://datausa.io/profile/university/grinnell-college#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Grinnell%20College%20is%2051.5%25%20White,4.18%25%20Black%20or%20African%20American.

Again, tell us you know nothing. Many students from Asia. Also Africa and the Middle East. Roughly 25% of the student body is comprised of international students.

I don’t believe a sizable percentage of students come from Africa. Wealthy American expat kids maybe. But Grinnell is need aware for international students (need blind for US). There are some exceptions, sure. But Grinnell can’t justify providing substantial financial support for a bunch of international students from Africa over domestic students. Hence the need aware. And most kids from Africa aren’t going to a small.college they have never heard of in Iowa Yes, likely some middle eastern. But what race to middle eastern identify as? Not Asian, Hispanic or Black, usually.

Plus, if they were getting a bunch of Black students from Africa, they’d report that. 4.7% Black is dismal. If they had an enough Black students to move that number by much, they’d include them. Same with Asian, Hispanic and multiracial.

Reality is that the % of white students dropped more than 10% in the 5 years after they stopped reporting internationals by race. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Also, presume that international students also include students from any study abroad program they accept. Otherwise 20% is a very high number. Does any school but Mac come close?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone clutching their pearls about gun shops in Iowa should check yelp for gun shops near their kids school. There are at least a dozen gun shops in Boston, oh no better take Harvard MIT BU and Tufts off the list, right?

Big difference in gun culture. In iowa you can go in to store buy a gun and take home in the same day.

Not so in Massachusetts. Some of the strictest gun laws are in Massachusetts. Some of the loosest are Iowa.

And yet the violent crime rate in Boston is 10x higher than in Iowa despite their “loose” gun laws. You’d have to be exceptionally stupid to think you are safer in a big east coast city than in rural Iowa, but tragically DCUM gun haters are indeed that stupid.

[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: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.

Tell us you know nothing about Grinnell demographics.

51% white. But not more than 7-8% each Asian and Hispanic. Less than 5% Black. 5% multiracial. He6 wait, those numbers don’t come close to 100%. More than 25% of students are unaccounted for. That’s because 20% of their students are “non-resident aliens,” and Grinnell classifies them as non-white students. Does anyone really think their non-resident aliens are all from Mexico and Africa and none are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe?

They are playing the game of lies, d*mn lies and statistics.

Not sure I’d want to be a Black kid at a school that can’t hit 5%.

https://datausa.io/profile/university/grinnell-college#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Grinnell%20College%20is%2051.5%25%20White,4.18%25%20Black%20or%20African%20American.

Again, tell us you know nothing. Many students from Asia. Also Africa and the Middle East. Roughly 25% of the student body is comprised of international students.

I don’t believe a sizable percentage of students come from Africa. Wealthy American expat kids maybe. But Grinnell is need aware for international students (need blind for US). There are some exceptions, sure. But Grinnell can’t justify providing substantial financial support for a bunch of international students from Africa over domestic students. Hence the need aware. And most kids from Africa aren’t going to a small.college they have never heard of in Iowa Yes, likely some middle eastern. But what race to middle eastern identify as? Not Asian, Hispanic or Black, usually.

Plus, if they were getting a bunch of Black students from Africa, they’d report that. 4.7% Black is dismal. If they had an enough Black students to move that number by much, they’d include them. Same with Asian, Hispanic and multiracial.

Reality is that the % of white students dropped more than 10% in the 5 years after they stopped reporting internationals by race. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Also, presume that international students also include students from any study abroad program they accept. Otherwise 20% is a very high number. Does any school but Mac come close?

DK what your grind is but I’ve spent a fair amount of time on Grinnell’s campus over the last three years and your take is off base.

What do you mean by “includes students from any study abroad program they accept”? Does this make them “less international”?

Having worked with international students in a prior work life, most go where they can go. And Grinnell is a good bet for them with a long tradition of enrolling international students. Was the only LAC my DC toured where the cafeteria had a sizable Halal food station/grill.

While on campus, I’ve met students from Botswana, Ghana, Japan, Korea, Lebanon, Singapore, Tanzania, etc. I do not remember meeting any students from Western Europe but that simply be due to them not being in my DC’s social circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone clutching their pearls about gun shops in Iowa should check yelp for gun shops near their kids school. There are at least a dozen gun shops in Boston, oh no better take Harvard MIT BU and Tufts off the list, right?

Big difference in gun culture. In iowa you can go in to store buy a gun and take home in the same day.

Not so in Massachusetts. Some of the strictest gun laws are in Massachusetts. Some of the loosest are Iowa.

And yet the violent crime rate in Boston is 10x higher than in Iowa despite their “loose” gun laws. You’d have to be exceptionally stupid to think you are safer in a big east coast city than in rural Iowa, but tragically DCUM gun haters are indeed that stupid.

TBH, I feel a lot safer in big East coast cities than I do in many open carry states.

[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: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.

Tell us you know nothing about Grinnell demographics.

51% white. But not more than 7-8% each Asian and Hispanic. Less than 5% Black. 5% multiracial. He6 wait, those numbers don’t come close to 100%. More than 25% of students are unaccounted for. That’s because 20% of their students are “non-resident aliens,” and Grinnell classifies them as non-white students. Does anyone really think their non-resident aliens are all from Mexico and Africa and none are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe?

They are playing the game of lies, d*mn lies and statistics.

Not sure I’d want to be a Black kid at a school that can’t hit 5%.

https://datausa.io/profile/university/grinnell-college#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Grinnell%20College%20is%2051.5%25%20White,4.18%25%20Black%20or%20African%20American.

Again, tell us you know nothing. Many students from Asia. Also Africa and the Middle East. Roughly 25% of the student body is comprised of international students.

I don’t believe a sizable percentage of students come from Africa. Wealthy American expat kids maybe. But Grinnell is need aware for international students (need blind for US). There are some exceptions, sure. But Grinnell can’t justify providing substantial financial support for a bunch of international students from Africa over domestic students. Hence the need aware. And most kids from Africa aren’t going to a small.college they have never heard of in Iowa Yes, likely some middle eastern. But what race to middle eastern identify as? Not Asian, Hispanic or Black, usually.

Plus, if they were getting a bunch of Black students from Africa, they’d report that. 4.7% Black is dismal. If they had an enough Black students to move that number by much, they’d include them. Same with Asian, Hispanic and multiracial.

Reality is that the % of white students dropped more than 10% in the 5 years after they stopped reporting internationals by race. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Also, presume that international students also include students from any study abroad program they accept. Otherwise 20% is a very high number. Does any school but Mac come close?

DK what your grind is but I’ve spent a fair amount of time on Grinnell’s campus over the last three years and your take is off base.

What do you mean by “includes students from any study abroad program they accept”? Does this make them “less international”?

Having worked with international students in a prior work life, most go where they can go. And Grinnell is a good bet for them with a long tradition of enrolling international students. Was the only LAC my DC toured where the cafeteria had a sizable Halal food station/grill.

While on campus, I’ve met students from Botswana, Ghana, Japan, Korea, Lebanon, Singapore, Tanzania, etc. I do not remember meeting any students from Western Europe but that simply be due to them not being in my DC’s social circle.

It is much harder to get into a top school as an international student esp when schools are need aware. However, they do provide financial aid if they choose to accept you. So all of these colleges are flooded with international applications to the point where it distorts the overall acceptance rates. These schools are actually much easier to get into for domestic students than it appears. The point is, most international students would be thrilled to get into Grinnell even if it is in Iowa. The point is, it’s in America, where everyone wants to be. And if you like at the data across different schools, most international students are Asian, which makes sense since Asia is 60 pct of the world’s population

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Tell us you know nothing about Grinnell demographics.

51% white. But not more than 7-8% each Asian and Hispanic. Less than 5% Black. 5% multiracial. He6 wait, those numbers don’t come close to 100%. More than 25% of students are unaccounted for. That’s because 20% of their students are “non-resident aliens,” and Grinnell classifies them as non-white students. Does anyone really think their non-resident aliens are all from Mexico and Africa and none are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe?

They are playing the game of lies, d*mn lies and statistics.

Not sure I’d want to be a Black kid at a school that can’t hit 5%.

https://datausa.io/profile/university/grinnell-college#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Grinnell%20College%20is%2051.5%25%20White,4.18%25%20Black%20or%20African%20American.

Blacks are 12 pct of the US population with many clustered in urban areas. Is 5 pct that bad? Like other groups, they are a minority population. They have to learn to function in environments where few other people look like them. Given economic and academic disparities, it’s not realistic that America’s top colleges will have a proportionate percentage of black students relative to the national population.

[Anonymous]

It varies from year to year, but China, India, South Korea, and Canada are mentioned in various places as the biggest country feeders to Grinnell. A Jacques Steinberg piece in NYT (circa 2011) said that 10% of ALL applicants were from China. Not just of international applicants but all. I believe Grinnell now tries to limit the number of international students from any one country. But the PP talking about no students from Asia wanting a LAC and claiming they aren’t attending Grinnell is way, way off base.