Why apply to an Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell

[Anonymous]

According to US News, only 4 of the 11 NESCAC are ranked above it, which isn’t surprising considering that Grinnell is ranked 11th in the entire country and well within the top 10 when the service academies are taken out.

As for its international representation college factual says: “Students from 50 countries are represented at this school, with the majority of the international students coming from China, India, and South Korea.”

I also had a kid attend Grinnell and have actually been on campus many times and know first hand that the international students are from diverse backgrounds and not from a Europe or Australia. Cut me a break.

Not sure why there’s so much Grinnell bashing going on. And I’ll say this: ask the presidents of the top NESCAC schools if they consider Grinnell to be a peer and i guarantee you they will say yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to US News, only 4 of the 11 NESCAC are ranked above it, which isn’t surprising considering that Grinnell is ranked 11th in the entire country and well within the top 10 when the service academies are taken out.

As for its international representation college factual says: “Students from 50 countries are represented at this school, with the majority of the international students coming from China, India, and South Korea.”

I also had a kid attend Grinnell and have actually been on campus many times and know first hand that the international students are from diverse backgrounds and not from a Europe or Australia. Cut me a break.

Not sure why there’s so much Grinnell bashing going on. And I’ll say this: ask the presidents of the top NESCAC schools if they consider Grinnell to be a peer and i guarantee you they will say yes.

Grinnell has a $2B+ endowment. Of course it is a peer.

[Anonymous]

I don't want my kid going to school on east coast. its a big country!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

(shrug) then TBH you are stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

(shrug) then TBH you are stupid.

you really are. the most violent places in the US have the strictest gun control laws. whether or not it's causal or just correlated, it's a fact. you are obviously far safer in rural ohio than washington DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to US News, only 4 of the 11 NESCAC are ranked above it, which isn’t surprising considering that Grinnell is ranked 11th in the entire country and well within the top 10 when the service academies are taken out.

As for its international representation college factual says: “Students from 50 countries are represented at this school, with the majority of the international students coming from China, India, and South Korea.”

I also had a kid attend Grinnell and have actually been on campus many times and know first hand that the international students are from diverse backgrounds and not from a Europe or Australia. Cut me a break.

Not sure why there’s so much Grinnell bashing going on. And I’ll say this: ask the presidents of the top NESCAC schools if they consider Grinnell to be a peer and i guarantee you they will say yes.

Grinnell has a $2B+ endowment. Of course it is a peer.

More like $3B now.

[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.

DC went to Grinnell and had friends from Africa. There's a push now to establish a scholarship for Palestinian students.

[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.

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

DC was an athlete at Grinnell and is now in a Ph.D. program. She mentioned without judgment that athletes tend to do well, both in college and thereafter, and she thinks they learn to work hard, develop self-discipline, and manage their time well and that they gain leadership skills. She felt they generally have better mental health and more drive. Perhaps there is something to the "mens sana in corpore sano." Grinnell has outstanding athletic facilities (an Olympic-size swimming pool, for example), so it's a good place for athletes. It's also nice to come onto campus, not knowing a soul, and immediately have a friend group in your teammates. From what I could tell, athletes at Grinnell weren't stereotypical "dumb jocks" but were smart, thoughtful, and considerate. They were very much part of the "life of the mind" aspect of the school.

[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.

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

DC was an athlete at Grinnell and is now in a Ph.D. program. She mentioned without judgment that athletes tend to do well, both in college and thereafter, and she thinks they learn to work hard, develop self-discipline, and manage their time well and that they gain leadership skills. She felt they generally have better mental health and more drive. Perhaps there is something to the "mens sana in corpore sano." Grinnell has outstanding athletic facilities (an Olympic-size swimming pool, for example), so it's a good place for athletes. It's also nice to come onto campus, not knowing a soul, and immediately have a friend group in your teammates. From what I could tell, athletes at Grinnell weren't stereotypical "dumb jocks" but were smart, thoughtful, and considerate. They were very much part of the "life of the mind" aspect of the school.

I would hazard a guess that athletes have higher average test scores versus non-athletes at LACs because they are more likely to be rich/white and therefore benefit less from DEI related preferences even if some of the best athletes get preferential admissions treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when there are similar schools on the East Coast? Not trying to be snarky; genuinely wondering what these schools have that a Bates/Bowdoin/Colby/Hamilton does not.

They are all safer than Bates.

They are all easier admits than Bowdoin.

They all offer merit scholarships that are not offered at Hamilton.

Better weather.

Better environments for ultra liberals and LGBTQ+.

They are safer than NE SLACs only because of their location. If Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell could pick up and move to NE, their competitors would be Harvard/Yale/Princeton. Alternatively, if Harvard/Yale/Princeton could pick up and move to Ohio or Iowa, they wouldn't be what they are.

[Anonymous]

These are all the same arguments that were made 25 years ago. Interesting to see things haven't changed that much!

[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.

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

DC was an athlete at Grinnell and is now in a Ph.D. program. She mentioned without judgment that athletes tend to do well, both in college and thereafter, and she thinks they learn to work hard, develop self-discipline, and manage their time well and that they gain leadership skills. She felt they generally have better mental health and more drive. Perhaps there is something to the "mens sana in corpore sano." Grinnell has outstanding athletic facilities (an Olympic-size swimming pool, for example), so it's a good place for athletes. It's also nice to come onto campus, not knowing a soul, and immediately have a friend group in your teammates. From what I could tell, athletes at Grinnell weren't stereotypical "dumb jocks" but were smart, thoughtful, and considerate. They were very much part of the "life of the mind" aspect of the school.

I would hazard a guess that athletes have higher average test scores versus non-athletes at LACs because they are more likely to be rich/white and therefore benefit less from DEI related preferences even if some of the best athletes get preferential admissions treatment.

That is probably true, especially in sports like golf and tennis, where years of expensive private lessons and access to country clubs make a big difference. I would not like Grinnell to get too preppy. It's always been an unpretentious oasis for very smart kids who are not from super-wealthy families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when there are similar schools on the East Coast? Not trying to be snarky; genuinely wondering what these schools have that a Bates/Bowdoin/Colby/Hamilton does not.

They are all safer than Bates.

They are all easier admits than Bowdoin.

They all offer merit scholarships that are not offered at Hamilton.

Better weather.

Better environments for ultra liberals and LGBTQ+.

They are safer than NE SLACs only because of their location. If Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell could pick up and move to NE, their competitors would be Harvard/Yale/Princeton. Alternatively, if Harvard/Yale/Princeton could pick up and move to Ohio or Iowa, they wouldn't be what they are.

Maybe a bit of an overstatement but the key point is the inconvenient location relative to the vast majority of potential customers is the reason admission is not as hyper-competitive versus some New England peers. Imagine two restaurants of identical quality, but one is 20 minutes outside the city. The one that is outside the city will be much easier to get a table at. Doesn't mean it's worse. It could even be better. Because there is such a supply/demand imbalance for the New England LACs, they have to reject, more or less arbitrarily, tons of highly qualified applicants, just for lack of space. So the reality is the fact that their acceptance rates are much lower doesn't translate into a significantly higher quality student body, versus other LACs which are not quite as overwhelmed with applicants. The most reliable indicator of student quality is test score data, not acceptance rates.

While the midwestern LACs are competitively disadvantaged by their remoteness from the east coast population centers, this is somewhat offset by their proximity to the midwestern population centers as well as their use of merit aid to lure top east coast students westward. It's also a marginally shorter and maybe more convenient flight from the west coast. For example, it can be quite difficult to get to Maine from California. So these schools end up attracting a surprisingly large number of kids from the west coast, which doesn't have enough good LACs to satisfy demand.

[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.

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

DC was an athlete at Grinnell and is now in a Ph.D. program. She mentioned without judgment that athletes tend to do well, both in college and thereafter, and she thinks they learn to work hard, develop self-discipline, and manage their time well and that they gain leadership skills. She felt they generally have better mental health and more drive. Perhaps there is something to the "mens sana in corpore sano." Grinnell has outstanding athletic facilities (an Olympic-size swimming pool, for example), so it's a good place for athletes. It's also nice to come onto campus, not knowing a soul, and immediately have a friend group in your teammates. From what I could tell, athletes at Grinnell weren't stereotypical "dumb jocks" but were smart, thoughtful, and considerate. They were very much part of the "life of the mind" aspect of the school.

I would hazard a guess that athletes have higher average test scores versus non-athletes at LACs because they are more likely to be rich/white and therefore benefit less from DEI related preferences even if some of the best athletes get preferential admissions treatment.

That is probably true, especially in sports like golf and tennis, where years of expensive private lessons and access to country clubs make a big difference. I would not like Grinnell to get too preppy. It's always been an unpretentious oasis for very smart kids who are not from super-wealthy families.

golf, tennis, soccer, softball, field hockey, lacrosse, squash, rowing, fencing, diving, swimming, sailing, skiing, hockey, .. but sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when there are similar schools on the East Coast? Not trying to be snarky; genuinely wondering what these schools have that a Bates/Bowdoin/Colby/Hamilton does not.

They are all safer than Bates.

They are all easier admits than Bowdoin.

They all offer merit scholarships that are not offered at Hamilton.

Better weather.

Better environments for ultra liberals and LGBTQ+.

They are safer than NE SLACs only because of their location. If Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell could pick up and move to NE, their competitors would be Harvard/Yale/Princeton. Alternatively, if Harvard/Yale/Princeton could pick up and move to Ohio or Iowa, they wouldn't be what they are.

Maybe a bit of an overstatement but the key point is the inconvenient location relative to the vast majority of potential customers is the reason admission is not as hyper-competitive versus some New England peers. Imagine two restaurants of identical quality, but one is 20 minutes outside the city. The one that is outside the city will be much easier to get a table at. Doesn't mean it's worse. It could even be better. Because there is such a supply/demand imbalance for the New England LACs, they have to reject, more or less arbitrarily, tons of highly qualified applicants, just for lack of space. So the reality is the fact that their acceptance rates are much lower doesn't translate into a significantly higher quality student body, versus other LACs which are not quite as overwhelmed with applicants. The most reliable indicator of student quality is test score data, not acceptance rates.

While the midwestern LACs are competitively disadvantaged by their remoteness from the east coast population centers, this is somewhat offset by their proximity to the midwestern population centers as well as their use of merit aid to lure top east coast students westward. It's also a marginally shorter and maybe more convenient flight from the west coast. For example, it can be quite difficult to get to Maine from California. So these schools end up attracting a surprisingly large number of kids from the west coast, which doesn't have enough good LACs to satisfy demand.

True. Chicago is a huge population center, and Omaha, the Twin Cities, Detroit, Kansas City, Cleveland, etc. are also sizable. And as you say, a lot of wealthy kids from the West Coast, Hawaii, and the Mountain West end up at Midwestern schools. DC met several kids from LA, the Bay Area, Seattle, Denver, and Hawaii at Grinnell. On my last trip to Hawaii, some of the locals I spoke to were planning to send their kids to "excellent liberal arts colleges" in the Midwest. I asked how their kids would feel about exchanging Hawaii's climate for that of the Midwest, and they said their kids wanted a complete change of scenery and a new experience and felt they could get a more comprehensive education "off island." One of DC's friends is back in Hawaii, surfing and swimming, but says he wouldn't change his Midwest experience for anything.