Changes in LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona
Claremont McKenna
Wesleyan
Vassar
Haverford
are the schools I see on the rise right now. Wesleyan has invested a ton into new campus resources that go understated on DCUM. Vassar's rank has shot up, and it has improved its financial aid. Haverford will hopefully reel in since its days when its rigor was seen as on the level or even harder than Swarthmore.

Wesleyan's endowment will be subject to tax.

It has a total of 3,253 students, including undergraduate and graduate students. Specifically, there are 3,069 undergraduate students and 184 graduate students.

It's for 3000+ tuition paying students. If Wes gives more students aid or admits more Pell grant students, they'll fall below the 3000 threshold and not pay the extra tax. Better they use it on needy students, and not just give to government.

It's silly. Wesleyan is a LAC. They need to give more aid to needy students but Williams and Amherst do not? The Williams endowment per student is three times that of Wesleyan. It's over 1.4 million per student. Talk about ability to help needy students.

This tax is just some kind of arbitrary garbage.

Why should Williams pay the tax?

They're hoarding wealth.

Their campus needs an update badly but they were hoarding for their rankings

Williams campus? It’s almost entirely updated? Have you actually been or did you look up Williams and saw some old buildings and made inferences. The interiors are all new and the place is gorgeous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No interest in any NESCAC school but imo Middlebury is in a decline from top 10 US News to current tie for 19. Add in application declines and financial deficits what else would one describe Middds current status. Lots of Middlebury grads and or parents are in denial. Amherst and Williams are so far above the rest of the pack. Bowdoin has some appeal but 90-95 k a year for the rest no thanks .

Midd hater has entered the chat. It’s so crazy to me that seemingly so many folks want to drop in on threads about liberal arts colleges to either argue that they are all inferior to universities or to assert that only four are worth attending. If you’re telling me people think Wesleyan, Hamilton, and Middlebury are shit, god help Oberlin.

They made a reasonable argument. It's only LAC parents who act like all the schools are the exact same. It'd be like someone claiming Ohio State is the same as Harvard. It's okay that schools are different and some get worse over time. Middlebury does have financial issues, you can read about it from their strategic planning, student journalism, or on this forum.

They didn't make a reasonable argument because it is just a constant flow of nonsense. They have posted this junk many times before and some people have been pretty direct in batting them around and proving them foolish at pretty much every turn.

Middlebury has a small but nagging deficit because of MIIS. It has no material effect on the finances of a school with a $1.6B endowment and an pristine balance sheet other than being a bit embarrassing. The incoming President has stated that he will address it within the year.

Oh really?

The college announced a series of cost-saving measures on Wednesday, April 2 that aim to cut over $10 million from the annual budget through reducing staff and faculty benefits and permanently raising the student enrollment projection to 2,600–2,650. The college attributed the changes to 15 years of consistent deficits, culminating in the unexpectedly high $14.1 million shortfall this fiscal year, a large portion of which is due to lower enrollment at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS).

Pretty much the entirety of the deficit is from MIIS and hopefully it will be divested.

The historical number on campus is 2550 (look it up, easy to find in the actual govt reports) so the population increase is quite small directly aligned with the new and larger dorm. Most people wish these schools would scale up a bit. They raised over $100M last year and are at over 90% of their capital plan two years ahead of schedule so I'd say that their donor community is pretty solid and that AA rating says far more about their finances than your blithering.

Middlebury dodged a bullet when eitrher your kid (or yourself) didn't get in.

Your point was great and then you decided to use the stupid “your kid didn’t get in” argument. Stop the snark, it’s making for nonsensical long winded discussions that aren’t needed or necessary.

Most LACs are getting bigger- it’s helpful for their footprint and it means they’ll likely get more applications.

You are completely right…..this troll is just non stop and frankly exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

There was already a deficit, so she didn't undo anything, she continued the trend of past presidents. Endowment returns have to do with the hedge fund you outsource too; potentially, Middlebury could've switched asset managers, but I highly doubt that would've changed things, since it depends on your asset portfolio. Once again, this isn't undoing anything, it's carrying on a trend. The Charles Murray incident isn't some stain on the college record; almost no-one other than disgruntled Middlebury alum care or think about it. It was news for 5 minutes, big whoop. How much do you know about Claremont McKenna's protest against Heather Mac Donald, and how much do you think that affected their billion dollar campaign? The only thing "undone" from your list is not keeping up with faculty compensation, and I'd love a source for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midd boosters are very defensive but can not explain away current problems at the school. Hiring a new President is a start. As others have pointed out Midd has dropped to tie for 19th in US News, application decline and budget deficit not signs of a hot school like Duke or Vandy. More comparable to fine school like Colgate.

It’ you again pretending to be someone else because you’re not getting traction as usual. Someone at 10:08 put a fork in your finances claim so you need to pivot. Others haven’t pointed anything out about app drops because they are tiny and still up massively over the last 5 years. The budget deficit is tiny relative to the endowment and could be closed by simply reducing international financial aid to the same level as Williams. You’ll try over enrollment next but people in previous posts have shown the numbers that it happened all in one year and they are now graduated. You’ll then move on to “they are adding people to cover the deficit but the reality is that their new dorm is 50 beds bigger than the one it replaced and they have been very open about adding 50-75 additional students because they have now have the room and this number is nor larger than typical because with more kids going abroad each year the on campus population will remain stable.

Keep on trying little tool.

Please stop, pro-Midd troll. On behalf of Midd, stop saying it increased enrollment only one year; stop saying they have added only 50; and stop saying that they have no financial issues. These are lies. You sound unhinged, particularly when all of this is common knowledge for anyone who knows Midd. If you really want to be pro-Midd, say something positive about the school so the focus is not on denial.

Constantly repeating your lies will not make them true. People constantly point you to the actual data sources such as

https://www.middlebury.edu/assessment-institutional-research/institutional-data/middlebury-college

showing the actual enrollment over the past 10 years (and the one year of over enrollment) and highlighting that going to between 2600 and 2650 is an increase of 30-70 or so students which is happening coincident with a new dorm opening this year yet you persist. We point out that Middlebury has a AA bond rating yet you blather about non-existent ‘financial problems’. We correct you with fact yet you continue to lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

I think that this list is mostly fair with some additions and context. Patton aggressively moved to address what was a real deficit 10 years ago and now is a small deficit due to MIIS which she let sit and fester, leaving the issue to Baucomb who has already stated that MIIS will be addressed.

She was seen as not being sensitive enough to a couple of campus deaths (one from sudden illness along with an overdose).

She waited too long to start the current capital campaign though the response has been great.

Middlebury has the 10th largest endowment among their peers but Amherst, Bowdoin, and Williams have far larger endowments and Middlebury wants to narrow the gap. I expect that Baucomb will start a new program immediately to attempt to narrow the gap.

The endowment has performed well above average but the other three have done phenomenal. Bowdoin has been top 1% in terms of performance.

Overall Patton wasn’t terrible but she didn’t stand out in any positive way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

I think that this list is mostly fair with some additions and context. Patton aggressively moved to address what was a real deficit 10 years ago and now is a small deficit due to MIIS which she let sit and fester, leaving the issue to Baucomb who has already stated that MIIS will be addressed.

She was seen as not being sensitive enough to a couple of campus deaths (one from sudden illness along with an overdose).

She waited too long to start the current capital campaign though the response has been great.

Middlebury has the 10th largest endowment among their peers but Amherst, Bowdoin, and Williams have far larger endowments and Middlebury wants to narrow the gap. I expect that Baucomb will start a new program immediately to attempt to narrow the gap.

The endowment has performed well above average but the other three have done phenomenal. Bowdoin has been top 1% in terms of performance.

Overall Patton wasn’t terrible but she didn’t stand out in any positive way.

Middlebury should be deeply embarrassed that a no-name Pomona has made more money than it. It missed out on the golden age of endowment increases, and if I were baucomb, I'd clean house.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting that President Baucomb believes Middlebury is closer aligned to Dartmouth than Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

There was already a deficit, so she didn't undo anything, she continued the trend of past presidents. Endowment returns have to do with the hedge fund you outsource too; potentially, Middlebury could've switched asset managers, but I highly doubt that would've changed things, since it depends on your asset portfolio. Once again, this isn't undoing anything, it's carrying on a trend. The Charles Murray incident isn't some stain on the college record; almost no-one other than disgruntled Middlebury alum care or think about it. It was news for 5 minutes, big whoop. How much do you know about Claremont McKenna's protest against Heather Mac Donald, and how much do you think that affected their billion dollar campaign? The only thing "undone" from your list is not keeping up with faculty compensation, and I'd love a source for that.

The fact that you don’t think a college president’s job is to balance a budget—regardless of whether it was balanced in the past—isn’t a critical responsibly, means that you are a complete dolt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

There was already a deficit, so she didn't undo anything, she continued the trend of past presidents. Endowment returns have to do with the hedge fund you outsource too; potentially, Middlebury could've switched asset managers, but I highly doubt that would've changed things, since it depends on your asset portfolio. Once again, this isn't undoing anything, it's carrying on a trend. The Charles Murray incident isn't some stain on the college record; almost no-one other than disgruntled Middlebury alum care or think about it. It was news for 5 minutes, big whoop. How much do you know about Claremont McKenna's protest against Heather Mac Donald, and how much do you think that affected their billion dollar campaign? The only thing "undone" from your list is not keeping up with faculty compensation, and I'd love a source for that.

The fact that you don’t think a college president’s job is to balance a budget—regardless of whether it was balanced in the past—isn’t a critical responsibly, means that you are a complete dolt.

good job at making something up. But you said it confidently, so that's good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^disagree about Bates climbing.

Disagree? Bates must’ve missed your memo, because their endowment has doubled in the last decade, and they’ve been aggressively expanding research facilities and faculty. They’re pulling in a stronger applicant pool, with many students eyeing them as a top alternative to schools like Middlebury or Hamilton. Plus, with their major investments in faculty and national recruiting, they’re making noise in the liberal arts world. But hey, feel free to keep sleeping on them—Bates is already on the rise.

By statistical aspects, the student body at Bates doesn't seem to compare with those of Middlebury or Hamilton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^disagree about Bates climbing.

Disagree? Bates must’ve missed your memo, because their endowment has doubled in the last decade, and they’ve been aggressively expanding research facilities and faculty. They’re pulling in a stronger applicant pool, with many students eyeing them as a top alternative to schools like Middlebury or Hamilton. Plus, with their major investments in faculty and national recruiting, they’re making noise in the liberal arts world. But hey, feel free to keep sleeping on them—Bates is already on the rise.

By statistical aspects, the student body at Bates doesn't seem to compare with those of Middlebury or Hamilton.

I'd love to hear the difference of means tests you did, since you mention statistical analysis of the following:
College | SAT(25th , 50th , 75th)
Bates | (1410, 1450, 1490)
Middlebury | (1450, 1500, 1530)
Hamilton | (1460, 1500, 1530)
A difference of about 4-5 questions between average Bates and average Middlebury/Hamilton scores. Must be some pretty low variation if a jump from 96 to 98th percentile is significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^disagree about Bates climbing.

Disagree? Bates must’ve missed your memo, because their endowment has doubled in the last decade, and they’ve been aggressively expanding research facilities and faculty. They’re pulling in a stronger applicant pool, with many students eyeing them as a top alternative to schools like Middlebury or Hamilton. Plus, with their major investments in faculty and national recruiting, they’re making noise in the liberal arts world. But hey, feel free to keep sleeping on them—Bates is already on the rise.

By statistical aspects, the student body at Bates doesn't seem to compare with those of Middlebury or Hamilton.

I'd love to hear the difference of means tests you did, since you mention statistical analysis of the following:
College | SAT(25th , 50th , 75th)
Bates | (1410, 1450, 1490)
Middlebury | (1450, 1500, 1530)
Hamilton | (1460, 1500, 1530)
A difference of about 4-5 questions between average Bates and average Middlebury/Hamilton scores. Must be some pretty low variation if a jump from 96 to 98th percentile is significant.

Less than 20% of Bates students submit test scores compared to around 50% and rising (once again) for the other two schools. That is a pretty big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^disagree about Bates climbing.

Disagree? Bates must’ve missed your memo, because their endowment has doubled in the last decade, and they’ve been aggressively expanding research facilities and faculty. They’re pulling in a stronger applicant pool, with many students eyeing them as a top alternative to schools like Middlebury or Hamilton. Plus, with their major investments in faculty and national recruiting, they’re making noise in the liberal arts world. But hey, feel free to keep sleeping on them—Bates is already on the rise.

By statistical aspects, the student body at Bates doesn't seem to compare with those of Middlebury or Hamilton.

I'd love to hear the difference of means tests you did, since you mention statistical analysis of the following:
College | SAT(25th , 50th , 75th)
Bates | (1410, 1450, 1490)
Middlebury | (1450, 1500, 1530)
Hamilton | (1460, 1500, 1530)
A difference of about 4-5 questions between average Bates and average Middlebury/Hamilton scores. Must be some pretty low variation if a jump from 96 to 98th percentile is significant.

Less than 20% of Bates students submit test scores compared to around 50% and rising (once again) for the other two schools. That is a pretty big difference.

Great, but that is not the original claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the description of Colby and Middlebury grads. Add me to the chorus that Colby is improving and Middlebury is declining. Colby has a dynamic President.

Middlebury has a new president who started a few weeks ago. Let’s give him some time to rebuild what was undone by Laurie Patton.

Name 3 things Patton unwound.

She turned a blind eye toward deficits, allowing the college to stay in the red for a decade instead of making tough decisions that may have been unpopular.

She mismanaged the Charles Murray debacle and subsequent fallout, garnering negative national media attention and making the college a punching bag for conservatives.

She let faculty compensation fall behind peers, undermining Midd’s ability to attract and retain top talent.

Under her leadership, endowment returns fell short of Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc.

There was already a deficit, so she didn't undo anything, she continued the trend of past presidents. Endowment returns have to do with the hedge fund you outsource too; potentially, Middlebury could've switched asset managers, but I highly doubt that would've changed things, since it depends on your asset portfolio. Once again, this isn't undoing anything, it's carrying on a trend. The Charles Murray incident isn't some stain on the college record; almost no-one other than disgruntled Middlebury alum care or think about it. It was news for 5 minutes, big whoop. How much do you know about Claremont McKenna's protest against Heather Mac Donald, and how much do you think that affected their billion dollar campaign? The only thing "undone" from your list is not keeping up with faculty compensation, and I'd love a source for that.

The fact that you don’t think a college president’s job is to balance a budget—regardless of whether it was balanced in the past—isn’t a critical responsibly, means that you are a complete dolt.

good job at making something up. But you said it confidently, so that's good!

What was made up? Did Laurie Patton balance Middlebury’s budget or not? She allowed the college to carry a deficit for the majority of her tenure. In corporate America, she would have been fired long ago. It took an interim president to get the ball rolling. Hopefully Baucom will right the ship.