Why apply to an Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kenyon was #28 two years ago between Bryn Mawr and Scripps. This year’s rankings led to some anomalies and Kenyon was one. W&M was another that sank for national universities. I don’t think either school changed.

Actually it was four years ago, not two, and it was pretty much the high point for Kenyon. Historically it’s consistently ranked in the 30s.

Grinnell was ranked 8th when the rankings first came out in 1986 and in the ensuing 38 years has consistently ranked in the top 15 and only once fell out of the top 20. That was in 2013, when it was ranked 22nd, Oberlin was ranked 26th, Kenyon was ranked 32nd, and Denison was 49th. In other words, Grinnell has always been far and away the most highly ranked of the four, Oberlin has been on the decline, Denison on the rise, and Kenyon stuck where it’s always been.

[Anonymous]

Kenyon starting with 2024 working back to 2016 (because that’s all I can see easily):
39, 31, 30, 28, 27, 30, 26, 27, 25

No one is claiming it’s the same as Grinnell. But it was an unusual drop this this year due to a change in formula.

Oberlin started this time frame at 23. Grinnell at 19. Denison at 55. They’ve definitely moved in different directions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kenyon starting with 2024 working back to 2016 (because that’s all I can see easily):
39, 31, 30, 28, 27, 30, 26, 27, 25

No one is claiming it’s the same as Grinnell. But it was an unusual drop this this year due to a change in formula.

Oberlin started this time frame at 23. Grinnell at 19. Denison at 55. They’ve definitely moved in different directions.

Right. Which is why I said “pretty much the high point.” You’ve chosen to cherry pick the high point. Here, I’ll take you back from the 25 ranking, which was 2016: 30, 32, 32, 33, 32, 33, 32, 32, 32, 32 . . .

Here’s Grinnell for that same time period: 19, 17, 22, 19, 18, 14, 14, 11, 14, 15

Here are the years since:

Kenyon: 27, 26, 30, 27, 28, 30, 31, 39

Grinnell: 19, 18, 11, 14, 13, 13, 15, 11

So Kenyon had a brief run into the high 20s, sure, but it’s typically a school ranked in the 30s.

[Anonymous]

The US News rank is, for us, a small factor.

Strength of major is important. Access to internship. Ability to see a major name concert or sport game without driving for many hours.

(in general, the idea of 18-21 year olds driving hours to entertainment is not my favorite)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kenyon starting with 2024 working back to 2016 (because that’s all I can see easily):
39, 31, 30, 28, 27, 30, 26, 27, 25

No one is claiming it’s the same as Grinnell. But it was an unusual drop this this year due to a change in formula.

Oberlin started this time frame at 23. Grinnell at 19. Denison at 55. They’ve definitely moved in different directions.

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students. But what makes a school strong is the quality of the students, and if I look at Kenyon and Grinnell CDS, there is almost no difference at all. The truly elite LACs like Williams actually have noticeably higher test score profiles than either.

If you ranked the LACs by standardized test scores (adjusting appropriately for percentage that submit) you will get a rather different result versus US News. While test scores aren’t the end all be all, they mean more to me than Pell grants. Kenyon would rank much higher.

One theory I have is that Kenyon doesn’t really try as hard to manage down acceptance rate and yield. It lets in 40-45 pct of the class ED (so it’s the first or second choice for almost half the class, like most other schools) but then they are more generous with acceptances to strong RD applicants, sometimes offering them merit aid, even if most don’t ultimately come. Bear in mind of course at any school other than the very elite ones, RD yield tends to be quite low and a lot of schools massage it with the waitlist. Kenyon may in the end get a stronger student body by allowing a higher acceptance rate and lower yield, instead of playing this game where you reject students you totally would love to have just because the computer told you they have a low probability of enrolling.

My own subjective assessment is that Kenyon should be a top 25 school- at least on par with a Bates or Bryn Mawr. I see no reason why those schools are “better.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenyon starting with 2024 working back to 2016 (because that’s all I can see easily):
39, 31, 30, 28, 27, 30, 26, 27, 25

No one is claiming it’s the same as Grinnell. But it was an unusual drop this this year due to a change in formula.

Oberlin started this time frame at 23. Grinnell at 19. Denison at 55. They’ve definitely moved in different directions.

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students. But what makes a school strong is the quality of the students, and if I look at Kenyon and Grinnell CDS, there is almost no difference at all. The truly elite LACs like Williams actually have noticeably higher test score profiles than either.

If you ranked the LACs by standardized test scores (adjusting appropriately for percentage that submit) you will get a rather different result versus US News. While test scores aren’t the end all be all, they mean more to me than Pell grants. Kenyon would rank much higher.

One theory I have is that Kenyon doesn’t really try as hard to manage down acceptance rate and yield. It lets in 40-45 pct of the class ED (so it’s the first or second choice for almost half the class, like most other schools) but then they are more generous with acceptances to strong RD applicants, sometimes offering them merit aid, even if most don’t ultimately come. Bear in mind of course at any school other than the very elite ones, RD yield tends to be quite low and a lot of schools massage it with the waitlist. Kenyon may in the end get a stronger student body by allowing a higher acceptance rate and lower yield, instead of playing this game where you reject students you totally would love to have just because the computer told you they have a low probability of enrolling.

My own subjective assessment is that Kenyon should be a top 25 school- at least on par with a Bates or Bryn Mawr. I see no reason why those schools are “better.”

This subjective assessment makes sense to me. We have a kid at Grinnell - wanted off the East coast - but can imagine that they would probably be happy at Kenyon and would be with similar peers if they had enrolled. They liked the campus when they visited and it was always on their top 3 list during application season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The US News rank is, for us, a small factor.

Strength of major is important. Access to internship. Ability to see a major name concert or sport game without driving for many hours.

(in general, the idea of 18-21 year olds driving hours to entertainment is not my favorite)

Lol, ok. Ridiculous but ok.

[Anonymous]

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenyon starting with 2024 working back to 2016 (because that’s all I can see easily):
39, 31, 30, 28, 27, 30, 26, 27, 25

No one is claiming it’s the same as Grinnell. But it was an unusual drop this this year due to a change in formula.

Oberlin started this time frame at 23. Grinnell at 19. Denison at 55. They’ve definitely moved in different directions.

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students. But what makes a school strong is the quality of the students, and if I look at Kenyon and Grinnell CDS, there is almost no difference at all. The truly elite LACs like Williams actually have noticeably higher test score profiles than either.

If you ranked the LACs by standardized test scores (adjusting appropriately for percentage that submit) you will get a rather different result versus US News. While test scores aren’t the end all be all, they mean more to me than Pell grants. Kenyon would rank much higher.

One theory I have is that Kenyon doesn’t really try as hard to manage down acceptance rate and yield. It lets in 40-45 pct of the class ED (so it’s the first or second choice for almost half the class, like most other schools) but then they are more generous with acceptances to strong RD applicants, sometimes offering them merit aid, even if most don’t ultimately come. Bear in mind of course at any school other than the very elite ones, RD yield tends to be quite low and a lot of schools massage it with the waitlist. Kenyon may in the end get a stronger student body by allowing a higher acceptance rate and lower yield, instead of playing this game where you reject students you totally would love to have just because the computer told you they have a low probability of enrolling.

My own subjective assessment is that Kenyon should be a top 25 school- at least on par with a Bates or Bryn Mawr. I see no reason why those schools are “better.”

Your theory is ridiculous. Kenyon (like Grinnell) has early decision. Even with that and even offering merit aid they still have to let in a ton of applicants to come up with a class because their yield is so low. It’s not from lack of trying. It’s lack of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

You laugh--but honestly this is how the wealthy who go to LACs seem to be going now--moving away from USNWR and more towards where there are a decent-sized communities of other wealthy kids. If you look at the NYTimes Upshot article on the schools with a high percentage of students in the 1%, those schools map on pretty well with the LACs I see being popular among the very well-off set. I wonder how this is all going to play out societally. Kenyon has a really high percentage of very well-off families. It's in the top 10 of all schools in this regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US News rank is, for us, a small factor.

Strength of major is important. Access to internship. Ability to see a major name concert or sport game without driving for many hours.

(in general, the idea of 18-21 year olds driving hours to entertainment is not my favorite)

Lol, ok. Ridiculous but ok.

Possibly. Vehicular deaths can be high in that age group, so no reason not to limit if you can't ban it. Our DCs who are that age drive cars where they can have no more three other passengers. Each additional passenger kicks up the possibility of distraction and a crash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

You laugh--but honestly this is how the wealthy who go to LACs seem to be going now--moving away from USNWR and more towards where there are a decent-sized communities of other wealthy kids. If you look at the NYTimes Upshot article on the schools with a high percentage of students in the 1%, those schools map on pretty well with the LACs I see being popular among the very well-off set. I wonder how this is all going to play out societally. Kenyon has a really high percentage of very well-off families. It's in the top 10 of all schools in this regard.[/quote

The UMC is a lot more rarefied these days than the peasants who all want their kids to major in computer science "for a career." I'm not sure how it will all play out, but from what I've seen so far we have a whole lot of Americans who know a lot of math but have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

It does make them good consumers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenyon starting with 2024 working back to 2016 (because that’s all I can see easily):
39, 31, 30, 28, 27, 30, 26, 27, 25

No one is claiming it’s the same as Grinnell. But it was an unusual drop this this year due to a change in formula.

Oberlin started this time frame at 23. Grinnell at 19. Denison at 55. They’ve definitely moved in different directions.

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students. But what makes a school strong is the quality of the students, and if I look at Kenyon and Grinnell CDS, there is almost no difference at all. The truly elite LACs like Williams actually have noticeably higher test score profiles than either.

If you ranked the LACs by standardized test scores (adjusting appropriately for percentage that submit) you will get a rather different result versus US News. While test scores aren’t the end all be all, they mean more to me than Pell grants. Kenyon would rank much higher.

One theory I have is that Kenyon doesn’t really try as hard to manage down acceptance rate and yield. It lets in 40-45 pct of the class ED (so it’s the first or second choice for almost half the class, like most other schools) but then they are more generous with acceptances to strong RD applicants, sometimes offering them merit aid, even if most don’t ultimately come. Bear in mind of course at any school other than the very elite ones, RD yield tends to be quite low and a lot of schools massage it with the waitlist. Kenyon may in the end get a stronger student body by allowing a higher acceptance rate and lower yield, instead of playing this game where you reject students you totally would love to have just because the computer told you they have a low probability of enrolling.

My own subjective assessment is that Kenyon should be a top 25 school- at least on par with a Bates or Bryn Mawr. I see no reason why those schools are “better.”

Your theory is ridiculous. Kenyon (like Grinnell) has early decision. Even with that and even offering merit aid they still have to let in a ton of applicants to come up with a class because their yield is so low. It’s not from lack of trying. It’s lack of interest.

The yield and admission rate math gets very messed up when you factor in international students. Schools don't like to point this out but the percentage of applications that come from China and India and similar is huge (especially in RD round) and the acceptance rates are extremely low because few of these applicants can afford it. Schools like Grinnell will be very generous so if an international student gets into Grinnell, he's going.

Grinnell is able to enroll more students because it offers better merit and need-based aid. Indeed, Grinnell is a school that Kenyon names as one of the top schools where applicants end up going who get into Kenyon. Few people would turn down Grinnell at 25k less per year even if they preferred Kenyon. So I don't know if it's totally that kids WANT to go to Grinnell specifically, but money talks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

You laugh--but honestly this is how the wealthy who go to LACs seem to be going now--moving away from USNWR and more towards where there are a decent-sized communities of other wealthy kids. If you look at the NYTimes Upshot article on the schools with a high percentage of students in the 1%, those schools map on pretty well with the LACs I see being popular among the very well-off set. I wonder how this is all going to play out societally. Kenyon has a really high percentage of very well-off families. It's in the top 10 of all schools in this regard.

One would never say this in public, but what is the point of attending an elite institution if everyone there is from a disadvantaged low income background? This is especially true for students who come from the disadvantaged background. You want your roommate's dad to be a CEO, not just another guy drowning in debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

You laugh--but honestly this is how the wealthy who go to LACs seem to be going now--moving away from USNWR and more towards where there are a decent-sized communities of other wealthy kids. If you look at the NYTimes Upshot article on the schools with a high percentage of students in the 1%, those schools map on pretty well with the LACs I see being popular among the very well-off set. I wonder how this is all going to play out societally. Kenyon has a really high percentage of very well-off families. It's in the top 10 of all schools in this regard.

One would never say this in public, but what is the point of attending an elite institution if everyone there is from a disadvantaged low income background? This is especially true for students who come from the disadvantaged background. You want your roommate's dad to be a CEO, not just another guy drowning in debt.

Maybe…the education? Just spitballing.