Amherst vs Bowdoin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One tidbit about Amherst abandoning legacy preferences: it is a cover for their athletes. The admission boost to athletes and it’s disproportionate impact on wealthy, white students at Amherst had far surpassed that of legacy — by an order of magnitude.

Because of its smaller student population and much higher percentage of athletes, for example, Amherst without legacy and it’s 40% athletes is still more inequitable than Wesleyan, Middlebury, and Tufts with athletes and legacy both. So, no, Amherst is not “better” than the rest of the NESCAC on the equity front; it is at best middlin’.

If Amherst wants to really talk the talk, it will cut recruited athletes in half once the affirmative action decision comes down in a few weeks and or leave/reform NESCAC. Until it does, it’s shift away from legacy preferences needs to be called what it actually is: a marketing ploy.

Ooh, would love to know where you got this juicy "tidbit" from

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One tidbit about Amherst abandoning legacy preferences: it is a cover for their athletes. The admission boost to athletes and it’s disproportionate impact on wealthy, white students at Amherst had far surpassed that of legacy — by an order of magnitude.

Because of its smaller student population and much higher percentage of athletes, for example, Amherst without legacy and it’s 40% athletes is still more inequitable than Wesleyan, Middlebury, and Tufts with athletes and legacy both. So, no, Amherst is not “better” than the rest of the NESCAC on the equity front; it is at best middlin’.

If Amherst wants to really talk the talk, it will cut recruited athletes in half once the affirmative action decision comes down in a few weeks and or leave/reform NESCAC. Until it does, it’s shift away from legacy preferences needs to be called what it actually is: a marketing ploy.

The other NESCAC schools have a similar percentage of athletes, drawing from the same pool as Amherst. So I don't get what your point is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One tidbit about Amherst abandoning legacy preferences: it is a cover for their athletes. The admission boost to athletes and it’s disproportionate impact on wealthy, white students at Amherst had far surpassed that of legacy — by an order of magnitude.

Because of its smaller student population and much higher percentage of athletes, for example, Amherst without legacy and it’s 40% athletes is still more inequitable than Wesleyan, Middlebury, and Tufts with athletes and legacy both. So, no, Amherst is not “better” than the rest of the NESCAC on the equity front; it is at best middlin’.

If Amherst wants to really talk the talk, it will cut recruited athletes in half once the affirmative action decision comes down in a few weeks and or leave/reform NESCAC. Until it does, it’s shift away from legacy preferences needs to be called what it actually is: a marketing ploy.

The other NESCAC schools have a similar percentage of athletes, drawing from the same pool as Amherst. So I don't get what your point is.

No they don’t. The larger schools have a lower percentage of athletes; it’s called math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One tidbit about Amherst abandoning legacy preferences: it is a cover for their athletes. The admission boost to athletes and it’s disproportionate impact on wealthy, white students at Amherst had far surpassed that of legacy — by an order of magnitude.

Because of its smaller student population and much higher percentage of athletes, for example, Amherst without legacy and it’s 40% athletes is still more inequitable than Wesleyan, Middlebury, and Tufts with athletes and legacy both. So, no, Amherst is not “better” than the rest of the NESCAC on the equity front; it is at best middlin’.

If Amherst wants to really talk the talk, it will cut recruited athletes in half once the affirmative action decision comes down in a few weeks and or leave/reform NESCAC. Until it does, it’s shift away from legacy preferences needs to be called what it actually is: a marketing ploy.

Ouch !

[Anonymous]

op - where did your DC decide

[Anonymous]

You make it sound like athletes somehow get in with lower academic standards which is simply not the case. Unlike at Division 1 colleges, very few athletes get into Amherst or Williams if their academics don't measure up. The vast majority of recruited athletes are in the NESCAC A band with a handful in the B band and even fewer in the C band. There are no athletic scholarships so "dumb jocks" simply don't apply there in droves. There are also many non-recruited walk-ons in the various teams. Athletics adds to the diverse, multi-dimensional communities at Amherst and Williams.

Please quote the portion of the post that suggested athletes have lower academic standards.

[Anonymous]

This social divide is frankly inevitable when teammates practice for hours daily not to mention in competition with other schools in their conference. This teamwork is frankly one of the reason why Wall Street likes to hire student-athletes. Whether this divide is "significant" or "nasty" is debatable, but certainly not limited to any NESCAC school (Bowdoin has over 40% varsity athletes for example) or other top colleges or universities for that matter.

Your post mixes facts with your opinions based on those facts. In fact, Amherst has a reputation for a campus that is very socially divided between athletes and non-athletes. Athletes at Amherst will share this. Most other NESCAC schools do not, in fact, have this same reputation. In fact, athletes at Tufts, Hamilton and Bowdoin will say that socially, athletes and non-athletes mix well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the coed, non-military LACs below Williams and Amherst, like Bowdoin, have ED2 to help reduce acceptance rates and increase yields.

Weaker schools offer ED2.

Stronger schools like Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Williams, Amherst, don't need to.


USNWR LAC:
Williams College #1
Amherst College #2
Pomona College #3
Swarthmore College #4
Bowdoin College#6
Carleton College #6
Claremont McKenna College #9
Middlebury College #11
Washington and Lee University#11
Vassar College #13
Davidson College #15
Grinnell College #15
Hamilton College #15
Colgate University #18
Haverford College #18
University of Richmond #18
Wesleyan University #18
Colby College #24
Bates College #25

I'd guess Swarthmore and Pomona do EDII not because they're weaker schools, but because it gives them more control of their incoming class. Those two are the two most diverse non-specialized LACs in the country: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/campus-ethnic-diversity

That does not sound completely reasonable. After all, wouldn't most top college want to "control" their incoming class? Also, regarding the USNSWR link on diverse schools, Wellesley and Amherst and similarly diverse to Swarthmore and Pomona. Not saying Swarthmore and Pomona are weak schools because they're both great schools, but the fact remains that most of the very top schools do not have two ED rounds.

Keep in mind that both Amherst and Williams have a higher percentage of athletes than Swarthmore (no football team, less sports crazy conference) and, especially, Pomona (Claremont colleges share many teams). Amherst and Williams would probably have to increase to filling 60% of their class with ED if they had an ED2; that is the stuff of “lesser” schools like Middlebury and Wesleyan.

As for the diversity issue, Swarthmore (33% white domestic) and Pomona (34%) are also more diverse than Amherst (39%) or Williams (50%). Williams bends over backwards to get more URMs, but it’s Williamstown. Amherst bends over backwards and in all sorts of pretzel turns and succeeds, but at the cost of most kids there being in an athlete group or a minority group. (Division 3 athletes at these schools are overwhelmingly white to the uninitiated). Huge social divide there…

If you are a URM, metropolitan Philadelphia or California not so far from Los Angeles is a much easier sell. So much easier that you might be cool committing to either school ED2 if you don’t get into a top Ivy. On the other hand, URMs need to be seriously convinced before they commit to somewhat rural Amherst and super rural Williamstown. Such is the stuff of the RD round.

There you go: two reasons. Not saying they are dispositive or “correct;” but they at least merit consideration.

You make it sound like athletes somehow get in with lower academic standards which is simply not the case. Unlike at Division 1 colleges, very few athletes get into Amherst or Williams if their academics don't measure up. The vast majority of recruited athletes are in the NESCAC A band with a handful in the B band and even fewer in the C band. There are no athletic scholarships so "dumb jocks" simply don't apply there in droves. There are also many non-recruited walk-ons in the various teams. Athletics adds to the diverse, multi-dimensional communities at Amherst and Williams.

With regards to diversity, there are many ways to look at it. For example, you can look at economic diversity where Amherst has 24% federal Pell Grant recipients vs Swarthmore's 20%. International students comprise about 11% of students at Amherst versus under 4% at Swarthmore.

You seem to think there is not a problem that Amherst has, numerically (not even proportionally) more athletes than the University of Alabama, as discussed in Selingo’s book. As he describes it, being an athlete is not a thumb on the scale; it’s an entire fist. Hard to engage in any debate with apologists who rationalize that this is in any way OK, or remotely equitable in terms of socioeconomic background. Irrespective of the fuzzy notion that these athletes are “qualified,” the fact remains that, statistically, the vast majority would not have been admitted but for the fact that they were recruited athletes. Your belief that, say, Williams has walk-ons these days also reveals you have no idea what you are talking about…we are unfortunately at least a generation removed from those days.

In any event, not sure where you are getting your numbers. With the exception of Grinnell (the only school that does actually have walk-ons), Swarthmore has more international students than any top SLAC: 15%.

Amherst is a fantastic place to get an education. They have been more diverse than other LACs for years. It’s true though, they heavily recruit athletes. Two white siblings I know: one top of class with exceptional ECs, the other a poor student and great athlete. Guess which one Amherst recruited.

(The recruited athlete did not apply and the good student went Ivy. )

Just an anecdote. Id be happy to have a kid go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Amherst and Bowdoin are great schools and neither are Ivy-reject schools as one poster stated (Ivies are very different from SLACs). Fit is most important but everything being equal, I would choose Amherst.

Amherst is more of an Ivy reject school than is Bowdoin judging by their respective overlap schools.

Dartmouth College is a Bowdoin overlap, but Dartmouth is more like a very large LAC than an Ivy League school.

Amherst overlaps include Yale, Brown, & Princeton. For those accepted to Amherst and at least one of Yale, Brown, or Princeton, Amherst does not do well according to Parchment.

Do you have any facts to back this up as it just sounds like made up crap? You do realize that SLACs are very different from Ivies so it is very unlikely they are "Ivy reject" schools.

Unfortunately many people - particularly less sophisticated consumers of education - are in stupid thrall to the Ivy brand, while they (or their kids) would have a richer education at some of the top LACs. 300-student lecture halls, anyone? Grad-student instructors? Professors who run away when they see undergraduates approaching?





You seem very young & inexperienced based on your posts. No need to be so impolite.

Yes, these overlap schools are "facts" provided by Amherst College and Bowdoin College to publications like Fiske Guide To Colleges.

Overlap schools by Fiske means that those schools share similar traits, NOT that students apply to those very schools. You need to do better.

You are wrong. These are schools with the most overlapping applications for admission.

Schools of similar caliber will always get applications from top students. However, you should know that top liberal arts colleges are very different from Ivy colleges and appeal to different types of students.

The yield rates are eye-opening. Until very recently, the yield rate for the top ranked LAC (Williams College) was a bit under 40%, while yield rates for all of the Ivy League schools are much higher.

In order to increase yield rates, top LACs have resorted to two rounds of binding ED admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Amherst and Bowdoin are great schools and neither are Ivy-reject schools as one poster stated (Ivies are very different from SLACs). Fit is most important but everything being equal, I would choose Amherst.

Amherst is more of an Ivy reject school than is Bowdoin judging by their respective overlap schools.

Dartmouth College is a Bowdoin overlap, but Dartmouth is more like a very large LAC than an Ivy League school.

Amherst overlaps include Yale, Brown, & Princeton. For those accepted to Amherst and at least one of Yale, Brown, or Princeton, Amherst does not do well according to Parchment.

Do you have any facts to back this up as it just sounds like made up crap? You do realize that SLACs are very different from Ivies so it is very unlikely they are "Ivy reject" schools.

Unfortunately many people - particularly less sophisticated consumers of education - are in stupid thrall to the Ivy brand, while they (or their kids) would have a richer education at some of the top LACs. 300-student lecture halls, anyone? Grad-student instructors? Professors who run away when they see undergraduates approaching?





You seem very young & inexperienced based on your posts. No need to be so impolite.

Yes, these overlap schools are "facts" provided by Amherst College and Bowdoin College to publications like Fiske Guide To Colleges.

Overlap schools by Fiske means that those schools share similar traits, NOT that students apply to those very schools. You need to do better.

You are wrong. These are schools with the most overlapping applications for admission.

Schools of similar caliber will always get applications from top students. However, you should know that top liberal arts colleges are very different from Ivy colleges and appeal to different types of students.

The yield rates are eye-opening. Until very recently, the yield rate for the top ranked LAC (Williams College) was a bit under 40%, while yield rates for all of the Ivy League schools are much higher.

In order to increase yield rates, top LACs have resorted to two rounds of binding ED admissions.

Neither Amherst (nor Williams for that matter) offer ED2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Committed to Bowdoin, but got off the waitlist at Amherst. Only has until today to decide. Prefers the environment and atmosphere at Bowdoin, but concerned about turning down the prestige at Amherst. Government/poli sci major. What would you tell him?

Nobody cares about Amherst prestige. It ain't Harvard, MIT, UPenn, Columbia, Brown...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Committed to Bowdoin, but got off the waitlist at Amherst. Only has until today to decide. Prefers the environment and atmosphere at Bowdoin, but concerned about turning down the prestige at Amherst. Government/poli sci major. What would you tell him?

Nobody cares about Amherst prestige. It ain't Harvard, MIT, UPenn, Columbia, Brown...

Somewhat true.

While Amherst, Williams, and a several other LACs are outstanding schools, they do not carry much prestige in the ever increasing global economy. But, US employers should know and US graduate schools certainly understand the excellence of the top LACs.

Assuming that cost of attendance was not a factor, think about if you or a family member were accepted to an elite LAC such as Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, Claremont McKenna, Pomona, and a few others how difficult the decision would be to turn down such an opportunity. Assume that acceptances to elite National Universities were limited to Cornell, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, Emory, Vanderbilt, WUSTL, Rice, and Georgetown University. Which would you chose as you top 3 among the 8 named LACs and the 8 listed National Universities ?

My list of top 3 choices would be Georgetown, Claremont McKenna, and one of Middlebury/Pomona/WUSTL/Vanderbilt/WUSTL. But if I had to select the top 3 based solely on prestige, they would all be National Universities.

[Anonymous]

My kiddo looked at both and liked both schools but preferred Amherst due to consortium, diversity and she thought the kids seemed happy. I don’t think you would go wrong but we also preferred Amherst to Maine.