Reply to Amherst vs Bowdoin

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Amherst vs Bowdoin"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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[/quote]

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[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]
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%.[/quote]

You can argue whether athletics benefit colleges or not or which colleges benefit more or less, but the fact remains that athletics is VERY important for the majority of top colleges besides the NESCACs including Stanford and the Ivies and yes, the University of Alabama. At least Amherst stopped giving legacy preferences while all the other NESCAC schools still do, so don't talk about being "equitable" when you just don't know. In terms of walk-ons, you don't seem to know what it means. https://williamsrecord.com/456464/sports/walk-ons-fill-out-team-rosters-this-spring-especially/

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics