A lot of the schools on the “Colleges that Change Lives” list have lower than ideal financial ratings. One of them, Birmingham-Southern, just went under.

Something to keep in mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment matters. Another thing to look at is competitiveness of the applicant pool and whether schools are filling their classes. The NEASACs and better midwestern SLAC might have to go deeper in the applicant pool, but will still fill classes. The schools that still have slots when the “still open for applications/reopening applications” list comes out on 5/1 (may be 5/15 this year) are more concerning. That means even going to the WL they could not fill a class. If it happens once (I think Purdue once had underenrollment in arts & sciences), it could be an odd year in terms of admissions calculations. But, I’ve been sad to see schools like Earlham pop up on the list consistently. That’s a problem and I’d think twice. (I believe Earlham is also in a cash crunch though, so… which is too bad, I know a couple of amazing grads from there, and am aware of their financial situation because my own kids considered it. Did not apply because of the endowment plus not filling classes issues).

Earlham gets an A+ from
Forbes and has a 1/2 billion dollar endowment, but it has under 1000 students.

Earlham has a strong endowment, but its flagging enrollment is forcing it to dip into that endowment to keep operations running. If that happens too many years in a row, financial trouble could loom. They need to find a way to get back over 1000 students without having to "buy" those students by discounting tuition too much. The same issue is happening at schools like Bennington and Bard that occupy the same narrow woke niche as Earlham.

I was right there with you until “woke,” which is the sign of a non-serious person at best and a concern troll at worst. Find better words. Maybe by attending a SLAC?

So you agree with everything the PP said but because they used one word you don't like, they must be an uneducated troll?

Not the PP, but it definitely denotes one attribute or the other.

Either you’re a troll, using the term deliberately to fire up an emotionally-charged debate; or you’re a sincere poster, but most of what you know about the world today is drawn from bot-infested social media memes. Or that alarmist Facebook post shared by your Aunt Brenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment matters. Another thing to look at is competitiveness of the applicant pool and whether schools are filling their classes. The NEASACs and better midwestern SLAC might have to go deeper in the applicant pool, but will still fill classes. The schools that still have slots when the “still open for applications/reopening applications” list comes out on 5/1 (may be 5/15 this year) are more concerning. That means even going to the WL they could not fill a class. If it happens once (I think Purdue once had underenrollment in arts & sciences), it could be an odd year in terms of admissions calculations. But, I’ve been sad to see schools like Earlham pop up on the list consistently. That’s a problem and I’d think twice. (I believe Earlham is also in a cash crunch though, so… which is too bad, I know a couple of amazing grads from there, and am aware of their financial situation because my own kids considered it. Did not apply because of the endowment plus not filling classes issues).

Earlham gets an A+ from
Forbes and has a 1/2 billion dollar endowment, but it has under 1000 students.

Earlham has a strong endowment, but its flagging enrollment is forcing it to dip into that endowment to keep operations running. If that happens too many years in a row, financial trouble could loom. They need to find a way to get back over 1000 students without having to "buy" those students by discounting tuition too much. The same issue is happening at schools like Bennington and Bard that occupy the same narrow woke niche as Earlham.

I was right there with you until “woke,” which is the sign of a non-serious person at best and a concern troll at worst. Find better words. Maybe by attending a SLAC?

So you agree with everything the PP said but because they used one word you don't like, they must be an uneducated troll?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment matters. Another thing to look at is competitiveness of the applicant pool and whether schools are filling their classes. The NEASACs and better midwestern SLAC might have to go deeper in the applicant pool, but will still fill classes. The schools that still have slots when the “still open for applications/reopening applications” list comes out on 5/1 (may be 5/15 this year) are more concerning. That means even going to the WL they could not fill a class. If it happens once (I think Purdue once had underenrollment in arts & sciences), it could be an odd year in terms of admissions calculations. But, I’ve been sad to see schools like Earlham pop up on the list consistently. That’s a problem and I’d think twice. (I believe Earlham is also in a cash crunch though, so… which is too bad, I know a couple of amazing grads from there, and am aware of their financial situation because my own kids considered it. Did not apply because of the endowment plus not filling classes issues).

Earlham gets an A+ from
Forbes and has a 1/2 billion dollar endowment, but it has under 1000 students.

Huh. PP and I admit my info on Earlham finances is 5 years old. At the time, they were consolidating and budget slashing. And were underenrolled. A bad duo. Hopefully, it’s working. The grads I know are nice, smart, hard working people. I was sad to see a seeming slide. And yep, 250 kids a class seems unsustainably small if they want to offer more than a handful of majors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment matters. Another thing to look at is competitiveness of the applicant pool and whether schools are filling their classes. The NEASACs and better midwestern SLAC might have to go deeper in the applicant pool, but will still fill classes. The schools that still have slots when the “still open for applications/reopening applications” list comes out on 5/1 (may be 5/15 this year) are more concerning. That means even going to the WL they could not fill a class. If it happens once (I think Purdue once had underenrollment in arts & sciences), it could be an odd year in terms of admissions calculations. But, I’ve been sad to see schools like Earlham pop up on the list consistently. That’s a problem and I’d think twice. (I believe Earlham is also in a cash crunch though, so… which is too bad, I know a couple of amazing grads from there, and am aware of their financial situation because my own kids considered it. Did not apply because of the endowment plus not filling classes issues).

Earlham gets an A+ from
Forbes and has a 1/2 billion dollar endowment, but it has under 1000 students.

Earlham has a strong endowment, but its flagging enrollment is forcing it to dip into that endowment to keep operations running. If that happens too many years in a row, financial trouble could loom. They need to find a way to get back over 1000 students without having to "buy" those students by discounting tuition too much. The same issue is happening at schools like Bennington and Bard that occupy the same narrow woke niche as Earlham.

I was right there with you until “woke,” which is the sign of a non-serious person at best and a concern troll at worst. Find better words. Maybe by attending a SLAC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment matters. Another thing to look at is competitiveness of the applicant pool and whether schools are filling their classes. The NEASACs and better midwestern SLAC might have to go deeper in the applicant pool, but will still fill classes. The schools that still have slots when the “still open for applications/reopening applications” list comes out on 5/1 (may be 5/15 this year) are more concerning. That means even going to the WL they could not fill a class. If it happens once (I think Purdue once had underenrollment in arts & sciences), it could be an odd year in terms of admissions calculations. But, I’ve been sad to see schools like Earlham pop up on the list consistently. That’s a problem and I’d think twice. (I believe Earlham is also in a cash crunch though, so… which is too bad, I know a couple of amazing grads from there, and am aware of their financial situation because my own kids considered it. Did not apply because of the endowment plus not filling classes issues).

Earlham gets an A+ from
Forbes and has a 1/2 billion dollar endowment, but it has under 1000 students.

Earlham has a strong endowment, but its flagging enrollment is forcing it to dip into that endowment to keep operations running. If that happens too many years in a row, financial trouble could loom. They need to find a way to get back over 1000 students without having to "buy" those students by discounting tuition too much. The same issue is happening at schools like Bennington and Bard that occupy the same narrow woke niche as Earlham.

I understand the concern of a school could close or not be able to provide the promised education while your kid is a student but I don’t understand the worry if a school were to close after your kid has graduated. An alumni network is great, but most people never use it (though of course some do). I went to Tufts and have never been back on campus, have never done a networking event (do they even have them?) or called up the career or alumni offices. What worries you about a school not being around after your kids graduation?

Anonymous wrote:Endowment matters. Another thing to look at is competitiveness of the applicant pool and whether schools are filling their classes. The NEASACs and better midwestern SLAC might have to go deeper in the applicant pool, but will still fill classes. The schools that still have slots when the “still open for applications/reopening applications” list comes out on 5/1 (may be 5/15 this year) are more concerning. That means even going to the WL they could not fill a class. If it happens once (I think Purdue once had underenrollment in arts & sciences), it could be an odd year in terms of admissions calculations. But, I’ve been sad to see schools like Earlham pop up on the list consistently. That’s a problem and I’d think twice. (I believe Earlham is also in a cash crunch though, so… which is too bad, I know a couple of amazing grads from there, and am aware of their financial situation because my own kids considered it. Did not apply because of the endowment plus not filling classes issues).

Earlham gets an A+ from
Forbes and has a 1/2 billion dollar endowment, but it has under 1000 students.

West Virginia is a state institution but all the recent cuts have caused me to skip over it on our state school list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've reviewed the Forbes financial ratings as well as 990s for various colleges that my DC is interested in. With trade school applications on the rise and the looming enrollment cliff, would it be foolish to go to a solid LAC but one that is not nearly as flush as the top, elite LACs? Will the weaker ones decline in reputation and networking value, or worse, close? How important is a school's financial health when deciding?

Not just LACs, but larger private colleges too. Concerns?

Wake Forest and Tulane? No. Unranked colleges that fall in the “regional” category? Maybe take a closer look at financials. But, bigger schools tend to have better name recognition, at least in their region, and more room to maneuver, cut departments and generally adapt to changing market conditions.

Endowment matters. Another thing to look at is competitiveness of the applicant pool and whether schools are filling their classes. The NEASACs and better midwestern SLAC might have to go deeper in the applicant pool, but will still fill classes. The schools that still have slots when the “still open for applications/reopening applications” list comes out on 5/1 (may be 5/15 this year) are more concerning. That means even going to the WL they could not fill a class. If it happens once (I think Purdue once had underenrollment in arts & sciences), it could be an odd year in terms of admissions calculations. But, I’ve been sad to see schools like Earlham pop up on the list consistently. That’s a problem and I’d think twice. (I believe Earlham is also in a cash crunch though, so… which is too bad, I know a couple of amazing grads from there, and am aware of their financial situation because my own kids considered it. Did not apply because of the endowment plus not filling classes issues).

Small, non-top ranked schools are the most vulnerable. Nevertheless, it really depends upon the particular school. However, rankings usually fall-in-line with size of a school's endowment.

Anonymous wrote:I've reviewed the Forbes financial ratings as well as 990s for various colleges that my DC is interested in. With trade school applications on the rise and the looming enrollment cliff, would it be foolish to go to a solid LAC but one that is not nearly as flush as the top, elite LACs? Will the weaker ones decline in reputation and networking value, or worse, close? How important is a school's financial health when deciding?

Wow. That's intense. Should probably just stick with state supported institutions.

Anonymous wrote:I've reviewed the Forbes financial ratings as well as 990s for various colleges that my DC is interested in. With trade school applications on the rise and the looming enrollment cliff, would it be foolish to go to a solid LAC but one that is not nearly as flush as the top, elite LACs? Will the weaker ones decline in reputation and networking value, or worse, close? How important is a school's financial health when deciding?

Not just LACs, but larger private colleges too. Concerns?

I've reviewed the Forbes financial ratings as well as 990s for various colleges that my DC is interested in. With trade school applications on the rise and the looming enrollment cliff, would it be foolish to go to a solid LAC but one that is not nearly as flush as the top, elite LACs? Will the weaker ones decline in reputation and networking value, or worse, close? How important is a school's financial health when deciding?