DD visited and was very impressed with the faculty she met--including one who keeps up with her former students--and the class she sat in on. But Waterville is not at all attractive and 1.5-2 hours from Portland. She has applied, but it is low on her list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colby sucks.

- Bates grad!

Bates is worse!

- Colby grad!

Both schools are freezing and in the boonies.
- not an SLAC grad.

Batesie here again - both are great schools with more in common than not. I wouldn’t call Bates a school in the boonies though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colby sucks.

- Bates grad!

Bates is worse!

- Colby grad!

Both schools are freezing and in the boonies.
- not an SLAC grad.

Anonymous wrote:Colby sucks.

- Bates grad!

Bates is worse!

- Colby grad!

Faculty are amazing. Kids who can deal with Maine winters are very happy there and end up successful.

Colby sucks.

- Bates grad!

Anonymous wrote:Oh, thank God. I thought this was a name thread.

You, sir/madam, win the thread.

Amazing faculty. Check them out. Ignore ratings. They are the types you want mentoring your kids.

I gave a talk there once.

Maine is pretty. Campus is pretty, students seemed fairly smart and down-to-earth. Faculty were fabulous. I heard from multiple people, while I was there, that it's a very sporty school and sports participation is a big deal. Of the 3 major SLACs in Maine, I think it's the most likely to attract smart athletes.

It's shameless how much they want to climb up in the rankings, which no one even takes that seriously. The acceptance rate would make you think the students are of comparable quality to places like Bowdoin/Williams, but there's no comparison- Colby's students are much weaker. Their yield is horrendously low- 28%, and that includes the ED binding students who make up 50% of their student body, because they admit high testing students without regard to how much they fit in at the school (who don't want to matriculate). That also affects retention rate, in which they don't do as well as other similarly ranked LACs (93% while most others are 96%+). Their priorities in funding have been more about experiences- dining, dorm renovations, athletics- than teaching and hiring better professors. Massively over-hyped in my opinion, and I consider schools like Vassar/Haverford/Wesleyan to be much stronger.

The good thing about them is their art museum- easily one of the best you'll find on a college campus- and the fact they meet full need with no loans for all students on financial aid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school is really coming up in the numbers. Thoughts?

All they are doing is playing the game to rise in the US News ranks. Five or so years ago when my oldest applied, Colby was in the 30s. Then they got rid of the supplemental essay and got rid of the application fee. Applications rise, rejections increase and within a matter of a few short years it’s a more selective college.

Swathmore did the same. I wish US News would not put so much weight on % admitted as that is dependent on # of applications. What about % of non legacies/non money/non athletes/non connected admitted? Put the weight on this instead.

Oh, thank God. I thought this was a name thread.

We toured twice and both children thought highly of the school. Students seem very down to earth, happy and outdoorsy. They’re building a $200mm athletic complex and have a lovely art museum. Campus is beautiful, town is a dump although the college is spurring development. Seems like a great choice for the right child.

Anonymous wrote:The school is really coming up in the numbers. Thoughts?

All they are doing is playing the game to rise in the US News ranks. Five or so years ago when my oldest applied, Colby was in the 30s. Then they got rid of the supplemental essay and got rid of the application fee. Applications rise, rejections increase and within a matter of a few short years it’s a more selective college.

The school is really coming up in the numbers. Thoughts?