Anonymous wrote:My mom’s college went under. It was a Catholic women’s college so served a niche that doesn’t really exist anymore. And it was a very slow sink — probably at least thirty years for it to finally go under.
This indicates to me that these schools can limp along for a long time. I’d be more worried about cuts in programs than actually belly-up closure.

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?

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).

is there a list of schools not filling their classes? how would we find this info?

A list of still accepting applications is published 5/1 every year. I imagine it will be on 5/15 this year. Some schools that are meh, some you’ve never heard of, and always some surprises. It’s a place to look for a second shot if your kid misjudged their applications. Someone always links to it on here.

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).

is there a list of schools not filling their classes? how would we find this info?

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).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree Earlham may be in trouble, which is too bad because it’s a great little school. But if you’re looking at slightly larger or higher ranked schools in slightly better locations, I don’t think you need to worry.

I don't get why people think the national LACs like Earlham want to increase their enrollment. Schools have a specific enrollment target based on their housing, their faculty capacity, their dining capacity, the licenses they pay for software/digital library resources etc. It's not like schools just want to get more and more students--they have an enrollment target that matches their capacity. Small private LACs have a lot of flexibility and very few have experienced financial trouble. Smaller regional publics and parochial schools are the most under threat because a larger body holds decision-making power over them --the state or the church. The state could decide that a school like Roanoke or Old Dominion would be better as a community college or as a specific training institution. The Catholic church can decide (and has!) to sell off its low-enrollment colleges rather than invest in them.

No one is saying Earlham wants to be Arizona State, but it needs to increase its enrollment from current levels just to be able to meet expenses without having to dip into its endowment or shut down departments or services. The difference between 600 and 1,000 full time students represents millions of dollars in working capital each year. That's a big deal for a school that size. The fact is that many of the artsy, creative, woke niche LACs outside the top 50-75 or so (Earlham, Bard, Bennington, Hendrix, etc.) have enrollment numbers 20+ percent below what they were a decade or two ago. Unless they find a way to turn it around, they're going to be in trouble when the demographic cliff hits in a couple years. Earlham, with its solid endowment, might hang on longer than the others, but its current trend is absolutely not sustainable long term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree Earlham may be in trouble, which is too bad because it’s a great little school. But if you’re looking at slightly larger or higher ranked schools in slightly better locations, I don’t think you need to worry.

I don't get why people think the national LACs like Earlham want to increase their enrollment. Schools have a specific enrollment target based on their housing, their faculty capacity, their dining capacity, the licenses they pay for software/digital library resources etc. It's not like schools just want to get more and more students--they have an enrollment target that matches their capacity. Small private LACs have a lot of flexibility and very few have experienced financial trouble. Smaller regional publics and parochial schools are the most under threat because a larger body holds decision-making power over them --the state or the church. The state could decide that a school like Roanoke or Old Dominion would be better as a community college or as a specific training institution. The Catholic church can decide (and has!) to sell off its low-enrollment colleges rather than invest in them.

Anonymous wrote:I agree Earlham may be in trouble, which is too bad because it’s a great little school. But if you’re looking at slightly larger or higher ranked schools in slightly better locations, I don’t think you need to worry.

Anonymous wrote:

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.