Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 16:02     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:Looks like Colorado College can't be as selective as it wants to be. Yield continues to creep lower, CC having trouble filling out its classes and meeting revenue targets. Perhaps not surprising for a school that costs nearly $100k/ year and is stingy with the merit aid. Like many less well endowed liberal arts colleges, they will need to increase admission rates and cut tuition (i.e. start offering "merit aid"/ tuition discounts to middle achieving full pay students). Seems like this is also happening at Bates, Kenyon and other wannabe high-selectivity LACs.

https://thecatalystnews.com/2026/04/30/colorado-college-boosts-marketing-efforts-after-two-years-of-underenrollment/


Great opportunity for full pay students who may have weaker stats to get in.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 15:52     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:This is only the beginning for all less-competitive colleges. Mediocre Public schools and private schools are in danger. People need to do their homework and not let their kid go to a college likely to close in the next 5 years.
Pick a flagship but even then--WVU--some flagships are on the brink of collapse. For CA, NC and VA there are multiple flagships not on the brink of collapse.
Or pick a private University in the T50 sorted by endowment per student, or LAC in the Top 20. There are borderline-financially-stable LACs just outside the usnews T20.
Avoid the schools that "buy" students with huge merit given to a large portion of students.


For the love of God, just say “state school.”
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 15:52     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think Colorado is trying to follow Carleton. But I think they should follow Grinnell. They used to give out generous merit but now they are focusing on fgli. That is a mistake.


Focusing on fgli is a mistake for any college or university.


I think when they gave out merit, the school was relatively strong. Now that they moved all the money to fgli, the strong kids lost interest in it. Test optional, full ride, just to get fgli kids in.


I don’t think they’ve ever really given out much merit? Certainly not like Grinnell.

It was certainly not at Grinnell’s level, but they did cut back on merit. Richmond is another school that seems to be cutting back on merit. Honestly, I think some of these schools are pretending to be something they are not. I agree with a PP that there is a lot to like, including the block plan. Even a little merit would probably help them with enrollment.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 15:45     Subject: Re:Colorado College missing enrollment targets
My kid got in early action this year and I started to look into the school when they were deferred from their ED choice.

I think there is a lot to like, but it is few grand more than Davidson ( plus flights from the east coast), where my kid got in regular decision. Davidson has a stronger ranking/reputation and is more outcomes focused, which means a lot to anyone paying sticker price who isn’t loaded,
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 15:07     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think Colorado is trying to follow Carleton. But I think they should follow Grinnell. They used to give out generous merit but now they are focusing on fgli. That is a mistake.


Focusing on fgli is a mistake for any college or university.


I think when they gave out merit, the school was relatively strong. Now that they moved all the money to fgli, the strong kids lost interest in it. Test optional, full ride, just to get fgli kids in.


I don’t think they’ve ever really given out much merit? Certainly not like Grinnell.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 15:02     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think Colorado is trying to follow Carleton. But I think they should follow Grinnell. They used to give out generous merit but now they are focusing on fgli. That is a mistake.


Focusing on fgli is a mistake for any college or university.


I think when they gave out merit, the school was relatively strong. Now that they moved all the money to fgli, the strong kids lost interest in it. Test optional, full ride, just to get fgli kids in.

Giving out a bunch of merit money is a sign of institutional weakness. Also, just because someone is FGLI, it doesn’t mean they’re unqualified-that’s just classism.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 14:59     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:There is quite simply a mismatch between tuition prices and what families are able to pay.

Americans are broke. Even UMC ones live on tight budgets.


+1000
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 14:48     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think Colorado is trying to follow Carleton. But I think they should follow Grinnell. They used to give out generous merit but now they are focusing on fgli. That is a mistake.


Focusing on fgli is a mistake for any college or university.


I think when they gave out merit, the school was relatively strong. Now that they moved all the money to fgli, the strong kids lost interest in it. Test optional, full ride, just to get fgli kids in.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 14:43     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
I live in Colorado and would love for my kid to attend but it’s SO expensive. They don’t offer merit aid and we likely will receive an inheritance before my kid applies that would disqualify us from need based aid. I feel like Whitman and Occidental have similar outcomes and they’re pretty generous with merit aid.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 14:39     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:I think Colorado is trying to follow Carleton. But I think they should follow Grinnell. They used to give out generous merit but now they are focusing on fgli. That is a mistake.


Focusing on fgli is a mistake for any college or university.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 14:28     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:
"Colorado College's self-chosen comparison schools extend nationally, however:

Bates
Bowdoin
Carleton
Colby
Colgate
Holy Cross
Davidson
Hamilton
Kenyon
Lafayette
Macalester
Middlebury
Pitzer
Wesleyan
Whitman"

That's right of course but that's not the same thing. In other words, CC says that it compares against that list -- CC offers a small school experience, outdoor fun, a safe campus, etc., just like many of the schools on the list -- but in real life, it isn't yielding students against most of those schools. Whitman, Pitzer, sure. They are closer geographically and in-line with selectivity. Hamilton? Wesleyan? Colby? Bates? Middlebury? Those schools aren't crossing with CC. Not because CC isn't great -- I'm sure it is -- but on a relative basis, students aren't struggling to choose between CC and let's say Bowdoin. They may apply to CC, and there's a lot to like about CC, but CC isn't going to be dealing with a lot of kids who were accepted to Bowdoin but who then yield to CC. You can't compare that way when it comes to yielding students and things like tuition discounting.

Whitman vs CC sounds about right. Pitzer is for a very specific type of environmental sustainability/sociology kid that it really wouldn’t make sense to choose CC over it. I generally agree with the article that their biggest advantage is block plan, but to be honest, most students won’t care unless they can articulate how it’ll help them with their careers.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 14:19     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets

"Colorado College's self-chosen comparison schools extend nationally, however:

Bates
Bowdoin
Carleton
Colby
Colgate
Holy Cross
Davidson
Hamilton
Kenyon
Lafayette
Macalester
Middlebury
Pitzer
Wesleyan
Whitman"

That's right of course but that's not the same thing. In other words, CC says that it compares against that list -- CC offers a small school experience, outdoor fun, a safe campus, etc., just like many of the schools on the list -- but in real life, it isn't yielding students against most of those schools. Whitman, Pitzer, sure. They are closer geographically and in-line with selectivity. Hamilton? Wesleyan? Colby? Bates? Middlebury? Those schools aren't crossing with CC. Not because CC isn't great -- I'm sure it is -- but on a relative basis, students aren't struggling to choose between CC and let's say Bowdoin. They may apply to CC, and there's a lot to like about CC, but CC isn't going to be dealing with a lot of kids who were accepted to Bowdoin but who then yield to CC. You can't compare that way when it comes to yielding students and things like tuition discounting.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 13:44     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Williams is so tuition dependent. Guess things are easier when you are seen as the best of the best

In saying "Williams’ tuition dependency is not publicly available," the article appears to contradict itself, however.

Not a contradiction, it tells you where they got the number from in the prior sentence.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 13:38     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
Anonymous wrote:I think Colorado is trying to follow Carleton. But I think they should follow Grinnell. They used to give out generous merit but now they are focusing on fgli. That is a mistake.

Colorado college is one of the lacs with the most rich kids. Focus on FGLI is a bunch of bull. They’ve had a fly in for decades, but if none of the kids are coming, you’re not filtering correctly and need to actually get a return from it. If anything, Colorado has been too heavy hitting on the rich students and has forgotten everyone else.
Anonymous
Post 05/27/2026 12:51     Subject: Colorado College missing enrollment targets
I think Colorado is trying to follow Carleton. But I think they should follow Grinnell. They used to give out generous merit but now they are focusing on fgli. That is a mistake.