Anonymous wrote:Huh, that's interesting. Does the new admissions head really think that full paying students are unqualified? That's ridiculous. And I say that as someone who was full pay and will be full pay for kids. I was super qualified and my kids are too--super bright, test really well, serious students, etc. Talk about stereo typing gheesh. Trinity still gets very qualified applicants and students and has a selective yield so why isn't that being taken into account with the rankings?

Point of clarification - the admissions head isn't saying that all full pay kids are unqualified. What he's trying to do is stop accepting unqualified kids who are admitted only because they are full pay and Trinity needs full pay kids to help cover its budget deficit. For a number of years, Trinity has accepted these kids - purely for financial reasons - and that has helped contribute to a diminished intellectual environment. While it's an admirable goal, I'm not sure where Trinity gets the money it needs without them.

Huh, that's interesting. Does the new admissions head really think that full paying students are unqualified? That's ridiculous. And I say that as someone who was full pay and will be full pay for kids. I was super qualified and my kids are too--super bright, test really well, serious students, etc. Talk about stereo typing gheesh. Trinity still gets very qualified applicants and students and has a selective yield so why isn't that being taken into account with the rankings?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So surprised to see this much talk about Trinity. Here is my experience from the late 80s/early 90s - it was the landing place of the wealthy chronic underachiever. Lots of smart kids, many from prep schools, who liked to have a good time but weren't terribly concerned with academics.

I was one of those. Mediocre grades from a highly regarded private school, but with very high SATs.

As a result, I had a great four years - with the lack of core curriculum at the time, I didn't struggle with math or science and found myself engaged with fascinating classes (ended up double majoring) and grew out of my immaturity and begin to no longer underachieve. At the same time, my classmates were smart, funny people who didn't take themselves, or school, too seriously.

People who were there concurrently with me, or plus/minus a few years on either side include:
Tucker Carlson
Jane Swift (first female Gov. of Massachusetts)
Mike Maccagnan (current GM of the NY Jets)
Mary McCormack (actress)
David Chang, chef/founder of Momofuku
Eli Lake, national security journalist

A pretty interesting cross-section of people, in a range of fields, arising from a very small school. And then there was the vast preponderance of people that went to Wall Street.

That being said, there is no longer an open curriculum. And the College seems focused on rebranding itself, turning away people of my ilk. The faculty are great, and there are tons of opportunities for internships (more with the state government than in industry) but I think Trinity is in a period of decline, one from which it might never recover.

A very interesting and informed post. But I'm confused by your last points (period of decline; never recover). Could you elaborate?

This was my post above, so I'll respond. There is a serious budget deficit at Trinity. For a long time, the College has covered over it by charging one of the very highest prices in the entire country, and then admitting a lot of full pay kids - even if these kids weren't academically qualified. This helped drive down not only the quality of Trinity's student body, but also the public perception. To counter that perception, the previous President decided to take on the fraternities - even though there was absolutely no evidence that members of the fraternities were in anyway less qualified or academically successful than non-fraternity students. As part of his strategy for supporting this change, the President went around and told anyone who would listen that fraternities were ruining the academic climate at Trinity.

Well, guess what? When a President goes around telling everyone that his College's academic climate is inferior, people take him at his word. Trinity's academic reputation - the single biggest element in USNWR ratings - cratered. At the same time, the alumni who had been in fraternities - the College's most engaged group of supporters - were alienated and stopped giving. That added to the budget deficit. Now Trinity has a new Admissions VP, determined to single-handedly change the culture by admitting significantly increased numbers of first generation students and eliminating the unqualified full payers. Great idea, in theory - but this approach is dramatically increasing the College's budget deficit.

At this point, I think Trinity is in a real financial bind. Alumni donations are down, full pay tuitions are down, and the cost of running a college keeps going up. Absent draconian budget cuts, I don't see how the College comes out of this budget spiral.

When I went there in the early 2000's, Trinity was in the top 15 or 20. Trinity was my first choice. I did well at a highly regarded private and well on the SA. I found Trinity to be extremely academic and had an over all great experience. Many of my peers have done quite well and are very successful in their respective fields. I myself am an attorney and very happy with how Trinity helped me with my career. I think Trinity has always battled a misinformed public perception about the quality of the school. Despite the fact that Trinity grads per capita go on to more elite grad schools than almost any other school and despite the fact that we do well in a vast array of fields, the perception that Trinity is some how less than seems to stick. It really bothers me because this is anything but. Another poster alluded to the fact that Trinity is viewed as rich and more conservative--that more than anything in my view has affected Trinity's ranking and it's over all "decline." I would send my kids there in a heart beat and hope that they seriously consider it.

Anonymous wrote:So surprised to see this much talk about Trinity. Here is my experience from the late 80s/early 90s - it was the landing place of the wealthy chronic underachiever. Lots of smart kids, many from prep schools, who liked to have a good time but weren't terribly concerned with academics.

I was one of those. Mediocre grades from a highly regarded private school, but with very high SATs.

As a result, I had a great four years - with the lack of core curriculum at the time, I didn't struggle with math or science and found myself engaged with fascinating classes (ended up double majoring) and grew out of my immaturity and begin to no longer underachieve. At the same time, my classmates were smart, funny people who didn't take themselves, or school, too seriously.

People who were there concurrently with me, or plus/minus a few years on either side include:
Tucker Carlson
Jane Swift (first female Gov. of Massachusetts)
Mike Maccagnan (current GM of the NY Jets)
Mary McCormack (actress)
David Chang, chef/founder of Momofuku
Eli Lake, national security journalist

A pretty interesting cross-section of people, in a range of fields, arising from a very small school. And then there was the vast preponderance of people that went to Wall Street.

That being said, there is no longer an open curriculum. And the College seems focused on rebranding itself, turning away people of my ilk. The faculty are great, and there are tons of opportunities for internships (more with the state government than in industry) but I think Trinity is in a period of decline, one from which it might never recover.

A very interesting and informed post. But I'm confused by your last points (period of decline; never recover). Could you elaborate?

So surprised to see this much talk about Trinity. Here is my experience from the late 80s/early 90s - it was the landing place of the wealthy chronic underachiever. Lots of smart kids, many from prep schools, who liked to have a good time but weren't terribly concerned with academics.

I was one of those. Mediocre grades from a highly regarded private school, but with very high SATs.

As a result, I had a great four years - with the lack of core curriculum at the time, I didn't struggle with math or science and found myself engaged with fascinating classes (ended up double majoring) and grew out of my immaturity and begin to no longer underachieve. At the same time, my classmates were smart, funny people who didn't take themselves, or school, too seriously.

People who were there concurrently with me, or plus/minus a few years on either side include:
Tucker Carlson
Jane Swift (first female Gov. of Massachusetts)
Mike Maccagnan (current GM of the NY Jets)
Mary McCormack (actress)
David Chang, chef/founder of Momofuku
Eli Lake, national security journalist

A pretty interesting cross-section of people, in a range of fields, arising from a very small school. And then there was the vast preponderance of people that went to Wall Street.

That being said, there is no longer an open curriculum. And the College seems focused on rebranding itself, turning away people of my ilk. The faculty are great, and there are tons of opportunities for internships (more with the state government than in industry) but I think Trinity is in a period of decline, one from which it might never recover.

Anonymous wrote: Seems to me your average Trinity College grad already has a built in network through mommy/daddy and prep school, so it doesn't surprise me the network can be strong.

How does it feel to be stuck in the 80s with your tattered copy of "The Preppy Handbook"?

Eewww pp, you sound bitter and nasty. Trinity kids are actually just generally really nice, smart, successful and fun people who like to help one another. Keep that chip on your shoulder though and you will go far. Gheesh!!

Anonymous wrote:Extremely strong in DC and NY. Trinity alum really like to help one another.

Seems to me your average Trinity College grad already has a built in network through mommy/daddy and prep school, so it doesn't surprise me the network can be strong.

Extremely strong in DC and NY. Trinity alum really like to help one another.

How strong is the alumni network?

Anonymous wrote:Are things in Hartford getting better?

I've still got family in the area so go up periodically but haven't lived there in many years. My sense is only marginal improvement -- some new high rise condos, some improvement I think on the river front, and the area around the train station is a bit better but still not a place I'd like to hang out at night. On the other hand, I read recently the civic center may need to be torn down. Growing up there 40 years ago it seemed more vibrant -- they attracted an NHL hockey team and people thought maybe it had bottomed out and was turning around -- but the evidence since seems to the contrary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll rank the NESCAC for you to put Trinity in context (Tufts is too different to include)........

Amherst/Williams
-
Bowdoin/Wesleyan/Middlebury
-
-
-
Colby/Bates/Hamilton
-
-
-
-
-
Trinity
-
-
Connecticut College

Some Trinity alum is on here bashing Connecticut College. Despite what they would like to think, Conn is a much better school.

lol...I think a Trinity alum would be a bit more generous with their alma mater's ranking. I think it's silly to say one is much better than the other.....they're both good schools that are very comparable on just about any metric.