Bigger is better?

[interesteddad]

<p>

The only problem with Gordon Winston’s analysis is that it is wrong, and he would know it by simply looking at his own institution.

</p>

<p>I’m not at all sure that Winston would agree. In fact, in his 1994 economic comparison of Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, and Wellesley, he says:</p>

<p>

It’s useful to note that Swarthmore’s carefully disciplined size – keeping its total enrollment below 1300 students despite the considerable temptations to grow – is important to its very good performance. Swarthmore has been able to spend more per student than the other three schools yet its small size has increased the per student impact of its fixed gift and asset earnings to give it an even higher income base. What its small size costs it in lost tuition income is more than made up in increased asset and gift income per student – the magic of reducing the denominator. Williams’ tendency to let its enrollment drift slowly up over the years has cost it in its ability to perform economically.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.williams.edu/wpehe/DPs/DP-28.pdf[/url]”>http://www.williams.edu/wpehe/DPs/DP-28.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I also do not believe that the Williams faculty believes the quality of the school has increased with size. Quite the contrary. The faculty surveyed in the athletics report clearly believes that the average “intellectual” climate is not what they would prefer to see. This is also echoed by Prof. Sam Crane who posts on ephblog. I’m not sure the Trustees even think the college has improved. It was the Trustees that called a special meeting after last year’s homecoming and told Shapiro, “this is NOT the Williams we want to see…” and they weren’t talking about too much emphasis on intellectual pursuits!</p>

<p>Finally, a 1999 report done by a Williams Provost shows that the percentage of Williams grads earning advanced degrees (of virtually all types except MBA) has declined since the 1970s when the college began to grow at a rapid rate.</p>

<p><a href=“Williams College”>Williams College;

<p>To be sure, Williams offers more courses in more subjects to more students than it once did. And, because it has an inordinately high endowment, it has been able to handle enrollment growth better than most. But, I believe that Winston would view Williams’ growth as having some costs associated with it, both from an economic model and from a “quality” standpoint, such as larger class sizes.</p>

<p>It doesn’t matter because other papers in the “Morty Boys” series indicate that Williams is not trying to cater to the “intellectual/academic/progressive” market that, for example, a Swarthmore serves. Rather, it sees its market niche as the “competitive/income achievement” student, more business oriented – more in competition with, for example, a Duke. In many ways, the intellectual/academic admits at Williams are there to create the prestige necessary to attract their core customer base and to offset the fixed number of low-stat admits required to be the Div III powerhouse. In other words, if Williams reduced their enrollment with the same fixed number of athletic slots, their median stats would decline. </p>

<p>It would be interesting to hear what Morty says. I was surprised to see that Williams’ enrollment has actually declined slightly in recent years. Given the applicant pool, I have to assume this probably didn’t happen by accident.</p>