Which of the NESCAC schools would you say has the most and least “elitism”. it’s important to me to go to a more down to earth college
Bates was founded by abolitionists and early to educate women. To the extent that this progressive lineage persists, you might associate it with the down-to-earth quality you have indicated.
Wesleyan’s appreciation for the arts tends to displace uniform elitism. The same could be said for Connecticut College.
Hamilton’s legacy of having been two colleges of contrasting characteristics and attributes creates curricular and social space for those who may not identify with elitist proclivities.
Wouldn’t a local minimally selective state university be much less elitist than any highly selective school?
@ucbalumnus i want to go to a small liberal arts school in the north east. i would fit in poorly with a large state school. however, i want to be surrounded by down to earth people there.
People who are highly status-conscious and elitist tend to avoid liberal arts colleges, because of the lack of name recognition among the general public. The reality is that most people are not going to be instantly impressed if they learn that you attend a NESCAC school, even a top-ranked one. Any Amherst grad, for example can tell you that their school is routinely confused with UMass-Amherst, and any Williams grad can tell you the same thing about William & Mary.
NESCAC students are typically highly qualified individuals who could have gone to schools with bigger names, but opted to sacrifice name recognition for high-quality undergraduate education. And people who are willing to make that sacrifice are generally down to earth, not snobby. Note that exclusionary social clubs (like fraternities, sororities, and secret societies) are commonly banned or play a relatively small role at NESCACs.
That would depend on how one defines and measures “elitism”.
According to the latest CDS data I could find, here’s a ranking by need-based aid recipients in a recent freshman class
(the CDS H2a value divided by the CDS H2e value):
Percent College
59% Connecticut
52% Hamilton
52% Amherst
51% Trinity
51% Williams
45% Bowdoin
42% Middlebury
42% Bates
41% Colby
40% Wesleyan
36% Tufts
A different definition/measurement may well yield a different ranking.
They are all expensive, selective schools; they are all likely to enroll relatively high percentages of affluent, high-achieving students. You may want to visit some of them overnight to experience the campus atmosphere first-hand.
Those figures (#5) appear to fall into clear tiers:
- Connecticut
- Hamilton, Amherst, Trinity, Williams
- Bowdoin
- Middlebury, Bates, Colby, Wesleyan
- Tufts
I’m not sure what I’d infer from this, but the layering appears distinct for intra-conference data.
@tk21769 wrote
Very true. A high tuition/high discount business model at many of the most expensive colleges can actually funnel a lot of grant aid (in small amounts) to families earning northward of $200k a year.
Another tool is the New York Times Social Mobility Index which attempts to measure the percent of students from families in the top 20% of income. “Down to earth” is probably not a phrase I would use in describing NESCAC as a whole:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/amherst-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/williams-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/bowdoin-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/wesleyan-university
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/connecticut-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/hamilton-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/middlebury-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/bates-college
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/trinity-college-conn
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/tufts-university
Just looking at the stats for Hamilton. About 3% of students come from the bottom 20% of income. Yet about 9% of its graduates end up in the bottom 20%! So there is social mobility…
“People who are highly status-conscious and elitist tend to avoid liberal arts colleges, because of the lack of name recognition among the general public.”
That’s not true in certain circles. Most of these schools are well known in certain preppy, northeastern social circles which generally don’t care what the masses think. Their social circle knows.
http://coplac.org/members/ suggests that there are some public liberal arts colleges in the northeast. Since they appear to be less selective ones, they may be less elitist on average than the highly selective private ones that you may be considering. Indeed, it looks like all of the northeast states other than RI has an in-state public liberal arts college.
Re: #5 through #7 and student family income background
Another measure, percentage of students on Pell grants, approximates the percentage of students from the lower half of the family income distribution.
From http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ , a selection of NESCAC schools and COPLAC schools:
NESCAC:
09.6% Trinity College
09.9% Colby College
11.4% Tufts University
12.8% Bates College
13.7% Bowdoin College
14.7% Wesleyan University
15.3% Hamilton College
16.0% Middlebury College
17.4% Connecticut College
17.5% Williams College
23.8% Amherst College
COPLAC:
19.2% SUNY at Geneseo
24.8% St. Mary’s College of Maryland
25.3% Keene State College
25.9% Ramapo College of New Jersey
26.8% Eastern Connecticut State University
35.1% Shepherd University
35.7% Johnson State College
45.0% Mansfield University of Pennsylvania
46.1% Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
51.7% University of Maine at Farmington
I don’t think most of those public schools are the same caliber as the privates. Yes, in terms of socioeconomic diversity, they come out ahead. However, I’m sure the OP is looking at many factors beyond trying to pinpoint levels of elitist attitude.
The northeast is replete with great LACs, many of which have decent percentages of low income students. Your comparison focused on the NESCAC schools and public LACs, but one could add other private LACs like Susquehanna, Allegheny, and Juniata (27.7%, 26.5%, and 24.6% Pell, respectively). The College of the Atlantic stacks up even better; 45.6% of freshmen are Pell recipients, and only 5 LACs have more international students (Soka, MoHo, St. John’s, Bryn Mawr, and Earlham).
I can’t/won’t comment on the NESCAC schools, but there are many down to earth LACs elsewhere if you decide to look outside the northeast (most of the midwestern LACs, western LACs like Whitman and Willamette, and some of the southern LACs like Warren Wilson and Hendrix).
I agree with @doschicos about elites sending their kids to LACs. In our midwestern town, there are only a handful of families who “get” that Midd or Amherst are hard or harder to get into than a Duke or Vanderbilt…if they even know they exist at all. BUT, the families who do know tend to be very well educated and tend to believe in learning for learning’s sake as well as for getting an education that is marketable.
I feel myself getting defensive when neighbors ask if S19 is applying to Ivies and the competitive private universities that his peer classmates are planning on attending. When I mention Middlebury or midwestern LACs like Carleton, they say things like “Oh, yeah, I hear that being a big fish in a little pond is a thing. S19 will probably get a full scholarship to schools like those.” I take deep breaths.
The problem with this question is that there is no straightforward definition of “elitism”. Possible interpretations:
Are we talking about academic elitism?
If so, then all NESCACs are elitist; they all draw top-performing high school students. Some are more selective than others, but you should be able to figure that out for yourself.
Are we talking about socioeconomic elitism?
If so, then again all NESCACs are elitist: the Top 1% will be significantly overrepresented at all of them, and the Bottom 60% will be significantly underrepresented. The least elitist NESCACs by this measure are Williams and Amherst, because (ironically enough) they are the wealthiest, and can provide the best financial aid to the most low and middle income students. For more socioeconomic diversity, consider state schools.
Are we talking about the presence of status-obsessed students?
If so, then none of the NESCACs are particularly attractive to the biggest snobs and prestige whores, due to the lack of name recognition among the general public. There is another academically-selective athletic league in the Northeastern US that has much greater appeal to such individuals.
Are we talking about exclusionary campus social organizations?
If so, then exclusive fraternities, sororities, eating clubs, and societies generally have little to no role at NESCACs. There are other academically-selective schools in the Northeastern US where “rush”, “bicker”, or “tapping” are more important.
Are we using elitism and diversity interchangeably here? Bates possibly has the smallest endowment of all these schools. In part, this is because it was historically attended by more “marginalized” students (women, African Americans, people from more working-class backgrounds) than some of the other NESCAC schools. Those grads typically didn’t go on to such high-earning careers as some of the other “typical” NESCAC grads.
I am not great with how FA works and who gets it, etc…but part of the reason Bates isn’t as diverse as some others is because it doesn’t have as much money to finance lower-income students. Please, anyone feel free to correct me if I have got that wrong
Anyway, as far as elitism goes, you are going to find students with elite (monied) backgrounds at all of the NESCACs. If you are going by campus vibe, I am totally guessing, but my thought is that probably Conn, Tufts and Bates have the most laid-back atmosphere. You are going to find happy, smart, friendly students at all of them.
@ucbalumnus, regarding post #11, Pell Grants aren’t the only mechanism in which demonstrated need is met as the NESCAC schools noted provide significant direct endowed scholarship aid, typically 70-80% of aid provided.
I used Pell grants because eligibility for such approximates the lower half of the income distribution. Students receiving financial aid could be from families with much higher levels of income (no Pell grant, but significant financial aid from many of the NESCAC schools). If the OP is trying to avoid SES-elitism, then schools with very low percentages of Pell grant recipients may not meet the criterion.
@corbett makes some good points!
Perhaps looking at the % of public vs private school kids can get at what you are asking. Some colleges publish that data but others don’t. But I’m sure you will find a healthy dose of prep school kids at all the Nescacs. They recruit heavily at the NE boarding schools and those schools do a lot to court favor with them.
@lindagaf also points out the history of Bates. It was established in part to provide an inclusive educational community and that commitment still informs much of what they do today. So perhaps that makes them more anti-elite.
With regard to Wesleyan, I kind of got the vibe that they corner the market on artistic elitism there!