Wesleyan v Oberlin v Brandeis

circuitrider
Tue, 19 May 2015 01:36:08 +0000

@monydad

Re#34 :

Quite the optimist.

Why?Because I agreed with you?

While various schools that were unquestionably its peers in selectivity before its expansion have become considerably more selective over those same ensuing decades, both than they were before and than Wesleyan is now.To the extent that they now no longer really consider themselves peers anymore, in that particular respect.

Meh. Wesleyan’s 1971 peers have grown MARGINALLY more selective in conventional terms over the past 40 years, with the echo boom an obvious factor. However, the real winners are a handful of colleges that were not on anyone’s radar at the time: The Claremont Colleges, most of which are headed for single digits. Btw, I’m not aware that increased selectivity translates all that well in terms of alumni achievement. As I stated elsewhere, Swarthmore’s preoccupation with SATs probably cost them their first presidential alumnus. And, where are the Amherst Joss Whedons? The Williams Matthew Weiner? I’d like to meet them. As with Wesleyan’s fantastic endowment wealth during the sixties and seventies, a marginally lower selectivity rate is cold comfort if the college in question has to reserve 1 out of every 10 male admits for members of its football team.