Archives: Administration

May 25, 2008

Administration investigates Confessional website

We got a tip about a month ago on this story from a reader, but now that I have a moment to post something, it’s worth highlighting now.

Inside Higher Ed’s (IHE) Andy Guess filed a report on the Confessional websites that have been starting up at several campuses around the country. One of these sites, which are essentially open message boards to post anything that comes to one’s mind, is present on the Amherst campus.

Billed as a portal to “share thoughts, debate ideas and communicate … anonymously,” the Confessional sites have deteriorated into arenas for obscene, vitriolic, defamatory and libellous comments and gossip about topics such as the sexual proclivities and preferences of individual students, who are sometimes mentioned by name or described in such a thinly veiled way that their identities are clear to the reader. Although the site administrators apparently attempt to weed out such postings, it is clear that many are not caught.

The original Confessional site was the creation of an Oberlin student and after an uproar at that campus the participation was limited to those with an Oberlin e-mail or with access to a computer located on the campus. That step has proven to be a hollow remedy as the objectionable postings apparently continue.

Sadly, Amherst is not an outlier to this situation. Things got so bad on the Amherst version of the website that the Editorial Board at the Amherst Student used its regular space in a March issue to argue that the College’s administration should shut down the Amherst version of the website entirely.

IHE notes in its report that attorneys for the College are planning to contact the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office to discuss potential legal action.

This raises a number of questions that IHE’s reporting does not answer. First, the IHE article notes that the Oberlin Confessional was eventually restricted to students using campus computers or signing in with Oberlin e-mail addresses. If access to the Amherst version is limited in the same way it would seem to me that much of the key information about who is posting this material would be available to the College’s IT department.

Perhaps the College would like the Massachusetts AG to issue a subpoena to the administrators of the Amherst Confessional website to divulge which IP addresses or e-mail logins are posting what material, but unless I am missing something doesn’t the College already have access to pieces of this puzzle? Does the College need to engage law enforcement to conduct additional discovery, or is it utilizing the Massachusetts AG to relieve it from the alternative of monitoring communications of its own students?

To be clear, I am not being critical of such a strategy—I feel for longtime Dean of Students Ben Lieber, who ultimately has to deal with this—and most people can certainly appreciate the College taking care to ensure a proper approach to confront the issue, but I think it is fair to ask the College what information about usage of the site is already in its possession and control, via its own network usage data.

Students also need to realize that there is little First Amendment protection for such writings on the internet, and the College would be perfectly within its rights to suspend or expel the parties responsible for the defamatory writings. Future employers can also take action based on their view of the proceedings. Most will not write such behavior off as an innocent college prank.

For those of us who have been to law school in the last few years, the AutoAdmit.com lawsuit is a cautionary tale for those that like to participate on such websites. AutoAdmit.com (a.k.a. xoxohth.com) is a website directed at law students with similar problems as the Confessional sites, but a group of female law students allegedly aggrieved by several postings there took action and sued the administrators of the site (and are also seeking information regarding that site’s “anonymous” posters). While many legal scholars debated the merits of the lawsuit (the plaintiffs apparently have little recourse against the administrators who did not post the items in question), enough information about the lawsuit became public that one of the administrators, a University of Pennsylvania law student, had a prior job offer revoked by a large law firm after it learned of his association with the site. The argument that AutoAdmit provided a space for “free expression” clearly did not fly with that law firm’s managing partner.

Shutting down these sites (and others, like the Daily Jolt) is probably a futile response by the administration, since other websites would undoubtedly crop up to replace them. But I hope that Amherst students (and others using similar websites) will soon altogether disassociate themselves from engaging in such behavior. If any students get caught in association with the objectionable postings on the site, the national attention such online misbehavior is getting recently will mean those indiviudals will likely face a variety of serious repercussions with lasting effects.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 05:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 10, 2008

2007-2008 admissions cycle breaks records

Taking a quick break from the excitement over Sabrina’s liberation from the Bunker, I wanted to post a quick item on this year’s record breaking admissions cycle.

The alternative title to this post could be “Why Brian, Parker and Dave are lucky to have been born in the ’70s” since it is clear we would have faced an even tougher challenge getting into Amherst had we been competing with the ever improving quality of recent applicant pools.

Katie Guthrie ‘11 of the Amherst Student filed a report that covered the key angles.

The headline statistics? The overall acceptance rate for the class of 2012 is a paltry 14.2%, while the regular decision acceptance rate was even lower: 12.5%. The average SAT is now over 1440. This year’s incoming class also contains more students of color and more international students.

While the growing population of 18yr old college applicants is certainly a factor in the increase in applications (many colleges are enjoying record applications), certainly credit must be given to the initiatives at the College and the leading position it has taken to regarding access to a top-quality college education.

The article also notes some other important factors. Namely, the College deliberately cut back on the number of students accepted this year, after last year’s surprisingly high yield.

It will be interesting to see how the pool fluctuates during the summer. College officials have anticipated that the lack early decision application options at Harvard and Princeton mean that the College has likely accepted students who will also be admitted to those institutions. That’s encouraging news for anxious waitlist members. Congratulations to all the new members of the Class of 2012!

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 02:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 06, 2008

Douglas C. Wilson '62, 1940-2008

Doug Wilson ‘62 passed away on May 5. For those of us lucky enough to have met Doug during our time at the College, this is particularly sad news. A wonderful person, an ardent supporter of Amherst and invaluable College historian: Doug was each of these things and much more. The College news release is here.

Parker reports that the Daily Hampshire Gazette has also posted a long obituary. Unfortunately, even online access to the obits there requires a paid subscription.

Certainly, there will be an outpouring of remembrances of Doug over the next few weeks. We welcome our readers to share their reflections here in the comments. All of us here offer our condolences to Doug’s family and friends.

UPDATE 5/7: The College has set up a website (password required) where members of the Amherst community can share memories about Doug. For those who are unable to view the page, here are two quick excerpts which convey the impact Doug had on our community:

“Doug was the kind of person we too often take for granted, and one whose absence will be sorely felt.” —Steve Vladeck ‘01

“He was a gentle, very smart, and loyal man. Our world is less rich with his passing.” —Professor Ron Rosbottom

UPDATE 5/9: The Globe’s obituary for Wilson is up, highlighting his time with the College, as well as the oft-mentioned fact that he was the first reporter to break the story of Nixon’s resignation in 1974, while reporting for the Providence Journal.

UPDATE 5/15: Wednesday’s Providence Journal, the paper Wilson worked for when he broke the Nixon story, published a laudatory column about Wilson’s newspaper days, “Almost famous for a day”.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 12:54 PM | Comments (4)

February 03, 2008

College gets $100 million on Orange County oceanfront property sale

The Orange County Business Journal (behind a paywall) reports on the sale of the Capistrano Shores beachfront cottages in San Clemente. According to the article, the price is estimated to be close to $100 million.

The seller? Amherst College. According to the article the College came into possession of the .75 mile stretch of 90 cottages, each of which face the ocean, “thanks to a generous [no kidding!] alumni donation.”

The article notes that developers and investors were also bidders for the property in the year and a half it was on the market, but a quote from the winners, the homeowner’s association, leaves the reader with the impression that the College might have not taken the best available price in order to keep the property in the hands of the cottage owners.

“In the end, Amherst decided the land should remain in the hands of the residents,” said Mark Howlett, president of Capistrano Shore’s homeowner’s association.

Although the article also describes the complex as a “mobile home park,” the article leaves hints that the homeowners mostly treat the cottages as investment property, rather than their own primary residences. In other words, perhaps the College did not leave all that much money on the table, if any, in its sale of the property.

While it might be fun to try and uncover who donated the property and when, I’m more interested in what this suggests about the College’s current endowment investment strategy and what value the College had assigned to property when it was in its portfolio.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 06:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 24, 2007

The Student and the Solomon Amendment

Yesterday, I wrote this post about Amherst’s announcement that it would allow military recruiters on campus without restriction in compliance with federal law.

At the end of that post, I highlighted an article from the Amherst Student which noted that the College could face fines of $600 million by failing to comply with federal law. While I briefly remarked that such a number was absurd, I moved on to make other points.

I just received the November 14 edition of the Student (not yet available online, as usual), and they correct the error, sort of. On the front page of the paper this paragraph appeared over a reprint of the statement by Tony Marx I discussed yesterday.

Editor’s note: The article “Faculty Backs Enviro-Studies” in last week’s issue incorrectly stated that the College will continue its long-held policy of requiring military recruiters to participate in public forums explaining “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” in order to recruit on campus. However, in lieu of a recent Supreme Court decision that would withhold roughly $6 million in federal funds from Amherst if it continued its policy, the College will now allow recruiters on campus, unconditionally.

So the number is $6 million, which makes much more sense.

However, the editor’s statement that the reporting in the November 7 article was inaacurate means that Student publisher Suvayu Pant ‘09 penned an article that borders on a complete fabrication of President Marx’s comments. That is well below the standards of any student newspaper, particularly ours. At the same time, it’s hard to believe, despite the $600 million error, that any reporter would get the facts so wrong. As far as I know, no further corrections to Pant’s article, which touched on a variety of topics, were made.

Perhaps the editors of the Student came to their conclusion after reporting by Casey Brennan ‘11 and Sam Huneke ‘11 revealed that the College’s “Committee of Six” had made the decision reflected in Marx’s official statement a week before the faculty meeting that was the subject of Pant’s article. In an article entitled “Dean Outlines New Policy on Military,” Dean of Students Ben Lieber announced the Committee of Six decision in the context of a discussion on the history of military recruiting on campus.

To be clear, I agree with the position the College ultimately took on the issue, even if others, including perhaps President Marx, were not on the same page during different stages of the discussion. However, the performance of the Amherst Student was not acceptable in reporting this important event. If it is true that Pant’s article was that inaccurate, the editors of the paper need to take action and explain how an article printed on the pages they review every week could be that far from the truth.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 03:01 PM | TrackBack

November 23, 2007

Marx issues statement on Solomon Amendment

Ten days ago, the College released a statement by President Marx on Amherst’s policy regarding military recruiters on campus. This issue had been a fairly hot topic amongst most institutions of higher education in the last two years until a recent Supreme Court ruling essentially resolved the debate.

The short story: Some colleges and universities had been refusing to allow military recruiters on campus in protest of the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” which essentially forbids homosexuals from serving in our armed forces. In particular, some law schools had been doing the same when military recruiters came looking for new JAG lawyers by refusing to allow the interviews to take place on campus property. The government fought back by threatening to enforce a law know as the Solomon Amendment, which would allow the government to pull all financial support from any school that barred military recruiters. In dealing with the law schools, the amendment is a powerful remedy. Not only can the government pull funding from the law school, but it can also pull funding from the entire university to which the law school belongs. For many universities, the penalties (which I believe also include fines) would be in the 8 figure range, if not higher. Litigation ensued regarding the constitutionality of the law. In the FAIR v. Rumsfeld decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Government. I’ve skipped some details, but that’s the general setup.

That brings us to President Marx’s statement; you can find the whole thing here.

This is the key paragraph:

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must open their campuses without restrictions to military recruiters if the schools wish to receive federal funding—funding that helps support the first-class scholarship and research taking place at Amherst every day. As a result, we have opened Amherst to military recruiters without precondition. We will also sign formal agreements with the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) at UMass to ensure that our students may participate in its programs. We do not wish to hold the college apart from the armed forces, but rather to honor those who defend our nation.

Additionally, Marx announced he would continue the debate regarding the Solomon Amendment via programming in February: Marx will convene a panel of recent alumni who have served or are currently serving in the military. Marx also announced that the college would host General Wesley Clark and Northwestern University military sociologist Charles Moskos for a colloquium debate on reinstituting the draft.

I think that this is the right path for the college to follow, for a number of reasons. Even though I do not believe that the military should bar homosexuals from serving in our armed forces, I do believe that the military deserves the same access to schools receiving federal funding that other employers receive; I suspect that many who read this will disagree with that position and we certainly welcome all comments and opinions on this issue.

Moreover, I like the College’s stated position because it also implicitly reaffirms something that I think we all believe: Amherst students are intelligent enough to engage the issues and make their own choices when it comes to their respective career paths; the College should not interfere with that process.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not highlight an article in the November 7 edition of the Amherst Student which adds a bizarre twist to this story (the article is only available via print copy as of this writing). Student Publisher Suvayu Pant ‘09 reported on the November faculty meeting in and article entitled “Faculty Backs Enviro-Studies.” Despite the title, the article was a summary of the meeting, which covered a number of topics. Pant’s article contained the following paragraph (to which I have added emphasis):

[ …] Marx told the faculty that the College will continue its policies on on-campus military recruitment, even after the Supreme Court ruled against policies like the one the College currently holds. In 1987, the faculty decided that military recruitment officers would be welcome on campus, but must explain their “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” on homosexuality. However this policy infringes on a Supreme Court ruling mandating that institutions of higher education be more open to military recruitment. This breech of law could cost the College $600 million in fines. But Marx said the College’s values dictate that it insist military recruiters explain their don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.[ …] Nonetheless, Marx said the College should not discriminate against students interested in joining the military.

It does not take more than a cursory glance at the above paragraph to notice a significantly different tone from the official college statement. I have many questions about what is reported above (is $600 million really the College’s exposure here?), but assuming everything that Pant reported was accurate and putting aside the moral arguments, was the College seriously considering risking a $600 million dollar penalty? While I have no reason to question whether Pant accurately reported the content of the meeting, the notion that the College would even consider taking such a massive penalty, in this case a fine roughly equal to half the current value of the endowment, is absurd. Did Pant’s article contain some sloppy reporting, or did Tony Marx radically change his position in the span of one week?

Comments on any or all of the above are welcome.

UPDATE 11/24: The Student has issued a correction regarding Suvayu Pant’s article. I discuss that correction here.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 01:09 PM | TrackBack

November 01, 2007

Keeping up with the Jeffs: Williams eliminates loans, too

It was announced today that WIlliams College has followed Amherst’s lead and eliminated loans from its financial aid awards. The Boston Globe story is here and EphBloggers react to the news here.

Certainly, this welcome piece of news was to be expected after Amherst’s move and the considerable financial wealth of Williams. Maybe the public revelation (discussed in passing by Parker here) of the apparent rejection of this idea in the past, well before Amherst’s decision, by the Trustees of Williams College (complete with unflattering quotes of an unnamed Williams trustee) also played some small role in today’s news.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 10:15 PM | TrackBack

September 08, 2007

President Marx signs statement on college rankings

Today, a brief statement concerning various college rankings appeared on the Amherst website. The statement was signed by Tony Marx and the presidents of 18 other liberal arts colleges. All in all, I think it’s a nice, tidy conclusion to a news story that got way too much attention in the first place.

According to the statement, Amherst and the other schools will make all data submitted to college guides publicly available on their own individual websites. Additionally, all the colleges will cease to mention the rankings in new publications.

The concluding paragraph is interesting:

Finally, we encourage all colleges and universities to participate in an effort to determine how information about our schools might be improved. As for rankings, we recognize that no degree of protest may make them soon disappear, and hope, therefore, that further discussion will help shape them in ways that will press us to move in ever more socially and educationally useful directions. [emphasis added]

This paragraph, to me conveys a couple of things. First, it signals a rather abrupt conclusion to the boycott efforts of Lloyd Thacker, (which we’ve previously discussed here and here.) while landing a jab at the impracticality of his efforts. Now that the “highest-ranked” liberal arts colleges have made their own independent statement, Thacker’s efforts to boycott US News, which were relying on the participation of schools like Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore and Wellesley, now seem like they have nowhere to go. It’s good that Marx and the others recognized the futility of fighting the rankings and now, with this statement, can move on to more important business on their respective campuses.

Also, I think the final sentence bears the distinct fingerprints of Tony Marx. Marx has been on the record saying that rankings should consider the number of lower-income students enrolled. Was Tony Marx indeed the author of this statement? Maybe the Amherst Student will find out when it reports on the story.

P.S. This is the 300th post on Am’erst. Congrats to Brian and Parker for creating it and pushing it this far and here’s to many more!

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 02:59 AM | TrackBack

July 27, 2007

Williams, Amherst Won't Fight Top U.S. News Ratings

…is the title of a July 23 Bloomberg.com news story which reports that 61 liberal arts colleges—including Trinity, Holy Cross, Lafayette and Kenyon—have joined forces to withhold cooperation from the annual U.S. News rankings of national liberal arts colleges by refusing to cooperate with the portion of the survey which asks colleges to rank the other institutions in the survey by reputation

Amherst is mentioned as the article notes that no school ranked higher than 30 is in the group of 61.

Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore have topped the liberal arts rankings since 1997. Amherst President Anthony Marx says the criteria should be rewritten to favor colleges that enroll a higher percentage of low-income students.

Marx hasn’t agreed to sign the protest letter, spokeswoman Stacy Schmeidel said.

I commented briefly on this matter last month expressing doubt that a concerted effort to boycott U.S. News would have any real effect. I still think it won’t. The participating colleges are missing the point that regardless of whether they assist U.S. News or not, the rankings will survive due to the high demand with which each annual rankings issue is met. If anything, U.S. News may, in the future, obtain these reputation scores from other sources, such as college guidance counselors (a possibility that U.S. News has mentioned publicly). That alternative might hurt the “lower ranked” schools even more since guidance counselors, usually serving the regional interests of their students, probably know less about a liberal arts college halfway across the country than those who work in higher education for a living.

I also wrote last that the movement would likely suffer from a lack of participation from the schools which are highly ranked. My feeling is that those schools enjoy free publicity from the rankings and really have no incentive to participate in any attack on the rankings. It indeed seems to be unfolding in that way—no school ranked higher than 30 has currently signed on (although the article reports that Barnard, at 26, is leaning towards joining in). Lloyd Thacker, head of the Education Conservancy and a leader of this movement, is hoping for schools like Williams and Amherst to join.

“Yeah, I would like a big-name person to step up to the plate,” Thacker said. “I’m waiting for that.”

But that statement suggests an odd situation and a bad bargaining position for Thacker and the 61 presidents: the schools supporting the boycott need the support of the very schools they imply are inaccurately ranked.

While it’s fair to criticize the US News rankings for being arbitrary and it’s fair to criticize Amherst (and alumni, like me, who think Tony Marx should take a pocket veto on this one) of being disinterested due to the fact Amherst is ranked second, it’s also fair to ask the presidents of the boycotting colleges what their alternative ranking system would entail and what the order of the schools would look like under it. In the world of higher education, it is poor form to openly suggest that you should be ranked higher than “Liberal Arts College B”; the cynic in me thinks that attacking the methodology of the US News rankings gives the 61 presidents a more polite way to suggest those very same thoughts.

Tony Marx should steer clear of this for a couple of reasons. First, the college has its hands full with near-term projects, especially given the blockbuster announcement of last week, and would have no time to be thrust into a front-line role here, as it automatically would be. Second, whatever you may think of the US News rankings, I think it is a relatively small issue compared to the challenges that really threaten the quality of higher education in the future. Amherst should continue to focus its energy on the creative and aggressive policies it has been implementing in order to properly meet those challenges, whether it is ranked second or 35th.

What do you think? We welcome your comments and criticisms, as always.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 12:46 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 24, 2007

Amherst replaces all loans with scholarships

In a major announcement this week, Amherst declared, via an alumni-wide email from President Marx and a press release, that beginning with the academic year 2008-09, all student loans will be replaced with scholarships, eliminating student loans from the picture for all students at the college. In the press release, President Marx explains the motivation behind the decision and the impact the college hopes the change will have on the face of Amherst’s student body in the future.

Eight years ago, Amherst demonstrated its commitment to being a leader in making education more accessible to low-income students by eliminating loans for students from families with incomes of less than $40,000 a year. This new initiative significantly broadens that commitment by eliminating barriers for middle-income families who want to ensure that their children receive an excellent education. Highly selective colleges like Amherst must be open and accessible to all of the most talented students. This new initiative represents a significant step, enabling us to select most broadly for future leaders while ensuring mobility based on talent.

The change will have the greatest effect on incoming students in the class of 2012, but will take effect across the board beginning in 2008, eliminating student loans for current students as well.

Read more coverage of the announcement in the Globe, and look for more on this announcement here in the coming week.

Brian Meacham '97 at 11:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 19, 2007

More colleges plan to snub annual U.S. News ranking

… or so says the headline from a Bloomberg story published online earlier today.

A group of U.S. liberal arts colleges plans to stop participating in U.S. News & World Report’s higher- education rankings, saying the magazine’s yearly survey misleads students.

A majority of representatives at a meeting today agreed not to cooperate with the annual U.S. News assessment, said Christopher Nelson, chairman of the association, called the Annapolis Group because it was founded there in 1993. Members will work with other organizations to develop alternative ways to evaluate colleges.

Although it is unclear what role Amherst played in this meeting, if any, the Bloomberg reporter decides to drop a few names:

The decision by the group, which includes colleges such as Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore, compounds the resistance to the system used by U.S. News, which compiled its first rankings in 1983 and began publishing them annually in 1987. The Washington- based magazine is facing criticism for using subjective criteria to evaluate a school’s value, particularly a survey asking administrators to pass judgment on other schools’ reputations.

Despite the assertion that a boycott is brewing, the article notes that the vote was informal and essentially non-binding. In my opinion, that strips any real significance away from the vote and the message it is purported to announce. Each school will still have the ability to “make its own choice about whether, or to what extent, it will cooperate with the magazine.”

Does anyone know if Amherst was represented at this meeting, and if so, what was the College’s vote?

I’ve added a few random thoughts below the fold. For those interested in reading more, the Christian Science Monitor supplies more detailed reporting on the meeting and the underlying issues.

UPDATE 6/20: Tony Marx is quoted in today’s New York Times article on the meeting:

Other college presidents who attended the meeting were more cautious. Anthony Marx, the president of Amherst, which is ranked second among liberal arts colleges, said he was not ready to stop cooperating with U.S. News and wanted to continue to discuss the issue.

While most people with an opinion on the topic agree that the US News rankings are flawed, it is hard to imagine that even a complete boycott will be fatal to the rankings, given the heavy demand with which each annual installment is greeted (it is one of the magazine’s best selling issues each year). As noted in the Christian Science Monitor report, if large numbers of schools do not turn in their reputation surveys, US News may turn to other sources, including college guidance counselors, to provide the reputation scores.

There’s also the issue of which college presidents will really be on board with a decisive action. Despite its flaws, the US News rankings benefit the schools which are prominently featured, and good performances in the rankings have been trumpeted by more than one communications office at colleges with which we are familiar (see final paragraph of press release). Some college presidents may be hesitant to openly part ways with rankings that have provided free publicity over the years. Those who benfit most from the rankings might have a hard time staying the course with a boycott. An example from this year’s law school rankings illustrates such a departure:

Those who have followed the US News law school rankings (and the “gaming” it allegedly inspires) know that concerted action to downplay the rankings has had little effect. In April, 2006, a large number of law school deans signed this letter which called the US News law school rankings “unreliable” and “unworthy of being an important influence” on a student’s application and matriculation decisions. Despite the unity displayed in the letter, several deans who signed it subjected themselves to accusations of public hypocrisy the following spring when they lauded positive movements by their respective law schools in the very same US News rankings they had sought to discredit the year before.

We shall see if the presidents of liberal arts colleges do any better.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 11:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 12, 2007

Is the Class of 2011 overenrolled?

We have heard some chatter over the last couple of weeks regarding unofficial reports that the incoming Class of 2011 is significantly overenrolled. I have not found a statement from the College confirming this, but our own inquiries here support the initial reports.

On May 16, the Wall Street Journal reported that although the admissions office had anticipated a 36% yield, 40% of the students accepted to Amherst had decided to attend. If you combine that yield with the 1,167 acceptances reported in the April 4 edition of the New York Times, the result would be an incoming class of around 466 (the 36% number would produce a class of 420). 466 students looks high to me, even when considering that Amherst has had significant class size fluctuation in the past (The Class of 2002 had 441 students and the Class of 2008 has around 430 members. I was stunned to learn that I have 445 classmates listed on the alumni website. In contrast, Parker reports that his class (1996) was below the 400 mark.).

However, our sources close to campus report that the incoming class may have as many as 480 students. Fortunately, we have also heard that the College will have adequate housing for this number; incoming students have reported that the first-year housing questionnaire offers seven dormitory choices (Pratt, James, Stearns, North, South, Appleton, Williston).

Although such a large class raises questions regarding the impact on available resources and the student/faculty ratio, I am curious to know if the overenrollment can be traced to an increased popularity of Amherst versus our traditional overlaps, or if it was simply a downstream consequence of the increased number of applications to colleges across the board.

We welcome your comments and input on all aspects of this story: additional facts and context, causes, implications, etc. In the meantime, we’ll watch out for further information as well.

EDIT: Some additional information has been added at the end of the second paragraph at 4:32 EST.

PARKER Morse ‘96 adds: N.B. the “Pratt” in question here is the new Charles Pratt dorm (the former Geology building), not the newly-renovated Morris Pratt. This is part of the long-term plan to put all first-year students on the Quad.

Dave Nardolillo '98 at 02:59 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 04, 2007

New York Times on Tony Jack '07

Tony Jack ‘07 is the subject of a New York Times story (now behind a paywall but available through the International Herald Tribune) about Amherst’s attempts to seek out the most talented students, regardless of their ability to pay Amherst’s tuition.

“We want talent from across all divides, wherever we can find it,” Marx said. Amherst covered the full cost of Jack’s education beyond what he earned through work-study jobs provided by Amherst as part of his financial aid package. The only monetary debt Jack says he owes is the $41 it cost to make copies of his 107-page honors thesis.

Brian Meacham '97 at 10:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 17, 2006

More on Amherst in Business Week

Alongside the profile of President Marx, BusinessWeek includes a set of photos and profiles of current and former students, a chart called “How To Get Into A School Like Amherst,” a brief bio of President Marx, and an interview with Dean of Admissions Tom Parker.

Brian Meacham '97 at 08:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 07, 2005

Dean Case on financial aid

Dean Joe Paul Case, head of financial aid at the College, is quoted in today’s New York Times in an article titled “Financial Aid Rules for College Change, and Families Pay More.”

Dean Case, who has been at Amherst since 1981, helped work with the federal government to calculate the formula that determines how many of the nation’s students qualify for financial aid. When asked about the results of recent changes, Case replied, “This is not what we intended. There is certainly more duress than we had in mind.”

Case is one of a number of college and university admissions and financial aid officers interviewed about the changes in eligibility based on economic predictions and other factors. As a result of these changes, fewer students will qualify for financial aid in the coming year than did in previous years.

Brian Meacham '97 at 03:26 PM

May 09, 2005

Dean Parker on minority applicants

Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid Tom Parker is quoted in a Boston Globe “Campus Insider” article about the number of African-American students in Amherst’s recent freshman classes. Parker explained the relatively small number of black students in the class of 2008 (“fewer than half as many as the year before,” according to reporters Marcella Bombardieri and Jenna Russell) by saying that other, unnamed institutions “that say they don’t give merit scholarships and award financial aid only on the basis of need were quietly violating their policies by fiddling with their aid formulas.” After Amherst increased its efforts to attract minority students, the 1100 accepted students for the class of 2009 include 161 black students, an increase of 17 percent from a year ago.