Why did Whitworth admission rates grow, while others fell?
I’ve given Head Admissions Dude Fred Pfursich a lot of flack for assuming the economy would send admissions plummeting, even while applications increased, and even in spite of evidence that, in general, people go to college more in a recession. (Especially with state institutions.)
With a crappy job market, people need whatever college they can get to.
In fact, at Whitworth, we not only had more students attend, we had a larger percentage of accepted students attend than last year.
But I do want to address new evidence when it arises. To be fair to Mr. Pfursich, there were several private colleges where admissions did decline. See this article in TIME magazine.
A September NAICU survey found that nearly 20% of private schools reported fewer students returning to campus this semester.
Look for other media outlets making much of this trend. Of course, this comes at a horrible time, as endowments (including Whitworth’s) have plunged with the stock market. That’s the danger of investment.
But there’s another danger in assuming too much. That’s what happened in 1991, where pundits assumed that most colleges would have fewer students interested. Instead, the opposite happened.
Sure 20 percent of private colleges have lower enrollments, according to the NAICU survey. But what does that also say? 80 percent actually have a HIGHER enrollment or a steady one. That’s significant.
I suspect Whitworth admissions will continue to grow, while a few others may fall, for several reasons:
1. State colleges may have to hack the number of enrollment spaces because of state budget cuts (many state colleges lose money per student, since they get a certain percentage of expenditures from taxes.) So while some will find the cheaper prices of state colleges attractive, some won’t be able to get into those colleges.
Why would Whitworth accept students rejected from state colleges? Three letters: S.A.T. Many state colleges still require SAT scores submitted. Whitworth doesn’t.
2. Whitworth’s a relatively good deal, in comparison to other institutions. While some students will no longer be able to afford Whitworth, more will not be able to afford Gonzaga and Whitman, insitutions more expensive (but more prestigious than Whitworth.) People who normally would be going to Whitman and Gonzaga, will find themselves forced to attend Whitworth. This should go a long way to ameliorating the effect.
3. Whitworth’s number of applications have continued to increase. Application numbers — especially early application — tend to signify interest and confidence that they’ll be able to attend the school.
4. Whitworth has needs-based financial aid. Loans are a great deal for incoming students. In four years, by the time those students graduate, the recession will be (presumably) long gone.
Tuition may skyrocket, to help save our floundering endowment. But the number of students choosing to attend should remain consistent, if not grow. We need to keep that in mind, as we choose how many students to let in.
Despite its “efforts” Whitworth is growing faster than 2 percent.
From 1993 to 2007, Whitworth grew 57 percent. According to my calculator-wielding brother, that means Whitworth is growing at a rate of 3.5 percent. Of course, recently, it’s been faster. This year’s freshman class is 4.5 percent bigger than last years, a class that also outstripped the 2 percent growth goal.
At a rate of 3.5 percent, Whitworth’s population will have more than doubled in 24 years, when my kids are attending. Whitworth will be radically different. That’s what makes managing growth so important. We can’t make assumptions that people will stop attending Whitworth just because times get tough.
More may attend, because what Whitworth’s offering has become increasingly valuable: Something to set your resume apart from the others in the pile.
Guide to Whitworth’s Secret Rules.
This is a small project I would like your help with.
Whitworth has rules. They’re in the student handbook.
But as most Whitworth students know, the rules in the handbook are not really the rules at Whitworth. In fact, I suspect that it’s been a long time since many administrators have actually read the student handbook or read the student bill of rights to see what’s actually in there.
The don’t have to. There are few clauses — specifically the “disruption of community” clause — that’s basically a blank check. On a whim, an administrator can make any rule up that he or she wants. The true rules lie in the Mighty Morphin’ Mandates of Mandeville. Instead of Law being King, the King is the Law. (Or in Latin: Dick Lex)
Remember, Whitworth is about relationship — not rules. So don’t expect consistency or some sort of list or guide that you can appeal to. If you have a bad relationship with the enforcer, you may expect a different result than if with someone who’s best chums 4ever with the enforcer.
Let’s be clear: I don’t believe that any administrator punishes its students out of spite or malice. I believe they think they are being fair, impartial, and are doing what they believe is best for the Greater Good. Storm and Mandeville are good people with good motives — though I may disagree with some of their philosophical beliefs, I definitely understand and can empathize with their goals to create a smooth-running community.
But we the students are left groping for some kind of way to know what WILL get us in trouble and what WON’T get us in trouble.
I want your help listing off the things that aren’t in the student handbook — but that people have been punished for or threatened to be punished for.
These are the no-no’s you may not know-know.
I will update this text as you post in the comment section.
This is not intended to be a place of “Whitworth students are required to get married and throw frisbees! Lol!!!”
I want to actually catalogue the breadth and depth of the term ‘Disruption of community.’ Whenever Big 3s are given (or threatened) we need to know exactly why. Students should never be in doubt for what they can or can’t do… I’m not here to say that any of these SHOULDN’T be a rule. I’m just here to say that these aren’t specifically outlined in the handbook. Some of these may be common sense, others may surprise you.
Obviously, because of FERPA and the nature of rumor, I can’t speak to the veracity of any of these. (Well… some of these.) But to my knowledge, these are situations that have, at one time or another gotten students in trouble (or threatened). I’ll divide the Big Three’s up from the Non Big Threes, although if you know of someone being told they could get a big three for doing something I have listed in Non Big Three, I’ll change it.
Here goes:
Non Big Three…(These are just things prohibited. There may not be an actual punishment for breaking these. Maybe just a stern talking too.)
Moving into a dorm early.
Exploring certain sections of the dorm you live in (such as steam tunnels.)
Climbing on dorm roofs.
Switching out Art in the Art building at night.
As a student, sending an All Student E-mail.
Passing out newsletters unaffiliated with a Whitworth Club.
Listing non-Whitworth affiliated Web sites in your dorm newsletter.
Big 3 given (or threatened)
threatened, for holding a clothed mixed-gender shower party in Warren….
given, for hiding in people’s rooms and leaping out and scaring them….
given, for being a student leader and paying rent on an off-campus house, that happened to have a party where underage students consumed alcohol….
threatened, for posting lists of reasons Whitworth was better than Gonzaga on the Gonzaga campus….
Having alcohol — even for cooking — in a Theme House. (Source: Whitworthian, 2002)…
Stealing campaign signs….
throwing water balloons at cars….
threatened, for not downloading AntiVirus Software (Source, Whitworthian, Oct. 7, 2004.)…
being found with an AirSoft Gun (Source: Whitworthian, Oct. 21, 2003)…
eggs thrown in dorms…
streaking. (Source: Whitworthian, Oct. 16, 1996)…
“verbal harassment”
—-
Please, add to more in the comments below.
A history of rules on the Whitworth campus
This is a research paper I wrote in Fall 2006 about the way the rules have changed on the Whitworth campus over the years and — perhaps more interestingly — the way student reaction to those rules have changed. Keep in mind that this happened before the Racial Tension exploded in Spring 2007 and before the 8th of May. Though I see the 8th of May as an outlier — one exception driven by the willpower of a few — and not anything of the norm. Still some of my conclusions may have been proven inaccurate in time.
For another class I actually did some more research, and expanded my thesis (though I never wrote anything down.) My theory is that the pendelum of Whitworth rules are swinging back toward the “in locus parentis” style paternalism of its early days — although this time it’s driven by liability concerns and concern for a peaceful “community” rather than an attempt to maintain a grip on student morality.
With the exception of getting rid of the forum requirement (in 2000), I say that Freedom at Whitworth peaked at about 1989 (Whitworth’s centennial)and has seen a steady erosion since then, especially with regards to Orientation. The last 5 years in particular have brought a number of new limitations — hole policy, trays removed, free to-go boxes removed, consequence control fro RAP policy limited, parking privileges tightened, Alumni banned from traditiation, dorm doors always locked, off-campus policy extended — and no new freedoms that I’m aware of. (Unless you count the “right to have a low GPA and still get an academic scholarship.”) If you can think of some, please tell me.
Here’s the essay:
From Grumbling to Grudging Gratitude.
Whitworth College Associated Dean of Student Richard Mandeville’s office door is a quote by 19th Century Theologian G.K. Chesterton: “And the more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while I had established rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild .” That Mandeville, the strict face of Whitworth discipline, would choose that quote to affix to his door encapsulates the Whitworth administrative philosophy towards rule and discipline. Like other Christian colleges, Whitworth has constantly struggled with a basic administrative challenge: Balancing their desire for an orderly campus centered on Christian values with students’ desire for freedom.
In one sense, they want students to feel safe, to develop healthy lifestyles and to remain moral. But simultaneously, they recognize the value of letting students learn by experience, of giving them a chance to wade through the life’s brambles and nettles. Preparation for the real world often means being confronted with the kind of actual tough choices. Whitworth’s push and pull of strict rules against freedom throughout the years generally mirrors the surrounding culture of the time. Even when Whitworth’s rules stayed the same, student attitudes toward them shifted. The reaction towards Whitworth’s rules boiled to angry rebellion in the 1960’s and then cooled to contemporary lukewarm acceptance and gratitude.
The 20th century at Whitworth began with but one rule in the handbook: “To do right.” Obviously, many students and trustees found this rule a bit vague. Consequently, in 1904 the handbook changed to outline specific taboos, forbidding “harmful amusements” like dancing and card playing. From the beginning, Whitworth pursued a Baptist mentality of strict moral discipline. A strain of paternalism ran through the College, as administrators set curfews and rules on visitation, correspondence, and travel. When Whitworth College still resided in Sumner, students were required to be at class on time, attend church, and keep their rooms clean. Men could not visit ladies without first presenting a letter of introduction, and women could not visit town without a chaperone. After all, George Whitworth’s founding philosophy was not only education, but also “religious training.” Attendance at Chapel twice a week, therefore, was mandatory. Even secular colleges at the turn of the century still had these kinds of leftover strains of Victorian sensibilities. Almost imperceptibly, however, that began to shift. Several controversial thinkers– Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, and George Bernard Shaw– began to plant seeds of change, challenging capitalism, Christianity, and chastity. Straggling, as always, behind the march of new technology, followed new and improved styles of morality.