dsctaway1234

The college does remain a pipeline, though the landscape of junior + senior transfers has changed.

Once US News started more heavily weighting 4-year completion rates, schools responded by attempting to select for folks who would complete in 4 years and providing more support for first and second year students. That left fewer spots for transfer into upper-level classes because of fewer dropouts / transfers-out.

Like I commented elsewhere, most students until the 60s went to Cornell to the Telluride house. That relationship was very helpful for generations of students. Deep springers still do follow this path, but much more rarely, i.e. every few years someone will go.

The stories from the modern era about a quarter or more of the class going to Harvard of UChicago are mostly gone now, although every so often an admissions director starts trying to get as many dsers as they can -- looking at you Columbia ;) But basically, top schools seem to accept about one deep springs student a year as part of their upper-level transfer class. For example, this year, harvard accepted just 14 students for upper-level transfer, including one deep springer.

So things seem to be getting harder, but the student experience here is so unique and the student quality so excellent, that they're still able gain admission to top schools despite the changing landscape (most of them get into one or more of these schools before they attend deep springs).

There has been some conversation as this has been taking place about new arrangements or additional support (e.g. 4 year scholarships, a formal relationship with another school, etc.), but at the moment, the need isn't acute enough, though vision for this aspect of the experience will be included in the next strategic plan.

Generally, the quality and curiosity of life on the ground here is what attracts great and weird students to enroll rather than a pipeline effect; applicants attached to that don't tend to make it into final class.

I imagine his recollection is correct; there could have been a policy at the time that required all students to participate in the interview; in that case, they would have all reviewed every essay and discussed them beforehand to develop questions.

I agree with the other commenter here that the students probably didn't think, "this 18 y/o applicant's theories are ground breaking!!!" They probably thought, "what a crazy (but well written) essay, we gotta talk to this guy." Not clear to me if that essay was also the Jungian essay he talks about in the interview, but that gives a good indication of how students tend to approach interview questions about essays and following up on responses.

But yes, the current set up has just over a third of the student body serving on the application committee and only the application committee interviews the applicants. The student body still collectively interviews any long-term staff and faculty; one of the highlights of my time at deep springs (even if it was before I began).

The bus only goes to Beatty these days, so most people fly to Reno, LA, or Bishop.

These conversations have been live on campus for some time (80s) and continue. Though we're isolated, most conversations happening elsewhere also happen here, but, because everyone's so weird, the conversations get turned on their head or don't present in the same way in other places. Mostly it just makes the environment less reactionary.

That can be frustrating for some who want change now, but, at the end of the day, the students and community have the power to change most aspects of the program, and year to year different students or community members take on different projects in response to community needs. That agency helps diffuse many convolutions via compromise and practical action. Of course, convolutions still happen. Basically, this isn't a place that avoids conflict or disagreement, it's a container where students (and staff, ha!) learn how to disagree, conflict, resolve/forget, and get shit done.

I am not a student at Deep Springs, but I can speak generally to different motivations of students and myself (staff).

One of the more interesting things about Deep Springs is that the students are definitely counter cultural but also very competitive and generally academically (or at least intellectually) straight-laced/standouts. That's the zone of genius they were in before they came here, so afterwards, they go to schools you'd expect them to go. Until the 1960s, many (most?) students went to Cornell to the Telluride house (also founded by Nunn) to finish their undergrad.

What they do next is usually more interesting. When accepting the scholarship to attend deep springs, students agree to commit themselves to a life of service to humanity. At the founding, becoming a titan of industry (emulating the founder) was definitely seen as such, but, as you can imagine, ideas have shifted with generations. Pursuing advanced degrees is pretty popular, and many alums have gone on to work in higher education.

When I was getting driven in by a student for my interview as a staff member, they asked me why I wanted to work there. After I gave some answer, I asked her why she decided to study at deep springs. She told me that of her options (including top US schools), deep springs seemed to be the hardest and the only place where she would get real feedback. After listening to her answer and talking to her about it, I decided I wanted to work at deep springs because I prefer to work with that quality of student, and, if I can work with 24 or so, even better.

These guys all come in very talented academically and in some cases professionally, and, for my money, the education that they get -- especially in politics and common sense -- helps round them in a way which is very rare in other colleges or learning communities. That high-minded conversations flow from the seminar to the ditch digging crew is why I would suggest a place like deep springs (or something like the Thiel Fellowship) versus reading lots of books in your spare time and working on a farm if you are a bright but disenchanted student.

Cons are a lifestyle which is very much out of sync with the rest of the world and expectations. Any resident is committing to live in a small village (mostly 18-24 y/os, usually <10 staff and faculty) on the northern boundary of death valley.

And if you're a student, you are committing to participate in a democratic game in which your peers (and yourself) will regulate your actions, e.g. no wifi on personal devices, only shared desktop computers. But as you can imagine, it's hard to get such regulations passed.

Depending on how you cope, the entire project might be a con, ha! That is, the program demands nearly all of the time of a student for 2 years. For some, that is too much of a burden. But for many it's their first introduction to working that hard that continuously. After their time, most deep springers would be great high-potential, low-experience start up employees, for example.

An easy way of thinking about deep springs today is that it's a modern seminary or monastery.

I like working on projects like deep springs because the marriage of mind and body. It has been rare for me to find good concentrations of folks who want to physically work until they're exhausted and who are also incredibly curious (and rigorous in their curiosity) about the world.

Yes, 2018 was the first co-ed class.

The application committee is a group of about 10 students and 2-4 staff and faculty. By the time of the interview, everyone will have read all parts of the applicants materials. Close reading and critique still characterizes much of the interview. But in my experience, someone can have major mistakes in the essays/tests/transcript and be admitted. Sometimes the application is deeply rooted in a specific intellectual tradition; sometimes it may ask questions like "which would win in a fight, a bear or a shark?" Usually there's a mix of both.

Like other comments here and on the OP have said, Deep Springs has many different cultural moments because of the short turn over of the students in their elected positions (and as residents), the 2 year or so retention rate for staff, and new visiting professors 4 times a year.

To your question of scale -- the college is actively against scaling. The founder hoped the school would inspire similar schools. And over the last decade or so, Outer Coast College, Tidelines Institute, Thoreau College, and Gull Island Project have all started programs based on Deep Springs. They're all coming out to the college next weekend for a summit.

Because students are constantly balancing too-much work between academics, labor, or self-governance, each year, the application committee finds a new stable point of work load each year. Based on my experience, if the students only had to work on the application committee, their first impulse would be to spend more time on it. The stakes are higher for them than it is for us, since, as the OP notes, the student body retains the authority to regulate the conduct of its members.

The academic program is relatively conventional, i.e. 4-10 person seminars with most students taking 2-4 per semester or term. The difference is the collective striving for great academic performance (written and spoken in seminar) and the ability for professors (long-term and visiting) to pitch courses they wouldn't be able to teach elsewhere (for any reason, e.g. politics, student quality, etc.).

These days, class is in the morning, labor in the afternoon, governance as schedules allow (though there are two regular meetings each week, committee meetings, such as applications, and the student body meeting). There is also a long-standing public speaking class each week during sept.-may; students give speeches on common prompts or speak on something important for the life of the community.

Current resident of deep springs college, happy to answer any questions.