<p>ah ok, that’s what i thought. i’m frankly pretty glad i wasn’t accepted RD. even before decisions came out i’d basically realized that both schools probably provide a better undergraduate education than columbia, especially in math. but i was still kind of emotionally attached to the nyc thing, so had i been accepted it would have been difficult to turn down.</p>
<p>My understanding is that not one of the graduating mathematics majors has gotten a single acceptance to a graduate school this year. This is most likely an issue with the mathematics department and the expectations of math graduate school, but it is frustrating for those students (and their parents).</p>
<p>hmmm. that’s disturbing, considering that i’ve essentially decided to go to swarthmore. any more specifics? why the department is incompatible with the expectations of grad schools, etc.?</p>
<p>I would really caution people not to draw conclusions, good or bad, from small samples (like a single year) at any small liberal arts college. The numbers are so small that you see huge year to year variation.</p>
<p>I don’t know what percentage of math majors apply to grad school directly out of college, but the number is probably in the single digits. This stuff is so dependent on individual students.</p>
<p>momPhD:</p>
<p>I suspect that UPenn’s data is a lot less comprehensive than it might appear. It’s really a challenge to compile accurate data because the only complete picture you get is during graduation week. These days, the majority of kids are not going to grad school directly out of college. In many fields (law for example), it’s almost frowned up now. So it’s up to the alumni office and that is hit or miss to some extent.</p>
<p>PhD data is available because the National Science Foundation has been surveying every PhD recepient in the US since the 1920s. They get a 90%+ response rate. Med school admissions data is tracked by the national admissions combine, but is not publicly available.</p>
<p>Most of the publicly available data for Swarthmore is available in the factbook:</p>
<p>[Swarthmore</a> College :: Institutional Research :: Fact Book](<a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/factbook.xml]Swarthmore”>Fact Book :: Institutional Effectiveness, Research & Assessment :: Swarthmore College)</p>
<p>There’s more at the career counseling site. Beyond that, you’d probably have to contact career counseling and see what they’ve got.</p>
<p>
The so-called grade deflation at Swarthmore is obviously not a big deal when it comes to grad school, seeing as how so many Swarthmore grads go on to get Ph.D.s. I don’t know if it matters for professional school or not. Where it matters most is probably getting competitive jobs right out of college. Not everyone has heard of Swarthmore.</p>
<p>And, believe it or not, not everyone has heard of Williams, Pomona, Dartmouth, CalTech: it is the job of people in HR to know what the top schools are.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, thank you for sharing more regarding President Chopp’s background and her journey to Swarthmore. Very inspiring. What a role model. It’s a great country.</p>
<p>BTW-that blog “Ivy Leagues & Unemployed” from the OP is hilarious in a dark Onion sort of way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but the “anywhere else it would have been an A” claim implies that Swarthmore has less grade inflation than those places. So, if that statement is correct, and you’re up against someone from one of those places for a job, he’ll have the advantage. Plus, I think your post is a little disingenuous. Far more people have heard of Caltech and Dartmouth than Swarthmore, Williams, or Pomona. It’s not even close.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m curious how this squares with declining acceptance rates. We see that the median GPA of graduates in 1997 was 3.24 and the median GPA of graduates in 2009 was 3.53 (the 2.83 from figure 1973 is not useful, since we don’t know exactly what it represents). Swarthmore’s acceptance rate declined over that same period. This implies that the average student at Swarthmore today is more competent than the average student a decade or more ago. So, it’s not so much that Swarthmore professors are going easier on everyone today and handing out better grades, but that the students are just better. Seeing as how grading on a curve is an unpopular method of assigning grades, it makes perfect sense that median GPAs would rise.</p>
<p>It is not so clear that the average student at Swarthmore today is more competent than the average student a decade or more ago. From Swarthmore’s Institutional Research publications come the following data:</p>
<p>1995
% of class in the top 2% of their high school graduating class = 47%
Average Critical Reading SAT = 711
Average Math SAT = 693</p>
<p>2010
% of class in the top 2% of their high school graduating class = 41%
Average Critical Reading SAT = 716
Average Math SAT = 709</p>
<p>So the average SAT 1600 combined has gone up from 1404 to 1425, but the percentage in the top 2% of their high school graduating class has gone down from 47% to 41%. Neither are probably terribly significant changes. I think it is more accurate to say that Swarthmore students on average are about as academically talented as they have always been. There has probably been somewhat less grade inflation at Swarthmore than at other highly selective colleges and universities. </p>
<p>This is not to say that there have not been significant changes in the student body. For example, ethnic diversity today is much higher than it was several decades ago.</p>
<p>Being in the top 2% of a high school class was easier for elite students in 1995 than it was in 2010. Consider that in 1995 there were fewer magnet schools than there are today. College-bound students in high school are pressured more and more into competitive schools. Perhaps this has not changed much for boarding schools or elite private schools, but the presence of magnet schools, IB schools, and so on in the public school system means that fewer high-caliber public school students are going to be in the top 2% of their class. Students that would have been the valedictorian at their local public school instead went to a competitive magnet and didn’t even graduate in the top 2%.</p>
<p>I think the average SAT is more telling. It’s not a huge jump and, in fact, the national average jumped on the whole by about 15 points in that same timeframe. The increase for Swarthmore is marginally higher than that. So, either the SAT is getting easier or students are getting better at taking it. I suspect the latter.</p>
<p>I do believe students at elite colleges are more competent overall than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Acceptance rates have plummeted across the board, reflecting an increased push for students to attend college, a bigger overall population of students applying, and easier college admissions procedures. The latter is the only factor that doesn’t point toward a more elite body of students.</p>
<p>Consider that the population of the United States (which is where most Swarthmore students are from) has increased about 250,000,000 in 1990 to 310,000,000 in 2010. The Census Department further claims that there were 12.1 million people between 14 and 24 years old enrolled in college in the US in 2009. In 1997 this figure was 9.2 million. In this same time period, Swarthmore’s enrollment increased only marginally. It stands to reason that, with Swarthmore’s relatively constant enrollment, its diminished acceptance rate, and the growing population of the United States, that students who do make it in are more competitive overall and competent overall. A lot of people who got accepted back in the day simply wouldn’t make the cut today. They’d be at Haverford.</p>
<p>Re class ranks, about half of the HSs do not report this anymore; I don’t know what % reported it in 1995. The % could have trended downward and therefore rank may not be a great metric for comparison. Has AP performance gone up (in number of courses and tests taken, as well as scores?) since 1995? I suspect so. The College Board and our local schools always appear to be adding to their offerings. Applicants may not be inherently “smarter” now, but they may have to be more prepared (have taken more rigorous courses etc) to be accepted.</p>
<p>
Absolutely.</p>
<p>
My assertion is that the average Swarthmore student today is more competent than the average Swarthmore student from 10 or 20 years ago. I happen to also believe that their average intelligence has risen as well. It would seem to be a logical consequence of the school’s declining acceptance rate.</p>