<p>required_details, HC does not have an athletics team that matches the Hoyas Basketball program. BC is solid in Football and excellent on Hockey. Notre Dame has one of the richest traditions in college football. Virtually every college basketball fan knows of the Hoyas and virtually every college football fan knows of the Fighting Irish. Can the same be said of the Crusaders?</p>
<p>don’t know if the OP has lost interest in the current direction of this thread, but to address the original post i’ll only say S1 is now a senior at Bowdoin and has never been bored and, in fact, each year has been better than the previous, both academically and socially. he toured each of the above mentioned schools and found Brunswick/Bowdoin to be the one best suited to his personality and interests. the academics are top notch, the student body smart and laid back, the town is available and part of the overall student experience and, i’m only assuming, the hard work he’s put in these past four years will open doors which otherwise may not have been opened simply because of the school he is attending. i’m sure this is also true of HC and CC. each school has it’s own culture and it’s important to visit. S1 is a science major but i understand the economics and government departments are the strongest and most popular on campus. math and physics also attract a majority of these bright students.</p>
<p>as for the sports debate, Bowdoin is a member of the NESCAC (as is CC) which is an extremely competitive Dlll league made up of schools which place academics first. Bowdoin holds it’s own, and always finds student support, but there are often competing opportunities which always make decisions happily difficult for the typical Bowdoin student.</p>
<p>good luck with your search.</p>
<p>Holy Crossers in NFL</p>
<p>Adams, Bill (1972 - 1978)
Alberghini, Tom (1945 - 1945)
Barzilauskas, Fritz (1947 - 1951)
Bove, Pete (1930 - 1930)
Branon, Phil (1925 - 1925)
Brawley, Ed (1921 - 1921)
Brennan, Leo (1942 - 1942)
Britt, Eddie (1936 - 1938)
Buzyniski, Bernie (1960 - 1960)
Cahill, Ronnie (1943 - 1943)
Carton, Charlie (1925 - 1926)
Clancy, Stu (1930 - 1935)
Coleman, Ned (1926 - 1926)
Connor, George (1948 - 1955) Hall Of Fame
Cosbie, Doug (1979 - 1988)
Cregar, Bill (1947 - 1948)
Dee, Bob (1957 - 1967)
Devlin, Mark (1920 - 1921)
Digris, Bernie (1943 - 1943)
Fenerty, Gill (1990 - 1991)
Finn, Bernie (1930 - 1932)
Fitzgerald, Jim (1930 - 1931)
Flaherty, Harry (1987 - 1987)
Gannon, Stephen (1981 - 1981)
Garvey, Frank (1925 - 1926)
Gaziano, Frank (1944 - 1944)
Gildea, Denny (1926 - 1926)
Golembeski, Archie (1925 - 1929)
Greene, Tom (1960 - 1961)
Grigas, Johnny (1943 - 1947)
Hennessey, Tom (1965 - 1966)
Holley, Ken (1946 - 1946)
Jenkins, Ed (1972 - 1974)
Joyce, Bill (1920 - 1920)
Kennedy, Jimmy (1925 - 1925)
Kissell, Vito (1949 - 1950)
Kitteredge, Paul (1929 - 1929)
Koslowski, Stan (1946 - 1946)
Kozerski, Bruce (1984 - 1995)
Kucharski, Ted (1930 - 1930)
Landrigan, Jim (1947 - 1947)
Lentz, Jack (1967 - 1968)
Manfreda, Tony (1930 - 1930)
Mattiace, Frank (1987 - 1987)
McCabe, Jerry (1987 - 1988)
Mcgovern, Rob (1989 - 1992)
Mcgrath, Dick (1926 - 1926)
Mcmahon, Harry (1926 - 1926)
Mcnamara, Ed (1945 - 1945)
Monaco, Ray (1944 - 1945)
Moran, Jim (1935 - 1936)
Morris, Jon (1964 - 1978)
Natowich, Andy (1944 - 1944)
Nolan, John (1948 - 1950)
O’connor, Frank (1926 - 1926)
Osmanski, Bill (1939 - 1947)
Osmanski, Joe (1946 - 1949)
Porter, Rob (1987 - 1987)
Promuto, Vin (1960 - 1970)
Pyne, George (1931 - 1931)
Ray, Mike (1926 - 1926)
Riopel, Al (1925 - 1925)
Rovinski, Tony (1933 - 1933)
Simendinger, Ken (1926 - 1926)
Smith, Pete (1926 - 1926)
Snyder, Al (1964 - 1966)
Sullivan, Bob (1948 - 1948)
Sullivan, Bob (1947 - 1948)
Swiacki, Bill (1948 - 1952)
Titus, George (1946 - 1946)
Titus, Si (1940 - 1945)
Wallis, Jim (1926 - 1926)
Wilson, Joe (1973 - 1974)
Wizbicki, Alex (1947 - 1950)
Zeno, Joe (1942 - 1947)
Zyntell, Jim (1933 - 1935)</p>
<p>NBA Players who attended College of the Holy Cross </p>
<p>Blaney, George 1961-1961
Cousy, Bob 1950-1969 Hall Of Fame
Foley, Jack 1962-1962
Heinsohn, Tom 1956-1964 Hall Of Fame
Kaftan, George 1948-1952
Mullaney, Joe 1949-1949
O’Connell, Dermie 1948-1949
Palazzi, Togo 1954-1959
Witts, Garry 1981-1981</p>
<p>That’s a lot of old players and unless the OP is the new Lebron James I don’t see the point of listing alumni in various sports. That being said, I would argue that Bowdoin has the better academic education. </p>
<p>This measure of academics isn’t based upon alumni (which Bowdoin has plenty of reputable individuals) but rather the quality of the individuals and the opportunities that can be garnered from the institution. This isn’t to say that Holy Cross is devoid of these opportunities (after all, college is what you make of it) but I would argue that people in the New England area and NYC know that Bowdoin is not a joke school.</p>
<p>Holy Cross has 3 National championships in Div 1 sports-2 in basketball and 1 in baseball. It leads the all-time series between HC-BC in basketball(BC has won most of late). Its football history is very strong- HC like Ivies was reclassified to Div1aa in the 1980’s. Only UConn with several ncaa titles in women’s and men’s hoops exceeds HC. For a school of 1600 students to accomplish this in the 1940’s-1950’S is amazing. The HC golf team also has a rich heritage with a US Amatuer champion and another multiple PGA winner among its alumni.</p>
<p>US Amateur champion. Holy Cross is unique as a small selective school that has Div 1 sports in football(1aa), basketball, baseball, and hockey.</p>
<p>If sports matter to the OP, he might as well look at bc and georgetown, both of which are better academically and in sports.</p>
<p>Incorrect.</p>
<p>School Academic Rating
Holy Cross 95
Georgetown 90
BC 89</p>
<p>Source: The Princeton Review ([Test</a> Prep: GMAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, SAT, ACT, and More](<a href=“http://www.princetonreview.com/]Test”>http://www.princetonreview.com/))</p>
<p>Princeton Review? You mean the same Princeton Review that rated universities thus:</p>
<p>Marlboro College 99
Simon’s Rock College of Bard 99
Sweet Briar College 99
Thomas Aquinas College 99
Bennington College 98
Sarah Lawrence College 98
Scripps College 98
wabash College 98
Whitman College 98
Hillsdale College 96
Rhodes College 96
Webb Institute 96
Centre College 95
DePauw University 95
Randolph College 95
Ursinus College 95
College of the Atlantic 94
Hendrix College 94
Knox College 94
Millsaps College 94
University of Puget Sound 94
Wheaton College (MA) 94
Furman University 93
Williamette University 93
Wofford College 93
Agnes Scott College 92
Hanover College 92
Lafayette College 92
Southwestern University 92
Transylvania University 92
Wittenberg University 92</p>
<p>Brown University 91
Duke University 91
Gettysburg College 91
Lake Forest College 91
Lewis And Clark College 91
Stonehill College 91
Hobart and William Smith Colleges 90
Hollins University 90
California Institute of Technology 88
Cornell University 88
Northwestern University 88
University of Pennsylvania 87
Johns Hopkins University 86</p>
<p>Boston College is three times the size of Holy Cross yet HC has produced 5 Rhodes Scholars and BC has produced only 2.</p>
<p>By that logic, the University of Oklahoma should be one of the top because it has about 26 Rhodes Scholars. That means very little.</p>
<p>And FYI, Bowdoin has 22 Rhodes Scholars.</p>
<p>I used to be impressed that Bowdoin had 22 Rhodes Scholars but now I see it means actually very little since Oklahoma has 26.</p>
<p>Holy Cross and Bowdoin are both great schools. As noted, HC has bigger feel due to 1000 more students and Div1 sports. Bowdoin is in a nice small town, HC 1 hour to Boston. Bowdoin has higher US News ranking while Holy Cross has very good pre-med program. Among national LAC’s, HC and Bowdoin are among the better schools.</p>
<p>re: Rhodes Scholars</p>
<p>you’re missing the point - the University of Oklahoma has 20,000 undergrads (26 Rhodes). Bowdoin has 1,600 undergrads (22 Rhodes). A Rhodes scholar is a single person. The fact that Bowdoin has produced almost as many Rhodes scholars as an institution 12 times its size is insane. Oklahoma should have 250 Rhodes scholars for things to be even on an enrollment basis. Bowdoin is punching well above its weight.</p>
<p>Oklahoma (26 Rhodes) is nearly 7 times larger than HC (5 Rhodes) which has an undergrad enrollment of only 2900. So the equivalent number of Rhodes that Oklahoma would need to have to be comparable to HC’s 5 Rhodes would be 35. </p>
<p>Oklahoma undergrad population is only 2.2 times larger than BC (2 Rhodes) whose undergrad enrollment is 9200 and the equivalent comparable Rhodes for Oklahoma’s student body would be only 4-5. So BC is doing very poorly when compared to Oklahoma.</p>
<p>But according to Buzzers all of this means very little when assessing academic quality.</p>
<p>I don’t if you were being sarcastic above, but that was my point. Just because a school is big or small or does/doesn’t produces rhodes scholars doesn’t say much about an institution. </p>
<p>Rhodes Scholars are one person and to generalize that because a school has “more people” it must thus have “more Rhodes Scholars” is very very very very very very poor logic (I really hope people understand the faulty logic here).</p>
<p>Not to mention that you focused on The University of Oklahoma but ignored Bowdoin’s 22 Rhodes Scholars. But as I said, that doesn’t say much about an institution. If you need an explanation for why then that’s either sad or really sad.</p>
<p>So therefore we should not draw any conclusions whatsoever from the following stats?</p>
<p>School Rhodes Scholars To Date
Harvard 332
Yale 219
Princeton 193
Tufts 4
BC 2</p>
<p>Nope. Because those schools have more emphasis on students applying for a Rhodes Scholarship than others. Additionally, Rhodes Scholarship doesn’t depend on your school, but on the individual. You see people from Harvard, Yale, etc. because there are some super brilliant individuals that literally go above and beyond. But that’s also true at other institutions. It’s pretty arbitrary to simply isolate Rhodes Scholarships as an academic performance because chances are you won’t be a Rhodes Scholar nor will somebody you know be a Rhodes Scholar (even if you go to Harvard). I actually know two Rhodes Scholars (ironically), one who went to U of Michigan and one who went to Bowdoin. </p>
<p>But why not other scholarships? Why not Fulbright scholars? For example, Tufts and Harvard actually tied for the number of Fulbright scholars this year (17 each). Does that mean anything? No. Is it because Rhodes Scholarships are more selective? If that’s the case, then should we just base schools on their admissions rate? </p>
<p>A school should not just be about your peers, but what the institution can offer you. Harvard produces Rhodes Scholars because it has smart kids. But you don’t have to go to Harvard to be a Rhodes Scholar and Harvard doesn’t ensure you will be one (if you even choose to apply). But Harvard also has a downside. It has a “peer effect.”:</p>
<p><a href=“http://web.missouri.edu/~podgurskym/Econ_4345/syl_articles/winston(1999).pdf[/url]”>http://web.missouri.edu/~podgurskym/Econ_4345/syl_articles/winston(1999).pdf</a></p>
<p>Page 29:</p>
<p>“Very wealthy schools with high quality students use that peer input as a substitute for other inputs. Thus, Harvard offers large undergraduate classes taught by teaching assistants;Clotfelter (1996) reports that the average class size in social science at Harvard in 1991-92 was 242 students and that just 48 percent of the socialscience students were taught by regular faculty”</p>
<p>Times probably have changed. But I definitely know Harvard still has a lot of TA’s teach classes. But Harvard has smart kids so the peer effect can work. But that’s an instance where you have smart students. Me, personally, I prefer to have smart professors to learn from, etc.</p>
<p>If you go to the Rhodes Scholars website and look at the institutions and the dates. Schools like Cornell have some in 1904 (In fact for Cornell, only 29.6% of their Rhodes Scholars were from the past 21 years. The other 70% were from 1900-1989. For Princeton, 15.6% of their Rhodes Scholars were from the past 21 years with the other 84.4% being from 1900-1989. Kind of weird, isn’t it?). Heck, Tufts wasn’t even called Tufts University until the 1950’s. And Harvard had Radcliffe for women because they didn’t allow women to graduate under the name Harvard (it wasn’t fully integrated until 1999 The Rhodes Scholars website actually includes both Harvard and Radcliffe together). The point is not that “oh, well it’s a longer time frame, so that’s why it’s so little in the past 21 years.” It’s because other institutions have been growing prominence and reputations and facilities and attracting faculty and students that are brilliant. But this wasn’t the case 50,60,70, etc. years ago. Sure there were outliers, but times have changed. Hence why Rhodes Scholarships are a stupid measure.</p>
<p>Just things you should obviously consider before putting points on 3 institutions and comparing it to 3 others and justifying it’s okay. That’s like comparing Harvard to Duke and seeing that it has more Nobel prize winners then Duke is de facto a bad school (or even worse school). Some people prefer Duke (Or Columbia, or Stanford, or Georgetown, or Berkeley, or whatever) to Harvard. Whether you agree with them or not is your opinion, but to break down a comparison between institutions to one indication is really really moronic.</p>
<p>Interesting points. BTW here are the Rhodes Scholars for the schools mentioned.</p>
<p>School Rhodes Scholars To Date
Harvard 332
Yale 219
Princeton 193
Duke 39
Columbia 27
Stanford 93
Georgetown 23
Berkeley 22
Tufts 4
BC 2</p>