<p>Could someone who doesn't drink fit in at Bowdoin? I don't, and I wouldn't want to apply to a place where I would be something of a social outcast.</p>
<p>I'm headed to Bowdoin next year after being deferred and then rejected by Swarthmore ED2. My biggest advice is to visit both of the schools. A lot of people have said that they are very similar (and they are in many ways), but the overall atmospheres and cultures are pretty different. I didn't visit Bowdoin when I applied because I had my heart set on Swat, but when I did go up there in April, I loved it. I liked it a lot more than Haverford and Midd, which were schools that were pretty high on my list.</p>
<p>I think the other comments have summed up the differences pretty well. Bowdoin is mroe preppy, more athletic, and has a ton of kids from New England. It's outdoorsy and (a lot of) the kids do drink a lot (more than at Swarthmore, from what I've heard). I kind of disagree with it being a true suburb. I live in a suburb of Washington, DC, so I may see suburbs differently than most, but I think I would classify Bowdoin as "small town." Not really rural, but not really connected to a city. That being said, I think that Brunswick is an adorable little town with the added benefit of being right next to some truly gorgeous beaches.</p>
<p>I don't really know much about what you want to major in, but I've heard that that department is good at Bowdoin. Honestly though, if you are able to get into either school you have some great options. The real differences will probably come down to fit, which is really hard to assess unless you've actually visited campus.</p>
<p>Rileydog:</p>
<p>I agree that there are cultural/religious issues (not politics) that could make some schools at the fringes uncomfortable. For example, Bob Jones University (or to lesser degrees BYU or even Notre Dame) could be uncomfortable for Jewish students. </p>
<p>But, I find it amusing that people attempt to draw such fine distinctions among virtually identical schools, schools that are the very definition of "mainstream" culture. For example, I read over and over about superficial political distinctions being drawn among the schools at the very top of the USNEWS lists. But, if you step back from the "Crossfire" rhetoric, these schools are all the same. The epitomize the political/cultural outlook of the US ruling class and they have for centuries.</p>
<p>It is convenient for politicians to draw distinctions where none exist (nothing fuels campaign contributions like a polarized electorate and a demonized opposition), but as I have pointed out, where does everybody think the policy-makers in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations were educated? Same schools as the policy-makers in the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton administrations.</p>
<p>If we were to follow the dogma of "The Right Guide", Harvard would be so far off the charts to the left that it would make Pat Buchanan look like a socialist. But, guess what? Andover/Harvard is every bit as much of a training ground for "conservative" politicians as "liberal" politicians.</p>
<p>The popular trends in academic thought come and go like French fashions, just as they do in popular political rhetoric. I mean, what self-respecting political analyst from the 1960s would have predicted the Democrats as the party of the balanced federal budgets and the Republicans as the party of the massive deficits just two decades later? That's how fast the fashions shift around to suit convenience.</p>
<p>Not to mention foreign policy, where it is nearly impossible to even discern any differences in actual decision-making between "liberal" and "conservative" administrations. Sure, they all talk a good story on the campaign trail, but, in actual practice, they are all faced with the same muddy picture, the same imperfect options, and roughly the same courses of action. I don't think that a Bush I or a Dole administration would have been likely to respond to the Rwanda genocide any differently than the Clinton administration. I don't think a Gore administration would have differed from the Bush II administration on the response to 9/11 just because Gore was a "Harvard man" and Bush was a "Yale man". If we go back to their college days, it is unclear whether John Kerry or Bush II was more "anti-Vietnam" -- perhaps the key litmus test for "liberals" and "conservatives" at the time. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, political expediency will shape "philosophy" far more than education. George Bush (both of them) knew that they had to take anti-abortion stances to have a prayer of getting their party's nomination. Conversely, Al Gore and John Kerry knew they had to be pro-gay rights to get the Democratic nomination. All of them walk a tightrope between throwing just enough red-meat to their rabid consituencies while attempting to project an aura of "mainstream" to appeal to the broad middle ground. The best tight-rope walker (e.g. Bill Clinton or Bush II) gets elected and the other side sets about demonizing him (or her) for the next election cycle.</p>
<p>I looked at both (though I ended up choosing a different college w/ better financial aid). I liked both a lot, but Bowdoin was my top choice college for a long time. Of course, some very serious people would consider my reasons entirely superficial--the food is absolutely amazing. I just couldn't get over how good it was. Since my nearest neighbor is half a mile away, I did not consider Brunswick rural, and it's a nice town. Basically, the living experience at Bowdoin seemed worlds better than any of the other colleges I visited. OTOH, I don't have a problem with long cold winters.
Swarthmore seemed more serious and intellectual, Bowdoin seemed more laid back. Both had beautiful campuses. I liked Swarthmore's strong equality principles, and it's nice to have a real city close by.
I think if you'd be happy at one, you'd probably be happy at the other, along with several other colleges that people have mentioned here.</p>
<p>hey homer, i don't drink, and i attend bowdoin. it is, admittedly, sometimes tough to find things to do on weekends in february - but i think that's true even if you drink (cold winter weekends are the worst). my best advice to you would be to come visit the campus and request, if possible, to stay with a first-year in the chem-free dorm - then you can see for yourself what it's like!</p>
<p>(and alexandre - if you consider cornell rural, then no wonder you think bowdoin's rural! cornell is sort of situated in the middle of nowhere, this is true, but it has one of the best college towns i've ever seen or heard about. ithaca is a great place!)</p>
<p>I have lived in Maine before, and there was tons of stuff to do there, e.g. fishing, hiking, yachting, going to the beach, etc. etc.</p>
<p>pokemaster - and skiing!</p>
<p>interesteddad - you write from the big picture perspective and the extremes to which a candidate is willing to set aside their basic value system to get elected but I am thinking about day to day comfort, which may determine whether or not a student is successful at school or stays at a school. I disagree that only the extreme campuses might be uncomfortable. There is a political polarization today that I have not seen among young people in my lifetime, including the 60s (but I grew up in a liberal area so maybe I didn't see the other side) and certainly the recent election has divided many adults. I think a conservatively oriented school, either as determined by student body. by historical character, by religious affiliation, by geographic tendency (red state/blue state), or by faculty, could have a stronger feel of division for students in these times than before. I can imagine stronger support, for example, for current military involvement at some schools than at others simply by virtue of geography.</p>
<p>Insertnamehere, it appears that Bowdoin misquoted the Hix Study, and that a quotation such as, "Bowdoin College's Department of Government and Legal Studies has been ranked the top small college political science department in the world in a study conducted at the London School of Economics and Political Science." is hardly supported by the study. </p>
<p>The full report is available at</p>
<p>By the way, let's see how Interesteddad reacts to THE methodology when he gets a hold of the study! :)</p>
<p>Yeah, I had seen that before (actually before I had seen the cite I gave, which I got off CC). But that ranking was published in 2004, and the Bowdoin article is dated October 2003 and cites a Hix report from Feb 2003. This, in addition to the 50 place discrepency that the school has with the data in the chart (123 to 173) leads me to believe that the site cites an earlier report.</p>
<p>As for the methodology, it is obvoiusly weighted towards larger schools with sizable and prestigious grad programs and more faculty to publish a greater volume of journal articles and have more name recognition in the acedemic community. The report looked at the department as a whole, and didnt deferrentiate between undergrad and grad, so, for schools with both programs, this mainly is a ranking of their respective grad programs. But, hey, every ranking is biased and imperfect because it is a ranking. Something like education is too abstract to quantify to the specificity that places like the USNews go to.</p>