Difference b/w Swarthmore and Haverford

<p>haverunik: i just want to see if i am understanding the gist of your post. excuse me for being a bit dense here. i have heard from a lot of different sources that swat is non competitive, but your perception is that it is very competitive? how does that competitiveness manifest itself? is there any type of overt or covert sabotage of lab experiments or non cooperation between students? i didn't see that on visiting, but you were actually there, in the trenches so to speak. can you elaborate on this. one of the attractive aspects of swat is that, although rigorous, there is an atmosphere of cooperation at the school. is swat trying to sell us a bill of goods here? i also visited haverford and found the environment there totally different from that of swarthmore. walking through the science center at swat, i saw a ton of students working, walking around campus at haverford, i saw almost noone working. yes i saw some kids reading in the library, but not that many. maybe this has to do with what interesteddad calls academic intensity. i really hope you can delve more deeply into the "competitiveness" aspect of the schools. that could change ones perspective about a school, especially this one. thanks</p>

<p>BlacknBlue,
My son is a junior at Swarthmore and I must tell you that after reading the post from the "UPENN student perspective" my first thought was, "Did he get off at the wrong SEPTA (train) stop? Was he really at Swat?" His characterization of Swat as highly competitive with much discussion of grades, bears absolutely no resemblance to the Swarthmore my son has attended for over two years. It is just the opposite as UPENN described with a shared collegiality between students. Grade inflation? He meant grade deflation. That part was accurate. Swat is notorious for that. Are the courses demanding? Absolutely. But it really sounds like you got a better feel for the place doing your walk-through than "UPENN" did taking whatever course he took there.</p>

<p>Swarthmore is absolutely not "competitive" in a sense of students competing with each other. Classes are tough, but there's a lot of cooperation (formal and informal) among the students, and no one discusses the grades.
There is certain culture of whining about the amount of work they have to do - they call it "misery poker" and treat it with a sense of humor it deserves.
"Sabotage of lab experiments or non cooperation between students?" - Are you kidding???</p>

<p>UPenn's post leaves me scratching my head as if he had written, "there aren't many Asian-American students at Swarthmore." What he wrote is that far out of left field.</p>

<p>A couple of comments:</p>

<p>It is apparent that English is not UPenn's native language, sometimes to the point where it is difficult to follow the the train of thought. It is possible that what we have here is a "failure to communicate".</p>

<p>He also mentions working hard to "get an A". I know there are some exceptionally brilliant students at Swarthmore for whom A's are probably commonplace. But, I don't think my daughter, or most sensible Swatties, go into every course with the expectation of an "A". Do "A's" happen? Sure. But, for the most part, students who set a standard, either internally or externally driven, of getting A's in every course, every time, as routine matter, are students who should not go to Swarthmore because they'll drive themselves crazy. My daughter lists this as one type of student who should NOT go to Swarthmore; instead, the approach that works better is to enjoy the course, put the effort in to do work and learn something, and let the grades take care of themselves. The other type she says shouldn't go to to Swarthmore are students who don't want to study as a routine part of their college lives. She has not found the work to be all-consuming, but she has found that she needs to keep up with it and that requires chipping away at it on a daily basis.</p>

<p>Here's the only other rational explanation I can come up with for UPenn's observation. There are some courses or mid-term exams at Swarthmore that are exceptionally difficult. I know that the first mid-term calc exam was an eye-opener for my daughter's entire class, especially since basically every student had breezed into the course based on a 5 on the AP Calc test in high school. Some of the usual suspects in the sciences (organic chem) are very difficult courses. So, I can see a scenario where a particular mid-term is difficult and there is some anticipation of grades -- not from a competitive standpoint, but more along the lines of "Wow. I hope I did OK." That's a pretty normal response to a difficult exam. Like anywhere, this is probably going to be concentrated most heavily among the pre-med or engineering students.</p>

<p>As far as cooperative. As near as I can tell from what my daughter has described, preparing for an exam typically involves students getting together beforehand to study as a group - usually just as an informal group of friends taking the same course.</p>

<p>interesteddad: on a different note, you mentioned to kellymegreener that it would be more productive to ask what the minus' of a school are. i know that you are a fan of swat, but what are the negatives of swat?</p>

<p>BlacknBlue
I am also a Swat parent, and what I see as potential negatives are:
1) As a result of small size, some social difficulties may be harder to avoid (like if you break up with gf/bf you'll still likely to see them all the time all over the place)
2) In order to have big variety of classes offered, many of the less "mainstream" classes are offered every other year, or even less often. So if there is a particular class you really want to take, you have to plan it carefully, as it might be offered only once or twice during your 4 years there.</p>

<p>Both of the things I mentioned have to do with Swarthmore's small size. You have to take into account that small size has many, many advantages that in my mind by far overweigh the disadvantages, especially for students who like interactive classes and close relationship with the faculty. You have to decide what your priorities are, and then choose the school that fits.</p>

<p>Tje only negative I have seen so far (other than the one already mentioned about particular classes not being offered every year) is also a positive. My daughter already has the advisor she is likely going to have for all four years. Swarthmore gives each professor a sabbatical once every four years. So, for one year, she will not have an advisor, at least "in his present form." I am assuming that they can keep in touch by email or that someone else will step in. But, while it might be somewhat cumbersome for her that year, I think it is great for the students that their professors get that sabbatical. I can't think of a better way to keep teachers fresh and eager.</p>

<p>As for discussion about grades, if my daughter gets a grade she feels a need to discuss, she calls home and discusses it with me. She sure isn't sharing her gradeswith any of her peers at school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
i know that you are a fan of swat, but what are the negatives of swat?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As nngmm has outlined, many of the disadvantages of Swat are generic disadvantages at all small liberal arts colleges and things that I discussed with my daughter from very early on in the college selection process as we toured big, medium, and large schools:</p>

<p>a) there aren't going to be as many different classes (or EC activities or sports or music ensembles or...) as there will be at a large university. So, if your mindset is to do this one very specific thing to the exclusion of any equally-interesting, but somewhat different, thing, then a small LAC is not the place. You would probably be better off at a school that offers a much larger buffet table.</p>

<p>b) For the most part, colleges are isolating ivory towers and there comes a point when you just want to get away. This will happen at a small LAC. You wake up, you don't want to see the same people, the same dining hall, and so on and so forth. I think it's important to pace yourself, taking advantages from month one as a freshman to get your butt off campus and into the real world -- be it a night out on in the city, a weekend in NY, an internship, summer jobs off campus, study abroad.</p>

<p>c) To me, one of the strengths of a large university is that there are usually every kind of people imaginable. If you are into some weird goth thing, you'll probably find a clique of weird goths. if you are into bluegrass music, somewhere, someplace, they'll probably be some bluegrass pickers. It won't feel like the whole campus is getting a business degree or going to school. There is the danger, at an LAC, of an overly homogenous student body. I felt this was downside #1 of my LAC alma mater back in the day. From a purely pragmatic standpont, "quirky" is good at LACs because "quirky" is interesting. However, it is super important at an LAC that you are comfortable with the dominant culture of the place -- either as a part of it or as a member of the loyal opposition.</p>

<p>d) As for Swarthmore specific weaknesses, I think the school is too "liberal". But, remember, I'm a 50+ year old geezer who went through my radical phase and am now registered as an independent, consider myself a centrist (moderate democrats would be my prefered flavor, if there were any) and am constantly amazed at how out of touch the base of both political parties is with the centrist mood of the country. This is one of those "positive and negative" things. I don't have any problem with the school being liberal or socially conscious because, by and large, I think young people today are too darn career-oriented from middle school on and that colleges. It kind of scares me thinking where they will end up as they get "more conservative" with age.</p>

<p>I also think our colleges and universities are doing an utterly dismal job of instilling some basic notions of social responsibility, especially in business leaders (see the nation's airlines cancelling their flights out of New Orleans two days before Hurricane Katrina or record oil company profits after a summer of highway robbery at the gas pumps). I think our nation's colleges need to get back to the notion that there is some responsibility beyond greed.</p>

<p>If there is ever a time for youthful idealism, it's when you are a youth! Nothin' worse than a 20 year old curmudgeon. I also don't think much gets by Swarthmore kids. They know when a professor is workin' an agenda and chuckle about it. Nine times out of ten, they can spot it ahead of time from the course description.</p>

<p>e) I think Swarthmore is a very demanding school academically. This can be a negative. As far as I have been able to discern, it's more work than I wanted to do in my first two years of college, about the same amount of work I wanted to do my second two years. It's not like it's impossibly difficult or that the workload is overwhelming. But, there's just no point in going there unless you are OK with college as a place to study.</p>

<p>f) The continued presence of two small fraternities is a negative. It's amazing to see how much disruption less than 5% of the student body causes, year in and year out. I understand why they allow the two frats to continue in existence, but I view it as a black mark for the college.</p>

<p>I'll admit right off the bat that I haven't read this entire thread; I've just skimmed it. But I think that different kinds of people go to Haverford than those who attend Swat. I don't know if I would necessarily go as far to say that Swarthmore is for "more intelligent" students, but rather it seems to be for different kinds of students. There's a girl in one of my Haverford classes from Swarthmore (who I noticed is very smart but modest, contrary to the claim that all Swat kids like to talk about grades). I asked her what she thought was the main difference between the two schools; she replied that it seemed to her as though Swarthmore professors hold their students to almost unattainable, "impossible" standards for the purpose of keeping them from settling for average work. Thus, this would probably result in a stressful, pressure-cooker environment that the students actually create for themselves because they want to do well and were the type of students in high school that did, in fact, do well. This of course, is not to say that Haverford students are slackers or underachievers. On the contrary, I think what has been said (but perhaps in the wrong words) is that Haverford students strive to be PARTICULARLY modest about grades due to the honor code and the intensified, hit-over-the-head pressure to be careful about students treat each other as human beings. There also seems to be more of a social presence at Haverford (this is not to say that Swarthmore students don't socialize, just the degree to which they do is not as great as at Haverford). So perhaps this explains why it seems as though Haverford students don't "work as much" - because they're spreading their time more evenly between academics and other things than maybe a Swarthmore student, who prefers to focus more heavily on academics. And of course, this is not to generalize both of the schools as a whole- you'll find Haverford students that never leave the library and Swat students that maybe don't fit the typical stereotype of workaholics. In the end, I think Haverford students can do just as well as Swarthmore students (and they do). Rankings are absurd, really. Quoting my algebra teacher from middle school, "It's like comparing apples with oranges." I personally was debating between the two colleges in my own college selection process; it just seems that Haverford presents a different approach of educating its students than that of Swarthmore. Naturally, for one type of person, a Swarthmore education would deem as better for what they personally need; but others might learn better in the type of environment that Haverford provides. I refuse to believe that Swarthmore students are lightyears ahead of Haverford students in intelligence or work ethic. So for some, Swarthmore is a better school; for others, Haverford is a better school. End of story.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I asked her what she thought was the main difference between the two schools; she replied that it seemed to her as though Swarthmore professors hold their students to almost unattainable, "impossible" standards for the purpose of keeping them from settling for average work. Thus, this would probably result in a stressful, pressure-cooker environment that the students actually create for themselves because they want to do well and were the type of students in high school that did, in fact, do well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, the demanding nature of Swarthmore appears to have just he opposite effect. Many students realize that the standards mean they are unlikely to get an "A" in every course. This can be quite liberating for high-achiever high school students and the message is further reinforced with the pass/fail first semester, when they get the opportunity (often for the first time in their lives) to be knocked down a notch or two. </p>

<p>For many Swarthmore students, the mindset becomes: take the course, enjoy the learning for learning's sake, make a solid effort to do the coursework and participate in class, and let the grades fall where they may. When it's an "A", great. When it's not, it's not. Learn from it and move on.</p>

<p>The situation you describe where a student feels the same pressure to get all "A"s regardless of the standard to do so is actually one of the two kinds of students my daughter recommends not go to Swarthmore (the other being the "slacker").</p>

<p>Right right, that's what I meant, that students realize that the standards (of getting an A) are so high and unattainable 100% of the time (unlike it was for them in high school). Sorry if it came off the wrong way.</p>

<p>I graduated from Swarthmore in '03, and the school is not the slightest bit competitive. I'm a first-year student at Stanford Law School now, where you can't shake a stick without hitting a few dozen Ivy Leaguers, and people here compete on everything. The only grades you get as a first-year law student are from the final exam - there are no papers or midterms - so the first-year students compete to brag about how little they work. It's a way of saying, "I'm so smart that I don't HAVE to work all that hard to do well". Showing off how much richer you are than the other students is also encouraged. Nothing like that was true at Swarthmore. Talking about grades was taboo, and people didn't use proxies like bragging about how they don't have to work hard. The egalitarian Quaker ethic makes a big difference too - displays of wealth are strongly discouraged.</p>

<p>I can't speak to Haverford, though.</p>

<p>Isn't Swwarthmore much harder to get into?</p>

<p>I can't speak to the comparison, can only say that my son is a very happy, contented freshman at Swarthmore. I think he has a lot of academic work to do, but he seems to be thriving on it. He also has great opportunities for other activities, all of which are well-run and organized. The other students are very compatible, and it seems like a great place. It is not perfect, I'm sure, but I really see no downside and an amazing amount of opportunities there. He applied ED, and I wanted him to go RD so he could see all of his choices, but he was right. I also wanted him to go to the Honors College of the large state university I attended, but he was right about the size of Swarthmore being best for him. So yes I will not say that anything is perfect, but for the right student, Swarthmore is pretty close!</p>

<p>As far as weaknesses go, there is, for all practical purposes, no college town at all.</p>

<p>That is true. There is no real college town surrounding Swarthmore proper, although there is quite a bit of retail within walking (or easy bus route) distance, including a mall, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, Target, Best Buy, and a decent selection of restaurants.</p>

<p>Also, Philadelphia has a huge student population and a lot of stuff geared accordingly.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.campusphilly.org/about_section/map.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.campusphilly.org/about_section/map.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>For students expectionally smart enough to be accepted into Stanford law (means you probably had 3.5+ GPA, yes?), they likely would not have felt competition as an undergraduate. This is true of most schools I feel. The smartest students may describe a school as completely non-competitive, while the weaker students may feel it is somewhat competitive. Even in collaborative-learning environments, the best students tend to want to work with each other on group projects, etc. I just propose this possibility based on my personal experience. Also, for students from elite private high schools, one college may feel less competitive than high school, whereas for students from public schools, that college may feel more competitive. Everything is relative.</p>

<p>"The smartest students may describe a school as completely non-competitive, while the weaker students may feel it is somewhat competitive."</p>

<p>I disagree. Sometimes the smartest kids are the most competitive. For example, one of the top students that graduated last year from our public HS and attrending one of the top universities, is still posting his grades on his blog and bragging about them. At Swarthmore this would be an extremely uncool thing to do.</p>