<p>i'll be a senior this fall and i'm currently picking out colleges. i want to major in biology or biomedical science. which school out of the 2 should i apply to? also which school looks better on my transcript if i want to transferr to another college in the yrs to come?</p>
<p>other schools on my list:
cornell u
stanford
carleton
whitman
reed college
pomona
berkeley</p>
<p>
[quote]
also which school looks better on my transcript if i want to transferr to another college in the yrs to come?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why would you even ask this? You don't go to college expecting to transfer unless you're going to some community college or bad state school for some reason.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd would definitely look better on the transcript, but you might get a low GPA and that would hurt you.</p>
<p>However, Harvey Mudd doesn't even offer biomedical science.</p>
<p>I agree with atomicfusion that your second question should disappear. Theres enough to consider regarding college choice without worrying about the possible need to transfer after a year. Both are great schools and, if you perform well, would put you in a great position to transfer if the fit just wasnt right.</p>
<p>Understand that both Harvey Mudd and Haverford are TINY. Mudd has the advantage of sitting in the middle of a 5 college consortium making it feel much larger. Haverford has a strong bi-college affiliation with Bryn Mawr making it feel a little larger. Mudd is pretty much an intense science/math/engineering program first, liberal arts college second. Haverford is a liberal arts college first with strong science offerings (and no engineering) second. Forgive the generalizations. Check out their web sites for distribution requirements. Program of study will be very different. Campus atmosphere very different. Weather very different. Placement into grad/med school, not so different.</p>
<p>Mudders trump all other science students</p>
<p>Uh...How practical is it to go across the country all the time? I would think that would be a deciding factor.</p>
<p>Haverford?! If you're going to come to Philadelphia for biomed, and you want an LAC, Swarthmore is the place to be. I don't understand this Haverford business. More like Haver-ignored. :D ;)</p>
<p>And, I hope you realize that transferring is very difficult to do. Transfer acceptance rates are MUCH lower than RD rates for most all top schools. I don't quite understand why you'd want to transfer out of a place like Carleton, Stanford, or even Haverford. You should aim to make yourself happy by finding a form-fitting school, not the most highly ranked. </p>
<p>^ JBVirtuoso- It's sucky. But completely worth it. Besides, though you do have Oberlin and Case Western, Ohio really doesn't really have too great a pick of colleges. Though your surrounding states help you out a bit, so I guess you're not doing too badly.</p>
<p>Why assume that HMC, just because it’ known for engineering, is better in all sciences and has a better reputation accordingly? Also, I’d be curious regarding the “facts” or “reasons” for your assertions.</p>
<p>Only 2 LACs (HC and Williams) have received the maximum award amount over the last 10 years by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for their science/biomedical programs. These grants are awarded to strong programs that provide for an innovative undergrad research education (remember HC is smaller than all its peers so the total cash amount is even more of a significant commentary). Trust the opinion of an anonymous someone still in high school or a HMC freshman or the HHMI?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.collegenews.org/x3342.xml%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegenews.org/x3342.xml</a></p>
<p>In the last 10 years, HC alumni are/have been the head of biomedical research (and the MD/PhD program) at John Hopkins, head of the PhD research program at UCSF, chair of Chemistry of MIT, Dean of the medical school at U Washington, Head of the Institutes of Medicine in DC, ect… In addition, Daniel Koshland (former Head of Biology at Berkeley and former editor of THEE PREMIER science journal “Science”) donated 20 million to HC and he himself wasn’t even an alumnus. To me, that suggests belief in HC from someone really in the know. HMC probably has several distinguished alumni too (who exactly?) but to suggest that it has a BETTER reputation in the sciences and particularly in biology/chemistry is fiction. </p>
<p>Despite this, I’ve always encouraged people to think more about fit than academic resources (when discussing the top 50 schools) as it’s really more similar than different.</p>
<p>As Swat only offers 1 intermediate immunology class while HC offers that + 2 advanced seminars + an actual LAB experience for constructing monoclonal anti-bodies to all bio majors, asserting Swat is better in molecular bio/ biomed is really uninformed and easily dismissed. At least as of several years ago, only HC and Williams offered hands-on learning in immunology among LACs. :)</p>
<p>Finally, I’ve always had a respect for Swat (brother and ### friends went there and it was the only school I debated with HC come decision time) but I must say that the post by the incoming Swat student is a real embarrassment for the school as it just reinforces Swat’s reputation for attracting a greater # of kids who are pretentious, intellectually self congratulatory and with serious issues regarding social skills and immaturity. As it’s a perennial issue often bemoaned in the “Phoenix” and during awkward dance parties, you’ll know what I mean soon enough… euphemistically referred to as “quirky”. ;)</p>
<p>Also, if you compare the course offerings available to Swat kids to those of kids in the Bi-co, you’ll get a better perspective of what Swat does/ does not offer… that, at Swat, if you want to study African/black studies, you won’t be able to learn Swahili (BMC); no Italian if you’re interested in studying comparative literature, art history or English (BMC); no bronze casting/ metal work coursework if you’re majoring in fine arts/ sculpture (HC); and this pattern continues for pretty much every single other department that doesn’t benefit from either a larger student population (Williams, Pomona, Wesleyan...) or true/ seamless consortium arrangement such as that of the Bi-co. There are still plenty of great courses to choose from, and Swat is an amazing place, but let’s be a little more realistic here. :)</p>
<p>Swarthmore?! If you're going to come to Philadelphia for biomed, and you want a LAC, Haverford is the place to be. I don't understand this Swarthmore business. More like Swarth-LESS. ;) :D</p>
<h2>(I can be funny too)</h2>
<p>Swarthmore and Haverford
Comparison of faculty research/specialization in molecular biology</p>
<p>Swarthmore: <a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/x10312.xml%5B/url%5D">http://www.swarthmore.edu/x10312.xml</a></p>
<p>1) Cell biology and stem cells
2) Cell biology and cell cycle
3) Genetics
4) Microbiology</p>
<p>Haverford: <a href="http://www.haverford.edu/biology/biofaculty.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.haverford.edu/biology/biofaculty.html</a>
1) Protein chemistry and macromolecules
2) Stem cells
3) Cell biology and regulation
4) Cell architecture and nano-machines
5) Genetics
6) Microbiology
7) Immunology
8) Cell and embryonic development</p>
<p>Swat’s bio department is good and well rounded but, because more than ½ the faculty specialize in ecology/organism based science (plants, birds, fish, ect …) and developmental bio, Swat can’t possibly compare to HC in molecular bio and biomedical research as that is what HC focuses on 100%. In addition, BMC’s biology concentrates in those topics that HC’s department doesn’t so coursework in ecology/organism based science (plants, birds, fish, ect …) and developmental bio is similarly more thorough at BMC for those students who decide this path. </p>
<p>HC was the FIRST institution to teach molecular bio (modern bio) to undergraduates in America (LACs and universities) starting in the 1950s. HC’s immunologists (Judy Owen in the 1980-90’s and, currently, Jenny Punt) have won the American Association of Immunology’s award for outstanding teaching. HC even has a well known bio-ethicist, Ruth Guyer, on faculty and she is a regular commentator on NPR. Finally, the incoming president, Steve Emerson MD/PhD (HC 1974), who was the Chief of oncology at Penn and was designated to be the head of Penn’s new Stem Cell Research Institute before he decided to return to HC, will continue his NIH sponsored lab and is planning to be involved in teaching as well. Not only is his science top-notch but students will also benefit from his CLINICAL perspective. Having a world renowned physician work with undergrads is simply unheard of!</p>
<p>
[quote]
the incoming Swat student is a real embarrassment for the school as it just reinforces Swat’s reputation for attracting a greater # of kids who are pretentious, intellectually self congratulatory and with serious issues regarding social skills and immaturity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seriously? What it really shows is your lack of social skills to understand that I was kidding and your inability to discern ignorance from true pretence! </p>
<p>
[quote]
There are still plenty of great courses to choose from, and Swat is an amazing place, but let’s be a little more realistic here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>THAT was the appropriate response. Do not point to a lack of social skills to explain my comment. Though I am sure I'll run into those who are lacking in some social skills, I'm afraid going to a highly selective college produces such student bodies. Have you been to Harvard's dance parties? </p>
<p>Also, remember that Swarthmore students can take classes at Haverford, Bryn Mawr, and even UPenn, a luxury not available to Haverford students. If you would like to talk about availability of classes, it doesn't get too much better than that. Furthermore, even though it seems that Haverford has the better biomedical program, we need to consider the results of the program; what proportion of the kids are going to med school. Though I will be first to admit that the methodology of the WSJ isn't the best, it does give us a rough idea of how successful these 'feeder schools' are. </p>
<p>In it, we see that Swarthmore is almost two times more successful in sending its students to top graduate schools than Haverford even though Haverford has the - better program?</p>
<p>Maybe you have had some experiences I clearly have not with Swarthmore students, but I think it was absolutly odious for you to respond to my CLEARLY facetious comment. </p>
<p>As you showed, Haverford may well be the place to study biomedical sciences, but your response was not enhanced one bit by including your personal attack. It truly was a problem of ignorance, and not pretence. Furthermore, as should have been evident, I was only perpetuating the rivalry between Swarthmore and Haverford -- I did my best to make that very clear.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, thank you for elucidating the issue.</p>
<p>After more careful review, I found this comment:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust the opinion of an anonymous someone still in high school or a HMC freshman or the HHMI?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So clearly you understood that I was an unknowing little freshman Swattie, and still used it as an opportunity to insult me and my social skills. As an alumnus, I would expect more.... oh, what was the word you used... oh, maturity??</p>
<p>Oh, and HC Alum, on a more serious note - if your observations of Swat students are right, what about Swat causes such a social atmosphere? If we connect low social skills to high intelect, then it would appear that most top liberal arts schools, including Carleton, Pomona, CMC, Williams, and Amherst have similar problems within their student bodies. Is that a fair assumption? Is a student body (or some proportion of a student body) lacking social skills a common symptom of a highly competitive university/LAC?</p>
<p>1) HC students CAN take classes at Penn. It's not done too frequently as, given the course selection between BMC and HC to choose from and given the distance, why should they? Who said they couldn't?! </p>
<p>2) Yes, technically there is a Tri-co, but ask any Swat kid or Bi-co kid just how easy it is and you'll be very disappointed if that's what you're assuming. Swat is essentially isolated here.</p>
<p>3) The wall street journal looks also at Law schools and Business schools too and each category isn't weighted 1/3, 1/3 1/3. A college that sends 12 grads to Wharton (not hard) and 1 to Harvard Med (hard) will be ranked more favorably than another school that sends 4 to Wharton and 4 to Harvard Med. So, I wouldn't use that as strong evidence and generalize if you're looking at a particular field such as medicine.</p>
<p>4) I'm sorry if I over-read your comment. That's one of the limits to anonymous internet sites. As you seemed very sure and serious with your belief that Swat is "better" in biomedical, your comments (... even Haverford)juxtaposed around that assertion have to be taken equally too... smiley faces or not. That's why, if you noticed, I explicitly write positive aspects of Swat rather than just assume people understand my intention. Saying something negative and putting a smiley face to it is called "sarcasm".</p>
<p>5) You mentioned "fit" and it's known that Swat attracts a greater # of kids that fit my description than other places given how it advertises itself. If you're talking about FIT (and you brought it up) it's important and reasonable to talk about the kind of kids each school attracts and your comments do fit with a certain % of Swat kids. I didn't say all, but a very noticible contingent. Yes, I've been to parties at Harvard, MIT and Princeton... the kids who choose to go to universities are a little more assertive, confident and the types to thrive in a larger social mix and have more normal social skills. LACs attract other types of students who value other things such as intimacy... and a school that advertises "anywhere else would be an A" or that it's the most "intense" and "intellectual" attracts a certain type of kid.</p>
<p>Thanks HC-Alum, I'm sorry for the whole misunderstanding. Unfortunately, I didn't have much choice in the Ivy department :'( -- the intensity Swarthmore advertised very much attracted me to the school, but this kind of snooty 'intellectualism' really turns me off. Like you pointed out, Yale was my first choice, but alas, Swarthmore will have to be a good 'back-up.' On a more personal note, is there somewhat of a contingent at Swat composed of students blessed with social skills? This issue, has concerned me from the moment I chose Swat. Any words you have on the issue would be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>OK… I think we’re cool. :)</p>
<p>Before I get to your question, I like to gently “challenge” you on your reply to this though…“Trust the opinion of an anonymous someone still in high school or a HMC freshman or the HHMI?” Personally, I’m a physician who trained @ a top hospital and I counsel pre-meds and work with medical students. While I certainly discount youth and lack of experience, I don’t do it to their face as I think it would be “condescending”. When I teach, I’ll ask the same hard questions as I do of others as that demonstrates similar respect and consideration… I encourage students to use my 1st name...of course, if they get my questions "wrong", it’s no big deal just as long as they learn something from it. Many of the individuals who post here on CC consider themselves America’s best and brightest (AND ACT LIKE IT… “know it alls”) and write their opinions because they think it worthy of consideration and acknowledgement. If that’s the case, then I think it’s important to hold them up to those standards as well, regardless of age, and challenge them as adults. After all, 35-65 years ago, what were 18-19 yo doing?... they were fighting wars, taking bullets and given great responsibility… so challenging a valedictorian to validate his/her opinions and calling them on BS when needed shouldn’t be a big deal. Also, at Swat, your professors and colleagues will challenge you in a similar way and hold you up to high standards of evidence and analysis. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t worry about the minority of students at Swat that I wrote about as they’re many shockingly cool and nice people there (example, one of my friends who was listed in "Essence" magazine as one of top 20 college women and went to get a policy PhD @ Woodrow Wilson). However, Swat doesn’t benefit from the laid back atmosphere of the west coast or the gentleness of the Midwest and, because it advertises itself accordingly, it attracts and detracts an overall student body that is a little (but noticibly) different from many other east coast colleges and this gives it its distinct flavor. There are many (+) aspects with this uniqueness but there are some (-) as well. For those students who are nice, smart and modest, you’ll have 4 great years but I would just recommend that you don’t get caught up with the faction of your classmates who take themselves, their "intensity", their "intellectuality" and Swat too seriously. It's easy to do.</p>
<p>This thread seems about dead. In conclusion, Haverford “technically” has more resources in molecular biology than most/all other colleges but, in the greater scheme of things, you can get a great education and be prepared at any of the top schools and fit is very important. I think I said it best here.</p>
<p>Thank goodness for lazy Sundays, pleasant LA weather free WI-FI and outdoor cafes. :)</p>
<p>Fair enough. Thanks. MN right now is sunny, and about 75. Doesn't happen too often.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh...How practical is it to go across the country all the time? I would think that would be a deciding factor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I live in Ohio and go to school at Mudd. It is practical. Once a school is a plane ride away, it is essentially the same distance. Guess how much my ticket from Cleveland Hopkins to Ontario, CA cost? $110. That's right.</p>