<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>