@tonroxmysox, Again, 1/2 of the population can’t apply to BMC. I’m not surprised that BMC is somewhat easier to get into. That has been established.
What hasn’t been established is that it’s less rigorous than Haverford.
All I did was add the endowment to the mix of factors. It’s ok to be even-handed with praise and criticism in these discussions. I wanted to put in my $0.02 about a school/schools with which I’ve become somewhat familiar.
@rlkirklandiii, the 400 graduate students are factored into the 1700 total student population. the undergraduates at BMC number about 1300. if you took out the graduate students, the discrepancy would be more severe.
It’s a simple point: Haverford has a relatively small endowment. Bryn Mawr’s is on the higher side. It’s math.
Also, consider that these are graduate programs in the arts and sciences and social work. It’s not like there’s a law school, medical school or other capital-hungry program in the mix. I’m guessing the professors at BMC who teach the undergraduates also instruct in the graduate schools.
Hey, it’s ok that Haverford’s median SAT is 160 pts. better than BMC’s. It’s also OK that BMC has more money to spend on its undergraduates. Almost $90,000, or 18% more.
1 Like
@MiddleburyDad2 Right, but Wellesley is also all women yet its SAT average is almost the same as Haverford’s.
@tonroxmysox, Wellesley is the Harvard of women’s colleges and an iconic name in academia. And yet its SAT median is ALMOST the same as, but still lower than, Haverford’s, a great school in its own right, but not at the very tip top of LACs. It almost makes my point.
Then there’s admission rates. Wellesley’s admission rate is 28%, while Haverford’s is 24.5%, even though Wellesley is a bigger name, has more money, occupies a pinnacle spot in one of its categories, and overall is ranked #4 among LACs in US News.
Any way you slice it, Wellesley’s numbers are not commensurate with its peers in that ranking. Williams, Amherst, Swat, Bowdoin, Pomona and even Middlebury are appreciably harder to get into. There is an obvious explanation for why that is the case.
They’re both outstanding schools, and it doesn’t seem like bringing up the endowments is any type of shot at Haverford. It’s just one of many indicators of how a place is doing. SAT scores may be another. One technical point, MiddleburyDad: If Bryn Mawr has $90k more per student in its endowment, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the school has something like $4,500 more to spend per student per year? Schools don’t spend their endowment, I don’t think, at least not in the sense in which the word “spend” is usually used. At least back in the day, I think they used to draw from it annually at a rate of somewhere around 5%. Might well be even lower now; I’m not tuned into that sort of thing.
Given that Bryn Mawr uses more aid in the form of merit aid to attract students to get to its admit rate, one could question if a typical student would ever see that extra $4,500 per student in terms of everyday campus life. My guess is much of it is going to those getting merit aid rather than reflected in amenities, better/more faculty, etc.
@Brother Ray 24, I think that’s right. I’ve read about varying approaches in terms of how much spend you pull out the endowment. Ultimately it is, I think, a function of the size of the endowment, how well it’s invested and the school’s ability to fund raise for the current op. cycle. And of course, current op. spending. Agreed with your assessment of my post: I bring up endowment merely to point out one area where BMC has an edge.
@doschicos, I really have no idea. But even if that’s true, is it not advantageous for BMC to be able to bring those students on to campus with said merit aid? It hardly seems a point of valid criticism. And, we can’t assess, none of us really, how well one school spends their money vs. another. That would take a lot of information to which none of us here (I assume) have access. And if we did, we could go back and forth all day on this or that spend item.
With that said, however BMC is managing to pay for its facilities, they’ve got good ones. One measure on which BMC stacks up well against the competition is their physical plant. And they have the reputation, at least, of having great instructors. But whether they buy the “best or better” faculty, I simply don’t know.
I do know this: I’ve never met a graduate from one of the 7 sisters who failed to impress me. Ever.
No… MHC is NOT edgy. SMITH is edgy, BMC does lean that way as well. MHC probably retains more of the genteel side of the original Seven Sisters than any of them except maybe Wellesley (but not tons, none of them have tons any more). MHC has a significant international population – again – that doesn’t really push it in the “edgy” direction. My guess it that maybe because the kids you saw a lot of were athletes (that isn’t where “edgy” tends to reside at any school).
@intparent, I completely disagree with your assessment of both MoHo and BMC. I agree with you on Smith entirely.
we saw athletes at every school, and spent the most time with non-athletes at BMC because it’s a front-runner for my D, who is close to choosing BMC (hence my bias). Mind you, she is a kid who has fielded D1 offers and is being courted by the best D3 programs in the country, including Brandeis, Wellesley and a handful of the NESCACs she can get into (there are some, like Williams, who have reached out but she’s not getting in there even with help). She is a beautiful young women and decidedly heterosexual and social. She is leaning toward BMC DESPITE the fact that they generally suck at soccer and are Swat’s and J. Hopkins’ punching bag in league play every year. That is to say, BMC is overcoming her intense competitiveness as an athlete because she likes it that much. She would not find the “edgy” we’re all talking about here at all attractive. She’s been there for two visits now.
all this just goes to show, different people, different visit, different priorities, different points of view. I guess that’s how it should be.
Well, I’m glad we’ve straightened out that you feel strongly that your beautiful, social, straight daughter feels comfortable at BMC. Your responsive is quite defensive. Did you know you can take your horse to college at HMC?
@intparent, I didn’t mean it to be defensive at all. Maybe that’s what you’re looking for; but you won’t find it here.
I don’t feel strongly that she’d be comfortable. She does. Isn’t that what matters? I’m sorry that my disagreement with your perspective ruffled your feathers. I’ll try hard to avoid that in the future.
Yes, we picked up on the horse thing at MHC. Not sure what that has to do with this.
@MiddleburyDad2 - “edgy” wasn’t my word. I was reiterating what intparent had written. Still, I stand by what I said. My son goes to Haverford, and he’s told me that it’s easy to tell which girls go to Haverford and which go to Bryn Mawr, just by the way they look. That’s not a complaint or an insult - just an observation. They are more likely to have dyed hair, piercings, and very liberal attitudes. To me, that’s a little “edgy”. There’s nothing wrong with it, but if you’re expecting traditional, conservative girls, you might be a little shocked. 
1 Like
@megan12 , I’ve probably not been clear about this: I’m not getting my information through my kid or based on what someone’s mom said at a cocktail party. I’ve been to this school several times. I have three kids, one who is being, and one who was, recruited by BMC and Hav, and one who wasn’t recruited by anyone, but who was simply looking at Haverford. In addition, I attended law school at Penn, so I’m familiar with the Main Line area and found myself in those environs a time or two. That is all to say, I’m not expecting anything, and I’ve made my own observations.
FWIW, there are kids running around with blue hair who hold all kinds of views at both Pomona and Middlebury. As with my BMC experience, I don’t come by that information third hand; I have a kid at each and have seen it myself. Our visits to schools like Bowdoin, Wesleyan, etc. indicated much the same. I also don’t expect to find “traditional, conservative girls” at any elite LAC to be honest. I’ve not been to W&L - I’m told it’s conservative. But sweaters and pearls are gone, are they not? You sure as shyt won’t find them at Reed.
I know you didn’t mean it as an insult, and I’m sure your son probably didn’t either, but the statement that he can tell the girls who attend BMC and Hav by the way they look is probably not something he should share too broadly, and is probably not flattering to either group. It’s a little sweeping. And, at the risk that it’ll be taken the wrong way, I’ll add anyway that, if my D were to attend BMC, your son would not be able to guess where she goes to school.
Anyway, to each his own perspective I guess. I’ve probably burned enough gas on this thread.
Intparent is right. You’re a little defensive and condescending for some reason. There is nothing wrong with saying the girls at BMC are “edgy”. If that’s not your experience over the millions of visits you’ve seem to have made, then that’s fine. Of course there are others there that don’t fit that description. It would be ridiculous to think that all the girls were the same. But overall, the girls at BMC are very liberal. I don’t have to visit over and over to know that.
I’m not sure why you find it insulting that BMC girls may be different from Haverford girls. They’re two different schools. They often look and dress differently. It’s not a big deal. Really. I would expect Oberlin kids to look different from Harvard kids too. I don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. And yes, I’ve been to both.
It is the opposite of “edgy” to be able to bring your horse to college. That was my point about MHC.
Classifying an entire school (or half a school) of girls as looking like anything strikes me as odd. And frankly, unlikely.
I agree @intparent. It is the opposite. MoHo does have that legacy and it’s something they clearly still embrace. But, again, each to his own observation: two visits to that campus left me with a big Smith-like impression, horse stables notwithstanding. What can I say? It’s the impression I walked away with. But I do agree that, although it involves some generalizing on our parts, that particular activity is not synonymous with a radical world view to say the least.
@megan12, I’m not going to continue arguing with you; it’s clear it’s heading in a bad direction. But to defend myself, I’ve not said there is anything wrong with you saying it, and I’ve not indicated insult at the notion that “BMC girls may be different from Haverford girls.” That seems a little rhetorical. I just don’t see the support for the strong generalization you’re making. It’s that simple. If you find that to be condescending, then so be it.
Yes, of course, I’m aware you’re not making a categorical claim. I get it.
I still don’t know what you mean by “overall, the girls at BMC are very liberal.” Seriously, what does that mean in the context of a LAC discussion? Most LACs are full of very, very liberal minded kids. That’s kind of the deal at most places. I would expect that the women at MoHo, Wellesley, Smith and Barnard are too. I’d expect, overall, the kids at Haverford, Wesleyan, Middlebury, Pomona and similar schools are too.
But what do those kids “look like”? A lot of kids far left of center don’t wear bolts in their ears. That’s the part of your post I don’t really understand.
Lastly, I didn’t say it was a big deal. Your last post seems to be making it into one though.
Seems like smart, well-meaning folks are having some tension on this thread. The good thing about that is that there’s some discussion going on, which is nice for those of us interested in interactions about these schools. I suppose when we’re talking about our kids it is understandable that we might overreact to this or that point.
I have a tangential question. Several here have referred to “girls” at Bryn Mawr or Haverford. The students that we’re talking about are adults, so I would think that they’d be referred to as “women.” Does anyone here know whether the word “girls” is used on either or both campuses to refer to female students?
@“Brother Ray 24” good point. “Women” it should be. I’ll try to catch myself going forward.
To your question, that I don’t know, but I would guess that it doesn’t probably doesn’t go over well.
I kinda think the title to this thread is wrong: shouldn’t it be “Haverford and Bryn Mawr”?
They’re like opposite sides of the same campus with a huge park in between.
They are the closest-linked schools in the Quaker Consortium. By the sound of things, it’s pretty easy to cross-register and is done routinely.
They are highly respected, small schools whose programs seem to be complementary.
Instead of fighting over which is better, maybe it would be more constructive and helpful to realize that by choosing one, you are pretty much also choosing the other by association.
I’m not saying they should join and be renamed Welshford or anything like that. hehe. I just think they’re stronger in the context of their shared resources than either would be without the other nearby and available.