Do you whether or if so how Amherst recalculates GPA for applying students? For example, if I had a 4.23 W gpa, would they recalculate it with only core classes or something like that?
Also, did you know anyone that did pre med and applied for med school from Amherst, and did he/she like it?
I think ALL colleges recalculate GPA to suit their own priorities. In a holistic review, core classes are still most important, unless you are an artist or musician and then those grades might matter more than for, say, a scientist. Amherst isn’t admitting by numbers the way some large public schools might.
@razon12 I’m not sure how Amherst calculates GPA for admission purposes, sorry.
Regarding the pre-med track at Amherst, I knew a fair number of people who did it. As you’ve probably seen from data online, the admissions outcomes for Amherst students who successfully complete the track are solid: in 2016, out of 74 students and recent alums for applied, “82% gained acceptance to medical school, twice the national acceptance rate.” Virtually every pre-med student maintains some sort of personal relationship with Dean Aronson, who runs the whole program, and it’s much easier to get personalized recommendations from the college for the med school application process than it might be a larger institution.
However, the key words here are “students who successfully complete the track.” As I noted in an earlier post, the pre-med track at Amherst is really difficult! Be aware of this. Of the 74 people who applied in 2016, I’m guessing there were probably another 70 who started on the pre-med track when they matriculated to Amherst, but then dropped it somewhere along the way. At freshman orientation, it felt like literally half the people I met were planning to be doctors, but it doesn’t always work out, simply due to the rigor of the track itself. As a general rule, pre-meds definitely work a lot more than the average person on campus.
Also, note that the 82% figure includes recent alums as well as students. A large majority of pre-med students actually take a gap year between when they graduate from Amherst and when they apply to med school. Off the top of my head, I can only think of 2 pre-meds in my year who are going straight to med school, while I know 6-7 who are applying next year, or the year after that! This is often because pre-med students realize that they don’t have time to fit in 300 hours of MCAT study and 5-7 med school applications + nationwide interviews with their junior and senior class-work, which often includes a thesis. I merely note this because many prospective Amherst students (and college students in general) don’t realize how drawn out the med school application process really is.
^ or there are kids like my D who never really planned on med school but did the pre-med reqs for a few semesters just to keep the option open, then found her niche outside of that and will not be applying.
There is an Amherst MD parent here on CC but she’ll pop in if she has something to say.
I’m currently trying to decide on a first year seminar for the fall, but all of them sound amazing. Which one did you take? What do you know about the “secrets and lies” one? Are there any that are especially popular?
@lalaland21 It’s been a loooooong time since I’ve looked at first-year seminars, and the offerings tend to change from one year to the next, but I can confirm that Secrets and Lies is always a popular choice. Speaking more generally, Professor Austin Sarat is always in high demand, especially since he only teaches like 1 class a year now. People actually have a difficult time getting into his first-year seminar because there’s never enough spots (it’s all down to luck).
I myself never took a class with Sarat, since his reputation somewhat precedes him. He’s known to be a super intense and demanding professor. Some people love him and think he’s a genius; one of my friends liked Sarat so much that he took 4 classes with Sarat, did a summer research project with Sarat, and also had Sarat as a thesis advisor. Other people think he’s kind of a… jerk? Your mileage will vary.
Personally, I’d recommend taking the first-year seminar with Trent Maxey. He’s our professor of Japanese history, and from what I’ve seen, he’s one of the best professors in our history department (and in general, I think history is one of the most underrated departments on campus). Maxey will make you challenge your own assumptions about the nature of the modern world and what the West and East really “are” within history, and you’ll probably be a better (or at least more informed) person afterwards. The class will be tough, especially if you’re not familiar with writing in an academic style, but probably less so than Sarat at very least.
In general, one is best served looking for the best professors, as opposed to the best courses (or course descriptions). Especially in a small-sized class at a school like Amherst, a great professor will make any course worthwhile. Always ask about the best professors, not necessarily the best courses.
I definitely agree with what @AsleepAtTheWheel has to say.
For new students, it can be hard to access info as to who the best professors are. The prof review web sites are not much help, maybe because the college is small, too few reviews. Once there, it is easier.
D chose hers by subject and wound up with a great prof who challenged her in class, took everyone in his class on a mountain hike in groups of 2 at a time, on the weekends. It was a great intro to the culture of close student/prof relationships at Amherst.
Basically, no matter the subject, the point of that seminar - the only course required of all students - is to learn to think critically and write well about what you read and hear.
Hey, congrats on graduating! Not sure if you’re still checking CC, but I had a couple questions I was hoping you could answer.
Thank you!
Since no one has stepped forward to answer these questions, I’ll give it a shot (as a reasonably well-informed parent, I think):
– You have to take a freshman seminar, but other than that there are no requirements whatsoever. You could take all STEM courses, but then you’d be missing out on taking a lot of wonderful courses with some great professors (and I’m slanted towards STEM).
– Don’t know about Wall Street firms, but Amherst students do well in the Boston area financial services job market, which is robust. If that’s your aim, you’d likely do better majoring in Statistics or Math +/- Economics. Of course they hire on a case by case basis, but in general they’re looking for kids who are whip-smart and are good with data analysis. Doing well in a Math or Stats major (with a smattering of computer science courses) matches up well with that. The lack of required courses facilitates double-majoring, and still lets you take all sorts of other courses in which you might be interested.
The term “liberal arts college” is somewhat misleading-- these days, the term is merely an idiom for a small college whose professors focus on undergraduate teaching rather than doing research. It doesn’t technically have anything to do with “liberal arts” subjects.
Now, regarding your question on econ: I was an econ major, but nevertheless, I can confidently say that the econ major is not necessary for Wall Street. What @AsleepAtTheWheel said is actually a bit of a common misconception: in truth, most finance jobs don’t require you to have any hard math, stats, or economics skills. People are surprised by this, but unless you’re specifically looking into quantitative hedge funds or the like, the actual work of finance is only very tenuously related to what you learn in school. In practice, the only thing you really need is a decent sense of intuition, and a willingness to work hard (especially if you’re coming from a top liberal arts college like Amherst-- employers will give students a lot of leeway in these cases).
So again, I repeat that you do not need to major in econ. While a majority of Amherst graduates who work in finance are economics majors, this is a matter of self-selection. The folks at Amherst who are interested in finance tend to also be interested in economics, so that’s why they major in it. In other words, a person’s economics degree is not the reason they work in finance. Instead, a person’s interest in finance is the reason they major in economics. You’re witnessing a matter of reverse causality here.
If you’re actually interested in economics, then sure, major in econ. Otherwise, major in something else, and you’ll still be fine. I will note, for instance, that something like 15-20% of Amherst graduates in the history department end up in finance every year.
Another current student here, would love to chime in on some of these questions, particularly ones I see from a different perspective than amherst_girl18 and ReallyFantastic.
Food: Not the best. My main issue is that Val doesn’t have a reliable “good” food station. It would be fairly easy to have a taco bar/grill that is always there as an option, but instead, if the main meal is unappealing (as it is half the time), you are stuck with salad (extensive, I must say), pasta (unexciting), pizza (not anything to write home about), or their bland “lighter side” station. Having worked in school cafeterias before, Val needs to step their game up. A simple grill station would go a long ways, Amherst…
Social scene: Took a hit recently, but varies largely by person and whether you are involved in many activities around campus (not just sports).
Interpersonal competition: huh? What’s that?
Anti-STEM mindset: Whoever said that, likely doesn’t go to Amherst. I’ve never heard of it; if anything, people have MORE respect for people that choose the STEM route.
Finance/Recruiting at Amherst: I got an internship at a hedge fund after freshman year, and the CEO (who is an alum) is helping me get another internship next year (for my sophomore summer). Alumni are really responsive and helpful, especially if you know your stuff and they can tell you are eager to work. Stephanie Hockman (the business and finance career center guru) is also possibly the best human I know.
Athelete/Non-Athlete social divide: ReallyFantastic is spot on with his answer, almost exactly how I see it. Non athletes can (and often do) complain/whine about the “social divide,” but when have they reached out and tried to befriend athletes? Or when have athletes purposefully excluded them? The answer: never. Like minded individuals hang out with other like minded individuals, plain and simple. I am not arguing that there isn’t a social divide – because there is, somewhat – but the problem doesn’t lie with athletes. If anything, it lies with the non athletes who deride athletes as intellectually inferior, or insult them via online publications. And I wonder why they don’t want to be friends with you? (DISCLAIMER: I am NOT an athlete, just someone anchored in reality.)
@CorryBernstein I’m a current student too, and I think you are being a bit rude and dismissive. Characterizing concerns about the athlete/non-athlete divide as “complaining” or “whining” trivializes a real issue. My disclaimer: I’m not an athlete, and I actually do have athlete friends, on the softball, squash, and lacrosse teams.
The problem is not just that there’s a social divide; it’s that the athletes are strongly rich and white, so the athlete/non-athlete divide becomes a class- and race-based divide as well. Have you looked at the report on athletics on Amherst? If we have such separated groups of Amherst students… well, that kind of defeats the purpose of diversity. I don’t think this should stop anyone from applying to and attending Amherst. But it is part of our campus culture and something to be aware of.
I’ve never heard anyone call athletes intellectually inferior. Is it true that athletes have lower standards for admission? Yes. But there’s still a benchmark they have to meet. Nobody at Amherst is an idiot. Lazy, I won’t speak to.
About the food, though, yeah. Val isn’t terrible, but a reliable “good” station would be nice.
@glittervine I don’t believe the social divide is an issue, which is obviously where we differ. As you’ve stated, you have athlete friends, as do I, and as do the majority of students at Amherst. I characterize it as ‘whining’ not only because I don’t regard it as a real issue (given that students place themselves in their own groups naturally, people still find friends/friend groups easily, etc.), but also because I don’t see how Amherst could go about fixing the ‘issue’ in the first place.
How would YOU go about “fixing” the issue? Ensuring that each team has a certain racial quota? There’s enough reverse discrimination happening at Amherst already, now we’d be kneecapping ANY chance for white students to be judged on an equal playing field in the admissions process. It’s already unfair – why exacerbate it for the sake of nebulous ‘diversity’?
Here are a couple comments from ‘The State of Athletics’ article from the end of last year, an AC Voice publication:
"We go to Amherst College to learn. For all its flaws, Amherst has provided me with a top-notch educational experience in my time here thus far. I have taken challenging and rewarding classes with professors and classmates who have changed the way that I see the world. For that, I am immensely grateful. However, it is not the school’s responsibility to micromanage the social culture. We are all adults who should be allowed to interact with whomever we want.
We become close with the people that we spend the most time with. Seeing as though fraternities are banned and social clubs seem to have mysteriously disappeared this year, it’s only logical that athletes will mostly interact with each other because, due to the social climate on this campus, they spend most of their time outside of class with their teammates. This shouldn’t be seen as an act of deliberate exclusion. Besides, if you truly abhor the “toxic masculinity” as fervently as it seems here, you should be thrilled that the athletes are separate from you socially.
As a non-athlete, I have friends who play sports and friends who don’t. I have never thought much about this, and it baffles me to see my classmates arguing about this “athlete/non-athlete divide” ad nauseam on Facebook, student publications, etc. Instead of sitting behind your keyboard talking about how things could be better, perhaps we could turn this potential energy into kinetic energy. Next time you see someone from a different social sphere than your own, whether you are an athlete or not, say hello and introduce yourself.
I know that things aren’t perfect and there are always improvements that can be made, but at the end of the day we all have more in common with each other than we think. Rather than writing articles that pit athletes and non-athletes against each other, we should be working together to form a more unified Amherst. That’s just my opinion."
“This article is ridiculous–especially the part where you cite statistics from a report published 15 years ago as if they still apply today. Ignoring the fact that the “Decolonize Val” movement misappropriates anti-colonization language and trivializes those movements, people banging their fists on tables is not an example of “toxic masculinity”. It’s raucous behavior, sure, but part of functioning in the world as an adult is learning to deal with, say, loud unexpected noises! People engaging in behavior that you might find annoying or a little inconsiderate is not automatically something that has to be protested. If you’re feeling a large amount of anxiety from just these everyday situations, then maybe you should talk to someone at the counseling center. Which I highly recommend, because it’s a fantastic campus resource.”
“This article is incredibly narrow-minded. Try to be empathetic and step into the shoes of a collegiate athletes. Imagine how many hours are immediately reserved for your sport every single day. Imagine being utterly exhausted from having a 6:00 am lift, 4 classes, a 4+ hour practice, and then 5 hours of homework…ever single day. Imagine experiencing intensive lessons on grit, perseverance, leadership, teamwork and discipline every single day – lessons that aren’t easily taught in a classroom. Imagine having a game every weekend, imagine experiencing success and failure with the same people by your side to celebrate with you or to feel your pain. Imagine sharing feelings of anger, frustration, triumph, joy, pride, excitement, disappointment, anxiety, etc with those same people. Imagine doing your best to also excel in class and get involved on campus. Now imagine no one cares about any of this, because you sit with your best friends at lunch who are (insert team name) players too, and that kind of unacceptable behavior overshadows your other efforts. I mean…does it really surprise you that such an environment fosters tight-knit friendships? Or that it brings people so close that they want to sit together at lunch and live together? Is it really crazy for best friends to want to do that? I think you’re right, a conversation would be a good idea, because I think you have no idea what it’s like to be on the other side of such unwarranted condemnation. I think you have judged an entire population and should get to know the people you so quickly label. This whole anti-athlete movement is ridiculous.”
“Its amazing that people who profess empathy and compassion so quickly and easily write long articles and Facebook statuses impugning the character and morality of their classmates. Is anybody seriously under the impression that athletes get together and say “boy am I glad that we’ve created de facto segregation!”? Amherst teaches an appreciation of nuance and complexity, neither of which is reflected in this article. Nor is the awareness of the effects this might have on the athlete population. If you mean to argue that this distaste for athletes is a common emotion (which you quite clearly do), why would any athlete be interested in leaving her social circle to hang out with people that hate her?
Also, I don’t think that the New York Times canvasses for anonymous sources on social media. Maybe Amherst should offer some journalism classes.”
“As an Amherst College graduate I have been, and remain, deeply disappointed in the College from a social and political perspective. I am not conservative and am, in fact, liberal. The sad thing is that I feel the need to say that upfront — to inoculate myself from the anticipated backlash to what I have to say . . . which is that you have created a community characterized by unhappiness, disrespect for differences and a lack of gratitude for the privilege of attending the College and being invited to be part of a community. This article exhibited disrespect for the athletes, the sacrifices that they make for the greater good — their “team” — and the fact that athletes give up a significant amount of free time to practice their sport. Free time which could be spent socializing, studying or sleeping. It also exhibits a disrespect for their values, that being a part of a team is meaningful enough to them that they are willing to sacrifice their free time for what they perceive to be a greater reward, achieving goals together. If the students of Amherst College are truly committed to diversity and building a campus-wide community, I suggest that they start looking inward rather than outward. Stop trying to find fault with each other, stop turning in each other in to the Resident Counselors at the slightest provocation. If your room is noisy because the students down the hall are relaxing and playing music and you want to study . . . consider going to the library rather than complaining. Ask yourself why there are so many closed parties on campus these days? Ask yourself why people who aren’t athletes want to go to parties thrown by athletes? Ask yourself why this community isn’t capable of harnessing all the brain power on campus to throw a party that most students feel comfortable attending without worrying that it’s going to be shut down any second because the students have called the campus police on each other. If you have a problem walking nearby the athletes while they are eating in the dining hall, spend fifteen minutes walking back and forth near their tables every day for a week. Studies show that if you can maintain that level of “fear “for that length of time and nothing bad happens to you, you are on your way to conquering your fear. Ask yourselves why football games, hockey games, etc., are so poorly attended and why the non-athletes no longer show support for the Amherst College teams like they did in the past, especially considering the fact that the current teams are far more victorious than when I attended. Focus on being happy rather than being right.”
"I regularly read the Alumni magazine, spend a significant amount of time on the College’s website, follow Amherst College in social media and read any articles in which the College is mentioned in the mainstream media. Based upon my reading, including this article entitled “The State of Athletics,” I’m not only glad I currently don’t attend Amherst College, I’m glad that I’ve stopped donating money. While I was not a white, male athlete while I attended Amherst, I certainly socialized with many of them and counted, and continue to count, many as my friends. These men have donated a significant amount of money and time to the College, especially post-graduation. Since — if I recall correctly — Amherst College didn’t become co-ed until 1977, I would guess that white males, including athletes, are responsible for a significant amount of the endowment. Since this “toxic masculinity” is apparently abhorrent, it an ideal time to stop taking the money that is donated by white, male athletes. After all, no one likes a hypocrite.
The utter disrespect that you exhibit for other human beings, your determination to categorize human beings that are different than you as “less than” and imply that they — by virtue of their athletic participation — are more capable of sexual assault than you is truly horrifying. The College appears to be dominated by intellectual “thugs” — and faux intellectual at best. You are no different than street gangs that band together and terrorize others in an attempt to disguise your fear and insecurity."
"As a person of color . . . and the PROUD mother of a varsity athlete who receives financial assistance, I am frankly shocked at level of animosity and hate speech propagandized in the Indicator article you referenced. How can you expect constructive and progressive dialogue to take place when an entire subset of your population feels targeted, and believe me, they do. Athletes, especially male athletes, are bombarded weekly with team meetings, training sessions, videos and the like all centered on managing their potential future interactions with other students. Since stepping onto campus, my son wears his purple and white team jersey with both pride and trepidation. He is acutely aware that being a varsity athlete makes him a target for heightened scrutiny. To assume, with such a broad brush, that these students are somehow “less than” or undeserving of admission is baffling.They are some of the best and brightest their respective high schools had to offer. They did not arrive at Amherst in a vacuum. They were wholly respected, highly regarded individuals that have accomplished amazing feats both on and off the field.
This is the second time in my son’s life that I’ve had “the talk” with him about unfair bias. The first was regarding his own brown skin color and now this. Am I missing something? Is he the embodiment of “privilege”? And when exactly did it become a crime in America or on college campuses to eat lunch with friends while simultaneously wearing muscles. Good grief Amherst! Get real! For those of you that have never held a full coarse load while practicing thirty plus hours a week, you have NO idea how hard these kids work! None! Period! It’s no wonder they choose not to do a thesis. They have to sleep sometime. Many have suffered broken bones and other injuries only to train harder and compete again. They love Amherst, compete for Amherst, stand for Amherst . . . even if Amherst doesn’t stand with them."
"Frankly, I find it ironic that a group of people who preaches tolerance and acceptance repeatedly shows such utter disrespect toward an entire faction of the student body. To diminish the effort and work student-athletes at the College have put in to achieve the position they are in today, is not only ignorant, but also hurtful. I am a female student-athlete at Amherst. I graduated as an AP Scholar with Distinction in the top 10% of my high school class and received a 2200 on my SATs. I was also a multi-sport athlete, a two-time MVP and captain and record holder in several track events during my high school career. To suggest that I am somehow lesser than my non-athlete counterparts simply because I play a sport is both deeply insulting and damages the credibility of your argument.
It is shocking that those who consistently attack and generalize student-athletes do not realize that they are only exacerbating the “student-athlete divide.” How can you expect to make any progress when you continually stigmatize all student-athletes as inherently less intelligent, racist, sexist, disrespectful and so on? I am in no way condoning or excusing any of the blatantly offensive acts committed by some of the student-athletes at Amherst; they made incredibly poor decisions and must face the consequences. However, by continually stereotyping the student-athletes based on the actions of a select few you alienate potential allies.
By the looks of many of the comments on this article, and the discussions I have had with both my athlete and non-athlete friends regarding this piece, I am not alone in my sentiments. I hope you, and others that speak of all student-athletes in such a condescending manner, take these reactions into consideration. If we ever hope to rectify any of the issues within the College, it is critical that there is mutual respect and understanding between both parties."
“As a parent of an Amherst athlete who is both an outstanding student and a kind human being, I find this article offensive on so many different levels. “Breaking up” social groups, with “a variety of measures”? “Dismantl(ing)” the culture of “toxic masculinity”? “Chasing down” sexual violence? I’m not sure precisely what the author means by any these things, but it’s chilling. These are members of your community. What upsets me even more is that some in the faculty and administration seem to (at least partially) share the author’s views. There’s a reason why athletics have such a strong and longstanding tradition at Amherst and so many top schools. Student athletes often go on to successful lives and careers, and it’s not because they are 73% white and more likely to major in economics. Competitive sports teaches them discipline, teamwork, and goal orientation. The college would do well to remember that before any attempts to re-make Amherst athletics in furtherance of some social justice objective.”
etc. etc. etc. etc. Obviously some of these comments touch on points in the AC Voice other than the points @glittervine has made, but most comment on the broader point at issue here.
@glittervine wow, don’t know where to start. How about club sports, which are very inclusive. “They” are all not the rich white students you speak of, yet you will find them sitting together in Val. How about students from China, India, kids that are Vegan or are theatre buffs? You will find them all self segregating in Val, yet it doesn’t take away from the diversity that Amherst has to offer. As for your comment about athletes having lower admissions standards, well, that is an ignorant blanket statement. As well is the lazy comment.
@CottonTales I don’t want to have an extended argument on this thread. I just wanted to present an opposing point of view to prospective students. @CorryBernstein has a lot of good points in their follow-up posts as well, which I think are also valuable for prospective students.
It is objectively true that recruited athletes (not club) have lower admissions standards. I was actually defending athletes by saying they still have to qualify by meeting certain academic benchmarks. Nobody gets in who is completely unqualified, regardless of athletic status.
Lazy did not refer to athletes at all. It was a follow-up to the line “Nobody at Amherst is an idiot.” Some people do struggle in classes, but I’m claiming it’s not due to a lack of intellect. Sometimes it IS laziness, sometimes it’s a struggle with time management, sometimes the subject just isn’t the right fit.