<p>Jamimon, if Interesteddad was reading, he would respond the same way. And by the way, not to quibble, Swat is #2 with Amherst in 2005 rankings. But the end result is what kind of education you get at Swarthmore. That hasn't suffered as a result of elimination of football.</p>
<p>And by the way, for 2005 there is a Rhodes Scholar from Swat, a guy who plays soccer. This is 3 Rhodes in 4 years.</p>
<p>Sorry, Achat, about the number mistake, I just took the numbers that the other poster used and did not check it. But you, know, #1-#5, when you consider all of the colleges that exist, it really doesn't matter a whit to most of us who are interested in the quality of education and the quality of students in a school. In that regard, Swarthmore might even be better off than before. They may have given up points in some areas of the ranking assessment due to the drop in the jock types applying (which as I mentioned earlier is a significant bite out of a school Swarthmore's size), but if that is not what you are look for, who cares? It seems to me the ones who are most upset about what happened are the sports alums, and that is certainly understandable. I am curious as to what it did with regard to alumni giving and fund raising, a reason often cited for continuing sports programs.</p>
<p>Jamimon, my son says there are alumni who will say 'Call me when Bloom resigns' and put down the phone. Bloom is the current President and responsible for the football decision. And then there are people like the 70 year old woman who donates around $2000 and chats with my son about where he comes from and what he will get out of Swat etc., very pleasant and very nice lady, alumna from the 1940s, I think. </p>
<p>Swat's endowment is the highest it has ever been. In fact, the NY Times quoted it as being one of the highest among colleges and universities with only maybe Williams, Harvard, Pton etc, being higher.</p>
<p>Relaxwolf, I think you have to look deeper than actual admit rates. I haven't conducted a scientific study but I have looked at enough male-female admit rates at various colleges over the past few years to feel confident in saying that males get an edge at MOST schools when the male-female ratio starts dipping below 60/40. Two things to consider: how the number of male applicants compare to the number of female applicants. If that is skewed (i.e., less males are applying than females), then males are nearly always admitted at a higher acceptance rate. The other number to look at is the yield rate - how does the percentage of accepted men who actually enroll compare to the percentage of accepted females? If the yield for men is low, even if admit rates are about the same for men and women, it's probably a good bet that some schools are "hedging their bets" by admitting men just a few notches down the stats rank. This can often be confirmed by the school's own data set which gives the average GPA of males and that of females. </p>
<p>In any case, I'd say that a male looking for a bit of an advantage would fare best at schools where (1) the overall student body is nearing 60/40 female/male (2) the number of male applicants is significantly lower than females (3) the yield rates for males are significantly lower than for females.</p>
<p>I think points 2 and 3 that you make in your last paragraph seem intuitively correct, but I still am not convinced that the 50/50 schools are not giving the males a better break than those at the 60-40 level and I don't know that this can be determined without a comprehensive study. Thank you for your thoughts on this. It is is a complex issue and clearly will, undoubtedly differ from school-to-school.</p>
<p>I think my 13 year old son, though he loves sports and is a participant and a fan, would thrive in a 'female' environment. He is very high in "EQ" and has many female friends; he's the kind & sensitive type, he's intellectual, and he likes to talk.</p>
<p>I think he'd be very happy at Swat, Vassar, or a similar school. If being a male is a help, I am thrilled.</p>
<p>Well, congrats to you and son for being a Swattie! I have always felt the AWSW schools were where I should have gone with Wesleyan probably the best fit for me. But with Swarthmore's location, and its change more to the academic, quirky type, perhaps I should have been a Swattie! When my freshman in highschool comes of age (in just 2 years), if he continues along the lines he is academically, we shall look at Swarthmore and like schools which will be a treat for me. I visited Vassar and Trinity in December, and loved both schools which reinforced the LAC bias I suspected I have had.</p>
<p>I don't mean to ruin the love fest but Swartmore is one weird place and it has a huge downside. You may want to consider Haverford, BrynMawr or Penn before you choose Swarthmore. Kids who are at all mainstream and athletic sometimes , I stress this, sometimes, are very unhappy there. The big downside, however is that the ones who really love it often never find anything in their lives to compare to it. For quite a few it is the high point. It is total escape from the realityof the world and a chance to find a bunch of other like thinkers. After four years there they can be shocked to have to return to the real world where nothing will ever be right. Swarthmore is extremely isolated and insular and much of the liberal left-wing thinking is the same--the only differences are on just how many angels fit on the head of that pin. Going from Swarthmore to the work world can be a devastating come down. Sitting in the bowels of a business with the interminable string of idiotic facilitated meetings, doing the office politics and the necessary ass-kissing to move up the totem pole can be impossible for some Swarthmore graduates. If they go into academia or public service law etc. they will be Ok but otherwise....well you get the picture. Be careful it can be too wonderful a time but it can produce minds that never achieve their potential.</p>
<p>relaxwolf, my son is very mainstream and does not find Swat wierd. But of course, you are entitled to your opinion.</p>
<p>I am delighted to hear this and that he is enjoying it and doing well. i know some that have Good luck.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The big downside, however is that the ones who really love it often never find anything in their lives to compare to it.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Not a Swattie, but I found this extremely funny. If really loving a college is a downside, what would be an upside? hating it so much that anything that came later would be a relief?</p>
<p>Et in arcadia ego...</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The big downside, however is that the ones who really love it often never find anything in their lives to compare to it.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Not a Swattie, but I found this extremely funny. If really loving a college is a downside, what would be an upside? Hating it so much that anything that came later would be a relief?</p>
<p>Totally loving your college experience could also have a very beneficial effect-- setting the bar nice and high for the sort of career, friends & life experiences you go out and get in your post college life. </p>
<p>I was in heaven at college, and (as relaxwolf points out) cubicle life would have been a massive letdown. Probably why I never went anywhere near cubicle life! A high number of self-employed, artists, & entrepreneurs come out of certain colleges for this reason.</p>
<p>I dont know about all you other guys, but Id love going to a 60% female school.A higher demand for males, and a higher supply of women sounds great to me!</p>
<p>On a more serious tone, Its sad to see this happening and it is obviously unfair but it is just like any other "unofficial quotas" these schools have in order to increase diversity, such as state residence, minorities, etc. Its sad and I admire the few schools that choose to remain objective in the admissions process.</p>
<p>I didn't read the entire thread, but isn't it true that for the most part, females mature overall faster than males, and thus their intelligence performance level has matured faster and therefore are able to attain better grades/scores. Not to say males are incapable, because they surely are, but just that there is a higher number of females who are ready for college.</p>
<p>Marite, it is not easy to find breakdowns in yield rates by sex is it?</p>
<p>jamimom:</p>
<p>I have not looked for the yield rates by sex. I don't recall seeing them.</p>
<p>Yield rates for which colleges...?</p>
<p>Relaxwolf, I have some understanding of your point of view concerning Swarthmore, which my D, a recent graduate, thinks is HEAVEN on EARTH. My father, a 50's graduate, thought it was full of puffed up narrow-minded intellectuals, and was very unhappy there. (Daughter obviously didn't let his opinion influence her.) But Swarthmore does tend to provoke powerful responses, positive and negative. </p>
<p>Marite, I am fascinated that the adcoms are not trying to whitewash for the new applicants. They did come up with a new DVD about the Swarthmore experience this year which tries to make the place seem pretty open and avant garde. (ie. cool)</p>
<p>The DVD did not succeed, I've heard. And on the other side, people who participated in the making of the DVD (i.e were subjects who were followed around for a few days) thought it was not representative of their lives!</p>