<p>Does anyone know about the strength of Swarthmore's math/science programs? For example, mathematics or physics? And does anyone know what it even means when a school's math/science program is strong? What makes studying math or science at Swarthmore good, when I can study it anywhere else?</p>
<p>Swarthmore's science programs are, and have been, very strong. The college has, I believe, the second highest per capita number of nobel laureate graduates in the U.S., with all but one (economics) being in chemistry/biological sciences and physics. An outstanding peer group and excellent faculty who don't have graduate level or post-doc students and therefore mentor Swarthmore students in graduate level research are key ingredients. Being a liberal arts college has the advantage (as vs. attending, let's say Cal Tech) of a breadth of academic exposure in other non-science disciplines as well.</p>
<p>theyre both great from what i can tell. im biased against math because i dont like it very much but from what ive heard the profs are all very smart and helpful and its a strong department. physics the professors are amazingly friendly and helpful. we also got to hear nobel laureate john mather, an alum, speak this year. it was great</p>
<p>I'd say somewhere like Cal Tech is way ahead of Swarthmore in Math and Science. Likewise with Harvey Mudd. Swarthmore is probably on par with other top LACs and significantly ahead of second tier places like Haverford.</p>
<p>Well, since Cal Tech is an institute of technology, I can imagine that it's good for studying math and science. But I didn't apply to schools like that; I applied to liberal arts schools, mostly. So, when you say that "Swarthmore is probably on par with other top LACs," do you mean that it has wide course offerings and a good peer group and smart professors that makes the program strong? </p>
<p>Dad2: It's great that Swarthmore is strong in science because I'm actually quite interested in physics after I've learned more about it in my physics class senior year. It's great also that it's all undergrad. This reminds me. When I was having my interview for the University of Chicago, I mentioned that I was applying mainly to liberal arts colleges. The interviewer promptly responded with a smile that I shouldn't apply to any school that doesn't have a graduate school. I was a little taken aback; it contradicted what I've heard for so long--all undergrad rules, professors are dedicated to teaching more, etc. I asked him why he said that and he said that if you go to a school with a graduate school you can actually do graduate-level work! He mentioned that at UChicago you can do that. But how can you do that at Swarthmore, which doesn't have a grad school? Isn't it like learning for four years how to cook an egg but never going out to do it yourself?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, since Cal Tech is an institute of technology, I can imagine that it's good for studying math and science. But I didn't apply to schools like that; I applied to liberal arts schools, mostly. So, when you say that "Swarthmore is probably on par with other top LACs," do you mean that it has wide course offerings and a good peer group and smart professors that makes the program strong?
[/quote]
Its course offerings aren't as wide as the course offerings at larger schools. I mean that the caliber of professor and the degree of funding you see at the top LACs are probably all very similar. So, too, with the type of peers you'd have. Of course, I haven't been a student at every top LAC, just Swarthmore, so I don't know this beyond what I've read and what my intuition says about the matter. My personal opinion, however, is that the math department at Swarthmore isn't that strong. Some of the science departments are, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dad2: It's great that Swarthmore is strong in science because I'm actually quite interested in physics after I've learned more about it in my physics class senior year. It's great also that it's all undergrad. This reminds me. When I was having my interview for the University of Chicago, I mentioned that I was applying mainly to liberal arts colleges. The interviewer promptly responded with a smile that I shouldn't apply to any school that doesn't have a graduate school. I was a little taken aback; it contradicted what I've heard for so long--all undergrad rules, professors are dedicated to teaching more, etc. I asked him why he said that and he said that if you go to a school with a graduate school you can actually do graduate-level work! He mentioned that at UChicago you can do that. But how can you do that at Swarthmore, which doesn't have a grad school? Isn't it like learning for four years how to cook an egg but never going out to do it yourself?
[/quote]
You could use a different analogy and say that doing graduate work before you're prepared for it is like trying to make an omelette without knowing how to cook an egg. That said, you will learn some graduate level things during your senior year. One of my textbooks senior year was actually a graduate textbook (maybe more than one... I don't know for sure). Even though there's no graduate school at Swarthmore, it doesn't mean the professors there are incapable of teaching graduate level math or science. I think that UChicago interviewer engaged in a bit of argument fallacy with you on that one.</p>
<p>If you are really interested in physics, Swarthmore is OK. I'm not saying it's the best place to go major in physics, but if you do well there, you'll have no trouble getting into a good graduate school. You may think you're making a very important decision and that basing it on department strength is the way to go, but you're not, and it isn't. Any top LAC or university will give you the opportunity to learn what you need to as an undergraduate and then get into a good grad school, if that's what you decide to do. The real question you should be asking yourself is how you want your life to be for the next four years. Where do you want to live, what do you want your social and academic life to be like, etc. Which atmosphere would you really prefer between university and liberal arts? Choose a school and a location based on all of that. Any top tier school will give you the tools to learn and get into grad school. Swarthmore, UChicago... whatever.</p>
<p>dchow08: the science profs at Swarthmore publish in leading journals at a postdoctoral level, therefore their student coinvestigators need the training, tools and facilities to do research at that level. It also helps that Swarthmore's endowment is close to 1M/student (I believe 12th in the nation per capita including all universities). You're also likely to be most productive where you are happiest, so I would stress the importance of "fit": if you'd be happier at U. Chicago or Harvard, you won't be shooting yourself in the foot.</p>
<p>Okay, A.E.. I've been with you on most of your assertions (including in at least one thread that was locked by the administrators because the tone became so ascerbic.) But, what on earth makes Haverford what you would so sniffingly refer to as a "second-tier school"? o-0</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay, A.E.. I've been with you on most of your assertions (including in at least one thread that was locked by the administrators because the tone became so ascerbic.) But, what on earth makes Haverford what you would so sniffingly refer to as a "second-tier school"? o-0
[/quote]
I'm afraid I have to leave the answer to that as an exercise for the reader.</p>
<p>^ a fool's errand, if ever there was one.</p>
<p>the Swarthmore math department is very good (I'm a math major!). </p>
<p>biology was the most popular major like 3 years ago. you shouldn't be put off by the idea that LACs are inherently weak in the natural sciences - whatever those departments lack in size, they make up in the quality of teaching, in my opinion (I'm also a potential chemistry double major and a pre-med student, just for context).</p>
<p>what does it mean for any department of any school to be strong? the teachers here are certainly very accessible - if you walk around the science center at 11 PM on a weeknight, it's not uncommon to see a couple of professors still in their offices. the natural science departments get a lot of funding - in particular, the physics/chemistry/biology departments offer a lot of summer research opportunities. and, of course, the professors are (mostly!) very good teachers. try visiting the campus and sitting in on one or two classes - I sat in on a differential equations class and while 95% of the material was way over my head, it was still cool to see the class.</p>
<p>
</a>
Pretty much confirms what I said. CalTech and Harvey Mudd are ahead of Swarthmore in science and engineering Ph.D. baccalaureate origin. As is MIT. What's interesting is that they don't classify Harvey Mudd as a liberal arts college, whereas Harvey Mudd classifies itself as such.</p>
<p>What is remarkable is that Swarthmore is truly a LAC despite its distinction in science, with excellent humanities (English, Political Science, etc.) in addition to science. MIT and Cal Tech are niche science/technology schools, and Harvey Mudd is also dominantly skewed toward science/tech (not really comparable to SAWP).</p>
<p>...what it's interesting about that paper is that swarthmore/other top LACs are so highly ranked, that besides specific technology schools, they are actually at the top of science productivity. it would be cool if he had used a variety of other measures other than ph.d measures, but it was a cool thing to read. it makes me feel like my decision to apply to swat was a good one :}</p>
<p>I must confirm that the math dept is excellent. I am a math minor because of the professors. I've heard outstanding compliments about every professor except for perhaps one and they are great for conversation as well.
The science department, I know less about but there are some brilliant professors as well.</p>
<p>questions like this kind of make me barf. they are filled with assumptions that are...just so wrong. an academic program is largely what you make it...university involvement is not a big factor at all. with that said, swarthmore's educational philosophy and highly ranked programs offer you an exciting opportunity. if you're a prestige freak, a 2006 nobel laureate in physics graduated from swat w/ a b.s. in physics. also, if you really doubt the strength of math/science programs, i suggest you go to itunes and under the podcast directory, browse the swarthmore faculty lectures...especially the one by amy vollmer. even though i'm a biology freak, and would find the program interesting anyways, vollmer managed to make her lecture about microbiology exciting and enlightening.</p>