<p>ID thanks !!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>I am wondering if everyone can lighten up a bit. Seems to me that several folks are reacting to each other on a personal basis (and I am not implying that there is no reason). I think that everyone would be better served if we could all try not to be personal - to try to simply agree or disagree without judgment. Did you guys see the movie MUNICH? Not that we are dealing here about anything nearly as important, but I suggest we de-escalate this.</p>
<p>Amen to that. Also, did anyone see 'Syriana'? Nothing as important is being discussed here as well.....but great movie albeit at times the plot line is convoluted and has no bearing on the story..</p>
<p>interesteddad - there really is nothing you love more than mischaracterizing my statements, is there?. i never "complained bitterly about the workload at swarthmore" - i said that it was difficult, and that people get burnt out. no one made me take 5.5 classes, but i did and it wound up being a mistake. there were only two semesters when i took 4 credits, and i wound up graduating with 41.5 - i liked to push myself, and it was no one's fault but my own when i pushed myself too hard. </p>
<p>per the housing lottery, there's "third cohort" and there's "third cohort". i picked into the second to last room taken in the entire lottery - i had the option of going on the waiting list, but would have been given lowest priority had i gone that route. and in march, when my roommate and i were about to kill each other (we remain close friends now, happily) and i applied for a room change, i was told by myrt that i had to stay put, even though i knew of empty rooms on campus. it's unreasonable to expect myrt to be completely responsive to every student's needs or desires - some people are inevitably going to be left out in the cold. the truth, though, is that while some people, like your daughter, may be "taken care of", there are plenty of others who get totally shafted. </p>
<p>as far as your numbers about total enrollment go, what i'd be more interested in seeing are the numbers of incoming freshman, which i'm sure you can provide. my last three years, it always seemed like the cygnet was more robust than in years past. a very high portion of my class was admitted off the waiting list (high enough that i can say that "most of my friends were taken from the waiting list", actually) and i don't know anyone in the subsequent three classes who got in from the waiting list (admittedly, i don't know a lot of '06s and even fewer '07s). but still, it seems as though swarthmore began chronically overadmitting from the class of '05 onward (perhaps the housing data for my sophomore year is skewed on account of the 20 or so transfer students we got - they're in a separate section of the cygnet, and that number was much higher than my freshman year, when we had, i believe, 4). i've also talked to professors who were concerned about the administration trying quietly to bump up enrollment without making a corresponding increase in the number of professors. sure, the "administration's policy" could be to freeze class sizes, but you'd have to be pretty naive just to take their word for it. moreover, 5% increase in total enrollment between 2000 and 2003 seems a bit high given that at a school so small, it shouldn't be that hard to keep track of enrollment. </p>
<p>i also find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that the way the football decision came about was entirely honorable, and the real truth is that the program was improving 4-5 might not be great, but it's a stark contrast to 1-8 or 0-9. at the end of the day, i'm glad that the team was cut, but i think that it could have been done in a much less divisive manner. the decsion to come to consensus that consensus would not be needed on a football decision reminds me a little bit too much of the "nuclear option" on filibusters for judicial appointments. </p>
<p>the real problem with the athletic cuts is that they didn't really change much in the athletic department. the slots that used to go to football are now divvied up among other teams, but there's no added emphasis on program development or winning - look at men's basketball and baseball, two historically abysmal teams that haven't gotten any better since the football cuts. in the words of one assistant coach i talked to last spring, "swarthmore is not about winning" (that, sadly, is an exact quote). my question is, if you're pouring resources into the athletic department and still not really trying to win, what's the point?</p>
<p>i realize that i've veered slightly off topic here, but it still addresses my larger point: interesteddad still fails to admit that my perspective on and criticism of swarthmore are at all valid. all i want is for interesteddad to do a little critical thinking before he continues to spout the company line to unsuspecting prospective students. like i've said, i'm sure that he has offered plenty of good insight to lots of people, but he has also been very wrong about things. it'd be nice if he could realize that swarthmore, like every other school, isn't a perfect place, and that it doesn't help anyone to present it as such. tell me, just because i'd like to know, are there any policies or things about swarthmore that you don't like?</p>
<p>Yes. I disapprove of the administration and the students allowing the blight of the fraternities to continue.</p>
<p>Here's the first-year enrollment data you asked for:</p>
<p>*1995: *
1200 accepted
354 enrolled</p>
<p>1999:
906 accepted
368 actual enrollment
38 from the waitlist</p>
<p>*2000: *
933 accepted
370: target enrollment
367: actual enrollment
51 from the waitlist</p>
<p>*2001: *
909 accepted
376 target enrollment
381 actual enrollment
20 from the waitlist</p>
<p>*2002: *
933 accepted
375 target enrollment
371 actual enrollment
42 from the waitlist</p>
<p>*2003: *
920 accepted
373: target enrollment
368 actual enrollment
21 from the waitlist</p>
<p>*2004: *
933 accepted
370 target enrollment
366 actual enrollment
50 from the waitlist</p>
<p>*2005: *
917 accepted
383 target enrollment
389 actual enrollment
18 from the waitlist</p>
<p>nancy_reagan </p>
<p>FWIW</p>
<p>I don't understand why you didn't just start a thread here about your 'own' impressions on Swarthmore instead of attacking interesteddad for his postings. </p>
<p>Unless interesteddad is getting compensated in some way from Swarthmore while posing as merely an interested parent, he is in every way entitled to expressing his opinions here. </p>
<p>You too are free to express your opinions about Swarthmore - however it's not necessary to criticize others.</p>
<p>Amen. Happy New Year !!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Andi, the problem with interesteddad is that he refuses to acknowledge that his impressions may be wrong, and seems to think that they take precedence over those of actual students at the college. Yeah he has a right to post his impressions, but evidently some students strongly disagree with both his portrayal of the college and some of his expressed opinions. As a student I certainly dont like some guy in Boston telling me that Im wrong in the way that I feel about my school. Also if it is the case that interesteddads opinions dont match those of the greater student body, isnt the impression he is giving applying students fundamentally incorrect? Dont get me wrong, I think its fantastic that someone like him is willing and enthusiastic enough about Swat to spend so much time helping people with the admissions process, and I certainly dont disagree with all his opinions on the college. However there are some to which I take great exception. Which brings me to my next point:</p>
<p>Interesteddad, you refer to fraternities as a blight, and wish them to be removed. However I think that one of the greatest things about Swarthmore is diversity. Not only the diversity in terms of race, religion, economic background and sexual preference, but in terms of the Swarthmore experience. For such a small school Swarthmore offers a tremendous range of different experiences, while still remaining a small relatively tight community. Personally I think fraternities are an important part of that diversity. While the cutting of sports teams can be clearly justified from an admissions standpoint, the same cannot be said of fraternities. Students dont join fraternities then go to Swarthmore, they go through the same admissions process as everyone else, then at some point in their college careers they may choose to pledge a frat. Each fraternity brother is as much a Swarthmore student as your daughter. The majority of students not in or closely associated with the fraternities are largely apathetic towards them, and see them as places where they can go to party on a pretty regular basis, with some of the better parties on campus. Some students on campus are opposed to the fraternities, but they are neither very vocal, nor, based on anecdotal evidence I received from one of the deans, very well informed. At the end of the day the fraternities were founded and perpetuated by students. No one forces anyone to pledge a frat, and no one forces anyone to set foot inside them. Frats are completely voluntary, and would have disappeared by now if students didnt think they should be around. I dont believe they are blight, nor do I see how someone so removed from the college can justify such strong opposition to their existence without resorting to stereotypes.</p>
<p>It really doesn't seem as if there is a large groundswell of students who object to interesteddad's characterizations/observations of Swarthmore, in fact the vast majority on this board seem grateful for his help. I am sure that people here are smart enough to sort which postings in general (not just his) include facts and which include opinions or observations.</p>
<p>I think that the participants in this CC Swarthmore discussion would be very sorry if he were somehow run off this board. Perhaps the best solution is just to continue with free speech and tread a bit gentler. I think we can all be given credit for reading these posts with a critical eye, and considering the sources. I, for one, think that this Swarthmore discussion board would be much less valuable and informative if interesteddad ever left it. He has been a great source for both myself and my son, who really thinks you guys need to "give interesteddad a break!"</p>
<p>I also think it would be highly unfortunate if ID left the forum, but he as strongly expressed some opinions that I strongly disagree with. As for student opinion, there hasn't been a large groundswell of opinion on anything yet, and I don't think it is overly presumptuous of NR and I to claim to have a better, though by no means absolute, feel for student opinion on campus.</p>
<p>So give your opinions! We're all listening!</p>
<p>
[quote]
"interesteddad"'s comments are either blatantly ignorant or blatantly dishonest.</p>
<p>you aren't a student, it's none of your business, and it would probably serve you well to take up some kind of a hobby.</p>
<p>last, i find it more than a little twisted that you read the daily jolt.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Swatstudent08 These kind of comments don't belong here. Perhaps Nancy_Reagan could present his points without hostility and insults.</p>
<p>if it doesn't seem like there's a large groundswell of students who disagree with ID, it's probably because there aren't very many students posting in this thread to begin with. as it happens, i agree with nearly everything that "swatstudent08" has to say. as far as the fraternities go, at the beginning of my freshman year i swore that i'd never step foot into either one of them. i wound up going to DU once the spring of my senior year, and phi psi once when i was back visiting after i graduated. i played a varsity sport and knew a lot of people in the frats, but wasn't very inclined to take part in that whole scene. as SS08 points out, getting rid of the frats wouldn't really do a lot - all of the frat brothers are people who would be at swarthmore anyway, and at least having frat houses lets them have someplace where they can keep a somewhat lower profile while doing their thing. what really creates the problem is the consequence-free atmosphere that almost encourages misbehavior like the table-throwing incident. in that case, there obviously were consequences, but usually there aren't. i speak from experience - there were plenty of things that i did or a friend did that would not have been tolerated at another school, yet at swarthmore no one blinked an eye - they were things that we only did specifically because we could get away with it. nothing serious, but still. </p>
<p>as far as "these kind of comments don't belong here", i think you're just wrong. a lot of interesteddad's comments really are either blatantly ignorant or blatantly dishonest - he can fish statistics from the internet or talk to freshmen all he wants, but that's no substitute for the knowledge gained by actually attending swarthmore for four years. also, a parent has absolutely no place reading the jolt - immersing yourself in campus gossip and inside jokes is simply a bit too much. </p>
<p>i'm also attempting to be neither hostile nor insulting - there's absolutely nothing wrong with anyone not having the complete picture on swarthmore (i don't have the "complete picture", because no one does) but to pretend that you do while saying things that are false is, in fact, wrong. refusing to take student and alumni perspectives into consideration is silly. i never intended to "run ID off the board" - what i intended was to show him that there are other sides to swarthmore he doesn't know about, and that he should think twice before making some of his blanket statements. i don't think that this is particularly unreasonable, but so far ID has been entirely unwilling to concede that he could even be slightly wrong about anything. if some of my posts sound annoyed, frustrated, or disappointed, it's because i am.</p>
<p>Nancy_reagan: Point of clarification: You provided the link to the "jolt board" for the parents on this board. Otherwise I would never have known it existed. I think parents then went on "jolt" because you pointed the way earlier in this thread.</p>
<p>"he can fish statistics from the internet or talk to freshmen all he wants, but that's no substitute for the knowledge gained by actually attending swarthmore for four years. "</p>
<p>This raises an interesting conundrum for the outside observer: which is more legitimate the, the facts (as fished from the Internet) or first-hand impression (whether in fact, true or not?) For example, does it matter whether Swat has actually grown significantly over the past ten years, or whether "half the students" have actually partaken of mental health services, if that's what present or recent students perceive to be true?</p>
<p>Nancy_reagan: Thank for providing the link to the "jolt board".</p>
<p>John:</p>
<p>The fundamental flaw with a small sample of student opinion is that college students, by their very nature, tend to find fault and lack an historical frame of reference. For example, I chuckle when I read the annual editorial in the Phoenix about how police presence on the Swarthmore campus is so much heavier than "it used to be". The irony, of course, is that none of the student editorialists could know how "it used to be" and that the same claim has been made each year for at least the last eight years in a row despite the fact that the citation statistics show no discernable change whatsoever. I don't have to know anything about the actual level to suspect that any sighting of a Swarthmore police cruiser is interpreted as "more than it used to be".</p>
<p>A similar problem of perspective enters the picture when students try to evaluate the degree of drinking on a campus. Of course, there is a "lot" of drinking on a college campus. But, if you step back and compare actual data such as surveyed binge drinking rates or alcohol poisoning hospitalizations, it is easy to see that "a lot" can mean vastly different things when comparing one campus to another.</p>
<p>Whenever you have easily verifiable claims, such as "enrollment growth", it is always sensible to actually check the facts. For example, the claim was made that Swarthmore had quietly increased enrollment without a matching increase in the size of the faculty. But, the actual data shows that Swarthmore's student/faculty ratio declined from 9.1:1 in 1990/91 to 8.2:1 in 2004/05. </p>
<p>Similarly, it would be easy for anyone on campus to research the targeted enrollment level for each academic year. The target enrollment is established by the Board of Managers when they approve the operating budget for the folllowing year and is published by the Finance Office along with the budget.</p>
<p>Not to further stir the pot, but just to keep the facts straight the jolt was mentioned in the Ray Lewis thread by arador, and ID has certaintly mentioned it the past. However I believe him when he says he doesn't read it regularly, and It's unreasonable for anyone to expect him to ignore the fact that he was mentioned on the forum there.</p>
<p>There were so far 2593 views of this thread for 77 replies. That's a lot of people who potentially could have been introduced to "jolt" by Ms. Reagan. So it would be hard for her to now complain about it being a more openly-read forum. I, for one, found it tiresome and will not be a regular reader. </p>
<p>The main hope I personally have for this Swathmore forum is that potential students will get facts and impressions of Swathmore. I haven't read any posts (but I may certainly have missed some) by students who feel they were misled by reading the information and/or opinions about Swarthmore posted here. Did I miss any posts by dissatisfied customers? Otherwise, it seems to strike a good balance for most participants. That's about all one can hope for on such a public forum, at least in my humble opinion.</p>
<p>I think the tone of this forum has improved. I would like to point out, however, that statements like "a lot of interesteddad's comments really are either blatantly ignorant or blatantly dishonest" are potentially inflammatory. Could you, Nancy_Reagan, try to be a little bit softer in how you express your opinions? How about, "I really disagree with interesteddad."</p>