<p>How strong is Biology department at Swarthmore in comparison with Haverford' biology? Which program/preparation is "better" for someone who is planning to get PhD in molecular/cellular biology after college?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Both Swarthmore and Haverford have excellent biology programs.</p>
<p>Here's the percentage of all graduates who have gone on to get Bio PhDs over the most recent 10 year period:</p>
<p>
Percent of PhDs per grad
Academic field: Bio and Health Sciences</p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database</p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database</p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 5.4%
2 Reed College 4.8%
3 Swarthmore College 4.4%
4 University of Chicago 3.3%
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3.1%
6 University of California-San Francisco 3.1%
7 Harvard University 3.0%
8 Kalamazoo College 3.0%
9 Harvey Mudd College 2.9%
10 Earlham College 2.8%
11 Johns Hopkins University 2.7%
12 Princeton University 2.6%
13 Haverford College 2.6%
14 Mount Holyoke College 2.6%
15 Yale University 2.5%
16 Rice University 2.5%
17 Lawrence University 2.5%
18 Carleton College 2.5%
19 Stanford University 2.5%
20 Oberlin College 2.4%
21 Cornell University, All Campuses 2.4%
22 Grinnell College 2.3%
23 Hendrix College 2.3%
24 Bryn Mawr College 2.1%
25 Bowdoin College 2.1%
26 Wellesley College 2.1%
27 Amherst College 2.1%
</p>
<p>Hi Rose,</p>
<p>I thought I remembered you asking this question. Well, I had to respond to some different posts recently and I thought you may find what I wrote useful so I'm linking you to them... please read beyond the underlying frustration of my responses... :)</p>
<p>Again, top colleges are more similar than different and you should look at FIT first and, if you want a "diverse, intense and activist" environment, there's really no better than Swat. However, if your question is solely about biomedical and molecular biology resources, well...</p>
<p>1)</p>
<p>
[quote]
3 Swarthmore College 4.4%
13 Haverford College 2.6%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>2)</p>
<p>Swarthmore students and faculty are more intelligent than Haverford students and faculty.</p>
<p>Post 4..... not by much</p>
<p>It’s a little surprising that someone who congratulates himself by describing his questions as “insightful and probing” and who suggests profound sophistication with numbers seems to me to be clumsy and shallow with their interpretation of numbers here. </p>
<p>One could believe that Swat is “better by 10” (#3------------13) or that it’s about twice as good as Haverford (4.4 vs 2.6), however, that would be a superficial and misleading conclusion. This list suggests that both are at the top of the game in producing life science PhDs and nothing more. What’s the scale and is it meaningful? Parsing out the #s, it can be seen that “4.4 vs 2.6 (per 1000)” is really a total difference of 27 bio PhDs in the total 15,000 Haverford alumni population or about ONE more kid getting a bio PhD for every TWO graduating classes. I can only hope that, when AE has more life experience and perspective, such minute differences will mean less. Is someone less bald if they have 4 hairs on their head instead of 2?</p>
<p>Now, even if this tiny difference is significant, why would that be? As suggested, maybe it’s because Swat students are just smarter than HC students? OK, that’s one possibility (wrong) and that idea seems to keep some Swat kids (and, yikes, alums?!) warm at night. To be analytical and to ask a “PROBING QUESTION”, what are other possibilities? Well, as Swat doesn’t specialize in bio-med (health related) research (more than ½ the bio faculty study plants, fish, birds and development), maybe it attracts more kids who aren’t as interested in an MD (or MPH) as a PhD and more interested in organism and developmental bio? Many people here confirm that by noting Swat isn’t as “pre-professional” as other places such as HC that has 15-17% alumni in medicine. This by itself can probably account for the differences… not necessarily better or worse but just a difference in interest and career choice.</p>
<p>Now, is there anything else? How about this as a SECONDARY factor… given the fact that Swat attracts a greater # of quirky kids, maybe these individuals feel more comfortable in an academic setting. OR, if quirky is socially clumsy, awkward or even conceited and mean-spirited, maybe med schools and society don’t want such individuals as clinicians if they can’t relate to/comfort patients and, as a result, the PhD becomes the default pathway for some smart achieving kids with sketchy interpersonal skills? Seriously, although anecdotal, there’s a reason why some of the most obnoxious posters on CC happen to be Swat related and they all seem to be cut the same… formally rigid writing, inflated self, elitist, sarcastic, and occasionally out of touch and pedantic… I believe a fellow Swat alum once wrote that she was an intellectual martyr who “inflicted an education on herself”… (seriously… I can’t make that stuff up!)… and of course more recently…</p>
<p>Again, this shouldn’t dissuade kids with normal social skills and who are nice from applying to Swat and for being really excited about attending, but Swat does attract a certain social pathology (ranges from awkward and shy (OK)… to elitist and obnoxious (bad)) and neither, but especially, the latter are helped by the school’s culture. To be clear, I’m not suggesting ALL nor even MOST, but enough to give Swat a different flavor than all other LACs. Can this little difference be a factor in the little difference with PhD rankings? </p>
<p>…</p>
<p>HC Alum: Yes, A.E.'s post was ignorant and obnoxious. That really doesn't warrant the insulting generalities you're throwing at an entire student body, no matter how many caveats you put in. It's not really any better than if A.E. had said "A large percentage of Haverford kids are really stupid, but it shouldn't prevent the occasional student who's actually intelligent from applying there." I know you're trying to be honest and informative, but I don't think some of the things you said are necessary or in good taste.</p>
<p>Sweet Jesus... It's either I don't write clearly enough or perhaps I would kindly ask you to read what I wrote one more time.</p>
<p>What generalities am I throwing at the entire student body? I believe I said "SECONDARY" (I bolded it for a reason, meaning less importantly), and I specifically said not all, not most, but enough... I don't see how that is a generalization... "enough" means a minority of individuals but enough to be noticible. I think I also said "this little difference (in flavor)" in my last paragraph as well.</p>
<p>Regarding your example, that would be appropriate IF I said "A large # of Swat students are..." but I did not say anthing like that. In fact, I think I tried really hard to not be so simplistic as to make such obviously wrong generalizations. </p>
<p>Now for the generalities. Swat does attract "quirkier" kids than some other colleges and it's somewhat less pre-professional... Interested Dad and others said so and I have to agree. "Quirky" has been the "running joke" at Swat for at least the last 10 years. I also explicitly said that quirky can be shy and awkward (which is OK, cute and sometimes funny) </p>
<p>(search under "social skills"
<a href="http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2007-02-08/living/16830%5B/url%5D">http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2007-02-08/living/16830</a> )</p>
<p>but sometimes it can also be other things as well... the "enough" part. Again, there are reasons why you will not come across someone like A.E., dudvinchi, "I inflict an education on myself" alum, ect, ect on any other LAC forum.</p>
<p>Just as an addendum before I break for my camping weekend, perhaps you were offended by my statement that "Swat attracts a certain social pathology". That's not to imply that you nor most of the swat people on this forum are like that. </p>
<p>As a metaphor, let's use a bug zapper. These things attract and kill mostly innocent and benign insects (moths) (maybe 90-98%) but there are a few bad ones attracted as well (2-10%). All zappers attract benign insects and moths but, depending on the size and wattage, some zappers may attract a few more of one bug than another.... the williams zapper may attract a few more bigger/athletic bugs and the wesleyan one may attract a few more funky looking ones. I'm just saying that, at the end of the night, when you look at the pile of dead bugs on the ground by the Swat zapper, there will be a few more really bad insects there than with other zappers. Just because there are a few more poisonous bugs by Swat, that really doesn't change the categorization nor the outcome of the majority of the benign insects that are attracted there as well.</p>
<p>Ok, I'll take you at your word. I understood what you explicitly said. I also felt like the way in which it was phrased, along with your choice of what to say and not say, implied something different, and I still think I might not completely agree with your final conclusions. My instinct (as a natural arguer) is to go in and debate every little example, but I don't think that will really achieve anything. How about I just say that I apologize if I misinterpreted your post, and I hope you'll keep in mind, when you write about potentially touchy subjects, how easy it is to be misunderstood when you're communicating with people who have never met you without the benefit of facial expressions or tone of voice.</p>
<p>And having read your second post... I'd just say that, knowing people who have attended Williams and Wesleyan, there are different kinds of "poison" everywhere, including at those schools. Swat probably has more of some problems and less of others, and I think there's a tendency to be more annoyed by the kind of annoying person that one happens to spend the most time around.</p>
<p>3)</p>
<p>HC students have an inferiority complex when it comes to Swarthmore, which occasionally manifests itself in bizarre, speculative posts that completely ignore the simple fact that Swarthmore produces more biology Ph.D.s per graduating student than Haverford and, instead, try to judge the merits of the Swarthmore biology department on the "quirkiness" of Swarthmore students and inane bug zapper analogies (!?).</p>
<p>Haverford is and always has been on a lower tier than Swarthmore academically. It attracts a lower caliber of student, and does not have the academic prestige of Swarthmore at all. Finally, when considering a Ph.D., Swarthmore is always a safe bet, because it caters to students who are interested in eventually pursuing a Ph.D. as well as any school in the nation, given its perennial presence among leading schools in baccalaureate origin of Ph.D.s. You'll find more fellow students who have goals similar to your own, and you'll find the professors better equipped at preparing you for the demands of a Ph.D. program.</p>
<p>In conclusion, LOL @ HC Alum. Thanks for playing, and you're right that the difference is probably very small when it comes to an eventual biology Ph.D., but there is a difference, and it's really not up to you to decide if it is significant or not.</p>
<p>Easier to get into does not equal lower caliber of student. Certainly not when you're discussing individuals, and only in the most simplistic terms when you're discussing institutions. Would it shock you to hear that there are things that can help get you into a college besides being a good student?</p>
<p>Haverford was certainly not on a lower tier than Swarthmore from 1833 through 1864, as Swarthmore did not yet exist while Haverford did. Be careful of those blanket generalities.</p>
<p>Quote:"Now, is there anything else? How about this as a SECONDARY factor… given the fact that Swat attracts a greater # of quirky kids, maybe these individuals feel more comfortable in an academic setting. OR, if quirky is socially clumsy, awkward or even conceited and mean-spirited, maybe med schools and society don’t want such individuals as clinicians if they can’t relate to/comfort patients and, as a result, the PhD becomes the default pathway for some smart achieving kids with sketchy interpersonal skills? Seriously, although anecdotal, there’s a reason why some of the most obnoxious posters on CC happen to be Swat related and they all seem to be cut the same… formally rigid writing, inflated self, elitist, sarcastic, and occasionally out of touch and pedantic… I believe a fellow Swat alum once wrote that she was an intellectual martyr who “inflicted an education on herself”… (seriously… I can’t make that stuff up!)… and of course more recently…"</p>
<p>This is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever read. First of all, Swat students have a very high rate of acceptance to medical school. Second, having spent a lot of time recently with Swarthmore students, I have found them all well within the range of "normal behavior", with great social skills and sparkling personalities. </p>
<p>I do have the advantage of actually knowing Swarthmore students personally, as opposed to reading random anonymous posts on a college website, as you do. Makes a difference in credibility. I suggest that you spend 2 years relating daily to at least 1 or more current Swarthmore students, and then perhaps your random generalizing ill-advised posts about personaliites at a college will have some credibility.</p>
<p>Otherwise, I would suggest confining yourself to writing about your own college students, and your own feelings about your wife, marriage, job, car, house, neighbors, coworkers, camping trip, or whatever else is actually real in your daily life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Haverford was certainly not on a lower tier than Swarthmore from 1833 through 1864, as Swarthmore did not yet exist while Haverford did. Be careful of those blanket generalities.
[/quote]
Wow, you really know how to make an excellent, relevant point. I guess it wasn't on a lower tier than Swarthmore before 1833 either, or before 1066, or before 2560 BC. Be careful of that inane pedantry.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Easier to get into does not equal lower caliber of student. Certainly not when you're discussing individuals, and only in the most simplistic terms when you're discussing institutions. Would it shock you to hear that there are things that can help get you into a college besides being a good student?
[/quote]
Actually, Haverford has "better students" than Swarthmore, in that Haverford has a higher percentage of students who were in the top 10% of their high school class than Swarthmore. What Swarthmore has is more intelligent students, intelligence being one of those things that can help get you into a good college besides being a good student.</p>
<p>You can't just throw words like "intellegent" around without giving some idea of what you think they mean. There's certainly no clear, generally agreed upond definition of that one, or at least not one specific enough to be useful in this case.</p>
<p>And again... you might be right that on average Swarthmore students are slightly more intelligent, but there's so much variation within any school that an average is practically useless. There are brilliant individuals at Haverford. They might be the rule or they might be exceptions, but I don't think you have anything close to the data necessary to support either conclusion, unless you use a very arbitrary definition of intelligence.</p>
<p>Nice post CollegialMom. </p>
<p>Seriously HC Alum - you scared the CRAP out of me when you said that all students at Swat are awkward because small liberal arts schools (especially one that advertises its hard-core atmosphere) just tend to attract students who aren't assertive nor self-confident. SO NOT TRUE!!!</p>
<p>I talked to a number of current sophomores, and one junior at Swat. They LAUGHED at me (well, as much as one can laugh on facebook) for asking if everyone is awkward, not self-confident, and unassertive –– a question they considered to be ridiculous. Though I'm sure there are a few students with the case of the "Awkward," I imagine they're the minority and not the majority. From the experiences of my few friends at Swat, I can say certainly that the students at Swarthmore don't differ too much from those at Columbia (except for the insane partier English majors - hehe :D) or Brown.</p>
<p>NO Collegialmom. I did not write nor did I suggest any such thing in which you are accusing me. In fact, I explicitly wrote 4 times initially and 3 times in my latter posts including what I hoped to be a user-friendly and concrete camping metaphor that this wasn’t about making generalizations. If I wanted to make a generalization, I would have only needed 1 paragraph. </p>
<p>*** The context of my initial post was to ENTERTAIN what could account for the “DIFFERENCE” with Swat having (get this!!!) 5 more PhDs than Haverford in 10 years.*** (surprised that this is even a "debate")</p>
<p>So, IF we are to indulge that this difference is significant, what are those possibilities? Given that Swat’s bio isn’t 100% health related, it probably attracts more kids interested in organism based bio and developmental studies which is more in line with a PhD. So, in my mind, out of these 5 people/10 years, maybe this accounts for… I don’t know, what’s a reasonable estimate… “3” of them. So that leaves maybe “TWO” LEFT and the stuff I wrote later (“SECONDARILY”) was in regards to that… to the minority of students at Swat who MAY possibly account for this residual and everything I said is true. </p>
<p>IF people believe that a difference of 5 more PhDs/10 years is a commentary on the quality of Swat’s bio program or the intelligence of its students IN GENERAL, is it that much of a stretch to also suggest that the consistent presence of really obnoxious Swat alumni/students on CC over a 2 year time period is a commentary on the PRESENCE OF A SELECT MINORITY OF STUDENTS as well? Note: While some would generalize the 1st statement, I did not make a generalization with the 2nd. </p>
<p>If you’re not following, then you need to read the last paragraph again.</p>
<p>As my brother (1 year older), college GF and ### college friends and friends from medical school went to Swat within the last decade, I have my experience and theirs. The same issues that they discussed are the same one’s I’m seeing here on CC. Again, while there are conceited posts on every LAC forum, I have yet to read of any so socially maladjusted as here. IN FACT, if I remember correctly, several CURRENT students have written/implied that “…there are a few more dudvinchi’s at Swat than expected…”. My assertion that you are taking offense to is utterly benign. Can a few OF THESE PEOPLE be science majors/pre-meds and be either shut out of med school given their pretense and everything else that I wrote about or the fact that they just aren’t “people persons” and prefer not working with patients? Can some OF THESE PEOPLE then account for the remaining miniscule difference that is the crux of this ridiculous “debate”? That is my point and you should read the last 2 sentences of my initial response again as I said it there too.</p>
<h2>I did not make generalizations. My comments were directed at a small yet noticeable contingent of students. Given that you suggested that, just because your son/daughter and their friends are OK, everyone else is “sparkling” is a generalization. Isn’t it possible that you just may not have met the % of kids at Swat that I’m writing about, that CURRENT STUDENTS have written about and who make themselves known through their graffiti from time to time on CC? How can you argue with that?</h2>
<p>Fhimas: The Phoenix post was a parody but there is a little bit of truth to it as with all "jokes" (yes, some Haverford people are there cause they got rejected from Swat). I'm pretty sure I didn't say "all". All I said when we last communicated was that going to a top LAC is self-selected and the kids who choose to go there over bigger name places do so for a reason... most students value a great/intimate/personalized undergrad education and many of those kids value this OVER other things like name recognition, a larger social mix, larger and more wild parties, ect. All of the latter are "mainstream" ambitions for most kids so LACs then do attract "quirkier" kids by definition, right? ... and "quirky" can run the gamut with shy and a little awkward being one possibility... Among LACs, there is more selection as well... many students who choose to go to a women's college choose them over more prestigious co-ed schools and universities and do so for a reason; kids who enjoy sports may prefer go to a school that supports such activities; ect... although the LACs are very similar in many respects, each is a little bit different in their academic focus, culture and opportunities and I think that draws a few more of each type of kid to each school. I think when you have a t-shirt that says "Anywhere else would be an A"... that will attract many kids who want to just challenge themselves 100% and work hard (period)... but I think it will also draw A FEW MORE kids who also use that to look down upon others as well.</p>