<p>come to think of it, very hot sounds kind of like you're describing... Tahiti!
mmm... wouldn't mind that right now... </p>
<p>then again, seeing as I verified recently my chosen college is not only fun but also beloved by the grad school of my choice (Yale FES, <em>does little happy dance</em> although a bit of a nerd for thinking that far ahead) I appreciate the beauty of ME more and more each day. I've yet to see a moose, unfortunately...</p>
<p>edit: goldie, JMO, if manner is important to you, I think ramses is hardly the only person you need to worry about in defending Swat's rep...</p>
<p>i think it's absolutely hilarious how seriously everyone on this forum takes themselves. sorry to interrupt your little prestige circle-jerk, i hope you enjoy it because it's not going to be as much fun for you in the real world where people don't really give a sh it where you went to college but rather what you made of it.</p>
<p>and no, i wouldn't like to learn some "manner," i know it's hard dealing with us uncouth non-elite types insulting in jest your sacred alma mater.</p>
<p>look, to clear up any misconceptions, I don't find it hard to deal with you "uncouth non elite types." i really don't, it's just that when i tell you to empty my wastebasket or to get into the corners when you vacuum, you make it a whole big production.</p>
<p>ram, i was just goofing with you with that last statement, just like you were goofing with the cc universe thinking you could get into yale with a 2020 on the sats.</p>
<p>it is also true that where one attends college is not determinative as to life performance later on, however, there was a study a couple of years ago, and i don't have the link handy, that surveyed five of each of the top business, medical and law schools and which colleges their students attended and those students predominently attended harvard and yale, while williams, amherst and swat were also in the top ten. columbia was not, nor do i remember penn being in the top ten, but my memory on the rankings on this is shaky. each of the dean of admissions of each of the five schools in each catagory was asked why the disproportionate amount of students from the same elite places, and the unabashed reply was that the undergraduate colleges and universities did the work for them in weeding out the best students. what does this tell you? that i can't sleep, it's hot in pennsyvania and that my roomate can sleep with the lights on and all nighters in the first week of class is just wrong.</p>
<p>"each of the dean of admissions of each of the five schools in each catagory was asked why the disproportionate amount of students from the same elite places, and the unabashed reply was that the undergraduate colleges and universities did the work for them in weeding out the best students. what does this tell you?"</p>
<p>With your CC research skills, duh, I'm surprised you haven't found the numerous threads discussing this particular study. The above quote tells me a couple of things. First, they are essentially not attributing this difference in grad placement to the schools' job of educating, but to the students in the first place. Secondly, the fact that every school discussed in this forum sends some students to these top grad programs, means that there is a range of students at each school. SO, a student who would be successful coming out of one school would likely be successful coming out of another, /and/ there's a mix of students at each school, even if proportions are a little different. Finally, the study doesn't account for some schools that have specialties which make them more likely to attract the top students of a particular field -like Bowdoin and Middlebury for Enviro Studies, Wellesley for Women's Studies, etc. Penn State is more likely to attract the top students who didn't go to priviliged high schools. Finally, having the particular work skills to get you into one of these particular 10 professional schools is a very narrow definition of intelligence and talent, as is how you did in class in hs. We all know Einstein failed math in hs, yes?</p>
<p>The way duvinci delivered his message certainly lack of sugar coating, one do not have to read between the lines to get what he was saying. That said, his advise may not be far off. </p>
<p>
[quote=ramses88]
and no, i wouldn't like to learn some "manner," i know it's hard dealing with us uncouth non-elite types insulting in jest your sacred alma mater.
</p>
<p>You wouldn't like to learn manner? Really? How do you expect to get ahead in life? By being angry and ****ed off all the time?</p>
<p>If you find duvinci's postings offensive, direct your debate towards him. The rest of the college hasn't done anything to you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the real world, ummm, do you have a lot of real world experience? Just what do you know of the real world? Care to share? Have you participated in the hiring process?</p>
<p>goldie, thanks for the help, but i think i can handle these lightweights myself.</p>
<p>escape: first of all, the study used 15 schools. five each of the top medical, business and law schools. of course the study didn't take into account enviro studies and women's studies. it was limited to medical, business and law schools. the point of the study is that getting into the elite colleges does make it easier to get into the top medical, business and law schools. why would anybody want to go to medical, business or law school? who knows? that's for each individual to decide for themselves, just like who would want to study enviro studies or women's studies (it's been lamented for all of time that noone can figure women out, so what's the point of continued study of them). also, penn state is not more likely to attract top students who did not go to privileged high schools. harvard, yale and their ilk are more likely to attract top students who did not go to privileged high schools. penn state is more likely to attract jocks and people with stats like chill and ram. lastly, noone said that getting into the top medical, business and law schools involved any talent or intelligence (although they are important), the study shows that one has a higher likelihood of getting into these elite places if you started from an elite college, that's why chill and ram are so threatened by and so horrified by penn state.</p>
<p>lol, i clearly am "angry and ****ed off all the time" thanks for the insightful psychoanalysis of my existence.</p>
<p>i'd actually try to respond to what you're saying, if i cared. but i don't. not because i think i can easily get into "top tier" schools (i don't), but because i don't care what you have to say about it. </p>
<p>now you can both return to obscurity and irrelevance. kthnxbye</p>
<p>there is nothing in the study to say that it is "easier" to go to a top professional school if you go to a top-3 LAC. It just says that more people do go to top professional school out of top-3 LACs. The reality is, relatively few people at either Swarthmore or Bowdoin go to one of those top-15 professional schools, and who's to say taking one route is easier than the other, just because more people do it one way rather than the other?</p>
<p>I am not so much arguing w/ you at this point duhvinci, as I am just trying to provide a critical presentation of the information. B/c there are probably some high schoolers reading these forums for whom this info is actually relevant in how they conduct their lives for the next year.</p>
<p>However, I'm glad to know you're also sexist. I guess you prove Swat really does know how to pick students better than anywhere else.</p>
<p>i am not arguing with anyone, the "feeder" school study shows what it shows, and that is a disproportionate amount of students at these elite professional schools come from a small crop of schools. If i were a high school student interested in these professional schools, i would want to attend one of the top feeder schools because the study indicates that in doing so, i would enhance my chances of getting in, therefore, if able, why would anyone choose bowdoin over a williams or amherst or swarthmore? sure, if tree hugging is your thing, then it wouldn't matter if you went to a competitive school or not and it would be ok to attend bowdoin or the university of vermont. the same argument is made that if one wanted to play in the NFL, USC would be the choice over swarthmore. </p>
<p>also, i'm not sexist, i have been studying women for years (although i haven't figured them out yet) and i agree that studying women would be better at wellesley. I'm also afraid that you are wrong that swat knows how to choose their students, you did indicate that swat accepted you as a transfer, didn't you?</p>
<p>Duhvinci- I think some of your points are intellectually correct, but I just have to say that your manner is extremely abrasive, rude and arrogant. Getting admitted to and spending a week at a very good school does not make you superior to everyone else- and while you may not quite go so far as saying that you are, I think it's pretty clear that you believe it. I hope most kids at Swarthmore don't act like this- I can't imagine the misery of going to such a school. I'm really hoping at this point that either you are an admissions mistake, or you're just reacting terribly to the pressure of starting college. I'm all for taking pride in and defending your school, but the best way for you to demonstrate Swarthmore's superiority would be through your own behavior.</p>
<p>In defense of Duhvinci, most of his posts are yanking someone's chain for humorous purposes. Read his posts two or three times. There's been some funny stuff.</p>
<p>I mean. This is a funny line: "i have been studying women for years (although i haven't figured them out yet) and i agree that studying women would be better at wellesley."</p>
<p>I gave up on this thread a while ago as far as any socially redeeming value. Most of the posts are jabbing at each other for entertainment purposes.</p>
<p>Yes, actually, I do. My suggestion is to leave out the extra studying etc. that you did for the AP exams. One would hope you did extra reading for it, so I don't think it gets you anywhere to mention that you indeed did! On the other hand, I think your independent study in Arabic (and maybe the Hebrew Bible too) is terrific, and I think you should concentrate on stressing that.</p>
<p>And, of course, if you haven't done so already, read up on the type of debate Swarthmore does. I know it's different from what my daughter did in high school and I don't know if you have any experience in the kind they do. At the least, you need to let them know you looked into it.</p>
<p>jp: first off, thank you for thinking that my statements are intellectually correct, however, your use of the word "intellectually" ascribes some form of academic validation that i don't need. just being correct is sufficient. i also wish to correct you that i have been here two weeks not one and as a counterpoint to interesteddad, if i may, i do believe that there is socially redeeming value in this thread in that it provides a glimpse into aspirations, insecurities and pretentions of a segment of the population as well as a limited glimpse into the life and thought processes of a swat freshman. i responded to this thread initially as a goof (i mean, how could one not see this thread as a goof, look at the stats and puffed up ec's of the op and the op's thinking that he/she has any chance at getting into swat) but now i see a larger purpose to this thread. yes, i admit, sticking a needle into know nothing politically correct mouthoffs is fun, but let me tell you what i see here at swarthmore. it has been said that in different publications and places that swat is a drab all work institution, not quite the place where fun goes to die as is the case with the university of chicago, but a lot of work nonetheless. true, two weeks does not four years make, but it seems like, and it is stated by more than a few students including upper classmen, that we do LESS work here than we all did in high school (although a bit harder work, granted). also there has been no outward displays of academic competition, however sitting in science classes and seminars, the discussions are crackling with the undercurrent of intellectual competition (although i am not sure that the word competition is used correctly here). looking at the faces of my classmates in class, it is clear to me that it is "game on" and if i don't bring my "A" game, it will get ugly. outside of class, it is a whole different culture. so jp, let me assure you that i am not an admissions mistake or anomaly, i am just like everyone else here and i can't imagine the "misery" you would experience here especially if you can only take my statements in the microcosm of this little forum with sweetener and not straight up. if you want something more genteel, go to the snooze forums of williams and amherst.</p>
<p>There are many different kinds of people at Swarthmore, but (at least from my experience as a parent of a junior) the level of arrogance and elitism displayed by Duhvinci is highly unusual...</p>
<p>
[quote]
also there has been no outward displays of academic competition, however sitting in science classes and seminars, the discussions are crackling with the undercurrent of intellectual competition (although i am not sure that the word competition is used correctly here). looking at the faces of my classmates in class, it is clear to me that it is "game on" and if i don't bring my "A" game, it will get ugly. outside of class, it is a whole different culture.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Duhvinci: I take it all back. Your paragraph above is one of the more eloquent statements about the academic experience that I've read here. Definitely qualifies as "socially redeeming value". Kudos.</p>
<p>Ironically, one of the comments my wife and I made as we listened to my daughter describe her academic experience at Swarthmore was, "It sure sounds like the students have to bring their A-game to class." </p>
<p>I once had the pleasure of listening to my daughter and her roommate describe one of their courses while driving them from the airport on a break. Hilarious stuff as they did impersonations of various students in the class and in some cases spoke in almost reverent tones about some of their classmates' discussion ideas. Your phrase is right on the money; it was easy to hear from their conversation that the classroom was indeed "crackling" with intellegent discussion.</p>
<p>I understood what you meant by "competition". If I'm right, you weren't using the term in the sense of getting a better grade, but rather the intensity that you might see in a championship football game as opposed to a regular season game between two midpack teams, i.e. students take it seriously and recognize a shared expectation of contributing something useful to the discussion.</p>