<p>wealthy people can also be extremely dumb. Nobody thinks of that one</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where did you see that 13% of students recieve merit aid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On the data they submitted to USNEWS from their common data set. 13% of the students received non-need based aid, with an average scholarship of $17,758.</p>
<p>BTW, I think you are selling Vandy short. My high school girlfriend went to Vandy in the early 70's. If I recall, she was admitted to both Vandy and Rice. It was a very prestigious school, long before USNEWS and quite difficult to get into.</p>
<p>I think she had SATs in the mid-1300s, which was strong in those days. Straight A student from a private school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for the comment on Swarthmore back in the eighties, S was a very different place back then and although it was a top rated LAC, the emphasis was not quite so high on scores. They had a change in administration and philosophy in the mid eighties. Got rid of football in the 90's etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I couldn't disagree more strenuously with that assessment. Based on what I knew of Swarthmore's reputation as a Williams student in the 1970s and based on a reading of a detailed history of the school written in the mid-1980s, I don't think there has been any significant change in philosophy or style dating back to the 1920's. Going back at least that far, it has been a "bookish" place. The relative test scores and acceptance rate was pretty much the same in 1970 as today.</p>
<p>Over that 80 years of history, I would only note two major "changes" at the school -- both more a reflection of the times. The first was the end of "in loco parentis" in the 1960s -- when colleges stopped trying to legislate students lives with visitation rules, curfews, etc. The second was the major emphasis on affirmative action and diversity, which picked up steam in 1969.</p>
<p>You're read of the football decision is wrong. The current president actually made the decision to invest more recruiting effort into the sports program in the mid-1990s (probably a mistake). The decision to drop football was made by the Board of Managers in December 2000 when the athletic department made it clear that, to field a competitve team, the school would have to devote more than 30% of its admissions slots to likely varsity athletes.</p>
<p>It wasn't a new debate. There is ample evidence of a debate over the role football should play at Swarthmore as far back as the 1920s. In fact, the debate over the outside examiner's Honors program in the 20's was largely waged between two factions on the board -- one wishing to emphasize academics and the other a more "joe college" experience with the frats and athletics.</p>
<p>Colleges don't change much over time.</p>
<p>my analysis is based on personal experience and I think would likely be shared by many folks who have been involved with S over a significant period of time.
S is heavily New York and California Jewish, that wasn't true 20 or 30 years ago. The students are significantly more "intellectual" and the Quaker heritage has largely been lost. Maybe not a bad thing, but it represents a major cultural change on campus. The football players simply couldn't cut it in the classroom anymore, and S just couldn't recruit enough academically strong athletes to keep up. They "academized" themselves out of the market. Sadly the few low income blacks that they recruit each year cant keep up either and the profs know it.</p>
<p>I must say that the University of Pittsburgh has really increased its standards over the past 6 years or so. I applied in 1999 and got in as a solid 'B' student with slightly above average SAT scores. There is no way that with my scores I would have been admitted today or even 2 years ago! This is really due to the increase in applicants and the increase in those students actually accepting their offers. My senior year at Pitt they had to put freshman up in hotels for a period of time because their statistics of how many asked will accept failed and they ran out of room to put them.</p>
<p>I'm just glad I wasn't born a few years later or I would have been stuck as a traditional state school in Pennsylvania (i.e. Slippery Rock, Shippensburg, Millersville, etc.)...</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents...</p>
<p>Pitt alum '04
UNC-CH grad student</p>
<p>I don't have much comment on complaints about the increasing number of "New York jews" or "the blacks just can't keep up". I find both somewhat offensive.</p>
<p>I would suggest that your analysis overlooks some key players at Swarthmore who predate what you claim to be a recent influx of "New York jews". Specifically, you might consider Eugene Lang '38 and Jerome Kohlberg '46.</p>
<p>As for "California Jews", in the fall of 2004, Swarthmore had 105 students from California (out of 1474). Even if the California students were extremely homogeneous in their religious affiliation (doubtful), I would be hard pressed to conclude that the school is "heavily California Jewish", putting aside the question of why that would be a bad thing.</p>
<p>The college doesn't ask or track religious affiliation, but I'd bet that Jewish enrollment is lower today as a percentage basis than it was 20 years ago, primarily because there aren't a lot of Jewish Asian-Americans. Generally speaking, Jewish students would have seen their numbers decrease as Asian-American and Latino enrollment has increased.</p>
<p>We're way off the thread topic here but I'm someone who knows, telling it like it is. You just don't like to hear it. I just came back from campus a few minutes ago, I felt like I was in NYC, not suburban Philly. S used to be a Pa college, a slightly waspish Quaker rooted Philly suburban college - it's not like that anymore. Over the last 20 years or so there has been a cultural change on campus, students and staff. A different kind of kid goes there now and a different kind of prof teaches them.</p>
<p>Well, if the old way was complaining about "New York Jews" and "blacks who can't cut it", then count me as a strong proponent of change. </p>
<p>I mean, my god, you felt like you were in NYC because of all the Jewish people on campus. What is the world coming to? </p>
<p>Imagine, a campus that is less "WASPy" in 2005 than it was back in the "good old days" of Jew quotas and blacks at the back of the bus. Any elite college that is as "WASPy" today as it was in the 1970s would be truly frightening place.</p>
<p>I take it then that you are now admitting that Swat has changed, and we can now talk reality. Hopefully you won't be posting the same old tired fantasy crap about Swat, it's really a disservice to the participants in this forum. Swat in 2005 is a national/international academic pressure cooker and young people and their families should take a real good look at that reality before they make their college decisions.</p>
<p>I listed diversity as one of the two major "sea-changes" at Swarthmore since the 1920s. As is the case at every major college and university in the Northeast United States. It is certainly the case at my alma mater, Williams, that was whiter than a slice of Wonderbread in the 1970s. It is certainly the case at Harvard. Certainly the case at Yale. Certainly the case at Amherst. Look at the diversity stats at a place like Princeton.</p>
<p>Many people view that as a positive change and I dare say that diversity is one of the major reasons that students choose Swarthmore. </p>
<p>It is not a new strain of thinking at Swarthmore. The students voted to abolish the sororities in the 1930's for one reason and one reason alone - they did not allow Jewish members.</p>
<p>I'm sure there are many who long for the good ol' days when they didn't run into so many Jews and blacks and Asians and Latinos and foreigners on campus. There are schools that cater to that. Swarthmore isn't one of them and hasn't been for quite a long time. If you aren't comfortable in an ethnically diverse environment, don't go to Swarthmore. Simple as that.</p>
<p>As for "pressure cooker", nothing has changed on that front either. The "Anywhere Else Would Have Been an A" slogan was around when I was in college in the 70s. I don't believe that academic demands at Swarthmore are a big secret. If you aren't comfortable actually studying for class, don't go to Swarthmore. Simple as that. It's possible to slide by, but what's the point? There are better party schools.</p>
<p>I agree with ophiolite that Pitt has been making an attempt to increase their standards. The University Honors College was formed in the 1980s, with an honors degree available, special advising and honors housing beginning a few years ago. I think they are trying to increase their undergraduate program standards to the level of the graduate and professional programs, which is reflected in the increasing number of freshman applications and increasing selectivity.</p>
<p>Is Swarthmore still a safety school for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Penn, Dartmouth, Columbia, Stanford, Caltech, Cornell, Williams, Amherst and Pomona?</p>
<p>The way interesteddad describes Swarthmore is kind of the way people talk about U. Chicago.......and why don't people talk about Wesleyan being a pressure cooker anymore? It was in the 70's with a big emphasis on ethnic diversity.</p>
<p>Qupte" I think that top-5% in the traditional suburban Long Island, NJ, Westchester, CT, Boston feeder high schools is still quite plausible for admission to Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc."</p>
<p>I live in northern Westchester (admittedly, not a "feeder" school), and believe me, the top 5% does not routinely get into these schools. In our school where the class size is around 200, only the very top few students would have even have shot at a Brown, and lately, even our sals are not getting in. However, the top 5% do very well getting into Cornell.</p>
<p>Um, you guys have it all wrong. Intereresteddad and I go back a ways and while we don't always agree, one thing I can say, for sure is that Swarthmore has ALWAYS been accomodating toward Jews and it has ALWAYS had a reputation for being an academic pressure cooker.</p>
<p>If anything, there was pressure during the eighties for Swat to become more preppy and more jockey, in conformity with their newly constructed acronym buddies, Amherst and Williams. It was a valiant effort. Finishing in the top three of the annual USNews rankings did make for an irrisistable triad. But, the fact of the matter is, that AWS (or, sometimes SAW) had very little in common other than that they were small, academically rigorous and not particularly well known outside the East. </p>
<p>Something else that changed was the kind of students who went out for football and wrestling and other traditionally male contact sports. As the pressure to get into places like AWS (and Wesleyan and Bowdoin and other Ivy League templates) increased, so did the pressure to pile up extra-curriculars and enlist in all sorts of other enhancements. Very few kids had the time to take up the violin AND practice snaps after school. They chose one or the other and it started happening earlier and earlier. By the time a wrestler or wide-receiver reaches senior year of high school they are barely attending the same school as their classmates; they are gladiators.</p>
<p>Williams saw the writing on the wall a long time a go and made a specialty of recruiting the few kids who could combine both the intellectual credentials to maintain their grades and the physical agility to compete in the traditional "helmet" sports. But, Williams, Amherst and to some extent Wesleyan had just emerged from long traditions as all-male colleges; jocks and frat culture were not unknown to them. Any athlete who was recruited by Swarthmore by the 1980s already had about a half-century of political radicalism, cutting-edge feminism, and an admission pool that shared many traits with the University of Chicago (which had abolished football a generation earlier) to contend with. It was all but inevitable that there would be a clash of cultures.</p>
<p>Wesleyan's solution was to grow bigger, to in a sense, surround the old DKE/Psi U Wesleyan with a newer Wesleyan that included women, blacks, public school kids, artists and performers. It cost a ton of money; but, I think most alum are pleased with the results. It has become a kind of AWS located in one campus, tied up into one package. While it tends to catch a lot of heat from the culture warriors for being "homogenous", anyone walking along High Street can see the convergence of many cultures, from preppy to alternative, from jock to artsy and many in between. No, it is not a pressure cooker atmosphere that holds them together; I think it is a shared feeling of good fortune that they are all there; and, a shared determination to make the most of it. A delicate thing, to be sure; but, it seems to work.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, what is the estimated number of Jewish students attending Swarthmore?</p>
<p>The Hillel org gives estimates for many campuses, but not Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Without this data, how can you make statements about the relative representation of this "group" there, vs. other campuses?</p>
<p>Just skimmed through this, but I have to say, when everyone talks about how "easy" it used to be to get into good schools, I just want to cry, or look in the mirror and try to figure out why, in '76, I was turned down by the one selective school I applied to--Middlebury, despite my really, really high SAT/Achievement test scores and 5/900 rank.</p>
<p>My theories are 1)needed FA and 2) didn't have enough ECs because I worked and contributed toward family income, which didn't get the respect then it gets now.</p>
<p>I actually think I'd have a better chance nowadays with the same scores/grades, precisely for that reason. So maybe the new competition isn't so bad, since it means more kids get to be part of the mix.</p>
<p>Garland - I don't suppose it would make you feel any better, but I was rejected by Middlebury in '76 also. I got into Williams, waitlisted at Yale. I have theorized that they might have had an early case of Tufts Syndrome in that they assumed super high stat kids would go elsewhere if they admitted them. Hard to know, but it seemed like a screwy result at the time, given what I knew about the relative selectivity of the schools I had applied to.</p>
<p>I know a student at Brown who got rejected by Middlebury last year...go figure.</p>
<p>which was:</p>
<p>Schools that were avg. that are now Competitive </p>
<p>Which schools when you think of them 5-10 years ago were good schools, but not great and were adequately competitive are now getting really tough to get into - or have seen a marked increase in talented students apply.</p>
<hr>
<p>A couple of small colleges and big schools come to mind:</p>
<p>Hartwick College, Oneonta, NY - much more difficult to get into than five years ago. Excellent student/professor relationships. Fantastic, brand-new science center contributing to its rising star. On par with Hobart, St. Lawrence.</p>
<p>New York University - This school has really become a first class university...a decade ago it was good...now it's really good...and hard to get into.</p>
<p>University of Connecticut - Thank you basketball! Actually, a very good university.</p>
<p>Sacred Heart University- small university in CT, used to be mostly commuter school...now attracting students beyond locals, and has become more competitive.</p>