Science at Amherst vs. Haverford

<p>I plan to major in chemistry and am considering applying to both Amherst and Haverford. I know that the academics are rigorous at both schools, but I am wondering if there are any differences, academically. Although I know it is not cut throat at Haverford, and I consider myself to be very studious, I don't want to studying 24/7 just to get decent grades. My impression is that while Amherst might be more difficult to get into, it provides for a more nurturing environment, academically. I'm certainly willing to do the work, but don't want to go to a school where I would be overwhelmed with an unrealistically heavy workload, to avoid being weeded out in the sciences. And no, I am not premed.</p>

<p>Amherst is better IMO, stronger science program. When I think of science and math, I always think of Williams and Amherst. The few people I have met from Haverford study the humanities or social sciences. Haverford seems better for social sciences. However, Haverford produced the first American Chemistry Nobel Laureate and has had two science Nobel laureates to have done their undergrad there to show that their program is strong especially if you are interested in a PhD. They also do very well placing students into med schools like Harvard, JHU and Penn if you are interested in premed.</p>

<p>

Except that the opposite is true, if you look at their latest Common Data Sets.
Not counting psychology, Amherst awarded only 17% of its baccalaureates in the sciences when last measured:
<a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/169045/original/2009%20Degrees%20Conferred.pdf[/url]”>https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/169045/original/2009%20Degrees%20Conferred.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>At Haverford the figure was more like 29%, with 12% in the physical sciences alone:
<a href=“http://www.haverford.edu/ir/pdf/CDS2008_2009.pdf[/url]”>http://www.haverford.edu/ir/pdf/CDS2008_2009.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Agree.</p>

<p>If Amherst has a weakness academically it’s in the sciences and, in particular, in the physical sciences (Williams is a whole different kettle of fish with much stronger programs in the sciences and math). </p>

<p>Haverford, despite its diminutive size, has a significantly larger percentage of students pursuing physical science degrees with a much more balanced science/non-science academic scene on campus.</p>

<p>As far as workload, grading, competition, academic quality of the student bodies - I doubt you’d be able to identify any significant difference between the two schools.</p>

<p>Lab sciences are a strength at Haverford and a weakness at Amherst. Haverford has a state-of-the-art science facility; Amherst has indefinitely postponed plans to replace its aging 50-year-old science center. Amherst has one of the lowest percentages of science/math majors among the northeastern LACs, while Haverford (and neighboring Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore) are all among the highest (as is Williams).</p>

<p>Amherst is more selective than Haverford overall, but if you are interested in physical sciences specifically, then Haverford would be a strong alternative.</p>

<p>It’s hard to tell whether new facilities ever actually have a direct impact on science enrollment. Middlebury has a lower percentage of science majors than Amherst (19% vs.16% – and, that’s including “natural resources and environmental science”) and boasts some of the newest facillities in NESCAC. [Common</a> Data Set | Middlebury](<a href=“Assessment and Institutional Research | Middlebury”>Assessment and Institutional Research | Middlebury) </p>

<p>Scale may also have something to do with it, Haverford at 1,190, is one of the smallest LACs in the country; the same number of science majors would simply be diluted at Amherst and Middlebury which have between 500-1,200 more students. To put it another way, Yale University at >5,000 undergraduates, has only a 20% science enrollment, yet no one accuses Yale of being weak in the sciences. <a href=“http://www.yale.edu/oir/cds.pdf[/url]”>http://www.yale.edu/oir/cds.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Quote: As far as workload, grading, competition, academic quality of the student bodies - I doubt you’d be able to identify any significant difference between the two schools. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the above comments on the strength of the science programs. I was particularly interested though, in the differences in the workload between the two schools. Although I know neither school would be classified as cut throat, I didn’t know if either school would intentionally or unintentionally try to weed out the science students. For example, I’ve heard of a SLAC that weeds its premed students out so much, so they can say that practically 100% of them get accepted to med school. Although I am not a premed student, I wouldn’t want the science curriculum to be like that if I could help it. Does anyone have any further insight on this aspect? </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>If your goal is to find the best science program, Haverford is as good of choice as any. If your goal is to go to medical school, go anywhere.</p>

<p>

Based on the numbers, if one of these two schools is “weeding out” students in the physical sciences, it would most likely be Amherst. From the Common Data Sets for the past 5 years, the percentage of majors in the physical sciences is as follows:</p>

<p>Haverford:
7, 12, 11, 10, 9. Average: 9.8 %</p>

<p>Amherst:
5, 8, 3.9, 5.8, 6. Average: 5.7 %</p>

<p>Over the past 5 years, Haverford students were 70% more likely to major in physical sciences than Amherst students. So it seems strange to suspect Haverford of “weeding them out.” </p>

<p>Let me be clear: I don’t actually believe that Amherst is “weeding out” science students either, despite the numbers. I think the differences simply reflect a lesser degree of interest in physical sciences (and in science/math generally) at Amherst. Most women’s colleges have relatively low percentages of physical science majors too, but not because of “weeding out”.</p>

<p>Hmm interesting. It seems I am wrong. But I have to say though that I have met so many hard science professors who did their undergraduate program at Amherst. All attended hardcore PhD programs. A lot do Physics though. I have never met a haverford science person, maybe bcos the school is so tiny.</p>

<p>The biggest weakness in LACs is their small size limiting the number and scope of science courses.</p>

<p>Haverford can get around this because it will also let you take courses at Bryn Mawr College (bi-co), + Swarthmore (Tri-co), + Penn (Quaker Consortium). And if a giant research university like Penn doesn’t have your needed science coursers, well then it probably doesn’t exist ;)</p>

<p>ilovebagels</p>

<p>The bi-co with Bryn Mawr is certainly big participation-wise. But while allowed, very few 'Fords cross-register at Penn or Swarthmore. Just way too inconvenient.</p>

<p>A ditto, BTW, for Amherst and the 5 college regional consortium.</p>

<p>The LAC consortium that works by far the best in this regard are the Claremonts (adjoining campuses works wonders - who likes to commute?). </p>

<p>Your argument is also really only applicable to the physical sciences. Especially if interested in moving on to grad school, it helps to consider the number of majors in your field at the school. Note that some small LACs turn out more phsical science majors than universities 3-4 times their size. </p>

<p>Biology is much less an issue, not really applicable to this discussion - always a big department, even at LACs, with lots of course offerings thanks to tons of premeds, not future biologists.</p>

<p>Amherst’s facilities are outdated and in need of renovation, to be frank. They don’t compare to those of Haverford.
However, it remains an excellent place to undertake research as an undergraduate, and many of its faculty members in the sciences are accomplished researchers and great teachers. There are plenty of distinguished alumni, too.</p>

<p>Even though Haverford is intimate with Bryn Mawr, and maintains relations with Swarthmore–a colder one with Penn–the feel is unique and peculiar.</p>

<p>Although I knew it was an excellent place to learn and live, I felt an inexplicable dread in my heart that prevented me from enrolling. It really is a small school; the Honor Code is prime. It felt too much like a tiny Utopian bubble, and I felt overwhelmed, claustrophobic.</p>

<p>Go for fit, then.</p>