Swarthmore (or less) & Pomona?

<p>The best in terms of: would i be overwhelmed if I took a job, internship and had volunteering on the side? Or would it be better to just do internship + volunteering on the side?</p>

<p>It is better to do one thing well and in depth, then 3 things superficially.</p>

<p>That, and we can't tell you if you'd be overwhelmed. Only you know how much free time you have and how easily you get overwhelmed. :] The internship sounds really cool, but I wouldn't suggest going overboard and then ending up miserable and having no free time. You know yourself, so make a decision based on that.</p>

<h2>siusplau: The proverbial "fork" that I feel is jabbed in my brain because of this discussion tells me I'm soon "done" as well... but I have to let off some steam 1st. :)</h2>

<p>I think I understand why, when ID and I argue, little gets accomplished. Perhaps it is because it appears that I am trying to rationalize with a person who gets a little misty when he watches an admissions video of a college he didn’t attend. ID, your love of Swat is beautiful (truly) but your fanaticism in my opinion blinds you to the reality of Swat and its relationship to others.</p>

<p>When I mentioned the “quirky /geeky/ non-mainstream/ non-preppy/ non-athletic” CULTURE thing a while back, it wasn’t to cut Swat but rather to give parents (such as yourself) and students/applicants a reality check… that there are +/- with everything. Some Swat kids and some Swat parents seem to gloat the –‘s of other colleges… but you have to recognize your own. Like I said earlier, Swat doesn’t have as many moderating influences and I even see that here on the Swat CC forum. Personally, I have a soft spot for Swat (for many reasons I mentioned) and that is why I waste my time here… to 1) correct your mischaracterizations of Haverford/Bi-co but also to 2) encourage you to not write some of the stuff that you do because it really represents (and possibly encourages) the worst aspects of Swarthmore.</p>

<p>Saying that CMC’s endowment is “ok” or “very good” is smug and spoiled. As a father and a prolific CC poster, I would think that you would know better. If you are dismissive of CMC, I fear to wonder how you perceive 99% of Americans who don’t have the opportunity or capability to attend a top college or university such as CMC, ect. If you don’t mean to be dismissive or you feel you are not being understood by intelligent people, then I suggest you buy a thesaurus or re-read your posts before you hit the return key (um… by the way, can a college be both “dominant” and “aloof” at the same time?).</p>

<p>“I have not expressed an opinion to the orginal poster that she should prefer Pomona, CMC, or Swarthmore. Search the thread. You won't find it. I don't have an opinion.”</p>

<p>“CMC's endowment is OK, but not in the same league… the total education experience is (not) the same as at either Pomona or Swarthmore.”</p>

<p>“Not the same league” drips with meaning. I also am curious that someone who vaunts Swat students engaged in improving the lives of the Sudanese and working on issues of social justice and equality also seems to have a superiority complex regarding his daughter’s college. </p>

<p>I have no problems advocating for a college but to misrepresent your posts as objective observations is highly disingenuous. Whether you make a blatant statement of opinion or select self-serving data, it’s still the same. I’m sure the Bush administration also honestly felt their evidence and data leading up to the Iraqi war was “objective” too. </p>

<p>Like I also said before as well, endowment figures and spending per student is correlated but, is by no means, an accurate marker for measuring and comparing a collegiate experience and resources… especially when discussing colleges in true consortiums with those without one such as Swat. Anyone familiar with public policy will say that pouring more $ into a program doesn’t proportionately make it better... and I'm waiting for you to realize that. Also, you know, when you use $ figures as a crutch to support your arguments you really encourage kids to simply think that quality must only come from spending more. Why do I feel that heart felt cards and homemade gifts may not “cut it” for you on your birthday?</p>

<p>I’m not surprised that your daughter is excited about many classes in which to enroll. That is why Swat is considered a good college. But imagine for a moment your daughter at a LAC of similar size where the course registration book is 1.5X thicker, where she can choose between 3-4 dining centers for a difference in atmosphere on any night, deciding between 2+ film series on the weekends, having the opportunities afforded by 2+ speaker series, 2+ concert series, ect… then you will be imagining the opportunities afforded to kids at a consortium such as the Claremont and the Bi-co. </p>

<p>Now, like a well baked cake... I’m done.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think I understand why, when ID and I argue....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sitting here scratching my head about this whole fricken thread. I went back and reread everything I wrote. I didn't write a single word that wasn't full of praise for Pomona, CMC, Bryn Mawr, and Haverford. I didn't even recommend that the poster consider Swarthmore over any of the other fine colleges on her list. </p>

<p>I did my best to explain the differences I see between Pomona and Swarthmore (nearly identical schools, IMO...flip a coin). I did my best to explain the difference between the significant difference between the Claremont Consortium and the Tri-Co consortium. I did my best to explain the difference between an excellent specialty school (CMC) and an excellent full-service LAC (Pomona). And, when somebody suggested that her daughter could have gotten as good an education at Pomona as at Swarthmore, I agreed....pointing out that the two colleges are in the top three LACs in the country in financial resources.</p>

<p>Frankly, I'm a little PO'd that I've got people jumpin' down my throat when I've gone out of my way to be fair and balanced ON A SWARTHMORE specific forum. I probably should have just written something mindless like "Swat rocks" and left it at that.</p>

<p>I agree with every single thing that you've said (HC alum). I couldn't let it go either, and just returned from a dinner discussion covering all the same points with my CMC grad husband who obviously doesn't realize what he missed! Much of the positive that ID admits about other schools is accompanied by something that turns it into a backhanded compliment instead. And I find it amazing that he would even comment on Pomona's so-called aloofness when everything he says about Swarthmore is loaded with snobbery. It may be true that Swarthmore students don't care about the Tri-Co consortium one way or another--but there is a very special elitism that is very much in evidence at Swarthmore. Perhaps, like a tree falling in a forest, if there's no one else there to hear it... it doesn't exist! Pomona's "snobbery" is only mentioned because they have neighbors as witnesses!
My daughter is having a wonderful educational experience at Swarthmore, and I hope in time that she will also sentimentally tear up at the mention of first collection (as opposed to the other kind of tearing up).
Here comes the fork!</p>

<p>“…who obviously doesn't realize what he missed!”
Um… that would be approximately 15 minutes of your procrastination and 35 minutes of mine. Shame on us! :)</p>

<p>OK. I’m going to try to be as clear as possible one last time… perhaps this will save me time in the future because disagreeing with ID seems to take up too much effort. ID, as you seem to be a nice guy who tries to help out kids, I will detail 3 of the issues I have with your posts.</p>

<p>1) “Dominate”. If you initially wrote “not as tight knit” or “Swat doesn’t get much benefit from…” like you did only LATER, then I would agree. “Dominate” means something different. This is pasted from a web dictionary</p>

<p>“To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power; To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over; To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in.” </p>

<p>Like I wrote, Swat doesn’t lord over anyone because the Bi-co may actually have more resources/ opportunities and Swat is too far away for most people to notice. How can Swat “dominate” those who don’t care and would equally not benefit? Also, from what I’m reading about the Claremont consortium here, it seems that the “party” is really between CMC/ Scripps and Pomona is sort of off to the side… so “dominate” may have inappropriate implications there too.</p>

<p>2) If you want to be “objective” without “opinions”, you should do more than regurgitate self-serving #s and skewed opinions that you read on the Swat web site. If you wanted to be balanced, you would consider the other perspective and explore the limits with your #s but that is something you rarely seem to do. If you did, you would see that Bi-co kids are too busy with what they already possess to look longingly to Swat, that your PhD “lists” suggest statistically significant differences in PhD production between schools when there are none, ect…</p>

<p>Regarding your endowment #s and other numerics… if you don’t consider some obvious things, the conclusions you draw won’t be accurate if your goal is to compare “academic and social resources” and college experience. Consortiums are one factor. How $ is spent is another. When you quote that CMC had “zero” arts majors, people would infer that the CMC experience must somehow be devoid of the arts and lopsided… that is not the case. Not only can CMC kids take classes elsewhere, it appears that many CMC kids have friends who major in the arts, but they may just go to a neighbor school. Because the campuses bleed into the others, such “us/them” tribalism and “borders/boundaries” have little meaning. I’m sure CMC kids have just as much opportunity to intellectually masticate/masturbate about philosophy, art and science as Swat students. Even though “zero” may be descriptive of the facts, it misrepresents reality. It blisters me that you should coyly hide behind the assertion that you are “just state’n the facts” when we’ve learned from current world events that “facts” can be both incomplete and skewed. </p>

<p>3) “Not in the same league”. Like the word “dominate”, this has dismissive overtones; Major league vs the Minors, professional vs amateur, serious competition vs child’s play… Suggesting that CMC can’t even bat on the same “field” is smug if that’s what you meant.</p>

<p>Maybe it’s because I went to a good LAC as well where I credit my writing ability that I expect you (a Williiams grad) to be as knowledgeable and careful with word choice as I. Considering English is my 2nd language and I was a science major in college, I’d think you would know even better. When you use certain words, people assume you did so for a reason, and that analogies and overtones are intentional. For example, in the past, when you compared top college selection as a search for a luxury car and were comparing Swat and HC, you often then said after listing why you love Swat so much that you would “recommend” Haverford to someone as well… so they could “kick the tires”. If you went to a Lexus showroom, I think you’d have the common sense to understand that “kicking the tires” is not acceptable. Such actions are more appropriate at a used car lot on a rusted Cadillac Coup Deville. Is that what you intended?? If so, comments like that and backhanded compliments like “I wanted my daughter to consider Haverford… because, frankly, Swat looked like a reach” is why I think you sometimes represent the worst of Swat and what it can encourage in its kids. Such conceited mannerisms are glaring in the real world if not so at Swat. </p>

<p>Considering it has been a couple days since I initially posted and no Swat students, parents or alumni have stepped in to suggest what was written was undeserved, perhaps there’s a point? To quote Quaker tradition, “Silence can be a commentary as well”.</p>

<p>I haven't really been following this thread, but don't think that means I don't support ID. This is a Swarthmore forum. In my opinion, it generally exists to support Swarthmore, and it shouldn't be any surprise that people here are significantly more pro-Swarthmore than elsewhere. This is reflected in the legion of statistics ID regularly pulls up. And these numbers are relevant and they are important.</p>

<p>It is easy enough to say there is no real difference between schools, or that every school offers essentially the same education. Great. The thing is, people are applying to these schools want to know what <em>is</em> different. Whether or not there <em>should</em> be, there <em>is</em> a hierarchy in higher education, with some schools more prestigious than others.</p>

<p>I don't think ID's statistics or arguments are self-serving or even skewed. If you want to find alternative numbers that suggest other schools produce more PhDs, do so. If you want to argue the difference is irrelevant, do so. As far as I know, however, his numbers stand largely unchallenged—it seems fact that in many fields Swarthmore produces more PhDs than other institutions, and it isn't wrong of ID to point that out.</p>

<p>It is not inaccurate to say CMC kids have no arts majors. It is not ID's job or role to research every single school and represent every single side of the debate. This is a Swarthmore forum, and he is in this forum to post advice about <em>Swarthmore</em>, not the intricacies of other schools.</p>

<p>This post is rambling and probably not all that on topic. But your final sentence was rather annoying.</p>

<p>First let me say that I think that CC benefits from having such thoughtful and informed commentators as HC Alum on Haverford and Interesteddad on Swarthmore. I'm not sure where ID has the time to have posted 4900 times on CC, but I have found most of his posts interesting and often informative. As someone who has more knowledge than most about Swarthmore (I'm both an alum and a parent) I have usually found ID's posts on Swarthmore to be a useful perspective to consider, though I don't agree with all of them.</p>

<p>I have also found HC Alum's posts on Haverford to be very interesting and insightful. It is clear that HC Alum feels that he got a great education at Haverford, and I have always felt that Haverford and Swarthmore have many more similarities than they do differences. Haverford today has the enrollment that Swarthmore did back in my day. If Haverford had been co-ed when I applied, I might have chosen to go there instead.</p>

<p>Back to the OP's original question, which was about the similarities and differences between Swarthmore, Pomona and CMC: While there has been a lot of back and forth on the subject, with many diversions and excursions, I think by reading the entire discussion the OP (if he or she is still interested and reading this stuff) would come to the appropriate conclusion, which in my mind is:</p>

<p>1) Swarthmore and Pomona are quite similar as broad Liberal Arts Colleges, differing primarily in obvious things like geography, climate and the Claremont consortium.
2) CMC is a great Liberal Arts College with a somewhat different emphasis, concentrating on government, politics, business and international relations.</p>

<p>At this level of quality and selectivity I think the choice between colleges should be much more on fit and compatibility. I'm sure the personality of each of these colleges is somewhat different, and would recommend a prospective student visit each if that is possible.</p>

<p>Arador</p>

<p>Yes, the last line may have been over the top/mean and I am regretting its insertion, but that shouldn't distract you from the main points.</p>

<p>1) The issue isn't about advocacy, but rather saying you're being descriptive and without opinions (as ID did) but use stats that may be out of context and misrepresentative.</p>

<p>2) Regarding the PhD lists, have you actually crunched the numbers or do you just assume they're right? For example, if you do the language PhD #s as I have, you will see that the difference in #8 (Yale) to #18 (Haverford) is 15 more PhDs out of 15,000 people. How can that qualify as a significant difference worthy of a 10 place "drop"? There are clear distinctions between colleges and that should be discussed... not stats with spurious conclusions to bolster your arguments.</p>

<p>3) If you talk about other colleges (as ID does) and want to use them as a comparison, you should understand them. "The numbers can mean this... but is there another explanation?" Yes, being analytical makes comparisons more difficult but at the same time more accurate and fair as well. That is why I avoid comparing college #s. </p>

<p>4) ID wanted to know why some people didn't like his posts. I think it's useful to point out, especially if it's unintentional, that some of the stuff he writes can be interpreted as being a little dismissive. That is how one becomes a better writer... by hearing critiques (just like I acknowledged yours). If ID wants to be less abrasive or better understood, then this is one area for him to target if he chooses.</p>

<p>good night.</p>

<p>Having FINALLY read all the way through this thread, I really don't see much worth dramatizing (and I say this even as an avid Claremont supporter). Though very little that's blatantly negative has been said, there have been a few misunderstandings, but they've basically been corrected. I can't speak for the Bi/Tri-Co, but I do know that the Claremont Consortium suffers <em>terminal</em> misunderstanding and misrepresentation on these boards (which is both understandable and unsurprising...it's difficult to grasp without living in it). It can be flustering to read such misconceptions passed off as fact, and to see the various schools analyzed ONLY as individual entities, without regard to the consortium.</p>

<p>That said, I have to reemphasize that as someone who just jumped in and has no real investment in this debate, my semi-objective view is that this thread hasn't reflected particularly negatively on ANY of the schools with which it deals. So worry not and carry on ;-)</p>

<p>
[quote]
It can be flustering to read such misconceptions passed off as fact, and to see the various schools analyzed ONLY as individual entities, without regard to the consortium.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look at how the five undergrad colleges market themselves. According to the Consortium's strategic plan, the Consortium would like to strengthen the Consortium brand in the marketing, but I see little evidence of that in the actual marketing by the five colleges. In fact, I think the five colleges do a poor job of positioning themselves as specialists within the context of the consortium, i.e. the consortium's "tech" school, the consortium's "econ, gov." school, the consortium's "language and arts" school, and whatever Pitzer is.</p>

<p>It's frustrating to an outsider because that shared specialization is the thing most unique about the consortium and, as you point out, the key to understanding the schools. For example, without the Joint Sciences or the Art, Music, Theater, and Dance offerings elsewhere, Claremont McKenna doesn't make any sense as a liberal arts college. It is so fundamental, that a description really belongs in the a-level "about CMC" sections of the website.</p>

<p>IMO, it is very difficult for somebody who doesn't already know the arrangement to figure it out from the five college's marketing. For example, when my daughter started looking at colleges and had Pomona and the other Claremont Colleges recommended to her, we had no earthly idea that Mudd was a specialty tech school and CMC was a specialty goverment/econ school. We just thought CMC was a little easier to get into than Pomona, which was a good thing. But, suppose an art history major ends up there for the same reason and finds out art history classes are all at Scripps? You don't get that important piece of the puzzle from USNEWS or from the websites. That's why I point out that Mudd, CMC, and Pitzer (and perhaps Scripps) are very unique schools.</p>

<p>Pomona, not so much. It would be ripped out of the consortium tomorrow and continue on pretty much unchanged as a broad-based LAC.</p>

<p>Interesteddad -- </p>

<p>I wholehearted agree that the 5Cs need to better market/explain the Consortium. I've actually talked about this recently with other students. In fairness, it is quite difficult, with many prospective students saying "No, no, we get it. It's just like Barnard/Columbia. It's just like the Sisters. It's just like the Tri-Co. It's just like the six colleges of UCSD," which all seem like logical comparisons, but are each highly problematic in their own way. Regardless, I don't at all disagree on this point.</p>

<p>I do disagree on a few other points, but they're minor. For the most part, I think that you overemphasize the hidden nature of consortium-related information, but as you say, perhaps I'm mistaken, as someone with an existing understanding. Like I said, I agree that things could be more clearly explained, but I don't believe information is as obscure or major mistakes are as easy to come by as your post (perhaps accidentally) suggests.</p>

<p>I also would have to strongly disagree with your final claim IF you mean that Pomona, were it ripped out of the consortium, would be "pretty much unchanged" as an institution. If you simply mean that standing on its own, it would remain the most well-rounded, legitimate LAC of the bunch, then I agree. </p>

<p>Check out <a href="http://www.claremont.edu%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.claremont.edu&lt;/a> for what I think is a pretty good description of the consortium system.</p>

<p>And now, perhaps prematurely, but as others have rightfully said, back to the original topic at hand :-)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think that you overemphasize the hidden nature of consortium-related information, but as you say, perhaps I'm mistaken, as someone with an existing understanding.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not that they hide it, it's that they don't go out of their way to explain something that would be very easy to explain. A simple bullet list of the five schools and how they fit into the overall Claremont structure would be so simple. It would help each college position itself. Without that explanation of specialization, an unknowledgeable potential customer approaches the group of schools thinking the only thing differentiating the five schools is their acceptance rates. </p>

<p>BTW, I found the stats. The five Claremont colleges average 6000 cross registrations a year. On a per college basis, that's slightly less that the 2600 between Bryn Mawr and Haverford -- which have divvied up quite a few departments exclusively at one school or the other.</p>

<p>Swarthmore students don't cross register very much. The stats I found were 119 Bryn Mawr registrations at Swat and 33 Swathmore cross registrations at Bryn Mawr in a recent year. One of the reasons that Swarthmore's numbers are so low is that, unlike Bryn Mawr and Haverford, Swarthmore only lets Tri-Co students register on a space-available basis after Swarthmore students have had first crack at Swarthmore's courses during pre-registration.</p>

<p>When I say that Pomona could stand on its own, I mean with no particular hardship if the rest of the consortium vanished from the face of the earth. They would have the same departments, same courses, and an obscene endowment to support them. CMC, Scripps, and Pitzer would be scrambling initially, because if the consortium and the Joint Science department ceased to exist, they wouldn't have any science courses! They obviously would address that, but there would be a period of transition and a serious expense involved.</p>