Swarthmore vs Haverford vs Harvey Mudd

Colleges and Universities A-Z Swarthmore College
21

<p>The natural sciences HC>SC.
Here are some of the highlights… :)</p>

<p>1) Beckman: “scholarships to advance the education, research training and personal development of select students in chemistry, biochemistry, and the biological and medical sciences.” Funding for 2 year cycles. HC=4, SC=0
Arnold</a> and Mabel Beckman Foundation</p>

<p>2) Howard Hughes Medical Institute: largest funding for undergraduate scientific research. HC has received maximum award amounts for last 2 funding cycles ($1.7 million in 2000, and $1.6 million in 2004) while SC has not ($700,000 in 2000, and $1.5 million in 2004).
HHMI:</a> Undergraduate Science Education Program</p>

<p>3) NIH funded labs: HC=2 (Morris, HC’92 and Emerson HC’74), SC=0
Haverford</a> biologist Andrea Morris is the first small college faculty member ever to win an NIH Career Development Award.</p>

<p>3a) The only human stem cell lab at a LAC (Emerson)</p>

<p>4) Physicians on faculty: HC=2, SC=0
Counseling comes in handy for pre-meds!!
Emerson HC’74 (MD/PhD from Yale and former Head of Penn Heme/Onc) teaches a class on stem cells
Department</a> of Biology - Faculty -Haverford College</p>

<p>Lamberth HC’91 (participated in trials for most of the currently licensed vaccines including Pediatrix, MMRV, Varicella, Gardasil, and Prevnar, and prinicple investigator at our site for Lyme, Flumist, TdaP, and Menctra trials.) teaches a class on vaccines.
Haverford</a> College: Faculty: Erik Lamberth</p>

<p>4a) Veterinarians on faculty: HC=1, SC=0
Comes in handy fro pre-vets!!
Untitled</a> Document</p>

<p>5) HC in Regenerative Medicine Consortium with Penn, CHOP, Jefferson and Temple. SC not invited. :(
04/08/08</a>, Penn IRM: $3.9 Million for Diabetes Research - Almanac, Vol. 54, No. 28</p>

<p>6) Academy of Science members: HC=1(physics), SC=0
Departments</a> of Physics and Astronomy at Haverford College</p>

<p>7) Rhodes scholars: HC=1(physics), SC=???
Departments</a> of Physics and Astronomy at Haverford College</p>

<p>8) Churchill Scholars: HC=1(math… also a summa grad from Harvard and winner of undergrad teaching awards at Stanford/Penn), SC=???
[Home[/url</a>]</p>

<p>9) Immunologists on faculty: HC=1, SC=0
Comes in handy when learning about… immunology?
[url=<a href="http://www.aai.org/Awards/2005/2005Announcement.htm%5DThe"&gt;http://www.aai.org/Awards/2005/2005Announcement.htm]The&lt;/a> American Association of Immunologists](<a href="http://www.haverford.edu/math/jsabloff/Josh%20Sabloff/Home.html%5DHome%5B/url"&gt;http://www.haverford.edu/math/jsabloff/Josh%20Sabloff/Home.html)&lt;/p>

<p>The languages Bi-co>>SC</p>

<p>Women’s colleges have historically been strong in certain subjects, languages among them. In the Tri-co, BMC’s languages rule. In particular, French and Russian are offered as master degree programs and Italian and Swahili are also available. None of these things are at SC (Italian=English, art history, comp lit majors, Swahili for Black/AA studies majors). Most language classes meet 3x a week, which makes it nearly impossible for Tri-co registration. What can you do as a BMC language major?</p>

<p>Desiderio</a> to Head Hopkins' Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences
William</a> Wagner, Williams History Dept.</p>

<p>BMC and HC are 5 minutes away. SC is ½ hour from the Bi-co. While Bi-co buses leave 2x an hour, the Tri-co van usually leaves hourly at most, so travel time is more like 1hr driving +1-2hrs waiting for the van.</p>

<p>The Tri-co shouldn’t be a factor in ones decision to go to Swat (nor bi-college). If you go to Swat, <strong>know for a fact</strong> that out of the top 20 LACs, it is functionally the smallest because of its size (<1500 kids) and lack of a true consortium relationship. Almost all other colleges operate above 2000 students because of their size (Smith, Wellesley, Wesleyan, Vassar, Williams, Midd, Carleton, Grinnell, Davidson) or are in strong consortiums (Barnard, the Claremont, Bi-co) or are in weak consortiums but have more kids (Amherst). With faculty: student ratio of 8:1, the difference between 1500 kids (Swat) and 2000 kids (everywhere else) is about 62 less faculty...</p>

<p>--
But one good thing about SC chemistry is that its chairman is an HC alum. ;)</p>

22

<p>sorry, to burst your bubble, HC alum, but, Wesleyan's William Firschein (Professor of Molecular Bio and Bio-Chemistry) won an NIH Career Development Award in 1965-1970:
<a href="http://www.wesleyanargus.com/article/1890%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wesleyanargus.com/article/1890&lt;/a>
Also, David Beveridge (Professor of Chemistry and Biophysics) won an NIH Research Career Development Award, in 1972-1977:
<a href="http://www.wesleyan.edu/templates/dept/chem/skeleton_faculty.htt?function=f1&department=CHEM&faculty=dbeveridge%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wesleyan.edu/templates/dept/chem/skeleton_faculty.htt?function=f1&department=CHEM&faculty=dbeveridge&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

23

<p>
[quote]
The natural sciences HC>SC.

[/quote]

Completely false. I, too, could compile a list of hand-picked criteria, but choose instead those where Swarthmore is ahead of Haverford. The difference between my list and your list is that mine would be longer, more relevant, and not riddled with fallacious thinking. I might include such figures as endowment per student or number of alumni who are Nobel laureates in the natural sciences (4 vs. 2), or maybe the number of alumni who are MacArthur fellows in science (5 vs. 0). I could go on and on, but that would be just as pointless as your post.</p>

<p>So, again, to the OP: I think Harvey Mudd is probably your best bet (especially considering the Claremont Colleges Consortium to help you round out your schedule with your interests in music and language, and that Swarthmore would be second. Haverford is a distant third. If you have ever spent time on the Swarthmore and Haverford campuses, then you know that the difference in intellectualism and academic intensity between the two is palpable.</p>

24

<p>JW: Thanks for the clarification. That's true... although perhaps "Science" magazine considers Wesleyan a "university" and not a "small college"? Aren't some of Wesleyan's science programs graduate level? "Science" is a very reputable journal, but I imagine they can make mistakes from time to time. </p>

<p>AE: I really don't have time to completely verify your facts but a quick look at the MacArthur #s you post reveals they're wrong. Joseph H. Taylor Jr is an HC Alum (astrophysics) and I have a feeling there are more... You know, 92% of all stats/numbers that are pulled out of the air in a debate are made up on the fly (grin) and I have a feeling arguing with you, that rate is 98.5%. You certainly earned your "BS" with honors at Swat.</p>

<p>Speaking of pointless, didn't you and ID have a fight a while back about HOW ENDOWMENT IS SPENT where you argued something about security cards and a lack of technology at Swat despite endowment? If that's the case, why blindly quote endowment figures again and assume that it automatically translates into more of everything?</p>

<p>Also, I don't find # Nobel Prize winners/MacArthur fellows alumni useful to the MAJORITY of current kids as the vast majority of them will never win such awards (HC has 2 Nobels in Peace but I don't think it's more "activist" than Swat). It seems to me you're trying to make a generalization about current resources/programs based on a handful of people who where at Swat decades ago. For someone who grilled poor ID on statistics a while back, I find your use of numbers here even more strange. Who cares if there is a 0.027% chance/rate of a classmate being a MacArthur fellow 25 years from graduation (18,000 alumni/5 fellows)... I think knowing that one college currently has 2 MDs, 1 DVM, 2 NIH labs, greater external recognition by HHMI, Beckman, Penn is more relevant for kids who want to focus on biomedical/ biochemistry/ chemistry/ biophysics research or medical school. It's a more direct assessment of the resources/programs available to kids... um... currently? </p>

<p>I have a feeling, if the situation were reversed, you'd be pointing out these facts... afterall, didn't you try to make a point about SC producing 2 more bio PhDs than HC over 10 years as a generalization that bio was better at Swat?</p>

25

<p>Come on.. Swarthmore has at TWO physics RHodes Scholar in the past 7 years.. HC Alum, what you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist..</p>

<p>News</a> Release: Jacob Krich Named Rhodes Scholar
Matthew</a> Landreman</p>

<p>so that's at least 2 in the past 8 years alone</p>

26

<p>^I meant past 8 years, not 7</p>

27

<p>/\ I was writing about the <em>faculty</em>. </p>

<p>My point is that the science faculty at HC (and science resources) is top notch, some of which is unique for a LAC... 2 academic physicians, an academic vet, NIH winners, Academy of Science member, an immunologist and other faculty with impressive credentials too... one being a Rhodes scholar, ect...</p>

<p>I agree that "what you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist". To be fair, I encourage you to bring that point up when individuals on this forum misrepresent other colleges when they compare to Swat.</p>

28

<p>^My bad. I just roughly went thru your post</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
AE: I really don't have time to completely verify your facts but a quick look at the MacArthur #s you post reveals they're wrong. Joseph H. Taylor Jr is an HC Alum (astrophysics) and I have a feeling there are more... You know, 92% of all stats/numbers that are pulled out of the air in a debate are made up on the fly (grin) and I have a feeling arguing with you, that rate is 98.5%. You certainly earned your "BS" with honors at Swat.

[/quote]

I'm just going by what someone at Haverford put in the List of Haverford People section at Wikipedia. It's not my fault if they have incompetent staffers who don't do a thorough job.</p>

<p>And actually, my degree is a BA.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Speaking of pointless, didn't you and ID have a fight a while back about HOW ENDOWMENT IS SPENT where you argued something about security cards and a lack of technology at Swat despite endowment? If that's the case, why blindly quote endowment figures again and assume that it automatically translates into more of everything?

[/quote]

So, then, you would have me believe there is no correlation between endowment per student and the strength of academic departments at a college? Don't patronize us with your "not necessarily" type arguments; a simple yes or no will suffice.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, I don't find # Nobel Prize winners/MacArthur fellows alumni useful to the MAJORITY of current kids as the vast majority of them will never win such awards (HC has 2 Nobels in Peace but I don't think it's more "activist" than Swat). It seems to me you're trying to make a generalization about current resources/programs based on a handful of people who where at Swat decades ago. For someone who grilled poor ID on statistics a while back, I find your use of numbers here even more strange. Who cares if there is a 0.027% chance/rate of a classmate being a MacArthur fellow 25 years from graduation (18,000 alumni/5 fellows)... I think knowing that one college currently has 2 MDs, 1 DVM, 2 NIH labs, greater external recognition by HHMI, Beckman, Penn is more relevant for kids who want to focus on biomedical/ biochemistry/ chemistry/ biophysics research or medical school. It's a more direct assessment of the resources/programs available to kids... um... currently?

[/quote]

Good point. All of that grant money should help to narrow the gap between Haverford's flailing $520 million endowment and Swarthmore's robust $1.4 billion endowment assuming, of course, that all of the grants you don't know about going to Swarthmore and its professors (which means they don't exist?) aren't of a roughly equal magnitude (or perhaps greater in magnitude) to that received by Haverford.</p>

<p>And, as for long-shot things like the Nobel, or a MacArthur, or Rhodes, and so on, all of these things add up, and, even if it's a long shot, a, say,1% chance to get one of those is still twice as good as a 0.5% chance.</p>

<p>Also, you make the mistake of constantly equating biology to "the natural sciences." Most of what you've talked about is all concentrated just on biology, and yet Swarthmore still puts out more eventual biology Ph.D.s than Haverford. What about all the rest of the sciences? How does Ph.D. production compare across the board?</p>

<p>The one number I'd like to see is the science GRE (and MCAT) scores of Haverford graduates vs. those of Swarthmore graduates over the last 10 years. That would be far more illuminating than anything that has been posted yet. These tests not only correlate to how many people go on to get Ph.D.s, but to where they end up in grad school, which is a predictor of future success in their fields. I wouldn't know where to find that data, though (or any data comparing the GRE scores of graduates of various colleges and universities).</p>

30

<p>Watching you guys debate this point here on several threads I think it's time for a duel.</p>

<p>Throw down the gauntlet.</p>

31

<p>FYI: The music department at Haverford is very small with a music library that is almost comically small. If you're interested in going to a place that really embraces music, you should take a look at Swarthmore. A sophomore, as you can read in the Phoenix, (The</a> Phoenix Online - Sophomore accepted into National Repertory Orchestra) was recently accepted into the National Repertoire Orchestra, which is a pretty big deal. Though it's no state school nor conservatory, the students who do pursue music do it quite seriously. Swarthmore subsidizes lessons quite generously allowing students to take lessons in Philly or to have teachers come to the school. I'm, for the most part, very pleased with the music department: the group of students who hangs out in the music library are close knit.</p>

32

<p>HCAlum - yes, all of Wesleyan's science departments are Ph.d level. That is one way Wesleyan, a university roughly the size of Oberlin, chooses to spend its endowment.</p>

33

<p>"The music department at Haverford is very small with a music library that is almost comically small."</p>

<p>Swarthmore</a> College | Library | Underhill Music & Dance Library
"Located on the edge of Crum Woods, in the Lang Music Building, the Underhill collection of approximately 37,000 items contains books, scores, journals, sound recordings, and video recordings in the fields of music and dance."</p>

<p>Haverford</a> College Libraries
"Over 40,000 books, journals, scores, and recordings"
This <em>doesn't</em> include the dance collection which is at BMC.</p>

<p>YOU... this may be a good time to reiterate what you said before, no? ;)</p>

<p>I would never suggest that HC's music/performing arts program is a good choice for people who know for a fact that they want to major in this area. In fact, I used the term "sketchy" in several posts to describe the performing arts at HC in relation to other departments such as bio, chem, physics, religion which are outstanding. I also have steered people away from Hc to Oberlin, Wesleyan and Williams which are outstanding in these areas. I consider Swats performing arts "excellent". Even though I'm hard on the arts at HC, my one classmate went to Julliard for piano after HC, so it can't be <em>that</em> bad.</p>

<p>AE, there's part of your answer. SC is uniformly excellent and outstanding in some areas (econ, poli sci, policy) and HC is outstanding in the sciences, excellent in several other fields (made outstanding with BMC) and "adequate-sketchy" for the performing arts. You should also re-read the post I made with ID a while back where we both agreed that colleges spend 1st on academic resources and any $ left over is then spent on financial aid, diversity and random luxuries and perks which don't have as much "bang for the buck). In addition, with economies of scale and synergies that can be obtained only in a consortium, the educational opportunites between bi-co and Swat aren't as lopsided as you claim. </p>

<p>For someone who has congratulated himself as "insightful" and "fair" with regards to writing about the pros/cons of Swat, I find it strange that you are making the most glaring of mistakes, letting snobbery blind-side you to Swat's standing regarding HC.</p>

34

<p>Swarthmore certainly doesn't have anything to apologize for, and neither does Haverford. I'm sure I have my biases, and so too do the national rankings (USNW, etc.), but someone choosing to attend either college will receive an excellent education and be well prepared to compete and succeed in whatever they do with the rest of their academic/professional lives.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
AE, there's part of your answer.

[/quote]

Actually, no, you haven't answered anything I asked. I don't see how you can say that Haverford's sciences are outstanding, whereas Swarthmore's are merely excellent, when you can see plainly at REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY that Swarthmore is ahead of Haverford in Ph.D. productivity in sciences and engineering, in general, in addition to being ahead in the biological sciences specifically. And, getting back to the OP, we see Harvey Mudd is ahead of both in general, and ahead of Haverford (but not Swarthmore) in biological sciences.</p>

<p>For Ph.D. productivity in general, Haverford doesn't even make the top ten list, whereas Swarthmore is third overall. This points to the other academic departments, such as language and music and so on, likely being stronger at Swarthmore than at Haverford.</p>

<p>There's really just no comparison. Haverford is fine and all, but it is not at the level of Harvey Mudd or Swarthmore (or even Carleton).</p>

36

<p>The level of rancor on this thread is bugging me, so I'm going to give my 2 cents. It is silly to compare stats like this when comparing liberal arts colleges. Very little of the quality of academic experience is affected by factors such as the number of NIH funded labs or the number of alum who win rhodes scholarships. A student who gets into both Haverford and Swarthmore will be equally successful whichever he or she chooses, and each has produced successful graduates in every field. The choice should really be based on which college feels better. Seriously guys the rage and competitiveness is strange and so un swat/ un haverford.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
The level of rancor on this thread is bugging me, so I'm going to give my 2 cents. It is silly to compare stats like this when comparing liberal arts colleges. Very little of the quality of academic experience is affected by factors such as the number of NIH funded labs or the number of alum who win rhodes scholarships. A student who gets into both Haverford and Swarthmore will be equally successful whichever he or she chooses, and each has produced successful graduates in every field.

[/quote]

Can you prove that conjecture, or at least back it up somehow? I would totally agree if you were talking about Swarthmore vs. Bowdoin or Pomona or Middlebury or Reed or Carleton, but not Haverford. I just don't agree that Haverford is on the same level.</p>

38

<p>I agree that neither of us have scientific evidence, but my friends who are Haverford alums have gone on to do amazing things, and would not have had any doors opened by having gone to swarthmore. Perhaps you would argue that the one at harvard law would have gone to yale law, and then one with a 45k research gig at penn would have had a 47k research gig at penn, but that seems silly, and unlikely. Note that there is a slight difference in the academic quality of admittees at Haverford and Swat, but one person admitted to both probably wont have incredibly different outcomes either way, unless they find one school's atmosphere (or one department) impossible to work in.</p>

39

<p>Of course Swarthmore is more productive in PHD's. Just look at the kinds of students that go there. Swarthmore students are more likely to go to graduate school and get an advanced degree. </p>

<p>In the biological science, specifically, a much lower proportion of biology majors at Haverford go on to graduate school. Most of them go on to medical school. This is not the case at Swarthmore, where a significantly higher proportion goes on to graduate school.</p>

<p>The actual difference in education is probably much smaller of a factor than the actual motivation/ability of the student that goes to the school.</p>

40

<p>this is becoming an academic argument; the level of vitriol is so high precisely because the stakes are so low.</p>