Swarthmore vs Haverford vs Harvey Mudd

<p>ditto that.</p>

<p>AE
You underestimate intelligence of 17 years old people. It is not difficult for many of them to look at departments websites, check course offering, faculty education and interests. Look at other threads on CC. Students talk about quality of departments a lot.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Students talk about quality of departments a lot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That does not mean that they evaluate it correctly.</p>

<p>Is it easier to evaluate student quality? Social fit?</p>

<p>I think social fit might be easier for the students to evaluate, as it is something they have some experience with.</p>

<p>As for student quality - that is adcom's job. They do make mistakes sometimes, but they certainly have more expertize in evaluating the students' quality than the students evaluating the quality of academic departments.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The difference in academic quality of students entering Swarthmore/Haverford/Harvey Mudd is not significant. How do you determine academic quality? By SAT/GPA? 25%-75% SAT is higher at Harvey Mudd. How about Reed college?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The difference in student quality is definitely significant. All three schools have very bright student bodies but that doesn't mean that the brightness is equal. I'd order them like this:</p>

<ol>
<li>Mudd</li>
<li>Swat</li>
<li>Harverford</li>
</ol>

<p>SATs of entering students</p>

<p>Harverford:
CR 640-760
Math 650-740</p>

<p>Swat:
CR 680-780
Math 680-760</p>

<p>Mudd:
CR 690-760
Math 740-800</p>

<p>I'm sure you could run a statistical test to show that those are significant differences in just SAT scores of students at the different schools.</p>

<p>"The difference in student quality is definitely significant. All three schools have very bright student bodies but that doesn't mean that the brightness is equal. I'd order them like this:</p>

<ol>
<li>Mudd</li>
<li>Swat</li>
<li>Harverford"</li>
</ol>

<p>And you have determined this by what method? How many years have you been an admissions officer or professor at various campuses?</p>

<p>First thing you may want to do is learn how to spell Haverford before you make sweeping generalizations about its students.</p>

<p>How many years have you spent at any of these campuses to make such judgments? In your years at Haverford, did you drive by the welcome sign enough to catch the spelling?</p>

<p>You should choose a college based on academics and good fit.
It's not where you go as much as what you do with the opportunities presented to you.</p>

<p>
[quote]
AE
You underestimate intelligence of 17 years old people. It is not difficult for many of them to look at departments websites, check course offering, faculty education and interests. Look at other threads on CC. Students talk about quality of departments a lot.

[/quote]

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. There are tons of 17 year olds out there who are smarter than I am, you are, or anyone else in this thread is, but it doesn't mean they can evaluate a college's academic departments better than any of us. It's about having the tools and experience needed to evaluate the various aspects of college, from social dynamic to academic department strengths, to the intellectual quality of students and professors. There is no easy way to do any of this, and it's virtually impossible for high school students (and their parents) to be able to make great judgments about academic departments and professors. It simply takes too much time being involved with those entities to be able to really evaluate them. As such, incoming students are better off trying to judge the quality of the students and look at the school's social and academic atmosphere and base their decision on where to attend on those things. There is probably no one on the planet who can say with objective certainty, for instance, that Swarthmore or Haverford has a better biology department. This includes 16-17 year olds, even if they're extremely intelligent.</p>

<p>

He is obviously basing this on SAT scores and the assumption that SAT correlates positively to IQ and, as such, a school with a higher average SAT score among its students has a higher average IQ and, thus, that the students are smarter. You can decide for yourself whether you think this is valid.</p>

<p>"There is probably no one on the planet who can say with objective certainty, for instance, that Swarthmore or Haverford has a better biology department."</p>

<p>OK, fine. But they are SO different. Simply open Haverford biology department website and you will see:
"Our Department of Cellular, Molecular, and Developmental Biology is unique among liberal arts colleges because it focuses on the cell rather than the organism. We feel that an understanding of cellular and molecular processes that underlie Biology is the basis for the most sophisticated understanding of organisms and of current medicine."
Department</a> of Biology - FAQ - Haverford College</p>

<p>You will not be able to find any course about plants or animals at Haverford.
Some students can be very dissapointed when they find it out. For others, it can be a plus.</p>

<p>"Harverford:
CR 640-760
Math 650-740</p>

<p>Swat:
CR 680-780
Math 680-760</p>

<p>Mudd:
CR 690-760
Math 740-800"</p>

<p>"He is obviously basing this on SAT scores and the assumption that SAT correlates positively to IQ and, as such, a school with a higher average SAT score among its students has a higher average IQ and, thus, that the students are smarter. You can decide for yourself whether you think this is valid."</p>

<p>All that these scores show is that HM's math SAT scores are slightly higher, due to the fact that they have engineering students. One could argue that verbal SAT scores correlate more with intelligence, and math SAT scores more with the ability to do rote HS math. </p>

<p>Or one could argue that above a certain score level, SAT scores indicate nothing beyond an ability to do 1st year college work, which seems to be the view of many educators.</p>

<p>Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't even understand the point of this thread.</p>

<p>Comparing Swarthmore to Harvey Mudd is like choosing between steak or seafood. One is an east coast liberal arts college. One is a suburban LA science/tech school.</p>

<p>You don't choose between them because one is "better" (they are both as good as it gets). You choose between them because you want a west coast science/math school or an east coast all-purpose liberal arts college. None of us can answer that question. It's a personal choice.</p>

<p>There's no reason to "overthink" these things.</p>

<p>interesteddad: True that</p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't even understand the point of this thread.

[/quote]

Then you don't have to post in it.</p>

<p>No A.E., interesteddad's post was very insightful. It's just knowing what kind of college you want to go to, not which one is 'better'.</p>

<p>
[quote]
No A.E., interesteddad's post was very insightful. It's just knowing what kind of college you want to go to, not which one is 'better'.

[/quote]

Wow, really? Guess what, that wasn't the OP's question. We have to assume he's not a total idiot and has actually thought about that, and is aware of the myriad differences between the schools. We have no information about him to go on to give him any meaningful input about how he would fit in at each of the campuses. He just wants to know which school has the capacity to provide the best education in the sciences. So, I have to disagree with you and say that it wasn't very insightful.</p>

<p>(note: i havent been reading all the prior post, there seems to be a flame war of sorts starting...)</p>

<p>you seem to be set on majoring in a science, but want to do more then cram science classes in all four years. understandable. i dont know muc about haverford, so i cant say anything about it.</p>

<p>my 2cents: harvey mudd. the philosophy behind mudd is that they dont want to make you a science only person, they want you to do more then just that. from my understanding, the whole point of mudd being a part of the claremont colleges is so that mudd could focus on offering the best in sciences. if/when students were more interested in music, econ, philosophy, etc they would go to one of the 4 other claremont colleges.</p>

<p>just realized:its after may 1st, so i cant really help out. oops</p>