<p>BTW, if you want more of a students' view, there are quite a few current students answering questions at this site:</p>
<p>Just browse through the questions and read the comments from current students. Most of them seem to ring true with my daughter's observations.</p>
<p>By the way, I thought 30 was a pretty small class size and apparently my son doesn't. That's why I expressed surprise at the fact that he thought it was such a big class that he wouldn't enjoy it; he dropped out and took something else. I think he is spoiled by the Swarthmore experience. Most of his high school friends have classes with 100 other classmates.</p>
<p>And he thinks Thursday (and sometimes Friday) nights are study nights too. He has classes on Friday morning. There is no getting around the fact that the academics is intense at Swat.</p>
<p>I don't think there is much of a difference between Williams and Amherst as far as academics is concerned, though.</p>
<p>I'm a Swarthmore alumnus (graduated '03) and I would say that the biggest difference between the three schools is culture. Swarthmore sells itself as (and is) the school where the students are more intellectual, work harder, and get lower grades than just about anywhere else in the country. I met a lot of students (I was one of them) whose second-choice school was the hyper-intellectual University of Chicago rather than another liberal arts college or an Ivy, and very few who said they would rather have gone to Amherst or Williams. It's the most liberal of the three colleges as well.</p>
<p>Although it's no longer associated with the Society of Friends, Swarthmore has an active Quaker tradition and takes it very seriously. It's actually so suffused into the campus that I barely noticed it until I started looking at graduate schools and realized how different policies are elsewhere. For example, everything other than room, board, tuition, books, and other items sold at the bookstore is free - you never have to pay to get into a party, print (yes, there's unlimited free printing), pay a library fine, or do anything else whatsoever. Amherst and Williams might have this policy - I can't say for certain - but I've never heard of anything like it anywhere else.</p>
<p>The althletic culture is also much less respected than it is at competitors, especially Williams, which has much, much nicer facilities than Swarthmore and admits a much larger number of recruited athletes.</p>
<p>Actually, with the recently completed renovation of the fitness center at Swarthmore, I believe that the facilities for non-athletes (excercise machines, etc.) are probably nicer than at Williams. Willliams has separate facilities for athletes and non-athletes and there have been some complaints about the non-athlete facilities. </p>
<p>I don't think this is any grand strategy, but rather just the timing of never-ending renovations at various schools.</p>
<p>Williams does have some additional fees. For example, freshmen entries charge "dues" that are used for entertainment, or whatever. However, I don't think this is extreme as it would be at schools were there are fraternities dues totaling hundreds of dollars per semester.</p>
<p>That may definitely be the way it is today, but notwithstanding Williams' commitment to atlhetics is still much stronger than Swarthmore's. Williams would never get rid of teams because they needed too many recruited athletes to field them; that's what Swarthmore did just a few years ago.</p>
<p>I don't think there is any question that Williams has a stronger emphasis on varsity athletics than Swarthmore. Williams has a stronger emphasis on athletics than ANY other Div III school in the United States. </p>
<p>Not only do they have the highest percentage of students on varsity athletic teams of any school in the country, but they pretty much own the Sears Cup awarded to the Division III team with the most championships each year. You don't win national championships in multiple sports, year in and year out without a very, very heavy emphasis on athletics, both in recruiting/admissions and campus culture.</p>
<p>Swarthmore is much more "old-school" in terms of varsity sports being viewed more as an extracurricular activity. Pretty much like Williams and Amherst were in the 60s and 70s when athletic recruiting was minimal and most teams were "walk-on" sports. That, of course, places Swarthmore fairly low in terms of sports emphasis in today's recruiting driven NCAA climate.</p>
<p>IMO, the institution priority on athletics is probably the biggest factor differentiating the campus culture at Williams and Swarthmore. Amherst straddles the fence. They try to support that same number of sports teams as Williams, with a student body closer to the small size of Swarthmore, but they don't do it very successfully, despite a heavy commitment of admissions slots to recruited athletes. When it comes to supporting large sports teams like football and ice hockey on top of the full-range of men's and women's teams, there is a huge difference between a school with 1500 - 1600 students and one with 2000 students.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean when you talk about the impact of competitive athletics on admissions. Obviously, all three of these schools get many more very well-qualified applicants than they admit. (If anything, my understanding is that both Amherst and Williams tend, for whatever reasons, to get a lot more applicants than Swarthmore.) Are you suggesting that the relatively greater emphasis on athletics at Williams and Amherst in some fashion dilutes the academic quality of their respective student bodies, in the sense that decidedly inferior students are admitted simply on the basis of superior athletic ability? Or are you simply saying that, at those schools, athletic ability is more likely to be employed as a tiebreaker of sorts in distinguishing among applicants of reasonably equivalent academic ability? I would certainly hope that the Swarthmore community wouldn't buy into the sort of stereotypical thinking that automatically equates great athletic skill with limited academic ability.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you suggesting that the relatively greater emphasis on athletics at Williams and Amherst in some fashion dilutes the academic quality of their respective student bodies, in the sense that decidedly inferior students are admitted simply on the basis of superior athletic ability?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not a matter of suggesting it. Williams, Swarthmore, and all of the Ivy League universities openly acknowledge that they reserve "x" number of admissions slots for "high impact" athletic recruits with sub-standard academic qualifications. The formulas for how many and how sub-standard are explicitedly stated in the Ivy League Conference rules. A similar set of formulas, used by Williams, is outlined in their recent Report on Athletics. Some detail about Swarthmore's "slotting" system is available in the extensive coverage of the decision to drop football.</p>
<p>The degree to which Williams lowered its standards became a priority issue for the new President, Morty Shapiro, who has forced higher standards on athletic recruiting in the last couple of years (which has been accompanied by a decline in Win/Loss records in a couple of key teams).</p>
<p>Here's how it works. The college decides on a number of athletic department "slots". In Williams case, the number is set by their conference rules at a max of 66. The college (in Williams case) or the conference (in the Ivy League's case) establishes bands of below-average academic qualifications, defined as the number of "standard deviations" from the college's overall average academic qualifications for accepted students. The formulas then specifify how many of the reserved slots can go to students one band below average, two bands below average, three bands below average, and an absolute floor. At Williams, as long as the 66 recruits meet the agreed-upon distribution, the Athletic department essentially has the sole discretion to accept the 66 students of their choosing. Other than approving the distribution of the group, the admissions department wipes its hands of the decision process for this group. The bulk of the very low-band recruits within these 66 reserved slots are allocated to the football team and the men's ice hockey team. It's hard to say what the precise floor is, i.e. how low will they go. But, we can get an inkling from the fact that both Williams and Swarthmore enrolled 6-8% of their freshman class in 2003 with a Verbal SAT in the 500-600 range and similar percentage for the Math SAT.</p>
<p>On top of these 66, Williams allocates an additional 32 slots to the athletic department for recruited athletes who have "average" academic qualifications for the school. This is the group where athletics serve as the deciding factor between two equally qualified candidates. However, the Athletic department has broad discretion in picking which 32. </p>
<p>On top of these 100 athletic recruits, Williams accepts an addtional group who are tagged as being expected to play varsity sports. I believe it was an additional 70 or so tagged acceptances this year, although that would only be expected to produce 30 to 40 actual enrolled students. This group is verty well-qualified academically and would be accepted at a high rate with or without athletics. While the coaches may recruit these high-stat kids, they do not attempt to give them a boost in admissions, preferring to use their clearly defined "admissions slots" for kids who wouldn't be or might not be accepted without athletics. </p>
<p>Swarthmore has a very similar slotting system covering the first two categories I've outlined above; however, they cap the number of athletic slots at 15% of the freshman class -- 54 slots versus approximately 100 at Williams. From what I can tell, the coaches have broad discretion in choosing these 54, but the admissions office is more involved in assessing whether each approved athlete is a fit for Swarthmore. It's not quite as cut and dried; there is more negotiation between athletics and admissions on each individual student.</p>
<p>The fundamental reason that Swarthmore dropped football is that the athletic department told the college they could not expect to win ANY football games without 100+ slots for recruited athletes. With a freshman class of only 370 students, the admissions office and the college adminstration felt that the required number of athletic slots would be inconsistent with the primary mission of the college.</p>
<p>The issue is not so much the fact that the colleges admit "below average" applicants. They all do in order to achieve certain institutional goals. The question is where is this limited number of "low-band" admit slots are used. Do you use them all to stock the football team? Or do you use some to increase diversity? Or maybe some for a brilliant poet? Football is the 800 pound gorilla in all of this. Between the size of the team and the inability to recruit increasingly specialized positions without using low-band slots, football is like a black hole sucking up limited admissions slots for high-impact athletes from the other teams or from other campus priorities.</p>
<p>I don't know how much weight Amherst and Williams place on athletics in admissions decisions. I can confirm that the Swarthmore community does buy into that kind of stereotypical thinking; before they cut the football team, economics had a reputation as the "football major" because it was easy and a lot of football players majored in it. It varies by sport, though; popular, "masculine" sports like football and basketball had much more of a stigma attached to them than did, say, rugby.</p>
<p>Here's a link to the Williams Athletic Review Committe Report:</p>
<p>The report looks at issues of campus culture, academics, and admissions.</p>
<p>A similar committee at Swarthmore was in the middle of preparing a comparable report in 2000 - 2001, when they reached the conclusion in December that a college the size of Swarthmore could no longer support a competitive football program. In a meeting with the Board of Managers, the inevitability of the decision to drop football when the report was published in May became apparent. With that realization, the Board of Managers felt that it would be wrong to allow the coaches and admissions office go though the spring admissions season under the false pretense that there would be a football team the following year at Swarthmore, so they announced the decision at that point and continued work on the report became moot.</p>
<p>Swarthmore had encountered problems with the football team back in the early 1980s. Despite a string of championship seasons, the coach was let go amidst concerns that the team was increasingly isolated from the college community. But, taking the Board of Trustees and President Bloom at their word, this was really not an issue in the 2000 decision to drop football. The decision focused on the impossibility of providing the required number of admissions slots to the football team without totally undermining other campus priorities, including the remainder of the sports teams. </p>
<p>In the ensuing student uproar over the decision, the argument was made that Swarthmore didn't like football players. It was an effective argument on an emtional level, but one that probably didn't have much to do with the reality of the decision. Just like today there is some uproar over opening up the minority orientation program to white students. But, that uproar ignores the fact that Haverford and Swarthmore were about to face a lawsuit over the orientation program that they would definitely lose, so there wasn't much of a decision to make.</p>
<p>Having said that, I do think that the majority of Swarthmore students probably view the two fraternities (whose membership consists almost entirely of varsity athletes) with some amusement.</p>
<p>Here are links to the statements from the Pres and several members of the Board of Managers at Swarthmore regarding the decisiont to drop football. Taken as a group, these statements outline the "rock and a hard place" quite well.</p>
<p>The leading dissenter on the Board refered to in some of these letters was Neil Austrian Swarthmore Class of '61. He throughout the 1990s, he had served as Chairman of the Swarthmore Board and also as President and CEO of the National Football League. He was adamantly opposed to the decision to drop football and I believe he ended up resigning from the Swat board as a result.</p>
<p>I don't know about Williams or Amherst, since we did not visit or consider those colleges when my son was looking at colleges. What satisfies him the most about Swarthmore is the freedom to pursue anything you want once you know what it is. I see discussions in the Parents' Forum about LACs having restrictions on classes and restrictions on what you can or cannot take because of their size and budget. That does not apply to Swarthmore. The administration has made it their priority that once you are in, and once you have found your "passion", you can pursue it to any degree you want. There might be a lottery for 2 or 3 first year large courses (psychology, Biology and possibly Math) but they are unknown beyond those 2 or 3 courses out of hundreds offered.</p>
<p>Actually, the lotteries tend to be for the small capped sections of intro courses freshman year. The few large classes at Swat (intro Art History, intro Pscyh, etc.) are good "backups" to have on your list because they never fill up.</p>
<p>English and Poli Sci are perfect examples of the small capped sections. Instead of teaching English 101 or Poli Sci 101 with eight sections of each, they break it up into eight slightly different courses. The objective of each one is the same (a broad survey of Western lit) or teaching you how to read Poli Sci books, analyze material, and write a paper. But, each section will have a different "theme" (Int. Politics, American gov., fantasy in lit, etc.). Some of these theme sections are more popular than others.</p>
<p>Epistrophy:</p>
<p>I'm crackin' up at your efforts to get anyone to gush over Amherst and tell you what is special, beyond the obvious strong points of a small college.</p>
<p>I interviewed at all of the colleges you and your offspring are looking at 35 years (except Swat) before choosing Williams. My daughter looked at all of them (except Amherst). She goes to Swat, but spends her summers (this will be her third) working in a Harvard student-run community service program and living in a dorm in Cambridge.</p>
<p>The strengths and weaknesses of Harvard, Swat, and Williams are so apparent because they each have very distinctive personalities and cultures, in large part, molded by their locations. Each suits a pretty easily defined student, so it's not that hard to say "you'd love it here" or "it's probably not right for you". </p>
<p>It amazes me that the Amherst folk can't put their finger on what it is that defines their school beyond boilerplate LAC praises and "it just rocks, dude, and we don't have to work as hard as Williams and Swarthmore..." </p>
<p>I think Mini may have looked a Amherst more closely than any of the other parents on CC. Maybe he figured it out. It's almost like Williams and Amherst lost their traditional identities when they went co-ed, but Williams quickly forged a new one by growing significantly and adding an athletic identity to its outdoorsy image while Amherst hasn't completely found a new identity.</p>
<p>Amherst's biggest strategic initiative has been an impressive affirmative action/diversity effort. As far as unique characteristics viz-a-viz Williams and Swarthmore, it is the only one of the three with no distribution requirements and the only one with segregated theme housing (which Morty Shapiro and I view as a negative, but a lot of people like). It is also the most heavily Law School and MBA oriented of the three.</p>
<p>The locations define the three schools to a large degree. Amherst is the coed school in the five-college area and I think the five-college area is really its most effective selling proposition. Williams is the LAC in the mountains of New England. Swarthmore is the elite LAC in a close-in neighborhood of a major city.</p>
<p>Hi..im froim Pakistan and i got accepted into both. I also got accepoted at duke and midd and waitlisted at williams..but it basically boils down to these two. Leaving aid issues aside(both are offering gr8 packages), where do u think i should go?..im looking for something intellectual, and academic..but at the same time, smthg tht can stand upo for itself in terms of prestige...suggestions?</p>
<p>Interesteddad:</p>
<p>Yeah, the Amherst folks certainly seem a bit more reticent than those on this and the Williams boards.</p>
<p>You write: "The strengths and weaknesses of Harvard, Swat, and Williams are so apparent because they each have very distinctive personalities and cultures, in large part, molded by their locations. Each suits a pretty easily defined student, so it's not that hard to say 'you'd love it here' or 'it's probably not right for you.'" </p>
<p>Now that Harvard is also in the mix of options for my son, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts (and anyone else's, for that matter) about - in comparison to Swarthmore - Harvard's "strengths and weakness," its "distinctive personality and culture," and what sorts of students would likely "love it" there or for whom it "probably" would "not be right."</p>
<p>I can take a stab. Various family members probably have more first hand knowlege of Harvard and Swarthmore than any other schools. My daughter has been heavily involved in a Harvard community service program. This coming summer will be her third working in the program and her second living full-time in the Harvard dorms. Of course, she attends Swarthmore.</p>
<p>I'm going to touch on several characteristics, offering some comparison.</p>
<p>EC's:</p>
<p>By far, Harvard's greatest strength is the unbelievable resources and time invested in extracurricular activies. For example, nobody comes close to the scope, funding, or student involvement in their community service programs. The top-level student managers in these programs can, and do, step right into professional careers. For example, the editors of the Crimson school paper could easily step into a journalism career. The ECs operate at a very professional level. No other large university can touch these programs, let alone a small liberal arts college. There are, however, two drawbacks. First, the students often spend more time on ECs than academics. It's not uncommon for a student to basically spend full-time on the EC and catchup on the academics during the pre-exam reading period. I would be a little concerned as a parent because I do think the academics should probably come first. Second, the ECs can be very competitive. For example, it's not a given that you could even get accepted to write for the Crimson. So a much smaller scale program like Swats may be more suited to someone who may want to get involved at a more managable level or try something new. The activities at Swat are glad to have anyone who is interested. But, for an extreme go-getter, the Harvard ECs are truly spectacular.</p>
<p>Academics: </p>
<p>For the average student at each school, Swarthmore's very small classes and close mentoring by professors wins hand down in my book. Harvard is approaching state university size and, at least in the intro courses has huge lectures (hundreds is not uncommon) and extensive use of TAs for any personal interaction. Again, a real go-getter can carve out a very personalized academic experience, but, on average, the focus just isn't there. I think a lot of students kind of exist as a seat in a lecture hall in a way that is completely the opposite of Swarthmore. For example, every member of my D's intro Physics class begain presenting problem sets to their seminar group on the Theory of Special Relativity from the second week going forward. Even the discussions sections and lab groups for the larger classes are taught by the full professors. </p>
<p>This is not to say that Swat is for everybody. For example, there is a parent her on CC who's son is a math prodigy. He's taken pretty much the entire high-level college math curriculum during high school. Harvard is a much better choice for him, because he can transition into graduate level work. Swarthmore, as tough as their math department is, would run out of courses for him. In a similar vein, there are students so heavily invested in a narrow field (for example, 14th Century French Literature) that there is no way in the world a college the size of Swarthmore could offer more than a course or two in something so specialized. This type of student would also be better served at Harvard, where he is likely to find a Professor who is also deeply involved in that sub-specialty.</p>
<p>Community:</p>
<p>I believe that Swarthmore's biggest strength lies in its community. I don't think there is a campus that is less divided into cliques and subgroups or that has as strong a sense of bond among the entire campus community. This is true of many LACs, but it is heighted at Swarthmore because of the freshmen living in upper class dorms, the refusal to allow theme dorms, etc. Despite the fairly stressful workloads, it's a very comfortable, welcoming, and nurturing place. The sense of caring and involvement we felt from every member of the staff was amazing. As I have said elsewhere, when my wife introduced herself to the Dean at orientation, he knew both of my D's application essays off the top of his head.</p>
<p>I would say that the lack of "community" may be Harvard's biggest weakness. Part of it is the fact that it is an urban university with various schools spread out all over Cambridge and Boston. Even the undergrads are scattered: first years in Harvard Yard, the rest in dorms several blocks away down by the River or a shuttle bus ride away at the old Radcliffe quad. You'll never get the strongest sense of community at an urban campus. People expect it at Columbia, but I think it probably catches some first-years offguard coming into Harvard. The huge EC interest is, in part, fueled by kids who do find some sense of community in their activity groups. This issue is related to the political landscape that Larry Summers is trying to navigate. The corporation has long been defined as separate power bases within the various schools -- so there is a divisive element in the actual structure that is very different than Swarthmore where the underlying structure pulls the campus together. For example, the decision to drop football was the first time in memory that the Swarthmore Board was not able to reach a decision by concensus, where every member ultimate agreed to support a decision.</p>
<p>This sense of community is important for some students. Doesn't matter a bit to others, who are perfectly happy to fend for themselves and probably wouldn't be much into a community bond even if it existed. Some kids probably find the community at Swarthmore confining, if not cloying. It all depends on the individual student. I don't think my daughter was "brazen" enough (for lack of a better word) for Harvard. </p>
<p>One other quality that probably bears mentioning. There isn't a whiff of arrogance at Swarthmore. Sure, there are some windbags, but it is one of the least pretentious collection of kids and administrators and parents and alumni you'll ever meet. They don't take themselves very seriously. I am by no means indicting Harvard. The majority of the kids there are down-to-earth and not pretentious either, but there is at least a minority strain of institutional and personal arrogance in the Harvard community.</p>
<p>A couple of strong similarities:</p>
<p>Both schools are institutionally at the cutting edge of political correctness in terms of world outlook -- even moreso than than the students they serve. I personally find it a bit much, but I have enough confidence in my daughter's intelligence and skepticism to sort things like that out for herself.</p>
<p>Both schools have a strong undercurrent of encouraging students to use their educations to give something back to the world. Swarthmore's is explicitly stated in their mission statement and it shows up in the career paths of their alumni, whether it's Eugene Lang's I Have a Dream Foundation, starting a liberal arts college in Ghana, or volunteering in the Peace Corps. I don't know how it is communicated at Harvard, but I think they too produce a lot of alum with that kind of bent. I like that about both places.</p>
<p>Both schools have very high levels of ethnic and racial diversity. Harvard is 60% white, Swarthmore 62%...among the highest diversity on the East Coast. Swarthmore has a bit more economic diversity, but that may be a result of an alumni group that isn't as wealthy. I don't think there are a lot of visible trappings of wealth evident in the student body at either school. The ones who are very wealthy are comfortable enough to not have to flaunt it.</p>
<p>Although Harvard is much harder to get into, I think the key factor in admissions is the same at both schools. It is nearly impossible for a pure "stat" kid to get accepted without some communicated spark. In fact, I think both schools consciously reject applicants perceived to be externally-motivated grinds. I think a lot of kids here are sometimes shocked to see the relatively lower stat kids accepted at both schools without realizing that there was probably some unseen strong interest above and beyond the standard academic stuff.</p>
<p>I guess I count my blessings. I think my daughter has the best of both worlds: she gets the best of Swarthmore 's undergrad experience and then the best of what Harvard offers in her summer activities.</p>
<p>I would never advise someone to turn down a Harvard acceptance. I'm certainly cognizant of the name brand recognition and prestige. I think the students who do turn it down are a self-selected group who look at the school and decide it's not for them and/or a group who realizes there may be plusses and minuses of wearing the "Haaavaaad" tag for the rest of their lives. But, for a lot of kids, it's a great school and they should go there.</p>
<p>Interesteddad:</p>
<p>Thank you so much for this very thoughtful and comprehensive post. In ways that I'm sure many other people will find useful as well, through talking about these two schools in relation to one another, you managed to shed an awful lot of light on Swarthmore and on what makes it distinctive.</p>
<p>Interesteddad</p>
<p>I've read your comments on the above schools as well as Harvard. I glean that Williams has more of an emphasis on athletics, Swarthmore closer to a city, perhaps more liberal. Any real difference in academics between the two? How would you fit Brown into the mix?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any real difference in academics between the two?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not fundamentally, no. Going back at least 50 years, Williams and Swarthmore have been viewed as having the top academics among the LACs.</p>
<p>The difference is that Swarthmore's "culture" is focused a little more intently on the academic side -- more than anything else, a result of its reputation for academic intensity scaring off some folk in the applicant pool. So, if you have two identical professors, two identical groups of students, but one group has a slightly higher percentage of kids who are really into the class, you'll probably have a little more engaged academic environment. But, we are talking subtle differences. Williams certainly has a significant percentage of kids who are very focused academically as well.</p>
<p>Location and campus culture would be the two "biggies" when it comes to deciding between the two. Personally, I think being able to hop on a train and actually get to the real world for a few hours is extremely valuable -- the Ivory Tower can get a little claustrophobic. However, there are certainly aspects of the Berkshires that would appeal in a way that an evening with friends at a restaurant in Philly wouldn't. When I was at Williams, I definitely felt the need to get away every few weeks, but it is always a production because of the distances involved and the need to make any excursion an overnight. I had a car, so at least it was doable. The train to Phily is a better deal all the way around, however.</p>
<p>Williams is the more "preppy", "athletic", and "hard-drinking" of the two. The drinking and athletic emphasis are recent developments. Except for vastly more diversity in 2005, the feel of Swarthmore today reminds me of Williams in the early 1970s.</p>
<p>As for Brown, really the differences are what you would look at comparing any mid-size university to a top undergrad college -- smaller classes, no TAs, increased one-on-one contact with professors, generally more personalized experience. Brown seems to pitch its lack of distribution requirments. As a practical matter, I see that as a non-issue. You'd have to try very hard to go through college without taking three math/science, three social science, and three humanities courses.</p>