Swarthmore/Williams/Amherst

Colleges and Universities A-Z Swarthmore College
41

<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>Frankly, I think what happened at Williams when they went co-ed took them by surprise. The story behind it is juicy, but not worth telling herr, but they sold the idea academically by suggesting that increasing size would also enhance the school because of greater course offerings and more depth, because they would be spreading the fixed capital costs over a larger number of students. And that part I think is true, and in many areas, there is just "more" at Williams than there is at Swat. (let it be known at the outset that if I were choosing today, I would much more likely go to Amherst or Swarthmore than I would to Williams, so I am not pandering to my alma mater.)</p>

<p>The other thing they believed would happen was that if they increased size by admitting women, they assumed this would result in a beefing up of traditionally weak departments (foreign languages), and the addition of areas such as studio arts. Well, it worked for studio arts, but was a miserable failure for foreign languages. They may not be strong at Swarthmore, but they are even weaker at Williams. (neither, by the way, coming anywhere close to what you'd find at Smith.)</p>

<p>But there were some unanticipated consequences. The well-heeled alums at Williams now wanted to send their daughters as well as their sons. Increasing size was thought to be a way of increasing socio-economic diversity, but it hasn't worked out that way. I am pretty sure that there are fewer students on financial aid at Williams today than there were 30 years ago. There is more diversity in genitalia, but not much else.</p>

<p>Another unanticipated development was the impact on athletics. Previously, the 325 male athletes needed to field teams were spread over 1,250 males over four years. Now the 380 male athletes needed to field teams are spread over 910 men. This is a HUGE difference, and one they hadn't foreseen clearly. So athletes are a real monkey on their backs, affecting the entire culture of the place. (But, to be fair, some folks like it that way; it just wouldn't be for me.)</p>

<p>Williams is not different than it was 35 years ago -- still great academics, incredible resources, gorgeous setting, brilliant professors, bright students. But, compared with Williams of 1971, it is Williams on steroids -- all the things I didn't like then have grown hugely: more athletic, more alcohol, less diverse, richer, fewer things to do in town (when I was there, there were two bookstores on Spring Street - I worked in both of them - now there are none), and it feels even more isolated. Language departments haven't improved. (Now mind you: I remember Swarthmore in the 60s too, and not all the changes are positive: there is significantly less community service coming out of Swarthmore today than there was then; you can still find it at Earlham.)</p>

<p>But - a caveat -- the admission of women, and the commitment to the arts HAS made Williams a better place in some ways. There were 3 profs in the music department when I was there; now I think there are 12, including the best composition program of any liberal arts program in the country. Two student symphonies, one of which, the Berkshire Symphony, is semi-professional, and a chamber orchestra, and much else. A huge theatre/drama/dance complex, with lots of courses and resources. Swarthmore doesn't even come close to comparing, really! Studio art pretty much the same. And just as admissions at Williams has had to serve the need for student-athletes, they've had to serve the need for student-artists, musicians, and dancers as well. If there are any failings in ID's posts, it is his failure to recognize how really far behind Swarthmore is in these areas, and his lack of recognition that Williams admissions policy is every bit as impacted by these commitments as by their commitment to athletics.</p>

<p>When Amherst went co-ed, they didn't increase the size much, and so neither gained the benefits of larger size (they turned to the 5 Colleges for that), nor suffered as many of the detrimental effects. Amherst's commitment to socio-economic diversity, though, is very real, noticeable, and a truly a positive development.</p>

42

<p>good post, Mini. I hadn't thought about some of these Williams growth issues from that perspective and I think you have nailed it.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
If there are any failings in ID's posts, it is his failure to recognize how really far behind Swarthmore is in these areas,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To be perfectly honest, I assume that any student with a specific field of interest should be able to get off their duff and research the relevant departments at every school on their list -- if, for no other reason, to provide background for a convincing application!</p>

<p>I would say that, with 6 full time professors, 3 part-time professors, plus an assortment of instrument instructors largely shared with conservatories and other schools within a 10 mile radius, Swarthmore probably has sufficient resources to provide a fairly personalized program for their 3 music majors each year. And, to serve the needs of liberal arts students who wish to pursue some music or art courses along with their general studies.</p>

<p>A music major or language studies major has a very different set of requirements than an econ or bio major and should absolutely look at which colleges address those needs, as your daughter did. I think that the chairman of the departments at almost all of the top LACs would give honest assessments of whether or not the school has what a particular student needs. </p>

<p>That sort of research doesn't really lend itself to this kind of forum, IMO. I pretty much hate the "how's this department threads" just because the answer to those kinds of questions depends so much on what a student is looking for. Your daughter's composition interests are so different from someone who is not looking to pursue music as a career, but would like to continue studying the piano along with his chemistry major.</p>

<p>There is no question that size correlates with increased breadth of offerings. For example, if you want to add a Japanese Studies department, you either have to drop another department or grow the college -- not just finanically, but to add the students necessary to fill another department. Thus, a college with 2500 students will have broader offerings than a college with 2000 students which will broader than a college with 1500 students. Same calculus applies to an academic department as a football team.</p>

<p>Each applicant has to look at their potential interests and decide if they need the added breadth. If it were a simple calculation, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore would all increase their enrollment to 4000 and be done with it, but the added size has some negative consequences as well, not the least of which is undermining the characteristics that differentiate an LAC in the market to begin with. I think a critical question every student should ask about every college is: "is this one too large, too small, or just rigth?"</p>

44

<p>Well, since these are important, even vital parts of one's global education (languages and the arts), it impacts "the overall academic experience". ;) (And it also impacts the kinds of people, other students, with whom you come in contact. You use that as the negative of Williams' athletics, which I grant; but I think it can be turned around for Williams' commitment to the arts just as well. You said it - "3 music majors" - do other students come out fully understanding and appreciating what a full commitment to the arts (or to a global experience heavily connected to intensive language study) looks like and entails, and how it adds to the quality of their own lives? Maybe. But much more "iffy".)</p>

<p>None of these schools are chopped liver. For some reason you don't think substantial exposure to academically highly qualified students who have made major commitments to either athletics, languages, or the arts is particularly important as part of an "overall college experience", and I would bet the majority of Swarthmore students - and, obviously, its Administration, would agree with you. And I think that is just fine - that's why there are choices. (and yes, faced with a choice today, I'd prefer to go to Swarthmore or Amherst rather than Williams, though I'd likely choose "none of the above".)</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
You said it - "3 music majors" -

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, Williams averages 6 music majors a year, so let's not give the impression we are talking Julliard! On an adjusted per capita basis, Williams averages 1.5 more music majors a year than Swarthmore. </p>

<p>It's interesting that for all the hub-bub about the new theater complex being built on the Williams campus for the Williamstown Summer Theater, both Swarthmore and Williams have been averaging 6 Theater majors per year, so Swat actually has 33% more theater majors as a percentage of the undergrad population.</p>

<p>I think it's fair to say that the music and theater departments at both schools exist primarily for non major students. It's not like we are talkin' the Econ, Poli Sci, or Bio departments that dominate both of these schools! In all honesty, a student with a career goal in music or theater should probably consider a wider range of options, instead of schools that specialize in PhD, MDs, Lawyers, MBAs, and business executives.</p>

<p>Just a quick glance at the distribution of majors, the only difference that that really jumps out is the number of art majors at Williams. Pretty big number for psych majors as well. Of course, no Engineering or Linguistics majors. It's a little hard to compare because over 10% of Swat's graduating classes have special majors across departments.</p>

46

<p>6 majors is double 3. Then add the additional number of course offerings: then do the same for theatre, dance, studio art. Then add the full-time faculty. Then add the student participation in musical and theatrical activity. The differences are massive, as great as the athletic differences, as are the ways the schools have decided to spend their resources. </p>

<p>Makes a difference out in the world. There is a huge pool of Williams folks in theatre and tv - not just actors (though there are my classmates Gordy Clapp and David Straitharn), but writers, folks in arts management, techs. Huge number. Includes lots of MBAs and lawyers in the arts world, and Ph.Ds (you remember Steve Lawson?) In music, the same. (My d.'s mentor, the chair of composition at U of Oregon, says the top students are coming out of Williams). Musical theater. They don't have to major in it to find their calling there, and that's just not very likely at Swat. And just as the admissions office has to do admits for student-athletes (hey, Swarthmore has a basketball team, too, and percentagewise has more team athletes than Dartmouth! even if no spectators), they have to do the same for student-musicians, artists, and dancers.</p>

<p>If anyone wants to see the difference, they should just visit. It's huge!</p>

<p>But Swarthmore has decided that's just not very important, and they are entitled. That's what makes Swarthmore Swarthmore, and Williams Williams.</p>

<p>I didn't say much about Amherst. I liked it - my d. didn't. I liked it for the location, the 5-College thing (which works for my d., can't speak for others), the Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought flagship program, the long history of having the most incredible English department going back 80 years, the true commitment of its President to spending real money on socio-economic diversity. My d. didn't like the Thursday night drinking, what she thought were less friendly students, and, perhaps, that women seem an afterthought, the small language departments (she takes Italian at Smith, the most amazing program I know of - and Amherst students regularly get shut out of it), and the small size of the music department (she loves the people in it, though, and plans on studying with them.)</p>

47

<p>interesteddad--hrs for amherst health center are entirely misleading because on off-hours amherst students have complete access to the umass health center, which is a minute ride.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
the 5-College thing (which works for my d., can't speak for others),

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's funny. The Five College Consortium is a major sales pitch for the colleges in the area. But, the scheduled travel time from Swarthmore to any of its cross-registration partners (Bryn Mawr, Haverford, UPenn) is shorter than the scheduled time in any direction among Smith, Holyoke, and Amherst. The UPenn cross-registration option is one that is most intriguing to me -- bredth and depth of courses at a very fine large university.</p>

<p>Even so, I think the cross-registration sounds better in the viewbook than it ends up being in real-life for most students. The LACs all have capped enrollment and the good stuff is often already over-enrolled. And the 20 to 30- minute travel times are often just long enough to make scheduling difficult. I do think having multiple colleges in the same area does open up some possibilities for sharing professors/instructors in niche fields, particularly in some of the important, but less popular languages or in some of the emerging ethnic studies fields where there may not be enough demand for a professor to teach a full slate at one college every year.</p>

49

<p>I have heard similar comments about the 5 college consortium from other people (not Mini of course). Especially from students in the 5 colleges. In other forums that I can't mention here (they are competition for Collegeconfidential).</p>

50

<p>My Swarthmore-bound daughter is going to try to take a History of Science course at Penn, and one of the Swarthmore Art History professors recommended she take a particular art history course at Bryn Mawr. I would imagine that yes, these choices will make scheduling more difficult than it would be otherwise, but not insurmountably so.</p>

51

<p>Searching.....where can I get more info on this History of Science course? My son might be interested. I mean what is the exact title of the course?</p>

52

<p>The Five-College thing is both oversold and undersold. It is oversold (as is the consortium at Swarthmore, or its closeness to Philadelphia) as the majority of students don't take advantage of it, or at least not often. Each of the campuses, like Swarthmore, is self-contained, and has most of the things most students need or want (hopefully, they did their research before attending.) In the case of Smith, it is 70% larger than Swat, with both more depth and breadth even in many (but not all) core subjects, and more majors. Amherst is about the same size as Swat. There's just no reason to go elsewhere except for a change of scenery, or foreign languages. The "real-life" issue alluded to above is just a non-starter for the majority of students.</p>

<p>Where it makes a HUGE difference, however, is in the 5-College Certificate programs. There are 5 of them (I only remember 4 off the top of my head) - Coastal and marine studies, Early music, International relations, public health, and.... Here, both the opportunities and intensity are majorly increased as a result, not just of offerings, but of integrated programming. I have met several students in the international relations program, and it has been a big draw. There are also Five-College professors (my d. is the research assistant to one) who are peripathetic. None of the colleges would likely be able to hire the founder of the Folger Consort on their own; together they do, and have the students to make it worthwhile. What this means is that students are the beneficiaries of the 5-College thing without ever leaving their home campus, so travel time is irrelevant.</p>

<p>It also makes a difference in some extended curricular areas, from the poetry program, where there is now a critical mass to invite all the top folks on a regular basis, to the Five-College Opera Consortium, to the huge annual Women and Buddhism Conference (going on right now), to the Five-College Anthropology Colloquiam. In many of these areas, the cost and logistics would be too great for any one of the colleges to handle on their own.</p>

<p>The other place where it makes a difference - again, not common, but very real - is where a student comes in with or develops a very highly developed (or specialized) interest, but still wants the benefit of the small classes, etc. of a LAC. This is specifically true for my d., a composer, who, otherwise would likely have to attend a larger school (or transfer after two years) because she would run out of course offerings/faculty (she is taking the senior seminar as a second semester first year.) This way, she has faculty/mentors throughout the Five Colleges, including many more folks with graduate school connections. It could happen to a student who developed a huge, overwhelming interest, in say, the Weimar Republic, and couldn't find more than one or two courses on their own campus, or is looking for a particular niche in molecular biology. Again, this is not the most common experience, but if it happened at many LACs, the rational way to deal with it otherwise would be to transfer (and many do.)</p>

53

<p>Achat, Penn has a history of science major/department! Here's the description: </p>

<p>History and Sociology of Science • History and Sociology of Science courses focus on the social and humanistic aspects of science and the professions: the growth of scientific institutions, the role of science in technology and clinical medicine, the influence of economic and political factors on research and the application of knowledge, and problems of science and technology management and public policy.</p>

<p>And here's the website for the department.<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/hss2/hss/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/hss2/hss/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>There are DOZENS of courses.</p>

54

<p>Thanks a lot, searcingavalon! I'll show my son. This is exactly what he's looking for...</p>

55

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>I think we are in agreement on the benefits of a consortium arrangement for a minority of students. One other benefit: There have been some reports that some Swarthmore students take some of their more difficult pre-med pre-reqs at the other schools in the consortium because they are easier! This would be an even better opportunity with UMass so close by. I imagine an A is a little easier to come by at the Zoo than at Smith, Holyoke, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, or Penn!</p>

<p>I'm not sure I agree that Swat's location is "oversold". Access to Philadelphia for social activities is only a part of that equation. Another component of the location is easy access to the Eastern Seaboard from New York to Washington.</p>

<p>For example, I got a call from D Wednesday night, from a bus somewhere near Baltimore on the way back to school from a day trip to Washington DC. A group of students at her college have organized a non-profit fund to support anti-genocide efforts in the Sudan. They bused down to DC early in the morning for the press conference. In the afternoon, they split up and each visited their home state legislators to "lobby" (actually more of a constituent meet 'n greet) for the passage of an anti-genocide bill currently before congress. D talked with two Mass congressmen and Ted Kennedy's staffers. Kind of a cool way to spend the day and probably learn a little something about the ways of public relations and making noise in Washington. </p>

<p>Likewise, D and 15 of her closest friends have done an impromptu weekend in New York that included museum visits, etc. Granted that can be done from many schools for students with cars. Not so easily for kids who need to rely on public transportation. </p>

<p>Or cheapo airfare/direct flights to visit friends at Ga Tech over break where, among other things, they took in the Atl Symphony performing Porgy & Bess with the Morehouse/Spellman choirs.</p>

<p>So, I would count all of those opportunities among the benefits of Swarthmore's location near a centrally located air and rail transportation hub and easy, cheap travel.</p>

56

<p>"There have been some reports that some Swarthmore students take some of their more difficult pre-med pre-reqs at the other schools in the consortium because they are easier! This would be an even better opportunity with UMass so close by. I imagine an A is a little easier to come by at the Zoo than at Smith, Holyoke, Amherst,"</p>

<p>It's a good thought, but I seriously doubt anyone could ever get that through the Smith advising system. Don't know about Amherst, though.</p>

57

<p>I'm considering Swarthmore and Amherst at this point. The impression I've gotten is that Swarthmore has a more intellectual atmosphere and academic drive... I have no reference point for this, though, so could someone help me put this in perspective?</p>

<p>I'm not interested in shutting myself in my room all afternoon and evening studying, or spending my weekends doing assignments, but I would like a quite challenging college experience. In terms of social life, I'm not interested in a party atmosphere, but I would like a fairly socially active student body.</p>

<p>Which school do you think fits best there? Feel free to add any other comparisons.</p>

58

<p>"I'm not interested in shutting myself in my room all afternoon and evening studying, or spending my weekends doing assignments, but I would like a quite challenging college experience. In terms of social life, I'm not interested in a party atmosphere, but I would like a fairly socially active student body."</p>

<p>That pretty much screams stereotype. From what I hear from a variety of parents/students/alumni, the workload is something you hafta 'chip away at' and is not busywork AT ALL. Students look forward to the challenge; they think the untapped potential of high school years should rightfully come to an end upon entering college. Challenging, but otherwise manageable is what I hear.</p>

<p>But I will be at Ride the Tide, and that is how I shal truly gauge. Now if only I could come up with a good explanation as to why I have not decided, despite there only being a month and a half left of school. -_-'''</p>

59

<p>ewhs_jones:</p>

<p>I think gphoenix has characterized the academic workload very accurately.</p>

<p>On social life: Swarthmore has a reasonably social campus, especially in the sense that it is not splintered into factions or cliques or even class years to the same degree as many colleges. It has many large-scale events during the year (like last weekend's "Screw Your Roommate" festivities) where virtually the entire campus is involved. Swarthmore is reasonably moderate in terms of role of alcohol in the social scene -- fewer than average drinkers (only 70% of the campus had consumed alcohol in the prior month in a recent survey), less binge-drinking, very rare alcohol poisoning hospitalizations (an average of one or two per year). People drink, but it's not so dominant that non-drinkers or light social drinkers feel marginalized. Amherst is at the high end of the scale for elite liberal arts colleges -- close to, or perhaps above, the national averages for all colleges -- and has had some pretty serious alcohol poisoning issues and drunken fights in recent years.</p>

<p>Diversity-wise, both Amherst and Swarthmore have very aggressive and successful affirmative action programs. Swarthmore is somewhat more diverse, but it's close. There is less on-campus segregation at Swarthmore as the college culture (and the student body) is strongly opposed to either official or "de facto" theme housing.</p>

<p>Students? Probably "preppier" at Amherst -- I don't know, but I suspect that Amherst probably has two different student bodies sharing a campus -- the academic and diversity crowd and the more traditional preppy/drinking crowd. Swarthmore's students would be described as "geekier" -- not so much Abercrombie and Fitch, definitely no "popped collars". Amherst has a much larger percentage of varsity athletes because they try to support both a football and a men's ice hockey team with a very small student body. This has a significant impact because those are the two teams that require large numbers of low-academic recruits. You are talking more than 10% of the male student body to stock these two teams. Swarthmore, not being in New England, has never had an ice hockey team. They dropped their utterly absymal football program (longest losing streak in NCAA history) five years ago.</p>

<p>The other signifcant differences are fairly obvious: the location, the fact that Swarthmore has always been co-ed, not a men's college that recently started accepted women, etc. Swarthmore houses freshmen in dorms with upperclassmen; Amherst segregates freshmen. Swarthmore has first semester freshmen year as pass/fail to give kids an opportunity to adjust to college life and college academics. You can sort those out for yourself. </p>

<p>The best way to decide is to visit if you can. You'll probably know which one feels right.</p>