<p>Can someone give me a summary of the differences between these schools? I know they're all top liberal arts colleges, and from princetonreview.com i've gotten the picture that the students are all happy, driven, and close-knit. However, williams seems a bit more into athletics than the other two.</p>
<p>Give me your impressions of each college, and the main differences of why someone would be suited for one more than the other.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Swarthmore -- urban, no sports
Williams -- rural, strong sports
Amherst -- suburban to rural, midrange on sports</p>
<p>All three are very strong academically, they are essentially the top 3 LACs on any list you pick. Amherst has UMass a mile across town and 3 other LACs within 10 miles. Swarthmore has Philly. Williams is pretty isolated.</p>
<p>Based on what I have heard but can't confirm...
Swarthmore is more liberal/politically correct.
Williams is less liberal/politically correct.
Not sure about Amherst, but maybe somewhere in between. I have heard Amherst students complain about being part of the five college consortium.</p>
<p>There is no simple answer. Instead, you have to weigh the differences in many areas and decide which "flavor" you prefer.</p>
<p>Location:</p>
<p>Williams, remote, rural beautiful mountains. Amherst, part of a large state university college 'town'. Swarthmore, stunning campus in an old, swanky suburb inside the beltway in Philadelphia. Williams the best for skiiing, hiking. Swarthmore the easiest access to a city (11 miles to downtown from a train station on campus). Amherst the most "college town" stuff.</p>
<p>Size:</p>
<p>Williams, 1991 undergrads
Amherst, 1638 undergrads
Swarthmore, 1474 undergrads</p>
<p>History:</p>
<p>Williams and Amherst, all-male until 1970s.
Swarthmore co-ed from its founding. Swarthmore has a tradition and a mission statement that includes teaching students an obligation to society. That's a stronger, or at least more evident, thread in the culture at Swat than the other two. </p>
<p>Academics: </p>
<p>Superb at all three. Swarthmore is considered to be one of the most academically focused schools in the country and has a higher percentage of "intellectuals", geeks, or whatever you want to call them. Students tend to be very engaged in their studies (i.e. enjoy them) to an unusual degree. Not that they don't at Amherst and Williams, but it is striking across the entire student body at Swarthmore. All three produce a ton of future doctors and lawyers. Swat produces more PhDs (highest in the country for non-tech schools). Williams and Amherst a bit more "pre-professional" -- lawyers, MBAs, etc.</p>
<p>Diversity (percentage of white/US students):</p>
<p>Swarthmore: 62%
Amherst: 65%
Williams: 67%</p>
<p>Socio-Economic (percentage qualify for financial aid)</p>
<p>Swarthmore: 48%
Amherst: 44%
Williams: 42%</p>
<p>Socio-Economic (percentage qualify for Pell Grants)</p>
<p>Swarthmore: 12%
Amherst: 15%
Williams: 10%</p>
<p>Athletics (Percent varsity athletes):</p>
<p>Williams: Male 39%, Female 29%
Amherst: Male 29%, Female 21%
Swarthmore: Male 21%, Female 20%</p>
<p>Williams is THE powerhouse Division III athletic school in the country, winning the national trophy every year. Great place if you are a nationally-ranked recruited athlete. Swarthmore is low-key in sports. No football. No ice hockey. No national championships on the horizon! Amherst is in the middle.</p>
<p>Housing:</p>
<p>Amherst and Williams segregate freshmen in their own dorms. Swarthmore houses freshmen in regular dorms. Some de facto segregation by race and interest (sports-teams, etc.) at Williams and Amherst -- both schools view this as a problem. Little or no de facto segregation at Swat; housing rules and the culture of the school make it nearly impossible.</p>
<p>Heavy drinking scene:</p>
<p>Above the national average at Williams and Amherst. Both schools have identified alcohol poisonings and other issues associated with heavy drinking as significant campus problems. Swarthmore is below national averages for binge drinking. Few, if any, alcohol poisoning hospitalizations in a typical year. Alcohol is widely available, plenty of students drink, but there seems to be statistically less "drink 'til you puke" partying. Non-drinkers would probably have more like-minded companionship at Swat. Heavy drinkers would find more companionship at Williams/Amherst. Light to Moderate drinkers should visit all three schools on a Thursday night and decide for yourself when too much is too much or too little is not enough.</p>
<p>Swarthmore, while near Philly, is definitely not urban... it is in a small suburb with a gorgeous somewhat rural campus.</p>
<p>More fun at Williams and Amherst.</p>
<p>You will find much more art, music, theatre, and dance at Williams, and more at Amherst, than you will at Swarthmore, both in courses, number of majors, and extracurriculars. You'll also find more language opportunities at Amherst than either of the other two, both because of the weakness of languages at Williams, and the expansion of opportunities offered through the Five Colleges.</p>
<p>Amherst would be seriously weakened without the Five-Colleges. The International Relations Certificate, one of the finest programs in the country, is based out of Mount Holyoke (headed by Vincent Ferraro), as is the Early Music Program, the huge African Studies Certificate program (28 Africanists in total, with most language study coming out of UMass), and the Culture, Health, and Science Certificate Program. Peace and Global Studies is headed by the renowned scholar Michael Klare, based at Hampshire (which also has the strongest film studies, and is the center for Five-College Buddhist studies.) The Five College Opera Consortium, and the strongest theatre and dance departments are based out of Smith, as well as the strongest Romance language departments, especially Italian (Amherst has none.) Astronomy is shared.</p>
<p>It's not only a matter of students taking courses at various schools (in fact, that is probably less of an issue); there are joint faculty appointments of folks that none of the schools could likely support by themselves, but collectively makes them stronger (the head of the Folger Consort - early music - is based at Mt. Holyoke, but teaches mostly at Smith and UMass - none of the schools by itself would have an early music program.) Faculty also travel from campus-to-campus to teach. One term, David Reck, the world music professor at Amherst, taught his class at Smith in order to ensure there was enough enrollment. And the UMass contribution is huge in providing a large enough audience base to bring in major entertainment - Broadway shows, big name rock acts, opera, etc.</p>
<p>Best thing to do is visit, of course, and ID is right - if drinking is a concern, visit on a Thursday night if you can.</p>
<p>Theres a fair amount of overlap in applicants among these three schools. My son was interested in all three and ended up at Williams. In addition to the physical environments, which are markedly different, there are subtle and not so subtle differences in the prevailing personality. A visit usually makes the differences clearer. </p>
<p>At any one youd get a wonderful education and be well prepared for whatever your next stop is in life. All three have excellent track records for getting their students into professional and graduate schools. All three have rigorous academics with accessible brilliant instructors whose priority is to teach. Since Williams is the school Im the most familiar with thats the one Ill focus on, but, really, they are all great choices in the LAC category.</p>
<p>Williams mountain village location means that it is quite insular and subsequently has a dynamic, cohesive campus community. There are tons of activities on campus and the kids are very, very active but theres not a whole lot of draw in the surrounding area. Whether or not this environment appeals is purely personal, but in general Williams kids are happy to be at Williams. They are for the most part extroverted, energetic and multifaceted. </p>
<p>Williams offers a lot of opportunities in the arts some very sophisticated museums and a vibrant new performing arts center. Art, music, dance, theater are all well supported.</p>
<p>Sports and other physical activities are pervasive at Williams, not just team sports but all kinds of fun outdoorsy activities. Again, these are active kids who like to get out there and do something. Its a long, cold winter in Williamstown and the kids who do best are those who enjoy the snow. The drinking thing has been much over dramatized. There are many kids at Williams who are non-drinkers or light drinkers. </p>
<p>Other points of differentiation are the freshman entry system, the Tutorial program and Winter Study. For my son these have all been big pluses. Please let me know if youd like more information.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You will find much more art, music, theatre, and dance at Williams, and more at Amherst, than you will at Swarthmore, both in courses, number of majors, and extracurriculars. You'll also find more language opportunities at Amherst than either of the other two, both because of the weakness of languages at Williams, and the expansion of opportunities offered through the Five Colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Art History, definitely Williams. It's a specialty of the school and a huge department. Probably the best school in the country for future museum curators, based on recent history.</p>
<p>Music, theater, and dance have proportionally about the same percentage of majors at both Williams and Swarthmore. I don't know about Amherst because I can't find their 2004-05 Common Data Set. Having said that, the style of the departments may be quite different. Swarthmore's music, theater, and dance departments have a definite ethnic/international focus with Balinese ensembles and dance, gospel choirs, and a Swarthmore study-abroad dance program in Ghana.</p>
<p>Languages are very popular at Swarthmore with 6.6% of the majors. Again, I don't know what the percentages are at Amherst. I suspect that languages are pretty popular at Amherst as well since Amherst and Swarthmore are #5 and #6 in the country in per capita production of language PhDs. While Amherst students benefit from the strong language offerings at Smith 30 minutes away, Swarthmore students take language classes at Bryn Mawr (the #1 per capita producer of language PhDs) 25 minutes away. For example, Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore are participating equally in a new Middle Eastern studies program.</p>
<p>I think it's fair to say that Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore are all strong in the bread and butter departments. From there, you could look at particular specialties like Art History at Williams. Bio, Philosophy/Religion, and Engineering at Swat, etc. </p>
<p>Prospective students could also look at the particular style of specific departments. For example, both Williams and Amherst produce large numbers of MBAs among their Poli Sci and Econ majors, whereas Swarthmore is the #1 producer of Poli Sci and Econ PhDs in the country, but produces relatively fewer future MBAs than Amherst.</p>
<p>However, for most students, my advice is focus on the big picture stuff first and then look at the details of particular departments. Picking a college based on a single department presumes that a 17 year old applicant has already made a firm career choice. That is not the case for most applicants to elite colleges. In fact, sampling from a wide range of departments is kind of the point of an elite LAC in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the UMass contribution is huge in providing a large enough audience base to bring in major entertainment - Broadway shows, big name rock acts, opera, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the interest of full disclosure, I think the presence of a large, decidedly mediocre, state university in the 5-college area is frequently viewed as both a postive and a negative.</p>
<p>Also, I am reasonably sure that Philadelphia offers more in the way of theater (both Broadway-style and otherwise), rock venues (both big name and otherwise), opera, symphony, art museums, major-league sports, and ethnic neighborhoods than does UMass -- all accessible with public rail transportation from campus. Or, if Broadway shows are of interest, Broadway is less than two hours away by rail or by Chinatown bus (for $10).</p>
<p>For example, the Philadelphia concert schedule for the next month includes Paul McCarney, Pearl Jam, the Rolling Stones, the Foo Fighters, Chick Corea, and U2. </p>
<p>This weekend, you can hear the Philadelphia Orchestra performing an all Beethoven program. The Opera Company of Philadelphia is performing Verdi's "The Masked Ball". The special exhibit at the Museum of Art is French drawings from the Prat collection. Or, you can see the Phillies play baseball against the Braves or the Eagles host the 49er and Raiders in NFL action the next two Sundays. </p>
<p>Or, in keeping with the college student budget, this is the last weekend of the Philly Fringe Festival, the annual downtown arts and entertainment festival with literally thousands of theater, dance, music, film, and art performances including 120 events scheduled for this Saturday alone:</p>
<p>All about 30 minutes from the center of campus.</p>
<p>No need to denigrate UMass. Academically, it serves a different population than ASW. Outside of class, they are all college students, and share a lot in terms of entertainment interests. The point other people are making is that A is in a college-oriented area, W is by itself, and S is in a close in suburb of a large city. Philadelphia has lots going on, and a huge number of colleges, but it is hardly dominated by the college scene. </p>
<p>If you are ASW academic material, then as others have noted, preferences among them probably will be based on style, location, and campus feel, not differences in programs. For example, if you are the type who would stay on campus, and do whatever is available, then it might be a disadvantage if lots of your colleagues take off for the neighboring colleges, or head downtown, leaving you with limied options. You might prefer Williams, where students' lives are centered on the campus community. If you are the type who gets out and goes somewhere every weekend, seeking out opportunities from a wide area, then Swarthmore might be perfect. I don't know the numbers, interesteddad could probably tell you, but there are far more than 5 colleges in Philadelphia (maybe 20?), and a huge student population. If you are somewhere in between, then Amherst might suit. If you already have a strong interest in a particular area in which the colleges differ, then research the specifics.</p>
<p>Art History, definitely Williams. It's a specialty of the school and a huge department. Probably the best school in the country for future museum curators, based on recent history.</p>
<p>Music, theater, and dance have proportionally about the same percentage of majors at both Williams and Swarthmore."</p>
<p>According to the 2004-2005 Common Data Set, 10% of Williams majors are in the visual and performing arts, 5% at Swarthmore. When you add in the larger size of Williams, it would actually be closer to 3x the number of majors. This difference is magnified still further when one tries to find a peer group. </p>
<p>But that only begins to tell the story. The faculty sizes in the visual arts are hugely different at the two schools, with Swarthmore heavily relying on adjunct profs, even in such core areas as, for example, music theory. And in EC participation, the size of college orchestras or vocal opportunities, chamber music groups, studio arts opportunities, number of theatre performances, etc., the differences are still even greater. And I don't agree in this case that it doesn't make sense to focus on the "departments" in these cases.. Having robust offerings in these areas (unlike, say, history or political science) attracts particular kinds of students. The entire feel of the college will be heavily influenced by whether there are enough talented students to go out for a large theatrical performance, to play in a semi-professional symphony, or simply to have substantial numbers of chamber music pick-up groups. With two schools with typically fine classroom experiences, THIS is the big picture stuff (as is athletics, etc.) It's about how students spend their time, and how their friends spend their time, on a daily basis, and on weekends. It's about what walks about in their consciousness. </p>
<p>Of course, this all assumes one knows what one is interested in. These are both great institutions. But, in say, languages, especially Romance languages, Williams wouldn't make the top 50, and there are dozens of LACs better. The same would be true of music and studio arts at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Funny, though. I'm a Williams alum, and a Quaker with some ties to Swat. If I were choosing colleges for myself today, it would be "none of the above" (though I'd be more likely to choose Swarthmore because the athletics thing would get to me - the day-to-day consciousness would be the big picture.) But all three will provide a wonderful experience to the right student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
History:</p>
<p>Williams and Amherst, all-male until 1970s.
Swarthmore co-ed from its founding. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Although this is a feature you can list to make Swarthmore stand apart, I wonder whether this is the key factor in a school's "history." </p>
<p>I think your other point--that an egalitarian bent can shape a college's path for generations, is important. But given how many strong, fine institutions have only become co-ed in the past 40 years or less, I believe the number of years a school is co-ed is of less importance.</p>
<p>I'm surprised you didn't mention governance--I'd thought you'd become a very strong convert to the idea that one cannot choose or know a college unless you'd closely understood its governance.</p>
<p>One other note, if you are looking AWS, you are likely in the Ivy pool as well. Most of the admits to AWS are also admitted to an Ivy or two. When that happens, it comes down to personal issues and the classroom environment you prefer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although this is a feature you can list to make Swarthmore stand apart, I wonder whether this is the key factor in a school's "history."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe that a college's history (coed vs. all-male vs. all-female) is one of the most important factors in the institutional culture. </p>
<p>For example, the history tends to shape the makeup of the governing board. Take Harvard for example. It is easy to see the all-male history of the school in the make-up of its nine-member corporate board -- one woman/eight men. Does the make-up of this governing board contribute to declining tenure offers for female faculty? Does it impact the selection and continued endorsement of a president who makes headlines for his remarks about women in science?</p>
<p>Extend this governing imbalance over a period dating back 150 years or more and it is easy to see the impact on the core culture and style of an institution. I think we see that impact quite clearly today.</p>
<p>Published Swarthmore historians believe that the co-ed nature of the school is one of the essential reasons that the school is what it is. From the day the school was founded, the by-laws required a 50%-50% distribution of men and women on the Board of Managers. The concensus view is that women on the Board pushed through the approval of the radical Honors program in the 1920s, the program most cited as the reason for Swarthmore's academic reputation. This was a fundamental decision about the direction of the college, with many male members of Board objecting that resources were being diverted away from things like the flourishing football program (sound familiar?).</p>
<p>It was the female students who voted to abolish sororities in the 1930's when they refused to accept Jewish members, forcing the fraternities to withdraw from their national organizations over the same issue.</p>
<p>Would Williams have a different culture today if its founder had organized the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 that marked the begining of the women's rights movement?</p>
<p>Would Amherst have a different culture if one of its alum had been the first woman to get a PhD in the United States? Or had led the woman's suffrage movement? </p>
<p>Is it a coincidence that, among the elite LACs, the historically female and co-ed schools tend to have lower binge drinking rates today than the historically male schools?</p>
<p>Colleges are like ocean tankers. Their characteristics change slowly, over decades and even centuries. By the 1970s, all of these schools were firmly rooted in a particular "style" and, while the enrollment figures may change, the cultures don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the 1970s, all of these schools were firmly rooted in a particular "style" and, while the enrollment figures may change, the cultures don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pretty strong assertion. Would you recommend that students concerned with equality not consider any school that wasn't co-ed (or all-female) before 1970?</p>
<p>I visited them in April, and Williams and Swarthmore are opposites on the social scale (with Williams being huge on parties and drinking)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would you recommend that students concerned with equality not consider any school that wasn't co-ed (or all-female) before 1970?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, not at all. My wife graduated from an Historically Male College and had a very positive experience.</p>
<p>I am saying that the differences in campus cultures IS signficant and that those campus cultures are usually the result of long-term traditions. Looking at the history of a school is something I would recommend for every serious applicant. It is quite informative.</p>
<p>What makes selecting a college interesting is that, conciously or not, we are evaluating schools on many different characteristics. Often those different characteristics are in conflict and that leads to each applicant needing to prioritize. It would be unusual to find a college that ranks highly on every selection criteria. Compromise is almost always required.</p>
<p>For example, take an applicant who intends to major in art history and become a museum curator, who wants a school with a low-to-moderate drinking scene, a reduced emphasis on varsity athletics, and easy access to the cultural offerings of an urban area. Williams is clearly the top choice among LACs for the art history department, however it would rank much lower on the other selection factors. So the student is forced to decide which criteria to weight heavily. That's why college selection is such an individual decision. </p>
<p>I think that a valuable role parents can play is too help explicitly define some of these selection criteria in order to move beyond the "I just liked it" stage. This is especially helpful when looking for additional, perhaps less selective, options that echo the charateristics of reach schools on the list or to make choices among seemingly similar schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, take an applicant who intends to major in art history and become a museum curator, who wants a school with a low-to-moderate drinking scene, a reduced emphasis on varsity athletics, and easy access to the cultural offerings of an urban area. Williams is clearly the top choice among LACs for the art history department, however it would rank much lower on the other selection factors. So the student is forced to decide which criteria to weight heavily.
[/quote]
Hey, life's full of tough choices. Any budding art historian who would deep-six Williams because of "drinking" and "varsity athletics" should stay home and visit the local museums with mom and dad. They could even hold hands.</p>
<p>thanks for all the replies!</p>
<p>i'm focusing on pre-med and so far have it down to williams vs. swarthmore.. still unsure of which to pick.</p>
<p>but thanks again for the input :)</p>