swarthmore, williams, & amherst

<p>Academically, the pre-med programs at both Swarthmore and Williams are so good that I don't think it makes a bit of difference.</p>

<p>You probably have to make that choice based on other factors.</p>

<p>BTW, the five most popular majors:</p>

<p>Williams:
16% psychology
15% English language and literature
15% economics
14% political science and government
10% art/art studies (this includes music and theater)</p>

<p>Amherst:
14% English language and literature
14% economics
13% psychology
11% legal professions and studies (???)
10% political science and government</p>

<p>Swarthmore:
14% Economics
12% Biology
9% Political Science
9% History
6% English Literature</p>

<p>If you are looking for premed, then investigate the acceptance rates from each school. Both enroll some of the best students in the country, so you would expect very high admissions rates from both places. However, I have heard some grumbling that Swarthmore's relative lack of grade inflation penalizes its students vs elite colleges with more mainstream grading standards. I do not know whether this is true, but worth investigating. You seem to have ruled out Amherst. It does publish quite detailed med school admissions results on the web. Amherst students do very well, probably about as well as applicants from any college. If you want information from the other schools, you should ask the admissions offices of W and S about their results, try to speak with the premed advisors, and talk to a couple of seniors who are applying. Students earlier in the process may not have yet found out all the details of how it works, and what the admissions prospects are. Sophomores and juniors can tell you what premed life is like. Since all three schools expect a lot from their students, and many premeds do not major in science, expect to hear that life is pretty much the same for premeds as for anyone else.</p>

<p>Tufts is actually considered one of the best places for pre-med as is Brandeis. Did you look at them?</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, I have heard some grumbling that Swarthmore's relative lack of grade inflation penalizes its students vs elite colleges with more mainstream grading standards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really don't think that's much of an issue. </p>

<p>If you are a top pre-med student at Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst, you'll get into a top medical school. Grad school admissions departments aren't stupid. They can figure out a GPA viz-a-viz a particular school's curriculum and degree of difficulty. They know Swarthmore's academic reputation.</p>

<p>Aside from that, I don't think Swarthmore's GPAs are all that much different from anyone else's. Maybe a tenth of a point or two.</p>

<p>On the other hand...if you the kind of student who is worried about what your GPA will be five years from now, then Swarthmore is probably not the right school for you. Grade-obssessive motivation kind of runs counter to the culture of the school and sometimes those students are the ones who let the pressure get to them. A more typical (and healthier) approach is study because the courses are fun and challenging, do your best to grow as a student, come away with some new ideas, and let the chips fall where they may. If the motivation is getting a 4.0 rather than what you are learning, then there are probably easier places to get a 4.0.</p>

<p>Good point. Unfortunately, for med school admissions, realistic premeds SHOULD be worried about their GPA 5 years hence. </p>

<p>I am not so sure that med schools make an adjustment for the grading policies of of different colleges. If they do this at all, it is a very minor factor.</p>

<p>Do you know whether Swarthmore publishes its % accepted (I know this is a nearly meaningless figure), average GPA and average MCAT of those accepted, and average GPA of all students? At elite colleges, one would like the all-student average GPA to be equal to, or greater than, the average GPA of those admitted to med school. This implies that an average student at the college has a record that will get her/him into med school.</p>

<p>Afan:</p>

<p>The reason that the published stats don't mean anything is that colleges don't usually provide sufficient detail to know what they are reporting. For example, when they give a med school acceptance rate, is it for graduating seniors or for graduating seniors plus alumni applying to med school? </p>

<p>Swarthmore provides a great deal of information for 2004 med school admissions in this document:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/health_sciences/first_year_guide.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/health_sciences/first_year_guide.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here is the relevant section on acceptance rates:</p>

<p>
[quote]
There are many more people interested in medical school than there are places available. In 2004, there were 35,735 applicants for 17,662 spaces, an acceptance rate of 49%. (In 2004, Swarthmore's acceptance rate for the 13 graduating seniors was 92% and the 26 alumni/ae applicants was 81% for an overall acceptance rate of 85%.)

[/quote]

If we assume that the number of alumni applying to med school is consistent year to year, this means that between 9% and 10% of an average graduating class at Swarthmore is accepted to med school.</p>

<p>Here's the GPA data:</p>

<p>
[quote]
In 2004, the national average GPA for matriculating medical school students was a 3.62 and the Swarthmore average GPA for accepted students was 3.45. The competitive premedical student should therefore have an average between an A- and B+ when applying to medical school. Please note: There is no GPA cut-off for obtaining a Health Sciences Advisory Committee letter of recommendation.
At Swarthmore a B+ (3.3) average or above is a solid basis for applying to medical school. Below a 3.3, your chances of admission depend a great deal on trends in the academic record, consistency of cumulative average, strength of science course grades, state of residence, and personal factors. B+'s or better in science courses are, of course, to be desired as science grades (biology, chemistry, physics, and math) are reviewed carefully.<br>

[/quote]

The average GPA at Swarthmore is about a B+. The last published number was from the graduating class of 1997, when the overall average was 3.24. I think it is quite likely that the average has continued to creep up since that time. If Swarthmore's GPA is slower than other schools, it's only by a tenth or two.</p>

<p>BTW, in another document from the pre-med advising office, it is noted that the average GPA of Swarthmore students accepted to Ivy League med schools was an A- (3.7).</p>

<p>As for MCAT scores:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The national average MCAT score for students matriculating in the 2004 entering class was 29.9 out of a possible 45. Swarthmore applicants who were accepted had an average total score of 31.9.

[/quote]

The fact that Swat MCATs are above average should hardly be surprising, given that the median SATs and SATIIs at the school tend to indicate students with above average standardized test taking and preparation skills.</p>

<p>That is definitely better than some have claimed for Swarthmore. So successful med school applicants from S have, on average, substantially lower GPA's than for the nation as a whole, but substantially higher than the average S student. One must be a better than average S student, but need not be a superstar. S does pick a higher gpa for the division between those with good prospects and those without than does Amherst, but the average gpa of S students accepted is similar to Princeton. </p>

<p>The higher MCAT's are hard to interpret. It could be that med schools expect high MCAT's from S students, and reject those who do not have them, or it could be as suggested that S students get high MCAT's overall, and the distribution of scores for the accepted students reflects scores for the applicants.</p>

<p>I agree that the % accepted is meaningless since it reflects only those who thought their chances were good enough to apply.</p>

<p>
[quote]
S does pick a higher gpa for the division between those with good prospects and those without than does Amherst

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That may be semantics. Having some feel for Swarthmore's understated communications style on an internal document such as this, I read the phrase, "At Swarthmore a B+ (3.3) average or above is a solid basis for applying to medical school." to mean, "if you graduate with a 3.3 GPA and other requisite stuff, you will get into med school..." </p>

<p>In another pre-med advising doc, they state this more explicitly, "Currently, applicants with a B+ average and a 30 MCAT can be reasonably confident that they will get into medical school."</p>

<p>Just based on the 3.45 average for all acceptances and the 3.7 average for Ivy League acceptances, it seems logical that at least some of the acceptances last year were from students with a GPA below 3.3.</p>

<p>I don't believe that either school would claim an advantage over the other in med school admissions. Both have very high rates of med school admissions, especially considering that neither school attracts large numbers of students with favorable home state med school odds (Mississippi, North Dakota, Alabama, etc).</p>

<p>Can I throw Wesleyan into the mix? Compare it to the other 3 too, seeing as it is basically the equivilent to them.</p>

<p>Wesleyan is somewhat larger than the other three, has a history of athletic competition with Amherst and Williams, but, probably resembles a larger, slightly funkier Swarthmore. Wesleyan has the most selective admissions rate for African-Americans of any high-end LAC (about 30% for the Class of 2009) and a world reknowned ethnomusicology program.</p>

<p>Slightly funkier as in "hippyish-alternative"?. I do know that Wesleyan is no more athletically oriented than Amherst or Swat. I always identified the only difference between Swat and Wes was Wes is a bit more radical politically, and Swat kids have more work. Besides that, and the size and location, I always felt Swat and Wes were pretty much synonymous - people and prestige wise.</p>

<p>I think you've pretty much got the picture, except that Amherst takes its athletics seriously.</p>

<p>The word "funk"traditionally has described a fusion of jazz, R&B, hip-hop and gospel music that came into its own in the sixties. One of the main differences between Wes and Swat is that for many years Wes had a larger black population; it pioneered affirmative action; it popularized the term "politically correct" (largely in defense of affirmative action) and in stark contrast to Swat, was willing to dip deeper into its applicant pool in order to achieve racial diversity. Perhaps as a result, it has also tended to attract slightly more laid-back, racially tolerant whites who, not only support affirmative action, but, are also more likely to dabble in radical politics than their peers at Swat.</p>

<p>Johnwesley:</p>

<p>I will defer to you on the details of Wes history, but some of what you wrote about Swarthmore is not terribly accurate.</p>

<p>Perhaps an overview:</p>

<p>If you go back in history, Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan were all-male schools catering to a very well-heeled prep crowd from New England and NY/CT. The three comprised the Little Three conference and played each other in sports. </p>

<p>Swarthmore was a coed school from its founding by a group of Quakers in the 1860s. It's founders Lucretia Coffin Mott and her husband were active abolishionists, heavily involved in the underground railroad. Lucretia Mott also organized the Seneca Falls Convention -- the first call for women's rights in the US. A member of Swat's first graduating class was the first woman to get a PhD in the US. Swarthmore originally drew heavily from the mid-Atlantic -- DC up through NY. There are a lot of Quaker prep schools in the region that were feeders and Swarthmore also drew from the large immigrant public high schools in NYC.</p>

<p>Skipping forward, Swat began to develop a reputation for academic excellence with a unique honors program implemented in the 1920s. Around the same time, progressive politics started to emerge. For example, the student body voted to abolish sororities because they didn't accept Jewish students. And, a Swarthmore grad, Alice Paul led the women's suffrage movement that eventually gave women the right to vote.</p>

<p>In the 1950s, Swarthmore was a leader in the anti-McCarthy movement. The college pulled out of the government student aid program entirely (replacing the money out its own coffers) when McCarthy passed legislation requiring students to sign anti-Communist loyalty oaths to receive federal aid. Swarthmore remained out of the aid program until John Kennedy overturned the loyalty oath rules. Two Swarthmore students were photographed on the front page of the papers delivering anti-McCarthy petitions to the Penns. delegation in Congress. One was Carl Levin (currently the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services committee). The other was Michael Dukakis.</p>

<p>This kind of principled action has continued. Swarthmore was, I believe, the first college to divest of holdings in South African companies. </p>

<p>At the height of the 60s, Swarthmore was quite radical. One of its more infamous alumni was a woman named Cathy Wilkerson, a member of the Weather Underground. A couple of her friends blew themselves up while the were making a bomb in Wilkerson's NYC apartment.</p>

<p>In the 1960's, Swat's admission dean, Frederick Hargadon was a rather old-fashioned guy when it came to diversity. The African-American students at Swarthmore went around and around with him and, in 1969, escorted him out of his office and began a week-long occupation of the admissions office that got national attention. In the middle of negotiations with the President over their list of demands, the President of the college keeled over dead of a heart attack. The students ended the occupation. But, the adminstration remained supportive of the demands. </p>

<p>Within a year, the admissions dean was gone (to Princeton, where he had a long tenure overseeing a notably white anglo-saxon admissions policy). Swarthmore immediately began implementing new policies, including an aggressive affirmative action program and the hiring of black faculty. Black enrollment increased dramatically, reaching a high point of around 10% within ten years. </p>

<p>I think that if you check, Swarthmore is one of the leaders in African-American faculty and tenured faculty today. 8% of the full-time faculty are African-American. 16% are minorities. Of the tenure track faculty hired in the last five years or so, 25% are minorities.</p>

<p>Wesleyan has a very slight edge in African-American enrollment, 7% to 6.5%. It's isn't from lack of trying. !2% of this year's acceptances went to African-American students, but they only enrolled 7%. If you look beneath the surface, Swat does well with Af-Am females -- over 8% and graduation rates around 97%. They can't get Af-Am males to enroll. Currently just under 5%. This is somewhat of a national trend, but I think Swat's academic reputation is tough to overcome. It is also a challenge, as a need-blind aid school, competing with some of the merit aid bidding for URM students these days.</p>

<p>In terms of overall diversity, Swat is much more diverse than Wesleyan -- 38% non-white or non-US versus 30% at Wesleyan. The big difference is Asian American enrollment with somewhat higher Latino/a enrollment as well. I think the more important point is that Swarthmore is one of the most inclusive campuses around. There is no theme housing, either official or otherwise. De facto segregation is considered to be against the traditions and culture of the student body. A few years ago, somebody on the Housing Committee ramroded through the idea of a "MultiCultural" floor. The housing dean went along with it under the condition that it include all races. The students were so upset with something that even hinted at "theme" housing that nobody applied for the floor and the idea was dropped - a perfect example of how the students defend the inclusive culture of the place.</p>

<p>I agree that Swarthmore is less visibly "alternative" or "radical" today than Wesleyan. Not so much that Swarthmore's values have changed, but the 60s were a long time ago, so the trappings are bit more muted. Swat students have been very active in the campaign agaisnt genocide in Darfur. A Swat freshman from Rwanda was MTV's corresondent on a trip to the refugee camps last year and, echoing a previous generation, several busloads of Swatties headed to Washington last year for a press conference and a day of lobbying all of their home-state congressional delegations. And, of course, the honors program is still going strong.</p>

<p>Interesteddad - that was great! Your thumbnail histories of Swarthmore and other colleges are an invaluable resource. I had not known that Hardogan started out as Swarthmore's dean of admissions. And you reminded me just how small a universe it is that we are actually trying to describe: John C. Hoy, who many Wes alum credit/blame for it's policies in the sixties was originally recruited--from Swarthmore.</p>

<p>Nineteen sixty-nine was a tumultuous year for Wesleyan, too; it also had a building takeover and a changing of the presidential guard (though, from liberal to, some would say, more conservative.) Here's my unified string theory for what may have happened over the last thirty years or so: I think after the New England colleges went co-ed, a lot of people who might only have considered sending their kids to Swarthmore, Pomona or Oberlin (particularly, New York/CT and California liberals), began to give Wesleyan a second look. But, I also think a lot of New Englanders began to give Swarthmore a second look, particularly after things began to quiet down in the 1980s. I think the two schools exchanged constituencies to a certain extent. What do you think?</p>

<p>Interesteddad - that was great! Your thumbnail histories of Swarthmore and other colleges are an invaluable resource. I had not known that Hargadon started out as Swarthmore's dean of admissions. And you reminded me just how small a universe it is that we are actually trying to describe: John C. Hoy, who many Wes alum credit/blame for it's policies in the sixties was originally recruited--from Swarthmore.</p>

<p>Nineteen sixty-nine was a tumultuous year for Wesleyan, too; it also had a building takeover and a changing of the presidential guard (though, from liberal to, some would say, more conservative.) Here's my unified string theory for what may have happened over the last thirty years or so: I think after the New England colleges went co-ed, a lot of people who might only have considered sending their kids to Swarthmore, Pomona or Oberlin (particularly, New York/CT and California liberals), began to give Wesleyan a second look. But, I also think a lot of New Englanders began to give Swarthmore a second look, particularly after things began to quiet down in the 1980s. I think the two schools exchanged constituencies to a certain extent. What do you think?</p>

<p>JohnWesley:</p>

<p>I think the histories show that the public perception of colleges is often shaped by almost random moments in time that just happen to be captured by the media. For example, I don't think that the student occupations of administration buildings at Swarthmore and Wesleyan were truly indicators of wild radicalism. It was kind of the "thing to do" in the late 60s. However, the media coverage of those two events, especially in the New York Times, popularized the view of both schools as being "radical".</p>

<p>In the same vein, the media coverage of Swarthmore's stand against McCarthyism is what led to Spiro Agnew later decribing it as the "Kremlin on the Crum". Not to mention that, as a group, the Quakers were rabidly "anti-Vietnam".</p>

<p>And, an even better example of media creating perceptions. In the academic community, it was Swarthmore's honors program that earned its academic reputation. However, among the broader population, it was the Swarthmore team winning the very popular College Bowl TV show in the 1950s.</p>

<p>I had a birds-eye view of the LAC scene as a student at Williams in early 1970s. </p>

<p>First, I can say that the same sentiments that lead to the Af-Am takeover of the admissions office at Swat existed at Williams. However, Williams' location is so remote that it is in an incredibly apolitical bubble. In the 70s, the school was flannel shirts, blue jeans, and hiking boots, let's go hike in the woods -- and that includes both the preppy elements and the hippie elements on campus. Wesleyan and Swarthmore, being much closer to urban areas, would naturally be somewhat more engaged in the politics of the time -- which included youth unrest as a part of the daily fabric.</p>

<p>I didn't know beans about Swarthmore at the time, but I do distinctly remember the "oohs and aahs" from fellow students about its academcs. At the time, Williams was viewed as the most academically rigorous of the NE liberal arts colleges. Swarthmore was viewed, begrudgingly, as the only LAC even tougher than Williams.</p>

<p>I don't think the core geographic customer base for the schools has changed much. Amherst and Williams have ALWAYS been the destination for New England preps and the wealthy suburbs of Boston and NYC (Wellesley, Brookline, Stamford, Rye, Short Hills, etc.) Williams in the early 1970s felt like the whole school was from Westchester County. I'm sure that the same applied to Swarthmore, except that the suburbs would have been DC, Baltimore, Phila, and NY and Swarthmore was a feeder for some of the urban immigrant public schools at a much earlier date. For example, Swarthmore's biggest benefactor, Eugene Lang, was the son of a Jewish immigrant, working as a busboy in a restaurant and attending a public high school in Harlem before arriving at Swarthmore in the 1930s. This is in contrast to the some of the New England LACs that still had "Jew quotas" into the 1960s.</p>

<p>What has changed in the last 40 years (at all of these elite schools to varying degrees) is a massive sea-change to affirmative action based admissions and a desire for diversity. This has, of course, reduced the percentage of "preps" and wealthy, white suburbanites from Westchester County -- again to varying degrees and much to the consternation of some traditional alumni groups. I also think that some schools have been more successful in integrating the real campus culture, not just the statistics in the factbook. The de facto segregation and reported incidents of drunken racial slurs at some elite colleges in recent years are pretty disturbing, IMO. </p>

<p>I think the two LACs that have changed the most, in one way or another, are Williams and Amherst. Amherst went from being the most preppie (I saw guys in coats and ties waiting at the bus stop there in 1970 and, nobody wore coats and ties in the late 60s) to being very strong in their diversity efforts, especially among Af-Am students. At Williams, the change came in the 1980s with the heavy emphasis on athletics. I have no idea where that came from. Sports were very low key there in the early 70s. Beating Amherst was the beginning and end of a successful season and Williams couldn't have competed for a national championship in ice fishing, let alone across the entire spectrum of collegiate sports.</p>

<p>Having spent time on all three campuses I would say Williams is the most well rounded. I found Swarthmore to be standoffish and, for lack of a better word 'geeky' and Amherst was cold.</p>

<p>Williams.</p>

<p>ID - New York City public schools were themselves the center of a sea change in the 70s. If that was a core constituency for Swarthmore in the 30s it certainly became one for Wesleyan by the time it had switched to co-education.</p>

<p>The sports thing at Williams began very soon after you graduated. They recruited a former pro as football coach, an alum I believe, and things began to change. It was almost a given among Wes alum that while the Williams alum could handle losing to Amherst occasionally, the idea of losing to both the Lord Jeffs <em>and</em> Wesleyan every year demanded desperate measures.</p>

<p>Also, as a footnote to the above, I couldn't help but notice that in the recent "Top 20 Matriculation" thread, the relative absence of Swarthmore even among NY/NJ and PA prep schools. I know that it isn't a scientific poll, but, in places like St. Ann's, Brearley, PolyPrep, the Peddie School--even Stuyvesant which is urban and public--Wesleyan is often the most popular LAC.</p>