<p>Is Swat different in substantial ways from other LACs? If so, how. I'm transferring from Smith, and considering UChicago or Swarthmore (or Carleton), so I want to here if Swarthmore would be better than Smith or UChiago for any social or academic reason.</p>
<p>Also, is Swarthmore harder to get into than UChicago, and does that in turn affect grad school admittance?</p>
<p>I think a lot of threads already on these boards will answer your question pretty well, so I'd suggest just browsing for a few minutes. Your questions have already been asked and answered.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, is Swarthmore harder to get into than UChicago....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At a certain point, I'm not sure it is possible to quantify that with any precision. I would be inclined to say that Chicago and Swarthmore are both very selective in their admissions and leave it at that.</p>
<p>By quantifiable measures, Swarthmore is more "selective". Swat's middle percentile SATs are 1340 - 1530 compared to 1300 - 1510 at Chicago (fall 2003 entering class). Swat's acceptance rate was 24% versus 40% at Chicago. However, both schools have unusually high self-selection in the applicant pool (reputations for heavy workloads at both plus onerous app. essays at Chicago), so I'm not convinced that there is a meaningful difference.</p>
<p>I don't think there is any difference in the potential for a grad school acceptance. Chicago and Swarthmore are both widely viewed in academic circles as being extremely rigorous.</p>
<p>I do think that the two schools are so different in fundamental character that choosing between the two shouldn't be a particularly close decision for an individual student (assuming equal financial packages).</p>
<p>I'm really not sure how they're so different: Swarthmore is more of a sheltered community, while UChicago has more opportunities but is more likely to allow people to "fall through the cracks"? Is Swarthmore supposedly more fun?</p>
<p>IMO, it is not possible for a research university to offer the same style of education as a small undergrad college. For example, the grad student TA is a fundamental part of the teaching staff at a research university. Faculty research is the most important part of the tenure decision at a research university.</p>
<p>Now, reasonable people can disagree about which model is prefered. But, they can never be the same, simply do to issues of scale.</p>
<p>Sorry to get off topic, but why are you transferring from Smith (I'm a current junior and would like to know the positives and negatives of the schools I'm considering applying to)?</p>
<p>If you are unhappy at Smith, I'd definitely go to UChicago. Swarthmore is much smaller than Smith, and will therefore have even fewer course offerings, fewer professors, and, likely, fewer out-of-the-box opportunites. The French department is much smaller, as is the art department. </p>
<p>Swarthmore is a great, great school. But if you are looking for more academic offerings in the things you have specifically expressed interest in, my guess would be that you'd find more of them at Smith than you would at Swarthmore. But you should definitely leave if you are unhappy.</p>
<p>I find all three odd choices for someone wanting to study ecology.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>I've not been eager to recommend Swarthmore to Escape, either. I'm just not able to get my arms around what she is looking for. I find it hard to believe that it was impossible to fit an art class or an anthro class or a French class into a schedule at Smith. The exact class at the exact time with the exact professor? Maybe not. I'm skeptical this is the real reason, but I have to take Escape at face value that this is a key motivation for wanting to transfer. That being the case, then I would have to think that bigger is better.</p>
<p>I can think of a few reasons why someone would prefer Swarthmore over Smith (most of them relate to the most obvious difference, single-sex versus co-ed). But, nothing Escape has listed as her high priority reasons give me much confidence that Swarthmore would make her happier. Generally, I think Swarthmore students have it right in their advice to "specs". Visit. Spend some time around campus. Talk to students and faculty. If you love it, come here. If you don't love it, you're probably better off somewhere else.</p>
<p>I know so little about the U of Chicago that my logic is more along the lines of "a pig in a poke is probably a better choice than a type of college that she already doesn't like". I'm having trouble imagining how a decision between Chicago and Swarthmore would be difficult. It just seems to me that one or the other would reach out and grab you.</p>
<p>BTW, I don't think Ecology would be a terribly weird choice at Swat. It is offered as an inter-disciplinary concentration within a major, as a special major, or as a minor. The courses draw heavily from the Bio and Political Science departments, covering both hard science and public policy. Two of the Swat-operated study-abroad programs are centered around ecological study - one in Ghana, one in Poland.</p>
<p>LADYLAZARUS, i am transferring from Smith for the following reason(s):
While much a deal is made in college guidebooks about the advantages of small colleges, I have discovered that being at a small college does NOT guarantee great teaching in every class. It does mean there will be fewer opportunitites. While a small college like Smith DOES offer a community feel, I believe that if you are a reasonably outgoing person you should be able to form your own community to suit your needs at any school you attend. While a community like Smith is largely liberal and therefore I felt open to epress my opinions, I felt such a biased community did not challenge people's opinions, and therefore people were liberal but perhaps did not have much depth to their opinions or life eperience. I found I did not love the sheltered feeling. Also, while at a larger school professors are probably less likely to come to you if you're having problems in their class, if you take the initiative to go to them I believe you can receive as much personal attention as you can at a small school, at least at schools where professors tend to enjoy conveying knowledge like UChicago. Swarthmore makes some very pretty brochures, and has a beautiful campus. However, after careful reflection, and realizing that Smith was definitely not all it advertizes to be, I decided Swarthmore is probably nice and filled with smart students but not any more magical. Whatever school you go to, you more than anyone else will determine how much you learn and how much fun you have. I tend to take initiative in forming relationships with my professors, and my interests are already fairly specific, so I felt for myself I'd have more room to grow and epand at a slightly bigger college. The fact that UChicago is ranked #1 in the country for evolution/ecology, which I want to pursue, and I already know two professors on a somewhat personal level, certainly didn't hurt.</p>
<p>Ecape, it sounds like you made the right choice. Swarthmore should not have come into the picture at all, given what you said about yourself. It looks like a small LAC is not what you wanted.</p>
<p>But I have to make an objection about something you said because a lot of people read this board: lack of resources, at least in the liberal arts subjects is not a problem at Swarthmore. I don't know about Art or Music or Theatre etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Swarthmore should not have come into the picture at all, given what you said about yourself. It looks like a small LAC is not what you wanted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. I don't understand that part either. It seems to me that, if you have reached the point of transfering out of a school, you should have a very specific idea of what you don't like and what you are looking for. Applying as a transfer to both Swarthmore and UChicago seems like casting a pretty wide net for a transfer student, especially one coming from a comparably "academic" school in the first place. It makes much more sense for a high-school applicant, because there isn't the frame of reference there is for a transfer student to decide if larger or smaller would be better.</p>
<p>I did choose UChicago. You have to understand though, I LOVED Swarthmore. I loved the gorgeous campus, the students I met, and the quaker atmosphere. In choosing UChicago I just decided that I was skeptical about how much having a tight community would play into my life later on vs. research connections I could get at UChicago. I know I'll make friends and connections wherever I'll go. Perhaps in a larger college its a bit harder, but in the real world connections aren't ready-made for you either, so I figure the ability to meet people in a larger setting is a skill worth developing. While community is nice, I'm really not sure when "permanent community" came to be seen as such an elusive yet critical thing in choosing a college. People at Smith, although friendly, became cliquish and less outgoing like people at any other school, so I have difficulty believing the same thing never happens at Swarthmore. Also, to be honest, I think I was a little attracted to Swarthmore because of its selectivity and pretty brochures, which I guess comes down to the lemming mentality and susceptability to advertising -I really had to convince myself that people at UChicago were no less smart, happy, or charismatic than people at Swat. I really don't think they are.</p>
<p>I did choose UChicago. You have to understand though, I LOVED Swarthmore. I loved the gorgeous campus, the students I met, and the quaker atmosphere. In choosing UChicago I just decided that I was skeptical about how much having a tight community would play into my life later on vs. research connections I could get at UChicago. I know I'll make friends and connections wherever I'll go. Perhaps in a larger college its a bit harder, but in the real world connections aren't ready-made for you either, so I figure the ability to meet people in a larger setting is a skill worth developing. When I first applied to colleges, everyone told me to go small LA. While community is nice, I'm really not sure when a "community feel" came to be seen as such an elusive yet critical thing in choosing a college. It sounds more trendy to me than anything. People at Smith, although friendly, became cliquish and less outgoing like people at any other school, so I have difficulty believing the same thing never happens at Swarthmore. Also, to be honest, I think I was a little attracted to Swarthmore because of its selectivity and pretty brochures, which I guess comes down to the lemming mentality and susceptability to advertising -I really had to convince myself that people at UChicago were no less smart, happy, or charismatic than people at Swat. I really don't think they are. I have yet to finish testing this, but here's my recent theory: for ambitious and outgoing students, education at a small LA is no better than at a larger school with relatively small class size. Granted, perhaps I feel more confident about a good eperience at UChicago b/c I already know profs who will work with me who I want to work with, and this is the advantage many people say a small LA has.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think I was a little attracted to Swarthmore because of its selectivity and pretty brochures, which I guess comes down to the lemming mentality and susceptability to advertising....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to comment on the implication here that Swarthmore is somehow presenting a "gussied up" image in their marketing materials. After wading through the marketing brochures and videos from a lot of colleges, I can say that Swarthmore's materials are honest to a fault. They could easily whitewash the school's fundamental character (which drives many potential applicants away), but they don't. </p>
<p>Part of the "community culture" is that gussied up marketing would be unacceptable -- to the faculty and, more importantly, to the students. For example, compare their new admissions video to the glossy spit polished and airbrushed infomercial stuff you get from a Vanderbilt or an Emory. When the Swat video takes you into a dorm room, it's not meticulously neat with a bright eye'd, bushy tailed scholar at the desk. It's a pile of messy clothes, like a real college room. Yet, even this video drew its share of detractors on campus.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that Swarthmore isn't a great school. I do think its advertising falls into the same exaggerations as most other highly selective colleges in implying the teaching is great in every class, Swarthmore students are THE brightest anywhere, the most diverse, that succeeding at Swarthmore guarantees success afterwards, that students are the most socially minded, etc... (I have it from a primary source that Swatties are as hypocritical as a lot of priviliged middle class college students when it comes to this latter bit.) I watched their video, and most of the students in it were attractive, confident, and well spoken. I guarantee you their relative "coolness" was designed to appeal to applicants; while many Swatties may have these characteristics, I doubt if Swat risked choosing students randomly for the video. Also the common insinuation that all Swatties love Swarthmore is a myth, because over google I found Swarthmore student council minutes that showed in 2004 a survey found that "a significant portion of seniors reported hating Swarthmore and wishing they hadn't come," whatever that means. I apologize if I seem to be bashing Swarthmore, because I'm sure it's great for students with more general interests, or students who wish to major in subjects for which the full range of opportunities is offered at Swarthmore, such as many liberal arts. Honestly, a lot of what I'm saying is for my own benefit, because I had managed to build the place up so unrealistically high in my own mind, which is why I had a difficult decision between UChicago and Swarthmore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt if Swat risked choosing students randomly for the video. Also the common insinuation that all Swatties love Swarthmore is a myth, because over google I found Swarthmore student council minutes that showed in 2004 a survey found that "a significant portion of seniors reported hating Swarthmore and wishing they hadn't come," whatever that means.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't have it both ways....The kid being paraphrased in the Student Council minutes was featured in the video! Carefully handpicked?</p>
<p>Actually, some of the results of the 2001 survey that he was probably refering to were reported in this article:</p>
<p>Specifically, 18% of the student body responding to the survey said they would not apply again -- that would be students who responded with any answer below 4 (maybe) on a 7 point scale. </p>
<p>Curiously, only 5% said they "didn't like" Swarthmore. That's a little hard to interpret, although there are many reasons a student could both like a college and not apply there again. The survey being given just a month or so after the decision to drop football may have contributed. Lots of students and alum were pretty angry about the decision with sit-ins at the admissions office and so forth. It also would be interesting to correlate the "wouldn't apply again" with G.P.A.</p>
<p>To make much sense of any of these numbers, you have to have comparative data. As someone once wrote about Harvard satisfaction survey numbers, at least a third of these kids would rate the Garden of Eden unsatisfactory!</p>
<p>Lots of interesting numbers in the Swarthmore article. On a 7 point scale, the respondents rated the academics an average of 6.8.</p>
<p>They rated their relationships with professors a 5.9, with their fellow students a 5.8, and with the administration a 5.0.</p>
<p>More than 50% of the students reported averaging more than 20 hours a week of academic work outside the class room. 22% reported averaging more than 30 hours a week.</p>
<hr>
<p>The surveys I'd really like to see would be comparative data on the COFHE surveys. But, the members of the consortium are not allowed to release it. Occasionally, you get bits and pieces. For example, of the 26 categories on the survey, academic advising was the 19th best in the Swarthmore survey, but higher than any of the other 30 COFHE members.</p>
<p>Here's a link to a Harvard Crimson article with a little info on their COFHE results:</p>
<p>Here's a link to a Northwestern COFHE summary:</p>
<p>This one is interesting, because it compares NU to a three-school Ivy peergroup (Yale, Dartmouth, Brown) and a three-school non-Ivy peergroup (MIT, Duke, Chicago).</p>
<p>Here's a link to a Chicago self-study:</p>
<p>dude, the kid was quoted in the minutes because he was one of 6 student council members on campus and he was reporting results. The fact he was one of 6 student council members in a school of 1400 indicates he was handpicked for the video. Also, I never said it isn't possible that a higher % of Swatties are satisfied with their eperience than UChicago students. I just said that I feel an assertive and outgoing student could have as good of an academic and social eperience at UChicago. I've also met Swarthmore alums who talked very fondly of college but afterwards were not particularly well-adjusted or happy in the "real world." If Swarthmore is very unlike Smith, than perhaps it is a magical place where everyone has a better and more rewarding eperience than everyone at universities. However, if it is like Smith, as a previous posting suggests, I do not think it is the best for every single reasonable person. I've made my decision. Hopefully UChicago is a good choice for me, b/c my parents have informed me I am only allowed one transfer, and I doubt Swat would accept me again anyway. I agree I'd be interested to see comparative survey results, since that would mean more. I'm leaving this forum however, because I doubt the sanity and constructiveness of all who debate this topic endlessly, including my own. Noticing that the vast majority of people in the world who lead great social movements, were considered geniuses, etc., did not attend Swat or even a top twenty college, I think perhaps all our time could be better invested elsewhere.</p>
<p>I think you've made a good choice. For you. Other than the gender thing, the similarities between Smith and Swarthmore are so great that I would have worried you'd be unhappy again. Except that Swarthmore is smaller, and has fewer offerings in the areas in which you expressed an interest.</p>
<p>I think Chicago is a fine school for the right student, and hope you find happiness there.</p>