What makes the Little 3(Will, Ahm, Swarth) special?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Swarthmore College
21

<p>ID: I believe you were arguing that it's what <em>you can buy</em> with the endowment that makes some schools “more special” than others… otherwise, it’s just abstract #s. My response was directed to this. As I would like to think the most important function of college is to educate, my response centered on educational mission/supporting services (a large part of your post anyways and a part of the OP's initial question). </p>

<p>Bigger endowments buy more financial aid, more luxury amenities and, according to you and others here, a “more special” educational experience because of better professors, better facilities, and academic offerings (you listed these yourself). My point is that, in terms of “educational experience”, to assume than higher endowment per student automatically translates and generalizes into special professors, facilities, and academic offerings, may sometimes be untrue when comparing some schools. Please see my paragraph talking about the sciences at HC. As Swat has </p>

<p>0 Academy members on its faculty,
0 professors doing research meriting an NIH grant (Holy grail for researchers),
0(?) MDs teaching topics in the biological sciences and
a less perfect track record with securing $$$ from the HHMI (the main supporter of undergraduate research), ect...</p>

<p>how can anybody say that a certain 3 special schools have better professors, facilities and chance of getting grant support because of more endowment? What is this being based on or are we just assuming that this must be true cause it's "neat and plausible"?</p>

<p>Note that I didn’t argue HC’s sciences are better than Swat’s (W/A) here… at the minimum, these things point out that, despite endowment, they are <em>at least as special as</em> Swat’s and people can decide for themselves if having the former Head of Oncology at Penn teach a class on stem cells and cancer or a pediatrician who heads several vaccine trials teaching a class on vaccines, ect… is, well, “special-er”. I can confidently compare the humanities and social sciences as well but I know the sciences the best.</p>

<p>Somebody reading your posts would come to believe what I consider the “neat, plausible, wrong” conclusion that higher endowment per student translates perfectly to special faculty, special academics, special facilities, ect... aspects that <em>you</em> listed make Swat special. As exampled in the sciences, the faculty at HC is just as prominent (if not more so), the academic offerings are just as wide and deep (if not more so… see “Cons” regarding consortiums), and the facilities… (well, the comparison you <em>always</em> give with Worth doesn’t work cause it doesn’t even meet standards of accreditation like Morris Infirmary at HC)… </p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. Endowment is very important. However, if facilities, faculty, and academic offerings available to students don’t necessarily differ between “special” colleges and less “special” colleges, then what makes certain schools special then? <strong>THAT</strong> is where this discussion should begin!</p>

<p>I'll start... Better financial aid, more selective student population (because of better financial aid), US News (which ranks significantly on financial aid, student selectivity), prestige on CC (which ranks US News), ect...</p>

22

<p>Actually, HC_Alum, I wasn't making any argument for educational quality, one way or another. I was answering the question about why AWS are consistently the three top ranked LACs in the country. The answer to that question, IMO, is "per student endowment" combined with some geographic bias that puts non northeast schools at a disadvantage in "prestige".</p>

<p>My advice has always been to consider all types of schools and then pick colleges based on individual fit. If a prospect finds that he or she likes two schools equally well and cannot decide based on individual criteria, then pick the school with the higher per student endowment.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
I believe you were arguing that it's what <em>you can buy</em> with the endowment that makes some schools “more special” than others…

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, obviously, you can buy more with a larger per student endowment. However, the more important question to an individual applicant is whether the college in question buys stuff that is meaningful to him or her.</p>

<p>For example, Williams spends more on its athletic program per student than any other Division III college in the country. Is that meaningful? Not to me, but it probably is to many folk.</p>

<p>Conversely, Swarthmore spends heavily on diversity and the support functions to make a diverse community successful. It spends heavily on faculty salary (102% of the salaries at a group of peer schools by policy) and faculty leave (100% paid semester after teaching six semesters for all full-time professors versus 75% pay after six semesters for tenured profs at Williams). Those things might be important to one applicant and not to another.</p>

<p>I can't possibly tell an individual applicant how he or she should prioritize personal criteria.</p>

24

<p>Hm. Sure. Reduce Williams to sports. Wow. You boys get heated.</p>

<p>My original position was that there is no difference between the "top three" and others. I gave examples. My mention of history, reputation was an explanation, not that I think this makes them better.</p>

<p>However, it really doesn't seem fair reduce Williams to athletics to elevate other schools.</p>

<p>HC Alum: I believe you. Haverford has excellent, if not superior, sciences. It is not superior to every other school, though I admit I found it charming (not a put-down to belittle it ) when I toured it. Swarthmore is beautiful as well. </p>

<p>Sometimes the PR machine revs up and suddenly VHS is in and Beta is out. So what? If the "distance" between Williams, lets say, and Colby is really meaningful to someone I would say this is silly.</p>

<p>As college admissions become more competitive the student bodies at these schools grow more similar -- the unadmitted spill over trickling down. Many schools now boast average SAT's above or at 1400 old scale.</p>

<p>And I think the professors at the community college I teach at are fine, too. I know for a fact I taught a more rigorous course than my daughter's friend at Brown took.</p>

<p>There are wonderful professors, classes, departments, opportunities at a lot of schools and increasingly similar student bodies. Some schools have more cache than others for a variety of reasons that are not as meaningful as some make out.</p>

<p>Boy, back in the day no one thought much of NYU. That is changing, or has completely changed already.</p>

<p>Peace.</p>

25

<p>ID: “This extra $48,000 worth of stuff includes a highly motivated faculty, a stunning campus, and the student-centered support services that go a long way towards making Swarthmore special… … … The earnings from the trust fund pay for… professors, the fancy campus, the science facilities, the deans, the health center, the debate team parties, and everything else the student does for four years.”</p>

<p>Please see my 1st and 2nd post with this in mind. People can interpret this to mean that colleges with a “smaller trust fund” (the “less special places”) buy less “motivated faculty”, not as nice “science facilities”, not as good “health center”, ect… I was responding to this.</p>

<hr>

<p>Mythmom: I don’t believe there is anything you or I wrote that disagree.</p>

<p>MM: “My original position was that there is no difference between the "top three" and others. I gave examples.” </p>

<p>I think there are some differences, that’s why CC folk say “WAS”, but I don’t believe those differences include generalizations on facilities/ faculty/ academics… which are the heart of a college experience. </p>

<p>MM: “Haverford has excellent, if not superior, sciences. It is not superior to every other school”</p>

<p>I said:” “Note that I didn’t argue HC’s sciences are better than Swat’s (W/A) here… at the minimum, these things point out that, despite endowment, they are <em>at least as special as</em>…”. </p>

<p>I mentioned those “bells/whistles” because I was refuting people’s notion of “better faculty/ better academics/better reputation for grants… not because I think they add that much more value to an undergrad education where the main objective is to learn the basics. There was an “embryonic stem cell” thread here a while back and I could have made the assertion that because HC works with human cells, while others work with mice/worms/flies, HC can gloat… but I made the point of “minimal added value”. I wish others would respect this principle too. :(</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/swarthmore/405372-embryonic-stem-cell-research-swarthmore.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/swarthmore/405372-embryonic-stem-cell-research-swarthmore.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>MM: “There are wonderful professors, classes, departments, opportunities at a lot of schools and increasingly similar student bodies.”</p>

<p>I said: “All colleges *1st * spend on academics and if they have $ left over, it then goes to less important “luxury” items and the farther we move from academic support, the less “bang for the buck”. As such, the academic opportunities between schools are much more similar than endowment differences would make you believe.”</p>

<hr>

<p>I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is that we spent way too much time this weekend on this anonymous internet chat site when we could have been doing other things. Back to work (and reality) here.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
Please see my 1st and 2nd post with this in mind. People can interpret this to mean that colleges with a “smaller trust fund” (the “less special places”) buy less “motivated faculty”, not as nice “science facilities”, not as good “health center”, ect… I was responding to this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can't really control how people interpret what I wrote. I wasn't comparing and contrasting in the College Search forum. I was responding in a Swarthmore-specific fashion on the Swarthmore-specific forum. There are many positive attributes of Swarthmore that can be found elsewhere. Perhaps a few that can't. But, mostly colleges are defined by a specific combination of strengths and weaknesses and how well that specific combination fits with an individual student's priorities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I said: “All colleges *1st * spend on academics and if they have $ left over, it then goes to less important “luxury” items and the farther we move from academic support, the less “bang for the buck”. As such, the academic opportunities between schools are much more similar than endowment differences would make you believe.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would agree with that to the extent that we are comparing colleges with BIG endowments to those with REALLY BIG endowments. I've always said that the REALLY BIG endowment schools are basically throwing in the leather seats and the moonroof luxury package at no extra charge.</p>

<p>I would not agree if we are talking about a college that has no endowment and lives from tuition check to tuition check. There are a lot of colleges operating under financial pressure although not many of the colleges that get talked about around these parts.</p>

27

<p>ID: In rereading people’s posts here, I think the disagreement stems from the OP’s initial question. It asked, “What makes AWS <em>special</em>?” (presumably compared to other top LACs) and not “What makes AWS <em>great/ wonderful/ excellent</em>?” If the latter question was asked, no one would disagree that these schools have… great “endowments, science facilities, professors, grant funding”, ect… all true.</p>

<p>If you check your posts, you 1st wrote about endowment (special) but then sort of expanded the scope of discussion by writing about the “science facilities, professors, ect…” (that are great/wonderful/excellent but not special to these 3 schools). People may not notice that transition and assume those things you listed were somehow “special” to these places which I evidenced is not the case. </p>

<p>We may not be responsible for how others interpret our writing but, considering both Mythmom and I responded to you similarly (saying that other schools can have great XYZ too), I think you should appreciate that there was something about your posts that could cause readers to misunderstand your meaning.</p>

28

<p>HC:</p>

<p>To be honest, I'm a little under the weather and not up to the challenge of arguing with a terminally disgruntled Swat alum and a Haverford alum about how Swarthmore is a horrible college.</p>

<p>You and AE knock yourselves out. I'm done.</p>

29

<p>Get some chicken soup. That'll fix everything.</p>

30

<p>interesteddad: Feel better.</p>

<p>We all love our schools and our kids schools. Actually a good thing. Goodnight gentlemen.</p>

31

<p>"awsph = hypsm"</p>

<p>What do these stand for?</p>

<p>Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, ? = Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, ...MIT?</p>

32

<p>haverford, I assume</p>

33

<p>you go to pomona, don't you?</p>

34

<p>The comparison is to MIT which is especially good with engineering and tech… the H probably stands for HMC. The natural sciences (bio, chem., physics) and Haverford's public health and bioethics curriculum are its strong suite among LACs.</p>

<p>ID: “…with a terminally disgruntled Swat alum and a Haverford alum about how Swarthmore is a horrible college.” </p>

<p>Considering the effort I put into my posts, I don’t appreciate you mischaracterizing them through a comparison/association with A.E.’s as they’re completely different. I point out that tiny differences in numbers/ranks <em>can’t</em> be interpreted, that small differences in colleges aren't significant (human vs mouse stem cells, ect...) and extreme pro/con post here are BS. I actually think it's a wonderful school and I'm pretty sure I've said that many times before.</p>

<p>While I(others) may misunderstand your posts, I write not only what I mean but I also many times explicitly write what I don’t mean as well to prevent confusion. As such, claiming that I think Swat is “horrible” is baseless. The only thing I find even close to “horrible” is your diction that can sometimes confuse people to your intent, misreading of facts (theme housing is a negative, why Worth is the “example” health center for other LACs when it doesn’t meet accrediting standards, ect…), overreading of insignificant numerical details (PhDs ranks), and other posts here that really exaggerate both Swat’s pros and cons. Just because I have issues with an occasional post of yours and others, and that I actually talk about Swat's true cons (notably that it's "functionally small" and a culture of "misery poker"/self-applause can sometimes go to kids' heads ("I inflicted and education on myself", "We're not compensated enough for our efforts", ect...) that doesn't mean I think Swat is "horrible".</p>

35

<p>Here's the way I see it, HC.</p>

<p>I haven't posted on College Confidential in months. I popped in to the Swarthmore forum a few days ago to innocuously answer a few questions. I didn't mention your college. I didn't say anything controversial about any college. And, I certainly didn't say anything to ruffle anyone's feathers. And, since then, I have had to put up with an endless string of the most nit-picking annoying attacks from you and A.E. For what? Did I call your college a "safety school"? No. I didn't even mention your college. Because I said the reason that Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore are at the top of the ratings is because they have the largest per student endowments. Wow, like that's really controversial, right? And for that, it's been incoming from you two for then entire frickin' week.</p>

<p>Screw it. Life is too short. I'll leave the Swat forum to you two.
See ya.</p>

36

<p>I think that AE has given helpful information. interesteddad has been a great source of information for many applicants and I hope that he stays on this forum.</p>

<p>On the other hand, HCAlum, having no connection whatsoever to Swarthmore by having no children attending and not being an alum, I believe has no business trying to post about a school with which he has no affiliation. He may have had a sib or a wife attend many years ago, but I have no idea why he gets his jollies on a forum in which he has no reason to post except to compare to his school which he attended probably 25-30 years ago. I believe the Haverford forum, if any, would be more appropriate. I would not go and post on my brother's college's forum and put on a bunch of hearsay. It is way difficult to understand why he lurks here, and seems a bit creepy to me.</p>

<p>By the way, personally I wouldn't even post about the universities that I attended, since it was so long ago I would not presume to have an up-to-date viewpoint. I think it is different for very recent grads.</p>

37

<p>swatparent,
I think you miscalculated HC's age quite a bit. As far as I understood, he is a pretty recent graduate, and he had a sibling attending Swarthmore. His posts, though not necessarily "objective", are usually informative, polite and not at all "Swat-bashing". He has his loyalties, but he knows quite a bit about Swarthmore, and his contributions are infinitely more valuable than those of A.E., Duhvinchi, and the like...</p>

38

<p>Well the question, "What makes the little three special" invites replies from parents/students/alums from other schools. Just the nature of the question. The OP did not pose a question that related to Swarthmore alone.</p>

<p>When I said there were a lot of wonderful schools I was not attempting to bash Swarthmore which I toured and thought was absolutely wonderful, it was as the parent of a Williams' student so I meant to say that although Williams is wonderful and my S loves it, so are a lot of schools.</p>

<p>I know swatparent did not mention me, but I thought I'd explain why I posted on a "Swat" forum.</p>

<p>Did not mean to be an interloper, but since Williams was mentioned in the question, I thought I'd be welcome.</p>

<p>Sorry if others see it differently.</p>

39

<p>Swatparent, I think unless they're out-and-out trolls, people have a right to post where they wish. It's primarily the reader's job to find out what the person's background is, and how it may be coloring what he or she is saying. </p>

<p>For example, AE has been characterized as a disgruntled alum. AE does not care to post much about his/her connections; one's supposed to PM AE for more info, and then not say anything about the response. That says something to me, as a reader. But it certainly doesn't mean he/she can't post. I disagree with plenty of what AE has had to say, but hey - some of it has been thought provoking.</p>

<p>HCAlum indeed went to Haverford. He/she isn't trying to hide that. HCA has much of substance to say and a very, very balanced outlook. You might want to read more of HCA's posts for a little more info before you discount his/her (I think his, but hey) opinion so cavalierly. I for one welcome it. You don't - but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong here.</p>

<p>So while I'm on the subject of what informs people's posts, here's the first post I ever saw from you: <<honestly, we="" are="" very="" sorry="" that="" our="" child="" attends="" swarthmore.="">> I believe this colors what you post - but again, it doesn't mean you can't post here.</honestly,></p>

<p>In a forum or on a thread that's meant primarily for adults, I wouldn't feel compelled to point these things out. As I said above, it's the reader's job to put things in perspective. But this isn't the Cafe or the Parent Forum: This is a place a lot of h.s. kids come to learn more about the school. Perhaps if your child had found out more about the school, he or she could have made a more informed choice, and found a better fit.</p>

<p>Fair is fair: I'm an alum, and a legacy, and a current parent. So that's where I'm coming from. </p>

<p>Yet as much as I love the school, I absolutely agree that it's not perfect (seriously, what school is?) and it's <em>certainly</em> not for everyone, and this is an appropriate place for people to talk about the aspects of the school that did or do not fit them well. I'd vastly prefer to see that happening with a lot more civility, and a lot less name-calling and wild exaggeration. (That's a comment on the general tenor of posts lately, Swatparent, not on your posts in particular.)</p>

40

<p>“Screw it. Life is too short. I'll leave the Swat forum to you two. See ya.”</p>

<p>Does it really have to come to this? This is just an anonymous internet site that most of us just use to pass the time while waiting for other stuff to happen (avoiding LA rush hour here), so even if there were blistering attacks which I don’t think even occurred (not including AE), I don’t see why you would feel frustrated enough to respond as you did.</p>

<p>Didn’t I already (calmly) explain what I thought the point of confusion was?</p>

<p>“In rereading people’s posts here, I think the disagreement stems from the OP’s initial question… If you check your posts, you 1st wrote about endowment (special) but then sort of expanded the scope of discussion by writing about the “science facilities, professors, ect…” (that are great/wonderful/excellent but not special to these 3 schools). People may not notice that transition and assume those things you listed were somehow “special” to these places which I evidenced is not the case. “</p>

<p>I actually said I agreed with you (um, on 3 occasions?) about the endowment being special. I thought readers should be clear, though, that “special” meant $ and not some of the other things you later listed that you can buy with that $. You agreed to this clarification as well, that academic experience between “Very wealthy” and “wealthy” can’t be generalized to one group being better than the other. If we agree on these principle points, then where’s the steam coming from, dude? I was cool back at post #21 and #25… before you unexpectedly dismissed/discredited my effort down to a “Swat is horrible” simplification and an association with AE. </p>

<p>There’s a difference between an attack and challenging someone with what they write and I don’t believe I crossed that line. I said that you <strong>“occasionally”</strong> write things that can be interpreted not as you intended, sometimes mention facts without knowing some important details, and sometimes over state differences between colleges based on numbers/ranks. Wouldn’t you want to know these things if you were doing them? Pointing this out isn’t a personal attack as it is meant to make you reevaluate some of the things you (repeatedly) write about in addition to give CC readers a different opinion to consider. </p>

<p>What “nitpicking”? Pointing out to readers that some of the responses to what makes a school “special” may have blurred with things that make it “great”? ; that, the “special” health facility at Swat often mentioned as the “envy” of others by you is actually not even credentialed? ; or, wanting to clarify that a school with twice the endowment doesn’t provide twice the experience (you didn’t intend this but, without clarification, some HS kids may look at these #s and think something similar)? ; or, even as related to another post, mentioning that “segregated” housing can have positive implications too? If these things are important enough for you to bring up, then how is it not important when corrections and clarifications need to be made?</p>

<hr>

<p>Swatparent: 1st, it’s about 10 years and 150 year old colleges don’t change much in that period of time (for example, Worth has had some issues for a while so I knew to look at its credentialing status). 2nd, within a 6 year time period, my sister, brother and I graduated from BMC, HC/SC, and our experiences were especially fluid across the schools so I don’t find it odd to post here given that experience. Perhaps if you experienced a consortium, you'd feel differently. 3rd, there’s something valuable called “perspective” and many times, people with outside experiences can be important to keep conversations honest. If you notice, I only respond when college comparisons are made. In the “Cons” post, you complained about grade deflation (in comparison to others). If the only people who responded were individuals who owned t-shirts saying “Anywhere else it would have been an A” or proud parents, don’t you think the potential for bias will be high? Call me crazy, but I think it was important that <strong>experiences from other schools</strong> (namely average GPAs of different colleges) were introduced to provide this outside perspective. Don’t you think Swat students will be better off if they knew that many other kids were in a similar boat? As another example, if a HS kid asks “what makes school X special?” and the only people who respond are people who wear X’s t-shirt, what do you think the answer will be? I’m sorry you feel that way, but I think a conversation exclusive to only a small group is what I consider “inbred and incestuous” and experiences from other places can often be a good sounding board to frame ones’ perspective.</p>