<p>That is like the trifecta of top liberal arts colleges in America, but I don't know the difference between them. Other top schools are easier to categorize, such as the Ivies, but these LACs don't seem to have a lot of difference between them. I'm planning to apply to an LAC when time comes but I'm probably not going to have enough space or time to apply to all three, at most two probably. So what are the characteristics of the three schools?</p>
<p>nbachris, these three school have more similarities than differences. Many students apply to two or three and could be happy at any one of the three. (Trifecta, I like that.)The strengths of all of them are superb academics, small classes, brilliant and accessible instructors, smart and engaged students. Each college also suffers from a stereotyped image -- please take these for just what they are: stereotypes. In truth most of the kids who attend all three are smart, accomplished, confident, happy students. I'd say the biggest difference is physical location -- Swarthmore is on the outskirts of Philadelphia so it has urban access. Amherst is in a active small town with several other colleges. Williams is in a rural village surrounded by mountains. If you can visit, do so.</p>
<p>Once you visit the campuses of these three schools, you'll immediately notice their strong differences in social climate, athletic interest and school spirit/pride. While momrath points to their similarities, I think that once you're on the campus of each of these "trifeca" schools, you feel the differences immediately. Suggest that you visit all three and determine for yourself which is the best fit for you. You also need to consider these other top-ranked LACs: Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Middlebury, Davidson, Carleton, Colgate, Grinnell, Haverford, Washington & Lee, and Vassar.</p>
<p>I would say Swat is more different than the other two. Largely there seems to be less social activity on campus</p>
<p>I think that there's more of an emphasis on school spirit and sports at Amherst and Williams? Isn't Swarthmore a bit more....."egghead-ish"?</p>
<p>Williams students are all scholars, many varsity athletes, and many leaders.<br>
Amherst students are all scholars, some varsity athletes, and some leaders.
Swarthmore students are all scholars, fewer varsity athletes, and fewer leaders.</p>
<p>When location is considered, Swartmore is good, Amherst is bad, and Williams is terrible. On the other hand, the poorer the location, the fewer distractions from school and, thus, more schoolwork accomplished.</p>
<p>If education is your only goal, you can't go wrong at any of them.</p>
<p>Yes the three schools share similarities of very bright hardworking students, and there are students of all flavors with all types of interests and activities at each school, all sorts of "groups". But I agree with majority, there is some truth to the stereotypes. After all, as small as these schools are (even Williams), a couple of hundred students that choose the school because they've heard or perceive that the school is "athletic" or "artsy" or whatever, will by themselves influence the atmosphere of the school - its a self-fulfilling prophecy. Still there will be students who don't quite fit the mold at each school, and the kids are so bright that they resist stereotypes, I know there are a number of athletic art history majors at Williams.
I would do thinkingoutloud's list a little differently:
Athletics at Williams are BIG, athletics at Amherst are big, Athletics at Swat are small.
Academics at Swat are BIG, academics at Amherst are big, the kids at Williams are working their behinds off, but it doesn't show.
Amherst was the only place DD was able to overnight, and despite that much longer visit, it was the hardest school to get a feel for, I agree with the other posters, that it is the most middle of the road. Partly this was colored by her staying with "world weary" seniors (an odd choice on the part of admissions I thought).</p>
<p>When you visit these campuses, or any campuses for that matter, look to see the interpersonal dynamic among the students. Are they traveling between classes in a group or by themselves? When people are in the student union, are there a couple of kids together, just one at a table, or are there six to 10 kids crowded around a table, trying to get a conversation in between bites? When the kids are by themselves, are they staring down at the ground, lost in thought, stress or anxiety? Or are they smiling? Do students acknowledge each other when they pass one another -- or are they caught up in themselves? Is there school pride as opposed to school spirit? These are things to look for -- and every campus will have its own answers to these and other questions. Your heart (and gut) will tell you more about where you'll want to go to college than your head will. </p>
<p>Let us know what you decide and why.</p>
<p>Check out the curriculum. Although they are very similar, there are some differences. If I remember, Swathmore has a major in English Literature and not English (although I could have my schools mixed up). One of the schools offers a degree in chemical physics, whatever that is. Thus, check out the academic programs, winter session options, educational opportunities abroad etc.</p>
<p><<williams students="" are="" all="" scholars,="" many="" varsity="" athletes,="" and="" leaders.="" amherst="" some="" swarthmore="" fewer="" leaders="">></williams></p>
<p>That really doesn't make sense at all. I'll give you the athletes, but Swat has a history of social and political activism that far exceeds Amherst or Williams. If by leaders you mean Wall Street types, then maybe, but I'd steer away from using the quantity of 'leaders' as a barometer of a school's culture.</p>
<p>I'd also add that applying to Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore just because they are the top three colleges in the nation is a mistake. All three are looking for fit and they wont look kindly on people who apply because of the school's reputation.</p>
<p>They are far more similar than different. They draw from the same pool of students, with the majority having families that can afford $168k over four years. The students are well-spoken, can write, know how to study. The faculty are drawn from exactly the same pool, and since openings in any particular department occur occasionally, the same prospective faculty apply for the same positions at all three schools (and 50 others). They are all not particularly diverse, with Amherst having (by some distance) the largest number of students from lower-income backgrounds (15.8% on Pell Grants, Swarthmore at around 12%, Williams at around 9%.) Students at all three work hard. </p>
<p>Williams is 35% larger than the other two, and thus has more course offerings and (I think) more majors than the other two. Locations as already noted are substantially different. Williams is very isolated, and there is no town to speak of. Amherst is in a small town, but is part of a very robust 5-college system. Swarthmore is in the 'burbs.</p>
<p>Williams has a far higher percentage of athletes than the other two, with more than 40% on intercollegiate teams, and another 10% on intercollegiate clubs. It also has far more music, art, and theatre opportunities on campus than the other two, though Amherst has as much if you take into account the 5-college offerings. Swarthmore has a more consistent commitment to community service, and the least in the way of athletics. None of the three is particularly known for JYA programs or foreign languages, with Williams being particularly weak (probably not in the top 50). Williams is famous for its art history department and has a strong reputation in political science, and in astronomy, math, and the biological and chemical sciences. Amherst's flagship program is the law, jurisprudence, and social thought, and has a famous English department going back 70 years. Swarthmore is said to be particularly strong in its public policy, sociology/anthropology/philosophy areas, as well as the sciences. All will have fine faculty and opportunities in most areas, with occasional weaknesses (Williams in languages, especially the Romance ones; Swarthmore is rather skimpy in art/art history and music; Amherst in art, theatre, and there isn't much in languages.)</p>
<p>They are no more similar to each other than any number of two dozen other fine liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>Great summary by Mini, and I don't really see anything to disagree with above at all, although I'm not sure what Cangel means in this statement: "the kids at Williams are working their behinds off, but it doesn't show." Do you mean they're handling all the work with great aplomb, or that they're not getting results despite all their hard work? I would agree with the former, but certainly not the latter!</p>
<p>Driver, basically that they work very hard, but want the work to look "effortless" - the duck syndrome, gliding effortlessly on the surface, paddling like mad underneath.</p>
<p>Got it. Agreed. I think that explains a lot of my daughter's short sleep cycle. So much work to be done in the wee hours, while keeping up with her socializing, athletics, and intramural activities.</p>
<p>driver--</p>
<p>I'm fairly sure that Cangel meant the former. Williams students work extremely hard (and excell) but still manage to find time to participate in numerous extracurricular activities and have thriving social lives. When I was a prefrosh, one of the things that impressed me about Williams students was how much stuff they all seemed to manage to do in addition to schoolwork and still remain the least stressed and most happy students of any school I visited.</p>
<p>While each school has different academic strengths in different areas, the differences between the schools (with a few minor exceptions) are so small that I wouldn't base a decision on which school is known to be stronger. The exceptions: if you plan on being a french major, Williams probably isn't the school out of these three for you. If you plan on being an Art History major, Williams probably IS the school for you. Other than that, I think that there will be little-to-no noticeable difference from school to school program-to-program. I think academically the biggest differences come in what sorts of programs are offered by the schools. Swarthmore has some unique programs which I am not extremely familiar with, Amherst has the 5CC (which actually seems to have very little academic impact on Amherst), and Williams has the tutorial system (classes modeled after Oxford tutorials--two students and one professor). </p>
<p>The descriptions posted above of the three schools socially seem pretty fair to me, as well as the description of the various towns. I think that one thing that's important to understand is that the size of the town doesn't reflect the amount of stuff going on around campus. The Williams administration understands that there's very little to do in the town, and makes up for that deficiency by planning significant numbers of (always free) campus events. At Amherst and Swat you will spend more of your free time off-campus, often with people that do not go to Amherst or Swat. At Williams you will spend most of your time on-campus with other Williams students (something which I personally loved--this sort of environment leads to a much stronger and more-cohesive college community). </p>
<p>I'd recommend that any prospective student considering between the three schools visit all three and complete overnights. Choose whichever school feels the best for you--fit is much more important...Amherst's location near Northampton won't matter if you don't get along with Amherst students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll give you the athletes, but Swat has a history of social and political activism that far exceeds Amherst or Williams. If by leaders you mean Wall Street types, then maybe, but I'd steer away from using the quantity of 'leaders' as a barometer of a school's culture.
[/quote]
I suppose the Swarthmore blind leading the blind does count as leadership, but that was not the type of leadership I was talking about. I am talking about the self-confidence that comes from being a successful competitive athlete and being a serious scholar. Very few people can achieve this. But those who do develop a sense that anything can be accomplished and a willingness to take risks in life. The ultimate product is a person with the confidence and willingness to lead others. It does not have to be leadership on wall street, but that's not a bad placed to end up.</p>
<p>Still, the idea that there are fewer people with confidence and willingness to lead others at Amherst or Swarthmore is entirely groundless. The idea that only a scholar-athlete can have true leadership ability is perhaps even more groundless. </p>
<p>I think that the same kind of intelligent, sophisticated kids apply to AWS. They choose one of the three based on their own academic and social preferences.</p>
<p>Swarthmore is the only one to offer Engineering.</p>
<p>swat is a nerd school. amherst and williams are not</p>