<p>Hey,</p>
<p>I got accepted into five liberal arts schools, but Williams and Swarthmore are the two I've narrowed it down to. I want to double major in neurology and a social science (sociology/political science/etc-haven't picked one yet), for more information about my interests. I also want to participate in creative writing if possible. What school would you say is better?</p>
<p>As a second question, would I be able to get a job after going to either of these?</p>
<p>What type of setting and people you want to be around is the important stuff. It does not matter which dept is better if you do not like where you are and the people. That can make for a long four years. However, from a pure face value point-of-view, I think the schools stack up like this:</p>
<p>Swarthmore - Intellectual, social justice-driven, nerdy types who want to save the world and focus on heavy liberal politics. Suburban area with a train running right through campus to take you to a Philly in 20 minutes. Not sure it top dept, but the fact I do not know tells me something right there. Oh, their Lang Center for Civic and Social Responsibilty, i.e., social justice, should be a tip-off I guess.</p>
<p>Williams - Intellectual, more debating-type who are much less politically-driven into activism and are healthy as heck because they take sports super seriously. Beautiful mountain setting and rural. Shuttle to Boston and NY on weekends if you need that. Science here is better by miles, like many miles. Econ and Math dept arguably both No. 1 in the LAC’s. </p>
<p>Job - You will get a job if you do something that the market wants. School is really irrelevant there. But, if you are asking if both schools open doors, then yes. Williams would open a few more doors though since, after all, it is No. 1.</p>
<p>I don’t agree that there is an appreciable difference between Williams and Swarthmore. I am biased toward Williams since that’s what my kid chose, but Swarthmore is outstanding as well.</p>
<p>Swartmore has more breadth with the consortium but Williams has a bit more depth if one stays on campus because in a larger school there are more faculty members.</p>
<p>Your area of interest says Swat a bit more, but Williams is strong is most, if not all of its departments.</p>
<p>Even though Swarthmore is close to a city, my son enjoyed the little town that is interwoven with the Williams campus, and he loved walking in the Hopkins Forest which is close by. More people seem to think Swarthmore’s campus is more outstanding; I preferred Williams because it felt like it is arranged like a little town and I didn’t feel as claustrophic. Most people feel the opposite.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can go wrong. If you visit, I think you’ll immediately know which you prefer. If you can’t visit, read the catalogue selections for the departments you are most interested in and see which course descriptions appeal to you more. Pedagogy does vary from school to school.</p>
<p>Williams it more outdoorsy and has more school spirit (combination of isolation and a lot of people are on some varsity, jv or club team…), Swarthmore is more consciously intellectual. </p>
<p>Both places have very smart kids and very terrific teachers-- but very different vibes. I think you will know within 5 minutes of attending each admitted student days where is home-- go with your gut–it is very rarely wrong.</p>
<p>I disagree with mythmom here. The students at each are so different, I cannot even begin to tell you. Both very intelligent, obviously, but completely different in character and personality. Definitely do your research because to me your interest says Williams. </p>
<p>Let’s just take straight numbers (which is not always good, but you asked about after school stuff). The acceptance rate to medical school for Swarthmore is 82% and Williams is over 90%, something like 92 or 93. Amherst is equivalent to Williams in med school acceptance. Swarthmore has the lowest acceptance of the three. </p>
<p>Williams has a huge, very advanced science building. Literally, the best in the LAC’s, I believe. So good that it made Amherst build a new one opening in 2018. Swarthmore is good, but Williams is off the charts.</p>
<p>[Science</a> Center](<a href=“http://science.williams.edu/]Science”>http://science.williams.edu/)</p>
<p>[New</a> Science Center Tour](<a href=“http://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/program/facil/sctour.html]New”>New Science Center Tour)</p>
<p>Really, do your homework and visit because to me the schools are night and day in many respects.</p>
<p>As usual, etondad, sums it up well. The vibes are different, fundamentally so. </p>
<p>Another big difference is way more political and issue-based rallies, symbolic marches etc at Swarthmore than Williams.</p>
<p>I would agree that the “personalities” of Williams and Swarthmore are quite different. Both lean left, but as mentioned, Swarthmore is more in-you-face political and Williams more disengaged. Williams students are also a lot more physically active, not just in organized sports but in other past times that take advantage of the beautiful mountain setting.</p>
<p>Once you have visited both the differences should be apparent.</p>
<p>The quality of education and career opportunities are much the same.</p>
<p>Both Williams and Swarthmore have accomplished writers who teach creative writing in their English Departments. I’m not sure who’s at Swarthmore now, but Williams has Jim Shepard, Karen Shepard and Andrea Barrett.</p>
<p>"…Williams more disengaged." </p>
<p>Allow me to make a minor point, albeit an important one. Williams students are not “more disengaged”; they are only less out outwardly, physically active in rallies, marches and making posters etc. However, they are just as engaged in dissecting issues and in thinking and developing ways of solving problems. Physical activity does not, in itself, signify higher or more engagement; just a different form thereof.</p>
<p>You also get an idea by the uptake on your question between the two schools. Here there has been a lot of response, but on the Swarthmore site, it’s a lot quieter. I also think Etondad has given good advice.</p>
<p>@GvaMom - LOL, I was going to write that a couple hours ago, but decided I had said enough already and assumed the OP would see that and it would speak for itself. </p>
<p>But to elucidate the difference, Williams is way more interpersonally active (student to student) and Swarthmore more obtrusively active toward issues (student to social cause etc.) and way less so student-to-student. The student bodies really do expend their energies very differently. Intellectually speaking though, there is zero difference, absolutely zero. I add Amherst in the zero difference as well.</p>
<p>I think the setting is the biggest difference, suburban vs. rural small town. Swarthmore isn’t Hampshire. I’m not sure what is visible in those first 5 minutes on campus that people have mentioned. I’ve taken the tour there twice with different kids. The first tour guide we had there came across as surprisingly ditzy, she was a fashionable girl who kept running into friends as she took us around. Rather the “woo girl” stereotype if you know what I mean. The second tour guide was a more serious boy who seemed more in line with expectations. Looking around, the students seemed pretty typical. I didn’t feel any sense of palpable activism. I think both schools would be great places to make tight friendships, work hard, party if you want to or not if you don’t, and know you are very well prepared for grad school.</p>
<p>falconflyer,
While I appreciate that you are a proud Williams supporter, and it is a GREAT school, you are making some mis-statements, in my opinion. Williams is not better by miles than Swarthmore for the sciences. Swarthmore has a new science center and just received a $50 million donation to, among other things, further upgrade science offerings. Please don’t characterize all Swarthmore students as “nerdy,” without characterizing all Williams students as “jocks.” Both statements are ludicrous generalizations. Both great schools. No need to perpetuate old stereotypes about each school. Saying that Swarthmore students have less person-to-person interaction than Williams students? What???</p>
<p>^^^^Well, I said something like that, but was taken to task. I think Freud’s comment about “the narcissism of small differences” is relevant here.</p>
<p>I think the histories if the schools are different which leaves different residues, but for most students the differences would be outweighed by the similarities. For certain students the differences would “make all the difference”, but Frost was actually being ironic when he said this, and these differences are very hard to predict.</p>
<p>If students have this choice to make, I think it’s best to go by instinct as it is when Amherst comes into the mix, too.</p>
<p>mythmom,
You and I go “way back.” I agree with whatever you have to say. :)</p>
<p>Please excuse the delayed response. I got busy with a few things.</p>
<p>It looks like I caused a little dust up here. Was not my intention, but intentions are virtual and irrelevant to reality; effects are real, and we live and respond to the “real”.</p>
<p>Let’s begin by acknowledging that these are my opinions, and they can be as inaccurate as the moon being made of green cheese. Instead of getting into a death match of the relative validity of differing opinions (after all, everything in this thread is personal opinion, including the comments other than mine), I will give the foundation upon which I formed my opinions and then everyone can, at least, understand from where my perspectives arose.</p>
<ol>
<li> In reference to the science discussion, I was being more objective than my posts indicate. I did not go to Williams and really am not a strong supporter either - indifferent is the better term. And, I did not go to Swarthmore either. My background is hard science in both undergrad and grad. Therefore, my opinion on the science aspects is rather objective and based on what I have seen in both places. I was most recently at Swarthmore 6 months ago. The point - I am assessing based on the science programs that I actually saw. And, I do know how to assess them. Another major point is new does not mean better; it never has. Because a school has a new or newer center says nothing about how it compares to another. Great for marketing, yes, but rubber hits the road on what can actually be done there and to what detail and significance levels. Sorry, Williams wins this outright. </li>
</ol>
<p>MIT is a great example - there are older labs there that are just better for industrious undergrads and I would take those over the newest LAC science center any day of the week. I judge based on what is possible to be taught and to what granular level, not on age of manufacture. And not having gone to any of these schools, I have no school pride dog in the fight. I might soon though, in 2018, if Amherst’s science center proves to be what the specifications imply. But, until then, this Amherst alum has to humbly raise the glass of wine to Williams on the science front. This is my personal / professional assessment and acknowledgment to give the credit where I think it is due. I know the difference because I went to Amherst when it did have the better science departments. The difference was stark then, and it is stark now. Williams did its homework well. They have done similar in math and economics as well.</p>
<ol>
<li> Exceptions do not make the rule, and my comments about the student bodies’ general personality characteristics are from actual interaction and time spent on the campuses of each of these schools. Clearly, someone can spend similar time in a similar way and reach alternate conclusions. My comments are indications of the normal distribution of student behavior and the range within which it falls, based on my observations. Of course not all Swarthmore students are nerdy, but if 65 - 70% are, then that will skew any data set i.e., given a random sample population of Swat students, there will be more nerds than not. Same as any random sample population at Williams has a much higher probability than not to have heavily sports-oriented students.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>I automatically assumed that it was understood the “nerdy” comments etc. were not concrete definitions as to a hard characteristic that applies to each and every student. The way I see it, so what if there are students of much different characteristics than the general, if statistically, one does not interact with them as much. A society / community is more often defined by the general, not the specific because that is what one is more likely than not to encounter.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The person-to-person interaction comment is really a self-fulfilling prophecy given the differing scales of fervent athletic activity of the schools. The higher sports focus at Williams means that students interact more via their teams (play, practice, eat, travel etc. together). It really does take a very high-level and amount of such interaction to build successful teams. Williams has that ever-present person-to-person interaction in droves, which is induced and promoted by the sports environment.</p></li>
<li><p>#3 above translates into some serious outward school pride and spirit. Williams is overflowing with it, and it is infectious. Swarthmore does not exude the same in spirit or depth of, from what I have seen. Please note - that is qualitatively different than saying Swarthmore lacks school pride and spirit; these are simply exhibited very differently and thus affects the entire general atmosphere.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I had one colleague put the difference this way - (paraphrased) “If a group tried to invade Williams, God help them for they would be in for one helluva fight of their lives because students would defend Williams and not give an inch. On the other hand, if the same malicious group invaded Swarthmore, they would be sent a questionnaire by students inquiring exactly what Swarthmore did wrong to raise their ire and which buildings they would like to confiscate in order to keep the peace; a peace that possibly never even existed.” An exaggeration for sure, but the student bodies do approach life that differently. Let’s face it, if Swarthmore tried to bring back football, they would have to contend with rallies about violence.</p>
<p>I restate that these are my opinions and are based on “being there” and many times “living it”. OK, I may be universes off the mark in my analysis (you are free to hold that opinion), but at least you now know how I formed them, rightly or wrongly. If my comments drive you near the deep end, I suggest you do not go over - not worth it. This is only a conversation couched and supported by multiple, disparate opinions, not life-changing issues. And given many of us have actually experienced these environments, it just goes to prove that people (we) can experience the same things and reach polar opposite conclusions. I do believe this is the wonderfulness of the human experiential construct that we call “living life”.</p>
<p>Thanks for the detailed post</p>
<p>Falcon flyer, I would have very different talking points to offer, but I really enjoyed your well-reasoned and well-argued post.</p>
<p>So… How about Middlebury VS. Williams? You guys gave such great responses to his Swat vs. Williams question. I’m completely torn in half over the two. Any advice? I plan to study Environmental Studies and English in hopes of attending Law School for Environmental Law. While Midd seems to have the strong ES program, I know Williams generally sends more students to Law School. I’m from a small island in the Caribbean so the weather change will be a shock. I’m very outdoor-sy and I don’t do any sports competitively but still participate for fun. I’d like a little bit of a party scene, but not overwhelming. I’m hispanic and afro-caribbean, and I have a single mother with a low income and a twin sister. Midd… or Williams?</p>
<p>I think you would find them very similar. Williams English program is very strong.</p>