Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Hello, parents.

The application process has been a wild ride and I'm glad to report that I've been accepted to these two schools. The financial package has been great for both places, but I have to make a hard decision by May that will affect my future and life. Academically, I felt that I can fit in at both places. Because of my financial constraints, I haven't visited either of these schools. My decision will be based on the intagibles and I have no idea what I'm looking for at this point. Does any parents know anything about Amherst or Swarthmore beside the academic view?

Thank you.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit

They're equally good. Their campuses are also great. Swarthmore is set in an arboretum. Amherst, too, is a wonderful campus with lots of green spaces. Offhand, I would say that Amherst is more sports oriented than Swarthmore.
I would pick Swarthmore on account of location. It's further south, so less cold than Amherst which is in Western MA. It is also close to Philadelphia, whereas Amherst is two hours drive from Boston. This can be a consideration if you want to go home.

By Tri_N (Tri_N) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Can you tell me the social life between the two schools?

Finally, what kinds of questions should I ask myself when I visit these schools?

Thank you

By Elva (Elva) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:58 pm: Edit

When did you hear from Amherst? Was the decision online or did you get a large envelope? We are still waiting.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit

I like Amherst's proximity to Northampton and the whole Five College Consortium thing but then I've had to register with the U.S. Government and John Ashcroft as an official Smith Honk (tm).

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Academics: Call it a tie. Both as good as it gets. Swarthmore has a reputation for being a little more academically intense, but that's splitting hairs.

History: Amherst was founded as men's college by a group that broke off from Williams back in 1821, believing that they needed a school a little closer to civiliation. It was an all-male college up through 1970 or so. Swarthmore was founded as a co-ed college from the start, by the Quakers. Quakers are a small religious group that has historically been fervently anti-war and pro equal-rights. For example, a Swarthmore graduate was a leader in the movement to give women the right to vote. Quakers founded schools in the south to educate freed slaves after the Civil War. Today, Swarthmore isn't the slightest bit Quaker in the religious sense. However, a bit of the Quaker influence is certainly a part of the school's culture -- emphasis on community service, welcoming diversity, giving something back to the world, quiet discussion instead of shouting people down, and so on.

Campus culture: Back in the old days (pre 1960) Amherst was a more conservative college, although like all elite colleges, it evolved into a politically liberal school by the late 1960's. I don't think the political climate on the two campuses would be much different today. However, Amherst will still be a bit more "traditional" than Swarthmore with a football team, more athletics, etc. Swarthmore's tradition is more "quirky intellectual", probably a somewhat higher proportion "geeky" students instead of "jocks" and "preps". But, again, we are splitting hairs. By and large, the students at both schools will be a cross-section of smart, acadmecially challenging young people. Swarthmore has slightly higher ethnic/racial diversity, with the difference being somewhat higher Asian representation (12% to 16%).

At Swarthmore, you pay a one-time student activities fee and then ALL events, concerts, parties, lectures, movies, and stuff must be open to every student and "free" (again, a bit of that equal-access inclusive Quaker ambience). I'm not sure how Amherst handles this.

Size: About the same. Amherst has just over 1600 students. Swarthmore has 1500.

Location: Amherst is in a small college town in central Massachusetts. The town is also the home of a large state university U Mass (not so affectionately known as Zoo Mass). Several other liberal arts colleges (Smith, Holyoke, Hampshire) are in the same general area and you can take classes at all five. So, it's a fairly lively college town; however, it is fairly remote from city life. Boston is an hour and half to two hours by car. Hartford is probably an hour. Swarthmore is located in an old, expensive close-in suburb of Philadelphia. Swarthmore has its own train station on campus -- fifteen minutes or so to downtown Philadelphia. So, you have access to a big city when the campus gets a little too small: ethnic neighborhoods, outdoor markets, nightlife, concerts, etc. Or, the train takes you directly to the airport (45 minutes), or to New York or Washington (2 hours). Swarthmore's location lets you do things without a car that Amherst does not. Swarthmore is in the same general area as Haverford, Bryn Mawr, and UPenn and you can take classes at all three.

Climate: Pretty similar. Philadelphia would give you a several more weeks of warmish weather in the fall and spring than Amherst and less snow in the winter.

Housing and Campus: Both have dorms for all students for all four years. Both are predominantly coed -- i.e. mens rooms and womens rooms on the same hall -- however, both have some single-sex halls. The major difference will be that Amherst houses all freshmen in freshmen dorms, mostly in "freshman quad". Swarthmore mixes freshmen into dorms with upperclass students from the start (very unusual). From my experience, segregating freshman makes it difficult to get to know people in the preceding classes. Freshman dorms tend to be somewhat "wilder" than mixed or upper-class dorms.

Both schools have a very pretty postcard campus. However, Swarthmore's campus might be the most beautiful campus in the country and would have to get the nod in this department. Amherst has mix of architecture, but is predominantly red brick. Swarthmore's buildings are almost all gray stone. Swarthmore's campus is a national "arboretum", heavily wooded, and planted with gardens. It's basically like living in a huge garden.

Special academic traditions: Like Williams, Amherst has a winter study period in January. First semester ends at Christmas. Second semester begins in Feb. In January, you take a one month special course or seminar. These are usually somewhat fun or different. For example, at Williams I did a Math Department Winter Study on gambling odds. I did another Winter Study where I spent the month on a counter-culture "commune". I did a third Winter Study learning the history of the Blues. It's basically an attempt to make January survivable, since you will be pretty much snowbound. Swarthmore's unique feature is making first semester freshman year PASS/FAIL, giving incoming freshmen a chance to acclimate to a very tough academic load and to college life. You still get grades in your courses, but they are not put on your transcript.

Overall, these two schools are very similar. It would be hard to go wrong either way.

I'm a Williams grad. However, if I were choosing today, I would chose Swarthmore over Williams or Amherst in a nanosecond. Why? The biggest drawback to a small liberal arts colleges is that there will be times during four years when the campus just starts to feel small and claustrophic. After all, you live it 24/7 and any academic environment is a bit like being in a bubble. To me, being able to hop on a train for a few hours in a major city once a week, once a month, or whenever you need it, would address that one major drawback. Neither Amherst nor Williams offer that option without a car. With a car, it's still a roadtrip. By the time you round up three or four people, it always ends up being a major production. Hard to just slip away on the spur of the moment. My wife, also a Williams grad, feels the same way. She would choose Swarthmore.

By Mini (Mini) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 12:09 am: Edit

I'm also a Williams grad, but if I had to do it again, I'd choose Swarthmore (but I'm a Quaker!) Also, Williams is quite a bit more athletic (and, as we saw when we visited, quite a bit more alcoholic) than when I was there, and I would say the same of Amherst. However, you might prefer that. The biggest differences are in the culture. Faculties and facilities of both are superb!

By Momsdream (Momsdream) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

Wow Interestedad. THAT was a great comparison!! Thanks for the helpful info.

I attended a child's 3rd birthday party on Saturday and struck up a onversation with one young mother who was a graduate of Connecticut College. She, as is typical of many in my extended circle, is a liberal-minded woman from the Philadelphia main line. We got around to discussing K-8 school choices and, eventually, colleges. She was adamant about Amherst being too conservative for her liking and suggested that it might be too conservative for many in our crowd. Though I had heard about the conservative culture of Amherst, I hadn't realized the strength of the reputation. The more I listen, the more I hear it.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit

>> She was adamant about Amherst being too conservative for her liking and suggested that it might be too conservative for many in our crowd. Though I had heard about the conservative culture of Amherst, I hadn't realized the strength of the reputation. The more I listen, the more I hear it.

I have a real problem with the labels because terms like "liberal" and "conservative" imply politics and how people vote. I don't think the labels are useful because saying that Amherst is "more conservative" than Swarthmore implies that all the radios are tuned to Rush Limbaugh. I am very certain that is NOT the case.

Based on my experience at Williams (and I really think Amherst is a siamese-twin), the student body was largely non-political. Both schools basically specialized in taking white males from wealthy prep schools and preparing them for med school, law school, or business school and Wall Street. But, of course, that's like saying that Mt. Holyoke prepared young women to marry lawyers. Neither characterization is relevant today -- Williams and Amherst are 50% women and have as much diversity as any other schools, Holyoke is hotbed of lesbian politics. The characterizations are just the historic traditions of the schools pre-1960s when all of academia veered leftward.

I believe that virtually every elite college and university is "liberal" politically. It's part of the academic culture and largely driven by the faculties more than the students. For the most part, the nation's educators are the leading proponents of "political correctness" and it doesn't matter if they teach at Swarthmore, Amherst, Harvard, or Wake Forest.

Likewise, I don't really like the "liberal" label for Swathmore. Again, it carries partisan political connotations that are wide of the mark. I mean, I doubt that Swarthmore could have a higher percentage of registered Democrats than Harvard.

I do think that the Quaker traditions have an definite influence on the Swarthmore culture and the culture tends to attract a particular type of student. Vassar attracts a slighty "artsier" student body. Williams and Amherst attract a slightly "jock-ier" student body. Swarthmore attracts a slightly more "quiet intellectual" student body. I don't think the differences would be that significant, however.

My wife and I have had this discussion. She calls Williams a "jock" school. I laugh and ask "compared to what?". To me, the University of Miami is a "jock" school; they have a professional football team. Compared to the whole universe of colleges, how can Williams be a "jock" school with no athletic scholarships? Maybe compared to Swarthmore, it's a jock school. But, that's like saying this apple is just a little bit redder than that apple. Neither apple looks much like a bananna.

By Momrath (Momrath) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 01:55 am: Edit

Although this thread started out as an Amherst vs Swarthmore query, I feel Williams needs a plug here so I will jump in. I didn't go to Williams. If I had the chance to do it all over again I'd probably choose Swarthmore too, but having said that I'd like to describe my son's experience at Williams.

First, sports. Williams has a reputation as a white bread jock school. (Oddly, it also has the seemingly contradictory reputation for excellence in fine arts.) All of the small LACs have an extremely high percentage of varsity players. Think about filling 30-35 teams out of 1500 to 2000 students. At Williams academics come first even with athletes. Although quite outdoorsy, my son is not into organized sports. The kids are for the most part healthy and active but they are no more inclined to watch football than any other group of American teenagers. And for the most part, the athletes and the non's live and play together without prejudice.

Second, politics. The politics of the students at most LACs (Wesleyan may be an exception) is variable. The kids are open to discussion and (again I generalize) are tolerant of opinions. The politics of the faculty at almost all LACs and universities is decidedly liberal. Williams tends to try to offer a fair and balanced agenda while some other schools just wear their political hearts on their sleeves. All the same, the flavor from the top down leans left.

Third, isolation. My son is an urban kid. He worried about the isolation of Williams but has actually come to feel it's a plus. The surrounding countryside is so profoundly beautiful, the kids feel grateful to be there. And there really are tons of activities. They are not bored. (Once or twice a semester he's managed to get to Boston or New York, but he's always been happy to get back to Williamstown.) Weather also was a worry, but even in this most brutal winter, the kids have fun in the snow!

Fourth, drinking. My son isn't much of a drinker. The country where he attended highschool doesn't have drinking laws, so the intrigue was missing. He says that aside from some boorish abusers, drinking really isn't an issue at Williams(and drugs are very rare).

Fifth, academics. I'd say the quality of academics is identical among these three schools. My son chose Williams because it is by far the best in Art and Art History. Williams has the Winter term and tutorial system. Swarthmore has the no grade freshman system year. There are distinctions at each but basically all three offer the best in liberal arts education.

All three schools are trying hard to combat their stereotypes (the Williams jock, the Amherst WASP, the Swarthmore hippy) by actively recruiting diversity. They have been successful but the stereotypes persist.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 02:30 am: Edit

>> Second, politics. The politics of the students at most LACs (Wesleyan may be an exception) is variable. The kids are open to discussion and (again I generalize) are tolerant of opinions. The politics of the faculty at almost all LACs and universities is decidedly liberal. Williams tends to try to offer a fair and balanced agenda while some other schools just wear their political hearts on their sleeves. All the same, the flavor from the top down leans left.

I think that's accurate. We all have seen our kids in high school. I don't see a lot of political debates. My daughter is relatively interested in current affairs and politics, but she avoids getting into debates with her friends because she knows some have strong views on both sides. She doesn't feel any particular need to tell people they are "wrong".

I think the same dynamic is at play in the student bodies at these colleges. You have the odd pockets of students who make a lot of noise about this issue or that issue (ah, the fervor of youth when you just absolutely know you know better than anyone else!) The more radical the issue, the louder the noise. But, for the most part, the students just go about their business without a lot of intrusion from the outside world (politics included).

Kind of like grown up politics, these days. On any given day, you might hear Jesse Jackson pontificating about this or that and Newt Gingrinch pontificating about that or this, but the average American doesn't pay much attention and, if the ballot box tells us anything, doesn't see one tenth of one percent difference between any of the candidates.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 04:01 am: Edit

i chose swarthmore over williams (amherst's siamese twin). that's because of the magnificent shopping mall just down the street from the swarthmore campus. just kidding. all my reasons can be found in the various posts above. to tell you the truth, once i sorted out all my college acceptances, i narrowed it down to oberlin, vassar, wesleyan, and swarthmore. choosing from this great group was difficult, while eliminating williams, princeton, and penn from the final group was not. i think that sorta tells you something about not only me, but the swarthmore student body in general. i don't think that being passionate about certain issues and welcoming debate means telling people that they are "wrong." unfortunately, at most schools, it's one extreme or the other: passionate and vocal political interest and activism OR apathy. i think there is some truth to the williams jock, amherst wasp, and swarthmore hippie thing still. you should consider that.

though i think the town of amherst has a pretty bitchen mall, too.

By Achat (Achat) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 08:14 am: Edit

Tri, I've been reading your posts on Parents forum for a long time. I don't have solid arguments one way or another for you like InterestedDad. But my son got in and is going there, so I'd like to say, it would be great if you went there. I don't know much about you except from your posts and you seem like an upstanding person and very remarkable in what you have achieved. So I'd like my son to go to a college where there are more people like you.....and I'm not saying this to butter you up...:-)
So choose Swarthmore.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 08:30 am: Edit

Just to continue the Williams tangent...Interesteddad, they like to say at the Williams info session that students who try to spend January studying Irish pubs are routinely turned down lol.

We had thought Williams would be jocky, but it has a thriving arts community. And being D3, it has student athletes who have time to be involved in other ECs.

By Momsdream (Momsdream) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 09:03 am: Edit

I really didn't think in terms of conservative specifically translating to politics. I believe I took the comment as it was intended, in terms of culture. Perhaps the term "wasp" should have been used instead of "conservative". And, for Swat, the term "hippie" instead of "liberal". Either way, I took it to mean the same thing.

By the way, I have heard some heated political debates amongst the kids. My son even recorded one on film at his school. The kids were in the SAC debating about Bush and the war. It got so intense that my son ran upstairs to grab the video camera from the photo lab (he was taking a photography elective and had access to the lab) and recorded the discussion.

I think it's nice that each school (Amherst, Williams, Swat) has it's own personality. Who needs 3 of the same?

By Mini (Mini) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 11:13 am: Edit

For what it's worth, given the choice between Swarthmore, Amherst, and Williams, my kid is going to Smith.

By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 11:34 am: Edit

Mini:
LOL! Tri, being male, is not eligible to consider Smith, otherwise he'd have even more trouble deciding!

By Mini (Mini) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 11:56 am: Edit

Oh, well (he'd probably like it!)

I shouldn't be so flip, but here's why Smith fits my D better than any of these 3 (all four are GREAT schools):

-- Better music, and much more studio arts than the other three;
-- Better language departments than the other three;
-- Much greater commitment to foreign study, including some of the best developed (and longest established) programs in Paris, Florence, Hamburg, and Geneva, overseen by their own faculty.
-- Better housing (though Williams is pretty darn good!)
-- Bigger catalog (it is larger than the other 3 and there are more choices) AND the benefits of the five colleges - in music, two courses this term are being taught by Amherst faculty on the Smith campus);
-- One guaranteed paid summer internship;
-- For 40-50 students per year (including mine), a paid research assistantship with a faculty member for the first two years;
-- Definitely less athletics;
-- Less abusive drinking;
-- Much better college town.

When we put all this stuff together, it wasn't even close. Now I can easily imagine having a d. that would fit better at one of the other three. But she isn't mine.

By Idler (Idler) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit

Great posts, all. Thanks. Anyone have an opinion on son's choice, Amherst/Williams vs Dartmouth?

By Momsdream (Momsdream) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 12:20 pm: Edit

I wonder what sort of kid would fit better at the other three.

Hmmmmm

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit

>> I really didn't think in terms of conservative specifically translating to politics.

OK. Then, I agree. I was just trying to go out of my way to not leave the impression that Amherst has 1500 Rush Limbaughs running around and Swarthmore has 1500 political extremists in the other direction. I believe that you could pick up 80% of the kids from either school, swap them to the other campus, and never know the difference. The similarities at Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore are far stronger than the differences.

Against the entire universe of american colleges, all three would be pressed far against the left end of the cultural spectrum. You would really have to move out of New England to find schools that could even be termed culturally "centrist". For example, co-ed dorms are nearly universal at all of these colleges -- men and women in adjacent rooms on the same hall, something that was considered "luntic-fringe wacko" in the 1970s.

Actually, we have a first hand look at two schools with my daughter and one of her best friends. Best friend is probably going to Williams, daughter is going to Swarthmore. My wife and I think that Williams is the PERFECT school for best friend and Swarthmore is the PERFECT school for daugther. It has nothing to do with politics, but rather just the personalities of the two girls.

>> By the way, I have heard some heated political debates amongst the kids. My son even recorded one on film at his school. The kids were in the SAC debating about Bush and the war.

My daughter has been embroiled in a few, but now makes it a point not to discuss politics and religion at her high school. We have a large Irish Catholic population and my daughter, being the perceptive young lady that she is, quickly identified several contemporary political issues that inevitably lead to unproductive dialog.

9/11 and the Iraq war have been the first issues in decades that have prompted passionate response on campus. I've spent some time reading the college's reactions to both at Williams and Swarthmore -- both have extensive essays from faculty. Interesting reading. I sense that many college professors are perplexed with not only the range of opinions, but also the mood of patriotism that they have seen in students following 9/11.

Swarthmore has an extensive section of their website on Iraq war debates. It was kind of pathetic really: When the faculty held a symposium, they had to bring in an outside professor to argue in favor of the war because they couldn't find anyone to present that side from their own ranks! Even the guy they brought in was essentially against the war. Reading the transcript of the symposium and Q&A, it is clear that far more varied opinions were represented in the student audience than on the panel of experts!

I think it's frustrating for the professors, because their shaping experiences with politics as students came at a time when anger at the Vietnam war and the government (Watergate) was universal on campus. What they saw following 9/11 and the Iraq invasion didn't fit that simple model, but rather a complex range of emotions and opinions among the students.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit

I believe that Dartmouth would be essentially identical to Williams/Amherst, but in a larger university setting. It has double the number of undergraduates (4,000) plus the graduate schools. Cultural, tradition, and rural location would be very similar. The main difference would be the undergrad experience at an R1 research university versus a small liberal arts college. Historically, I know that a lot of students who like Williams also like Dartmouth.

The winter climate at Dartmouth is harsh. Williams is pretty bad, but Lebanon, NH. is decidedly colder and snowier still. On the other hand, good skiing is closeby. Both Williamstown and New Hampshire are heaven on earth in the summer and fall.

By Momsdream (Momsdream) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Funny you mentioned Dartmouth. During this same conversation the woman said "definitely NOT Dartmouth!".

I have heard that Dartmouth is very waspy, enough so that I haven't thought much about it any further.

It could be that my circle in Philadelphia is much more liberal (hippie) than the rest of the East. And, as such, the typical viewpoint on these schools might come from a prespective that isn't much shared on these boards. And, this isn't at all related to race because these conversations were with white women who are Jewish.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

>> Interesteddad, they like to say at the Williams info session that students who try to spend January studying Irish pubs are routinely turned down lol.

Maybe. But, the best professor I had at Williams made a career of studying Irish pubs. Professor Gifford published THE annotated guide to James Joyce's Ulysses -- an 800 page text that detailed every place mentioned in the book with all the historical references associated with that place. Of course, much of the book detailed obscure bits of history and lore associated with pubs in Ireland. For his research, Gifford visited every location in Ulysses and he took groups of students to Ireland on occasion for Winter Study. I don't know, but I rather suspect Prof. Gifford tipped a pint or two in Irish pubs.

His classes were like one-man virtuoso theater performance. I remember, on more than one occasion, having the class rise and give him a standing ovation at the end of a class -- acknowledging the pure, spellbinding entertainment of it all. I don't remember a darn thing about Ulysses, but I still have vivid memories of Prof. Gifford.

To me, he represents the very best of the small liberal arts colleges: faculty who love teaching. The beauty of the environment is that professors like him freely associate with the undergrads. He could be seen at a table of students in the snack bar or at The Pub on Spring Street.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Momsdream:

I think that, when you are dealing with colleges that have been around for 150 years it is sometimes easy to blur historic reputations, and today's reality. Certainly Williams, Amherst, and Dartmouth were all very WASPy in the first half of the 1900's.

But, here's an example of how these institutions evolve over time. I think it's fair to say that the city of Cambridge and Harvard University define modern "liberal" culture. You would be hard pressed to find a more "politically correct" institution or city. Yet, in the not too distant past, Harvard was anything but progressive or inclusive.

In 1922, the President of Harvard proposed a maximum quota of 15% on the number of Jewish students admitted to the university. His arguments were the exact opposite of the arguments used by Harvard today, specifically he "reasoned" that a higher percentage of Jewish students would increase anti-Semitism.

Jewish leaders on campus kept him from imposing his quota, but the University found different means of achieving the same goal. They decided that "Geographic Diversity" would be a desirable goal and started giving preference in the admissions process to applicants from outside the northeast. Of course, the applicants being given preference from these suddenly desireable regions of the country (south, midwest, west) tended to be far less Jewish than those from the major northeast cities that had traditionally supplied Harvard with its young men.

At the same time, Harvard changed its admissions criteria, moving away from using standardized test scores as an exclusive measure (Jewish students tended to do very well on the test) to a system that emphasized high school class rank.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/harvard.html

Anyway...you can see my hesitation in confusing old perceptions with today's. Often, a university is described as "conservative" simply because it has a handful of professors who actually publish conservative political or economic editorials. The University of Chicago is an an example, especially in the economics department, which is the academic home of the "cut-taxes, deregulate, trickle down" bandwagon.

By Mini (Mini) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 03:49 pm: Edit

When I was at Williams, there was still a "Jew quota", and this was in the 60s! (Boy, do I have some funny stories!) Herbert Lehman, perhaps the largest living contributor to the college, wasn't invited to the Board of Trustees. Catholics didn't fare much better. (But I LOVED Don Gifford's classes -- I sat in on one as a prospie, which is what convinced me to go there.)

Now, of course, the last two Prez's of Williams have been Jewish, and the latest one is Morton Owen (Morty) Schapiro, who took his undergraduate degree at Hofstra, on Long Island.

It is wonderful to see things change. You always have to visit to get a sense of how things are today, rather than relying on how they used to be.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 03:58 pm: Edit

>> Herbert Lehman, perhaps the largest living contributor to the college

When talking about Williams' Jewish alumni contributors, we would be remiss in overlooking the Edgar Bronfman (see Bronfman Science Center).

I agree about basing decisions on today's campus, not historical impressions. For example, I would hate for a prospective student to evaluate Wellesley based on a viewing of the movie, "Mona Lisa Smile".

All of these schools underwent a profound sea-change (as the country did) starting in the mid-1960s. The "Leave it To Beaver" world is ancient history.

By Mini (Mini) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit

"I wonder what sort of kid would fit better at the other three."

Well, if you wanted a more athletic feel to the campus scene, you definitely wouldn't go to Smith (but to Amherst or Williams). If you wanted men around all the time, you definitely wouldn't go to Smith. If you wanted easier access to skiing or winter sports, Williams would be a better choice. If you wanted a full January term (rather than an optional J term), you'd go to Williams or Amherst. If you had a larger taste for alcohol, you wouldn't go to Smith (but Smithies do go over to Amherst). If you wanted easier access to a big city, you'd go to Swarthmore. There may be some subspecialties at each place that might be attractive (though more of them at Smith than at the others.)

Any of these could be a big thing to any particular kid. But if none of these were true (and you were of the female persuasion), I think for reasons already stated that Smith could be a better fit than any of these three.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

A lot can be learned about a school from reading the April Fool's day parodies:

Today's edition of the Swarthmore Daily Gazette is absolutely hilarious, providing some sophisticated digs at geekdom, intellectual depth, and assorted other Swattie issues:

Here's the link:

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/daily/archive/spring_2004/20040401.html

Here are a couple of the items that had my daughter and I doubled over in laughter:

*****

2) Student falls into pit of existential despair of interpretation

A member of the junior class who identifies himself as a Comparative Literature major and an Interpretation Theory minor found himself awash in existential despair Wednesday night in McCabe library, as he discovered he was no longer able to distinguish between reality and interpretation...

*****

7) Real World teams up with Swat to liven up admissions

In an effort to make Swarthmore more visible to the public, the President's Office has unveiled a plan to have the new cast members of Real World Philadelphia work in the admissions office for the college.

"We are sure with their help, we are going to come up with a top-notch set of young, hip and happening freshmen coming to Swarthmore for the year 2009. Much better than the geeks we have now," says Al Bloom while paging through Spin Magazine.

The school first realized there was a problem when they had to hide their students when Abercrombie and Fitch came to the school to do a photo shoot for their new catalogue. "Our students were scaring the models. They had never seen so many dorky people in one place at the same time," says Lucinda Wright from the Ministry of Information.

"I don't know, man. It was like, wow. The girls didn't even wear makeup and like, some of them didn't even shave their legs. I just wanted to sit there and cry, man," says Joey Scicola, Abercrombie and Fitch model.

After the photo shoot was over, the school realized something had to change. "Swarthmore may have used to be the Kremlin on the Crum but that's an image that needs some updating. Why can't we be the Calvin Klein on the Krum?" says Wright.

In an effort to help the Real World cast in their job as new admissions officers, the Admissions Office has begun trying to streamline the admissions process. "We decided to get rid of those time-consuming essays. We are taking our cues from MTV itself. We are going to require video taped interviews instead. Interviews will be held in front of cameras in a "Real World Confessional" type manner. Greater emphasis will be placed on wardrobe and accessorizing. Each candidate, I mean applicant, will be ranked on a four smiley face scale," says Bock.

*****

By Momsdream (Momsdream) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit

"In an effort to help the Real World cast in their job as new admissions officers, the Admissions Office has begun trying to streamline the admissions process. "We decided to get rid of those time-consuming essays. We are taking our cues from MTV itself. We are going to require video taped interviews instead. Interviews will be held in front of cameras in a "Real World Confessional" type manner. Greater emphasis will be placed on wardrobe and accessorizing. Each candidate, I mean applicant, will be ranked on a four smiley face scale," says Bock. "

We're in!! My son has mucho "bling-bling" (both ears pierced with diamonds in them) and the baggy jeans and Timbs to boot. Real Word acdom, here we come! LOL

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 09:49 pm: Edit

>> We're in!! My son has mucho "bling-bling" (both ears pierced with diamonds in them) and the baggy jeans and Timbs to boot. Real Word acdom, here we come! LOL

Ha! He would love this. The Friday edition of the Swattie Daily Gazette always highlights something to do in Philadelphia. One week, it will be the Farmer's Market. Another, some kind of street festival in Chinatown. Last Friday's weekend tip described the best "Piercing Parlor" in Phila. as a fun Saturday excursion.

By Momsdream (Momsdream) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

LOL...no more piercings here. He isn't really into piercing or tatoos...just the hip-hop look of both ears pierced and the bling-bling diamonds.

But, I can see lots of Swatties seeking the solace of the piercing parlor and/or the thrift shop for clothing (my son is a big thrift shop shopper! I am mortified by his "Getty Gas Station" jacket, embroidered with the name "Phil" (not his name), which he loves)

Hippie all the way!

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit

>> But, I can see lots of Swatties seeking the solace of the piercing parlor and/or the thrift shop for clothing (my son is a big thrift shop shopper!

Ha, again. I can't remember where I read it. But, sometime recently I read a Swarthmore freshman thanking the chairman of the Russian department for suggesting that she go to the Goodwill store near campus for a dress.

By Tri_N (Tri_N) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

For those that are interested, Amherst and Swarthmore remain to be my top two choices.

At this moment, other schools are offering to fly me out to visit their campus and I'm wondering which ones I should attend.

Davidson, Trinity College (CT), Amherst, and Swarthmore offer to fly me out. I will definitely attend Amherst and Swarthmore, and I think I will attend Trinity College since April 12th will be in my Spring Break. I like to visit Davidson but my schedule is very tight. Should I visit Davidson or not?

As always, thank you for your help.

By Iluvtoshop (Iluvtoshop) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Definitely visit Davidson. That is the only way to make sure you aere making the right choice, because it will always make you wonder, what if i had visited etc. If you are given the opportunity to be flown out to each school. Take the opportunity, explore, and get a feel for each college and see if you could see yourself there for 4 yrs. Good luck to whatever decision you make!

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Tri:

We visited Davidson with my daughter. It is a wonderful place, although the only concrete reason she could think of to chose it over Swarthmore would be better weather. It's in a wonderful location just outside of Charlotte (actually smack dab in the Lake Norman region where all the NASCAR drivers have their mansions). However, access to the city would pretty much require a car.

I would rank Davidson, Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore as identical from an academic standpoint.

Davidson would be the most "preppie" of the group -- the only one with significant fraternity life. My wife and I loved Davidson; however, at the end of the day, we thought that it might be just a little too "preppie" for my daughter (who doesn't own many kakhi and Izod outfits and whose idea of a good time is not a frat party.

I would rank Swarthmore as the least "preppie" of the group and, perhaps the one that attracts kids who didn't run with the "popular crowd" in high school.

I would rank Williams and Amherst in between those two extremes, with Williams getting the nod for "outdoors-y" and "athletic" students and Amherst being (perhaps) the most traditional New England "upper crust" of the bunch (don't quote me on that -- it's a stereotype that may have changed over the last 30 years. When I visited Amherst as a high-school senior in 1971, I was shocked to see students in coats and ties, instead applying to Williams where blue jeans, flannel shirts, and hiking boots were the standard-issue uniform.)

But, again, we are talking small differences in shading. Those four schools are far more similar than dissimilar.

By Tri_N (Tri_N) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Thank you for all your helps and guidances.

Just to let you guys know, I think I'm going to choose Amherst over Swarthmore.

I toured both schools with a very critical eye and came out thinking that Amherst is a better fit for me. If any future applicant is interested, feel free to ask any question.

I don't have time right now but I will give a detail take of both schools later on.