fhimas88888888

FYI: The music department at Haverford is very small with a music library that is almost comically small. If you're interested in going to a place that really embraces music, you should take a look at Swarthmore. A sophomore, as you can read in the Phoenix, (The Phoenix Online - Sophomore accepted into National Repertory Orchestra) was recently accepted into the National Repertoire Orchestra, which is a pretty big deal. Though it's no state school nor conservatory, the students who do pursue music do it quite seriously. Swarthmore subsidizes lessons quite generously allowing students to take lessons in Philly or to have teachers come to the school. I'm, for the most part, very pleased with the music department: the group of students who hangs out in the music library are close knit.

johnwesley

HCAlum - yes, all of Wesleyan's science departments are Ph.d level. That is one way Wesleyan, a university roughly the size of Oberlin, chooses to spend its endowment.

HC Alum

"The music department at Haverford is very small with a music library that is almost comically small."

Swarthmore College | Library | Underhill Music & Dance Library
"Located on the edge of Crum Woods, in the Lang Music Building, the Underhill collection of approximately 37,000 items contains books, scores, journals, sound recordings, and video recordings in the fields of music and dance."

Haverford College Libraries
"Over 40,000 books, journals, scores, and recordings"
This *doesn't* include the dance collection which is at BMC.

YOU... this may be a good time to reiterate what you said before, no?

I would never suggest that HC's music/performing arts program is a good choice for people who know for a fact that they want to major in this area. In fact, I used the term "sketchy" in several posts to describe the performing arts at HC in relation to other departments such as bio, chem, physics, religion which are outstanding. I also have steered people away from Hc to Oberlin, Wesleyan and Williams which are outstanding in these areas. I consider Swats performing arts "excellent". Even though I'm hard on the arts at HC, my one classmate went to Julliard for piano after HC, so it can't be *that* bad.

AE, there's part of your answer. SC is uniformly excellent and outstanding in some areas (econ, poli sci, policy) and HC is outstanding in the sciences, excellent in several other fields (made outstanding with BMC) and "adequate-sketchy" for the performing arts. You should also re-read the post I made with ID a while back where we both agreed that colleges spend 1st on academic resources and any $ left over is then spent on financial aid, diversity and random luxuries and perks which don't have as much "bang for the buck). In addition, with economies of scale and synergies that can be obtained only in a consortium, the educational opportunites between bi-co and Swat aren't as lopsided as you claim.

For someone who has congratulated himself as "insightful" and "fair" with regards to writing about the pros/cons of Swat, I find it strange that you are making the most glaring of mistakes, letting snobbery blind-side you to Swat's standing regarding HC.

Dad2

Swarthmore certainly doesn't have anything to apologize for, and neither does Haverford. I'm sure I have my biases, and so too do the national rankings (USNW, etc.), but someone choosing to attend either college will receive an excellent education and be well prepared to compete and succeed in whatever they do with the rest of their academic/professional lives.

A.E.

Actually, no, you haven't answered anything I asked. I don't see how you can say that Haverford's sciences are outstanding, whereas Swarthmore's are merely excellent, when you can see plainly at REED COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY that Swarthmore is ahead of Haverford in Ph.D. productivity in sciences and engineering, in general, in addition to being ahead in the biological sciences specifically. And, getting back to the OP, we see Harvey Mudd is ahead of both in general, and ahead of Haverford (but not Swarthmore) in biological sciences.

For Ph.D. productivity in general, Haverford doesn't even make the top ten list, whereas Swarthmore is third overall. This points to the other academic departments, such as language and music and so on, likely being stronger at Swarthmore than at Haverford.

There's really just no comparison. Haverford is fine and all, but it is not at the level of Harvey Mudd or Swarthmore (or even Carleton).

hellohowareyou

The level of rancor on this thread is bugging me, so I'm going to give my 2 cents. It is silly to compare stats like this when comparing liberal arts colleges. Very little of the quality of academic experience is affected by factors such as the number of NIH funded labs or the number of alum who win rhodes scholarships. A student who gets into both Haverford and Swarthmore will be equally successful whichever he or she chooses, and each has produced successful graduates in every field. The choice should really be based on which college feels better. Seriously guys the rage and competitiveness is strange and so un swat/ un haverford.

A.E.

Can you prove that conjecture, or at least back it up somehow? I would totally agree if you were talking about Swarthmore vs. Bowdoin or Pomona or Middlebury or Reed or Carleton, but not Haverford. I just don't agree that Haverford is on the same level.

hellohowareyou

I agree that neither of us have scientific evidence, but my friends who are Haverford alums have gone on to do amazing things, and would not have had any doors opened by having gone to swarthmore. Perhaps you would argue that the one at harvard law would have gone to yale law, and then one with a 45k research gig at penn would have had a 47k research gig at penn, but that seems silly, and unlikely. Note that there is a slight difference in the academic quality of admittees at Haverford and Swat, but one person admitted to both probably wont have incredibly different outcomes either way, unless they find one school's atmosphere (or one department) impossible to work in.

dante's inferno

Of course Swarthmore is more productive in PHD's. Just look at the kinds of students that go there. Swarthmore students are more likely to go to graduate school and get an advanced degree.

In the biological science, specifically, a much lower proportion of biology majors at Haverford go on to graduate school. Most of them go on to medical school. This is not the case at Swarthmore, where a significantly higher proportion goes on to graduate school.

The actual difference in education is probably much smaller of a factor than the actual motivation/ability of the student that goes to the school.

johnwesley

this is becoming an academic argument; the level of vitriol is so high precisely because the stakes are so low.

siusplau

My take-away from this argument would be " Go to Harvey Mudd!"

A.E.

Data, please. I'd like to see a comparison of M.D. productivity between the two schools. It wouldn't surprise me if Haverford were ahead of Swarthmore in future M.D.s per graduate and/or future M.D.s per biology graduate, but I don't know this to be the case, and you've provided no data to back up your claim.

This may well be true, but then the quality of your peers is a big reason to go to an elite school (probably the biggest reason). If you're saying Haverford students have less academic ability (because you did say motivation/ability and not just motivation) than Swarthmore students, then that's a solid plus for Swarthmore.

Isn't that what I've been saying since my first post in this thread?

abcd41

At Haverford ALL biology (and other science) majors have opportunity to do senior research/thesis (big plus), while at Swarthmore biology students probably compete for such research opportunity. I think only Honors biology students get opportunity to do senior research. But I don't know how exactly faculty at Swarthmore select students for work on research project.
Doesn't it creat stress?

Seiken

tikib

There are some people who were accepted at Swarthmore and at Haverford and chose to go to Haverford. It should be something that they liked Haverford more. Programs? Student body? Atmosphere?