HC Alum

Hellohowareyou: I agree and also disagree with you. I agree that both schools provide a great science education (I even said “uniformly excellent”) and a kid working in an NIH lab is an incremental benefit. In fact, I went out of my way to point this out on at least 3 occasions in the past… never once did I use “almost comical” nor “2nd tier” as your colleagues did to dismiss HC.

embryonic stem cell research at Swarthmore
Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Haverford
What makes the Little 3(Will, Ahm, Swarth) special?

However, the context of my post was that AE continues to point out to applicants and parents that SC provides a better science education and one so much so that it deserves to be on a “separate tier”. In this setting, it’s absolutely reasonable to point out that HC’s science faculty, research and grant support has hit pinnacles that can’t be bettered. If AE wants to say that SC provides a better science education, then he needs to at least start by matching this list with direct and specific examples of award winning faculty, heavy-duty labs and external recognition... of resources currently on campus. If AE believes SC is on a higher tier, he then needs to provide significantly more examples as *that* would be “a separate tier”.

Regarding the PhD lists… it was designed by Thom Cech (head of the HHMI and not Reed College or ID) to argue that, as a category, small colleges can be considered as good as universities with preparing students for a research career if PhD production is used as a proxy for this. The list was meant to show no difference between types of schools. It’s not meant to show that one school performs better than another.

Speaking of Thom Cech, I believe on the 1st page of his “PhD production” paper, he said this. “My pulse quickens when I see students from Carleton, Haverford, and Williams who have applied to our Ph.D. program.” http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/...ch_article.pdf

Who to believe? Thom Cech (head of HHMI) or AE (anonymous internet poster)?

Finally, I’ve pointed this out ### times but just to show the serious flaws with the PhD rankings, here’s some stuff that will blow AE’s mind…

1) How do we explain Middlebury ranked #21 on the language ranking when they are recognized to have the strongest language program among LACs?
PhD production - Languages and Linguistics

2) How do you explain Williams ranked #15 on the art and music ranking when they have the strongest art history program among LACs and very strong in music too? #8 BMC doesn’t even have art/music departments on campus... they're at HC. According to this (as well as HC having a larger music library collection!!), maybe I should be more generous with the arts at HC?

Academic field: Music and Art
PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: 1994 to 2003 from NSF database
Enrollment from 2004 USNews
Formula: PhDs divided by undergrad enrollment times 1000

1 Juilliard School 170
2 Oberlin College 66
3 San Francisco Conservatory of Music 64
4 New England Conservatory of Music 35
5 University of Rochester 31
6 Swarthmore College 27
7 Yale University 22
8 Bryn Mawr College 18
9 Carleton College 18
10 Wellesley College 18
11 Smith College 18
12 Amherst College 17
13 Bennington College 17
14 Harvard University 15
15 Williams College 15


AE, I stand by my claim that I find your inconsistencies odd. You berate people about scientific evidence and stats yet don’t take the PhD rankings beyond face value. You dismiss HC for its endowment/student yet it almost has the same as Bowdoin and more than Carleton, Midd and Davidson, which are wonderful schools too. You dismiss HC yet many of the LACs you consider “peers” fall even further down on the PhD ranks. You want us to take you seriously yet, as a SC alum, speak as if you’re still in high school or on the cast of “Mean Girls” arguing who can’t be in the “cool club”.

HC Alum

AE

Oh yeah, and the 2008 MacArthur winners have been announced. I don't know how many HC has so far, but here's one that went to an organization that a HC alum founded.

Philadelphia's Juvenile Law Center wins MacArthur grant | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/10/2008

hellohowareyou

HC Alum...
I am not criticizing only you for your tone, or even particularly you. I, like you, think that LACs, and both Haverford and Swat in particular are great places to pursue the hard sciences. I don't think, however, that this conversation will persuade anyone, as it is rather offputting. Your lists of data are great, and were someone to challenge the idea that Haverford is a good place to pursue science, they would be useful, but as a means of persuading undecided high school students to go to Haverford rather than Swarthmore, i think they are missing the point.

A.E.

Can you prove this ridiculous statement? I doubt it. I hate to break it to you, but the onus is on you, not me, to back up statements such as that one with some kind of objective measuring stick or authority. You just rattle off the names and quantities of grants and arbitrary faculty stats as though that's supposed to mean something. It means absolutely nothing, especially when you omit all grant information about Swarthmore or Harvey Mudd and hand pick what criteria you feel exemplifies undergraduate scientific excellence.

But, as has been pointed out time and again, Swarthmore produces more science Ph.D.s per student than Haverford, by quite a wide margin (18 per 100 compared to 11 per 100). This is from the very link you provided! Thanks for proving me right, I guess. Harvey Mudd produces more science Ph.D.s than either, though it only edges Swarthmore out by 1 science Ph.D. per 100 enrolled students. If someone is going to college with the goal of being a professional scientist someday, it makes sense to target those institutions with higher Ph.D. productivity.

And, let's not get things twisted here. I have certainly said I consider Haverford on a lower tier than Swarthmore, but in a general sense (and due almost entirely to two things: quality of student and endowment per student). You have said quite the opposite regarding the science departments, specifically. You've referred to Haverford as outstanding and Swarthmore merely excellent in this regard so you, too, are guilty of making there out to be a discernible difference in the two schools, implying one is on a lower tier.

OK, let me get this straight... the list was not meant to show that one school performs better than another, so I should just pretend there's no difference between 18 and 11?

All that said, here is another statistic that may interest you. The Swarthmore forum here at College Confidential has 11,670 posts. The Haverford forum has 2,545 posts. Maybe you could spend more time over there, where some traffic is apparently needed, and less time here trolling us with your tired, pointless arguments and needlessly driving up our post count.

chikadee

*peruses thread while waiting for code to compile. iiinnnteresting...*


Go to Harvey Mudd! It will be fun!

mommamia

Pomona is very strong on language; its often said that the Claremont colleges are the only true multi-college program. Have you considered Carelton?
Its got a highly regarded chem. dept.
Swat has little neuroscience.

citrusbelt

But, Haverford has Bryn Mawr classes to enjoy, too (a real symbiotic relationship with a blue Bryn Mawr/Haverford bus that goes between the two schools a few times an hour). Bryn Mawr is quite high on that PhD list.

dante's inferno

Swarthmore has higher student quality, in the academic sense, I will certainly give you that. That would explain why their alumni attain more PhDs. Does that mean that their department(s) prepare the students better? Does it mean that their teachers are better, etc? Not necessarily. If I was a student looking to get a PhD, I might take a look at the school's PhD production, but I would take a much closer look at the actual department, the teachers, the labs.

Also I doubt that Swarthmore having more capable students would make it a big plus for someone studying there. It might be nice to be around other motivated students, but it doesn't play a major role in your education, perhaps a minor one.

mythmom

As a poor PhD who teaches college while many friends earn high six and even seven figure salaries, I think that going for a PhD does not indicate intelligence or even preparedness but temperament. I can think of many reasons professional school or jobs would be more attractive for many people than PhD's.

Academics as a career is suited to particular personalities and interests, but says nothing about our intelligence. I happen to think I'm pretty intelligent, but maybe not, because I haven't made it to six figures. I do enjoy my work.

Dad2

dante: the remarkably high caliber of the peer group (Swarthmore students) is indeed important, in addition to great faculty/facilities, etc. A bright and motivated student body raises the bar for everyone- faculty teach and mentor to the level of their students.

tikib

Some bright motivated students from "lower" colleges/universities enter graduate programs at Harvard, Stanford, MIT and the like. I know students from Pepperdine university and Whitman college who are now at Harvard and Stanford PhD programs.
Yes, the proportion is smaller, but it is easier for bright motivated student to stand out and get excellent recommendations from professors.
The difference in academic quality of students entering Swarthmore/Haverford/Harvey Mudd is not significant. How do you determine academic quality? By SAT/GPA? 25%-75% SAT is higher at Harvey Mudd. How about Reed college?

nngmm

The caliber of student body is extremely important in small discussion-based classes. Your peers will pretty much determine the level at which the class is taught.

momof3sons

Agree with nngmm. S is a first year grad student in a top university and says that Honors Seminars at Swat were better because they were smaller and the students were smarter.

A.E.

Yeah, right, because when you're 16-17 you know exactly how to evaluate an academic department and the professors at a college.

This is so laughably off the mark that I don't even know where to begin. So I think I won't, except to say that you're certainly entitled to that opinion.

momof3sons

^^^^
A.E.-You are right on the mark with those comments.