<p>“…who obviously doesn’t realize what he missed!”
Um… that would be approximately 15 minutes of your procrastination and 35 minutes of mine. Shame on us! :)</p>
<p>OK. I’m going to try to be as clear as possible one last time… perhaps this will save me time in the future because disagreeing with ID seems to take up too much effort. ID, as you seem to be a nice guy who tries to help out kids, I will detail 3 of the issues I have with your posts.</p>
<p>1) “Dominate”. If you initially wrote “not as tight knit” or “Swat doesn’t get much benefit from…” like you did only LATER, then I would agree. “Dominate” means something different. This is pasted from a web dictionary</p>
<p>“To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power; To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over; To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in.” </p>
<p>Like I wrote, Swat doesn’t lord over anyone because the Bi-co may actually have more resources/ opportunities and Swat is too far away for most people to notice. How can Swat “dominate” those who don’t care and would equally not benefit? Also, from what I’m reading about the Claremont consortium here, it seems that the “party” is really between CMC/ Scripps and Pomona is sort of off to the side… so “dominate” may have inappropriate implications there too.</p>
<p>2) If you want to be “objective” without “opinions”, you should do more than regurgitate self-serving #s and skewed opinions that you read on the Swat web site. If you wanted to be balanced, you would consider the other perspective and explore the limits with your #s but that is something you rarely seem to do. If you did, you would see that Bi-co kids are too busy with what they already possess to look longingly to Swat, that your PhD “lists” suggest statistically significant differences in PhD production between schools when there are none, ect…</p>
<p>Regarding your endowment #s and other numerics… if you don’t consider some obvious things, the conclusions you draw won’t be accurate if your goal is to compare “academic and social resources” and college experience. Consortiums are one factor. How $ is spent is another. When you quote that CMC had “zero” arts majors, people would infer that the CMC experience must somehow be devoid of the arts and lopsided… that is not the case. Not only can CMC kids take classes elsewhere, it appears that many CMC kids have friends who major in the arts, but they may just go to a neighbor school. Because the campuses bleed into the others, such “us/them” tribalism and “borders/boundaries” have little meaning. I’m sure CMC kids have just as much opportunity to intellectually masticate/masturbate about philosophy, art and science as Swat students. Even though “zero” may be descriptive of the facts, it misrepresents reality. It blisters me that you should coyly hide behind the assertion that you are “just state’n the facts” when we’ve learned from current world events that “facts” can be both incomplete and skewed. </p>
<p>3) “Not in the same league”. Like the word “dominate”, this has dismissive overtones; Major league vs the Minors, professional vs amateur, serious competition vs child’s play… Suggesting that CMC can’t even bat on the same “field” is smug if that’s what you meant.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s because I went to a good LAC as well where I credit my writing ability that I expect you (a Williiams grad) to be as knowledgeable and careful with word choice as I. Considering English is my 2nd language and I was a science major in college, I’d think you would know even better. When you use certain words, people assume you did so for a reason, and that analogies and overtones are intentional. For example, in the past, when you compared top college selection as a search for a luxury car and were comparing Swat and HC, you often then said after listing why you love Swat so much that you would “recommend” Haverford to someone as well… so they could “kick the tires”. If you went to a Lexus showroom, I think you’d have the common sense to understand that “kicking the tires” is not acceptable. Such actions are more appropriate at a used car lot on a rusted Cadillac Coup Deville. Is that what you intended?? If so, comments like that and backhanded compliments like “I wanted my daughter to consider Haverford… because, frankly, Swat looked like a reach” is why I think you sometimes represent the worst of Swat and what it can encourage in its kids. Such conceited mannerisms are glaring in the real world if not so at Swat. </p>
<p>Considering it has been a couple days since I initially posted and no Swat students, parents or alumni have stepped in to suggest what was written was undeserved, perhaps there’s a point? To quote Quaker tradition, “Silence can be a commentary as well”.</p>