<p>No.</p>
<p>I said “better record” which, to me is different than “more success” which implies certain things… like higher acceptance rates (who knows), more capable students for medicine (probably not true), better advising (very true), ect. Better record is simply “more numbers” and, like I said, a lot of that has to do with the fact that bio is bio-med at HC and that kids from Swat may choose to do other things. Didn’t I make that point #1 and #2? Clearly, good students from Swat who want to be pre-med will be competitive (who said they weren’t ??) but just that the advising and advocacy for them is not as strong as Haverford’s and they just have to appreciate that what is tolerated at Swat (quirkiness, “intellectual self-congratulation” and “issues and activism”) are not “normal” in the real world (even among Ivy and other LAC grads) and some kids (as everywhere) fail to transition from college to life effectively. In Swat’s case, given that its frame of reference is not as main stream as other colleges, such poor adaptations are more glaring for some Swat grads with personalities on the “fringe”, especially in the more conservative and subdued culture of medicine.</p>
<p>JH is the only example I could find on this silly site. I don’t have my and my friend’s face books from HMS, Columbia, Cornell, Sinai, and Penn, ect. with me but yes, over those 4 years that we visited each other, HC had more grads at each of those schools than Swat and occasionally many more… and, as can be seen from that post, still seems to be just as good if not better than before. There are advantages with having a pre-med advisor who is on a 1st name basis with admissions’ heads at many schools, whose wellbeing is inquired by those decision-makers, and who also has an MD behind her name. There’s no argument here.</p>
<p>Please note that in my reply to camellia girl and elsewhere, </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3172452#post3172452[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3172452#post3172452</a></p>
<p>I have always stated that applicants should look at 1) fit 2) geography 3) academic/professional offerings in that order when discussing top LACs. If someone feels smothered with Haverford, they should not go there just because the pre-med is stellar as, if they’re not happy, they won’t do well. No offense, but who is it that seems to promote kids looking at PhD rankings and whether a college has a sushi bar or not if it fits their argument? </p>
<p>I wasn’t talking about % of athletes or amount of $ spent on athletic resources. Again, when did I write such things? I was talking about culture and that Swat has less of an athletic and mainstream one than many schools, which has its +/- as I outlined. Seriously, considering this is pretty obvious and you yourself have stated time and time again that Swat is not as “mainstream or preppy” as all the schools I listed, that it’s more “quirky and geeky”, I must inquire why you seem to be picking at this now… after I point out that “quirky and geeky” has its detriments as well.</p>