<p>Male or female?</p>
<p>I think it is interesting that considering the size of the school and the fact that Reedies are more likely to be atheists than anything else that they have more students getting a theology degree than a religiously founded school like St Olaf. Of course the difference is problaby that the ones from St. Olaf only have MAs and are active ministers,and the ones from Reed are doing research someplace on what St augustine really meanT</p>
<p>As for where they go- Harvard and Yale both have Phd programs- so does UChicago.
I expect if you looked at top schools with Phd prgrams that you will find many schools that have a religious department.
Actually many ministers that I have heard also have the title DR. FOr example my favorite minister who is now a long was from his first congregation in Kirkland Patrick O’neill. ( he is now in wilmington delaware)- I htink he went to Yale- not sure.</p>
<p>Garland for president (or an honorary doctorate at the very least!)!</p>
<p>If SWAT (or you) or Reed or wherever truly wanted to be descriptive, shouldn’t we be focusing on rates of MSWs, MATs, and/or MBA</p>
<p>As I have mentioned- about half of my daughters friends who are graduates from Reed are working- ( mostly in sciences) but I whittled it down to 1/3 after I questioned her. But of the ones who are in school, they are in Ph.d programs, you don’t need a MA before getting your Ph.d and many programs don’t even have the middle course of action.
I do think that Reed has a disporportionate number because the students are self selected- they already know that many students go on for their Phds before they begin as freshmen, and attending school for that long doesn’t faze them, in fact they may welcome it as a respite from the “real” world 
When they are at Reed they really learn how to learn, and it gives them a good foundation to continue to do so.
Whether they take a year off or not before they continue their education they would still count in the rankings</p>
<p>Dstark: whether angels fit into our gender classifications would be another question entirely–let’s stay on the subject now.</p>
<p>If SWAT (or you) or Reed or wherever truly wanted to be descriptive, shouldn’t we be focusing on rates of MSWs, MATs, and/or MBA</p>
<p>To quote Jerry McGuire: Show me the DATA!</p>
<p>We can only “focus” on data that is actually collected and available. Nobody collects nationwide data on baccalaureate college of origin for MSW, MD, Law, or MBA degrees. Thus, it is difficult to “focus” on those measures from a statistical standpoint, no matter how useful doing so may be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think the ranking for women’s PhDs has to be based on total PhDs awarded to women divided by the number of women who graduated. </p>
<p>Here’s why:</p>
<p>The HEDS “Weighted Baccalaureate Origins” Report in the Centre College document looks at the decade of the 1990s.</p>
<p>On their overall PhD production list (male and female), Bryn Mawr is ranked #7 behind six coed schools:</p>
<p>CalTech
Harvey Mudd
Swarthmore
Reed
MIT
Carleton
Bryn Mawr</p>
<p>If the formula for Women’s PhDs were female PhDs divided by the total number of graduates (male and female), Bryn Mawr’s rate would stay the same (since all of their grads are female), but the schools above it would plummet. Their number of PhDs attained would drop if you just counted the female PhDs, but the denominator would stay the same. Bryn Mawr would almost certainly move to the top of the ranking, certainly surpassing Swarthmore which was historically about 50%/50% male/female. CalTech and Harvey Mudd would have to plummet as they are both 2:1 male/female.</p>
<p>But, the ranking for Women’s PhDs really doesn’t change that much. Bryn Mawr moves up slightly, but still behind four co-ed schools and the overall order remains unchanged:</p>
<p>CalTech
Harvey Mudd
Swarthmore
Reed
Bryn Mawr
MIT
Carleton</p>
<p>The only conclusion I can draw is that the Women’s PhDs rates are based only the female grads of each school.</p>
<p>*… how does that square with Interestdad’s earlier statement that Deloitte and Goldman Sachs were the two largest employers of Swarthmore undergrads- many of whom, presumably, are econ majors? *</p>
<p>I don’t understand the contradiction? Some students get hired by Goldman Sachs when they graduate. Some students persue a PhD. </p>
<p>It is even quite possible for the SAME student to take a job with Goldman Sachs and then get a PhD in Economics, particularly if they get deeply into Economics analysis.</p>
<p>I see that at least one Swarthmore grad this year was hired as a research analyst for the Federal Reserve Board, one by the Fed Reserve Bank in NY, and one by the Congressional Budget Office. I could easily imagine those kinds of positions leading to a subsequent return to university for a PhD. as those are the kinds of “think-tank” career paths that are incestuously intertwined with academia.</p>
<p>Interestdad, one more post and then I shall go.</p>
<p>One typically uses the data at hand before drawing a conclusion. I see now that you have done the reverse; your last post gives it away. Kids who go to Swarthmore are the most intellectual college kids in America (and so are their dads); therefore, the number of PhD’s who came from Swarthmore must prove that.</p>
<p>You are extrapolating about the future careers of three 22 years old who went to the Fed and the CBO, and assuming that they’ll get PhD’s JUST because they came from Swat? I’d love to see evidence that the Swatties who take these jobs differ significantly from the mainstream career path of most college kids who take these jobs-- MBA’s. Law School suck up the majority; Masters in Public policy from Princeton, Harvard or the like for a minority. You have proven your point quite ably; Swat produces intellectuals. we get it, and you don’t need to stretch to the point of predicting the career path of three tiny datapoints to do that.</p>
<p>You would probably be disappointed to know how eager the banking sector is to hire kids who have worked at the Fed. Sell-outs all, my friend, and somehow the private sector has missed your so-called “incestuous link” with academia.</p>
<p>What do you think? Ninety-five percent of Americans go through life and have never heard of Swarthmore? Around the world…99%+++++ never heard of the school. This thread makes me glad I live on the west coast. :)</p>
<p>Blossom:</p>
<p>You appear to be the one extrapolating career paths. Who the heck knows the career path of any 21 year old? I could just as easily imagine spending two years at the CBO, going to law school, moving to heavily Jewish district in Florida to do non-profit advocacy work with senior citzens, and running for Congress. Who knows?</p>
<p>When you ask how could a school have alums working for Goldman Sachs and getting PhDs, you make it sound like every school in America must have one type of student: 100% MBA investment bankers, or 100% PhDs. That’s not the way I view it at all. I think most schools have a mix of all types. When you look at any statistical measure, you are really looking at proportions: proportions of high SAT verus low SAT, proportions of MBA versus MD. Proportions of white versus minority. Proportions of frat boy versus geek.</p>