Middlebury or Bowdoin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oops, meant to post this link:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344548/queer-gardens-pocahontas-and-prostitutes-eliana-johnson

Hey -- it's the anti-free speech-at-Swarthmore poster! Welcome back. Can't wait to see your next post attacking yet another school with which you are entirely unfamilar other than via a single report in the obviously unbiased National Review or WSJ. How enlightening!

I find the anti-free speech poster very entertaining and educational, speaking for myself. His/her posts are a real window into how Tea Partiers think, which apparently includes banning students' free expression of speech. Who knew?

You are extremely broad-minded -- so much so that I am sure your alma mater -- whatever it may be -- is a hotbed of rad-fem-LGBTQ-eco-terrorist-Occupy-everything-extremists --and that it will be next on anti-free-speech poster's target list. Thank God for his/her efforts to expose this shocking and sad state of affairs -- that young people are being allowed to explore, consider and debate ideas -- at America's colleges and universities!

Why of course. All of academia is pretty much what you describe, isn't it?

I just read the NR piece, and ... whoaa! At least NR is upfront about acknowledging that the hatchet job on Bowdoin was funded as a revenge piece by the head of the conservative Claremont Institute, to settle a grudge he had against Bowdoin's president. Talk about your unbiased academic research....

[Anonymous]

I posted the link, and I have never posted about free speech or the lack thereof at Swarthmore. I haven't read the study. But facts are facts, and there is no getting around that Bowdoin offered a course on "queer gardening." Some parents expect more for $50k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted the link, and I have never posted about free speech or the lack thereof at Swarthmore. I haven't read the study. But facts are facts, and there is no getting around that Bowdoin offered a course on "queer gardening." Some parents expect more for $50k.

Well, it's a good thing Queer Gardening isn't the only course on offer, then! Like you, I too know little about the place, but at least I can google that it's $58K. Also unlike you, I'm not going to rely on this hatchet job to fill the gaps in my Bowdoin knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the link, and I have never posted about free speech or the lack thereof at Swarthmore. I haven't read the study. But facts are facts, and there is no getting around that Bowdoin offered a course on "queer gardening." Some parents expect more for $50k.

Well, it's a good thing Queer Gardening isn't the only course on offer, then! Like you, I too know little about the place, but at least I can google that it's $58K. Also unlike you, I'm not going to rely on this hatchet job to fill the gaps in my Bowdoin knowledge.

The report (not read in entirety) appears to address curriculum and other related issues concerning the named school. Not sure how in the world that constitutes an attack on free speech? A few of the posters on this thread are incredibly defensive about posters noting the decline in the liberal arts schools. Instead of attacking the messenger (an old Clinton trick), why not offer constructive suggestions to the school on how to bring back the true liberal arts school as it was originally designed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the link, and I have never posted about free speech or the lack thereof at Swarthmore. I haven't read the study. But facts are facts, and there is no getting around that Bowdoin offered a course on "queer gardening." Some parents expect more for $50k.

Well, it's a good thing Queer Gardening isn't the only course on offer, then! Like you, I too know little about the place, but at least I can google that it's $58K. Also unlike you, I'm not going to rely on this hatchet job to fill the gaps in my Bowdoin knowledge.

The report (not read in entirety) appears to address curriculum and other related issues concerning the named school. Not sure how in the world that constitutes an attack on free speech? A few of the posters on this thread are incredibly defensive about posters noting the decline in the liberal arts schools. Instead of attacking the messenger (an old Clinton trick), why not offer constructive suggestions to the school on how to bring back the true liberal arts school as it was originally designed!

We're offended by the cheapness and dishonesty of these attacks. I don't care particularly about Bowdoin per se and my kid goes to a different university. But when some rich conservative buys a paid hack to compile an anecdotal list of supposed wrongdoings as part of a revenge strategy, that's a travesty that I feel I need to respond to. Go to Bowdoin's website, like I just did, and you will see a full roster of traditional courses like Chemistry, Biology, Poly Sci and Economics.

But why the heck do you care if someone, somewhere, is taking courses on GLBT studies? I'm not any of GLBT either. A handful of non-traditional courses in a sea of traditional course offerings does not spell the "decline of liberal arts", that's just ridiculous.

Oh, and sorry another poster confused you with the ban-free-speech-at-Swarthmore poster. Sometimes it's hard to tell the outlandish right wing posters apart.

[Anonymous]

Llikely that the pp will also consider this newly issued report which describes the sad state of the liberal arts programs as part of that "vast right wing conspiracy"!

http://artsandhumanities.fas.harvard.edu/humanities-project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Llikely that the pp will also consider this newly issued report which describes the sad state of the liberal arts programs as part of that "vast right wing conspiracy"!

http://artsandhumanities.fas.harvard.edu/humanities-project

That's PPs, my friend, not a single PP who thinks your arguments are a few lightbulbs short of enlightening.

But OK, I went to the link, and there are actually several papers there, not a single paper as you say. Have you actually read any if them? I think not. I couldn't find anything at all about the "sad state of liberal arts education." It does look like an effort to re-tool their humanities (only) curriculum for the 21st century. I did find a fair amount of bombastic language, including this:

"We therefore judge that this is a timely moment to re-articulate the extraordinary promise of the humanities. Our graduates are preparing to act adroitly in a global environment; they are also preparing to flourish in an austere job market. The Arts and Humanities are essential on both inter-related fronts, cultural and personal. This document (an abbreviation of a more meditative exposition) offers such an exposition."

Well barf, and I don't think I can stand to read much more. A brief glance at the other documents suggests they want to get more students to major in the humanities while fostering "inter-departmental synergies." Nothing about Queer Gardens and the like.

So what exactly is your point? Or do you just post links you haven't read yourself, in the hopes that we won't read them either?9

[Anonymous]

PS, it looks like you're unaware that there is a difference between a "liberal arts degree" and the various programs/schools/departments that constitute the "humanities" curriculum at a college or university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Llikely that the pp will also consider this newly issued report which describes the sad state of the liberal arts programs as part of that "vast right wing conspiracy"!

http://artsandhumanities.fas.harvard.edu/humanities-project

That's PPs, my friend, not a single PP who thinks your arguments are a few lightbulbs short of enlightening.

But OK, I went to the link, and there are actually several papers there, not a single paper as you say. Have you actually read any if them? I think not. I couldn't find anything at all about the "sad state of liberal arts education." It does look like an effort to re-tool their humanities (only) curriculum for the 21st century. I did find a fair amount of bombastic language, including this:

"We therefore judge that this is a timely moment to re-articulate the extraordinary promise of the humanities. Our graduates are preparing to act adroitly in a global environment; they are also preparing to flourish in an austere job market. The Arts and Humanities are essential on both inter-related fronts, cultural and personal. This document (an abbreviation of a more meditative exposition) offers such an exposition."

Well barf, and I don't think I can stand to read much more. A brief glance at the other documents suggests they want to get more students to major in the humanities while fostering "inter-departmental synergies." Nothing about Queer Gardens and the like.

So what exactly is your point? Or do you just post links you haven't read yourself, in the hopes that we won't read them either?9

I'm another PP who has had about enough of the hatchet jobs, whether they're being perpetrated by a conspiring cabal or just a single right-wing nut job.

And, may I say to the PP who responded, wherever you were educated, you certainly learned to read critically and write incisively -- both hallmarks of a liberal arts education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm another PP who has had about enough of the hatchet jobs, whether they're being perpetrated by a conspiring cabal or just a single right-wing nut job.

And, may I say to the PP who responded, wherever you were educated, you certainly learned to read critically and write incisively -- both hallmarks of a liberal arts education.

Why thank you, PP! Would it surprise you to hear that I went to a seven sister's college and then an ivy (top 3 in my field) for grad school? I imagine you are the beneficiary of a good liberal arts education yourself!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm another PP who has had about enough of the hatchet jobs, whether they're being perpetrated by a conspiring cabal or just a single right-wing nut job.

And, may I say to the PP who responded, wherever you were educated, you certainly learned to read critically and write incisively -- both hallmarks of a liberal arts education.

Why thank you, PP! Would it surprise you to hear that I went to a seven sister's college and then an ivy (top 3 in my field) for grad school? I imagine you are the beneficiary of a good liberal arts education yourself!

That's funny -- I'm also a graduate of a SLAC in Massachusetts and went to law school at that California Ivy -- the one with the palm trees.

[Anonymous]

19:02 here. Oops, not sure how that apostrophe in sisters got in there. But congrats on your own excellent liberal arts education.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know what the 'minimum' GPA and ACT/SAT cutoffs are for Bowdoin and Middlebury? Do most kids applying interview on campus? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the 'minimum' GPA and ACT/SAT cutoffs are for Bowdoin and Middlebury? Do most kids applying interview on campus? Thanks.

Most colleges don't have "minimum cutoffs" but you can see where accepted kids fall by percentiles. So, for example, the 50th percentile SAT might be 2100, which means the average kid at the school has an SAT of 2100 (I'm just making this up, obviously, but you see how it works). There will be a whole distribution of SAT scores of admitted kids, so a kid at the 25th percentile might have SATs of 1800 and a kid at the 75 percentile might have SATs of 2250. Generally, you can compare your own SATs against this distribution, and general wisdom is that if your SATs are at the 75th percentile of accepted kids (i.e., your SATs are 2100), then you have a decent shot. There are no guarantees in this game, ever, but being at the 75th percentile means you are in the running. If your SATs are in the 25th percentile of their distribution, then this school is a "reach" for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the 'minimum' GPA and ACT/SAT cutoffs are for Bowdoin and Middlebury? Do most kids applying interview on campus? Thanks.

Most colleges don't have "minimum cutoffs" but you can see where accepted kids fall by percentiles. So, for example, the 50th percentile SAT might be 2100, which means the average kid at the school has an SAT of 2100 (I'm just making this up, obviously, but you see how it works). There will be a whole distribution of SAT scores of admitted kids, so a kid at the 25th percentile might have SATs of 1800 and a kid at the 75 percentile might have SATs of 2250. Generally, you can compare your own SATs against this distribution, and general wisdom is that if your SATs are at the 75th percentile of accepted kids (i.e., your SATs are 2100), then you have a decent shot. There are no guarantees in this game, ever, but being at the 75th percentile means you are in the running. If your SATs are in the 25th percentile of their distribution, then this school is a "reach" for you.

PS, I didn't provide the actual 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles for you, but you can probably find it on their admissions pages.