Haverford v. Swarthmore

[Anonymous]

We toured both. I thought that Swarthmore was gorgeous, but definitely has the rep that kids want to sit around and intellectualize for fun.

Haverford we had the most pretentious tour guide ever and it was ponderous and off-putting. No one looked particularly happy there either. In addition, the Quakerism means that the kids are sort of running the roost. They heavily think that the kids are driving the bus. I didn't love that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woke and woker. Hard to tell which school hates Jews and Israel the most right now, but I think Haverford is currently in the ascendancy, given that a bunch of its Jewish students are suing the entire college for fostering an extremely anti-Semitic campus: https://www.inquirer.com/education/haverford-college-antisemitism-lawsuit-20240516.html

Five students are suing the school.

[Anonymous]

There’s a College Bound Kid episode that is specifically about the differences between the two schools. The title of the episode is a little weird because it also mentions Marquette but that is because they in another part of the same episode they discuss Marquette.

https://yourcollegeboundkid.com/2024/03/14/ycbk-413-understanding-haverford-college-swarthmore-college-marquette-university/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woke and woker. Hard to tell which school hates Jews and Israel the most right now, but I think Haverford is currently in the ascendancy, given that a bunch of its Jewish students are suing the entire college for fostering an extremely anti-Semitic campus: https://www.inquirer.com/education/haverford-college-antisemitism-lawsuit-20240516.html

I don’t think a Jewish student would feel comfortable at haverford right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woke and woker. Hard to tell which school hates Jews and Israel the most right now, but I think Haverford is currently in the ascendancy, given that a bunch of its Jewish students are suing the entire college for fostering an extremely anti-Semitic campus: https://www.inquirer.com/education/haverford-college-antisemitism-lawsuit-20240516.html

I don’t think a Jewish student would feel comfortable at haverford right now.

Agreed. I’m a Bryn Mawr graduate who was thinking of suggesting Haverford for her son. Not after reading the students’ complaint. It’s gutting.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:986e2f8f-6689-4ab1-aa00-95d760aba679

This thread will just get shut down if it turns into a debate about the war itself, but the complaint itself will tell you an awful lot about Haverford culture these days. My guess is that some people will find that attractive, and others… will not. I do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Last year when I toured with my kid it was the only school that started the tour with an acknowledgement of stolen land AND made us wear masks on the tour even while outside. To me it felt a bit much.“

We’re registered Dems and it’s too much for us, too. I guess it’s very generational, but I also find that the more white the organization, the more likely there are these performative declarations. Will be visiting both next week.

In Australia, land acknowledgement is standard practice. Mandatory at official events in New South Wales (where Sydney is). It didn’t originate as some college kid thing.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Seems like Haverford has changed a lot in the last 20 years. When I was in college, Haverford was a pleasantly dull college with bright and balanced kids. I attended a Quaker school and the more progressive students always wrote off Haverford as too staid and conventional and not activist enough. What the heck happened to transform it into woker than even Oberlin?

Swarthmore was always the grinder school, even in those days.

[Anonymous]

Unlike many, we found the differences between these two schools to be pretty significant. We visited thinking that swat would be a good fit and left thinking that Haverford was way more preferable for my dc. We spent a lot of time talking with a set of current students at swat- they were super inviting and nice - about what it’s like to be a student there. I have no doubt it’s a great education but we left with the strong impression that’s it’s just too intense for my dc. Haverford, on the other hand was really appealing in terms of rigor and balance, and my dc loved the student responsibility and trust aspect of the place. We also left thinking the small size was not as much as an issue since BM is so close and connected - almost like the claremont consortium in many ways. The land acknowledgment and Covid things were just non-issues to us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Last year when I toured with my kid it was the only school that started the tour with an acknowledgement of stolen land AND made us wear masks on the tour even while outside. To me it felt a bit much.“

We’re registered Dems and it’s too much for us, too. I guess it’s very generational, but I also find that the more white the organization, the more likely there are these performative declarations. Will be visiting both next week.

2 other schools that have the land acknowledgement in recent visits:

Michigan
Colorado State

All govt sponsored meetings in Australia (both parties) start with a land acknowledgement. It is totally a thing.

UVA stolen land plus slaves lived under this building. So performative. Obnoxious. Give it back then.

I do not know exactly where I stand on land acknowledgment. It does seem performative. But there is a wide gap between “go back to how things were 500 years ago” and acknowledging that there was harm done to the original Americans.

What we choose to celebrate does say a lot about us. If we decide we no longer wish to honor confederate generals, that indicates that society is moving toward a different understanding of its past. Same with the land acknowledgment. Doesn’t mean that to contextualize our past and our history means that we have to give up our present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unlike many, we found the differences between these two schools to be pretty significant. We visited thinking that swat would be a good fit and left thinking that Haverford was way more preferable for my dc. We spent a lot of time talking with a set of current students at swat- they were super inviting and nice - about what it’s like to be a student there. I have no doubt it’s a great education but we left with the strong impression that’s it’s just too intense for my dc. Haverford, on the other hand was really appealing in terms of rigor and balance, and my dc loved the student responsibility and trust aspect of the place. We also left thinking the small size was not as much as an issue since BM is so close and connected - almost like the claremont consortium in many ways. The land acknowledgment and Covid things were just non-issues to us

It’s a nice and supportive place to be if your kid fits the mold, and they will find lots of other people affirming and celebrating their beliefs.

I personally believe that a lack of ideological diversity is bad for intellectual discourse and development, which is true of Haverford and Oberlin as it is of Liberty and Oral Roberts. But everyone has their own perspective on that matter.

All of this assumes that your kid is not Jewish. If they are, I would not suggest they attend without having them make contact with the campus Hillel to get an honest assessment of the climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They do have a lot of similarities. If you’re interested in the differences, I would say size (Haverford is smaller), location (Hav has a lot more retail and restaurants in walking distance and is near a main artery and very close to Bryn Mawr and Villanova, Swarthmore is more in a in a suburb/village).

Both have Quaker roots, but Haverford was part of an orthodox branch of Quakerism while Swarthmore was part of a reform branch and was coed very early on. I’m not sure this would affect your experience today at all but it is why there are two Quaker schools in close proximity. Growing up (I’m Quaker) all the Friends we knew had gone to Swarthmore and Haverford was considered a bit “different”.

I think the tininess of Haverford could be hard if you don’t find your people. It’s very diverse racially and has a lot of first gen students and its social justice reputation is real. Last year when I toured with my kid it was the only school that started the tour with an acknowledgement of stolen land AND made us wear masks on the tour even while outside. To me it felt a bit much.

Interesting - almost EVERY school we visited made these statements...even large state schools.

[Anonymous]

Where are Jewish kids going to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore has a stronger reputation - it makes a difference!

How?

Swarthmore is a well established feeder into top PhD programs. Haverford and Bryn Mawr are excellent schools, but Swarthmore is arguably the nation's top producer of PhDs across the disciplines per capita, and the intellectual rigor and academic expectations of both the students and faculty reflect that.

Bryn Mawr is also a 'well established' feeder into top PhD programs. OPs kid may be a DS so this could be irrelevant, but this PP stating that Swarthmore is somehow more academically rigorous because they churn out more Phds is a wild statement. Bryn Mawr is highly intellectual. I consider myself the outlier because I merely have a masters, but everyone else I know from Bryn Mawr has a terminal degree- MD, joint JD program, MBA, or PhD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore has a stronger reputation - it makes a difference!

How?

Swarthmore is a well established feeder into top PhD programs. Haverford and Bryn Mawr are excellent schools, but Swarthmore is arguably the nation's top producer of PhDs across the disciplines per capita, and the intellectual rigor and academic expectations of both the students and faculty reflect that.

Bryn Mawr is also a 'well established' feeder into top PhD programs. OPs kid may be a DS so this could be irrelevant, but this PP stating that Swarthmore is somehow more academically rigorous because they churn out more Phds is a wild statement. Bryn Mawr is highly intellectual. I consider myself the outlier because I merely have a masters, but everyone else I know from Bryn Mawr has a terminal degree- MD, joint JD program, MBA, or PhD.

Not sure why you think this is a "wild" statement. I don't know of many better ways to determine with some degree of objectivity and actual evidence (rather that your personal "anec-data") that some schools are more academically rigorous than others. Swarthmore, Chicago, Reed and a handful of other SLACs have long held a reputation for being academic powerhouses in large part because their graduates end up earning a disproportionate number of PhDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore has a stronger reputation - it makes a difference!

How?

Swarthmore is a well established feeder into top PhD programs. Haverford and Bryn Mawr are excellent schools, but Swarthmore is arguably the nation's top producer of PhDs across the disciplines per capita, and the intellectual rigor and academic expectations of both the students and faculty reflect that.

Bryn Mawr is also a 'well established' feeder into top PhD programs. OPs kid may be a DS so this could be irrelevant, but this PP stating that Swarthmore is somehow more academically rigorous because they churn out more Phds is a wild statement. Bryn Mawr is highly intellectual. I consider myself the outlier because I merely have a masters, but everyone else I know from Bryn Mawr has a terminal degree- MD, joint JD program, MBA, or PhD.

Not sure why you think this is a "wild" statement. I don't know of many better ways to determine with some degree of objectivity and actual evidence (rather that your personal "anec-data") that some schools are more academically rigorous than others. Swarthmore, Chicago, Reed and a handful of other SLACs have long held a reputation for being academic powerhouses in large part because their graduates end up earning a disproportionate number of PhDs.

Again - why is "number of phds" a better indicator than MDs or JDs?