Anonymous wrote:What are their athletic programs like? Do athletes fit in?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It kicked my ass and I loved it. I went from being. A big fish in a small pond to a perfectly adequate fish in a nerdy, quirky pond. People there do homework and readings because they don't want to let their classmates down in discussions. The profs don't have any grad students so they treat their undergrads as such, which is wonderful and also really, really difficult. It's not uncommon to find math majors with music minors, bio majors with peace studies minors, and all manor of intriguing intellectual combinations. We used to complain that there wasn't enough time for all of the clubs and classes we wanted to do.
What else do you want to know?
I would agree with that. I did Swarthmore engineering and had lots of friends that went to MIT and Harvard. I had visited my friends a bunch of times and laughed at how easy their 3rd year homework was. (This was stuff I was doing freshman year; I kept that to myself of course.)
My Harvard friends spent lots of times networking and socializing, not studying.
Swarthmore students spend a lot of time studying. As I said, I studied engineering. As an engineer taking a full class load I was in class every morning during the week. Afternoons were spent in lab or office hours. Evenings were spent doing homework, as were weekend days. I made time to run and do sports, but there was definitely not a lot of free time.
I remember from my class that a ridiculous number got Rhodes-type scholarships, more than any Ivy that year, which is all the more impressive given that Swarthmore has less 2000 people.
I disagree that Swarthmore students are not well rounded. I think we're just as well rounded as Harvard types, just not in popular ways. To give you an example - when I was there at least 2/3 of the student body participated in some type of sport. But that includes sports like badminton, ultimate frisbee, or rugby. Frisbee and rugby were particularly popular. Or people might be interested in yoga, or activism (not me), accapella, vegan cooking.
Interesting. I wouldn't think of Swarthmore (or Harvard) for engineering. Was it more of a theoretical program? What specialities are strong there? Did you go on to Masters or PhD?
Anonymous wrote:What are their athletic programs like? Do athletes fit in?
Anonymous wrote:OP, the respected Fiske Guide to Colleges has an impressive writeup of Swarthmore. The semester exchange program includes Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Pomona, and Tufts. My DC would love a full language immersion at Middlebury.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of the kids I have met from there tried to get into the Ivies but failed.It is a tier down from the Ivies. It's good for quirky, smart, introverted kids.
Really? All the kids I know who went to Swarthmore (or Amherst or Williams) were looking almost exclusively at SLACs. If they were looking at Ivies, it was a Princeton or Yale, both of which have stronger undergraduate programs relative to Harvard. Or they were looking at a Pomona or Carleton. [/b]When students apply to the most competitive SLACs, it's a pretty self-selecting group of high-achieving students.[b] This is not the case with Harvard, which by virtue of its name recognition has a very wide range of applicants.
Nor get into Yale or Princeton.Anonymous wrote:99% of the very wide range of applicants don't get into Harvard. There are just so many seats. Having strong SLACs to fall back on is a fortunate option.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of the kids I have met from there tried to get into the Ivies but failed.It is a tier down from the Ivies. It's good for quirky, smart, introverted kids.
Really? All the kids I know who went to Swarthmore (or Amherst or Williams) were looking almost exclusively at SLACs. If they were looking at Ivies, it was a Princeton or Yale, both of which have stronger undergraduate programs relative to Harvard. Or they were looking at a Pomona or Carleton. When students apply to the most competitive SLACs, it's a pretty self-selecting group of high-achieving students. This is not the case with Harvard, which by virtue of its name recognition has a very wide range of applicants.
99% of the very wide range of applicants don't get into Harvard. There are just so many seats. Having strong SLACs to fall back on is a fortunate option.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of the kids I have met from there tried to get into the Ivies but failed.It is a tier down from the Ivies. It's good for quirky, smart, introverted kids.
Really? All the kids I know who went to Swarthmore (or Amherst or Williams) were looking almost exclusively at SLACs. If they were looking at Ivies, it was a Princeton or Yale, both of which have stronger undergraduate programs relative to Harvard. Or they were looking at a Pomona or Carleton. When students apply to the most competitive SLACs, it's a pretty self-selecting group of high-achieving students. This is not the case with Harvard, which by virtue of its name recognition has a very wide range of applicants.
Anonymous wrote:All of the kids I have met from there tried to get into the Ivies but failed.It is a tier down from the Ivies. It's good for quirky, smart, introverted kids.