Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore is much more competitive and has a better reputation.

No question. But Haverford is also a very good school and, for a less academically oriented kid, could be a better choice. Less intense, less pressure.

SAT scores for 2018 25-75th percentiles
Swarthmore
Reading 680 - 760
Math 700-790

Haverford
Reading 670-750
Math 690-780

My kid toured all three colleges in the tri-co and LOVED Bryn Mawr, liked Haverford and found Swarthmore too intense. SAT 1560 and GPA 4.0.

Is there a significant gender imbalance at Haverford, ie way more women than men due to proximity of Bryn Mawr and Bryan Mawr students taking classes at Haverford?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Haverford years ago. Full disclosure: I transferred to an Ivy. Haverford demonstrated a boarding school level of academics. Swarthmore was a considerably more serious place.

Another transfer to Ivy from a comparable college to Haverford and can agree with you. Many of the LACs are good but function more like boarding schools for sheltered kids. Great academics as you do find at the top boarding schools, but the Ivy was just a different level. More exposure to more diversity of backgrounds and interests and classroom discussions were much more interesting.

We live in Philadelphia and my observation on Haverford and Swarthmore is the latter is academically more demanding and the kids are geeky. The non geeky kids at that level go to either Ivy or Amherst/Williams.

Haverford students are the more normal, nice and gentle kids. They're not the popular ones in high school but still get invited to the parties.

I'm glad your exposure to more diversity resulted in such an open-minded and compassionate view of others.

Some kids are geeky. Some kids are athletic. Some kids are preppy. Some kids are artsy. Some kids are outgoing. Some kids are shy and retiring. Some kids are just normal because they're a bit of all of it. And colleges absolutely can take on personalities from their dominant cliques that are attracted to the college. Especially smaller LACs.

So the others are by definition abnormal. Got it.

NP: Normal can be interpreted as falling within the mainstream of the distribution or outside that curve--there are more people who have lots of bits of traits and qualities and they easily fall into that 80% large swath at the center. Fewer people are going to tilt extremely in one way or another (towards geekiness, towards arts, toward extreme shyness or extreme flamboyance). Some elite colleges tend to attract/prefer those who are extremes in their own ways and some elite colleges don't. It's not a judgmental binary normal/abnormal.

As a Haverford graduate from long ago, I am amused that someone is taking abnormal/geeky as a pejorative.

Yeah, we are/were.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore is much more competitive and has a better reputation.

No question. But Haverford is also a very good school and, for a less academically oriented kid, could be a better choice. Less intense, less pressure.

SAT scores for 2018 25-75th percentiles
Swarthmore
Reading 680 - 760
Math 700-790

Haverford
Reading 670-750
Math 690-780

That shows a distinction that makes very little difference. Both good colleges for really good students. Some intangibles are different, as are some academic options - such as Swat having an engineering major.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore is much more competitive and has a better reputation.

No question. But Haverford is also a very good school and, for a less academically oriented kid, could be a better choice. Less intense, less pressure.

SAT scores for 2018 25-75th percentiles
Swarthmore
Reading 680 - 760
Math 700-790

Haverford
Reading 670-750
Math 690-780

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore is much more competitive and has a better reputation.

No question. But Haverford is also a very good school and, for a less academically oriented kid, could be a better choice. Less intense, less pressure.

Less academically oriented? Could it be a better choice for an academically oriented kid??

Swarthmore is undoubtedly intense but Haverford kids are absurdly smart and fantastic students, almost all of them from the top tenth of their HS classes, a higher percentage even than at Swarthmore. I find it hard to believe those hard-driving kids suddenly stop working, and it’s absurd to characterize them as less academically oriented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore is much more competitive and has a better reputation.

No question. But Haverford is also a very good school and, for a less academically oriented kid, could be a better choice. Less intense, less pressure.

Less academically oriented? Could it be a better choice for an academically oriented kid??

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore is much more competitive and has a better reputation.

No question. But Haverford is also a very good school and, for a less academically oriented kid, could be a better choice. Less intense, less pressure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Haverford years ago. Full disclosure: I transferred to an Ivy. Haverford demonstrated a boarding school level of academics. Swarthmore was a considerably more serious place.

Another transfer to Ivy from a comparable college to Haverford and can agree with you. Many of the LACs are good but function more like boarding schools for sheltered kids. Great academics as you do find at the top boarding schools, but the Ivy was just a different level. More exposure to more diversity of backgrounds and interests and classroom discussions were much more interesting.

We live in Philadelphia and my observation on Haverford and Swarthmore is the latter is academically more demanding and the kids are geeky. The non geeky kids at that level go to either Ivy or Amherst/Williams.

Haverford students are the more normal, nice and gentle kids. They're not the popular ones in high school but still get invited to the parties.

I'm glad your exposure to more diversity resulted in such an open-minded and compassionate view of others.

Some kids are geeky. Some kids are athletic. Some kids are preppy. Some kids are artsy. Some kids are outgoing. Some kids are shy and retiring. Some kids are just normal because they're a bit of all of it. And colleges absolutely can take on personalities from their dominant cliques that are attracted to the college. Especially smaller LACs.

So the others are by definition abnormal. Got it.

You're the one who's turning geeky into abnormal.

It's what it is. Trying to pretend there aren't geeky kids is silly.

You used the word normal. Anyone not in that category is abnormal. You went to Haverford? You seem slow.

Incorrect. It's you who's now resorting to pedantics. And no, I didn't go to Haverford. But I'm not the one who isn't pretending there are geeky kids and I'm not the one who immediately assumed it meant abnormal. It says a lot about you and your prejudices that you did

Lord you’re dumb. Go away.

Haverford alum from approx ten years ago originally from MCPS. I LOVED so much about the honor code, quaker roots, autonomy that students were given at Haverford however:

1. Felt ill prepared and suffered imposter syndrome academically coming from MCPS.

2. HATED the small size especially coming from an extremely diverse community and nearly transferred to a bigger, more urban school (McGill); Haverford is mainly upper middle class, mainly white and 90% liberal making for very little difference of opinion in the classroom. I had visited in person and did LOVE the friendliness and inclusivity of the social scene however had come from being a fairly popular kid in high school and had already had exposure to drugs, alcohol thus felt annoyed by the majority of the sheltered-ness and geekiness of the rest of the campus.

3. Based a lot of my decision on the ranking that Haverford had because that's what I thought I should do at 18. God help 18 year olds making these decisions.

4. Played sports and felt like that strongly affected my acceptance.

Hope this helps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Haverford years ago. Full disclosure: I transferred to an Ivy. Haverford demonstrated a boarding school level of academics. Swarthmore was a considerably more serious place.

Another transfer to Ivy from a comparable college to Haverford and can agree with you. Many of the LACs are good but function more like boarding schools for sheltered kids. Great academics as you do find at the top boarding schools, but the Ivy was just a different level. More exposure to more diversity of backgrounds and interests and classroom discussions were much more interesting.

We live in Philadelphia and my observation on Haverford and Swarthmore is the latter is academically more demanding and the kids are geeky. The non geeky kids at that level go to either Ivy or Amherst/Williams.

Haverford students are the more normal, nice and gentle kids. They're not the popular ones in high school but still get invited to the parties.

I'm glad your exposure to more diversity resulted in such an open-minded and compassionate view of others.

Some kids are geeky. Some kids are athletic. Some kids are preppy. Some kids are artsy. Some kids are outgoing. Some kids are shy and retiring. Some kids are just normal because they're a bit of all of it. And colleges absolutely can take on personalities from their dominant cliques that are attracted to the college. Especially smaller LACs.

So the others are by definition abnormal. Got it.

You're the one who's turning geeky into abnormal.

It's what it is. Trying to pretend there aren't geeky kids is silly.

You used the word normal. Anyone not in that category is abnormal. You went to Haverford? You seem slow.

Incorrect. It's you who's now resorting to pedantics. And no, I didn't go to Haverford. But I'm not the one who isn't pretending there are geeky kids and I'm not the one who immediately assumed it meant abnormal. It says a lot about you and your prejudices that you did

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Haverford years ago. Full disclosure: I transferred to an Ivy. Haverford demonstrated a boarding school level of academics. Swarthmore was a considerably more serious place.

Another transfer to Ivy from a comparable college to Haverford and can agree with you. Many of the LACs are good but function more like boarding schools for sheltered kids. Great academics as you do find at the top boarding schools, but the Ivy was just a different level. More exposure to more diversity of backgrounds and interests and classroom discussions were much more interesting.

We live in Philadelphia and my observation on Haverford and Swarthmore is the latter is academically more demanding and the kids are geeky. The non geeky kids at that level go to either Ivy or Amherst/Williams.

Haverford students are the more normal, nice and gentle kids. They're not the popular ones in high school but still get invited to the parties.

I'm glad your exposure to more diversity resulted in such an open-minded and compassionate view of others.

Some kids are geeky. Some kids are athletic. Some kids are preppy. Some kids are artsy. Some kids are outgoing. Some kids are shy and retiring. Some kids are just normal because they're a bit of all of it. And colleges absolutely can take on personalities from their dominant cliques that are attracted to the college. Especially smaller LACs.

So the others are by definition abnormal. Got it.

You're the one who's turning geeky into abnormal.

It's what it is. Trying to pretend there aren't geeky kids is silly.

You used the word normal. Anyone not in that category is abnormal. You went to Haverford? You seem slow.

Anonymous wrote:How does Bryn Mawr compare to Haverford?

Both have excellent academics. Haverford has the stronger student body going by numbers. Bryn Mawr has many international students from relatively conservative families overseas who like the idea of an all-women's college as a "safe" experience for their daughters. But being all-women, Bryn Mawr doesn't get the top students it might have had in the past. But academics are very strong so it's a great opportunity for someone who wouldn't get into, say, AWS but still get a high quality instruction. Beautiful campus, prettier than Haverford's for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Haverford years ago. Full disclosure: I transferred to an Ivy. Haverford demonstrated a boarding school level of academics. Swarthmore was a considerably more serious place.

Another transfer to Ivy from a comparable college to Haverford and can agree with you. Many of the LACs are good but function more like boarding schools for sheltered kids. Great academics as you do find at the top boarding schools, but the Ivy was just a different level. More exposure to more diversity of backgrounds and interests and classroom discussions were much more interesting.

We live in Philadelphia and my observation on Haverford and Swarthmore is the latter is academically more demanding and the kids are geeky. The non geeky kids at that level go to either Ivy or Amherst/Williams.

Haverford students are the more normal, nice and gentle kids. They're not the popular ones in high school but still get invited to the parties.

I'm glad your exposure to more diversity resulted in such an open-minded and compassionate view of others.

Some kids are geeky. Some kids are athletic. Some kids are preppy. Some kids are artsy. Some kids are outgoing. Some kids are shy and retiring. Some kids are just normal because they're a bit of all of it. And colleges absolutely can take on personalities from their dominant cliques that are attracted to the college. Especially smaller LACs.

So the others are by definition abnormal. Got it.

You're the one who's turning geeky into abnormal.

It's what it is. Trying to pretend there aren't geeky kids is silly.