To the Editor:
Thanks for publishing President [Alfred H.] Bloom's Commencement
Address and letting us share in his wise words (September 1997). As a
lifelong internationalist, I have been close to the effects of the
globalization of our world in many ways. President Bloom is right in
urging us all to take into account the "perspectives and priorities
that distinguish" other worlds from our own.
There is one step further, which I believe President Bloom would also point out.
We may all have reservations about aspects of our civilization. Like it or not, our technological advances and our relative prosperity are reflected all over the globe with increasing intensity by the media, CNN, and the Internet--plus the increasing volume of international trade and travel.
The challenge facing us, therefore, is to be aware of other countries' ways of doing things and how there will be sometimes bitter local resistance to having our ways superimpose themselves and possibly smother local mores, all in the name of progress and development. Here may well be our next Cold War.
Congratulations to President Bloom on an inspiring and informative send-off to the Class of 1997. We can all learn from it.
S. Peter Karlow '41
Carmel, Calif.
To the Editor:
Thank you for the very informative article on co-housing ("Under One
Roof") in the September issue of the Bulletin. The authors succeeded
in bringing up and getting answers to most of the pressing questions
surrounding this fascinating movement. Deborah Hyman '81 may be right
that very few Swarthmore grads seem to be visibly involved in it, but
I'm sure that many of those who participated in the communal
experiments of the 1960s and 1970s are still living in some kind of
intentional communities. I was introduced to this lifestyle through
an exchange with Haverford College's Educational Involvement Program
in 1970 and have enjoyed it ever since. My current community, Bright
Morning Star, is about to celebrate its 18th birthday. We would
consider co-housing a step back from the level of economic and
personal sharing we have achieved. We also live much less expensively
than most co-housers because we bought an old house rather than
construct a new one. Swarthmoreans who are interested in more
information may also contact the Fellowship for Intentional Community
at Rt. 1, Box 155, Rutledge MO 63563; check out their Web page at
www.ic.org, or see the latest issue of Communities magazine,
available from the same address.
Jonathan Betz-Zall '72
Edmonds, Wash. jbetzzall@igc.apc.org
To the Editor:
You won't believe how disappointed I was to find so few letters to
the editor in the latest Bulletin about the June issue's
Honors story ("The New Face of Honors," June 1997). I hope that won't
be the last installment of letters criticizing the whitewash Craig
Williamson wrote.
The article points out many of the good attributes of revised Honors but glances over the question of adding grades to seminars. Professor Williamson buries this monumental change in the bottom of his sixth paragraph, and the only dissenting opinion about grading seminars was left to the second to last column in the question-and-answer section of the story written by Jeffrey Lott. Readers should note that none of the students profiled in the story mention receiving grades as important in convincing them to go Honors.
The problem is not changing Honors but changing the program in a way that doesn't include the people served by the old program. Along with many other Honors alumni, I was attracted to the program because of the no-grade policy. I saw it as a fair trade-off--I could avoid grades and learn in a more collaborative environment in exchange for a tough yet fair evaluation in the end. The program needed improvement, but the changes should have sought to keep those students already attracted to it while extending its appeal. Instead, the changes have gone after one chunk of the student population and left another behind.
Swarthmore should either remove grading from the Honors Program or give the program a proper burial.
Eugene Sonn '95
Oswego, N.Y.
eugene@dreamscape.com
I'm glad that Eugene Sonn recognizes the "many good attributes of revised Honors." The one new policy he laments--that of grading honors seminars--was certainly not lightly undertaken. After sustained discussion and consultation, the faculty came to the consensus that the "collaborative environment" of Honors work would continue to thrive even as faculty gave grades for preparations. In fact, since the 1980s, when seminars were opened up to qualified non-Honors students, grades had been given to numerous seminar students, and this was widely perceived as having no deleterious effect on the seminar experience. Honors students themselves, who increasingly needed grades to compete fairly for entry into graduate and professional schools, strongly supported the change to an Honors Program that including grading.
Neither I nor the faculty is trying to "whitewash" any difficulties in the program. We are evaluating the Honors Program, both old and new, in unprecedented studies that draw on data going back to its inception in 1922. We are also soliciting for each graduating class under the new program evaluation questionnaires from faculty, students, and examiners in our continued attempt to refine this program and to make it the most demanding and rewarding mode of learning the College has to offer.
The reforms in Honors seem to have been successful in attracting students to the program. During the early 1990s, the percentage of students opting for Honors fell to 10 percent. In the first year of the new Honors Program, that percentage rose to 23 percent. For the Class of 1998, it is currently 30 percent, and for the Class of 1999, 35 percent.
Craig Williamson is chairman of the Department of English Literature and coordinator of the Honors Program.
To the Editor:
Did anyone else see the irony of the following two statements by Dean
of Admissions Robin Mamlet in her part of the September
Bulletin article, "Is 'good enough' good enough for
Swarthmore?" Swarthmore's admissions process tries to reflect the
humane values of a Quaker-founded College by making every attempt to
understand and respect each applicant as an individual. College
admissions offices--like it or not--are the gatekeepers of access to
privilege in a society that, as Paul Fussell has correctly observed,
has replaced Europe's heriditary ranks and titles with a "mechanism
of snobbery" based on who has gone to the best university. So, am I
to believe that Swarthmore uses Quaker values to promote an
un-Quakerly elite? As one of the small number of Quaker parents of
current Swarthmore students, I encouraged my daughter to attend
because I was convinced by the arguments of a (F)friend and
Swarthmore graduate that the school was more than historically
Quaker, that it still embodied Quaker values. I most definitely did
not advocate Anna's selection of Swarthmore because it would make her
one of America's privileged elite. Quaker values do not stop with
"understand(ing) and respect(ing) each applicant as an individual."
They require extending such concern to all people. Perhaps it is time
for the College to be honest, to assess just how Quakerly it remains,
and to consider, if that is appropriate, ceasing its claims to Quaker
values.
Errol Hess P'00
Bristol, Tenn.
To the Editor:
Barry Schwartz suggests "pulling names" from a list of "good enough"
applicants as a way of letting high school students have more time to
"experiment" in their high school career. ("Is 'good enough' good
enough for Swarthmore?").
Although it's an interesting idea, as long as Swarthmore stands alone in doing so, high school students would be foolish to change their behavior in the hopes of winning the Swarthmore lottery. The losers would hurt their chances elsewhere.
If you are interested in investigating the idea of giving people a chance to experiment in their education, please look back to the mid-1970s when both Cornell Medical School and the Bowman Grey School of Medicine admitted Swarthmore students to their medical school classes at the end of their sophomore years at Swarthmore. My classmates so admitted did take the opportunity to take courses that they would not have otherwise--and to accept less than perfect grades. Those experiments ended after a few years, however, and I am not sure why.
I must admit that I find Ms. Mamlet's arguments in favor of planned diversity more compelling than Mr. Schwartz's trust in "the luck of the draw."
David Newman, M.D. '76
Brockport, N.Y.
davidnannc@aol.com
To the Editor:
Barry Schwartz's recipe for admissions won't cook up right.
Disregarding his misuse of the numbers (he forgets yield in his
calculations), his proposal would benefit neither the students nor
the school.
The concept he neglects is fit, which is important in relationships, employment, community, and, of course, schooling. Student and school benefit if there is a basic match in both ability and style. This is true for all schools, not just the most selective. Granted that diversity is important, but diversity in interests and not in basic instincts. A Quaker cutthroat doesn't make sense, but cutthroats thrive at some other institutions.
My son's high school classmates all took risks--some bold, some arcane, some thoughtful, some unwise. And most of them matched up at institutions that somehow seem right for a combination of reasons.
Would Schwartz's lottery benefit the students? I contend that such a system would increase pressure on grades and scores because who you are would no longer matter. To have a fighting chance, each student would need to apply to more schools, increasing the applicant pool and lowering the likelihood of a good fit.
If risk taking is to be rewarded, then keep it as a criterion for personal evaluation, and let the students know. All of the college entrance books indicate that extra interests are beneficial, and these need to be encouraged even if they are not socially useful.
The admissions policy isn't broken. The students' selection process needs updating. I suppose Swarthmore is happy with the U.S. News & World Report ratings, but maybe they need to rate style also. I am proud that my son is at Swarthmore. I also feel that it makes sense, both for him and for Swarthmore, for him to be there--that the fit is right. Ms. Mamlet, I commend you on your approach.
Douglas A. Anderson P'01
West Chester, Pa.
danderso@schnabel-eng.com
To the Editor:
What a clever idea Professor Barry Schwartz has in suggesting that
Swarthmore choose its students "at random."
We should continue the logic and hire Swarthmore's professors randomly, after we "screen the applications only to decide which of the applicants is good enough." In this manner, Swarthmore can replace Professor Schwartz with a randomly chosen teacher no doubt of equal ability. And when this game of musical chairs ends, Professor Schwartz might find himself at a randomly chosen school, where he may enlighten that institution.
Alexander Rolle '73
Denver, Colo.
Do an experiment
in random admissions
To the Editor:
I liked the Schwartz--Mamlet debate on admissions. My solution is to
pick half of the next incoming class at random and the other half the
usual way. As the years go by, look for differences be-tween the
groups. Great social experiment in education!
Jim Michener '73
Vientiane, Laos
vdaravte@loxinfo.co.th
I appreciate the interest that my suggestion in the September Bulletin provoked, but some of the preceding letters suggest that I did not make myself clear. So let me try again. I am not suggesting that Swarthmore abandon its complex set of criteria for choosing students (including "the numbers," but also "fit," diversity, character, etc.). What I am suggesting is that Swarthmore use those criteria to decide which students are "good enough" to be here rather than which students are "best"--and then choose at random. And the reason for this recommendation is not that I think it will produce a better entering class than our current practices. Rather, I don't think it will produce a much worse class, and it will have the benefit of reducing cutthroat competition among students in high school.
David Newman is probably right that a change like this won't have much effect if only Swarthmore does it, but perhaps "the No. 1 Liberal Arts College in America" can risk leading a movement.
I'm not as sanguine as Douglas Anderson that we can "reward risk taking" with tickets of admission to Swarthmore. To do that so explicitly is to encourage students to take risks in high school for the wrong reasons--because it will make them look good and not because they are inherently interested. Mr. Anderson says as much himself when he points out that "all the college entrance books say that extra interests are beneficial." We all know that many high school students engage in extracurricular activities not with passion, but with a cool and calculating eye to their college applications.
Finally, I think the little experiment proposed by Jim Michener would be a worthwhile one to try--on the road to an admissions policy that encourages students to take fuller advantage of what high school has to offer them.
Barry Schwartz is the Dorwin P. Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action. He is currently serving as associate provost of the College.
Writing to the Bulletin
The Bulletinwelcomes letters concerning the contents of the magazine or issues relating to the College. All letters must be signed and may be edited for clarity and space. Address your letters to: Editor, Swarthmore College Bulletin, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore PA 19081-1397, or send by e-mail to bulletin@swarthmore.edu.