<p>@Consolation - I’m sorry if you think I misunderstood your statement, I just find it a little strange how on the Women’s College board it seems as if people have a mistaken thought that Wellesley is the place for conventional success like doctors/lawyers/business/government types and Smith is the place for NGO/Peace Corps/granola types. Whereas I think the reality is that they probably attract and produce equal numbers of both. I’ve seen this come up again and again on the board and I think it’s a little annoying especially for those of us who have not only had conventional success but had it specifically because we went to Smith and benefited from other conventionally successful Smithies who went before us. Not that Smith doesn’t produce its NGO leaders and its PCVs, of whom we are very very proud, but it has plenty of its conventional side too. </p>
<p>And if it seems like I think that everything is about Smith, it’s because the only experience I feel comfortable commenting on is my own. I never even considered Wellesley as a school, so I can’t talk about its academics, its environment, or how well “mainstream” students will do there. I can only comment on my experiences at Smith as I lived them. And that’s what I comment on. Normally with the clear caveat that when I say Smith has X,Y, and Z, it’s not to say that other schools don’t have them, just that I’m speaking about Smith and Smith does have them.</p>