<p>Funny...the post that I x-posted with is now after the x-post.</p>
<p>Mo2binMA...zealous Smith parents? I don't recall seeing any but I'll keep a sharp lookout.</p>
<p>"Funny...the post that I x-posted with is now after the x-post."</p>
<p>Slight of the delete feature. Don't ask. Sorry. I reposted after our fav Bryn Mawr alumna, aka 2boys, posted too.</p>
<p>RLT: ah.</p>
<p>Mini, the only place that we encountered anyone who was smug was one of the Yale folks and we didn't hold him against the college as a whole. He was a recent grad, working in admissions, and as D is wont to say, rather full of himself. In contrast, the Harvard folks were gracefully beleaguered and D's comment afterwards warmed the cockles of my heart: I liked it more than I thought I would. I would have been fretting some if she had joined the ranks of the "Harvard first, no matter what the cost" corps.</p>
<p>Okay, this is ridiculous...</p>
<p>I posted some observations I've made/heard from friends who have attended these institutions...wasn't trying to talk negatively about any schools...for anyone's information on here, I do not work at a women's college, nor do I work at a school that gets many cross-apps with any of them. I was just adding my two cents, much like any students, parents, and anyone else not representing a particular institution (which I am not! that's why where I work is not revealed...I'm not representing my school at all...I've actually got the guts to tell y'all the truth rather than not answer a question or address a concern because I'm worried about misrepresenting my institution...) does. for the record, though, I know quite a bit about these institutions - I studied them and other women's colleges in grad school because I was curious to understand how women who attend all-women's colleges felt about their experiences versus women who attended coed institutions...I also know administrators, students, and alums of each school. You are free to take my observations with as big or as little grain of salt as you wish...personally, if I had a daughter, I'd be thrilled for her to attend Smith. and, just fyi, the reason I was in the Smith threads was because my friend's sister - Smith '04 - who is crashing with me at the moment wanted to see what folks were saying about her alma...I'm not hiding in here...</p>
<p>ROADLESSTRAVELED...I'm labeled as an Admissions Representative by College Confidential...Roger Dooley verified my identity before I began posting on this site. If you read my posts closely, you'll see very easily that I'm on here to help studnets, parents, and other interested parties navigate the college admissions world as it is, quite frankly, confusing. I'm being very honest in all of my posts and including/sharing, among other things, research I've conducted personally in graduate school, my professional experiences, my personal experiences, and research currently being done so that students, parents, and other interested parties have a better understanding of what really goes on not only in admissions, but also in higher education and American society, as it relates to higher education, in general. </p>
<p>Read my posts carefully before admonishing, criticizing, or personally attacking me, my work, my profession, and how I am trying to contribute to EVERYONE'S understanding of the realities of college admissions in the United States. I appreciate everyone who has criticized my post...sorry if anyone thought I was attacking Smith, because I wasn't...but seriously, be constructive if you are going to criticize or question someone's posts rather than jump down their throats...i'm allowed to share personal observations just like anyone else on CC.</p>
<p>And, for the record, there are plenty of parents and students on CC who have emailed personally and asked my opinion about dozens and dozens of colleges, including the one I work for (although they didn't know)...I'm very honest in my observations and thoughts about the schools, though I usually ask the emailer a few questions before answering them. point is, I'm not on here to sell up my school or any other one...but ask any seasoned admissions officer about a school they don't work for, and chances are they'll know a lot...we talk to each other about our schools all the time! if you want someone to substantiate their comments, do so rather than trash-talk them personally. Wow it is late...</p>
<p>FWIW -</p>
<p>my daughter attends Bryn Mawr and finds it extremely challenging intellectually - and had sat in on classes at other schools in the admin process, and and found them dull. What is really true though is that at every school a student will have an individual reaction - you will find the happy, the bored, the...whatever. Every student should sit in on classes at any institution they are considering, and make an informed choice. </p>
<p>What I have found in talking to current students/alums of women's colleges (specifically Barnard, Smith, and Holyoke) is that in general, they are special women with a high degree of intellectual curiosity and ability. Again, these are one person's observations.</p>
<p>Not Bryn Mawr....although I am one of those women's school alums who feels I would have been happy at Bryn Mawr or any other women's school that was in something like the 5 college consortium (as much as I liked going to a women's college, I don't think I would have liked an isolated one....actually, wouldn't have liked a co-ed isolated LAC like Middlebury or Williams, either.) I didn't purposely attend a women's college (only applied to one women's college)...but I'm forever grateful for the choice I made!</p>
<p>2b--or not 2b--I still haven't seen any zealous Smith parents. Will keep you posted.</p>
<p>2boys, I not only refused to apply to women's colleges, but I went to a college where the men outnumbered the women, 3 to 1. :-)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Read my posts carefully before admonishing, criticizing, or personally attacking me, my work, my profession, and how I am trying to contribute to EVERYONE'S understanding of the realities of college admissions in the United States. I appreciate everyone who has criticized my post...sorry if anyone thought I was attacking Smith, because I wasn't...but seriously, be constructive if you are going to criticize or question someone's posts rather than jump down their throats...i'm allowed to share personal observations just like anyone else on CC.
[/quote]
This is indeed true...however, you did not make any personal observations; only stated what others had told you.
[quote]
I know several Smithies...they all found the academics to be not very challenging...</p>
<p>Only have heard raves from those I know who have attended Mount Holyoke...in addition, there seems to be a critical mass of international students there who add quite a bit to the life of the campus. </p>
<p>Other Women's Colleges...</p>
<p>Nothing but raves about Scripps College in California...</p>
<p>Also know several who went to Bryn Mawr...see my comment about the Smithies I know...
[/quote]
as an admofficer, whether knowingly or unknowingly, your statements are taken more seriously by future Smithies on this board. Maybe that's not fair; but not all in life is fair. As an admofficer, you must be careful and tread lightly as to what you say about any college, including your own. Your advice is warranted and appreciated, but don't for one second think that your opinion doesn't hold more water than ours, because it does. When you enter these threads as an official of a college, you'd better be damn sure of what you say and how you say it, because prospies are watching and reading. We Smithie parents on this thread take our D's school very seriously, and defend all-women's colleges vehemently. What did you expect when you make such an arrogant statement on the Smith thread that the college is not challenging; according to your sources? Be careful to whom and where you provide your opinion; because just as you have a right to voice it, we have a right to disagree with your stance or how you said it. Now...if you want to tell us how YOU feel the college challenges it's students based on YOUR professional experience; I'm listening. Just a little friendly criticism. ;)</p>
<p>BJM, note that 2b said something about zealous Smith parents. I want to enlist your aid in keeping an eye out for them.</p>
<p>Zealous Smith parents???? Filled with or motivated by zeal; fervent. </p>
<p>Not around here...but I'll keep my eyes open for ya!</p>
<p>BJM8 - </p>
<p>Your point is well taken...I did not, however, say that these were <em>my</em> opinions of the school, nor did I state them as facts...they are only observations I've had...Personally, I think all of these schools are wonderful and I recommend them to all female students looking for a challenging undergraduate experience! Good luck to the future Smithies on here!</p>
<p>AdOfficer, welcome to your trial by fire. If you think those Affirmative Action threads get heated, you should stick around to tussle more with the Smith parents to get a real taste of fiery debate. :-)</p>
<p>I think many of us suffer from an inferiority complex because women's colleges are not taken as seriously as we think they should be. Their self-selecting applicant pools combined with the need of these colleges to fill entire classes with a single gender significantly increases the percentage of students admitted, so the general opinion is that Smith (and other single-gender schools, with the possible exception of Wellesley) is too easy to get into and therefore not worthy of respect. </p>
<p>In some ways, Smith might be viewed as "not challenging" by those who attend because it does not have those weeding out courses that other schools have. For instance, at the school where I teach, Calculus and Physics are so brutal that many students transfer out after their first year because they cannot get the grades they expected. Does that mean that my university is more challenging than Smith? No way. It just means that my university hopes to limit the number in certain majors by weeding out the average students.</p>
<p>At Smith, the opposite is true. Because there is a historical reluctance by women to take science and math, Smith encourages them to try it out. That's not to say that those disciplines are easy courses; they simply are not designed to weed out students. If the students can tackle the subject matter, then they get good grades. If not, they don't. I think that's the way it should be rather than curving tests so that a certain percentage fail.</p>
<p>Smith does have its weaker and stronger departments, as does every school.</p>
<p>OK, TheDad, I'm taking the bait...I had originally typed in "overly zealous"...but changed it to just "zealous" so it would have a positive connotation!</p>
<p>Your daughters, and Smith, are fortunate to have such strong voices as cheerleaders.</p>
<p>And, I agree 100% with BJM8's comments to Adofficer: "As an admofficer, you must be careful and tread lightly as to what you say about any college, including your own. Your advice is warranted and appreciated, but don't for one second think that your opinion doesn't hold more water than ours, because it does. When you enter these threads as an official of a college, you'd better be damn sure of what you say and how you say it..." </p>
<p>CC is an open forum within limits of commonly accepted appropriateness and safety, so Adofficer can say whatever he/she wants - but I still find it surprising for a pre-screened admissions official to state the "observations" mentioned earlier on this thread.</p>
<p>MWFN, Dr. Christ's husband was formerly on the mathematics faculty at Berkeley. He and TheMom got into a discussion about the respective Math departments at a reception for Dr. Christ out here. He talked about the "weeder" courses at Berkeley and the contrast at Smith and said something to the effect that Smith was a more supportive place to learn math.</p>
<p>2b: bait!? You think I was baiting you?!! Oh, Heaven forfend. (The correct response to "forfend" is "five no-trump.") </p>
<p>As for zealotry, one of the dear young lasses who occasionally contributes to the parents forum has accused me, now and then, of being a Savonarola.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had originally typed in "overly zealous"...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah HA!!!!! I <em>thought</em> so!!</p>
<p>(sorry for the delay...I had to finish waking up before that really registered)</p>
<p>So one of the differences among the three is that Smith has an open curriculum (i.e. without distribution requirements). Now I know there are varying opinions on this matter. For myself (and having experienced them), I think they are ticky-tacky. If the college believes that there is a core of knowledge students need to have - AND THEY NEED TO TEACH - then they should have a core program. (I once taught in the core program at Chicago, and I think the core program at Scripps is by far the best in the country.) But for the rest - it seems to me to be something that a good high school should do, and that by the time they get to college, students should be entrusted to make decisions for themselves (including making mistakes). </p>
<p>But we don't have much in the way of good high schools, and we tend not to trust students. Still, the Chinese menu approach to education gets on my nerves....</p>
<p>BJM8 and 2boysima...</p>
<p>"Your advice is warranted and appreciated, but don't for one second think that your opinion doesn't hold more water than ours, because it does."</p>
<p>I guess I never thought of it that way...I'll be sure to keep it in mind... </p>
<p>I have a question for Momwaitingfornew (and others who want to chime in)...you mentioned "I think many of us suffer from an inferiority complex because women's colleges are not taken as seriously as we think they should be"...I haven't really ever heard anything like this before. I've heard students mention that they were not interested in attending a college that is single-sex, but I always had heard of Smith, Wellesley, MHC, Bryn Mawr, Scripps, and Vassar/Radcliffe (now not coed anymore, but nevertheless...) as being top schools in the country, period. These schools all seem to be much more prominent nationally than other LACs, at least in my experience. For example, friends of mine in college from California knew about Wellesley, Smith, BM, and MHC, but they had never heard of Swat, Williams, or Trinity. So I guess I'm wondering why, in some folks' experiences, these schools aren't taken as seriously as others. My guess is that perhaps its just entrenched in national history/gender politics of the past, but today I get the sense that most high achieving women have at least one of these schools on their college lists when they start thinking of college. Just curious... </p>
<p>Oh, and BTW..."zealous" or not, I have always noted the impressive level of support parents of current students and alums of these schools on here (and off of CC) have for these schools...I think this is something rather unique nowadays in higher ed...it seems to me that grads of women's colleges are far more positive about their overall experiences than grads of coed schools, in general. I've spoken to alums of MHC, Smith, and Wellesley, for example, at college fairs who are admissions officers at those schools and they just glow when I ask them about their institutions (I reminded my friend of this last night when I told her about your responses to my comments - though she didn't have the best experience, she admitted that most of her classmates were in love with Smith...same with my friend from BM)...</p>
<p>I can't really speak for all of us, AdOfficer. I just noted how defensive the Smith parents become when the school is criticized. I don't think you see this kind of reaction on the other boards, although I may be wrong.</p>
<p>I have found that Smith is looked down upon by many on CC, whether it is because those posters are male or because single-gender schools are not taken seriously by the general population. All you need to do is look at the CC "revisions" of the top LACs to see that Smith is rarely included on that list. I believe I even saw a post last summer that called Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Bryn Mawr "overrated." I agree with TD that all of the women's colleges, with the possible exception of Wellesley, are underrated.</p>
<p>In elite academia, these schools are indeed regarded with esteem. I was at a Princeton function about a week ago where several people sought me out to congratulate me on my daughter's matriculation at Smith (and this almost a year after her acceptance). These people obviously thought highly of the college.</p>
<p>Below that elite level, however, I'm not sure how well Smith is known and/or respected. Many seem to think that Smith faded away or was swallowed the way Radcliffe was. I get a lot of responses that indicate a general belief that Smith is an archaic institution by virtue of its single-gender charter. With that idea of an obsolete kind of education, there comes a lack of respect. Is this always true? Of course not.</p>
<p>Then there is the reaction of friends: Why didn't she go there? Or there? Why Smith when she had this opportunity? Of course, part of that is regional, and part of that is the "stealth" quality of LACs; they are not as well-known as major universities. Many friends cannot understand why my d. did not go to the university where my husband and I teach and instead went to an (implied) no-name school. They assume, wrongly, that she did not get in. (Of course, when I write those tuition checks, I wonder myself why she did not matriculate at my university.)</p>
<p>The only thing that counts is how our daughters feel. And I probably CAN speak for all of us when I say that they love Smith so much that they don't care what the national reputation is or isn't. We, on the other hand, want our tuition dollars to count. So far, I think that mine do.</p>
<p>Very well said, MWFN! You definitely speak for me in regards to how my daughter feels about her college, and the education she is getting. Doing viable, important research in her first year is nothing to sneeze at, and the opportunity to work side by side with third and fourth year students is invaluable. We are very happy to be writing those checks for her. Well................yeah, I guess so.</p>