<p>What a great article in the NY Times today! Long story short: sounds like my D and I'm sure many of you as well. All of the trials and tribulations of young high school women, and the schools they want to attend. Well written. Enjoy!</p>
<p>Actually, this article made me feel like I was really glad we don't live in suburban Boston, with all those pressures to go to an elite school and to be a perfectionist.</p>
<p>I'd really like to know if those sorts of young women are typical of Smithies, as would my daughter!</p>
<p>I think these sorts of women are typical of many young women at any elite college. If by "sort" of women you mean driven, committed, loves a challenge, and has a desire to be successful; then yes, I guess that's true.</p>
<p>My daughter, who has been accepted to Smith, is very smart and works hard but I don't think she would like Smith if her classmates are like that. Except for one very interesting young woman, they seemed more driven than deep.</p>
<p>Tis a decision you and she must make. You will find these "sorts" of students at every elite college at anywhere U.S.A. Smith is much more than just that!
;)</p>
<p>I'm sure Smith is much more than that, given its illustrious history. It really is a great college.</p>
<p>I'm just saying that my daughter is the kind of person who didn't spend her high school years fretting about her SAT scores and list of activities. She went out and worked on political campaigns, started a club, did an internship w/our congressman, and traveled in the summer -- but the motivation was internal. Thus she could have weeks with much less in the way of external activity, when she was reading poetry and finding cool music. From what I could discern from the NYT article, that's not how those kids have operated. My d doesn't want to run at 105% and, personally, I think that's a healthier, more balanced way to live.</p>
<p>Are typical Smithies like the young women in the NYT article? I'd really like to know! Thanks for any insights anyone has.</p>
<p>I gave up reading this article after the second page. 1) I got hungry. 2) How can those girls stand that? I would have to kill myself doing everything for college. I love every activity I put effort into. Actually that's why I'm doing so horribly in chem...I hate it so I put no time into it.</p>
<p>MfM, you D sounds more like my D. She never fretted about EC's...everything was sacrificed on the altar of ballet. She did do SAT prep in the summer before senior year after taking it once during Fall of junior year; she was just fairly realistic at what the most competitive schools wanted and took a shot...it payed off in terms of a STRIDE from Smith instead of admission to HYS and both of us would say she's ahead of the game. </p>
<p>I haven't read the article yet--had to work today--but D is still very driven, very focused. I'm happy that she still finds time to do silly stuff and to re-read Harry Potter before the final volume comes out. But as for focus and ambition, if it were a contest between my D and, say, Rommel, I'd take D and the points. The next year is going to be very interesting in terms of seeing what Plan A/Plan B options for post-Smith come through.</p>
<p>Momfromme, the one girl that the article followed most closely (the one who was accepted by Smith) actually bucked the trend of her classmates. She took "only two" AP classes because she wanted to study her passions in depth, not because it would look good on a college resume. Also, her parents were somewhat naive about what it would take to get into a top LAC, so they let her take her own path, particularly in terms of social service. </p>
<p>Smithies ARE driven, although they do not seem concerned with internal competition - that is, who got what on what test, and whose GPA is higher. From what I've seen, it's an amazingly cooperative learning environment.</p>
<p>But your daughter will have to re-visit and decide for herself.</p>
<p>Well, one thing you can say with certainty: "statistically", the average Smithie isn't nearly as wealthy as the girls in that article (not with 60% receiving financial aid.) The same could not be said of Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, or any of the Ivies.</p>
<p>Yes, I really liked the girl who didn't want to do the SAT prep and who cared for others in her community. I'm hearing that she is more of a Smith type than the others...if so, that is really good to know about Smith. My daughter is going to visit in the next few weeks, but she wants to avoid the accepted students time.</p>
<p>Mini, the 60% figure presumably includes students (like your daughter) who receive "merit" scholarships? It seems that Smith has a contingent of young women who come from lower SES families, and the rest probably fit a profile very similar the young woman in the article.</p>
<p>Mini, Swarthmore is among the most generous in terms of financial aid of any college in the country & has many non-affluent students. Over 50% receive financial aid for economic reasons and there are also merit scholarships. Smith probably gives many merit scholarships in order to attract top candidates, the all womens colleges have more of a challenge attracting the top students due to the single sex factor.
The 60% figure may include merit money. A telling factor is often the % who attend private v. public schools.</p>
<p>The 60% is need-based (you can look that up in the Common Data Set.) It includes 25% who are on Pell Grants (12% at Swarthmore, 9% at Williams; 9% at Princeton; 7% at Harvard - note, data on Pells is from 2003-2004). Amherst is up to almost 17%; but less than 50% receive needbased aid (and of those who do, more than half are in the $100-$160k income group - there are very, very few middle income students.)</p>
<p>Note, that in our particular case, the merit aid simply supplanted need-based aid - the only benefit we received in that regard is that half of the tuition increases were mitigated. </p>
<p>(There is also a website that breaks down those receiving need-based aid by income group - I have to chase down "Carolyn" again to find it - but you'll find the profiles much, much different. The Common Data Sets also show actual amounts spent on need-based aid - you can divide by the total number of students to get an aggregate picture.)</p>
<p>Yes... But doesn't Smith have a lot of non-traditional students who would qualify for Pell Grants? It appears from the CDS that 9 percent of undergraduates are 25 or older. These students are no longer dependents and are subsequently eligible for Pells.</p>
<p>Also, I'm not so sure that I trust colleges who award merit aid to carefully distinguish between money designated for "merit" versus money designated "need" purposes.</p>
<p>Please post a link to the Pell Grant data.</p>
<p>It's a stretch to think that all non-traditional students receive Pell grants. If even half of the Smith Ada Comstock students were on Pells, in the traditional age group Smith would be outdoing the likes of Williams 2:1.</p>
<p>Mikey: Merit scholarships are most often given to international students (where admission is not need-blind), to very top candidates regardless of need that might need some monetary incentive to overcome the all-women's factor, or to candidates seeking to major in areas that are historically underrepresented by women. For instance, my roommate is an engineering major and is here on a merit scholarship. I, however, with a Smith-calculated EFC of $0, receive need-based financial aid. Merit aid may also be given in the form of Zollman or STRIDE. To my knowledge, merit aid is not only given to those whom need-based aid provides for. If someone already has some need-based aid, Smith will not abstain from giving them merit based aid. What I'm trying to say is , I suppose, that admission for domestic students is need-blind, and also that merit-aid is also need-blind to a great extent.</p>
<p>Smith has been topping the Pell Grant list for several years now. </p>
<p>Mikey, here's a link, but for 2004:</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>"In 2003 the four liberal arts colleges with the highest percentages of low-income students were all women's colleges. Smith College led all liberal arts colleges with low-income Pell Grant recipients making up 27.1 percent of all enrollments. At Mount Holyoke, 21.4 percent of all students received Pell Grants. At Barnard College and Wellesley College, Pell Grant recipients were at least 17.8 percent of the total enrollments. Another women's college, Bryn Mawr, also ranked high on the list, and Vassar College, co-ed for more than 30 years but with a continuing tradition of higher education for women, also ranked in the top tier of liberal arts colleges in educating low-income students."</p>
<p>Thanks so much for posting this link. I find Smith's commitment to economic diversity a significant and concrete indicator of the college's support for equity and social justice.</p>
<p>Interesting link about the Pell grants--it really makes Smith's commitment to low-income students and economic diversity very clear.</p>
<p>The graphs showing how the percentage of Pell recipients has changed over time is very striking. Most other colleges shown stayed pretty close to level between the early 80s and now, but Smith's Pell percentage has taken off dramatically.</p>
<p>At the same time, the cost of admitting a Pell recipient is much greater now than it used to be, because the size of Pell grants has shrunk after adjusting for inflation while the sticker price has skyrocketed well above the inflation rate.</p>
<p>So, turning down a full-pay student for a Pell recipient costs much more now than it used to, because the amount of institutional grant aid now required to supplement the Pell is so much greater.</p>
<p>All the more credit due to Smith, in my opinion.</p>