<p>If the op was serious in the questions asked a simple Google of Williams would have answered most of the concerns. Are there many gifted student athletes at Williams, yes there are. Are they "jocks" as in one half of the slur "dumb jocks" absolutely not. For goodness sake you can't get in the school even as a "helmet sport" tipped athlete without a minimum 1350 sat (93rd percentile). These students just happen to be really smart and really good athletes, what's wrong with that? Do you go insane due to the isolation? Well that's not a very reasoned question. Of course the answer is no and that has been the answer for over 200 years. It is where it is. I suppose some might ask if those unfortunate people stuck in their mansions in the Hamptons go insane. Surrounded by water on 3 sides, over 100 miles to the nearest bridge, with only rich people near them, oh my god send help. As to the Barnard subject, some misrepresentations can not go unchallenged. Barnard is a specialty school, if you will. It is an all women's college housed within one of the worlds finest co-educational research universities. In a city as diverse as NYC it has less than 4% black students. It is a fine school according to any authorities, authors, rating agencies, within the limits of its purpose. However it can not be mentioned as on par with Williams in any way. Williams compares to maybe 10 schools in the country and in my opinion anyone who posts on the Williams thread with an interest in attending should know that. It is a very important fact that in most cases off-sets concerns like "jocks" and location.</p>
<p>Why oh why are you so hostile? This thread was started with some serious concerns and yet you're basically "dissing" those concerns and questions!</p>
<p>Why are you so hostile and belligerent?</p>
<p>And Barnard IS one of the top schools in the country with classes and students going back and forth between Columbia and Barnard, meaning that Barnard is on par with Columbia (....... you're not going to go on a rant about Columbia being sub par with Williams are you? That would just be comical and show your ignorance. Barnard certainly is not a "specialty" school! Where did you get THAT bit of prejudicial nonsence? It just so happens that the stats for admittance are higher for GPA then SAT! Big deal! Barnard is without doubt one of the top schools in the country. It HAS to be on par with Columbia which I'm sure even you wouldn't think is inferior in any way (this discourse just sounds so childish!)</p>
<p>and ..... "However if you are interested in curtailing banter which you find unpleasant, Barnard (Columbia) is playing host tomorrow to one of the worlds most notorious terrorists Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad so maybe that would be a better place to start."</p>
<p>soooooooooooooooooooooo ....... did you hear Columbia's president's introduction? Do you REALLY still have this immature objection?</p>
<p>Williams! Barnard! Columbia! All top schools where the kids are getting the best education possible, each with a slightly different focus. It's just SO immature to think that one is "better" then another! Do you prefer Yale or Harvard? Princeton or Columbia? Brown or Williams or Barnard and who cares? They are all top schools where any parent would be proud to have a child at and any student is going to get an excellent top education.</p>
<ol>
<li>Williams College (MA)<br>
100 4.7 2 97% 96% 96% 0 1 75% 3% 7/1 95% 2 1320-1520 90% 5 19% 4 4 58%<br></li>
<li>Amherst College (MA)<br>
98 4.7 1 97% 92% 96% +4 6 68% 4% 8/1 97% 4 1330-1530 86% 19% 10 2 61%<br></li>
<li><p>Swarthmore College(PA) </p></li>
<li><p>Wellesley College(MA) </p></li>
<li><p>Carleton College(MN) </p></li>
<li><p>Middlebury College(VT) </p></li>
<li><p>Pomona College(CA) </p></li>
<li><p>Bowdoin College(ME) </p></li>
<li><p>Davidson College(NC) </p></li>
<li><p>Haverford College(PA) </p></li>
<li><p>Claremont McKenna College(CA) </p></li>
<li><p>Wesleyan University(CT) </p></li>
<li><p>Grinnell College(IA) </p></li>
<li><p>Vassar College(NY) </p></li>
<li><p>Harvey Mudd College(CA) </p></li>
<li><p>Washington and Lee University(VA) </p></li>
<li><p>Smith College(MA) </p></li>
<li><p>Hamilton College(NY) </p></li>
<li><p>Colgate University(NY) </p></li>
<li><p>United States Naval Academy(MD) 11 * </p></li>
<li><p>Oberlin College(OH) </p></li>
<li><p>Colby College(ME) </p></li>
<li><p>United States Military Academy(NY) 11 * </p></li>
<li><p>Bates College(ME) </p></li>
<li><p>Bryn Mawr College(PA) </p></li>
<li><p>Colorado College </p></li>
<li><p>Macalester College(MN) </p></li>
<li><p>Scripps College(CA) </p></li>
<li><p>Mount Holyoke College(MA) </p></li>
<li><p>Barnard College(NY)<br>
Case closed.....</p></li>
</ol>
<p>OH MY GOD! You MUST be joking!</p>
<p>Well ok then! Statistics are all that matter! You win! Williams MUST be #1 no matter what and that's all there is to it!</p>
<p>You couldn't possibly have a phd! Your "reasoning" is all about #s on a page and nothing more!</p>
<p>Williams is a WONDERFUL college! A GREAT choice (if you can get in!) And so is Barnard/Columbia a GREAT choice (if you can get in!)</p>
<p>I know of people who were rejected at Columbia and accepted at Brown. And accepted at U of Chicago and rejected at Columbia. And rejected at Brown and accepted at Williams. And on and on and on and on and on.</p>
<p>My son was accepted at both U Chicago and Williams and is very happy at Williams, although my wife and I wanted him to go to U Chicago. Big deal. We actually dont think he would have been accepted at Columbia, and didn't even try.</p>
<p>You seem to think everything is black and white.</p>
<p>I have news for you, it's not. But what do I know? I'm being an idiot just by replying to you!</p>
<p>windy: Now you're baqc to the original topic: the silliness of ratings! If you've forgotten, that was the point on the other thread. If you don't agree, that would the place to make your point. However, you can't just mention dump ratings and say "case closed" and expect to have made an argument. Even Morty Schapiro, the president of Williams, agrees with me, see his statement.</p>
<p>[personal comment re another poster edited out, per TOS courtesy guidelines - Mod JEM]</p>
<p>Maybe OP got these concerns about Williams by reading posts of Williams alums right here on CC . Such as this recent post, to this very sub-forum. Maybe you regard this as an insult as well, but as an alum the poster had every right to give his/her sincere impressions, based on actual attendance there :</p>
<p>"I'm a Williams alum, and like most everyone else on this forum I'd say don't go ED. I had an ok experience there, but the things that bug you about the school wound up bothering me and several of my friends as the years went on. First - it's small and far, far away from any big cities. At first, I didn't mind the small town - there were so many other things to discover. But after a year or two, the lack of things to do after class besides sports, lectures, homework, hiking and partying got really annoying (I know that's a long list but it gets really, really boring....). Going abroad helped that, but coming back was even harder after being back in a big city for a semester. So...if you're already worried about that issue I'd think seriously about finding a school that's a little closer to a city.
Second - Williams IS a jock school. Yes, not everybody is an athlete and YES, students are diverse but it's still a jock school. Every day at 3:45 the campus virtually empties - athletes go to practice, non-teammembers go to the gym or take a nice long run, and everyone else heads to the library until dinner. It's true that there aren't many jock-cliques at Williams - most of my friends were on various teams while I wasn't - it's just that being a non-athlete at a jock school means you're in for a ton of boring alone-in-the-library time while all your friends are at practice. Like I said before, it's a situation that can be fun for a while, but gets old after 2 years.
And another thing - you might think this is a weird aspect to criticize, but the school is NOT a "fuzzy" place to be. Everything from the student body to the faculty and staff to the place itself seems to hold to the independent new englander worldview - which means that if you need help (real help, as in conversation and caring) - in class, finding a major, figuring out what to do afterwards, catching up after a bout with mono, you name it - you'll probably be disappointed. I only met with my advisor twice in all four years, and he'd stare at me blankly and offer no help at all when I'd go to him for advice on this course or that.
Oh, and unless you're living in the Odd Quad and don't mind being seen as a huge geek, you're not going to be around people who love sitting around and debating politics or talking about what they're learning. They'll talk about work - how much they have, how stressful it is, etc - but for the most part the whole milieu isn't what I expected from the top-rated LA school in the country.
So...my advice is to wait until you find something you love before you go ED."</p>
<p>I've read posts on CC by other Williams alums decrying the shift towards increased involvement in athletics since "their day", too.</p>
<p>Now THAT/ THOSE people were indeed making assertions. But well-founded ones, based on the facts that they themselves experienced, not hot air, and as such cannot be easily discounted. Certainly not by someone who did not also attend.</p>
<p>Whereas OP was saying, " I read this, tell me it isn't really true?" And in response you just bashed him/her.</p>
<p>Case closed.</p>
<p>I LOVE Williams and my son LOVES Williams. And it sounds like mythmom's D. LOVES Barnard. And since I believe mythmom when she relates her D's experiences of how hard Barnard/Columbia is, I believe that too.</p>
<p>The OP had some legitimate questions that some of us have addressed. Windy, your belligerence is really unwelcome and not helpful to the original serious questions. AND not fair to Williams! As Morty himself asserts.</p>
<p>MBK, Banard is not on par with Columbia even though it is Columbia's sister college. I think the difference is pretty big, but you mentioned Columbia to criticize Windy. A cat and a lion are different even though they belong to a same family.
See Momrath's comment: "I do not, however, have any reservations about Williams' academic rigor and intensity, vis a vis Barnard, Swarthmore or any other institution."</p>
<p>monydad: The passage that you chose to repost on this thread has been established to be "dated" and skewed -- as are the opinions of the alums who attended Williams in the 1960s/early 1970s (forty years ago).</p>
<p>mythmom: re “If anything, Barnard is more rigorous” -- I wouldn't sell your son/Williams short, and would be cautious about underestimating/predicting the amount of time/work your son will have put into his (admittedly, introductory survey) course by the time the semester ends in December – especially since, when you commented about the relative rigors of the two colleges in question, classes had only been in session at Williams for two weeks/12 days (while your daughter may well have been at Barnard for two years). It goes without saying that most of the 100-level courses will not be as rigorous as upper-level classes – but your son will still need to make a good effort to see good results. You may want to reserve judgment until you’ve seen what the entire first semester has held for your son.</p>
<p>"monydad: The passage that you chose to repost on this thread has been established to be "dated" and skewed -- as are the opinions of the alums who attended Williams in the 1960s/early 1970s (forty years ago)."</p>
<p>Interested parties can read the posts of Williams alums, and others, and come to their own conclusions as to how much of their comments regarding factors brought up by Williams alums such as its location, and impact thereof, are in fact dated and skewed.</p>
<p>The point is not whether these comments are current, it is that OP could easily have read them, or other comments posted here and elsewhere to the same effect (some of these observations are ubiquitous; I've seen them elsewhere too), and therefore have a perfectly reasonable basis to be making inquiries regarding these issues that persons who actually atttended the college have raised right here on CC..</p>
<p>By all appearances OP was hoping y'all would offer proof that these concerns were unfounded. Not that you would rip OP for asking about it. OP had every reason to ask about it, seems to me, if OP has read CC.</p>
<p>BTW, a quick "search" on CC shows many similar views expressed by other alums. I'll be happy to post some of these here , if you want further substantiation that these views have been expressed on CC by apparently highly credible sources. In my opinion, based on what I just read, the OP researching Williams using CC as one resource would have had ample reason to be making these inquiries.</p>
<p>As for the other point, workload can be a very individual thing; depends a lot on what particular courses you're taking, too. Right now my D2 is at Barnard and frankly has not been having a very tough time. On the other hand, her roommate is working her butt off. But neither of them have gotten much stuff back, or even submitted that much work yet. I would have to give it a good while before making global judgements about workload, at that one school much less comparatively.</p>
<p>But perhaps a professional in the field could make probably valid judgements about the formality/rigor of certain courses based on examining the syllabi, which was more the point here. I don't know. If she feels she can, I certainly can't contradict her.</p>
<p>I suppose one of the reasons to participate in these discussions is to pass on information we may have picked up in the application and admission process. The op can and should ask any question they like. Maybe we can test a theory here...have the op write their essay for the Williams app on the "jock" problem and the isolation as a cause of mental distress...and lets see if they are admitted...</p>
<p>"A cat and a lion are different even though they belong to a same family."</p>
<p>In this case, though, the cat and the lion are eating out of overlapping bowls, and mythmom is commenting on some characteristics of one of the bowls. Not the merits of the cat, or the lion.</p>
<p>Maybe we can test a theory here..</p>
<p>Have interested potential applicants come to CC posting reasonable inquiries of completely well-founded concerns, based on other CC posts and other sources, that may or not be correct. Then, instead of addressing these concerns, let's criticize the OP for raising them in what they thought was the safe haven of CC.</p>
<p>.. and lets' see if they apply..</p>
<p>Wow, this has certainly been an interesting thread. I can comment a bit on Williams having a S who graduated this spring, and a D in her second year. Neither is a jock, and both have loved it. There is a great deal of confusion out here about Williams and and "jock culture." Williams does not have a significantly greater number of Varsity jocks than almost any other NESCAC school, they just happen to win a lot. Maybe this is coaching, maybe money, maybe the attraction of more talented athletes because of Williams' "track record" recently (no pun intended.) I think the successful sports scene actually invigorates the other students to strive at their non-athletic endeavors. If the athletic types work hard at their sport, the musician will also practice more at her instrument. There are no "cultural" clashes between jock and non-jock. And remember, 2/3 of the students are not varsity athletes. As to class vigor, my kids definitely have worked their butts off. (My S spent a year at Oxford and found Williams more challenging.)</p>
<p>Interesting observations, but they don't all seem to jive completely with some of the observations of Williams alums posted elsewhere on CC that I've just read.</p>
<p>I have no idea which is correct, but here's what they have posted:</p>
<p>"Its emphasis on athletics. Williams has the highest percentage of students on varsity athletic teams of all colleges and universities in the country -- double the percentage of some of the other top LACs (Swarthmore, Pomona)."</p>
<p>"The administration knows that the older alumni (as a whole) believe Williams is too focused on athletics. It's one of two areas that shows up in alumni surveys as being emphasized more than it should be (the other being alumni fundraising!). "</p>
<p>"Read the 2002 Report on Athletics:
Quote:
Students, in other words, report that varsity athletics is significant in their social life, over half feel that belonging or not belonging to a varsity team “defines” how other students see them; it also plays a significant role in who lives with whom. When asked specifically about the pervasiveness of athletics at Williams and whether it is a good or a bad thing, 68% of our students regard athletics as “more pervasive” at Williams than at other excellent colleges. 38% of our students think that is good and 31% think it is bad, but two-thirds of our students think it is true.
<a href="http://www.ephblog.com/archives/imag...tic_report.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.ephblog.com/archives/imag...tic_report.htm</a> "</p>
<p>"For example, some have suggested that Williams is not really a "jock" school. Well, this data certainly disproves that notion. It's the second highest spending school and the highest per student spending school in Div III athletics. The expenditures show exactly why Williams wins the Div III Sears Cup every year. "</p>
<p>"My kid was recruited and accepted there, and received three phonecalls from the head of her department and alums urging her to attend. So? (For the record, I think Williams should spend as much money on athletics as they choose - it's their money, and lots of students like it that way. They just shouldn't hide that more than 50% of the student body is involved in varsity, junior varsity, and intercollegiate club sports, making it, as far as I am aware, by far the most athletic liberal arts college in the country. What's wrong with that? If folks don't like it, they shouldn't attend - my d. walked."</p>
<p>The best interests of the op are imo served by a reality check...this student is considering appling early decision...it does not appear from the information provided that they are a legacy, a recruited athlete, a major donor, an urm, or the any other class of applicant who might demand special attention as the admissions dept selects the first years for Willams 2012. In my opinion it would be critical for such an individual to leave no doubt regarding their desire to be accepted, no doubt whatsoever...forget for a moment the binding nature of early decision...this discussion was about an early decision app not just someone curious about the school.</p>
<p>I post in the Williams forum in two roles -- as an alumna and as a parent of a prospective student. As an alum, I am naturally bothered by some of the negative comments about the school, but I am most troubled by the tone of some of the SUPPORTERS of the school. It may not be totally rational, but I find my opinions of schools affected by the tone and attitude of the students and the parents of students who attend. And that includes supporters who refuse to admit that their favorite school could possibly have any shortcomings. There are posters, such as Momrath, whose opinions I value highly, for the information she includes, the tone of her posts and the acknowlegement that Williams is not for everyone. I think readers of her posts are left with a clear and generally favorable impression of the school, even if they decide it's not the school for them. The overly harsh and sarcastic posts really help no one*.</p>
<p>*Of course, as a parent of a prospective student, if people want to drive off some of his competition, well, I suppose I wouldn't mind, just for this admissions cycle. ;)</p>
<p>Re: ccfaithful - "MBK, Banard is not on par with Columbia even though it is Columbia's sister college. I think the difference is pretty big, but you mentioned Columbia to criticize Windy. A cat and a lion are different even though they belong to a same family."</p>
<p>Interesting. I tend to believe mythmom on this, who has a junior D @ Barnard and a frosh S @ Williams. When she compared their respective freshman experiences, she simpy said she found the curriculum at Barnard to be more rigorous. That was her experience comparing the two schools for the freshman class. Naturally its too early for any real analysis from the first few weeks, but I am also a bit befuddled by what seems to be a less work and less regorous mentality @ Williams. I have no doubt that the experience @ Williams will be a top education, but mythmom has been talking about how Barnard IS on par with Columbia and some of the Barnard classes are even more intense then Columbia's. Since virtually all of the students go back and forth across the street, I think that the evidence is overwheming in favor of mythmom's daughter who is experiencing first hand in her 3rd year how they are, in fact, basically one University and how Barnard certainly IS on par with Columbia and thus also (at least) on par with Williams.</p>
<p>This put down of schools that are considered by those who know to be amongst the very best is really beyond comprehension. Monydad also is giving his first hand experience, so why is it so hard to listen to real experience rather then ...... ratings and #s that may or may not have relevence to the real world? I would MUCH rather believe real world experiences from both mythmom and monydad.</p>
<p>Why would that be any kind of contention or create any kind of petty argument? Except perhaps to show off petty minds!</p>
<p>By the way, Windy, where on earth did you get that 4% black student figure? That's absolutely not accurate, as any walk on the campus would tell you. As a matter of fact, ethnic diversity looks like one of it's strongest features, and my few times on the campus sure did uphold that kind of impression. I'm sure if I made the effort to look up the stats, they would be quite different from the impression you are trying to give. And why would you want to give such an impression? Why wouldn't you welcome just the opposite? I guess your agenda is clear and that's all that matters.</p>
<p>Can we stop now? Can we accept the experiences of real students in real classrooms and real campuses and give the ratings the credence they deserve? (which is just a minor tool to HELP compare different colleges, certainly NOT the be all and end all of what is true or not about these extraordinarily excellent institutions? Which ...... ARE on par with each other!)</p>
<p>MBK...it is on the Barnard website on the admissions stats page...and I was wrong...for the admission year 2006 it was 3.4% black...i stand corrected...</p>