<p>I keep hearing that Wellesley is the number one women's college in the US, but how did that reputation come to be? Is it deserved? Is the quality of the education at Wellesley better? If so, is it logical to choose Wellesley over the other all-women 7 sisters colleges for this reason?</p>
<p>[I'm posting this is the Wellesley, Smith, Mt. Holyoke, Bryn Mawr, and Barnard forums]</p>
<p>I'm not a Smithie. And I think they are all different (though, as LACs, they have more in common with themselves than differences.)</p>
<p>For years, Wellesley had the largest endowment. (Smith has now pretty much caught up.) Its location has long made it a choice of those seeking a more urban setting (there are those who pursue Barnard for similar reasons, but there are those uncomfortable in NYC), and, for some reason, Asian-Americans in particular prefer locations in or near big cities, which adds further to selectivity. But much of the reputation came from greater wealth and location.</p>
<p>I think to understand the differences, one has to look at the colleges' relative recent histories. If you go back 35 years (when I was in College) Smith and Wellesley looked pretty much the same. Schools with very wealthy student populations, and very sound academics, preparing the majority of students for lives as spouses of very successful men. This latter characteristic has, thankfully, changed! There are particular departments at each of the schools (actually, all 5 of them) that are better than the others.</p>
<p>But Smith (under Jill Ker Conway) underwent a massive makeover that Wellesley never did. Massive commitment to lower-income students. 10-12% of the student body made up of older women. Huge commitment to extending the curricula (and the faculty) through the 5-College Consortium. And now the development of molecular sciences/engineering on a scale unheard of among women's colleges. This on top of the commitments to languages, the arts, JYA, etc.</p>
<p>The result is that Smith and Wellesley have become, really, rather different places. The similarities are still greater than the differences. But the differences are becoming more apparent. You'll see those differences when you visit, and then be able to make better informed choices. (and you can't go wrong with any one of them.)</p>
<p>I follow the rankings as much as anyone, but they arent everything and unfortunately they dont consider so many intangible assets of a college</p>
<p>If ECs and community service are of any importance, Smith has an amazing number of active clubs (over 100) and a sense that giving back to society is tantamount to the classroom education. </p>
<p>While this may seem like a minor perk, it isnt; Smith has a van /any/ club or organization can use to participate in club or organizational evens up to 200 miles (not really enforced) so theres no need to scramble to find fellow students to drive off campus or if there will be enough room for all who want to participate. Consequently, youll see clubs such as BET (Black Educators of Tomorrow) able to drive into Springfield on a weekly basis to tutor at risk and inner city Black children. </p>
<p>If politics is your passion, the Democratic Club was voted the best D club in the <em>country</em> last year, and the Republican Club had *two * of its members awarded White House internships. That doesnt sound like much until you realize that was for 200 spots out of tens of thousands apps.</p>
<p>I wont waste the bandwidth listing all the opportunities at Smith. Suffice it to say, if Smith doesnt have a club you wish they did, theyll give you the funds to start one. </p>
<p>Im sure youve already aware of the fact but Ill reiterate it again; Smith had more Fulbrights than any other LAC last yr and will again this yr.</p>
<p>Read about Stacys friends. Thousands of college grads apply to the Brookings Institution each yr for a few coveted positions (8-10) and TWO Smithies were
offered employment-----probably b/c of their association with Stacy :)</p>
<p>[[(and you can't go wrong with any one of them.)]]</p>
<p>Mimis correct, arianneag. Im obviously biased toward Smith, but if my daughter was attending any of the other womens colleges, I would be just as thrilled and have no problem writing the tuition check --I should say no more of a problem.</p>
<p>Visiting will make all the difference. My daughter, much to my amazement and consternation, wouldn't even get out of the car at some colleges. It will be much
easier to / feel/ where you belong for 4 yrs. than you believe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Visiting will make all the difference. My daughter, much to my amazement and consternation, wouldn't even get out of the car at some colleges. It will be much easier to / feel/ where you belong for 4 yrs. than you believe.
[/quote]
We visited both, and to be honest it wasn't close. Both are wonderful colleges, don't get me wrong. Based on the fact that they are pretty equal in academics, then you must compare social life and town. Hands down, NoHo wins! Not even close! In addition, and maybe it was just a bad day, when we visited Wellesley and went through three dorms, there were liquor and beer bottles strewn all over the halls. There were also beer bottles all over the campus (must have been a hell of a party the night before). Turned us off completely.<br>
We also noticed a very different feel while talking to the students. Wellesley students (that day at least) weren't willing to help or talk to us; seemed too busy for visitors. While at Smith, we couldn't have felt more at home. Students who were not tour guides took time to walk us around and show us houses, campus center, and just willing to talk about anything we asked. Made a huge impact on our D.</p>
<p>Umm, well, as a Smithie and Proud, I am required to say no to this. But honestly, I have to say that I know next to nothing about Wellesley. I don't know, I guess I just don't think that women's colleges should compete like that. #1 women's college in some things Wellesley might be, but in other things (like Fulbright's as RLT pointed out) Smith is definitley number 1. I guess I most agree with mini, Smith and Wellesley are just now very different institutions. It depends on what you want out of your school.</p>
<p>There were also beer bottles all over the campus (must have been a hell of a party the night before).]]</p>
<p>And the issue was?.......................just kidding-lol</p>
<p>Smith and Wellesley are just now very different institutions. It depends on what you want out of your school.]]</p>
<p>With all due respect, how is the op to know about the differences if someone doesn't help answer her questions? Talking about the great ECs at Smith or the great advising (Fulbrights) is hardly turning this in to a competition. But I see your point; we don't want to turn into a competition either.:)</p>
<p>With all due respect, how is the op to know about the differences if someone doesn't help answer her questions? Talking about the great ECs at Smith or the great advising (Fulbrights) is hardly turning this in to a competition. But I see your point; we don't want to turn into a competition either.]]</p>
<p>Sorry, I think you misunderstood (easy to do given the rambling nature of my post. don't try to post on CC and study for finals at the same time) :-) I didn't mean that you guys were turning it into a competition, but I feel like if Wellesley is touting itself as the #1 Women's College, that's unneccessary competition and a little bit in poor taste if you ask me. Women's colleges should stick together, there aren't that many of us left! And furthermore, Smith, IMO (and I'm pretty sure in yours too), is just a great college, period. The women's college thing aside. Wellesley should focus on competing against all the other colleges out there, and then cooperate with their sister schools.</p>
<p>Rankings are irrelevant if "fit" isn't there.</p>
<p>Reasons my D chose Smith over Wellesley:</p>
<p>1) Performing arts (and, I think, athletics) are more integral, not just EC afterthoughts. Dance, for instance, is more than an activity course taught through the P.E. department. Orchestra & wind ensemble, no comparison.</p>
<p>2) Student body: the stereotype would tell you that Wellesley students are more "tightly wound." I think my D would agree with that assessment. Mini would tell you that there's a lot less economic diversity at Wellesley. I think that my D would agree with that assessment. From my reads and observations, there seem to be a higher proportion of Wellesley students that are [humorlessly] obsessesed with a pre-professional emphasis. Mini can give you the riff on selectivity and stats versus economic status; suffice to say, that each time D visited Smith, or went to a Smith prospect party, there was an almost audible "click" that was absent elsewhere. This phenomenon reached its absurd peak during post-acceptance visits when, after visiting Wellesley during a gray and drizzily day/evening/morning, we were driving west along the MassPike towards Smith and burst out into blue skies and sunshine...a real Frank Capra moment.</p>
<p>From my D's perspective, MHC was too bucolic and seemed less intense/challenging academically; Barnard was claustrophobic, lacked a sense of community in comparison, and had underwhelming dorms in comparison. Bryn Mawr was simply smaller than she was willing to consider (about half the size of Smith). Wellesley was the bridesmaid.
I'm pretty sure that she would have taken Smith over Stanford, would have squirmed a lot in taking Smith over Harvard, and the real sweat would have been Smith vs. Yale. Admissions saved her the agonizing. These days she says it would be no contest, Smith all the way.</p>
<p>Smithies, hopefully, think more about fit than rankings.</p>
<p>Our family's reaction to Wellesley was that both the town and the campus/student body seemed more uptight than the Smith alternative. </p>
<p>One big focus for us was finding a school where the campus would the the place most students would want to be on the weekends. We got the impression that the Wellesley campus drains out in the direction of Boston. Noho, on the other hand, is where the five colleges are more likely to drain to.</p>
<p>We had also heard, from a Harvard-educated colleague of my H's, about what were referred to as "f... truck" bus shuttles from Wellesley to Harvard socials. I hated the image and associations. </p>
<p>To me, Noho is a New England version of NYC's Greenwich Village - funky, artsy and walkable. The town of Wellesley seemed too much a clone of many other affluent suburban places in America.</p>
<p>Our D did not even consider applying to Wellesley. Smith was the only single-sex school on her final list. She had accepted an invitation to a "women's colleges weekend" at Barnard, and ended up being used as the guinea pig in a workshop being given by the Smith admissions rep. Fate? </p>
<p>However, depending on the intended major, W could certainly be a better choice for some.</p>
<p>Barely glancing the above comments I'm just going to say what I've always thought about these rankings and Smith vs Wellesley.</p>
<p>I didn't really get what the rivalry was all about until I got to Smith and then went to Wellesley with the Democrats to see Betty Freidian. I also listened to others' perceptions of both schools.</p>
<p>Came down to this:
Smith and Wellesley are out of each other's leagues. Smith will take a long time to catch up- what was the last time the top 5 schools fell out of rankings? But Smith's fighting a bit of a close battle with the other 7 sisters schools. I just don't think there's a way for Smith to compete with Wellesley unless the policies go backwards. So in the meantime, Smith should be content to fight with other schools and be on its own to fight for the top 10 spots.</p>
<p>Smith is out of Wellesley's league, man.</p>
<p>"Smith and Wellesley are out of each other's leagues. Smith will take a long time to catch up- what was the last time the top 5 schools fell out of rankings? But Smith's fighting a bit of a close battle with the other 7 sisters schools. I just don't think there's a way for Smith to compete with Wellesley unless the policies go backwards. So in the meantime, Smith should be content to fight with other schools and be on its own to fight for the top 10 spots.</p>
<p>Smith is out of Wellesley's league, man."</p>
<p>Do you mean that they are out of each other's leagues in terms of ranking, or something else as well? When you compared other people's perceptions of both schools, what did they seem to think (e.g. did they seem to think Wellesley was more rigorous academically)? And when you say that Smith's policies must go backwards, what do you mean?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Wow TMP...you're gonna catch some "you know what for that comment." I'm just gonna sit back and watch the fireworks. This should be fun.</p>
<p>Harvard-educated colleague of my H's, about what were referred to as "f... truck" bus shuttles from Wellesley to Harvard socials]]</p>
<p>That phrase has been around for decades and isnt fair to 99% of the Wellesley women.</p>
<p>I dated (I use that word loosely) the other 1% and the bus had nothing to do with anything. :)</p>
<p>Smith, albeit much more sanitized, has its own bus~P.V.T.A~Pioneer Valley Transit Authority. Or as the Smithies affectingly like to refer it, Party Van To Amherst</p>
<p>Heehee, I heard the PVTA was called the (change the v to the previous letter in the alphabet) bus. Cute, either way!</p>
<p>I don't think the notion that Wellesley is in a different league from Smith can be sustained, looking at either the outputs or, if adjusted for income, looking for the inputs. </p>
<p>I don't need a Smith/Wellesley discussion to indicate that US News rankings are dreck that I wouldn't even use to line a birdcage if I cared about the bird.</p>
<p>BJM8, you're enjoying watching me sitting a hot seat, aren't you? :)</p>
<p>Let me get this straighten out. Wellesley is old money like Harvard and will never back down unless it went bankrupt and lost all of the alumnae support. Smith will rise but does NOT have the same kind of advantage that Wellesley has because the Smith president chose to open more doors to more students who would not otherwise have been able to attend Wellesley because of money isses.</p>
<p>Smithies told me that they considered Wellesley and had friends there and they just felt that they had better campus and academic opportunities that they wold never transfer to Wellesley unless it was for the prestige factor. That's what Wellesley is- Harvard for the women and they will stay there despite other schools offering much more (How many unhappy kids do you really think there are at Harvard right now but won't leave because "it's Harvard!"). Smith is not restricted by anything and changing reputations- leaving more room for improvements that it can build upon. Wellelsey just has to sit pretty and not have to work hard to earn anything. Like seriously with Summers and Harvard- Harvard will always rise to the top, no matter what. And that's how I view Wellesley. Bah humbug.</p>
<p>So there.</p>
<p>BTW- I've heard that PVTA used to be Putting Virgins to Amherst :)</p>
<p>BTW- I've heard that PVTA used to be Putting Virgins to Amherst ]]</p>
<p>You're making an awfully big assumption. :)</p>
<p>Smith president chose to open more doors to more students who would not otherwise have been able to attend Wellesley because of money issues.]]</p>
<pre><code> Smith
Full-time freshman enrollment: 615
Number who applied for need-based aid: 466
Number who were judged to have need: 366
Number who were offered aid: 366
Number who had full need met: 366
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $29,183
Average need-based loan: $2,058
Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $25,169
Average indebtedness at graduation: $25,023
Wellesley
Full-time freshman enrollment: 605
Number who applied for need-based aid: 454
Number who were judged to have need: 364
Number who were offered aid: 364
Number who had full need met: 364
Average percent of need met: 100%
Average financial aid package: $27,999
Average need-based loan: $2,463
Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $26,239
Average non-need based aid: Not reported
Average indebtedness at graduation: $11,821
</code></pre>
<p>I wont get into the Wellesley vs. Smith debate, but a few facts can't hurt. :)
Wellesley gives more aid (grants, scholarships) than SmithW 26,230.00 vs. S 25,169.00-- with the almost the identical number of students that are receiving aid ~364 vs.366</p>
<p>Smith has a whopping 10 more 1st yrs than Wellesley, making the percentages of those on aid almost identical for this discussion. I'll admit the 1.2 ^billion^ endowment should be more like 1.6-1.8, but whats a few mil here and there. :)</p>
<p>I've argued some of the endowment investments were stupid and the Smith financial management team should be able to return 18%/yr as Yale and Harvard, but, hell, no one listens to me. No surprise there--lol</p>
<p>Wellesley continues to use the "big ugly' for the sciences and has no future plans for a new science center. Contrast that to Smith that is building a new state-of- the-art science center. The financial strengh of Smith is impressive</p>
<p>And we havent even considered the engineering program and subsequent investments.</p>
<p>Wellesley has engineering too. Small prob, the W students have to take many course at M.I.T. Sucko!</p>
<p>Old money eh? Remember moi? Trust me, Smith has its fair share of old money and always has. Everyone forgets the USNews ranking is a recent anomaly and /in my day/ both colleges were considered equally prestigious and attracted equal numbers of ol money kidos.
Vassar was in some peoples opinion, mine included, equal to W, R and S. </p>
<p>Radcliffe was <em>the</em> womens college until they merged with Harvard. Merged probably isnt the correct terminology b/c Radcliffe was always part of Harvard. Harvard as well as Radcliffe were on the Radcliffe diploma.</p>
<p>The Harvard-Wellesley connection is tenuous and extremely loose at best. </p>
<p>Harvard never needed Wellesley (except for sex) they had Radcliffe. Now they have the co-eds. And the ol money women dont choose Wellesley. The few attending Wellesley are there, to a degree, b/c they were rejected from Yale, Princeton, and Harvard etc.---in all fairness, same with Smith.</p>
<p>Lest anyone gets upset, there /are/ students at both that turned down Yale, et al, for W or S. My daughter has a friend who turned down Harvard for Amherst College, but that's another discussion.</p>
<p>I'm going back to my b&w 'Babes in Prison' movie. And I agree with TD, screw the bird. ;)</p>
<p>I think Mini's figures show a significantly higher degree of Pell Grants (lower econ quartile) at Smith than Wellesely, which may be masked in some of the other data. I'm not saying that Wellesley is completely upper-crust whitebread but on paper it seemed less diverse than Smith, an impression that, without any pre-prejudice, D had upon her visits. Neither W or S is of the white-gloves-and-pearls mileu however.</p>