<p>I just checking Princeton Review for D2, and noticed that a school in whch she was interested was on the list of 20 schools noted for a lot of race/class interaction. Several of the school, large unis, were "the usual suspects," as were a most of the LACs. But several of ths schools listed were real surprises -- like Webb; the school is so small I'm always surprised it's on ANY list.</p>
<p>Smith, was not listed; but MCH was, which prompted me to ask, "why not Smith?" Smith leads most of the top LACs in terms of racial/economic diversity: number one for percentage of Pell students and nearly about twice the percentacge of the number two school; a higher percentage of African-American students than Pitzer, Beloit, Mac, CMC and MHC - - all of which made the list. So - - despite all this physical diversity (bodies on campus) is the college THAT socially segregated? And if so, why?</p>
<p>I know that the Princeton Review lists/rankings are not gospel, but still, Smith's absence from that list - - beat out by College of Idaho (not very diverse, but apparently interacting - - did give me pause.</p>
<p>I would definitely say that Smith has the requisite race/class interaction, and (while it's breaking my rule about not commenting on other schools) I would say that it has more than MHC. </p>
<p>Though I think it's weird that race/class interaction are grouped together. They're not necessarily the same thing and they don't tell you the same things about a school, i.e. it may be important to a student to know if a place is ethnically diverse more than that it's economically diverse or vice versa. </p>
<p>At any rate, Smith is an accepting place. We have our issues, and I think in terms of race especially we still have some building to do, but we're working on it.</p>
<p>^^^ I was thinking the same thing, that racial interaction is very different than class interaction, so lumping them together only confuses the matter and doesn't give any info on either. Even more surprising that Smith wasn't on the gay-friendly list - - that REALLY makes the PR ranking/lists suspect!</p>
<p>S&P, what is "the requisite race/class interaction?" Do you mean no better or worse than other campuses?</p>
<p>I think it's better than some campuses and not as good as others. I'm a minority student, though not involved in unity orgs (Black Students Alliance, Nosotras (Latina students), etc.). What I like about Smith is that it shows what I think is real dedication to increasing cultural understanding. We have occasional flare ups but the administration does try, and I appreciate that since so many schools just pay lip service to diversity or cultural learning.</p>
<p>I guess the question was unfair - - since in the earlier post you said you don't like commenting on other schools, and it would be difficult to have the same feel for other schools where, at best, you are just a visitor - - or inartfully stated.</p>
<p>I wasn't really asking for a comparison, but an explanation of what you meant by "the requisite amount" of race/class interaction - - exactly what is "the requisite amount?"</p>
<p>There was an interesting article on race relations at Smith from the minority POV in a recent alumni magazine - it gave my daughter pause to say the least.</p>
<p>I just went to the college's web site and re-read the four interviews (summer 2008 alumnae quarterly on-line). And I remember the black-face incident. I wonder, however, whether S&P's assessment of Smith as having the requisite amount of race/class interaction to make it on to the Princeton Rev list is still correct - - maybe the bar on race/class interaction on college campuses is just set very low.</p>
<p>I don't know how much you know about the blackface incident, nyc, but I think that's one of the examples I'd use about how open Smith is in regards to race interactions. The girl who dressed up in blackface wasn't intending to be offensive, there was constructive dialogue between the BSA and the girl, and she learned a lot because of the incident. The controversy really stems from the few who either chose to behave inappropriately while under the influence or posted ridiculous things on the Jolt. In light of those things, the campus has been really proactive in addressing these issues. How well they'll work, I don't know, but we're working on it. </p>
<p>I'd also like to add that, as a parent, you won't necessarily get a complete picture of what it's like on campus. You may here this, that, and the other, but you won't ever get the complete picture students will get. I'm not attacking your or anything, I'm just saying that four interviews and an incident aren't really enough to judge a student body of 2600 or so.</p>
<p>The interviews may not be representative of every individual experience on campus, but the COLLEGE chose to publish them in the alumnae quarterly, presumably to give alumnae (and others) some insight into race interactions, from the student of color perspective and in the wake of the blackface incident. It is therefore reasonable to assume that they reflect a general tone or sentiment, again, from students of color experience. Since this is part of the public face the COLLEGE has chosen to present, it ought not be dismissed as just the opinions of four random students. The incident and the interviews are not the ONLY basis upon which to judge the tenor of the campus, but they are an important piece of the puzzle. </p>
<p>I doubt you woudl reject or dismiss a prospect's positive experience with her Gold Key guide or a prospects positive overnight experience as too incomplete a picture or insutticiently representative of the whole campus to make an admissions decision. </p>
<p>Also, smithiegr, while you may view the aftermath of blackface incident as an example of how open and proactive Smith is regarding race interactions, that view was not expressed by any of the women of color interviewed for the alumnae quarterl - - an interesting disconnect inlight of the original post.</p>
<p>Actually, NYC I would say that smithiegr's points aren't far from the truth. No magazine (especially one put out by the COLLEGE), no review book, no stories filtered back to parents really captures what it's like to be here, going through things as they happen on the ground. </p>
<p>I don't think smithiegr was trying to be dismissive, I think she was pointing out that you can't take four interviews as the whole picture. Especially when they come from the Alumnae Quarterly, a marketing tool of the college and the Alumnae organization. </p>
<p>It is interesting however, what those interviews revealed, and I think that the fact that the college allowed for open and honest answers to be published for all alums to read reflects that it is serious about taking the event seriously and learning the lessons we can from it. I would call that an open and proactive aftermath.</p>
<p>Students come to college with all kinds of odd or immature notions of what is humorous, what is socially acceptable, what falls within societal - or college - norms. What is critical, and what comes from the college, is the depth with which the institution itself approaches incidents when they happen, and the degree to which students grow from them.</p>
<p>I agree that no one student or group of students can be entirely representative of the four-year residential experience. OTOH, those snap-shots (the tour, the interview, the overnight visit, the college's promotional literature and dvds) often figure prominently in an applicant's decision to attend a college - - or not - - as evinced by post #8. So, the fact that the alumnae piece was, to quote SandP, a marketing tool, it was a marketing tool on behalf of the college - - presumably acurate with the college's "spin" or "message."</p>
<p>The interviews, appearing as they did, in an official college-sanctioned publication, are part of the college's efforts to report on an unfortunate incident - - to use the incident as a teachable moment for members of its off-campus community community as it did for the on-campus community with the open-meetings. And, as noted in post #12, the intervews do not purport to tell the whole story, but to give the perspective of students of color. Again, not evey student of color, but a general sense of what that community was feeling.</p>
<p>Finally, I have noticed a knee-jerk tendency on these boards (not jsut the Smith boards) to always discount the negative review as not representative. I would suggest to Sand P and smithiegr that your comments are no more representative than those of the four students interviewed for the alumnage magazine. In fact, since those students were chosen for the piece, they are voices the college though should be heard above the din - - and they all lamented the fact that it is difficult to impossible to have serious, meaningful discussions about race. Clearly, the college thinks there's still plenty of room for growth on this front.</p>
<p>nyc, simply because the college chooses to market in that manner does not mean that it reflects the "general tone or sentiment" of the school. Marketing is just that. Sure, the four women of color interviewed for the magazine don't feel the same way other women of color (myself included, for the record) do, but you didn't get that picture, and I tried to point that out. I was not being dismissive, I was merely bringing up another perspective gleaned from the various discussions held after the incident.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I doubt you woudl reject or dismiss a prospect's positive experience with her Gold Key guide or a prospects positive overnight experience as too incomplete a picture or insutticiently representative of the whole campus to make an admissions decision.
[/Quote]
No, but I would say that it's an incomplete picture of what life is really like here. I, and many others, had a picture of what Smith was when we came, and we, for whatever reason, have come to realize that it isn't exactly what we thought it was. It may be positive, and it may be negative, but it's still different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...your comments representative than those of the four students interviewed for the alumnage magazine
[/quote]
I never said that our comments are more representative that the other students interviewed, I said that any comments made by students are more representative that that of any parent and I stand by that fact. Don't put words in my mouth. You can call it a knee-jerk reaction, whatever, but our (S&P and myself) comments are more representative than that of the parents here because 1) we are enrolled students and 2) we are women of color.</p>