<p>considering that is a school for only girls, do you believe Wellesley to be a truly accurate representation of the "real world"?</p>
<p>Interesting how a leading question not only skews the range of possible responses but also discloses the bias of the questioner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
considering that is a school for only girls
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's actually a college for women. And who said any college was a "truly accurate representation of the 'real world'"?</p>
<p>What a stupid question. No, Wellesley's obviously not an accurate representation of the "real world" -- of course the "real world" has men. </p>
<p>I agree with colormehappy -- no college is any sort of representation of the "real world". Think about it: Most of the world doesn't have an extremely high concentration of smart people (as Harvard, Yale, top Liberal Arts schools, etc do), people of only one religion (take any religious school), people predominantly interested in math, science and technology (MIT, etc), or people almost solely between the ages of 18 and 25. I could go on a lot longer. And, obviously, the "real world" has no professors or dorm parties. Ask any graduate -- there's NO WAY college is any sort of representation of the real world.</p>
<p>I think the real question is if Wellesley--or any college--prepares its students for life beyond its artificial environment. I've never seen any sign that Wellesley Women have any problem living and competing in male-dominated environments. I mean, look at people like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and hoards of less famous but equally impressive alumna. If anything, it seems like Wellesley better prepares its students than other schools.</p>
<p>The "real world" question always perplexed me. If someone's sole reason of going to college is to prepare as much as possible for the "real world," then why not go to a technical or vocational school with narrow, career specific programs such as Marketing, Accounting, Sports Management, Criminal Justice, etc. etc. Or better yet, why not jump into the workforce immediately after high school? I'm not belittling these choices - if this is what you'd like, then there are plenty of options for you out there.</p>
<p>However, as Menagerie very nicely posted, no college, co ed or single sex, is truly like the "real world." The whole idea of going to a liberal arts school as opposed to a school w/ some of the programs I mentioned above is to obtain a great foundation which you can then apply to any field or career. Your academic preparation wasn't so narrow so that if you major in Accounting but end up hating it after graduation, you're not stuck. Your reading/writing/analytical skills should put you in great stead for any career. Prospective students I used to meet always seemed disappointed that we didn't have a journalism/communications major - but what about all of our great alumnae doing just fine in both broadcast and print journalism?? Lynn Sherr was a Classics/Greek major! </p>
<p>If you look at our alumnae's many accomplishments, I think you'll see that Wellesley more than adequately prepared its graduates for the "real world." There aren't 30,000+ lonely and no-social-skills graduates lost in the world.</p>
<p>No. But Wellesley is a college and it never was the real world to begin with (like Menagerie and colormehappy said). Do you think you are going to learn about the "real world" in a place where all the food you can eat is already paid for and all the people you live with are students your age? When someone says "real world" I think monthly rent, utility bills, taxes, babies, grocery shopping and 9 to 5 job (what can I say, I'm a recent alumna?).</p>
<p>College is privilege, that's for sure, but because of Wellesley's diversity you see more of the world than at many other schools. I've gotten to interact with so many types of people that aren't from homes or backgrounds like mine that I know that there is more of a world out there.</p>