<p>^ Good to know; perhaps my generalization was too strong. But nonetheless, I think biased posters from both sides agree that the town of Wellesley < the town of Northampton; my point is that for certain students, Boston is justly excluded from the equation.</p>
<p>Wellesley has a pledge for need based aid, while Smith has some merit aid. Smith’s student body is larger than Wellesley and I believe its campus is smaller. Students at Wellesley can cross register at MIT, Babson, and Olin. Smith students can register at other colleges in the consortium. (Cross registering may not end up being practical anyways because of transportation times and different schools’ schedules.) Wellesley and Smith are making budget cuts, but Wellesley started out with the larger endowment. Students at Wellesley seem to be very happy with the science departments. </p>
<p>Is it possible for you to visit both schools again? They are both “good” schools but one may be better for you. Search youtube for videos about Smith and Wellesley. Wellesley also has a few lectures on itunesU. If you don’t know which school is right for you, it is perfectly ok not to apply ED.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve spent only one afternoon and evening in Amherst, and had dinner there. It looked fairly similar to the town of Wellesley: pretty, upper-middle class New England town with a combination of local and chain stores, a few restaurants, an inn, etc. College campus abuts town. Other colleges in region. What’s the huge difference?</p>
<p>Yes, Amherst is a bit bigger, and is more of a self-contained town while Wellesley is more suburban. But to say that you can’t, “in your wildest imagination” figure out how I could compare the two seems like an overstatement.</p>
<p>I think on the town question what people are trying to say is that there’s a misconception that Wellesley = Boston, when in fact, Wellesley=Wellesley. It’s near Boston, but it’s not in Boston. </p>
<p>And that may or may not be an attractive feature for you. When I chose Smith, one of the things I wanted was a semi-rural New England college. I still wanted good ethnic restaraunts, fun shopping and a movie theatre, like I was used to having in the big city where I grew up, but I didn’t want the traffic/noise/crime/distractions of a large city. And frankly, I don’t really care for Boston much as a city (sorry Bostonians, but it’s a personal preference thing). </p>
<p>So for me, Wellesley was out by virtue of location. For you, it may be a bit different.</p>
<p>One other thing to consider since you’re interested in biochem and pre-med is that Smith is making a huge investment in its science departments right now. They just completed Ford Hall, a huge facility for the study of engineering, genetics, and bio-molecular sciences. I don’t know if genetics interests you, but one of Smith’s professors is a nationally leading geneticist and they made sure that Ford Hall has the most up to date equipment to facilitate his research and the work of the students. It’s a pretty impressive structure, really, and brand new this year.</p>
<p>To me, one of the differences between Smith and Wellesley is that Smith had only male presidents until the 1970s. Apparently they didn’t trust a woman to run the place?</p>
<p>Wellesley, on the other hand, has always had female presidents.</p>
<p>"To me, one of the differences between Smith and Wellesley is that Smith had only male presidents until the 1970s. Apparently they didn’t trust a woman to run the place?</p>
<p>Wellesley, on the other hand, has always had female presidents." </p>
<p>For someone who criticized another poster for making generalizations, I think you might tend to your own garden before weeding someone else’s. </p>
<p>I think it’s very commendable that Wellesley always had female presidents, but I think it’s what a president accomplishes, not their gender, that makes them important. Some of Smith’s male presidents (particularly John M. Greene and William Allan Nielson) were not only beloved, but made huge contributions to the advancement of women’s education at a time when higher education for women was often derided by both sexes. </p>
<p>Indeed, it was under the term of William Allan Nielson that the concept of the “Seven Sisters” began as a fundraising slogan to raise money for women’s colleges during the Great Depression. He also established Smith’s first study abroad program, in Paris in 1925, which was the second study abroad program established by an American college or university and continues to this day. When foreign scholars were exiled or put in danger by the rise of Nazism, President Nielson rescued them by bringing them to the United States for professorships at Smith, saving lives and giving students real exposure to the great thinkers of the day. Also, Robert Frost wrote “The Road Not Taken” at Smith when he was a guest of President Neilson’s. So I guess, even though he was a man, he did a pretty good job. </p>
<p>Smith’s female presidents have been equally distinguished. The beloved Jill Kerr Conway founded the Ada Comstock Scholars program (much imitated by other women’s colleges since) because she saw her mother struggle with poverty and imagined making it possible for older women to better their lives through good education. Ruth J. Simmons was the first African-American woman to head a top-ranked American college or university.</p>
<p>"“To me, one of the differences between Smith and Wellesley is that Smith had only male presidents until the 1970s. Apparently they didn’t trust a woman to run the place?”</p>
<p>Wellesley always had males as presidents of the boards of trustees - Smith always women running the show. So I’m not sure one can make much of this one way or the other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not make a generalization. I stated a fact.</p>
<p>Now, one can certain discuss at great length what the implications of that fact may be…but it’s still a fact.</p>
<p>My D is starting her first year at Smith with a Stride and like you, sciencegal, she wants to major in biochem. I think what got her the Stride was her research project and her summer pre-college science courses at some rigorous universities. She also got into Wellesley but they have no merit aid there. One plus at W. was the really cool science building and the super nice faculty she met there. Other than that, the campus looked cold and uninviting, the local town was not college friendly (Boston is not that close) and the reputation for really tough grading (“grade deflation”) at Wellesley. She is loving Smith so far. Hope this helps!</p>
<p>I concur with posters emphasizing need for visiting to determine “fit” at either place. While your take may totally differ, both of my daughters elected to apply to Smith and not Wellesley because (in their opinion) Noho felt like an artist/writers/musicians’ happening town whereas Wellesley felt like a well appointed rich suburb (and they were put off by the idea of having to rely on buses/rail to access interesting venues in Boston).</p>
<p>So, this thread is fairly old but there are interesting enough comments on here that I thought I’d ressurect it from the dead just say: </p>
<p>***??!! </p>
<p>People think it’s inconvenient to rely on bus or rail to get into the city? Dude, what? Not only is that how MOST people get into large cities, but it’s also how you get from one part of the city to another when you’re IN the city. </p>
<p>Northampton may be > Wellesley, but Wellesley’s proximity to Boston DOES count, and saying Northampton’s artsiness is a plus in Smith’s favor against Wellesley seems kind of illogical to me. If you’re too lazy to get on a bus, you’re going to be too lazy to walk around Northampton :P.</p>
<p>Whether Wellesley is actually IN Boston seems really stupid and irrelevant to me in terms of counting Boston as a location +. Thirteen miles really is “that close.” You could even frickin’ bike.</p>
<p>Hey, if you think Boston is a crappy city and you think that Northampton is way cooler than Boston, by all means Smith wins. Maybe if you think Boston is only a little bit better than Northampton, Smith still wins, because you wouldn’t think it was worth it to get on a bus. But if you like cities over small towns, it seems like you’d prefer Boston greatly.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m just like, shocked. I was inspired to post on this thread because a friend from Cornell came to the UMD campus and told me he didn’t “trust the metro,” so we’d have to stay at home and play video games instead of exploring DC. Maybe there is something in the food at these liberal artsy type colleges that makes people insane ;).</p>
<p>
I don’t know whether I commented on this thread before (or was just subscribed to read along), but this part applies to colleges of any gender-restriction: at least ONE person–me–is too lazy to get on a bus but not too lazy to walk around town. The difference is non-trivial. Personally, I hate having to match my schedule to transportation schedules, and I’d much rather walk 10 minutes for culture than ride a bus for 10 minutes even for better culture.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I prefer small towns over cities, period (and have in fact ruled out schools for being too urban).</p>
<p>Bike to Boston from Wellesley? Have you <em>seen</em> the drivers and the roads back there? You gotta be kidding. We would call those attempting that “organ donors.”</p>
<p>The traffic system is so messed up that even driving the 13 miles is a good 40-minute job, minimum. A trip to Boston is essentially an hour-and-a-half just for the transport, plus the time for what you’re actually going to do there. A non-trivial problem.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, it’s a cool little town and all that, but the idea that Northampton provides anything even faintly approaching the cultural and social opportunities of Boston/Cambridge is simply ludicrous. And the idea that an hourly free bus is an non-trivial impediment to getting into Boston is equally ludicrous, unless one is allergic to motorized transportation, like Keilexandra. </p>
<p>For many, being located on a beautiful walkable arboretum campus with a large lake for sailing, canoeing, rowing, hills for tobogganing, etc in a pretty suburban town with varied shopping–which one CAN easily walk to from any part of the campus, since it is actually adjacent–just outside a major city redolent of history and culture with easy, safe, and affordable transportation in and out would be a significant plus.</p>
<p>I would not, however, plan on biking into Boston.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s ludicrous to say that an hourly bus is a non-trivial impediment for some people. A college student’s most important asset is time. And some people just don’t want to be bothered shaping their schedule around the schedule of a bus, especially one that only runs every hour. </p>
<p>Anyway, it’s stupid to get into these Smith is better, Wellesley is better arguments in terms of location. Sure, Boston is a bigger city with large cultural options. Northampton though is a small city with excellent cultural offerings. Yes, Wellesley is a cute little suburb with an aboretum campus, a lake, and varied shopping. Northampton is a cute town whose campus is an arboretum, has a small lake, plenty of hills, and has varied shopping that one can walk to from any part of campus because the campus sits right at the top of downtown. Boston and Northampton are both historic areas. Smith and Wellesley campuses are even designed by the same architect. </p>
<p>What it really comes down to are the little things that make one preferential to the other. It’s personal feel, it’s small touches, but trying to argue one location is superior to the other is silly. It will depend on the person and their personal preferences.</p>
<p>People took the biking comment way too literally haha.</p>
<p>Basically, all I was saying is that 13 miles is a really short distance 
</p>
<p>A bus that comes on the hour, every hour does not require one to “manage their schedule around the bus schedule”. Wouldn’t you…pick the time that works best for you…? It’s not like it runs twice a day, it runs EVERY HOUR. If you’re busy at 6, then go at 7. Etc.</p>
<p>I don’t take a side on which location is better - I totally agree it depends on the individual - but I have never heard such strange aversion to transportation in my life except when talking to people who go to “small town” schools. It’s just a “head scratching” and “???” moment for me, since they usually seem to argue that it’s better to be forced to stay in the small town 100% of the time rather than at least having the option to go someplace bigger.</p>
<p>If you DISLIKE cities, then certainly Boston wouldn’t be a plus, since it is indeed a city. But it’s ridiculous to say Boston wouldn’t be a plus because you “have to take a bus.” People who like cities are generally used to taking buses to get to them.</p>
<p>I think one point that hasn’t really been mentioned yet in this location discussion is that Smith isn’t in some remote little town - Northampton is cool enough on its own, and then you have the option to get to the other 4 colleges nearby. Yes, that’s by bus, so if you don’t want to do that you won’t. But it’s a similar option to what Wellesley offers (not with the size of Boston, certainly, but it’s the same idea of being able to get off-campus if you desire it), so in this way I feel that Smith offers more in terms of location.</p>
<p>That being said, of course different things suit different people. I’m from an urban area and I’m plenty used to taking public transportation for an hour or two to get somewhere, so I wouldn’t knock a potential school based on that alone. I didn’t like other things about Wellesley, though, and so chose not to apply more for academic reasons.</p>
<p>Some people like cities, but may dislike Boston. </p>
<p>And of course, an hour on the hour bus is not a huge deal. But let’s say you want to go into Boston to study at your favorite coffee shop or the Boston public library or whatever. then you find when you got there that you’ve left your key text at school. You have ot wiatfor the next bus, get back on, ride back, find your text, wait for hte next bus, then go back to Boston. It’s undeniably more time wasting than say, walking the 10 min from downtown to your dorm room and back. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that alone should keep you from going to one school or the other, I’m just saying that a bus that runs every hour is really not all that convenient and I can understand preferring to go to school where you can walk everywhere. I personally would prefer to either live in an urban setting or live in a rural setting. I really dislike suburbs.</p>
<p>I’m not a city person…Boston is WAY too big for me. Therefore Smith> Wellesley for me…someone else may have another opinion and that’s fine. But when it comes to location, Smith is def the winner</p>