@MiddleburyDad2 I disagree that Smith is the same level academically as Skidmore St. Lawrence and many of the others you listed. Smith is more rigorous IMO than most of your list.
The time and place of the description of my observation of the differences between Smith and Skidmore’s academic rep was the '90s and the NYC area/urban NE.
Students from my graduating HS class and those overlapping mine who applied to Smith tended to be students well in the top third/quarter of my graduating class or better.
Those applying to and accepting admission offers to Skidmore tended to be students mostly from financially well-off families in the middle to bottom of our graduating class. Only exception on the SES front I knew of from my HS was the friend who accepted the Skidmore offer as a full-scholarship student.
The “in your face” aspect signifies that Smith has an exceedingly outspoken and politically active student body.
Whether it’s a good or bad thing is really a YMMV depending on the student concerned.
In short, the “in your face” aspect isn’t necessarily a complete negative for all students.
@Dustyfeathers , you know, I have to finally say it, and mind you, I’m not picking on you. I’m guilty of it too. But time and time again, people say “not as academically rigorous”, and I wonder: how do you know that?
It’s one thing to say Wesleyan is more politically active than, say, Middlebury. That’s plain to see.
It’s another to say Cal Tech is academically more rigorous than RPI. That is not plain to see, but Cal Tech has a particular reputation for rigor. IOW, everyone knows it. Same with Swat - everyone, absolutely everyone, knows that Swat is a sweat shop and not for kids who are not ready to work their arses off.
And I can also buy (as I often sell) when someone says that X College is academically more rigorous than Y College when they are leagues apart on almost any criteria that establishes the pecking order. So, yeah, it’s probably safe to say that Vassar is academically more rigorous than, say, Texas Tech. The admissions standards are so wildly different that it makes it a safe generalization. And even then, we all know that some selective colleges are hard to get into but easy to get through, while other less selective colleges are just more demanding of their students. An example of the latter which I’ve heard a lot about over the years is The Citadel. Not super hard to get in, but you have to work to get out.
Setting aside the exception to the rule, it seems to me that among the very selective schools, and Skidmore has become one of those, how do any of us really know which one is more rigorous? And, frankly, at all schools it also depends on the major, does it not? Do we know, for certain, that it’s easier to get an English degree at Skidmore than it is at, say, Kenyon? Do we really know that?
I know you wrote “IMO”, but, candidly, I must ask: by what means did you come by your opinion? Unless you attended, or had a kid who attended, each school for a meaningful period of time, how can you really say that?
To be clear, in my post I was talking about perceptions based on my reality. And my reality is that generally I don’t think a person would look at a kid from Skidmore and a kid from Smith and walk away assuming the Smith kid is brilliant and the other kid is maybe smart or maybe not. I think that outcome is different if you replace Smith with Wellesley, because Wellesley is a household name associated with very high level academics. I think Smith once had that reputation, but it’s my distinct impression that it’s no longer the case.
Said another way, if I had a kid looking at Skid vs. Smith, I’d say “go to the one that feels better.” If it were Skid and Wellesley, I’d say, "go to the one that feels better, but take a good hard look at Wellesley before saying ‘no’. "
@Pizzagirl or @NEPatsGirl , I think one of those posters, has previously raised this issue of “academic rigor” and challenged the group with “how we could possibly know.” I remember that post making me think, “yeah, how do I know that?”
@cobrat, I agree entirely. I just made the same point the other day as it relates to Wesleyan’s outspoken student body as contrasted to Middlebury’s less politically active students. I get it.
Even in the 90s, I have a hard time believing that the bottom half of your class comprised most of the Skidmore admits, unless you attended a very high level school, in which case it wouldn’t be representative.
I say that simply by approximating what Skidmore was during that time, and the numerous professional people I know who did their undergrad at there. They are, across the board, very representative of the upper level LAC graduate and they kind of people who probably had choices.
But whatever … the 90s were now a long time ago. I don’t see Smith and Skidmore has academically in different categories.
I can see that Smith has slightly higher SAT scores on average than the other colleges that have come up, but the difference doesn’t seem so large to me that it’s hugely significant. There are other differences that I think are much more important.
I do have to chuckle a bit at Wellesley being more of a “household” name than Smith. I don’t consider either of these to be household names. Full disclosure, I have a daughter who will be attending Smith in the Fall and she did not consider Wellesley. US News Guidance Counselor ranking is interesting in that Smith, Wellesley, Mudd and Vassar all tied at 5th. Just behind Williams and the service academies.
Does any of this address the OP’s question? Probably not. Skidmore and Smith are both well respected LACs. However, a women’s college offers something a little unique that she might enjoy (or not!).
@BearHouse , I have to chuckle at your chuckle. US News Guidance counselor rankings seem to be focused on something other than name recognition, so I’m not clear how that point following your chuckle comment connect. But so be it.
I do consider Wellesley a household name. Hillary has a lot to do with that I suspect. She’s been in the national conversation for a great many years now. That helps.
I have always known of Wellesley from the time I was a kid. I didn’t always know why I knew it, but I knew it was a serious all-women’s college in the northeast. And I know very few people who haven’t heard of it.
Smith? Kind of a different experience with that name. Nothing against the school. D found Wellesley boring and thought she’d never fit in there. Probably won’t matter.
But I cannot deny that if you name drop Wellesley at a cocktail party, you’re going to get a more universal response than you would mentioning Smith … or Williams for that matter.
As to the OP’s question, no. But we also know that CC has 1000s of threads that involve posts that answer a post within a thread. Not to worry; the busy mods here will swoop in and steer the conversation back to OP topic or shut it down.
I agree that women’s colleges offer something unique and powerful. It’s hard to match - well, it can’t be matched.
Going along with what @MiddleburyDad2 said, Skidmore is on some popularity upswing that I love to see but can’t quite explain. My husband and I met there and we both had wonderful times, and the admissions director told us in June that this year the acceptance rate fell below 30% for the first time (28%) but Skidmore still had a higher yield than expected. There will be a lot more freshman triples this year! I had a triple back in the 80s and it was fine, FWIW.
Skidmore’s biology department is great; any student who wants to get involved with hands-on and student-led research can. This doesn’t happen at universities (by and large). My favorite psychology professor is still there and it’s hard to imagine him 30 years older…anyway my point is getting lost here. I love Skidmore. I think the town is one of the best in the country, the dorm rooms all have window seats, and the theater department is so much fun. I wish I could convince my D17 to apply ED and not have to worry about college applications anymore, but, alas. RD for her. If she doesn’t get into her reach school, she’ll be there next year. 
“I do consider Wellesley a household name. Hillary has a lot to do with that I suspect. She’s been in the national conversation for a great many years now. That helps.
I have always known of Wellesley from the time I was a kid. I didn’t always know why I knew it, but I knew it was a serious all-women’s college in the northeast. And I know very few people who haven’t heard of it.”
My D is a class of 2015 Wellesley grad. I grew up in the Northeast and had always heard of it; my H grew up in the Midwest and had always heard of it, and yes, it was “serious all-women’s college.”
To say it’s a household name, I think, depends on what households you are talking about. Well-educated, upper middle class professionals who are “into” elite colleges in general (and knowledgeable beyond research universities)? Sure, I think it rocks there. The average person outside of the Boston area? Not so much. Plenty of “average Joes” hear that my D went to Wellesley and don’t really have a clue what it is, and even the Hillary aspect hasn’t really sunk in. I just want to be careful about which households we are assessing household-name-ness with!
I have to be honest though. Skidmore is a complete blank slate to me. It might as well be anonymous. Saratoga Springs means nothing to me other than a vague horsey association, and frankly it never would occur to me that it would be in the same academic ballpark as Smith or Wellesley. Not that it might not be, but it’s tabula rasa for me. For what it’s worth. Which may be absolutely nothing.
I think many college educated people have heard of Smith, Skidmore, and Swathmore, but couldn’t tell you anything more about them, probably not even where they are.
It’s odd you’re making that comparison considering Kenyon’s English department has a long renowned elite reputation among undergrad English departments going back decades.
While Skidmore’s may be respectable, it doesn’t have the same level of reputation among the hardcore English lit academics/aficionados.
And I say that as someone who attended one of Kenyon’s geographic rival LACs and never considered Kenyon as an applicant as it wasn’t strong in my academic areas of interest as my LAC at the time I applied (East Asian History/Politics).
Incidentally, during my college application years, Smith was regarded as more academic elite/difficult to get into than Kenyon or my LAC. Skidmore, not so much.
As for your questioning whether Caltech is more rigorous than RPI…have two cousins who are siblings and alums of those schools.
Both would say based on comparing notes/college academic experiences that Caltech edges out RPI on the academic rigor/intensity department while acknowledging RPI is a rigorous institution in its own right.
“I think many college educated people have heard of Smith, Skidmore, and Swathmore, but couldn’t tell you anything more about them, probably not even where they are.”
That’s the same with any set of LAC’s and frankly it’s the same for most research universities (beyond the obvious markers, like U of Michigan is obviously in the state of Michigan).
I think generally a group of college searching parents would know that Michigan is higher ranked than Kansas or Delaware. I don’t think nearly as many of the same group of people would know about the rankings or offerings of Skidmore, Smith, and others in that group, including where they are.
I first heard about Skidmore when reading an article in Time a dozen years or so ago. It was featuring the admissions process and at that time I think Skidmore had the third highest tuition in the country. I thought ‘who would pay that much for a school I’ve never heard of?’ People learn about schools in different ways, from movies (White Christmas has a reference to Smith), from famous alums, from friends whose kids attend, and of course from sports teams. That doesn’t mean they know anything about the school.
The OP asked a very specific question about 2 schools. People seem to know more about Smith. I think more people have heard of Smith.
I have visited both schools.
Smith… Northampton, MA… I only really visited because I was driving through Northampton, and we were stopping to eat and stretch our legs after a car ride.
It is a beautiful little town, filled with cute shops and local businesses. Smith’s campus is hidden within the town, with little locations, but in my opinion, the campus is gorgeous and has a great vibe, including phenomenal architecture. I hope my sister considers this school when the time comes for her to start looking at schools.
Skidmore…Saratoga Springs, NY… I may seem a little biased to Skidmore, as I know the city exceptionally well. Saratoga is a GREAT collegetown!! You have the track, Broadway with all the great shops and restaurants(Circus Cafe, Druthers, Mexican Connection). Albany is close, filled with great history. There is just so much to do, and SPAC. Which is just AMAZING. My family has vacationed at the track for the past ten years, which is why I consider Saratoga so special.
Hope this helps!
@cobrat , re Kenyon, not odd at all. That is precisely why I referenced it. Yeah, I know about Kenyon’s English mojo. Doesn’t matter. You offered nothing to tell me why it’s more rigorous. Rigor and reputation are not the same thing.
I attended Stanford at a time when it was hard to get in and easy to get out. All information I have suggests that’s still the case.
Rigor is, in my view, a function of two things, one more influential than the other: the depth of talent at a particular school and the school’s intent to make getting through one or more degree programs there hard. As I said, the Citadel doesn’t have an elite reputation and is relatively easy to get into, but time and time again people associated with the school say that they make it hard to get through. Whether that’s accurate or not is beside the point.
Swarthmore has a reputation for rigor that precedes it. If you meet people who attended, even its most strident supporters, 100% of them say it was difficult. You don’t get that response to the same degree from many other very selective colleges. So that’s one way to gauge it. I have never heard anyone describe Kenyon as particularly rigorous. I’ve heard it described as wonderful, deep in English, a great place for writers, beautiful campus, smart kids, etc. etc. But particularly rigorous? Even the English dept, no. Never has anyone made that point, and all three of my kids had Kenyon on their short lists for various reasons.
As to your college years, your comment is not incidental, nor is it new. You’re repeating your prior comments. We’ve established that was in the 90s, which is now going on 20 years ago. And you’re referencing a general perception, which is just different than mine. I was alive 20 years ago too.
The point of my post to @Dustyfeathers was narrower than the question posed by the OP. I’m just challenging that post, and all posts, mine included, which purport to establish that one school is more rigorous than another in rather conclusory fashion. I think there are situations in which it’s clear that one school is more rigorous than another. I gave what I would consider relatively accepted examples.
I think you, me, Dusty and many other posters tend to conflate rigor with prestige, admission selectivity and established reputation. One or more of those can factor into it, but really, in my experience, the main factor is the institution’s intent to make their school difficult - workload, grading policy, degree requirements, etc. etc. Consider:
MIT is brutally rigorous - every single person who spends time in this space knows it as a virtual certainty. They (MIT) want it that way.
Stanford was not brutally rigorous - every single person who spent time in that space knew what I knew: the front door is hard to get through, but the back door is wide open.
Compare and contrast.
Is Smith to MIT what Stanford is to Skidmore on rigor? Never have I ever heard that to be true. And I’m guessing you don’t know that either.
Re SAT scores and Smith: Smith is test-optional, so it is fair to assume that the scores of the enrolled students are somewhat lower than the published figures. FWIW.
It’s not a household name in the sense that Alabama is a household name for southern college football. Of course not.
But the people who have never heard of Wellesley (as contrasted with the people who know exactly what it is) are people who truly don’t know much about colleges and tend toward the provincial and generally uninformed. I know numerous people who have no college education, and don’t make these topics a hobby, who have heard of Wellesley. They can’t tell you necessarily its 2015 50th percentile ACT score or much else, but they’ve heard of it.
Skidmore announced last April it is also going test-optional, beginning for applicants for Fall 2017. It will be interesting to see how much its reported SAT range goes up. In the same range as Conn Coll, Smith, MoHo, etc?
It’s too bad the CDS does not specify how many matriculates submitted neither SAT nor ACT (nor how many submitted both, for that matter). I don’t disagree that SAT may not be the best predictor of grades or graduation. But it would be more helpful in comparisons if we knew how many were not submitting SAT scores.
I agree that this really comes down to fit, that elusive thing all of us seek but none of us can define! My son was deciding between Skid and Oberlin. They seem similar in the rankings, so are probably on a par academically. But my son felt that Oberlin was more “academically serious” and that Skidmore was “a little too preppy.” Is this objective? No, but it’s what it felt like to him. He’s happy at Oberlin, by the way, and in the end, that’s what counts. Once you commit, commit to be happy.
@cobrat, I honestly don’t know how that entire post was responsive, at all, to mine.
As for decades and decades and decades, fine. Have at that. Duke was not Duke 30 years ago.
As for today, I don’t see a big difference between those schools beyond endowment. The student profiles are in the same zip code; the average Act score at Smith is 30 and Skidmore 28, with Smith having been test optional for years. Watch Skidmore’s ACT score catch up after this, their first test optional admissions cycle. And we just have different perceptions about reputation.
Tell me, though, since it appears you didn’t read my post: how is “academic rigor” measured? You call it a yard stick. Yard sticks measure things. How do we measure academic rigor? What do you even mean when you say “academic rigor”?
Your repeated references to HS classmates, and in this case the view of the extended family of some cousin of some classmate … seriously man, there’s inference, and then there’s what’s in your post.
Btw, behavior, “common sense”, how one acts and conducts one’s life, particularly as it relates to finances, and academic talent, are not the same things. The unabomber was a Harvard graduate who taught math at Berkeley. So that’s hardly a compelling example. The guy might have been brilliant for all you know. But fine: go with the MIT and Stanford example. It’s an idea I’m discussing … and you don’t seem to be grasping it well.