Smith College

<p>I don't know an appropriate Talmudic response, but "Chacun </p>

<p>{The Quad is not really about parties, since the houses (at least those with which I am familiar) only have one public party a semester. So that is a small fraction of the experience.}</p>

<p>Well stated Jyber. The Quad houses are <em>required</em> to host one party a semester. In a philosophical 7.65ish dimension, I suppose you could argue it’s the Smith’s administrations party because they’re the one requiring the soiree. Considering the parties are only four hours out of the twenty-seven hundred + - hours, (4 vs. 2700) the women reside in their house, I would hazard to guess even a Mormon wouldn’t consider the Quad a den of iniquity.</p>

<p>As Jaber stated, the parties are on the 1st floor. If you don’t like the company or noise, that’s what the stairs were put there for. Walk up to your room and surprise, no more party or nerdy Amherst men.</p>

<p>I think it's pretty funny that no one engaged in this "hair-splitting" over the qualities of Smith's houses -- with the exception of borgin -- actually lives on the Smith campus! I'm happy to hear her confirmation of Lawrence's qualities, though. My daughter has been very happy there and says that especially this year there is a strong feeling of community in the house. There may in fact be more singles in the Quad, but she, and several of her fellow second-years in Lawrence, have singles this year. Is the Quad more social than Green Street? Well, maybe. But Lawrence has seemed a pretty social place judging from my daughter's reports. And while I'm sure everything jyber has to say about the Quad, based on her daughter's experience there, is on the mark, I have talked to a Smith alum who recently revisited her old house in the Quad and was sorely disappointed by what she described as its rundown condition compared to the way it was when she was there (and she's a bit younger than I am). </p>

<p>So I expect that one can find contradictory reports about every area on campus, and that people listening in on this discussion should take any generalizing comments with a certain grain of salt. Ultimately, it's the people in a dorm that determine whether it's a good place to live -- and no one can predict what the mix will be like in any given year. All the rest -- location on campus, presence or absence of eating facilities, etc. -- is by comparison pretty minor.</p>

<p>Please note that my last comment was posted before I had read Jyber's most recent contribution. Jyber, I couldn't agree more! De gustibus non disputandum est...Whatever floats your boat...Different strokes....</p>

<p>[I have talked to a Smith alum who recently revisited her old house in the Quad and was sorely disappointed by what she described as its rundown condition compared to the way it was when she was there}</p>

<p>I know which house it is and she’s correct. The house was scheduled for a remodel a couple of years ago, but the college saw fit to spend the money in other areas. Needless to say, many alumnae were not happy. One can only hope they remodel over this summer.</p>

<p>{I think it's pretty funny that no one engaged in this "hair-splitting" over the qualities of Smith's houses -- with the exception of borgin -- actually lives on the Smith campus! }</p>

<p>Maybe so, but my daughter looks over my shoulder or answers my questions regarding a post before I respond. No one is making <em>stuff</em> up</p>

<p>I've been querying mine on some points as well.</p>

<p>Pesto: tastes great!!!</p>

<p>(So I expect that one can find contradictory reports about every area on campus, and that people listening in on this discussion should take any generalizing comments with a certain grain of salt. Ultimately, it's the people in a dorm that determine whether it's a good place to live -- and no one can predict what the mix will be like in any given year. All the rest -- location on campus, presence or absence of eating facilities, etc. -- is by comparison pretty minor.)</p>

<p>Pesto, I agree with the first part of this statement wholeheartedtly! It is the people who live within the four walls that make it special,or not. And it's true, that the mix is different from year to year, especially during junior year when so many Smithies go abroad. </p>

<p>I disagree with the last sentence however. I think the presence of eating facilities is a big deal, and I think that location in campus is also. Someone mentioned not wanting to walk across Elm St. during an ice storm, or that some areas are noisier than others. Some students adjust well to some things such as parties, music, etc...and others do not adjust as well. That is why there is a difference in these houses. I do not consider some of these things minor. For a new student attending Smith, the decision is a rather large one; one that should take some serious thought. Having the kind of knowledge that has been shared on these pages is priceless. There are numerous students who have talked about their housing situation, and have stated why they have or have not liked it. The parents have spoken through their experiences, and their daughters, as well. Let's continue the dialoque, as I find it very helpful to hear about the different housing situations, and why some "fit" better than others.</p>

<p>Fwiw, my D's criteria for housing were ranked thusly: location, for both temperament and proximity to certain places, followed by size. She'd spent both of her overnights in a Quad house (different ones).</p>

<p>The social mix of who happens to be there when you are is very pot luck.</p>

<p>{I disagree with the last sentence however. I think the presence of eating facilities is a big deal, and I think that location in campus is also.}</p>

<p>BJm8, I couldn’t agree more. Having her own dinning room and chef was a huge deal to my daughter.
I’m surprised pesto finds it so funny parents are involved in these discussions. If more parents were as you and took such an immense interest in their daughters happiness and well-being maybe Smith wouldn’t lose 10% of their freshmen class</p>

<p>RLT, I think that Smith will always stand to lose a higher proportion of their freshman class than some other colleges. Smith is probably the "least co-ed" of the top womens colleges and for some young women it's more problematic in the actual than in the pre-admission hypothetical. </p>

<p>It's also pretty relentlessly liberal and some people who aren't can let it flow around them and some it really bugs.</p>

<p>RLT...thanks for the kudos. I really believe that having a house with dining and a chef is important, and so does my D. Granted, after making friends, I'm sure they will go to other houses and experiment; I certainly hope they do! But, having one in your own house assures you that there will always be something to eat in lousy weather, or when your ill, etc. I know that sometimes people think that parents are overly involved in their kids choices; but I see this as being involved because she enjoys my being involved. This is a very big decision for her, and she is mature enough to realize it is not a decision she wants to make alone! Of course, there is also the feeling of wanting nothing but the best for your kids, and if that makes me overly concerned...so be it! Our D is our only child, and her happiness is our happiness. So if others do not like parents giving their opinions on this site, I guess there are other sites for them. I find the parents on this site to be extremely helpful, informative, and have lots of experience behind their opinions. Most have daughters at Smith, some have wives, relatives, etc. who have attended. That is much more than I could offer anyone at this early stage. It is very helpful to me, and I'm sure to others as they read these opinions about housing. The whole housing issue is huge, and we should spend more time discussing it.</p>

<p>I also didn't realize that Smith loses 10% of their freshman class. Why is that? Do you think it is just the liberalism? All-girls vs. coed?</p>

<p>While there are some transfers (some folks find that the single gender thing really doesn't work for them), if you look at rates of first-year retention among top colleges (actually, state universities as well), and eliminate the outlyers, you find a close association between retention and the percentage of low-income students. It is not so much that they can't continue to afford college per se, but rather that the vagaries of home life (family illnesses, precipitious decline in what is already a precarious family income situation, needs of siblings) make it more likely that low-income students will leave. Smith has the highest percentage of Pell Grant recipients of any top LAC or private university in the country, and this impacts retention.</p>

<p>BJM8, all schools lose a fraction of their freshman class. </p>

<p>Data from 2002, which happens to be at hand:</p>

<p>First year retention rates:</p>

<p>Smith, 90
Amherst, 97
Wellesley, 95
Bowdoin, 94
Vassar, 93
Bryn Mawr, 91
Mount Holyoke, 91
Macalester, 91
Skidmore, 91
Sarah Lawrence, 91
Oberlin, 89
Gettysburg, 87
Scripps, 86</p>

<p>Nothing to get worried apart, imo. Notice that Smith/Bryn Mawr/Mount Holyoke are within a point of each other.</p>

<p>I addressed my concerns about the low retention rate with some staff at Smith's admissions office before my D committed to the school. I bet there is data on the reasons students give for leaving after the first year, and that these reasons are unlikely to be publicized. </p>

<p>However, the anecdotal evidence I have from my D's Smith years supports TheDad's hypothesis. The "culture" at Smith is not one that everyone would feel comfortable with. I know of one first-year from my own community who experienced significant culture shock -- and yes, it was house-related and she is switching houses mid-year. That is why I think scoping out the house situation can be strategic, and that is the conclusion my own D came to after spending a high-school summer at Smith. Her decision to start out in the Quad was mainly to minimize house incompatibility risk. Turns out she decided the Quad was the best place for her anyway. </p>

<p>I also agree with BJM8 that house dining is a big plus. However, the entire system has changed since my D's first year at Smith. Originally and by tradition, *almost every * house had all their meals together. Thursday night dinners were by candlelight with profs as guests. If you were sick, the house chef would make sure you got some homemade chicken soup. </p>

<p>The current system is more flexible and offers more options, but there is a real loss. D still has house dining onsite, but it is not the same as the former "we all come together as a family/community several times a day" house dining of the past. Most Smithies who were fortunate to experience the previous system mourn its loss. But I appreciate the practical reasons, cost among them, it could not be maintained.</p>

<p>Interesting reading...particularly about the times when dining in each house was something important; a time to bring all housemates together for dining. I love that idea, and am saddened to hear of it being in the past. I realize that cost has affected these decisions, but that isn't a good enough reason for me. I would love to see it come back, so that the bonds can be made. So important, especially for first years! Do they still have the candelight dinners with profs, or is that gone as well?</p>

<p>Speaking purely as one who attended Williams at a time that it had a house dining system similar to Smith's old one, I can tell you that I hated it! While I enjoyed the camaraderie (and the innumerable games of bridge before and after), I found the times inflexible in meeting my needs (all houses at the same time), the insularity annoying, horizons lowered, the chances to visit easily with folks outside my house unless we made a "date" of it limited, the lack of a food option when I just wanted to run back and forth to the library or lab when I was in the middle of a project absurd, and the lack of flexibility for athletes who couldn't make regular mealtimes downright unfair. Oh - and the lack of food options made things particularly boring as well, and made the life of vegetarians/vegans, those trying to keep kosher/hallal, or those who would have preferred something different from standard American fare, even occasionally, very difficult indeed.</p>

<p>I do understand the tradeoffs (all dining systems have them), but I'm not sure if, overall, for the largest number of students the largest amount of the time, the current system isn't actually an improvement, independent of cost considerations.</p>

<p>(P.S. Strangely enough, my d. specifically asked for a house without in-house dining - she wanted to have the facilities to cook for herself when she felt like it, and has done just that. Probably wouldn't have been my choice, but then I couldn't go there in any case.</p>

<p>Opinions will differ.)</p>

<p>Just asked D (it's convenient when we're on computers six feet apart): her house still has candlight dinners every Thursday nights but her House is apparently an exception. It is Open Dining, so students from the other Houses will be present. D says they haven't invited profs...but sometimes boyfriends are present. D doesn't think there's anything that would preclude the House, as a House, inviting a guest such as a prof, maybe once a month or so...it would just require someone to take the initiative.</p>

<p>As with Jyber, I know someone from our general area who was very unhappy first year about Huose-related issues and almost transferred but stuck it out and changed Houses instead.</p>

<p>The dining changes are two-edged: many students appreciate the increased choices, many, particularly the older students, mourn the tight community that the dining provided but many Houses are working extra hard to keep a sense of community...this will be a function of House leadership and House chemistry...which change from year to year.</p>

<p>{Thursday nights but her House is apparently an exception}</p>

<p>Nope. They have candle light dinners a couple of times a month in a quad house also.</p>

<p>{Smith is probably the "least co-ed}</p>

<p>I’m not sure I agree. Wellesley is very secluded and traveling to MIT, etc. is more difficult than hopping a free bus and going to Amherst, UMass or Hampshire. Wellesley has a retention rate of 96% Middlebury, Dartmouth, Cornell, Wesleyan, et al have a 96% retention rate also. </p>

<p>{It's also pretty relentlessly liberal and some people who aren't can let it flow around them and some it really bugs.}</p>

<p>This in all likelihood more accurately addresses the reason some leave. During an orientation, I spent time with of one woman from a small conservative town in the west who was unable to visit before she matriculated. Although she was aware there were gay women attending Smith, she was not aware or informed of the transgender issues, the chalking of gay slogans on the sidewalks, etc. consequently, her first few days were more than a little distressful. As the Smithies say, Mt. Holyoke has lipstick lesbians. They’re there, but not as noticeable or vocal.
There are alumnae who refuse to allow their daughters to attend Smith because of the direction Smith has taken in recent years and the way funds are allocated.
No dinning in some houses? Read the budget and you tell me if there couldn’t have been the money to keep the dinning rooms open (at least for breakfast and dinner) had the college changed a priority here and there.</p>

<p>Go back and read Sara’s posts. She describes the sentiments of many.
.</p>

<p>Another problem is some of the Pell grant recipients (as well as others) simply aren’t qualified for the rigors of Smith and transfer or don’t return.
Smith is much more willing to admit students with “potential”
I know from where I speak. I had a question I needed to ask a certain 1st year student. Her email to me had numerous spelling errors. In the age of spell-check that seemed almost comical. She used there when she meant their, as well as numerous other astonishing errors. I write like crap but I’m not getting a free ride to Smith. Many believe Smith needs to do a better job of allocating financial aid. A perfect example would be mini’s and TD’s daughters. How many like them are lost to other colleges because the families aren’t given enough aid?</p>

<p>Otoh- as my daughter said (I’m paraphrasing) <em>if those who are borderline can just hang in there and take advantage of all the help offered, they may have a horrible their 1st year and believe they’re not bright enough to succeed, but they’ll make it and be brilliant when they graduate</em> I agree with those sentiments. What better mission than to take a child and through generous financial aid and unlimited tutoring give a woman a degree from a college that will enrich her and her future for a lifetime. But along with a certain amount of altruism comes the higher attrition rate.
Smith has a percent or two more international students than Amherst, Williams etc. This also my effect the attrition rate</p>

<p>Before all you wonderful parents jump all over my *** please understand I’m only repeating sentiments many students, alumnae and parents have relayed to me</p>

<p>For the enlightenment of those who aren’t aware, I’m receiving zip aid from Smith. My daughter chose Smith over many other colleges equally as high on US News (not that that means squat) because she knew she would get an incredible and nurturing education. Not being the middle of nowhere helped-lol She loves Smith and looking back and talking to friends now attending what was for a time her 1st choice college-- .---too much drinking and an ever-present frat scene---she couldn’t imagine going anywhere but Smith</p>