Smith vs. Wellesley/Amherst/Williams

Colleges & Universities A-Z Smith College
61

<p>Mini--I think that the "gay-bashing poster graffiti" that you saw while visiting Williams was put up by the QSU...during coming out week every year they poster/chalk in a deliberately provokative manner to spur discussion. There isn't a more accepting college community than what you will find at Williams.</p>

<p>Prestige-wise, in academia Williams, Amherst, and Wellesley would have the slight edge over Smith, but you'll find people who've heard of any one of them but none of the others. Academically, as Mini said, each school has different strengths. I would recommend going for whatever school's the best fit for you.</p>

62

<p>From all the threads on CC, the ones involving Smith are always the most entertaining, and this for a number of reasons. </p>

<p>First, a few of the best-spoken posters tend to converge on the Smith threads and fire salvos upon salvos towards whomever happens to disagree. </p>

<p>It is a shame that people looking for justification to consider Smith cannot stop at the mere advice of Mini, TheDad, Jyber, and a few others. The named parents have invested considerable time, money, and efforts in weighing the multiple and attractive options for their daughter. In the end, they accepted the choice of their daughter and all seem thrilled with said choice. What else do we really need? The parents -who know a thing or two about the process- are happy and the kids are blossoming. Again, is there a better endorsement. </p>

<p>As I said, it is a shame that others feel compelled to push the dialogue to an asinine level, where the arguments become futile. TOL is absolutely correct in HIS assessment of the differences between Williams, Amherst, Smith, and Wellesley. Why? He uses the specific elements that make his point and disregard the intangibles. In turn, TheDad and Mini discounts the selectivity factor by either ignoring or, I am sorry to say, offering an explanation that amounts to much less than sliced baloney. Yes, the explanation of recruiting from only half the field falls flat on its face when one considers that single-sex education in K12 is usually more selective than a mixed education. Then, we have the argument that girls do better in high school and in college than men! In itself, selectivity can only be expressed in the ratio of applicants and admittees. If 4,000 students apply and 2400 are accepted, that is a 60% ratio ... no ifs and buts about it. In this regard, it is impossible to explain that a 50% ration is the same as a sub 20% ratio. But, does this little part of the puzzle really matters when compared to the real life analysis of the families involved? </p>

<p>There are no great secrets printed in the USNews report. What makes sense to me, makes no sense to a lot of other people. IMHO, the ranking of the LAC is extremely flawed because of its geographical cronyism. I would advocate that the first column is nothing but an exercise in self preservation. Yet, for others the reputation is the most important. I'd like think that the scores representing Wellesley's reputation has to be the biggest evidence of the fraud perpetrated by USNews. Smith and Wellesley should indeed be quite close in the rankings, but not necessarily by elevating one. But again, does it matter to the thousands of thrilled students who attend W. </p>

<p>As far as I am concerned, if I had to consider W or Smith, I would pay more attention to TheDad's and Mini's opinion than to any statistics, especially since the stats hardly support their conclusions.</p>

63

<p>Haon - afraid the poster I saw wasn't of that variety (and it was provoking much discussion - there was quite a back and forth reflected on it. It was an invitation to a gay discussion group, with nasty remarks scrawled on it in ballpoint pen, and then rejoinders to that hastily scrawled below.) But I do think you could find this at many places - I just happened to find it there, and it caught me up (and d.) up short.</p>

<p>These are all wonderful schools, with much more in common with each other than differences (we aren't talking Muskogee State here.) I think folks should visit and come to their own conclusions. (My second d. wouldn't be caught dead at any one of them!)</p>

64

<p>Xiggi, could you elaborate on the "fraud perpetrated by USNews" regarding Wellesley's reputation? It has actually surprised me that W ranks so highly when its selectivity is much lower than colleges that rank behind it. Reputation is obviously a major factor in determining rank at USNews.</p>

65

<p>My daughter is going to Smith next year and she did her search very carefully before applying ED. She made two trips on her own during the past year, and two trips with me when we visited other NE colleges. Her overarching question always was: where will I get the best education for me? She spent last summer at a program at another prestigious women's college and found that she actually preferred the atmosphere over the co-educational one she experienced in high school. She has a learning disability but it has not prevented her from taking 11 AP courses before graduation. Her public high school has been tremondously supportive in this regard. She felt the supportive and engaged faculty and students at Smith will help her to continue to achieve her full potential.</p>

<p>I absolutely agree with the issue of fit. I am a big advocate of small LACs for the right person (not everyone). I think LACs should be evaluated by the final product not the entering class stats. Smith may not have the SAT numbers that other peer LACs or Ivies may have, but look at the product. I have met many outstanding Smith alumnae over the years who have talked about the transformative experiences they had in college and this has enabled them to become leaders in their chosen fields. Loren Pope has made the same case for some lesser-known colleges in his excellent book "Colleges that change lives." I think a similar argument and record applies to the top women's colleges.</p>

<p>Twenty five years ago, I decided to attend Amherst over Yale and have never looked back. Still am in touch with several professors after all these years. I was a somewhat shy 18 year old when I entered college and found the close, supportive learning experience of a LAC invaluable for my personal and intellectual development. I might have become lost in a larger university-I'll never know. I currently am in academia, and though my area of expertise may be different, some of the teachers I had in college still serve as role models for what a mentor should be. By the way, I am Asian-American. Fortunately, my parents gave me the freedom to make my own choice and the responsibility to take advantage of it. Although they did not know a whole lot about Amherst when I applied, during the course of my education there they fell in love with the school and met a number of my professors. I feel parents need to ask the same questions that my daughter asked for herself "What place will provide the best education for my son or daughter given the person he/she is?" Implicit in this question is another one: "Where can he/she learn and also be happy?"</p>

66

<p>USNews provides a seemingly comprehensive table of numbers. The objective is obvious: pretend that this is a scientific experiment based on a scientific poll. Nothing could be further from the truth. </p>

<p>First, there is little guarantee that the form are filled with integrity or filled at all. A very generous estimation is that only 60% of the interview forms ever get returned, and that does not begin to address the partial replies. At least, the common data forms have to contain the required information. </p>

<p>Then, ones has to wonder about the various percentages that compose the final scores. I do not know about most people who read the scores but I find it strange how little value is given to the acceptance rates (1.5% of total) or the ratio of student-to-faculty (1%). I guess that not too many students are interested in ascertaining their chances at admission, and finding out how many teachers will be teaching at the school! Obviously, the graduation rates/performance have to be considered more important by a 6-to-1 ratio. </p>

<p>I also assume that information such as acceptance trends has little merit in evaluating schools. A school could double (or halve) its acceptance rates and it would not make much difference in the yearly statistics. That may explain why schools with acceptance rates of well above 30%, not to mention well above 50%, maintain very high rankings. Simply stated, Wellesley could accept 100% of its applicants, and it would not change its rankings. Actually, by lowering their SAT average scores, they would boost their rankings.</p>

<p>As far as the main "ingredient that is the peer assessment, we'll have to have faith that the Dean of Juniata or an obscure secretary at Transylvania University really know anything about the other schools. </p>

<p>PS The list of the weighed criteria:
Peer assessment 25%
Avg Graduation Rate 16%
Financial Resources 10%
SAT Scores 7.5%
Faculty compensation 7%
Class Size 1-9 6%
HS - Top 10% 6%
Alumin Giving 5%
Graduation Rate Performance 5%
Avg Freshman Retention 4%
Faculty Degrees 3%
Class Size 50+ 2%
Acceptance rate 1.5%
Percent Full Time 1%
Student/Faculty Ratio 1% </p>

<p>For entertainment purposes, pick two schools: Wellesley and Harvey Mudd. Run down the numbers and colums and stop each time one seems out of order. After make a pause at most Wellesley entries, you do not have to go much farther to see the HUGE penalty given to Mudd for its graduation performance. What did Mudd do that is so wrong? First, USNEWS assigns them an expected graduation of 97. Do you see ANY other schools in the country -including HYPS- with such a lofty standard? Why does Mudd have such a high number? Because their entering class has the highest SAT scores. So what does USNEWS do? They PRETEND to value Mudd selectivity rank, but then quickly penalizes the school for its "failing" graduation rates. </p>

<p>It is much easier to report a low SAT/huge acceptance rates and earn lower expectations. If that does not work, throw in a healthy dosis of grade inflation, fluff classes, non-supervised exams, and enough failsafe measures to ensure a high graduation rate. Add that to the highly suspect peer assessment, and with the complicity and duplicity of USNEWS, you are golden to earn another inflated ranking.</p>

67

<p>Mini--</p>

<p>Either you are not, as you claim to be, a Williams alumn, or your visit with your daughter gave you horrible misconceptions of Williams. I have never seen or even heard of the homophobic poster you described (and given the activeness of the QSU I highly doubt that any amount of public homophobia would go undealt with). Your daughter claims to have seen a large amount of week-night drinking. Once again, I have never see nor heard of this occuring; students simply do not drink on wednesday nights or monday nights or whenver your daughter visited. You talk about the disconnect between athletes and musicians and the like...such a pervasive disconnect as you describe does not exist on campus. Williams is a small enough campus that traits of the sort you describe do not exist un-noticed.</p>

<p>You occasionally will mention large lecture classes (of which there are less than almost any other school in the country), lack of diversity (there is no lack of diversity), poor study abroad options (the Williams-Oxford and Williams Mystic programs are two of the best of their type in the country), and a lack of musical opportunities (I am a serious musician...a good music program was a "must" in the schools I looked into and I can confidently state that among LACs, it's hard to find a better program than what you will find at Williams). Current Williams students and parents of current Williams students posting on this board are constantly disagreeing with your view of Williams. You can trumpet your supposed alumn status all you want, but it doesn't make your perception of Williams any more accurate.</p>

<p>I'm not upset by your posts because they tend to be negative to Williams...I'm upset by your posts because they're so WRONG. Propagating false impressions about Williams really helps no one.</p>

<p>Oh, and paid research internships are available to Williams students from the beginning of frosh year. Also, travel fellowships are available as are stipends for students completing unpaid summer internships. </p>

<p>I agree that fit is the most important factor in making a college decision, but the question the poster had wasn't about fit; it was about objective academic quality. The above posters are right in that the quality of teaching won't differ significantly from Smith to Wellesley to Amherst. However, the quality of students and the quality of resources will...and both of these are HUGE factors in one's academic college experience. When comparing LACs to LACs, endowments are good measures of how much resources are spent on the students, and there is little comparison between Smith and Wellesley (or Amherst or Williams) for either total endowment or endowment per student. Selectivity-wise, everyone's right that acceptance rates alone do not indicate selectivity. However, acceptance rates combined with SATs, GPAs, Class rank, etc does pretty accurately indicate selectivity (and the quality of student at the university). Smith is not nearly as selective as Amherst, Williams, or Wellesley (and yes, this is partly because Smith only accepts women, but identifying the cause of its lesser selectivity doesn't magically make it more selective).</p>

68

<p>I think they are in the same range, but before I started researching colleges two years ago, I would have said Smith was above...I remembered Smith being mentioned in "White Christmas," and I always thought Williams was more a regional school, not as well known 500 miles away. I don't intend to hurt feelings but sometimes we all tend to think that our perspective is the only one. Clearly there are enough people who think these colleges all have something great to offer the right student, I am sorry some people can't live with that. It reminds me of the sixties motorhead arguments of Ford verses Chevy.</p>

69

<p>Oh Mr. B, I think that most people won't have any problem agreeing that all schools have something wonderful to offer. In the case of Smith, the multiple examples of parents with children at Smith attest to that. </p>

<p>On the other hand, a rather benign comment such "I think they are in the same range" won't raise an eyebrow until you defines the range. Considering that the range is the first page of USNews sounds fine. Narrow the range to the top 20 institutions, and you are still absolutely correct for Wellesley and Smith. Narrowing it much further is what raises issues. While the schools might in the same -self assigned- range, trying to extrapolate that the schools are on equal footing is not as commonly acceptable. Scratch the surface, and the best major at Wellesley is easily dwarfed by Williams, not to mention quite a few majors that offer no comparison. Again, concluding that Wellesley and Smith are in the same range as AWS, does not stop the fact that there is a top of the range and a bottom. And there is little doubt which schools belongs where.</p>

<p>If best fit and happiness of the students is all what matters, why would the ranking and other subjective opinions matter to posters? Wherever those schools really rank ddoes not affect me in the least.</p>

70

<p>The range is so close that the actual quality of the education offerred to any individual student will be the result of the fit, not the prestige, the advertising or recruiting campaign or overall difference of the general quality of campus or faculty. </p>

<p>Rankings - Magazines would not sell if they simply said, these are the good, the bad and the ugly schools. They see a need for people to be told what to think and to offer some support for their conclusions so it looks like some huge amount of research that a student or parent couldn't do in a weekend on the internet. The best thing about these rankings is that you can glean data from them to form your own comparisons.</p>

<p>If you sleep better thinking that your school is the best, and you can't stand to be told that some people think it is "just as good" then maybe you should talk into a mirror. Overall, Wellesley, Smith, Williams, and Amherst are so close that the quality of education will be determined by an individual student's circumstance. What professors they meet, the friends they make.</p>

<p>If you want to convince me that one school is better than another, tell me about unqualified faculty, or poor libraries, unused or nonexistant science labs, but you can't because all these schools meet these needs equally well for the majority of their students. If you really want to convince me try telling me the graduate schools that refuse Smith graduates but accept Williams.</p>

71

<p>Mr.B, that's like asking to prove that Harvard, Yale aren't better than Williams (Sadly, I have to admit that Harvard, Yale have intangibles that put them above the others).</p>

72

<p>Haon -</p>

<h1>1 - What we saw is what we saw, and so I won't apologize for that, or in any way, shape, or form tell you that it didn't happen. Since the Board of Trustees, extremely busy men and women, called a special two-day meeting to deal with issues of college alcoholism, I'll let you direct your inquiries to them as to why they had it.</h1>

<h1>2 - Large classes. Sorry, but I have never written anything about large classes, so this nerve must have been struck by someone else. I am sure the classes are comparable. I do know that I went to hear a speech by Pres. Shapiro in which HE complained about large class sizes, and his hopes to ameliorate them. This is NOT something I have written about, as far as I remember. But if you have an issue, you should take it up with your college president.</h1>

<h1>3 - If Williams awards PAID research assistantships to 10% of its student body in their freshman and sophomore years, I am sure the rest of the world would like to hear about it. So here's your chance.</h1>

<h1>4 - There are WONDERFUL music opportunities at Williams. More than at Smith, overall. They have three composers on staff, and two symphony orchestras, excellent choir, lots of a cappella groups. I have written that previously as well, and it is the one thing that gave my d. pause. We consider David Kechley a personal friend (despite the incident of last year, for which he has much apologized.) What it doesn't have, and which they fairly pointed out to my d., was an opera company or opera program. Kechley felt obligated to point that out, even as he recruited my d., because she is an opera composer.</h1>

<p>The Oxford program is wonderful. The language programs at Williams wouldn't break the top 50. There's just no comparison between those at Williams and those at Wellesley (or Smith or Middlebury or Hamilton or Macalester or...) No big deal - the art history program at Williams is head and shoulders above those at the other schools. It's just the way it is. Get over it.</p>

<h1>5 - Again, you've got the wrong person. I didn't talk about a "disconnect" between athletes and musicians (is that something you feel?) In fact, my d.s' discomfort was partially attributed to the large number of student-athletes, many of whom were likely musicians as well. (In fact, one of the graduates who called me d. was one of those, extremely successful in both pursuits.) As for the impacts of atthletics on Williams, I suggest you read your college's own report.</h1>

73

<p>Mr. B., as I said the relative ranking of schools is an issue that does not affect me, and did not influence my applications in the least. </p>

<p>While I might find speaking to a mirror beneficial, some people might equally benefit from reading de la Fontaine's "La grenouille et le boeuf" -or Aesop's "The frog and the ox" for the purists.</p>