<p>Well, I HAVE been pretty involved with environmental groups at Smith -I can def check out the lawn thing, in your honor! :P</p>
<p>And there's no way in **** I could get into Yale, but thanks for the flattery.</p>
<p>And about my parents? Get this... (<em>drumroll</em>)... they're both attorneys! Yep, I'm actually a fairly independent thinker (although my mom IS reasonably egalitarian).</p>
<p>edit: I actually meant to say they're both tax attorneys.</p>
<p>(boy, call me a flake)</p>
<p>Back in the dark ages, I attended an inner city science magnet high school. I was 123rd in my class of 714. Good but not great SATs. I got into Williams off the waiting list. (9 applied that year from my high school, 6 clearly more qualified than me, but only I got it - it was during the days of the "Jew quota"). Struggled my first year, as I really didn't know how to write like the Chaote guys, although it was more that socially I felt like I had landed on Mars - and a much wealthier planet than I had ever known. But virtually all of my classes were easier - often much easier - than my high school. By the time I graduated, I was top 10 (not percent), and would have been 1st or 2nd if not for my freshman year. Later at Oxford, and then the University of Chicago (where I also taught) - neither was as "rigorous" as my high school. But I learned heaps at both, and am forever grateful.</p>
<p>Middlebury? In my high school, the GC used to half-jokingly threaten students that if they didn't buckle down, they'd end up at Middlebury, likely parking cars for their fellow students. It is among the top three least diverse LACs in the northeast - low percentage of students receiving need-based aid, low percentage of Pell Grant recipients, high percentage of private school graudates, low percentage of minorities. They also offer a great education. </p>
<p>Go where you'll feel comfortable, and challenged. I told my own d. when she was choosing colleges, I had only three goals for her (she could add more if she liked, or reject mine - but she needed to hear them): she should come out an excellent writer (she was already very good); she should make good friends; and she should get the opportunity to study abroad in another language.</p>
<p>{{low percentage of minorities}}}</p>
<p>I agree. It isnt as if Middlebury doesnt admit a large number of minorities; they wiil not enroll. When I was in Northampton recently, a mutual friend introduced me to a Holyoke alumna who was Black . During our conversation about colleges and the changes theyre experiencing, Midd came up. She informed me she was admitted to Midd and recruited heavily. When I asked her why she didnt attend (I knew what was coming) she said, I didnt want to go to school in the middle of nowhere VT is comparable to Siberia to minorities. The vast majority of minorities who have the credentials to attend a college like Midd went to a charter school, and theyre almost always located in cities. Its hard to recruit <em>city</em> kids to Vt.</p>
<p>Midd does enroll fewer minorities than many LACs, however; they will not lower their standards for the unambiguous purpose of creating more diversity either</p>
<p>{{{Middlebury? In my high school, the GC used to half-jokingly threaten students that if they didn't buckle down, they'd end up at Middlebury, likely parking cars for their fellow students.}}}</p>
<p>I like the phrase Harvard chants at sporting events against Yale.</p>
<p>Hey, Hey youll be working for us someday</p>
<p>What is Chaote? Choate you mean?</p>
<p>Hey, how would I know? I was a poor schlub from New York. I also wanted to know why Mr. Exeter and Mr. Andover and Mr. Hopkins all had "s"s on the end of the their first names.</p>
<p>Anyhow, in my day, my high school would send two dozen to Harvard and a dozen and a half to Yale each year, and three dozen to Columbia, and a dozen to Cornell, dozen to UChicago, and a handful to Dartmouth. One in five years to Williams. ZERO to Princeton (the Jewish thing). And none to Middlebury. They would have had to raise their standards to attract some diversity.</p>
<p>{{{What is Chaote? Choate you mean?}}}</p>
<p>Lighten up. ;) You knew the prep mini was referring to. We all (especially me) make mistakes typing, as most of us are multitasking when posting.</p>
<p>well, i thought he was talking about something else, just trying to clarify :)</p>
<p>Roughly 2-3 dozen of those attending the "name schools" would be Black - with the largest number at Columbia. The vast, overwhelming majority of students attended one of the City Colleges of New York - CCNY, Baruch, Queens, Brooklyn, or Hunter Colleges. Many of those who couldn't get into those but whose parents could afford it went to NYU. A large contingent to Stonybrook, Binghamton, and Buffalo (fewer to New Paltz and Albany). Bottom of the class who could afford it went to LIU or Hofstra. A few to Fordham and St. John's. Couple to BU and GW; none that I can remember to Georgetown or Duke (both schools only got upgraded national reps in the 80s on account of the b-ball teams.)</p>
<p>Harvard and a dozen and a half to Yale each year, and three dozen to Columbia, and a dozen to Cornell, dozen to UChicago, and a handful to Dartmouth. One in five years to Williams.}}}]</p>
<p>How many of those were Black? You had over 700 students in your graduating class. Where did the rest attend, state college?</p>
<p>{{{One in five years to Williams.}}}]{{And none to Middlebury. They would have had to raise their standards to attract some diversity.}}</p>
<p>If Williams attracted one student in 5 years, you, are you saying Williams would have had to raise their standards also to attract some diversity? Im not attempting to start an argument, im simply tying to understand what you're saying?</p>
<p>Sorry for the repost. I didn't see you answered my original post until it was too late.</p>
<p>Roughly 2-3 dozen Black students attended the top colleges. Most of the rest went to the City Colleges.</p>
<p>Most of the Black students (and many of the Jewish ones) thought that Middlebury and Williams were "beneath" them - they could get into "better" (and less isolated) places, so why would they want to go there? Williams and Middlebury would have had to "raise" their standards, made it more attractive to one's fellow students, to have made it attractive to them. These were (are?) simply not very attractive places for economically poor academically talented, often minority students, and Smith has had to work darn hard since 1975 in order to attract such students and provide the resources so they can attend, and would want to.</p>
<p>Williams, Middlebury, and, especially Princeton did not get folks from my high school primarily because of very strict Jewish quotas (as I noted, 6 of the 9 applicants who applied to Williams the year I did who got turned down were clearly more qualified than I was). These ended at Williams around 1969-1970, at Middlebury a little later; but Princeton did not accept a single student from my high school (in years when they were sending two dozen to Harvard) for more than 25 years (Jewish, Black, or, later, Asian), through the late 1990s.</p>
<p>{{Most of the Black students (and many of the Jewish ones) thought that Middlebury and Williams were "beneath" them}}}</p>
<p>I can possibly understand that sentiment toward Middlebury at that time, but not Williams.</p>
<p>I don't say that the sentiment was warranted (though Williams was not a particularly pleasant place for Black students during that period, and despite its two most recent Presidents being Jewish, has had difficulty and some unhappiness in the 21st Century in even keeping a Jewish chaplain); only that it was widely held. Even today, Amherst (as well as Smith) has put heavy emphasis (read that as big bucks and lots of energy) into recruiting low-income, often minority students from places that schools such as Williams and Middlebury never even visit.</p>
<p>I know Middlebury is one of the worst elite college in terms of diversity. Let's face it though -even the schools that are on the more diverse end of the spectrum, like Smith, appear like Mars in comparison with the general US populace. (I think I'm spoiled after Smith, really -I've never lived so cushily in my life). And while diversity HAS improved, it probably won't improve much more as long as the elite upper-ed in our country is privatized. I personally at least respect colleges for putting an egalitarian sentiment in their mission -colleges like Smith, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Oberlin, etc...</p>
<p>I do hope you visit - because you are likely to find both Swarthmore and Bowdoin (and to a slightly lesser extent Oberlin) are like Mars compared with Smith. Swarthmore has fewer than 12% of its students on Pell Grants, and 52% receive no need-based aid. Bowdoin is even less diverse (rivaling Williams and Middlebury) with 54% receiving no need-based aid, and only 9% on Pells. To put it in perspective, 21% of Smith's students come from families below $30k, roughly the same as the population as a whole; (hardly like Mars - the Mars lies in the 38% of students in the top 5%); at Swat and Bowdoin, less than half of that come from families below $40k.</p>
<p>All great schools; just different. It's nice to have choices.</p>
<p>Yep -I'm totally going to visit anywhere I apply from now on -although I think it would be much better of these colleges to notify transfer students of acceptance early enough in the year they only had to visit colleges they were ACCEPTED to (I mean, DAVIDSON does that -sheesh). And mini -I like the advice you gave your daughter on what to concentrate on when picking a college -sometimes work is going to be tougher than other times, but people as a species are fairly flexible and learn to meet challenges when they so choose -those things you mentioned are far more universally valuable.</p>
<p>I know Middlebury is one of the worst elite college in terms of diversity. Let's face it though -even the schools that are on the more diverse end of the spectrum, like Smith, appear like Mars in comparison with the general US populace. (I think I'm spoiled after Smith, really -I've never lived so cushily in my life). And while diversity HAS improved, it probably won't improve much more as long as the elite upper-ed in our country is privatized. I personally at least respect colleges for putting an egalitarian sentiment in their mission -colleges like Smith, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Oberlin, etc...</p>
<p>Keep in mind that diversity (or lack thereof) is self perpetuating.<br>
Example: Once in high school, I was discussing college choices with an Asian friend. I had brought up the College of the Holy Cross, where my sister goes. My friend replied that she wouldn't dream of going there: too many white people. </p>
<p>Here's an interesting article about Wellesley, diversity and Mona Lisa Smile. <a href="http://modelminority.com/printout216.html%5B/url%5D">http://modelminority.com/printout216.html</a> (Smith could update their selectivity rating if they had embarrasing and bad movies made at their campus too!)</p>
<p>I agree that to an extent the level of diversity (or non-diversity) is self-perpetuating. However, even the colleges with the largest endowments could not exist for too long in the same way if an overwhelming majority of their students were on finaid. Out of curiosity, mini, do you have pell %s on Carleton?</p>
<p>In my experience, in high schools where a very small % go on to small, private schools (hs that also tend to have more lower-income and possibly minorities), the best students go to the "best," most prestigious school they can get into -Harvard, Yale, Amherst etc., that is financially feasible. Outside of the east coast and California, schools like Wesleyan, Haverford, Williams, Smith just aren't heard of by most students, so the best students at most high schools don't apply there to begin with. (My mom STILL looks kind of skeptical whenever I talk about liberal-arts colleges, because all the most successful people she knows went to public or state universities.)</p>
<p><a href="Smith%20could%20update%20their%20selectivity%20rating%20if%20they%20had%20embarrasing%20and%20bad%20movies%20made%20at%20their%20campus%20too!">quote</a>
[/quote]
Cynical but undoubtedly accurate. Oddly enough, I think we watched "Mona Lisa Smile" while on the way home from visiting Wellesley.</p>
<p>And an accurate observation about self-perpetuating trends.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Last edited by WendyMouse : Today at 08:44 PM. Reason: grammer
[/quote]
</p>
<p>grammar</p>