<p>I know who interesteddad is. He does know seem to be awful obsessed with knowing everyting about swat, but he is exactly who he says he is.</p>
<p>If you can imagine what this Swarthmore board would be like without the contributions of interesteddad. I think it would be so much less informative. I don't think it is an obsession, but an interest to help applicants out. I am glad that the occasional posts questioning his motives (I do believe he is NOT associated officially with Swarthmore) have not dissuaded him from paticipating.</p>
<p>Hellohowareyou:</p>
<p>Sorry this is so belated.</p>
<p>I really wasn't offended or anything, just trying to understand your reasoning. Really, though, there must be some kids who go to Swat to make connections, just as there are at Amherst or Williams.</p>
<p>I shouldn't sound like I know exactly why everyone chose swat over someone else. But you honestly do get a sense that that isn't the kind of thing people are concerned about. I have spent time on amherst and williams' campuses, and the feeling is a bit different (they are still great schools!).</p>
<p>Collegialmom:</p>
<p>The saddest day in College Confidential's history was earlier this month when Carolyn was "run off" by people questioning her motives.</p>
<p>Calicollegegirl:</p>
<p>I would estimate that approximately half of the students at Swarthmore, Amherst, and Williams are interchangeable. There is a lot of overlap. There are "intellectuals" at all three schools. "Geeks" at all three schools. "Jocks" at all three schools. "Preps" at all three schools. </p>
<p>The differences lie with the proportions in each student body, which in turn leads to some noticeable differences in campus cultures -- relatively less "blotto-drinking" at Swarthmore, relatively more emphasis on athletics at Williams, etc. They are all excellent schools.</p>
<p>One of the reasons that I like Swarthmore so much is that it is very similar to what I experienced at Williams 30 years ago -- similar size, similar emphasis on academics. Looking back, I felt that the Williams experience back in the day only had two signficant drawbacks. First, the student body was too homogenously white and preppy. Second, the location was so remote that it began to feel claustrophic and escaping for a night or a weekend away from the ivory tower was a pain in the butt. Those are going to be drawbacks at any small liberal arts college. However, Swarthmore's easy proximity to civilization (i.e. a mall, Philadelphia, NY, etc.) and its "quirky" student body tend to reduce the impact of those two issues.</p>
<p>Today, I think Amherst and Swarthmore are more similar than Williams and Swarthmore. I don't think that was the case 30 years ago. Swarthmore has, IMO, changed the least of the three schools over that period of time. Amherst and Williams have undergone huge changes, starting with the decisions to go coed. Amherst has gone from the most preppy of the three schools to a strong emphasis on diversity, both ethnic and socio-economic. Williams has grown significantly and, beginning in the 1980s, placed a major emphasis on athletics, which has impacted both its admissions and its campus culture, probably to the detriment of its "old-school" academics -- or so some of the professors think. The changes at Swarthmore are a reflection of the times (2005 is not the 1960s or 1970s), rather than any shift in the school's mission, style, or priorities.</p>
<p>There is a factionalization of the student body at both Williams and Amherst -- both have dorms that are highly segregated by interest or social scene, with some tension between groups. That is not the case to the same degree at Swarthmore (due in large part to the housing policy, including the lack of freshman-only and "theme" dorms). I think it's fair to say that, if you aren't prepared to live on the same hall with geeks, jocks, gays, straights, teetotallers, frat boys, internationals, students of all ethnicities and accept them all on equal terms, then Swarthmore is probably the wrong college.</p>
<p>interesteddad: From a parent of a very confused (how am I ever going to decide) 18 year old who has both A (early write) and S (we're hoping he'll get in soon) as well as a few other similar schools at the top of his list, thank you for your input. It is almost impossible to get a real feel of a school doing the tour/info session and any thoughts from those familiar with these schools helps in the decision making process. This spring break will be filled with clasroom visits and overnights, but it helps to hear other's insights. Keep up the commentary, please!</p>
<p>
[quote]
From a parent of a very confused (how am I ever going to decide) 18 year old who has both A (early write) and S (we're hoping he'll get in soon)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm lousy at Amherst/Swarthmore comparisons. For a number of reasons, I'm just not as familiar with Amherst. When I visited as a high schooler in the early 1970s, it was preppy beyond belief. In an era of hiking boots, flannel shirts, blue jeans, and long hair, I was put off by the groups of Amherst men walking around in the middle of the afternoon in coats and ties. Plus, there were no girls at the time, which didn't strike me as terribly appealing. The school still draws heavily from the New England prep schools; however, it has undergone a significant transformation with an emphasis on diversity of all types. So, my old perceptions are dated.</p>
<p>My daughter never looked at Amherst for several reasons. Two hours away, it was just too darn close to home. About half of her senior class (mostly the wrong half academically) was headed to UMass, so the town of Amherst didn't strike her as much in the way of a new horizon. Plus, it was love at first sight at Swarthmore and she had double-legacy status at Williams, so there wasn't much strategic admissions purpose to add Amherst to the mix. Remember, she was up against the tsunami of applications at New England colleges from fellow Massachusetts high schoolers. Getting into any of these elite schools from Massachusetts is a daunting challenge.</p>
<p>The things I do know about Amherst. It has a higher percentage of athletic recruits than Swarthmore (mostly because even the smallest NESCAC schools aggressively support both football and men's hockey -- the two sports that require the most compromise in admissions). The numbers are impossibly difficult when trying to support both of these two large mens sports with only 750 to 800 male students at a college -- the football team alone accounts for nearly 10% of the entire male student body. But, it is not as heavily athletic focused as Williams, which not only has all of the same teams, but also supports full JV programs in many sports. Swarthmore has never had hockey and they finally pulled the plug on football six years ago, citing the irreconcilable demands on admissions slots.</p>
<p>Amherst definitely has more drinking than Swarthmore -- at or above the national binge drinking rates compared to Swarthmore being signficantly below. I really think this may, in part, be a vestige of an all-male culture -- an example of how Swarthmore's coed history shapes its campus culture in subtle ways. Both have a small fraternity presence, although Amherst officially denies that their's exists.</p>
<p>Swarthmore "expands" its campus with easy access to Philadelphia and NYC without a car. Amherst expands its campus with the 5-College area, which is a plus in many ways -- although I'm not sure that the town being dominated by ZooMass is both a positive and a negative.</p>
<p>Swarthmore wears its commitment to social justice on its sleeve more than Amherst; however, recent Amherst Presidents have been vocally pushing the college in that direction -- basically the idea that colleges should instill a component of engaged responsible citizenship above and beyond simple booklearning.</p>
<p>Academics, grad school admissions, and so forth are so excellent at both schools that I really don't think there's anything to choose from on that front. Swarthmore produces a few more PhD academic types; Amherst produces a few more MBA investment bankers -- but, both produce a good number of both.</p>
<p>Both have very large per student endowments.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, I don't see any bad choice. Both schools are excellent. </p>
<p>Here's an interesting tidbit. In USNEWS, Swarthmore lists its five top cross-applicant schools (in no particular order) as:</p>
<p>Brown, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Amherst</p>
<p>Amherst lists its five top cross-applicant schools as:</p>
<p>Brown, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Williams</p>
<p>Williams dumps Princeton and Brown off their list:</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Amherst, Bowdoin</p>
<p>Idad,
Swarthmore may not have a varsity hockey team, but the coed club team the MotherPuckers has been playing hockey for over 30 years. But probably no one gets recruited for hockey at Swat.</p>
<p>Ice hockey.</p>
<p>Idad
Ice hockey is what the MotherPuckers play. From the Swat website:</p>
<p>Mother Puckers
Motherpuckers is Swarthmore's student-run and organized recreational ice hockey program. Every Thursday night at 10 from mid-October through early March students meet at the Rose Garden for the short van ride to the Springfield Ice Rink for two hours of non-competitive hockey.
Puckers is organized by line according to skill: A-line for advanced skaters, B-line for beginners, and C-line for comedy. Though all equipment is provided by the organizers, students are welcome to bring their own skates, sticks, and so forth.
MotherPuckers is one of the campus' most popular programs and an average of 40 to 50 students, women and men alike, take part each week. No skill is necessary and two hours of skating makes an excellent study-break even on the busiest of weeks.</p>
<p>dadx3,</p>
<p>Mother Puckers are great, but it's not a 'hokey team'... It's just a bunch of kids (coed) that get together and play on the ice. "No skill is necessary and two hours of skating makes an excellent study-break even on the busiest of weeks."</p>
<p>Oops. My bad.</p>
<p>Anyway, that is quite different from the admissions profile of recruited ice hockey players. At the NESCAC and Ivy League schools, varsity ice hockey teams are widely regarded as requiring the most compromised admissions standards of any sport.</p>
<p>For the most part, the players at a place like Williams are nearly exclusively drawn from the ranks of high-profile prep school programs or pro junior development teams. The prep school players were, in turn, admitted to their high schools on the basis of hockey recruiting rather than academics -- often as fifth year post-grad "students". It's basically a self-contained feeder system with well below average academic profiles, without which these schools could not field ice hockey teams. </p>
<p>This is not a big deal with 6500 undergrads at an Ivy League university. So what? But, when you are talking about reduced standards for football and ice hockey with a total male student population of 750, you are talking significant percentages of male students whose focus is not directed towards academics. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, these two teams typically stand out as being particularly disengaged from the academic and campus communities. For example, the destructive behavior detailed in the Williams student newspaper over the past few weeks (a fight with serious injuries, feces spreading, and burning of students belongings) has been centered around "the football dorm". If you took away those two teams, the issues and academic compromises associated with athletic recruiting would disappear at elite colleges. The rest of the teams essentially mirror the student body, both in terms of admissions profiles and academic engagement on campus.</p>
<p>It's relevant here because football and ice hockey at two schools of fairly similar size and admissions standards (Amherst and Swarthmore) contribute to the differences in campus culture. 10% of the male student body is a significant subset that has a tangible impact.</p>
<p>InterestedDad,</p>
<p>Thanks so much for your input. I'm not sure if you have much experience with Vassar, but how do you think it compares to Swat, based on campus culture and student body makeup? They seem like they might be more similar in that respect than Amherst and Swat or Williams and Swat. Both seem more artsy and quirky than the others.</p>
<p>If the issue is Swat vs. Amherst or Williams, then it's also worth considering Swat vs. Wesleyan, the other member of the "Little Three". Wesleyan is probably the most "alternative" and least athletic of the Little Three, and seems like perhaps the closest New England LAC to Swat in terms of campus culture and academic standards.</p>
<p>Hi y'all. This is a transcript of a recent thread on the Wesleyan CC board concerning some very similar issues. I hope it helps.
--JW</p>
<hr>
<p>Re: Wes vs. Williams </p>
<p>To begin with, you have to realize that just about anything anyone says on the subject is going to be largely anecdotal. Whatever institutional data exists tends to suggest more overlap than people are willing to admit. The two have been linked athletically for the better part of the last 100 years and each has had to grapple with issues of diversity and changes in the way the general public perceives liberal arts colleges over the years.</p>
<p>Neither were particularly well known outside the closely-knit drawing rooms and board rooms of the eastern establishment until USNews began publishing its annual rankings nearly twenty years ago. Each has had to adjust to an influx of brighter, better prepared applicants from around the country looking for credible stand-ins for HYP, the lower ivies, Stanford and MIT. The strategies each have adopted are instructive.</p>
<p>Williams decided a long time ago that if you were going to beat the Ivies at their own game it meant literally to be a member of an athletic league, preferably one populated by sons and daughers of a similar elite group of colleges. They, along with Wesleyan, Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury and about a half-dozen other well esteemed New England colleges, established NESCAC (the New England Small College Athletic Conference) around the time coeducation had completed the rounds among its largely all-male, sister colleges.</p>
<p>It then decided that in order to stay on top of the pecking order that it would recruit as many "scholar-atheletes" as possible. Thirty years ago, it simply meant giving a slight advantage to those applicants with some experience in varsity sports on the high school level. By and large, these students were not all that different form the students that normally drifted north for skiing, hiking and other winter and outdoor activities. Many of them went out for two, sometimes three varsity sports a year (Bill Bellichick, Wesleyan, `78 went out for both football and lacrosse.) The Little Three championships (Wesleyan, Williams and Amherst) changed hands fairly often.</p>
<p>Today, that has changed somewhat. People start out as football players or soccer players (or wrestlers or lacrosse players) much earlier in high school, tend to specialize in that particular sport, and it tends to be their most important extracurricular. And because both Wesleyan and Williams are simialr sizes (2600 vs 2200 u/g) a coach's "tip" becomes much more crucial in the admissions process. To field each and every one of thirty-odd teams takes a good chunk of each incoming class.</p>
<p>To be quite frank, I think Williams' self image as a New England college is much more dependent on fielding winning teams than Wesleyan's is. It's not at all uncommon for a recruited athlete to arrive at Wesleyan, decide that academics is more important, and that he won't play on a varsity team. At Wesleyan, there is absolutely no pressure on them to play.</p>
<p>Where I think Wesleyan's self-image comes into play is around the whole idea of contributing to society. Some people misunderstand this to mean charity or being a "do-gooder". But, I think there is so much more to it than that; it can also mean contributing to the marketplace of ideas, to culture and to science. A prolific number of Wesleyan graduates have become writers and journalists. Another large number wind up trying their hands at the performing arts. A Wesleyan grad was just appointed director of the Keck Observatory in Hawaii, one of the most prestigious research posts in the world. So, it isn't all about lining up an interview with Goldman-Sachs (although, 80% of Wesleyan graduates are said to pursue graduate studies within five years of graduation.) </p>
<p>I hope this helps. </p>
<h2>[SNIP] </h2>
<p>03-16-2006, 01:46 AM #10<br>
Corbett
Junior Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 92 Football: Wesleyan vs. Williams, also Trinity </p>
<p>Wesleyan is not noted as a "football school." The football team has rarely been outstanding in recent years; it went 0-8 last fall, and has not won the "Little 3" Championship (over Williams and Amherst) since 1970. Wesleyan is, of course, a great school in many other, more important respects. But if playing and winning at football is a priority for you, note that it may not be shared by much of the Wesleyan community. </p>
<p>Williams students are noted for their participation and success in sports (possibly because there is nothing else to do in Williamstown). The football team generally wins, and the Williams community is generally proud of it. Williams maintains similar academic standards, and is limited to the same number of athletic "tips", as Wesleyan and Amherst, yet it seems to be more successful at attracting talented athletes.</p>
<p>However...the most "serious" football program in NESCAC (relatively speaking) is not at Williams, but at Trinity. Trinity's admissions standards are lower than those at Wesleyan or Williams, and they allow more athletic tips. By leveraging these advantages, Trinity has dominated NESCAC competition in recent years, beating up on both Wesleyan and Williams. Trinity is also famed for its squash program; they regularly defeat much larger Ivy League universities for the national championship. Trinity's aggressive recruitment of foreign squash players is legendary.</p>
<p>Last edited by Corbett : 03-16-2006 at 01:56 AM. </p>
<hr>
<p>03-16-2006, 09:18 AM #11<br>
johnwesley
Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 501 Welcome, Corbett! </p>
<p>It's a pleasure to welcome a Williams alum to this discussion group. We obviously have a lot in common (patience with having to repeat the name of our college several times before people recognize it, a talent for defending the liberal arts, and a mutual dislike of Amherst.) And some differences (Sears Cup envy on our part.) But, mostly questions. For example, there's been a lot of discussion about drug use in this group and I'd love to compare your experience/knowlede of Williams. I've been to Williams, and it has some breath taking views; it's hard to imagine that people don't occasionally inhale more than the clear, cold, mountain air when the opportunity arises. Do they? </p>
<hr>
<p>03-16-2006, 02:20 PM #12<br>
Corbett
Junior Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 92 Drugs at Williams </p>
<p>This question seems a bit off-topic, but I'll address it anyway. My impression -- which is no longer current -- was that rates of drug use at Williams were relatively low, perhaps significantly lower than at Wesleyan. Not non-existent, but uncommon. Same for tobacco.</p>
<p>The most widely used (and abused) recreational substance at Williams was clearly alcohol. Williams probably matched or beat Wesleyan in this respect. Williamstown is small, remote, and largely shuts down in the evening, but drinking is one activity that is available. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Williams has no frats. So alcohol use at Williams is probably lower than it is at (for example) Dartmouth, which combines an isolated small town with an active Greek system.</p>
<p>If you want additional, more current opinions, you should post your question at the Williams forum.</p>
<hr>
<p>03-17-2006, 08:42 AM #13<br>
johnwesley
Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 501 Thank you, Corbett. That jibes with my likewise outdated impression of drug use at the two schools. You also raise one point that I had not considered before and that is, the number of people who seem to smoke tobacco at Wesleyan. It's actually kind of funny; people who are scrupulous about not smoking tobacco in their rooms -- they'll go outside in the freezing cold, or open a window to vent the smoke -- but, think nothing of hosting a house party where a joint may stink up the room for days afterward. I wonder now whether one may be a gateway drug for the other?
Report Offensive Post Reply<br>
johnwesley
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by johnwesley
Add johnwesley to Your Buddy List </p>
<hr>
<p>03-17-2006, 05:43 PM #14<br>
Corbett
Junior Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 92 At Williams: "the College prohibits smoking in all buildings, including student rooms, offices, and indoor facilities of the College or within 25 feet of a College building. The one exception is in College-owned faculty/staff rental housing." </p>
<p>Apparently such policies are not unusual. For example, I understand that Amherst and Bowdoin now have similar bans, except that Bowdoin is even tougher: outside smokers are supposed to be at least 50 feet from the nearest college building. </p>
<hr>
<p>03-17-2006, 09:11 PM #15<br>
johnwesley
Member</p>
<p>Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 501 Brrrr </p>
<br>
<p>Bowdoin is even tougher: outside smokers are supposed to be at least 50 feet from the nearest college building. <</p>
<br>
<p>We may have stumbled upon a co-variable, here: pot smoking is directly proportionate to the number of tobacco smokers which may be <em>inversely</em> proportionate to the severity of a college's winter!</p>
<p>calicollegegirl,
I have a S who is a junior at Swat, and Vassar was probably his second choice, even over Amherst. (My H also graduated from Vassar in the first graduating class with men!) The ratio of males/females is more balanced at Swat (48/52)than Vassar(42/58). They both do attract "quirky" types, whatever that means. Swarthmore does attract a somewhat more intellectual student than Vassar. (No flames please. I know very recent graduates of Vassar and current students at Vassar who would agree with me.) Vassar also has smart students, but the kids at Swarthmore, on the whole, are more "intellectual." They are both great schools.</p>
<p>Calicollegegirl:</p>
<p>I'm pretty much useless on Vassar questions. My daughter visited Vassar and had it on her short list to consider had she not been accepted ED to Swarthmore; however, my sense in the final month or so before applications, was that Vassar was dropping down her list. But, to be honest, she had really not focused on ranking the schools on her list after Swarthmore. She thought all of them would be places she could be happy and there wasn't much sense in picking favorites until she had acceptance letters in hand.</p>
<p>I didn't visit Vassar with her and really don't know enough about the school to offer much of an informed opinion. I know my daughter liked the campus. Just based on statistics, I don't think I would pick Vassar over Swarthmore. The biggie is per student endowment ($246k per student versus $800k at Swarthmore), but the same can be said of Swarthmore versus most colleges. I do think that Vassar would be a top alternative if I liked Swarthmore, but didn't get accepted. I am also sure that it has specific programs that are broader/deeper than the corresponding departments at Swarthmore -- in part, due to its much larger size.</p>
<p>Quite a few students here on College Confidential have been accepted to both Swarthmore and Vassar over the last few years. My sense is that the overwhelming majority have chosen Swarthmore in that matchup. The one or two I can remember who chose Vassar were uncomfortable with Swarthmore's reputation for being academically challenging. That's a perfectly rational reason for choosing another school.</p>
<p>I think all prospective Swarthmore students should have, and probably do, have a heart-to-heart talk with themselves about that issue. In fact, the last thing my daughter and I talked about before she did her overnight was for her to really talk to students, sit in on a couple of classes, and think about her comfort level with the workload before applying ED.</p>
<p>My daughter has found Swarthmore to be challenging, but not impossibly difficult. Part of that is that she is pragmatic in her course selection -- she and her faculty advisor (and upperclass students on her hall) have talked explicitly about balancing heavy reading courses with problem set courses, easier professors with harder professors, etc. Part of it is that she's realistic in her expectations. Part of it is taking Prof. Burke's honesty to heart ("Professors assign more than you can possibly read in any normal fashion. We know it, at least most of us do. You have to make strategic decisions about what to read and how to read it."). From what she has described to me, she has learned how to figure out what she has to read, what she can skim, and what can slide when things get a little hairy.</p>
<p>Having said that, I've said many times that it wouldn't make sense to go to Swarthmore unless working pretty hard and being challenged academically are things you are comfortable with. So, I have no beef whatsover with someone choosing not to go to Swarthmore because they have decided it's just too much, academically. There are schools where it is easier to slide into the woodwork in class.</p>
<p>Thanks to all of you for your responses. Interesteddad, it's interesting that you say that it's harder to "slide into the woodwork" at Swarthmore than at other schools. Why do you think this is? Do you mean because classes are so small? If so, then isn't that what classes are like at any of the LACs we've been discussing? Do you just mean that professors expect more at Swarthmore?</p>
<p>Size, yes. Swarthmore is small even by LAC standards. 34% of the classes have 9 or fewer students. It's hard to hide when it is a professor and eight other students. Another 42% of the classes have 10-19 students, including the freshmen seminars that are usually capped at 12.</p>
<p>Beyond that, it's just the Swarthmore style of learning that features a lot of interaction. I think it goes back to the Honors System put in place in the 1920s. The whole concept was that honors students took small ungraded seminars with two or three students and a professor. After teaching that way for fifty years, elements of that approach naturally extended to all of the classes at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>One piece of advice a senior on my daughter's hall freshman year gave her was to set a goal of contributing to class discussion at least once in every class. In many cases, class discussion is an explicitly stated part of the grade. But, from a pragmatic standpoint, if you go to class, contribute on a regular basis, turn in the papers, and generally come across as actively engaged in the course, you'll probably get at least a B most of the time in humanities and social science courses. So, it's just a sound approach. Obviously, it's easier to contribute something worthwhile if you've read the assigned book and maybe even thought about it a little bit on the way to class! I know it seems obvious that you would read the assignments, but that's not universally true in college. </p>
<p>Basically, the goal is not just to get you to learn stuff, but to think about the stuff you are learning. Thus, responding to the material, positively, negatively, or even with headscratching bewilderment is a key part of the process and the better professors intentionally teach to evoke a response. For example, Tim Burke has blogged about syllibi for his courses from time to time, saying that he often assigns a book with a flawed premise on purpose, because it will generate more heated response than a book with an airtight argument. I think that this is what James Michener meant when he said the stuff he learned at Swarthmore wasn't that important, but the way he learned at Swarthmore was.</p>
<p>Here's an example that I thought was pretty cool. In an intro political science course my daughter took, there was just one question on the take-home final exam. The question was about the role of the Supreme Court in the American political system. The question was simple: "What good is judicial review...really?" There is no right or wrong answer to that question. But, it forces you to think about the American political system and take (or at least argue) a position. You can't answer the question without having learned "stuff", but spouting all the "stuff" in the world won't do the job without deciding what you think.</p>
<p>That's why Swarthmore is "hard", but it's also what both students and professors like about it.</p>
<p>The push to self-start and to contribute to class discussions seems almost universal among certain of the more "intellectual" LACs. This from an anonymous Wesleyan freshman:</p>
<p>"I don't know what I didn't see before, but I see it now. My friends here are wonderful, and I'm making new ones all the time. My grades are much better than I expected them to be (except in RELI381, hehe), at least for now, and I actually care about my schoolwork. And, holy ****, all my classes are fascinating - even Physical Geology. And the "fishbowl" discussion we had in Religion the other day made me really want to start participating more in class, and I will from now on, because I get mad at myself all the time because the same situation plays itself out all the time: the professor will ask a question or ask for discussion, and I have something to say but think it's stupid or that someone will say I'm wrong, and then a classmate will say the exact thing I'm thinking and it'll come out fine. I need to get some balls, lol.</p>
<p>And Wesleyan is where I want to be. For the next four years. It's definitely not easy, and it is a lot of work, but this is where I want to be."</p>