<p>Actually, the SAT's are lower, but GPA's are often higher. For example, Barnard's SAT is lower than Columbia, but the average GPA is higher. This is consistent with statistical analysis that indicates that women don't score as high on the SAT as men.</p>
<p>I went to Smith myself for a year before transferring out. Like one of the posters said, women's colleges aren't for everyone. Smith was just generally a bad fit for me, surprisely. You have to visit and see for yourself. </p>
<p>But I'll only speak of Smith. But I will tell you that I was in "wrong" departments but I did take classes in "strong" departments like Government/IR, Russian, and Astronomy. And the art department. I was very impressed with the professors in those particular departments. </p>
<p>But not so with the history department, where I wanted to major in so I transferred out where the money was. My advisor even told me to get out of Smith if I wanted to major in history!</p>
<p>I DO think that the caliber of students at Smith was very high- right where I wanted them to be to be my peers. Students and professors respected each other (though I couldn't stop oogling at my IR professor...:)). The faculty support is there when you want it- my history professor was SO nice to give me an alternative paper assignment and sign me up to join another class on their field trip to Dartmouth! So thumbs up to the faculty and students for providing a supportive envrionment where there's no cutthroat competition.</p>
<p>But the quality? I think I'll have to take it on case-by-case basis. But then again, I'd need more than a year to be a fair judge of the quality of the academics. Campus life on the other hand... wow, what an example of learning beyond the classroom for me!</p>
<p>I certainly DO NOT think women's colleges should be discounted... at least not yet. They are still going strong, especially in these times where admissions competition is very high and women need greater support. The alumnae really impressed me- they really made the most of their Smith education.</p>
<p>In terms of graduate schools, I've done pretty well- just got accepted to the University of Michigan! I've been told by a professor elsewhere that my education record will be very well received when I asked for a brief evaluation... and I haven't heard a complaint. :)</p>
<p>Questions, I don't want to argue with you. You asked a question about prestige. I answered and addressed the issue of prestige. You said you were offended. I stand by what I said and it was not meant to attack or insult anyone, just stating my opinion. The only 7 sister college I really know about is Barnard. </p>
<p>(My mother attended Smith in the late 1940's and she absolutely hated it and dropped out after her sophomore year; my aunt also attended Smith and is now in her late 70's and still very active in the alumnae association & as an alumna interviewer. So you never know.)</p>
<p>"Barnard's SAT is lower than Columbia, but the average GPA is higher."</p>
<p>Class rank is a more accurate comparison. Columbia, 92% in the top 10% of h/s graduating class...Barnard 75%..</p>
<p>"The peer assessment of USNews that is a complete joke in general is especially prone to well justified criticism of abject cronyism and manipulation for the former Seven Sisters, with again the notable exception of Barnard."</p>
<p>You have first hand knowledge the former seven sisters manipulated the peer assessment scores? And how? If they do, it stands to reason most other colleges do as well.</p>
<p>And if the peer assessment scores are manipulated, that indicates the entire USN&WR rankings are worthless. That might have some validity. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, the SAT's are lower, but GPA's are often higher.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While the SAT scores are standardized, the GPA numbers are far from it. Since one cannot compare GPAs from different schools, the number are not very relevant. When it comes to selectivity, SAT scores and ranking (percentage of students in top 10% of class) are used. When compared to their peers, women colleges, typically, have lower numbers for BOTH categories.</p>
<p>"When compared to their peers, women colleges, typically, have lower numbers for BOTH categories."</p>
<p>No argument there. But that still doesnt correlate to manipulated peer assessment scores or quality of education not being equal to comparable colleges.</p>
<p>In other words, do you really believe the education at, say, Wellesley,Smith or MH is inferior to your alma mater, CM?</p>
<p>Questions, psychology is considered a science at Smith because a lot of the courses could fall under the neuroscience umbrella...the two departments are so close that it's really common and easy to double major. You could still debate this, but it doesn't, in any way, indicate that the other sciences are lacking.</p>
<p>nyc-
Didn't forget about Pembroke. Pembroke was never a seven sister school.</p>
<p>Smith may be as intellectual as any other school but why do they title courses like " What's in a recipe?" or "Beyond the Hitler Channel"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In other words, do you really believe the education at, say, Wellesley,Smith or MH is inferior to your alma mater, CM?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Erewhon, as I have written many times, only the students (and their parents) can correctly evaluate the quality of education at their school. Accordingly, in the case of Smith, I'd rely on the opinion of vocal posters such as both of the Mini posters, TheDad, or TheRoadLessTraveled. Their accounts about how satisfied they have been with the quality of education are all I really need. This said, when it comes to admission statistics, the verifiable numbers have to be more objective. No amount of cheerleading or pompom waving can make them look better than the reality --something Mini does have his (or her) share of problems with. </p>
<p>My comments are confined to publicly available data that support positions on admission statistics, selectivity, and the correlation between the available data. As far as my opinion, I do strongly believe that the selectivity index of USNews is a much better indicator than their peer assessment. Others, who see their favorite school benefit for this utterly subjective criterion, tend to disagree. And, for what it worth, the main exhibit to my position on the lack of validity of the peer assessment is a comparison between Smith and Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>"What's in a recipe?" or "Beyond the Hitler Channel"?</p>
<p>Where? <a href="http://catalog.smith.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://catalog.smith.edu/</a></p>
<p>And, for what it worth, the main exhibit to my position on the lack of validity of the peer assessment is a comparison between Smith and Harvey Mudd."</p>
<p>Sorry, I forgot you went to HM......But what do you base your lack of peer assessment validity re Smith, MH, BM, etc. compared to HM? Or are you only comparing Smith, for some resaon? You never attended (at least not unless you wore a kilt and makeup) any of the aformentionned institutions, and your assessment is as arbitrary or possibly unconsciously influenced and as those administrators that submitted their scores to USN&WR.</p>
<p>I have the utmost respect for your opinions so please don't assume any disrespect</p>
<p>EK-
Smith hardly holds the title for school with unique course names. Here's one example <a href="http://www.weirdthings.org.uk/10-most-bizarre-and-politically-correct-college-courses/%5B/url%5D">http://www.weirdthings.org.uk/10-most-bizarre-and-politically-correct-college-courses/</a></p>
<p><em>edit</em> and as Erewhon pointed out, can't seem to find such course titles in Smith's course catalog</p>
<p>Chose random LAC: top 10% Barnard 75%
Colby 60%</p>
<p>So I don't think Barnard suffers by comparison.</p>
<p>Erewhon, I did not attend Harvey Mudd nor do I claim to be qualified to evaluate Smith quality. As such, it is obvious that I am NOT qualified to correctly offer an opinion that could compare to the USNews Peer Assessment for Smith. </p>
<p>Of course, this places me more or less in the same shoes as the overwhelming majority --if not all-- of the people who DO complete the survey. The combination of inadequate or timely knowledge about the schools to be "qualified" and the ease to introduce gamesmanship is what represents the weak heel of the jocular process known as PA. I sincerely doubt that very many of the peopel who fill the survey ever attended Smith, or know very much about Smith in 2008.</p>
<p>Again, my position about the PA's lack of validity had no bearing on my judgement about Smith's quality of education. While I believe that the peer assessment is questionable, I am happy to accept the opinions of students and parents of Smith at face value. After all, isn't what they think about their school all that matter?</p>
<p>PS I sensed no disrespect in your questions, and that is why I attempted to answer them as best as I could.</p>
<p>Here are some additional fascinating college courses. Sign me up for "The American Degenerate" at Brown.</p>
<p><a href="http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_oddcourses/top_10_odd_college_courses.html%5B/url%5D">http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_oddcourses/top_10_odd_college_courses.html</a>
<a href="http://media.www.fsunews.com/media/storage/paper920/news/2006/05/15/Lifestyles/Seven.Unusual.College.Courses-2353619.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://media.www.fsunews.com/media/storage/paper920/news/2006/05/15/Lifestyles/Seven.Unusual.College.Courses-2353619.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070923/news_lz1n23list.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070923/news_lz1n23list.html</a></p>
<p>Hmm. How do you account for the fact that Bryn Mawr graduates are so high on the PhD productivity ladder? It is #8 (ahead of #9 University of Chicago and #10 Yale). Here is the data (found it on Reed's site actually). There also seems to be a dearth of the other womens colleges, including the lauded Wellesley. My D was accepted to and is seriously giving Bryn Mawr a second look, partially because of this list (which was surprising to us). Mt Holyoke and Wellesley were the others on the list and then only at the bottom of the medical sciences! Bryn Mawr is all over the lists in many different disciplines. Why isn't Bryn Mawr thought of as highly as Smith or Wellesley when the black and white data shows it blows both out of the water in pure academics? Is it because PhD rates are not indicative of quality? (take a look at Harvey Mudd, by the way. It is way up there). </p>
<p><a href="http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html</a></p>
<p>"nor do I claim to be qualified to evaluate Smith quality"</p>
<p>That's my point. Then you have no way of knowing if the women's colleges manipulated the ratings/reviews or not, or how accurate the assessment.</p>
<p>Peer reviews are done by those that, for all intensive purposes, have more than passing knowledge of their competitors credentials, professors qualifications and publish works, and the type of graduates they produce.</p>
<p>I think it's pretty hard to compare schools unless you've attended both of them.</p>