<p>
</p>
<p>All international applicants are also evaluated need-aware.</p>
<p>^^ and as far as I know at least, international admissions have always been need aware admissions at Smith. There’s a smaller pool of aid money avaialble to international students, but that isn’t a recent switch. </p>
<p>Similarly, as long as I’ve known Smith (less time than TD or CrewDad, granted) it’s been a mostly need-blind school, with need only affecting a small percentage of admissions decisions. Again, not something new.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. Sorry if I insinuated it was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Need still affects a small percentage of the students; however, admission decisions are no longer need-blind for the first 95 percent of admissions. All decisions are need-conscious.</p>
<p>And this is exactly what I have been worrying about being my doom, so to speak for admissions. My interviewer flat out asked me about our financial situation. I answered truthfully.</p>
<p>Hence, since Smith is need-sensitive/aware for Domestic AND Internationals, I am not hopeful for my own situation. </p>
<p>Sorry to be so pessimistic, which isn’t at all normal for me. I’m just really, really set on Smith and it makes me a bit sad inside to know that our financial situation may be the kiss of death for admissions…based on the questions asked during my interview and what I’m reading on the boards here…</p>
<p>Good luck to everyone though…including me. I’ll say that its never over until its over!</p>
<p>CD, I’d agree that the 5 percent for need-sensitive probably need some crossed fingers…I’ve a long history listening to bureaucrat-speak and can almost feel the fudge factors.</p>
<p>However, unless Carol Christ is more mendacious that I thought, she repeated the 95-percent need-blind assertion the other night.
However, she was tap dancing and spinning on a number of questions. I needed to remind myself that D will be a Smith alumna and I’ll be an alumnae parent long after she’s retired.
But that’s a rant for another thread.</p>
<p>I don’t know, I think Carol gets a worse rep than she really deserves. She has a hard job, and she’s done pretty well steering us through this financial crisis while still growing the school. I’ve been very critical of her in the past, and I think she really does have difficulty with people skills, but I think what she does, she does in good faith and with a goal of doing what’s best for the colllege. She has to balance a lot of competing interests and then she takes all the heat for things that are often either unpreventable or at least not preventable by her. But that’s just one alum’s opinion.</p>
<p>Funny, I’ve gone the other direction. I used to think of her more highly than I do now and it’s not just one thing. I’m now at the point where I think she’s a cynical, manipulative, intellectually shallow, morally bankrupt weasel. Sometime I’ll tell you what I really think. One faculty member confided to me that the BoT hired her because they wanted someone more malleable than Ruth Simmons and I’ve come to understand that statement.</p>
<p>Be all that as it may or may not be, a college president is no meaningful indicator of a college, one way or the other. I regard Stephen Sample, the retiring president of USC, very highly though I think for must ug majors USC is a intellectually flabby party school.</p>
<p>Peace, S&P.</p>
<p>Wow, this is a pretty worrisome statement, TheDad. Especially since so many kids are on the edge of their seats waiting to hear from admissions.</p>
<p>^^ No school is perfect. And I would rather attend a school where people know who the President is well enough to have strong opinions, positive or negative, about her, than attend one where the President is just name on a letterhead to most students. </p>
<p>I highly doubt anyone here will turn down their acceptance because the President has a bad rep from a few posters on the internet. TD and I have different opinions, though since he is so involved as an alum parent. I had four years of being under President Christ, but I can’t say I had intimate knowledge of her decision making process or how she is viewed by the Board of Trustees (though many profs have made their views known to me) or other alum parents. I just think she’s the target for a lot of general frustration that has its roots more in what’s wrong with Smith bureaucracy in general than in her personally. But you know, everyone’s got their opinion. Peace to you too TD.</p>
<p>I’m a little worried now, too. I’m going to need a lot of financial aid if I am accepted. I always thought Smith was need-blind and “promised to meet 100% financial need”.</p>
<p>They do promise to meet 100% of financial need–but it’s how Smith calculates “need” according to their institutional policy, not always exactly what students feel their need might be. They’re not completely need-blind for admission, as has been discussed above, but they do guarantee to meet your “documented financial need” (as determined by the Student Financial Services office) in the event that you ARE admitted. </p>
<p>But yeah, I’m pretty antsy about FA, too…otherwise I wouldn’t be on these messageboards at all hours. :)</p>
<p>jg, I assure you that there is little or nothing to worry about. I thought the USA was still a terrific country and a great place to be even when Bush/Cheney were running things…and the only presidents I rate lower than Bush off the top of my head are Buchanan (F), Harrison (inc.), and Garfield (inc.).</p>
<p>TheMom and I were talking just last night…there’s no other place we wish D had gone to college and we think think Smith helped her blossom in so many ways that wouldn’t have necessarily happened with a different environment. For a student, who occupies the president’s house is usually small potatoes.</p>
<p>@felicitywut and inhabitedworld, I wouldn’t worry too much. It’s highly unlikely you’ll fall into the “5% for whom need factors into their decision” category. And Smith does meet 100% of your documented need, but as inhabited_world noted it, THEY calculate what your need is, using the Profile, FAFSA, and then deducing from their own institutional formula, which is pretty much the standard way colleges like Smith evaluate need for aid purposes. Anyway, it isn’t worth getting anxious about because you have zero control over the situation until you get your letters. You just have to try to relax, and wait.</p>
<p>Just two words - Larry Summers - and I’m pretty positive no one turned down Harvard admissions during his tenure:) Ironically a lot of students liked him despite the fact he was a terrible administrator.</p>
<p>What are your issues with the administration? When “The Dad” describes the head of school as a “morally bankrupt weasel”; I’m just curious as to the issues involved. I didn’t mean to imply that one shouldn’t chose a school because of its President. But it’s a little frustrating to hear about issues and not have a clue as to the specifics with regards to Smith. No school is perfect, we all understand that, and with that in mind, it is helpful to know what ongoing issues there might be, at any school one is considering. And how these issues impact the day-to-day lives of the students.</p>
<p>Well, I happen to think she’s terrific, an excellent administrator. The previous president, much beloved, put huge new building projects and initiatives on the boards, with absolutely no way to pay for them. She simply didn’t do the work necessary to pay for them - alumnnae relations, foundation work, etc. Christ turned that totally around. She was also able to follow through on the new admissions policy that made it possible for many, many more low-income students to attend, revitalized the sciences, and kept losses to an endowment to far less than that experienced by Williams, Amherst, Princeton, Harvard, Yale. She substantially improved town-gown relations. Oh, and did I mention the effectiveness of the revamped advising system in getting Smith to be first in the country in Fulbrights, and first in sustaining year-long study abroad programs?</p>
<p>Are there things I don’t agree with? You bet. But I think she we go down in history as one of Smith’s greatest presidents.</p>
<p>More like Tyler than Jefferson, imho. And Mussolini made the trains run on time.</p>
<p>jg, when I said don’t worry about it, I meant it. Just if you shake hands with her, count your fingers afterwards. She knows what she wants, she knows what she’s doing, and she’s not always terribly honest in any sense of the word. She’s very good at giving answers to questions that fall into the literally-true-but-actually-a-lie-in-that-they’re-misleading kind of way.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with mini, I would say she’s not beloved, but she gets the job done. Does she know how to maneuver? Sure. But that’s part of what being a college president is, maneuvering between different interests groups -students, parents, alums, alum parents, trustees, etc. It’s a very political game, and one where it probably serves you to keep people at a distance, even if it doesn’t engender affection. </p>
<p>Again, at a time when most colleges are foundering, I find that Christ is keeping the little ship of Smith on a more or less even keel. I definitely think there’s some discontent, especially among professors, but I also think that no one is happy when their budgets get cut or they have to take on more classes so that the finances of the school can be protected. I don’t blame some profs from being upset. And as for students, they rarely know how to properly direct their frustration with the latest cause celebre so they usually lob it at Christ, even if she had nothing to do with it or can do nothing about it. It’s a tough job. I’m not a huge fan, but I think comparing her to Mussolini or Tyler is going a little into the range of hyperbole.</p>
<p>I got in with a STRIDE today!!!</p>
<p>Congrats! How did you find out, Rocket?!</p>