<p>Speaking of CalTech, I was just recently touring CalTech with my son and was struck by two Smithicisms at that otherwise un-Smith-like college: First, like Smith, they refer to their student residences as "houses," not dorms (our tour guide compared the housing assignment process at CalTech to the sorting-hat business in Harry Potter), and second, they also boast of an undefeated football team -- for the same reason Smith does. And, third, it sounds as though CalTech students work even longer hours than certain Smithies do.</p>
<p>I was expecting drab engineering buildings and was impressed instead by the beauty and intimacy of the campus.</p>
<p>But this is entirely OT. </p>
<p>More on T: Is there any reason why your daughter chose to go to Smith instead of the big math schools out in California, namely Stanford, CalTech, Berkeley, and Harvey Mudd? (I guess I know the answer already -- it had to do with dance, right? As well as not wanting to restrict herself to math and sciences [as would have been the case at CalTech and to a lesser extent Harvey Mudd]? And wanting to test her wings somewhere farther from home?).</p>
<p>Pesto, it's funny, but though my D is a Math major, she's not a typical "Math geek" by any means and I think she wanted an opportunity for a strong non-Math double major, whether Government, Classics, English, or whatever.</p>
<p>Plus CalTech would have violated my "no school within 200 miles of home" rule by about 175 miles.</p>
<p>Also, I don't think she would have gotten into CalTech. A case of not looking at her but looking at the competition.</p>
<p>As for sleep, talked to D last night...boy, is she cranky. She's cutting back her EC's when she comes back on campus for senior year. All the rehearsals, meetings, etc., have played havoc.</p>
<p>Why did you have a "no school within 200 miles" rule, TheDad?]]</p>
<p>Probably for the same reason my mother the shrink did. (A shrink for a parent, in some peoples eyes, explains a great deal when certain adjectives are used to describe me :)</p>
<p>Part of college is learning to function independently. Being able to run home every weekend to do your laundry, see old friends from h/s or boy/girlfriend, mooch off mom and dad, and, or, get spoiled isnt part of most parents college plan for their kidos</p>
<p>I certainly understand the spirit of the "no school within 200 miles" rule: to get kids out of their comfort zone and into a different culture from the one they grew up in. And I have found that both my kids pretty much eliminated every college within 25 miles of Boston on their own because those schools are just too familiar (we live outside of Boston). Northampton, however, is a very reasonable distance -- at just under two hours from home. Far enough and different enough to allow independence and growth, but close enough to facilitate medical appointments and interviews for summer jobs and the like when necessary. In fact, my daughter tends to generate reasons to go back to Smith early from vacations, she likes being there so much, and coming home just to do laundry and the like has never happened. </p>
<p>Being within two hours of home was just about right for her. Child #2 will very likely be following TheDad's rule of thumb, however, and that will be the right thing for him.</p>
<p>^^^^ So I live 125 miles away from home. Don't even have a car :P even if I did, I wouldn't go home just to do the above "spoiled, dependent kid" stuff unless my parents insisted that I visit for dinner and spend the night (as my mother is for this Saturday night when all I want to do was to PICK UP a car...) LOL</p>
<p>My grandpa had an opposite idea- kids and grandkids must stay within the "Golden Triangle" between Chicago to DC to Boston. Somehow I managed to stay within that... even my brother will too...</p>
<p>Somehow I managed to stay within that... even my brother will too...]]</p>
<p>Wasn't one of the reasons you transferred was so you only would be 2 or 3 hrs away from home? I know you complained Smith was too far to drive round trip in a day as one of your reason for transferring</p>
<p>"Part of college is learning to function independently. Being able to run home every weekend to do your laundry, see old friends from h/s or boy/girlfriend, mooch off mom and dad, and, or, get spoiled isnt part of most parents college plan for their kidos"</p>
<p>Roadlesstravelled - I understand what you are saying by the above, but just cause a kid isnt hours and hours away doesnt mean they will "run home" every weekend. My older S's school of choice was an hour away, and believe me he was independent. I DO think that he needed on some level to be physically close to home (in the back of his mind he needed that reassurance) but every kid is different. Now that he is graduating, more mature, he is off to the other coast without a qualm.</p>
<p>I should have put a big smiley face after my post. I meant it tongue-in-cheek. If you noticed, I didnt say it was <em>my</em> reason to go over 200 miles but probably TDs and certainly my mothers. My own wife was only 1 hr. away from Smith and never went home--my cousin, the same.</p>
<p>If my daughter had wanted to stay within an hr. or two from home, Id have been thrilled. I would love the opportunity to go out to lunch with the kid on a regular basis. Now whether she would feel the same is another isuue. :)</p>
<p>Plum, part of my view of parenting for years 0-18 is a developmental and mentoring process to inculcate independence, etc. Going away to college is one form of the graduation exercise, a throwing into the deep end of a still-pretty-safe pool, though the world is starting to play with live ammunition in terms of actions and consequences.</p>
<p>Of course, my D had another line of reasoning: "Dad, I really want to go to college in New England. I want to experience a part of the country with a different history, different culture, different traditions. I don't want it to be like medieval times when you're born, grow up, get married, have children, and die all in the same small village." This when she was in 9th grade. I looked around at Los Angeles County with new eyes, never having seen before how much it resembled Anatevka.</p>
<p>On a more pragmatic level, I think it's better if the laundry doesn't come home and if the 'rents don't unexpectedly walk in on offspring engaged with their significant other.</p>
<p>You want answers? I got answers in all flavors, just pick.</p>
<p>RLT- Believe it or not, I looked into California for schools! I seriously considered UCSB (crazy, huh?) and applied to Stanford. I also wanted to apply to UMiami but after hearing my cousiin (alum)'s story about toting football players around the campus, I crossed THAT off the list. My guidance counselor really wanted to apply to schools in-state- I had a huge battle with her over it. </p>
<p>What I've realized is, and have told my brother this (who wants to stay in NE but be "far away" from our parents) that there are two definitions of "being far away."<br>
1) Travel distance- how easy is it to get home? If it's more than 5 hours in a car and the nearest airport (45 min) requires you to pay $300 and make a connection flight through Philly, now that's a long ride home. In a sense, Middlebury is pretty "far away" because it's tough to get there without paying hundreds of dollars and traveling hours between school and home. On the other hand, if I wanted "to be close" to home for my freshman year, I'd be better off at AU where I could just hop on a plane without a hassle. Same thing for from NY to CA though the total traveling time is longer but easier to get home than struggling to find rides from people who isn't going towards NYC direction.</p>
<p>2) Actual distance. From... the parents... in a PHYSICAL sense. That's what I focused so much on.</p>
<p>So I told my brother if he really wanted to make traveling to his school for my parents HARD to visit, then he needs to look in rural schools and avoid Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, and DC. That's if he wants to stay in the Northeast in a sense of "being closer" to home. Those areas obviously have airports and easy access to ground transportation.</p>
<p>Understand now? It's one of the lessons I wished I had learned while looking at schools... it was the last thing we ever thought about. I loved it in DC last summer- I'm <em>far away</em> from my parents but there's the Dulles if I need a quick trip. I told them not to bother coming down this summer :)</p>
<p>(thanks for the PM- better than I went to Smith for the weekend than stay here for the SPW :P)</p>
<p>Believe it or not, I looked into California for schools!seriously considered UCSB (crazy, huh?}]</p>
<p>Not at all. I love the college. My cousin graduated from UCSB and I used to go up there to find grad students to date. There were no bright women on the beach where I lived.:)</p>
<p>Same thing for from NY to CA though the total traveling]]</p>
<p>The trip is much more difficult than you might imagine. The SF airport is a pain, and there are no direct flights. You spend hrs in airports. I understand your points though :)</p>
<p>Midd to your parents isn't bad at all. It's only a one six pack drive ;) fiwi. It's a beautiful drive, as is the drive back from Dartmouth.</p>
<p>"THE MOVE TO COEDUCATION was motivated by politics and finances, not by what is educationally and developmentally optimal for women. Since that time, however, we have been learning about the continuing benefits to women of women's colleges."</p>
<p>This is a great site for those interested, thanks. Here's a great article I found which corresponds well to what Smith, in particular, tries to do with women in sciences, as well as with their efforts to admit more minorities to the college. I mention Smith in particular for two reasons </p>
<ol>
<li> This is the Smith thread, and I am biased towards the college <em>LOL</em></li>
<li> I believe that Smith has dropped in the US News rankings because of this<br>
concerted effort. Unfortunate, that other women's colleges haven't put their money where their mouths are. Also, I can't think of any other women's college that has put so much emphasis on women in sciences and engineering as Smith has; to their credit.</li>
</ol>
<p>we have been learning about the continuing benefits to women of women's colleges</p>
<br>
<p>I guess I should expect this from a coalition of women's colleges, but it is really tiresome to hear those who purport to promote women's interests speak about young women as though we were a monolith. Isn't it possible that coeducation is actually educationally and developmentally optimal for some women? Can't we imagine that an environment beneficial to some is detrimental to others?</p>
<p>From the site:</p>
<p>"THE MOVE TO COEDUCATION was motivated by politics and finances, not by what is educationally and developmentally optimal for women."</p>
<p>Is this supposed to imply that the decision to remain single-sex is not equally motivated by politics? That's certainly not what I was taught at Bryn Mawr. Feminists there would say quite proudly that the very concept of doing what is educationally best for women is a political one. The personal cannot be separated from the political.</p>
<p>"At women's colleges, students focus on their academic and personal growth and development.*"</p>
<p>In contrast to coed colleges, where students focus on getting laid and drinking beer? If that's not the implication, what is?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't it possible that coeducation is actually educationally and developmentally optimal for some women? Can't we imagine that an environment beneficial to some is detrimental to others?
[/quote]
Absolutely correct!! No argument! This is not a thread started as a put down of coed colleges, and your assertions that coed colleges are right for some women is correct. This is simply an argument for women who wish to still have a decision as to what is the best education is "for them." I have said as the OP, that all- women's schools are not for every woman, and that "fit" is the most important factor in deciding which college to choose. The advantages that all-women's colleges have to offer are numerous to some, and not enough for others. No one can argue, I don't think, that woman historically have been treated as second class citizens to men educationally, particularly in the areas of science and math. All-women's schools have been at the forefront of these areas of weakness, and coed school followed suit. That's a fact!
[quote]
In contrast to coed colleges, where students focus on getting laid and drinking beer? If that's not the implication, what is?
[/quote]
Certainly not MY implications, and I take offense to your accusation!
[quote]
boys do have cooties, you know
[/quote]
I was wondering why my head itches. Off to get some Quell!</p>
<p>For me, I am likely transferring out of Smith to a coed school -I've never been shy and don't think boys in the classroom hinder my academic learning at all. However, I learned stuff a Smith more related to out-of-school life that I don't think I would have learned at a coed school, and for that I'm grateful. Like I really had not been that exposed to nouveau feminist thought, or to the concept of heteronormative. Now people can laugh about how overused and trendy that last word is, but I'd say they're ignorant. I had a friend be sexually assaulted last year, and I got to learn first hand how regressive our laws are with respect to protecting victims. I also learned some frightening statistics about how common certain violent crimes are in our country, very frightening considering the govt doesn't seem to think it is a big issue. Smith helped me think a lot about what it's supposed to mean to be a woman in our society (as in the gender), and also to think a lot about how the way I was raised did and didn't encourage me to be independent. A lot of gender issues are so subtle and untalked about in our culture, that people mistakenly believe there aren't problems anymore. And yeah, at Smith you will likely hear plenty of talk about politics of sexuality. I know students who transferred b/c they were not totally comfortable with the open sexuality aspect of Smith (true for gays and straights), but I think politics of sexuality is a really important issue that is taboo in our culture and not talked about enough, especially to young girls/women. Probably there would be less dialogue at most coed schools. I plan on putting the knowledge I've gained into use where I go, by starting a chapter of an organization (WYSE) that aims to educate middle school girls from underpriviliged backgrounds on sex ed and making good, independent choices for themselves.</p>
<p>First of all, I'm so sorry to hear about your friend. Hope all is well.
[quote]
I've never been shy
[/quote]
I haven't met many Smithies that are!! ;)
[quote]
Probably there would be less dialogue at most coed schools. I plan on putting the knowledge I've gained into use where I go, by starting a chapter of an organization (WYSE) that aims to educate middle school girls from underpriviliged backgrounds on sex ed and making good, independent choices for themselves.
[/quote]
How admirable! I specialize in middle level education, and have spent numerous years in a very urban, underpriviliged school system as a teacher and Principal. I wish you well on your transfer, and your aspirations. Certainly, based on your dialoque, you have learned much from being in an all-women's environment. Take those valuable lessons with you wherever you go and spread the word, as these are life lessons that many women do not get to understand. You're correct about the less dialoque in coed schools as well, although many others would refute that fact. Tough to refute when you haven't walked in your proverbial shoes, now, isn't it?</p>