Actually no, I have no problem with diversity -- I am in favor of it. However, I don't think it is appropriate for a school to actively recruit students from abroad to either boost their coffers, their entrance exam scores overall, or their number of applications.

Given that some of us did not even know what a dental dam is prior to this discussion, I hardly see how you can now criticize me for finding it a bit odd that they are being pushed on the students so heavily.

I think the school is declining overall. My conclusion is based on: Declining entrance examination scores and GPAs; an overwhelming acceptance rate; a huge effort to recruit more applications abroad, and the opinions of two professors that love the school, have been there for decades, are extremely progressive, and have no motive for saying what they did other than that they truly believe it, after seeing it up close and personal for many years.

If you have any interest in having any credibility when you set out to debate points made by someone else, I suggest that you be intellectually honest in your disagreement, rather than try to distort the arguments made by another in an attempt to make them look silly.

I find it very ironic that as you search for schools that will provide your child with a vibrant education full of diverse people with different opinions, you would try to belittle my opinions the way you have.

Sorry, to the rest of you. I think we're almost done. Starting a "Smith decline" thread doesn't seem like a really attractive option. And posting information here for people who are looking for "secret schools" may be useful to some who want insiders' perspectives -- the good and the bad -- about this particular "secret school."

Anonymous wrote:

Lamont was the lesbian house 25 years ago? Really? Interesting. It wasn't when I got there.

We get it:
you think Smith allows too many foreigners in
you don't like that they give out dental dams to promote safe sex
you think the school is declining overall
your assumptions are backed-up by two professors that love Obama

Can we move on now?
Take these issues up with your alumnae association and let this die now.

Sorry. I had a fragment sentence in there. I meant to say, "You can disagree, but trying to insinuate that they would say that Smith has declined in the past 20 years because they have an ax to grind with Smith is disingenuous."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I just say that this thread has reached 8 pages and nobody's trashed anybody else's school yet (I think -- I skimmed some pages)? Plus somebody's posted some actually helpful links on college admissions on another thread on this forum, instead of making it up and posting it as gospel. I'm amazed!

I'm hoping that all those horrid people who talk about colleges on the private school forum don't find this new college forum. Way to go, friends!

Let me echo the sentiment of this poster, and suggest that the posters squabbling about Smith please take the fight elsewhere and not pollute this very useful communication.

Actually, you're quoting my post about the 8 pages where nobody's trashing anybody else's school!

I'm sorry this other post is disillusioned, but I'm concerned that she's spreading some exaggerations. There may be a nugget of truth, but show me the college faculty that doesn't have its full measure of discontents. (And ouch, now the rest of Smith's faculty can read here what her faculty friends have been telling her confidentially?)

I wasn't in Sessions, I was in Lamont. I've been back within the last five years and didn't see what she saw, and in particular I didn't see any dental dams. Maybe I wasn't looking for them, but still.... Also, the NY Times article about recruiting in the Middle East just reflects what a lot of Ivies are already doing. You can read about it in Daniel Goldin's Price of Admission -- a lot of schools are upping their diversity statistics by recruiting rich Middle Easterners who can pay full freight. Pretty cynical, I admit, and I can understand why nobody mentions it in the NY Times article. I still don't get, and it doesn't say anywhere in the NY Times article you linked to, how recruiting 20-30 women who speak Arabic as a first language, among an entry class of 700-so women, would boost Smith's reading and essay SAT scores.

The whole thing just doesn't hold together. So yes, let's end this discussion.

Lamont was the lesbian house 25 years ago? Really? Interesting. It wasn't when I got there. The most well known lesbian house has always been Sessions. I did see something that made me think that perhaps Lamont had become a bit that way also, in recent years, but I didn't see it then.

There certainly may be some faculty discontents at Smith, but Z & R are not amongst them. They love Smith. They agreed with most of what Reverend Wright said. They had a huge Barack Obama sign in front of their house and campaigned for him in Vermont. They love Sessions house, and all that it is about. They hardly have an agenda against Smith. But they're realists. You can disagree, but trying to insinuate that they would say that Smith has experienced an academic decline in the past 20 years because they have an ax to grind with Smith.

An admissions rate of over 40% is not good at all, particularly in light of the fact that they have been putting such an effort into recruiting more applicants from abroad. Their rankings have fallen. You may not like my explanation for these facts. Fine. Let's hear yours. Or not.

The dental dams were posted in a very large manilla envelope in Washburn House. Which is a dump that they haven't bothered to renovate in 20+ years. That's where they put the alum they sought donations from. Not very smart.

Sorry. But I don't really see us as "squabbling". We're debating the merits of Smith College and, as someone who seems to value education, I don't see why you've now become such a fan of censorship. Neither of us have to rude to the other, and I do want to know if my fellow Smithie knew the House Fellows I'm talking about. So, should she decide to respond to me, you're going to have to find a way to handle it. And, should I decide to continue the discussion, you'll have to deal with that too. I fail to see how this conversation is hindering you from finding good schools that could be considered "secrets". Which reminds me. No one mentioned Carelton College in Minnesota. Very, very good from what I hear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I just say that this thread has reached 8 pages and nobody's trashed anybody else's school yet (I think -- I skimmed some pages)? Plus somebody's posted some actually helpful links on college admissions on another thread on this forum, instead of making it up and posting it as gospel. I'm amazed!

I'm hoping that all those horrid people who talk about colleges on the private school forum don't find this new college forum. Way to go, friends!

Let me echo the sentiment of this poster, and suggest that the posters squabbling about Smith please take the fight elsewhere and not pollute this very useful communication.

Actually, you're quoting my post about the 8 pages where nobody's trashing anybody else's school!

I'm sorry this other post is disillusioned, but I'm concerned that she's spreading some exaggerations. There may be a nugget of truth, but show me the college faculty that doesn't have its full measure of discontents. (And ouch, now the rest of Smith's faculty can read here what her faculty friends have been telling her confidentially?)

I wasn't in Sessions, I was in Lamont. I've been back within the last five years and didn't see what she saw, and in particular I didn't see any dental dams. Maybe I wasn't looking for them, but still.... Also, the NY Times article about recruiting in the Middle East just reflects what a lot of Ivies are already doing. You can read about it in Daniel Goldin's Price of Admission -- a lot of schools are upping their diversity statistics by recruiting rich Middle Easterners who can pay full freight. Pretty cynical, I admit, and I can understand why nobody mentions it in the NY Times article. I still don't get, and it doesn't say anywhere in the NY Times article you linked to, how recruiting 20-30 women who speak Arabic as a first language, among an entry class of 700-so women, would boost Smith's reading and essay SAT scores.

The whole thing just doesn't hold together. So yes, let's end this discussion.

Anonymous wrote:Can I just say that this thread has reached 8 pages and nobody's trashed anybody else's school yet (I think -- I skimmed some pages)? Plus somebody's posted some actually helpful links on college admissions on another thread on this forum, instead of making it up and posting it as gospel. I'm amazed!

I'm hoping that all those horrid people who talk about colleges on the private school forum don't find this new college forum. Way to go, friends!

Let me echo the sentiment of this poster, and suggest that the posters squabbling about Smith please take the fight elsewhere and not pollute this very useful communication.

We were both in Sessions. The professors I am close with had been House Fellows at Sessions for years before I got there and remain House Fellows at Sessions to this day. Zjemi and Robin? Do you remember them? Robin in the one who voiced this opinion. Hardly conservative . . . I mean, if you do know them, and you should, there's really not much left for us to discuss.

As for the transgenders -- they marched in my Ivy Day Parade. Now, perhaps this would not bother you, but it bothered me. And I don't have anything against transgenders, either. But why the agenda? Why do they want to mess with Smith, and why is Smith refusing to say no? One of the things I always loved most about Smith was that, by golly, they were determined to remain a women's college. But hey, if it's the politically correct thing to do, let a woman who's had a sex change operation march in the Ivy Day Parade. Let a man who's in the process of becoming a woman into the school. Let him room with your daughter, because he won't be rooming with mine. I mean, it's just a logical fallacy -- transgenders at a single sex school.

And you misread my biggest concern: it's not with the number of lesbians, nor with how vocal they may be. It's that the academic standards have deteriorated and the admissions scores are abysmal and all that seems to be left to being at Smith is being a lesbian. I don't think one should let their sexuality define them in such a prominent manner; I don't think dental dams should be distributed more often than reading material, and that's the impression I had last year. And to me it's sad that this is all that seems to remain of what was once was such a good school. A school which was a really good place for me socially and intellectually. A school I once said I would want my daughter to go to.

Anonymous wrote:Look, we both went to Smith. I too lived in Sessions. I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about this.

Looks like you just did ... for three more paragraphs.

I'm not arguing with you and I really don't have a lot of interest in knowing what you discuss with the select few professors you call your friends. Did you read Jill Ker Conway's book about the big divisions among traditional versus progressive professors on campus? And yes I saw that NYTimes piece before you linked to it. But how many transgender students are really applying? Five, max?

Heck, where there's smoke there's usually some fire. And I don't dispute that there are a lot of vocal lesbians on campus. But not necessarily a forest fire -- like you make it out to be.

So I just think you're overstating the case. A lot.

Look, we both went to Smith. I too lived in Sessions. I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about this. Take it up with the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/education/03sisters.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I don't know when you were last at Smith. For me it was a year ago. I don't know if you keep in touch with faculty at Smith. I keep in touch with two of them, very closely. And they are also of the opinion that Smith has declined since our days. The professor I am close with came right out and said that they are vigorously recruiting outside the US to bring up their average entrance scores.

What left are not-too-bright women, many of whom want to be there because it is a great place to be gay. So yes, the smart lesbians are at Harvard. It's just that, for the lesbians at Harvard, being a lesbian defines them much less than it does at Smith.

Look, I have no reason to want to trash my alma mater. I'd love to still see it in the top 10 of liberal arts schools. I'd love for it to still have the reputation as an Ivy League School for women. It used to. It doesn't anymore. Don't blame the messenger.