it's difficult to comment, as every conclusion i could possibly draw
about williams would be based on a very small sample group. a sample
group of one.

what i can say is that my impression of harvard is that rather than
rewarding smartness per se it more effectively rewards leadership and
drive. harvard kids are always involved in something, always inventing
things to be in charge of. there was very little in the way of what i
like to think of as real intellectual development. harvardies don't
want to challenge themselves, because they might not be able to

maybe i've said this before, so stop reading if you're bored. but the
cool thing for harvardies to complain about, as far as i can tell, is
their thesis. oh, the thesis. it's so hard, writing a thesis! boo hoo
hoo. it's even harder if you are also president of the hasty pudding.
sigh. it's difficult, being so important.

by contrast, at columbia the cool thing for us to complain about was
how many classes we were taking. oh, i am so stressed out! i am taking
lit hum and logic and rhetoric and taoism and orgo and german! plus
orchestra and gym! that's TWENTY CREDITS! oh, plus i'm working at the
spec, but that's no big deal. i didn't know a single person who only
took the minimum required number of courses each semester. the only
semester that i did it, second semester senior year, i felt like a
total slacker. i am tempted to read this disparity as a meaningful
commentary on student culture - ours was a culture of personal

as for fitting in, well, plenty of kids don't fit in at harvard. at
columbia there is no fitting in - there is going out. at williams?
sounds like williams was a more intellectual place overall. but i
don't know. we still haven't addressed the smartness issue.

what do you think?