<p>To other readers:</p>
<p>I agree with Findad that this thread started going to a bad direction. In any event, and for whatever it is worth in an anonymous thread, I stand by what I wrote.</p>
<p>Just for public clarification, my major dissatisfaction with Williams can be summarized in two issues:</p>
<p>(1). The academic environment, which is more harsh than it needs to be, and much less supportive than expected for a top LAC. Although it is true that there are very supportive faculty at Williams, who equate top-school = nurturing environment, it is also true that quite a few faculty and admins seem to be proud of the harsh environment there and who equate top-school = academic boot camp environment.</p>
<p>(2). Williams pays a lot of attention to anti-discrimination laws and practices, and this is laudable. However, as an institution of higher education, Williams has to pay attention to all applicable laws. In my experience, Williams does not have a mechanism so that faculty/personnel in steering positions are fully informed about those laws. This may be understandable because they are not all lawyers and one cannot expect people to be informed of all laws all the time. However, what is <em>not</em> understandable is when someones clearly points to a regulation and provides references to it in writing, and still Williams does not have an efficient mechanism to consider this new information to make and review decisions. </p>
<p>Signing off of this thread,</p>
<p>ARobot</p>
<p>Ps: Regarding item (2), It appears to me (and this is my personal experience, I admit) that Williams seems to be unwilling to consider cogent arguments when they would lead to a decision that breaks with the established way of doing things, i.e., flexing item (1). Maybe I am getting to much inspiration from my screen name and Asimov’s Three Laws: in other words (with the exception of anti-discrimination), the Second Law of Williams has a clause to avert conflict with the First Law of Williams.</p>