Interesting window into late 19th century women's college life, but I was surprised by how contemporary so many of the issues were. Others have made the comment that this book is "Mean Girls" in the Victorian period, and that does certainly apply - many of the college or school novel tropes are present here (class differences, bullying, malicious gossip and pranks, diverse background experiences, queen bees vs. nerds vs. jealous rivals, and even girl crushes and fan adoration), giving rise to the adage that "the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I thought the character development was interesting and there was little surprise really about how things would end up for most of the characters. What I found surprising was that, although the setting was supposed to be England, there were many aspects that made me think of the American 19th/early 20th century college novels I've read over the years, so I had to keep reminding myself this was a British college setting. I also found it surprising how much freedom from adult supervision the young women had. That is a difference with American versions of these novels: there are much stricter controls and supervision by patrons and house mothers in American novels of the same period.
The social mobility elements were clearly in place: it was clear Priscilla would only be " allowed" to go so far, even though she did move up the social scale. In keeping with Victorian social mores, the newly (crass) rich daughter (Polly) would not have the same opportunities for fitting in that old-monied (even if orphaned) Maggie (queen bee) would have. It's no surprise that only Maggie has any kind of romance in this story. And the truly deceitful Rosalind gets her just comeuppance, as would be expected in any good Victorian novel. It's quite interesting and pleasantly surprising, however, that the loyalties and friendships exist as they do.
I both liked and disliked the character of Priscilla. There was a kind of obverse pride she took in being quite outspoken about her impoverished situation, and made a point several times of not trying to fit in. It was a trait that Meade gave her that was both commendable and off-putting. At one point in the novel, I felt like the story stopped being Priscilla's story and mire Maggie's - with Priscilla the vehicle for helping Maggie get her satisfactory ending. In spite of being a bit annoyed at Maggie's drama, I found myself appreciating her character even more than Priscilla's. Maggie was a truly complex character.
I was much more intrigued by this novel than I thought I would be, and it's made me eager to read more by Meade. Long criticized and underrated by scholars and reviewers (both at the time and now) because of her prolific output (300 plus novels), her subject matter (adolescent girl novels and mysteries mostly), and her "for profit" writing career (she supported her family through her writing), she is only now coming to be more seriously studied (as the field of 19th/early 20th century Girls' Literature gains momentum and respectability). She was an active feminist at a time when women's suffrage and protests against the "angel in the house" concept of women were becoming quite public in England, and her books should be looked at for how those ideas made their way into the stories she wrote for girls.