All Guy/Girl School Yay or Nay

College Search & Selection
61

<p>
[quote]

My god, I don't know if I could stand that. Four years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually it's only two years.</p>

62

<p>Interesting stats pertaining to this thread
in that, there were 15,362 applicants to
the below referenced womens colleges in 2003.
Allow me to suggest that Bryn Mawr, Smith,
Wellesley, Mt Holyoke and Barnard would be the
most difficult institutions to get into if only 7%
of the female students taking the SATs were
interested in attending an all womens college.</p>

63

<p>For what it's worth (which is probably little), of the 83 women in the 109th Congress:</p>

<p>of the 14 Senators, 3 went to women's colleges (Randolph-Macon, Mt. St. Agnes, and Wellesley).</p>

<p>of the 69 Congresswomen, roughly a quarter graduated from women's colleges (Mt. Holyoke, Smith (2), Marymount, Mills, Radcliffe, Agnes Scott, St. Catherines, St. Mary's). They are found in all parts of the country, from California to Kentucky to Florida to Wisconsin to Connecticut, and in both political parties.</p>

<p>None (I'm pretty sure, but not 100% positive) graduated from an Ivy (the closest is Nancy Johnson from Radcliffe).</p>

<p>3 went to colleges that had until the 1960s been all male: 2 to Georgetown, 1 to Colorado College.</p>

<p>None attended Williams, Amherst, Haverford, Dartmouth, or any of the previously all-male schools in the northeast. In fact, there were more college dropouts, or those who never attended college, among the female Congresswomen and Senators than those who attended co-ed prestigious colleges in the northeast, whether they had previously been all-male or not. I expect that someday they might catch up.</p>

<p>Why this is I don't know. Most of the women in these categories are of an age where they could have attended the formely all-male schools now gone coed. Do I chalk it up to the school? Don't know. Numbers would suggest it is far greater than random chance.</p>

<p>And should one care? Only to the extent that one might pay more attention to who comes out of a college rather than who goes in.</p>

64

<p>And this, I suppose, is the basis for your assertion that "women's colleges don't have to make the case that the education they offer is better. I think the others have to make the case that - for women - the education they offer is as good" ?</p>

<p>If it isn't based on this, then what is it based on?</p>

65

<p>My recollection is that schools went coed in like 1970-1971 vicinity. My guess is that many of these women attended either slightly before the coeducation wave or shortly after. The full impact of the coeducation change probably took a few years to be fully reflected in quality of the applicant pool. The first several years some women probably had some reservations about the integration process and their proportional representations at the formerly male schools.</p>

<p>Smith and Bryn Mawr were more selective on both an absolute and relative basis in 1972 than they were in 2003 (when I looked at this). Wellesley was about the same % admit, but that it made it worse relative to other colleges than it was in 1972, since overall selectivity of colleges in general increased over these two time periods. Barnard has become more selective I recall, following the trend of all the other NYC schools.</p>

<p>So the question is will you see this same relative success rate for these schools in future generations, and I for one don't think so. I think coeducation partly did them in. </p>

<p>Only partly, though. They are still fine schools, but they have more competition for the brightest students than they did in 1965. That's my guess.</p>

66

<p>"And this, I suppose, is the basis for your assertion that "women's colleges don't have to make the case that the education they offer is better. I think the others have to make the case that - for women - the education they offer is as good" ?</p>

<p>If it isn't based on this, then what is it based on?"</p>

<p>As previous noted, OUTCOMES. Aren't you surprised (or at least interested) in the fact that there isn't (from what I can tell) a SINGLE female Senator or Congresswoman from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Williams, Amherst, Haverford, Pomona, or even their old female counterparts - Vassar, Pembroke, Barnard (still exists, but degree is from Columbia). And exactly one from Radcliffe? I would think it at least curious. And one finds the same thing in looking at female authors, playwrights, Fortune 500 executives, scientists, and the non-profit sector. I assume this WILL change over time, they WILL catch up, but for whatever reason, thus far they don't seem to have. Or so is my limited impression. </p>

<p>"My recollection is that schools went coed in like 1970-1971 vicinity. My guess is that many of these women attended either slightly before the coeducation wave or shortly after. "</p>

<p>I looked at that briefly in the Congresspeople summary, and for the most part, it isn't the case (most graduated mid to late 70s; the Senators are older (average age 59), but not a single one of them went to the female counterparts to all-male colleges that later went co-ed (or absorbed the female college), except for Murkowski, who went to Georgetown for a second B.A., but who is much younger than the rest of them. So the explanation doesn't hold real well.</p>

<p>And, no, the Williams applicant pool, for example, was extremely selective for women from day one (and I think you'd find the same at Yale.) I presume they were always more selective than Mt. St. Agnes, St. Mary's, Marymount, Mills, and St. Catherine's.</p>

<p>Anyhow, having written all of that, I wouldn't want to make too much of it. Superstars at any school - first-tier or third-tier - will do well. The better question is the quality of the educational experience for the average student attending, and what they got out of it as a result.</p>

67

<p>If OUTCOMES are so important, then why isn't it worrisome for your argument that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are presently about eight times as effective at placing female students at Yale Law School (and equivalent institutions) as the best women's colleges? There's no question that women's colleges USED to attract and train the very best female students. The question is, what are they doing today? If your only evidence is where 25% of Congresswomen went 30 or more years ago -- which data is pretty ambiguous anyway, since you haven't provided any numbers about the overall proportion of women's college grads among grads of private colleges in that era -- then you haven't provided much support for your argument that the onus is on co-ed schools to prove their worth.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>If that's what "one finds," then one isn't looking very hard. What about the list of achievers I mentioned a few posts ago, like Maya Lin (Yale), Elizabeth Dole (Duke), Erica Jong (Harvard), Pamela Thomas-Graham (Harvard), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Cornell), Sandra Day O'Connor (Stanford), Janet Reno (Cornell), Mara Liasson (Brown), Benazir Bhutto (Harvard), Naomi Wolf (Yale), Adrienne Rich (Harvard), Ann Coulter (Cornell), Lois Lowry (Brown, Newbery-award-winning author), Nadine Strosser (Harvard, president of the ACLU), Anne-Marie Slaughter (Princeton, now dean of the Wilson School), Kathleen Sullivan (Cornell, Dean of Stanford Law), Myra Hart (Cornell, founder of Staples), Meg Whitman (Princeton, CEO of eBay), Barbara McClintock (Cornell, Nobel in Medicine) just to name a few?</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>This is a straw man. You can't assume that a class of 1970 student who'd have chosen Columbia if it were co-ed would necessarily choose to go to Barnard. Many, if they preferred a co-ed environment, would choose a historically co-ed school like Chicago.</p>

68

<p>heck no...i couldnt live without girls.</p>

69

<p>">not a single one of them went to the female counterparts to all-male colleges that later went co-ed </p>

<p>"This is a straw man. You can't assume that a class of 1970 student who'd have chosen Columbia if it were co-ed would necessarily choose to go to Barnard. Many, if they preferred a co-ed environment, would choose a historically co-ed school like Chicago."</p>

<p>Aren't any female Congresswomen or Senators from UChicago either. (or Swarthmore either, but that's totally beside the point.) I think you're floundering. (But, just so I can use it, can you name me one from Williams, my alma mater, or Amherst, or Haverford? I mean I read the alumni review every quarter....)</p>

<p>No one, and certainly not I, would argue that terrific women haven't come out of all the leading schools in the country. Only that the overrepresentation of women from the women's colleges is worth noting.</p>

<p>But I will - anecdotally - take up your argument. Why does Smith today (with all those low SAT scores!) or Wellesley (with higher ones) have more Fulbrights than Yale or Harvard (with double the student population) or AWH (Haverford) combined? (If you want, separate out for the females only, and it becomes even more striking.) Hey, I know why. I really do. They push 'em. HARD. The students are economically poorer, not as used to reaching for such options, and so the schools make a point of providing the intense advising necessary to get the students out there. No secret about that. And they do it, apparently, with much selectivity among students coming in.</p>

<p>I don't quite know why you think I believe women get a better education at all women's schools. (Because I don't). Only that they have a track record of achievement, continuing to the present, for which they have to make no apologies.</p>

70

<br>


<br>

<p>Huh? Last year, Smith, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, and Mt. Holyoke COMBINED for 20 Fulbrights, while Yale by itself had 24, despite graduating fewer students than SWBM, and Smith trumpeted 2004 as by far the best year for Fulbrights in its history, so your numbers are off somewhere along the line.</p>

<p><a href="http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright/recipients/2005/recipients.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright/recipients/2005/recipients.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.smith.edu/newssmith/fall2004/fellows.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.smith.edu/newssmith/fall2004/fellows.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

71

<p>monydad,</p>

<p>Is there a web site with the selectivity
numbers you are referencing relative
to 1972? If so, what is it?</p>

72

<p>The old data is from Cass & Birnbaum, circa 1972, which I took out of the library a few years ago when my daughter was suggesting that my views on colleges were not current, and therefore not relevant. I compared my prior frame of reference (I probably used that very book when I picked colleges for myself) to the current state of affairs. I saved the data on a spreadsheet. The recent data was from the then-current guide books. It was a couple years ago.</p>

<p>Here's what I have
% admitted then (rank) % admitted now (rank)<br>
Bryn Mawr 43% (42) 60% (84)
Smith 49% (50) 54% (78)
Wellesley 44% (46) 43% (59)</p>

<p>The rank is relative selectivity of the hundred or so schools I included.</p>

<p>There is even a wider disparity in relative SAT ranking:</p>

<pre><code> SAT rank then SAT rank now
</code></pre>

<p>Bryn Mawr 20 62
Smith 34 78
Wellesley 27 37</p>

<p>The changes in relative selectivity/ SAT rankings for Bryn Mawr & Smith over these two time periods were among the largest downward changes of any of the 100 colleges I compiled data for.</p>

<p>For both time periods I don't recall exactly which year the data was for; I'm just estimating. I was just doing this for my own reference, and I didn't care that much. The "old" data was for sometime from 1970 to 1972. The "new" data was someplace from 2002 to 2004.</p>

73

<p>Don't knock it til you've tried it..! Single sex colleges surely aren't for everyone, but for the right type of person they're invaluable.</p>

74

<p>Is Wellesly Prestigious????</p>

75

<p>Highly.....</p>

76

<p>Well as a guy I wouldn't mind attending an all-girls school ;). Seriously though I wouldn't want to attend an all guys school. (It would be wierd too because the class of '06 in my alternative high school program is 3/4 girls).</p>

77

<p>says a lot for public education</p>

78

<p>Wabash, do you attend Wabash College? If so send me a PM, because I am thinking about applying to there.</p>

79

<p>Of course I'd go to an all guy college...oh wait...I'm a gal...that wouldn't work, would it?
I would never have to worry about that because their aren't many all women engineering colleges. In fact, usually engineering colleges have a large male population and a small female one. Like the one I'm going to.......which use to be an all guy university. ;)</p>

80

<p>I stand (sit) corrected.... There is acually 10 all female universities with engineering degrees.
Wellesly even has AFROTC.
But the engineering they have is no good for me and my goals. Except Smith. YIpes.</p>

<p>Besides, I'm a tomboy; I never fit in with a bunch of girls; they always want to go shopping and talk about boys. How boring...why can't we just go mountain climbing, or fishing, or climb a tree, or play ball, jump out of plane, or..... well nvm.</p>

<p>(that grammar stunk...oh, well)</p>

<p>Why do so few women seem interested in engineering?</p>