<p>Well I worked on a ranch for 4 summers when I was in college and I can tell you that the realities of working with livestock did not diminish my interest in the opposite sex. Having young men and women living and working together in such a close knit community is not going to be without its issues.</p>
<p>I don’t think the decision at Deep Springs has anything to do with viability. I don’t think there are any plans to increase the enrollment, and they have no problem filling places, it is incredibly competitive to get in. Rather, the decision is driven by the idea that it will be a better place and better serve its mission.</p>
<p>I support having some all-male or all-female colleges…as long as they’re all male or all-female for the right reason, not like the male superiority of long ago…but that’s not the case nowadays. Hopefully some will still remain, as long as it isn’t an issue.</p>
<p>“the realities of working with livestock did not diminish my interest in the opposite sex”</p>
<p>Oh, that wasn’t what I was suggesting at all. I’m saying that one’s fellow ranch hands may soon feel like brothers even if they are women. Having a long day on the ranch and then seeing (or imagining) women in an outside environment is quite a different dynamic. If you were working and living with female ranch hands all summer and you were attracted to them, then I agree that’s a fair comparison to Deep Springs.</p>
<p>its sad. there really should be single-sex colleges, just as an option to those who prefer it. it’s like how some people today would cringe at not having any coeducational colleges. it’s really not fair.</p>
<p>But the viability of women only colleges isn’t being questioned. Why? Because there are more of them? The two aren’t very different.</p>
<p>It’s just what the market wants. There are a lot more young women interested in single-sex education than men. This is on top of the fact that there are more young women than men interested in small LACs in the first place.</p>
<p>My nephew goes to Hamden-Sydney. It’s not for everybody, that’s for sure, but there are a lot of good things about it.</p>
<p>I really think the decision by Deep Springs is not about viability or about some philosophical statement by Deep Springs about the value of single sex education or the lack thereof. It is a decision by the Deep Springs board, after much discussion among alumni, students and others, that Deep Springs will better serve its mission by admitting women. Nunn founded Deep Springs to educate and train “the few” (to many, an elitist notion, that “the few” exist, and should be plucked from the masses and trained to lead those masses) for a life of leadership and service. At the time Nunn founded Deep Springs, I think the idea was that there were no, or not many anyway, women among “the few” (not saying I agree with this, but I think this was the idea at the time). As I understand it, Deep Springs is recognizing that there are now lots and lots of women among “the few,” and that to properly educate “the few,” both men and women, women have to be a part of it. So, I believe that this decision is about more fully pursuing the Deep Springs mission, nothing else. This has been debated many years on and off by students, alums, etc.</p>