<p>Fwiw, I was told at Smith that someone that was a bit "preppy" might have a bit of an edge, just from an eye to providing a bit of balance in the student body.</p>
<p>I have heard that wearing a dress/skirt might get you into Smith.</p>
<p>Good afternoon Carolyn, Dude and others,
I fully agree that this topic is better addressed in the parents forum, where the terminology used will be less likely to become the focus, but rather the ideas behind it will. That said, I found myself thinking about your concept in slightly other terms-- I thought about it in terms of personality styles, rather than masculine/feminine traits. I see schools as having, or attracting different personality types and I see your categories as being the Internalizers and the Externalizers-- people that tend to be more cerebral vs those that are more physical. These are of course not mutually exclusive, but are trends. This increases the likelihood that schools with active athletic and greek programs will more likely fall on the "externalizer" side. To this degree, I see Yale and Amherst as leaning more to the externalizer side of center. The higher the emphasis on sports, frats, etc, the more the school falls in the externalizer category. Schools with a balance are more likely to fall in the middle (e.g. Williams, Kenyon, Rice). Does this way of conceptualizing your idea help, Carolyn? Would your schools fall out in the same categories?
One last thought-- if we look at the schools in terms of personality types, it may make it a bit easier for the prospy to match it to his/her own personality style, and find the best "fit".</p>
<p>Dunno about that, Barrons. Saw quite a few skirts w/sweater combos on other prospects when we were visiting and at the local parties. However, dressed for visiting is different from dress for attending. The heavy clump at Smith is between neat t-shirt and jeans to grungy t-shirt and jeans, with alternative fashion statements like skirt-over-sweatpants, etc., popping up a lot.</p>
<p>I don't care what we call it. Carolyn has verbalized, albeit provocatively, what a bunch of us have been talking about or trying to with words that don't "translate" well for one reason or another. As all of us respect Carolyn's knowledge and good intentions, we are more comfortable with the terminology than we would be with a newbie's first post. In fact my first thought was "Oh, Crap.This won't be pretty." I was preparing to wade in and do my best Sir Walter or Saint Bernard (as if she needed any help), and what do you know? Civility. LOL. Glad y'all gave her a pass.</p>
<p>I'll be thinking of other "names" but I'll guess Tarzan schools and Jane schools are probably not apropos either. How about "touchy-feely" and "boot camp"? Everybody is just so tense lately (on other threads, this one is doing great). Credit card statements come in from the holidays?</p>
<p>Oh great poobah -but doesn't that in and of itself pose the question-couldn't there be a "masculine" women's college? Or , if you prefer, couldn't there be a women's "boot camp" college?</p>
<p>Curmudgeon-
I thought you wanted to play nice. So why did you just go for Obiwan's jugular ?(in a "feminine" kind of way)</p>
<p>Ok curmudgeon, I'll bite. Is Wellesley a masculine school? I heard that the people who go there are very hard drivers.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>UCSC, UC Davis, Lawrence, Pitzer, Occidental, Lewis and Clark, Whitman, Sarah Lawrence are female schools.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>UC Davis? You mean the Aggies? When I was there the school was more likely to put you in touch with your inner cow than it was to bring out your feminine side. It's a land grant school that began as Berkeley's nearly all-male agriculture station, and even though it's grown into a full service, co-ed university much of it still has a Future Farmers of America feel to it.</p>
<p>Coureur:
LOL.</p>
<p>Well, since cows are female, even if you became a party animal, it would still be a female party animal, wouldn't it? Same gender, different species.</p>
<p>Oh wait, Curmudgeon-- were you referring to Obiwan as the poobah because of his "supermoderator" title?? I missed that-- It was still a bit obtuse....</p>
<p>Carolyn:</p>
<p>You are definitely on to something. Interestingly, when I think about all the schools S's has toured, the schools he "felt" comfortable at, i.e., could be a home for four years, were all on one side of the xx, xy persuasion; 'side' being a relative term, of course. As he said, it wasn't anything he could identify, such as curriculum, dorms, etc, but just a feeling from walking around, sitting in the cafeteria and in classes. This could help narrow his search. </p>
<p>Perhaps you could be a contributor to next year's Fiske or PR guides, among others.</p>
<p>...contributor? She should start her own guide!!!</p>
<p>Ha, ha. Actually, I HAVE thought about writing my own guide but who would read it aside from College Confidential parents and students? :)</p>
<p>Thanks for not falling into a discussion of the semantics. I agree that these are just broad generalizations, not set-in-stone descriptions. I like curmudgeon's description of "touchy feely" schools but maybe "hard edge schools" would be better than "boot camp schools." That was more what I was trying to get at - certain schools really ARE "touchy feely" and others are more "hard edge" And, I do think that certain "strong personality" type students would be more likely to go for one type of college culture over another. Some kids, of course, would prefer a school somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p>If you look at cross-applications in guides like Princeton Review, you'll see that the kids that apply to places like Smith tend to cross-apply at places like Skidmore, Earlham, Goucher, while those that apply to Colgate tend to cross-apply at places like Franklin & Marshall, Dickinson, etc. I think that supports the idea that certain personality types are attracted to certain types of COLLEGE personalities. </p>
<p>IT's funny that Wellesley came up - driving home this afternoon I was just thinking that I would probably classify it more towards the "masculine" side than Smith or even Mt. Holyoke. And, I'd definitely classify U of Chicago on the feminine side. </p>
<p>Again, these are not indications of the QUALITY of education one can receive at any particular school - just a way to divide schools by culture or personality along a continuum.</p>
<p>Touchy-feely crossed my mind, but hard edged fits with it better than boot camp. I was trying to reconcile my daughter's choices with your classification system, and it was a little confusing because she had LACs in both camps. "Hard-edged" though, that helps. One LAC she dismissed almost immediately as too touchy-feely, and all her top choices except one are on the neutral to masculine side of your list. What appealed to her about Swarthmore was the challenge of the academics, a rather masculine trait.
I think you are on to something!</p>
<p>I really can't speak to Wellesley or any women's college other than Smith (which W continues to mention to D) which I have visited to see a family friend who attended. I do endorse Carolyn's concept and believe that it is what many of us have been trying to define without great success. I am reminded of the German words-"gessellschaft and gemeinschaft" (my spelling could be off by a bit) and that the two paragraph definitions in my college textbooks defining each word were difficult to boil down to two or three word definitions.</p>
<p>I think that I understand the dichotomy that Carolyn speaks of but the concepts do defy sound-bite definitions, don't they? </p>
<p>BTW, I seem to have resorted to quotation marks and parentheses today as I have spent way too much time with my head in poorly written legal documents that I now believe were written by a baboon. Please forgive my lack of style tonight (or every night, for that matter). See, I did it again. Sheesh. I'll quit for now (while I'm behind).</p>
<p>how about yin and yang,,,</p>
<p>or, A and B (where A = Army, and B = Bard).</p>
<p>we could even do a parents 'Or' thread to develop names for Carolyn's new college guide!</p>
<p>I was thinking "ooh, I like this" and then I tried to classify Stanford and Columbia.
Hmmm.
Stanford is feminine in the touchy/feely/ California sense. But masculine in the techy/sports/ Greek scene sense.
Columbia is feminine in the non-sports/ humanities/ Great Books sense. But masculine in the hard edge/ NYC driven sense.
Could they be bisexual? transgender? masculine schools in touch with their feminine sides?</p>
<p>Jym, Poobah was used as a term of honor, not derisively. (I just saw "Obiwan, super-grand potentate" and came up with "poobah"). But as I just posted, I'm a little "off my feed" tonight. Sorry for the confusion.</p>
<p>I'm reposting a revised and expanded version of my message on the other board:
To paraphrase what Carolyn said, I had this same thought because my one child had very different characteristics. Half his highschool friends were artists/actors, half were athletes/outdoorsers/debaters (for lack of better word). As the artist/eaglescout he straddled both social groups and was looking for a college at which he could have both types of friends. His list bounced back and forth between both attributes but were heavily on the F side: Skidmore, Swarthmore, Brown, Wesleyan, Kenyon. (I'd definitely put Kenyon on the feminine, nurturing side.) In the end he felt that Williams had the best balance and, surprisingly because it was his favorite pre-visit, didn't like Amherst at all. </p>
<p>Williams and Amherst are often viewed as siamese twins and distinctions between them are subtle. If I were to follow Carolyn's m/f delineation I would definitely put Williams on the more yin side and Amherst on the yang. Maybe this is because I know so much about Williams' commitment to the arts --art, art history, music, dance, theater -- and know so many students who are involved in these pursuits. The impression we got from our visit to Amherst was that the arts were low on the totem pole. As far as being a "muted and toned-down Williams" again the impression we got was that it was a reserved and cold Williams. So, basically, I see Williams as having a much more balanced m/f personality. Well, as I said, it's subtle.</p>