<p>The women's colleges seem to have higher acceptance rates than similar coed institutions; I'm assuming this is because they naturally have a smaller applicant pool since they only admit women. Is this true?</p>
<p>In terms of how difficult it is to get in, should I group Smith and Mt. Holyoke with schools like Amherst or Vassar?</p>
<p>I know there's no way to really predict, but I'm trying to figure out a good mix of reaches/matches/safeties (even if they are vaguely defined).</p>
<p>**schools like Amherst and Vassar
(I didn’t mean to imply that they are two separate groups for me.)</p>
<p>Women’s colleges are often referred to as “self-selecting.” Students who apply to women’s colleges are typically very strong applicants, and know that they’d like to attend an all female institution. The applicant pools, especially at the remaining seven sisters, are extremely robust and that is why women’s colleges should never be considered a safety. That said, you probably would have an easier time getting into Smith or Mt. Holyoke than Amherst, just because Amherst is uber-selective.</p>
<p>Women’s colleges are indeed self-selecting. However, as others have put it when I asked the same question, they also suffer from low yield and a shrinking pool of women who want to go single-sex (versus being persuaded to do so). If you show interest and have stats (including GPA) above the 75th percentile with decent ECs/recs/essay, I think they can still be considered high safeties. The key is to demonstrate interest. Selectivity-wise, I would rank Bryn Mawr/Smith/Holyoke around the same level as URochester (a small national U that loves to see demonstrated interest and practically requires interviews). Amherst is equal only to Williams/Swat/Pomona in selectivity; Vassar is a tier lower than that, but still higher than the Sisters (though Wellesley and Barnard would challenge that).</p>
<p>However, decreased selectivity is absolutely not equal to decreased quality. The academics are just as challenging–possibly more challenging–than at Amherst or Vassar.</p>
<p>… actually IIRC Barnard has a pretty high yield, relatively speaking, particularly among non-minorities for some reason.</p>
<p>Odds of getting in relate to : objective stats, ECs, essays, recommendations and “fit”.</p>
<p>Objective stats are readily available. US News combines them, their own way, to form their “selectivity index”, or something. So that would be one opinion of the overall picture. You can use the same source data and formulate your own opinion.</p>
<p>^ Barnard’s yield makes sense, given its NYC location and integration with Columbia. It is probably the most “coed” women’s college in the country, maybe challenged by Scripps. Certainly the perception that if you go to Barnard, you’ll never meet boys, is lacking. Even Wellesley suffers from this perception.</p>
<p>All of the women’s colleges, particularly the Seven Sisters, practice holistic admissions. But I’ve yet to see one (maybe aside from Wellesley and Barnard) reject a woman with high stats, strong “soft” factors all-around, and who demonstrated interest. That is why I consider them less selective, though equal in quality–if you’re overqualified and seem truly enthusiastic about the school, you can expect to be accepted (to Bryn Mawr/Smith/Holyoke).</p>
<p>Yes, the high admit rate is mostly because of the smaller applicant pool: half are ineligible and the half of the other half are shallow. The remaining folks are quite smart. If you are looking for a way to gauge the competitiveness, switch the fora settings to check out posts from last April and December, and read the profiles of those who got rejected at the schools you are interested in.</p>
<p>^ Yes; the best way to gauge selectivity is to research anecdotal evidence yourself, although some of the women’s colleges don’t have a great deal of data to work from.</p>
<p>^ Better than posting an incomplete picture of your own stats is a thread called “what are my chances” where the people who answer can only compare that person to themselves.</p>
<p>“I’m assuming this is because they naturally have a smaller applicant pool since they only admit women. Is this true?”</p>
<p>Actually, double self-selection, only women, and only women who want to go to school with only women. </p>
<p>“they also suffer from low yield”</p>
<p>Not true at Smith (last time I looked, it was the same as Williams). I don’t know about the others.</p>
<p>The yield extrapolation was secondhand, from a reliable CC poster (can’t remember who), though obviously anyone can be wrong. I’m surprised that Smith has a yield equal to peer schools; personally, I may or may not apply, but I can see myself turning it down at the last minute in favor of a coed college.</p>
<p>A possible issue with ^ self-selection is that the pool of only qualified women who want to go to school with only women may not be as academically strong as the pool of only qualified wo/men. By sheer numbers, adcoms can afford to be less picky and must reach deeper into the qualified pool in order to select a class. (This is utter speculation, but it seems to satisfactorily explain lower numerical qualifications at a school of equal academic quality.)</p>
<p>Applying to women’s colleges can be a good strategy for a young woman with an unusual academic profile, such as lopsided test scores/GPA. For those with a more typical profile, I imagine that the school’s published statistics as far as test scores/% of students in top x% of their class are about as reliable as they are for coed institutions. On whole, it probably is somewhat more likely that the same applicant will have a higher chance of admissions at a women’s college than at a comparable LAC. If only because women’s colleges are drawing upon less than half of the same applicant pool, as many high school girls don’t consider women’s colleges.</p>
<p>Another factor is that most coed LACs get more applications from women than men, and women on average have higher high school GPAs. So these coed LACs admit a lower number of women, percentage-wise, simply to keep their gender ratios even.</p>
<p>I think folks make a mistake if they think these schools are liberal arts colleges that happen to be all women. They are women’s colleges that happen to be devoted to the liberal arts. The differences we found were quite pronounced at my d.'s school, with special attention paid to advising and long-term career advising (i.e. women going into male-dominated fields), a program on women and financial independence, and mentoring (50% of the faculty being women, and a special emphasis on women faculty in the sciences and engineering), and virtually all administrators being women.</p>
<p>Impact? Well, just as example - add together all the women graduates of Swarthmore, Williams, and Amherst for the past five years, which will then be about the size of the Smith. Then compare the combined Fulbrights awarded to women (which depend heavily on good advising - and what was done at the school itself, as opposed to any special giftedness) of the past 5 years, and also do so relative to median SAT scores. Oh, and if you’re really into it, count the number of research (as opposed to teaching Fulbrights), and add in the Fulbright-like fellowships awarded by the French government (they are really Fulbrights in all but name.)</p>
<p>See anything interesting?</p>
<p>(In case you’re wondering where I’m coming from, I am an honors graduate from #1 LAC where I was awarded a Rhodes-like fellowship to Oxford, and later worked on my Ph.D. and taught at UChicago. My d. is a Smith graduate, awarded a 5-6-year fellowship to Princeton for a dual Ph.D. We’ve kicked the tires. I pull no punches: I am saying, for women, academically, generally speaking, that Smith is better than Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams. Not equal; better. Others will feel differently.)</p>
<p>^ I’m sure I already know the conclusion, given context, but would you like to do the stats for us and post them? ;)</p>
<p>Let’s just say giant and pygmies.</p>