<p>...the schools just don't seem to have the clout they did back when I was in school. I'm not sure if that's because the schools' standards have truly dropped (now that women can get into so many elite schools) or if it's just because of a base-less bad reputation that women's colleges have obtained. Why aren't more females considering women's colleges these days?</p>
<p>Bryn Mawr’s admit rate was about 50% when I went 28 years ago, and it’s 40% now. I’m not sure where the bad reputation thing is coming from? When I took my DD to tour the school it was even more vibrant than it was back then. It still shares a course catalog and majors with Haverford. The main issue with women’s colleges is not having men, so if your DD objects to that aspect of it, I definitely wouldn’t try to twist her arm. It seems to me the Seven Sisters are still thriving and in many cases quite stiff to get into.</p>
<p>I think most girls don’t want to go to women’s colleges because they don’t want to go to a school that’s all girls. I don’t think it’s them writing them off as inferior universities.</p>
<p>^^ this.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t have considered an all girls college either, and I even went to an all girl’s high school for a while. </p>
<p>Neither of my daughters thought they wanted a women’s college. But both consented to visit Mt. Holyoke because a cousin went there, and came away loving it. I think you just need to get 'em on campus, especially one of the lovelier ones like Wellesley or Mt. Holyoke. Both my Ds applied to MH after their visits – older would have gone if they had given her any merit, but they didn’t. Younger was offered fantastic merit, but ultimately made another choice (STEM school). At our house we have a few “parent choice” college visits – you could try using that tactic. If they don’t like it after a visit, at least you got them to take a look.</p>
<p>My sister applied to several women’s colleges because that was the type of college she wanted (LAC, small, lots of literature and languages). I’m three years younger and never considered that type of school at all. I wanted a big, fun football school. Yes, with boys.</p>
<p>My daughter looked at Smith (and others) this year, but wasn’t interested. She picked a school that is about the same size, but ironically 75% male (engineering school). It wasn’t the ‘all girls’ thing, it was the type of school. I have to say, almost 40 years later, I still wasn’t interested in an all girls school, even if the boys are just down the street.</p>
<p>I agree with intparent, see if you can arrange a visit. maybe as part of a swing through a bunch of other schools? (Smith and Mount Holyoke are perfect for this if visiting Amherst, or Wellesley when in the Boston area.)</p>
<p>My D really fell in love with the schools. She saw a group of students who seemed really engaged and passionate and it was inspiring to her. She also loved the sense of community. However, she didn’t start with a bias against women’s colleges. But I think that a visit would be best. Then if she’s really still turned off by them, that’s a great indication that it wouldn’t be a good fit for her. But if she’s never been to one, how does she really know?</p>
<p>I also agree with Demeron2: it does seem as though the women’s schools my D was interested in (Mount Holyoke, Smith, and Wellesley) have gotten more selective lately, and we’ve heard more “buzz” about them. I definitely don’t get a sense of waning prestige!</p>
<p>My D was indifferent to the concept when we started thinking about where to apply - not opposed to a women’s college, just didn’t care that much. Then we went on the college visit tour, and our first stop was Wellesley which she fell in love with. As things turned out, four of the six schools she wound up applying to are women’s colleges. She was accepted at all, plus the two coed colleges, and is now agonizing which to take.</p>
<p>What appealed to her - besides the sheer beauty of the campuses - were the traditions, the sense of independence, passion, and ‘sisterhood’, the accomplishments of the graduates, and the very strong alumnae network that all these schools still have and cultivate. She is a math and science person and sees the quality of those programs at the women’s schools, which are definitely not all literature and languages now. I agree with the OP that not everyone in the wider world today is as familiar with the “clout” of these colleges as they may have been in previous generations, but I am 100% confident that the people who matter - graduate and professional schools, employers, mentors - are.</p>
<p>In high school, my D worked as a camp counselor every summer–several of the counselors at her camp were students at women’s colleges–they suggested she come and visit. She went to Mt. Holyoke, Smith, and Bryn Mawr. She loved the traditions and found academic programs that truly interested her. She ended up applying and going to Bryn Mawr. She choose it because it was in an urban area and was not as close to home as the other two. She would have been perfectly happy at either of the other women’s colleges. She stayed in Philadelphia after graduation and has found that her BMC connection has opened a number of doors/contacts. The alums of women’s colleges are generally very supportive of one another.</p>
<p>I think it’s because of time. I don’t know how old you are, but my mother is in her 50s and if she had gone to college, she would’ve attended in the early 1980s. Well, at that point, Columbia was still all men; colleges like Princeton, Williams, Bowdoin, Dartmouth, Duke, Amherst, Harvard, and Haverford had only recently gone co-ed in the prior 5-10 years. So until very recently before that, places like Mount Holyoke, Smith, Wellesley and Bryn Mawr were the only top colleges bright, well-prepared young women could attend. And although those other schools may have been integrated for 5-10 years, they had very low female attendance at the beginning, so a young woman (and her parents) may not have felt comfortable attending one of those places.</p>
<p>It’s different now! All of those formerly men’s colleges have a roughly even gender balance, and women don’t feel out of place there. So women’s colleges are losing their cachet. Add that to the fact that only women can apply and that’s why acceptance rates are higher than they are at their peer schools.</p>
<p>Anyway, I agree - a lot of young women simply don’t want to go to schools with only women. Sometimes it’s from misconceptions - they think it’s going to be like living in a convent - whereas other times there are legitimate concerns or a sense that they simply wouldn’t fit in there.</p>
<p>And this is a minor nitpick, but college-aged women are women, not girls. They’re women’s colleges.</p>
<p>“I also agree with Demeron2: it does seem as though the women’s schools my D was interested in (Mount Holyoke, Smith, and Wellesley) have gotten more selective lately, and we’ve heard more “buzz” about them.” </p>
<p>As these become more selective, which women’s colleges are on the next “tier” down? I’m trying to anticipate a match for my daughter. Thanks!</p>
<p>My D was accepted to Mills College, which she had added as a safety and in hopes of merit money; she was also accepted to Mt. Holyoke, but Mills would cost more $80,000 less over 4 years, and my D loves the Bay area.</p>
<p>Visiting is always a good idea, just to see how women’s college are operating and seeing who goes to them. From there, you let things go with the flow. Some have changed their minds. </p>
<p>I went to college when the all male schools started admitting women, and I refused to apply to the all female school, a mistake IMO as I think I would have benefited over what I ended up picking a newly coed school. But it’s hard to talk sense into a young adult who knows everything. </p>
<p>@dyiu13 East coast or west? Maybe Sweet Briar, Mills College, or Agnes Scott?</p>
<p>Staceyneil: All parts! 
Your list sounds right. </p>
<p>My D visited Smith and MHC during junior year. It convinced her that she would be fine at a women’s college. She preferred urban campuses and applied to Simmons, Agnes Scott and Mills (as well as some coed LACs). She’s been at Mills for a year now and couldn’t be happier. Her classes are intimate and challenging. Mills is definitely not as strong in the sciences as in the social sciences, the arts and humanities, but the math and computer science depts. are good. The campus is gorgeous and feels quite residential although many students, esp. in the grad/professional programs, are commuters. There are some interesting 5-year MA programs. Traditional undergrads and “resumers,” mix nicely. The business school is very NPO-oriented. Social justice is huge on campus. We’re in the NE, and she has loved the experience of living in the Bay Area. Oakland is vibrant, Berkeley is a short hop away, and SF just a bit longer on the BART. </p>
<p>A few comparisons: All three colleges have more regional than national student bodies. Mills and Agnes Scott are more diverse/multicultural than Simmons. Simmons is less residential than either of the others. Agnes Scott’s campus was also beautiful and the facilities top-notch. It seemed a little more traditional than Mills. Each seemed interested in attracting students from outside its region. All offered merit money, but the two outside our geog. area were more generous. All three were very open to LGBTQ students, as I assume most women’s colleges are.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>@wintriest DD just committed to Simmons. I agree with your observations. One thing we liked was the domestic exchange program. </p>
<p>"Simmons offers domestic exchanges with American University’s Washington Semester Program in Washington, D.C.; Belmont University or Fisk College in Nashville, Tennessee; Mills College in Oakland, California; and Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia. "</p>
<p>DD is interested in Mills for a semester. Simmons is strong in the sciences so Mills would be an interesting experience for her fine arts side. </p>
<p>Another great choice is Scripps which is part of the Claremont schools if she’s open to the West Coast.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually think they are starting to gain back some of that cachet. Serious students who don’t want some freshman guy throwing up on the floor outside of their dorm room on a Saturday night are seeing the benefit of women’s colleges. And the campuses are lovely – I think Mt. Holyoke and Wellesley are beautiful, and my D2 who is a Harvey Mudd freshman loves to go to the Scripps coffeeshop to hang out. Partly because the campus is prettier, but also because she really likes the feminist vibe at Scripps. </p>
<p>When the all-male colleges went co-ed, and women had been shut out of so many types of jobs due their gender for so long and those careers were starting to open up, there was an understandable rush to the “centers of power” that men’s colleges had become. But I think as gender equality has become much more of a reality, women don’t feel like they are losing a thing by attending a women’s college. Their peers will be worthwhile professional network contacts in the future. The professors are every bit as good. The colleges are respected by employers and graduate schools. And given the fact that women do seem to mature earlier than men do, the college atmosphere has a bit more seriousness of purpose than many co-ed institutions. </p>
<p>I don’t think they’re losing their cachet. One example–Bryn Mawr. In 2013, BMC admitted 39% of those women who applied for admission; according to the admissions office–this was the most selective admission in the last 30 years. Additionally, the college received more applications than ever before in 2013. </p>