<p>Formerly RMWC as of today. Taking men for next fall. It's a good school.</p>
<p>The real question is if men will be too scared to apply IMO.</p>
<p>There goal is only about 25 men first year so that should be easy. Eventually maybe 100-125 per class.</p>
<p>I wonder the social life possibilites of being one of the 25 men there. That would be amazing.</p>
<p>Those 25 guys will be basically despised and treated like ****, mark my words. It wont be a very guy friendly place</p>
<p>In four years there will only be females at RC that went there as a coed school. UVa went coed back in the 70's and everyone quickly learned to enjoy it.</p>
<p>So that is what this whole thing is, you are happy that my school is going coed because they made yours coed and ruined your traditions?</p>
<p>Actually, if you look at Vassar, Wheaton, etc...I would hardly consider that ruinning tradition...especially considering the financial and enrollement information.</p>
<p>Better to have a school with men than no school at all. If it's tradition one is after, there are financially stable colleges that have steady or expanding enrollement. They include: Agnes Scott, Mt. Holyoke, Smith, Wellesley, Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mills, Scripps, Spelman, etc...</p>
<p>If we judged by tradition, then openning schools to women from 1960+ would be negative. That is Amherst, Williams, Yale, Columbia, Trinity, etc...would still be the enclave of men.</p>
<p>BTW...UVA still has it's traditions, as does Vassar, Wheaton, and a whole host of others dispite having men.</p>
<p>Future RMC students will adapt, it's just alumni and current students who have a hard time with it (similar arguements were made by men for their single-sex schools to stay that way). And, if alumni don't recognize the financial and enrollement issues and withold donations, it will just hasten the college's recruitment efforts towards men or run the school into the ground. If the latter happens, RMC would then be a historical footnote, rather than a living, breathing entity.</p>
<p>Add Dartmouth, Princeton, Notre Dame and many others.</p>
<p>There is a way to save RMWC without the need for going coed. In fact, the school currently is facing more difficulties for the mere fact that it IS going coed. They lost almost all alumnae support, have two lawsuits pending and who knows how many more on the way, will have to endure a massive exodus of students and applications are down in half from last year.</p>
<p>All the all women colleges you've mentioned may have traditions, but they are not my traditions, they are not my home. They are taking something I loved and changing it completely.
The traditions at RMWC dont translate well with men, and really, I am not interested in redifining them for the sake of adding men in the mix. The glue that united generations of alumnae will be gone, the sisterhood is gone.</p>
<p>It's easy to see this from the outside and shrug, but when you've seen it happen from the inside...</p>
<p>Let's not even begin to talk about how the BoT has treated the current students. They promised the first years that they would be coming to a women's college, they make them pay and a week later they for the first time tell them that the school will probably be going coed? </p>
<p>Not very honorable. They lie and treat the students as if they don't matter. They announced the new name the weekend before finals so we wouldnt be able to protest it, but as a result it's left many girls distressed, something which affects us when we study.</p>
<p>And the reinteration that men are only needed for sports and to attract girls? That is insulting for both sexes. And that's basically what the board of trustees and administration keeps telling us.</p>
<p>Actually, I've seen Vassar go coed, and I have reletives that went to single-sex schools that are now coed...</p>
<p>Right, they are not YOUR traditions, so you're focusing on the fact that YOU don't want it to change for your sake...it will not change the ethose of the school completely, unless you argue that there are differences based on gender.</p>
<p>Like I said, if withholding money from the school is what the alumni want to do, then so be it. Have the school implode, while saying you care about the school and it's educational mission.</p>
<p>a) Women's colleges are better for women. Studies have proven this over and over again ( Most notoriously one made by Indiana University, a coed school
b) It's AlumNAE, we are women.<br>
C) As far as we know the school we went is dead. We went to RMWC, a college which had a mission to educate women in the singular. They changed the name, they changed the mission, and because of their nature, the traditions will change too. What is it left from what we knew? A building? Seems like a flimsy thing to donate to.</p>
<p>I will now leave this discussion. I have to study for finals and can't waste my time in this place anymore.</p>
<p>A) I've read the study. But, if enrollement is on the decline and the financial situation is unstable, that would affect the education more than having men on campus. Not having the financial stability that a larger and more diverse student body would bring is detrimental to all women.</p>
<p>B) Not for long...and some have husbands/significant others that also enable the women to give more. Deconstructing a word is fun, isn't it? We've used the word women...it should be womyn.</p>
<p>C) Right, because the traditions evaporated, and they're not going to keep anything. Binary thinking. You must not think much of your school, then. The education of women is not sigular.</p>
<p>Just because they have husbands that may help by donating, that doesn't make it an alumni association. Also, the Alumnae association for RMWC is seeking to be separated from the school, or so they say, as they are the alumnae association for RMWC.Right now, it's alumnae, and it'll always be alumnae because you were referring to the women who had graduated the school, who now didnt want to donate anymore.Stop the womyn vs women crap. It's irrelevant to the issue.</p>
<p>The only time in the history of RMWC that the enrollment came to the 900's was in the 60, just in time for the baby boomers, coincidence? I think not. Apart from that time, it has been steady. The real reason we are having problems is because of the tuition discounting, in which case a better business plan was needed, not this decission.</p>
<p>And as for the tradition, they already have rewriting them as we speak.</p>
<p>Don't talk about what you don't know.</p>
<p>A) I've read the study. But, if enrollement is on the decline and the financial situation is unstable, that would affect the education more than having men on campus. Not having the financial stability that a larger and more diverse student body would bring is detrimental to all women.</p>
<p>B) Not for long...and some have husbands/significant others that also enable the women to give more. Deconstructing a word is fun, isn't it? We've used the word women...it should be womyn.</p>
<p>C) Right, because the traditions evaporated, and they're not going to keep anything. Binary thinking. You must not think much of your school, then. The education of women is not sigular.</p>
<p>"education in the singular" is a phrase that has been used to describe RMWC by the own founder of RMWC. It was used many times during the name announcement. You know nothing of this school, you arent qualified to talk about it.</p>
<p>Of course it does, it's alumni and alumnae, because with two people working, raising a family, and presumably giving money, it is a collaberation.</p>
<p>I used alumni to make a point. Even though it is a womyn's college, men are still a part of the tradition. You made it relevant because you think that it should be only women. That women cannot survive and grow with men around.</p>
<p>The reason you have problems with discounting is that students need financial incentive to attend the college. Now, if the idea is to maintain the school by not being diverse or attracting women who may need aid, then it truly is elitist. </p>
<p>A better business plan? You mean ignore the fact that admissions is competitive? Ignore the fact that aid packages disproportionately affect those who are less affluent? Ignore the world, to preserve YOUR experience without thinking about how that may limit the institution you say you care about?</p>
<p>Right...like I said, I have family that went to single-sex schools...so I know what I'm talking about. Do you?</p>
<p>Actually, that was it's historical intent, a singular institution for the education of women, because at the time women were seen as inferior. You mistake that use for unchanging. Change happens, or Amherst, Columbia, Yale, Williams, Vassar, Wheaton, etc...would not have gone co-ed. BTW, the administration uses that phrase to maintain a connection to the past...most pr announcements do this, so as not to further alienate those who oppose such a move. Takes place all the time.</p>