<p>The problem with the RMWC financial aid packages is that they are already set. They are not at all objective of the value of an individual student. Everyone gets around the same, wether they need it or not. Many girls who would've come here regardless of the money because it is a good school only pay half or a quarter of what they could easily afford.</p>
<p>See, the difference between you and me? I dont rely on second hand experience, I GO to a single sex school. Just because my daddy is a lawyer that doesnt make me an expert in law, now does it?</p>
<p>And the double posting and rewriting of your posts after they've been replied to is getting extremely annoying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The college's Board of Trustees, about two-thirds of whom are alumnae, voted, 25 to 2, in favor of a new strategic plan that includes making the college coed and emphasizing a global honors curriculum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seems like more than 2/3 of the alumNAE on the Board voted for it, even if you assume that the two no votes were from alunae. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education.</p>
<p>Actually, I went to a prep-school that was all male until the mid-1990's...AND have family that attended or are attending single-sex schools and colleges....</p>
<p>Makes me just as qualified to speak to the issue as you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Decades after Ivy League institutions like Yale and Princeton opened to women, the number of women's colleges has shrunk from about 300 in the 1960's to fewer than 60 today. The top institutions that do not admit men -- Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Barnard, Mount Holyoke and Smith -- say they are doing fine. But behind them are small liberal arts colleges for women, like Randolph-Macon, increasingly struggling against financial pressures to win applicants in an era of unbounded choice. And in recent months, their numbers have been dwindling precipitously.</p>
<p>David W. Strauss, a partner at the Art & Science Group, a marketing firm in Baltimore that has advised all-female colleges, including Randolph-Macon, said his firm's research suggested that most women, even those attending single-sex colleges, would prefer a coeducational institution. ''If you look at this over time,'' Mr. Strauss said, ''the proportion of college-bound women who say they would consider a women's-only college has been on a long and steep decline.'' </p>
<p>Ms. [Ginger Worden], a former chairwoman of the board who stepped in as interim president while Randolph-Macon weighed going coeducational, said she had some regret about the move but was excited about the prospects for growth. But she said the advantage of an all-women's campus was apparent even in the current protests.
<p>I know a woman who was in the first entering class of females at UVA. She and other women were treated very badly for the first few years. She felt it was really dangerous to walk alone because there were at least some men there who really meant the women harm.</p>
<p>It's sad to think that at least one woman at RMWC, the woman who is posting here, is the cultural descendant of those times. Luckily, she's probably physically incapable of hurting the men who might be crazy enough to apply, but she's (and others) are certainly capable of ostracizing them and making them feel extremely uncomfortable with their choice.</p>
<p>Very, very sad. </p>
<p>As for RMWC itself, I really wonder about the quality of the education there. At some schools, it would be evident to the student body that higher ed is a business, and that there must be positive margins if the enterprise is to be ongoing. RMWC has existed in a all-women niche in that business, and demand for institutions in that niche is shrinking. Even at a time when the number of graduating high school seniors is creating nearly unprecedented demand for slots at four-year colleges, RMWC is languishing. </p>
<p>RMWC is in a very bad position in this niche. If one used the Bain's squares to describe it's market position, the picture would be very bad, indeed. Basically, RMWC does not have a leadership position in a shrinking market. If this were a business, Bain would call it a "dog." It's untenable. It's a prescription for bankruptcy.</p>
<p>RMWC is doing what it must to survive. No one benefits from a dead institution.</p>
<p>I could see why going coed to survive, but if there's already coed Randolph-Macon College, I really don't see the point of them making RMWC coed.</p>
<p>Well, I got accepted to that school a few weeks ago, and I really don't think I want to go if there is so much animosity against men. If someone can't go to school with the opposite sex, how will that person survive in the real world?</p>
<p>I'm just curious, because I need to decide if I want to go or not.</p>
<p>As a student at a different women's college...</p>
<ul>
<li><p>I can't even IMAGINE suddenly finding out that my school is going co-ed. Can't. Even. Imagine. NOT because I don't understand that a school is a business, NOT because I have animosity toward men, and NOT because I want my school to fail completely, but because single-sex colleges are in large part DEFINED by their (at risk of sounding redundant and for lack of a better word) "single-sexedness." I only applied to one women's college and I didn't seriously consider it for a long time, but when I picked it, I picked it for certain reasons. For many students, one of these reasons...often one of the MOST important reasons...it's that it's a women's college: it attracts a certain type of student, it has a certain mission, it teaches in certain ways...it is a unique type of school. For the administration to just change this fact <em>on current students</em> is deceitful. It might be necessary and it might ultimately be beneficial, but it's STILL deceitful.</p></li>
<li><p>Was it totally unfeasible (I don't know any details) for RMWC to do a "four year switch" (i.e. announce now that the school will be going co-ed after the graduation of the current freshman class, so no students who chose to attend a women's college will be forced--transferring aside--to do otherwise)?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>So my main thoughts after reading this thread are that:</p>
<p>(1) It is incredibly insensitive to expect RMWC students to take this change in stride, or even to look at it objectively. The students can understand that a school is a business, this is a necessary change, etc., etc. and still be ENTIRELY within their rights by not liking the situation. </p>
<p>(2) Jillpod: I know nothing of RMWC, but I expect that students at MOST women's colleges in their situation would be acting similarly. The reason is not animosity toward men; rather, as I understand it, it's a feeling of deceit.</p>
<p>(1) It is not insensitive to expect RMWC to roll with it, although they can protest...it's life. It changes. If it is all subjective, then everyone is right, on both sides of the discussion. And, they can feel however they want about the situation.</p>
<p>(2) Deceit, implies trying to hide their deliberations...with respect to RMC, they were pretty upfront. I don't think, however, that the students thought the decision would come so fast, hence the upset.</p>
<p>Insensitive? I don't think so. RATIONAL people can be upset when the way the world is differs from the way they would like it to be. But RATIONAL people quickly get over it. They don't threaten to stop contributing because the world isn't the way they would like it to be.</p>
<p>Your "business solution" is probably unworkable. Guaranteeing an all-female school for the entering freshman class would mean two things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The school would have lost what little niche it had with those wanting a same-sex education. For four years, it would be marketing to a niche that doesn't exist: Those wanting a temporary same-sex education. That would be criminally stupid.</p></li>
<li><p>The school itself probably didn't know what it was going to do until recently. I suspect it has been fighting tooth and nail NOT to make this decision. But when the decision is made, it is MADE. There is no business utility in delaying the inevitable.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I thought it probably was in substantial trouble. Colleges with alumnae on their boards don't suddenly decide to change their mission. Usually, things have to get pretty tough.</p>
<p>I hope they haven't left it until too late.</p>
<p>Well now the college will actually get some money now that they will have some male almuni.</p>
<p>justtttt kidddinggg of course... kind of.</p>
<p>They have been recruiting me like crazy. I would never go there. I don't want to be copmletely hated by a whole body of female students... there are much quicker ways to die than that.</p>
<p>I don't know. All the girls I know who want to go to all-female colleges want to avoid the dating thing... they want academics that are not intruded upon by testosterone.</p>
<p>Hey, I am completely ignorant of RMWC, but I have a question. What are the big majors there? Please don't tell me Women Studies...</p>
<p>Hello IsleBoy again (father and son use this name). I went to Randolph Macon for men (600) when it brought men in. Now it is not fair to compare the two schools in my day because the men's college did not have nearly the stutus that that RMCW had. I did not see any significant changes. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that so many single-sex colleges are going co-ed, moreso the dismal status of men's colleges. There are really only two pure (no connecting women's college) men's colleges left: Hampden-Sydney and Wabash. Both of them are very under-rated institutions - it's amazing that many students have never heard of them, but have been sucked-into the ratings/branding hype (this is the first commodified generation). I plan to take my son tp HSC. What I worry about is that the majority of their student body may still think that President Bush is a great leader.
But in response to the issue of tradition. I had my son look at the 'new' Randolph College last night and he requested information. Obviously, he is turned on by the male-to female ratio, but I warned him that he would be resented not so much by the students as the faculty. I hope the institution is careful as to how they do this. I hope its not the bean-counters who are in control of the planning. How fast are they going to increase the population by 60%. This is what I would worry about more than the men. RE; men - I hope they build traditions that will attract HSC and Wabash (and old RMC for men) men.</p>
<p>HSC used to be underrated. Over the years, my impression is that the average academic skills of the student body have declined. I've had that impression confirmed by HSC faculty (I used to teach there). Their take is that the demand for all-male education had declined so much that there simply aren't enough highly qualified students who are applying to HSC.</p>
<p>RMWC has always been underrated, in my opinion. In Virginia, I would have put them second only to Mary Washington back when MWC was all-female. Unfortunately, RMWC never, never, never had the name recognition of Hollins and Sweet Briar, and never came even close to Wellesly, Bryn Mawr, and other seven sisters (plus Scripps). The demand for all-female education is declining at a time when total apps to colleges is way up on the strength of the baby boomlet.</p>
<p>RMWC has obviously found itself unable to compete in that shrinking market niche. They are not a leader in that niche, unfortunately. One can decry the passing of the niche if one likes, but it's just as productive to spit in the wind.</p>
<p>My guess is that this is a survival move and that they may have waited too late to do it.</p>