<p>Uh, yeah, I'm a junior in high school and I've been pretty desperate recently...I've just realized how many different schools are out there. I've been considering all women's college, would someone please tell me some positive and negative aspects of them?</p>
<p>Page Smith a University of California provost pointed out in his history of American Education "Killing the Spirit" that women's colleges and denominational colleges seemed to be the only places where teaching is still part of the mission. It was his impression that the best graduate students were from those two types of institutions.
If you surf the other women's colleges' boards there are some other pros and cons.</p>
<p>Negative aspects
- There are no boys around, so it might be harder to find male friends or boyfriends.<br>
- You'll have to go off-campus every time you want to see boys.<br>
- If you are a tomboy, you probably want to be around boys, so the all-girls thing could begin to annoy you.
- In the real world, you will have to deal with boys. </p>
<p>Positive aspects
- If you want to see or meet boys, you could always take a trip to a local college. For instance, if you go to Barnard, you can walk across the street to Columbia. Amherst is close to Smith, and so is Hampshire.<br>
- The no boys thing creates less of a distraction.
- You feel more inclined to raise your hand in class, since you are less likely to feel self-conscious around girls.
- People probably care less about how they look.</p>
<p>pros:
plenty of history and strong financial endowments... </p>
<p>superior facilities (how that money is spent): just compare music & art departments, gymnasiums, student residences, libraries, science buildings, campus architecture and landscaping.</p>
<p>excellent learning environment: smaller class sizes, more contact with faculty, more women role-models, less cut-throat competition for grades. </p>
<p>less competitive admission than colleges that can provide similar academic experience.</p>
<p>lower crime rates, safer.</p>
<p>women take more academic risks in this setting. </p>
<p>higher percentage of strong-minded, pro-active, women graduates than at co-ed schools.... </p>
<p>academics takes precedence over athletics. emphasis on intercollegiate athletics is low (perhaps a con to some).</p>
<p>excellent launch pads to medicine, law, business, grad schools.</p>
<p>cons:
harder to meet guys, especially if you're not a weekend party person.</p>
<p>students over-pampered and coddled (a plus to some)</p>
<p>Cons: You are around women all the time.</p>
<p>Pros: You are around women all the time.</p>
<p>Ok, another question. How, exactly, are they "over-pampered and coddled," and how much of a disadvantage is this? Thanks for your input.</p>
<p>I have visited two of the sister colleges and didn't get the Idea that they were "over-pampered and coddled" at all. I believe they all expect at lot out of their students. That high expectation is one of the reasons Smith, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr et. al. are so well respected as LACs.</p>
<p>Women's colleges are mostly academically demanding but may feel "pampered and coddled" because the emphasis is less on competition and showing off like a hotshot in seminars and more on sustained strong performance. Profs are also more likely to adopt an encouraging consultative tone rather than behaving like Marine officers egging on recruits in basic training. On the other hand, strong women role models project the message "if I can do it, so can you and I won't settle for anything less", you are also less likely to receive patronising response from male profs who believe that it's the guys who will really shine in a coed environment..</p>
<p>another advantage-- cleaner,more pleasant bathrooms usually.</p>
<p>this is a great question ... I'm a pretty bottom line guy ... if you check out the background of the visible successful women in the US an amazing high percentage of them went to all women's schools (way over represented). I do not know exactly what they do ... but they churn out smart, capable, assertive women who have what it takes to suceed in a coed world. Somehow, it seems, developing with other women from 18-22, helps women be stronger when they deal with the coed world from 22 on. </p>
<p>I certainly hope my daughter checks out the all women LACs!</p>
<p>What they do is no secret really. They provide lot of female role models - women writers, poets, scientists, economists - who have reached the top of their professions, and who share what it was like to get there - as a woman! (there are many wonderful women professors at co-ed colleges as well, but mentoring women as women is not an expected part of the portfolio.) And then there are role models among upper class women as well, and they've organized the housing system so that you meet them from day one - no freshman ghettos. And then they admit 10% of the student body as older women (average age 36, but up to 69), who can provide more perspective as well.</p>
<p>Then they spend dollars - BIG dollars -- on an engineering school, on their own junior year abroad programs, on dance and music and theater, on internships, on research opportunities, lots of these starting in the first year.</p>
<p>Then they do advising - heaps of it (I think they are a little bit over the top) - no one gets lost in the shuffle.</p>
<p>Then they eliminate the guys to impress (not a factor for all, but clearly a factor for some), and women can be as smart as their intelligence and creativity allows. (And they also recognize that this may have been a factor in high school as well, which is why the admissions office looks beyond SATs and even grades for what's ticking inside.) </p>
<p>Then they give away lot of financial aid, roughly 50% more per student than Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, by admitting 25% of the class as Pell Grant recipients (family incomes around $40k or less; at Harvard, the percentage is 6.8%, at Princeton around 7.5%, at Yale around 9%.) Folks from poorer economic backgrounds, and likely educational backgrounds as well, but who are driven to succeed.</p>
<p>Then they create strong alumnae networks. </p>
<p>No secrets there.</p>
<p>Mini agreed. </p>
<p>At 18 I would have argued that since the "real world" is 50% men that staying in this "protected world" during the college years is a bad thing because these women are going to have to deal with men eventually ... but all evidence points to exactly the opposite ... having these 4 years in their special environment allows a lot of women to take off when they hit the real world (that was the part that cab appear counter intuitive ... a great way to prepare to deal with men in the workplace is to not deal with them as much from 18-22). I can not wait to check out the all women's schools with my daughter!</p>
<p>Great! Now I'm pretty sure that I'm going to try to get into an all women's school. <em>beams</em> Thank you!</p>
<p>Mini, <3 yr post.<br>
Question, though. If they look past the SATs and even the grades, then what <em>are</em> they looking towards, exactly? Not trying to pick at you, just curious to see what you think. I've gotten the impression that Smith wants assertive articulate women, and that's pretty gosh darn exciting! (No need to sell me on Smith, I'm already sold! :) )</p>
<p>They look for evidence of drive, perseverance, creativity, curiosity, social engagement and independent thinking--any and/or all of the above.</p>
<p>They say it right on the website a dozen times or so - "Heady, nervy, and intellectually exciting." So that's what they want evidence of.</p>