<p>Point being that the <em>classroom environment</em> is quite similar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I brought the cultural differences up because they may have an effect on the classroom environment.</p>
<p>Of course the male grads of Vassar are not less intelligent. I am sure they are as fine a contingent of thinkers as any school can produce, ivies included.</p>
<p>I know someone said that, but I certainly never meant to imply that.</p>
<p>Vassar women either.</p>
<p>I never meant to denigrate Vassar in any way.</p>
<p>For the purposes of this thread, I just didn’t think Vassar relevant. It seemed that Pizzagirl’s question translated into: match up these five women’s colleges with schools that don’t have all women to get a better understanding of each culture and environment.</p>
<p>Vassar has more in common now with the schools being matched with the five than the five themselves for the purposes of this discussion.</p>
<p>Of course it has a proud history, a gorgeous campus, loads of Steinways, the most beautiful Rose parlor, the stunning library, the Skinner Music Bldg. and other things that make me drool and wish I’d attended.</p>
<p>The Barnard classes tend to be very female-dominated. It would be common to have a class with 40 students, 35 female, 5 male. Or a seminar with 11 women, 1 man – and many seminar size classes that end up being all female. But some of those females are Columbia women. </p>
<p>Here’s a document that shows cross-registration stats, on page 21:
<a href=“http://barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/2011databook_0.pdf[/url]”>http://barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/2011databook_0.pdf</a></p>
<p>Basically students from each college take about 20,000-25,000 points at the other college each year (a typical class is 3-4 points) Most years there are somewhat more Barnard student taking Columbia courses, but the pattern was reversed in 2002-2004. In 2009-2010, Columbia students took 20,000 points at Barnard; Barnard students took 25,000 points at Columbia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One could say the same about some Columbia classes as well. In one advanced undergrad Columbia history seminar of 21 students I sat in on, only 4 were male…including yours truly. In a summer Econ class I took there, around 70 percent of the students were female and that percentage increased after a few male students dropped out by the second week. Incidentally, all the female students stayed till the very end of the 6 week course.</p>
<p>Hmmm… wonder where all the guys went? </p>
<p>I never really asked my daughter what the demographics were like in the classes taken at Columbia, so I really don’t have a clue. I just assumed that they would have more guys.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The genders may be more balanced in required core courses such as Lit-Hum or moreso…STEM courses. Still shocked by the gender ratio in that econ class as when I sat in on one taken by an older HS classmate more than a decade before…econ classes tended to be balanced or had a male majority. This applied even in the summer courses according to classmates who took them in the same era.</p>
<p>I have to say, as a W parent, I recognize Vassar’s historical membership, but right now the five that band together are W, BM, S, MH and Barnard. This is their unifying website - [The</a> Sisters: Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Smith, Wellesley](<a href=“http://www.thesistercolleges.org%5DThe”>http://www.thesistercolleges.org)</p>
<p>Anecdotally, I heard quite a few of D’s classmates who had applied or had considered other women’s colleges. (My D also had BM and Smith on her list; BM was her close-second choice after W) I didn’t hear of any others considering Vassar. Not that it’s not a fine school – it just changed its competitive set.</p>
<p>This is a difference without a distinction. As was said upthread,
</p>
<p>And again, thought the point of this thread was to take out the womens college component and look at the top unis and LACs. But whatever.</p>
<p>Again, for the umpteenth time, there is a difference between a discussion of all womens colleges vs a discussion of the seven sisters. That was the only point I was making. If you want to talk about single sex colleges, that is one discussion. If you want to talk about the seven sisters, that is another (with of course a certain degree of overlap).</p>
<p>If you want to have a discussion about degree-granting womens colleges, there are a lot more schools to add to the discussion:
[Enrollment</a> and degrees conferred in degree-granting women’s colleges, by selected characteristics and institution: Fall 2009 and 2008-09](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_247.asp]Enrollment”>Enrollment and degrees conferred in degree-granting women's colleges, by selected characteristics and institution: Fall 2009 and 2008-09)</p>
<p>Well, when I started this thread (2 years ago!), I put Seven Sisters in the title but in reality I was asking about the 5 that are still in existence in women’s colleges – 4 of which we had just visited and 3 of which ultimately wound up on my daughter’s final list. I was explicitly thinking about trying to further dimensionalize W, BM, S and MH in light of having visited a lot of other colleges at the time and trying to articulate in my own mind values, mission, and type of student. I added Barnard (which my D wasn’t interested in - no aspersions being cast, just not interested in NYC) for the sake of completeness.</p>
<p>Didn’t notice that this thread, started in April, was started 2 years ago! Regardless, Thanks for clarifying your intent, PG. You were wanting to have a discussion about womens college, not about the seven sisters. The terms are not interchangeable.</p>
<p>Anyone talk about Simmons or Sweet Briar or Agnes Scott or Scripps or Mills, or even Spelman for that matter?</p>
<p>There are only a few current or former w/c that could reasonably try to call themselves an “8th” Sister- or whatever working count we settle on- as that image floats today or historically. The SS were/are elite for academics. Places of unique empowerment opps. Not just another, similar LAC choice. So, I find it hard to extract the “women factor.”</p>
<p>I also hadn’t noticed the start date on this thread- but I think it’s a very interesting conversation.</p>
<p>For many young women, the sad thing about Vassar is that they can’t be admitted because of the men. I’m not saying that Vassar’s decision was not entirely legitimate but that it automatically changes the mission and place of the school.</p>
<p>For girls on Long Island Vassar was a harder get than Williams, Amherst and Swat. And I think many of its historic elements and some of its beauty that does derive from being a woman’s college makes it more attractive than those alternatives. I know that was true for S’s GF. In fact, he never told her he was accepted at Vassar (and Amherst) because she would have been upset. He chose Williams, but she settled for Williams.</p>
<p>Now it’s to Vassar’s credit that she felt that way, and schools can’t admit everyone, but if Vassar had still been a woman’s college she would have had the admit, not him.</p>
<p>My D was also rejected from Vassar which was a momentary sadness, but Barnard was always her first choice so when that acceptance came through Vassar’s rejection no longer had a sting.</p>
<p>FWIW: I think my S would have been very happy and successful there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think you misconstrued what I said. Barnard doesn’t have the “feel” of being a co-ed school either. </p>
<p>Maybe a better way to put it would be that Barnard itself feels very strongly like a women’s college, but the Barnard student experience feels differently, more like being dual-enrolled. (Some Barnard students are in fact dual-enrolled, but that’s a different situation. However, had my daughter been admitted to SIPA when she applied, she would have been i that position). There probably are some variations in that “feel” depending on each student’s major, course choices, and housing choices as they progress through their 4 years. A Barnard dance major who opts to live in quad housing all 4 years is going to have a different experience than a physics & math major who opts for Columbia housing during upper class years. For most, the experience is somewhere in between. </p>
<p>But I don’t think it would be at all like being at Vassar, which now has a 55/45 gender balance, which is decidedly a co-ed environment. </p>
<p>The Barnard experience is really a crossover or hybrid experience, both in terms of women’s college /co-ed and LAC/research university. If anything, some of the female empowerment aspects of Barnard are magnified because of Columbia’s weaknesses in corresponding area, such as the contrasts in the Barnard advising system vs. Columbia, or in the faculty/administration/student relationships. (Columbia could do things to address their weaknesses in that area, of course - it’s not inherent in the affiliation agreement that these contrasts should exist – but that is certainly something that is part of the current experience of being a Barnard woman).</p>
<p>No worries, mythmom. I understand you weren’t critiquing the male grads. </p>
<p>There is another thread going right now about the difficulty caucasian females are having in general with the admissions process. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1330417-white-girls-applying-college-have-harder-time-getting-accepted.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1330417-white-girls-applying-college-have-harder-time-getting-accepted.html</a></p>
<p>While I don’t know Vassar’s financial status back in the 60’s when it, and many other institutions reviewed its long-term planning, they obviously felt that going co-ed was the best plan for continued viability, in the face of declining enrollment in many single sex schools back then, especially ones in less cosmopolitan areas. Many single sex schools have since closed. Glad to see that was not a decision Vassar had to face.
[Single-Sex</a> Colleges](<a href=“http://lawhighereducation.com/113-single-sex-colleges.html]Single-Sex”>http://lawhighereducation.com/113-single-sex-colleges.html)</p>
<p>to add: as of 2011 when that article was written:
</p>
<p>
I also think that sense extends to a feeling of “sisterhood” among alums, for the current generation. That is, there is some sense of connection when a Barnard alum meets a Smith or Wellesley alum --maybe its just a conversation starter at a cocktail part or a job interview – but it is there. I’m sure that for a previous generation, the same would have been true for Vassar. But for the current generation of grads, there isn’t the same sense.</p>
<p>To end the beating of this dead horse, back in post #53 I merely clarified that Vassar is, and always will be considered one of the 7 sisters. If one is talking about all female colleges (even those with a strong alliance and interrlationship with another all male or coed school) that is a different conversation. And as an aside, I believe Vassar is currently about 60/40 female/male. [Vassar</a> College || Prospective Students FAQ](<a href=“http://admissions.vassar.edu/applyprospective_faq.html#ratio]Vassar”>http://admissions.vassar.edu/applyprospective_faq.html#ratio) But no matter. Time to stop splitting these hairs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, no one could see the future, but I’m quite sure that Vassar could have survived and thrived as a single-sex college if it had chosen that route. I think the difference in fates between the current [Sister</a> Colleges](<a href=“http://www.thesistercolleges.org/]Sister”>http://www.thesistercolleges.org/) and many other former women’s college is the elite status. To survive, the colleges need to offer something of benefit above and beyond the single-gender environment. An exceptionally strong academic reputation is obviously one way of meeting that challenge. Every year, a significant number of matriculants are women who considered or applied to co-ed institutions, but enroll in the women’s college because they perceive it to offer the best academic environment. Colleges that are farther down the ladder in terms of selectivity will have a harder time without that draw. </p>
<p>I would note that Barnard’s decision to reject merger with Columbia was considered a very risky move at the time. In 1981, no one foresaw the robust futures that lay ahead – at the time, both Barnard & Columbia faced financial troubles. Columbia’s decision to admit women was driven largely because it clearly could not sustain itself as a male-only undergraduate institution. Barnard simply happened to be blessed with courageous leadership:</p>
<p>
See: [Past</a> Presidents | Barnard College](<a href=“http://barnard.edu/about/leadership/past-presidents]Past”>http://barnard.edu/about/leadership/past-presidents)</p>