<p>
I pulled the 55/45 ratio from the College Board web site, which in turn draws its numbers from the common data set. But maybe both sources are doing some rounding. By my math, it looks more like 57.6% women based on the most recent CDS: [B</a>. Enrollment and Persistence - Institutional Research - Vassar College](<a href=“http://institutionalresearch.vassar.edu/data/2010-2011/b-enrollment.html]B”>http://institutionalresearch.vassar.edu/data/2010-2011/b-enrollment.html)</p>
<p>Yes, historically Vassar was one of the Seven Sisters. But today - the Sisters really are W, BM, S, MH and Barnard. Those are the premier, elite, women-focused schools with a sense of shared tradition and history. They do so in different environments: urban (B), suburban (W, BM) and small-town (S, MH); with men nearby (B, BM) and with men further afield (W, S, MH), but that’s neither here nor there. I’m not all that familiar with Vassar, but it seems to me it chose, in going co-ed, to move out of the competitive framework of women’s colleges to the competitive framework of total LAC’s (or more accurately, those that are more liberal / artsy in nature). Nothing wrong with that, but then I think the Sister designation isn’t really relevant or current. </p>
<p>And I do agree with calmom’s observation - it would seem “normal” to me to have my D be invited to a joint Wellesley/Barnard/BM/Sm/MH event in our city, but I don’t think of Vassar as being in that set any more than any other co-ed LAC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Finally … something we all could agree on! Jym DOES have a point in that Vassar has always been a member sister in the Seven Sisters. And so has the departed Harvard school. What has happen is that that “organization” is, as PG might have unintentionally mentioned, lost all relevance and current recognition. </p>
<p>Simply stated, that name means nothing, except in the mind of a few romantics who might cling to the notion that the Seven Sisters are somehow still counterparts to the Ivy League. With the members of the Ivy League having gone coed, the raison d’</p>
<p>Women’s college selectivity is simple: only half (or a little more) of the college age population can apply, and of those, only a fraction will apply. So they are extremely, extremely selective, but not in the way USNWR or whoever does the stats thinks of them.</p>
<p>I remember well the decision at Williams to go co-ed. I was there. They were just getting out of their finishing school/fraternity-dominated period. Believe it or not, they didn’t have a lot of money. So their motivations were mixed, and interesting. They knew they had to get larger regardless, to amortize all the fixed costs. Some of the alums (including some very powerful ones) wanted the opportunity for their daughters to attend. (Some were equally adamant it should remain single gender.) But two things tilted the scale: they assumed that it would cost less to educate women (they wouldn’t be into expensive sciences and stuff) and it could be done by beefing up some weaker departments, like languages and music, without a lot of overhead cost. The second was rather more crass: they were concerned that they wouldn’t find enough academically talented full-pay men if they doubled the male enrollment, but were sure they could find plenty of full-pay women. So with the exception of those who truly wanted to provide a Williams education for their daughters, the motivations were all about making it a better place for the men they already had. </p>
<p>It’s funny how those things work out over time.</p>
<p>Jill Ker Conway’s book “A Woman’s Education” details Smith’s decision to go the opposite way and, since they already had superior academics (in my day, superior to Williams, I think, and today, in many areas I believe that is still the case), the questions they addressed were how, in the next 50 years, they would be most capable of addressing their students as women. It’s a really good read.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mini, as valid your argument is, it is obvious that the “labels” highly selective or most or more selective have been coined in the context of … admission. Wrong or right, the definition of the USNews (or in this case Barron’s) is what it is. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, the element of selectivity was really the least relevant in my post, which was about letting bygones be bygones. There was an era when women had to fight to get their deserved recognition and fight to be admitted in an all-boys elitist group of schools. There was an era when the Ivy League needed a counterpart. That time is gone, and not a day too soon, if I might add.</p>
<p>And, as a last comment, you and I can agree that selectivity is one yardstick that is measured by numbers, and often numbers that reflect the bias of the one establishing. On the other hand, quality of education and academic progress of students at a school are harder if not impossible to measure accurately. Or at least to the satisfaction of many.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see no reason the Sisters shouldn’t affiliate for common reasons. Why shouldn’t they?</p>
<p>Part of their identity is addressing the needs of women students as women. To what extent that happens at schools other than the one I know best, I couldn’t say.</p>
<p>Calmom,
The decision Vassar made in the 1960’s to go coed was quite a different time than the 80’s when Barnard made a different choice. Besides, Barnard and Columbia had already opened up their classes to each others students in the 70’s. For Vassar, there were several feasability studies done, by the Ford Foundation as well as studies done by committess comprised of Vassar/Yale faculty and the Board of Trustees. It was not a decision that was made lightly. </p>
<p>There is absolutely no way to know what Vassar’s outcome would have been should it have made a different decision, to stay single sex or move to New Haven. Unless you are channeling Carnac the Magnificent, you can’t possibly be “quite sure” of anything about its status if it had made any other choice. But its goal was to remain a vibrant,excellent, contemporary, institution of higher learning, that focused on the individuality of its students. Getting into side discussions about the relative “selectivity” or “elite” aspect of these schools is irrelevant, more hair-splitting and smacks of rationalization and self aggrandizement. These are all fine schools.</p>
<p>Re post #103:
</p>
<p>I’d just point out that Barnard is significantly more selective than Wellesley. (25% vs. 31% admission rate for 2011-2012; Barnard’s rate went down to 21% this spring, I don’t know whether or not Wellesley experience a similar increase in application numbers)</p>
<p>This isn’t to assert any sort of comparison as to the quality of the schools. I understand that Columbia’s admission rate fell below Princeton’s this year.</p>
<p>By “significant” I mean mathematical significance, not a qualitative opinion. I’d add that the College Board site identifies Barnard as “Most Selective”, Wellesley as “Very Selective”. Again, I don’t think this impacts quality – I’m just pointing out a mis-statement of fact.</p>
<p>Sad. Lots of wonderful students who would have benefited greatly from a Barnard education won’t get it.</p>
<p>Maybe they ended up at Smith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps they should, and think about forming a bona fide league of their own. Fwiw, the process of affiliating does not conflict with what I wrote, as the issues are not related. I was talking about identity. The Ivy League schools are affiliated but have their own identity.</p>
<p>Mini, Barnard’s first year enrollment has also been trending upwards each year. So more young women than ever are getting a Barnard education. It’s just that the growth in number of applicants is outpacing the ability of Barnard to squeeze more students in. </p>
<p>Please believe me, as my daughter knows from first-hand experience: it is not particularly fun to be a continuing student on a housing waitlist all summer because there weren’t any spots left during room selection. She was in that type of housing limbo two summers in a row. I don’t think the Barnard experience would be improved by over-crowding.</p>
<p>There is enough love to go around. I am shocked that any of these schools questioned for their quality or thoughtfulness of their administrators. I find it an urban myth to say Wellesley’s standards are higher when it’s SAT scores are comparable to Barnards and probably all the others. When Smith turns out a scholar like mini’s daughter ( and other D’s of CC friends) I just want to applaud. I feel pain when people condescend toMt Holyoke women, and Bryn Mawr barely gets discussed. Barnard is quite rigorous, woman centric and not Columia wannabes. And I do think Vassar has remained a very viable, vibrant intellectual institution. I would be proud to call any of them my alma mater or my daughter’s. And yay for Wellesley. I just saw Madeleine Albright on the Daily Show, and man, she rocks.</p>
<p>
Barnard women have equal or higher high school GPA’s on average as Columbia students. There is no reason to assume or expect any difference in academic or intellectual capacity among the various student bodies. “Various” because Columbia has 3 undergraduate colleges. My daughter’s experience was that the smartest & most capable students were the GS students, and there is a good deal of anecdotal information to support that. My own personal observation is that maturity is a highly significant predictor of college success. I believe that GS had a roughly 50% admissions rate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps. Just perhaps. :)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=albright%20and%20iraqi%20deaths&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBQQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dx4PgpbQfxgo&ei=lbiYT5nrHKiuiQKks5C0Aw&usg=AFQjCNHAd_upS_hBTroxT9uJe288zfYDcQ&sig2=q7xbO-ipbR49yYvr3qjS2g[/url]”>http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=albright%20and%20iraqi%20deaths&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBQQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dx4PgpbQfxgo&ei=lbiYT5nrHKiuiQKks5C0Aw&usg=AFQjCNHAd_upS_hBTroxT9uJe288zfYDcQ&sig2=q7xbO-ipbR49yYvr3qjS2g</a></p>
<p>Depends on one’s perspective.</p>
<p>“Please believe me, as my daughter knows from first-hand experience: it is not particularly fun to be a continuing student on a housing waitlist all summer because there weren’t any spots left during room selection. She was in that type of housing limbo two summers in a row. I don’t think the Barnard experience would be improved by over-crowding.”</p>
<p>Understood. Perhaps they can take over Columbia. ;)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Calmom, slicing and dicing can be fun, but it has limits. High school GPAs are not very useful for comparison purposes. Take a look at the class rank and test scores comparisons between Columbia and Barnard. </p>
<p>How large do you think the pool of cross-admits is for Columbia and Barnard. How many cross-admits do you think end up attending Barnard? </p>
<p>Intellectual or academic capacity is not the issue here. Admission policy is.</p>
<p>Reading the last few posts on admissions policy among the Seven Sisters made me curious, so I looked up the acceptance rate (2010) from US News. Here are the statistics on the 2010 acceptance rate: 28% Barnard, 39% Wellesley, 41% Smith, 48% Bryn Mawr, 52% Mt. Holoyke. One reason the acceptance rates are higher is that you’ve got a smaller pool of applicants–only women and only those who want a single-sex education. I think it’s also incorrect to assume that a higher acceptance rate means lower academic quality when it comes to women’s colleges.</p>