<p>This little ditty was found in the Sophian. This is not just a trend as of late, but rather a 70 year stat. Rather impressive! This will only grow as the new Ford science building goes up, and as the engineering program becomes more widely known. Yup, looks like Smith is doing it right!
[quote]
For the past 70 years, Smith has maintained a spot in the top two percent of four-year colleges with the greatest number of graduates receiving doctorates in science. Along with this apparent strength in educating female pioneers in the fields of science and technology, Smith has also responded to the growing concern of male dominance in these fields.
<p>** Smith is the first women’s college in the country to offer engineering.</p>
<p>** Smith’s engineering program has grown from an entering class of 20 in 2000 to some 135 majors and intended majors in 2004.</p>
<p>** Thirty percent of Smith students major in the sciences -- more than three times the national average for women.</p>
<p>** Smith is one of the top four-year colleges sending women to doctoral studies in the sciences.</p>
<p>** Smith alumnae include the first woman elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the first woman computer scientist at IBM and the first woman on the faculty of Johns Hopkins Medical School.</p>
<p>Well, the second part of the quote is easier. Smith sends a very high proportion of students on to grad/professional schools combined, so the fact that they do so in the sciences isn't surprising to me.</p>
<p>As to the first, it's probably a combination of opportunity and role-model thing. Smith includes showcasing the sciences in their recruiting materials that impressionable high school students receive. The first step is getting a student to think, "hey, I <em>could</em> do this."</p>
<p>I've picked on some occasional grumbles from the humanities and social sciences students about the Smith emphasis on science & engineering but I don't think it's disproportionate as much as the fact that for a similar "level of support," whatever that means, science & engineering is a lot more capital intensive, what with all those labs and such.</p>
<p>This timing of this thread is perfect for my household. I just received a phone call from my first year to ask if hubby and I would "mind" if she majored in neuroscience, with the goal of going to med school.</p>
<p>This, from my previously (and strictly) humanities-oriented daughter. Foreign languages, cultures, literature, creative writing -- that was her milieu. After assuring her that 1. yes, it would be tough after not taking any core sciences this year and 2. yes, it was possible to still get everything in, I asked her, "Why did you decide now after shying away from the sciences?" She answered, "Well, I kept telling myself that science was too hard and intimidating, but then I realized that it was a silly reason not to major in something that really interested me."</p>
<p>Even if she decides not to pursue sciences after a semester of them, at least she is going to give it a shot. I attribute this academic risk to the self-confidence Smith has instilled in her.</p>
<p>Well, at least as far as the engineering school goes, I think the merit aid is an intractable problem: you gotta give it to attract good students who otherwise might choose more established programs. </p>
<p>I suspect that there may also be longer term strategic issues involved, e.g., building up Smith in science & engineering so that it's not "just another LAC."</p>
<p>I've become a fervent exponent of womens colleges while at the same time wondering how many will be sustainable in 20 years. My guess is that the numbers will slowly erode. The high end of the academic curve should fare better...that's a guess...but there are no guarantees once the baby boom echo begins to recede. </p>
<p>(I think the top end fares best because it may seen as a "back door" into Ivy- or near-Ivy-caliber education with less competitive admissions.)</p>
<p>It kinda reminds me of the joke about the pair of hunters encountering a grizzly bear. One bends down and changes into running shoes and the other says, "Don't be crazy, you can't outrun the bear." To which came the reply, "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to be able to outrun you."</p>
<p>Loved the above post (#7), TheDad, and agree with the points made. </p>
<p>It is the less comptetitve women's schools which were having trouble filling their seats that are dropping off the single-sex list (Chestnut Hill and Immaculata Colleges, etc.) </p>
<p>The Wellesley, Smith, Bryn Mawr versions are likely to be able to hold their own, at least for a few decades. </p>
<p>I do think Smith is strategically factoring these considerations in with the development of the engineering school and other initiatives.</p>
<p>MWFN, my D is also thinking about majoring in neuroscience. PM me, and maybe the girls can get together. She is taking intro to NS right now. Her prof died last week, so they're waiting to see who will pick up the class. He was only 48 yrs. old, died of a massive heart atack. My D thought he was great; really loved what he did. She is also in org. chem. II and some bio at the same time, in addition to Portuguese II and ballet class. She's such a typical Smithie. My guess is that the complaint that 1st semester wasn't that challenging will be a short memory.</p>
<p>Not to play favorites (but...if you know me, I will anyway), Smith has it all over the other women's colleges for those wishing to pursue hard sciences and math. It is not an accidental strategy at all, just one that puts them in the leadership role; even compared to many elite universities and colleges (yes...including ivies!) The research opportunities are second to none...period.</p>
<p>"Not to play favorites (but...if you know me, I will anyway), Smith has it all over the other women's colleges for those wishing to pursue hard sciences and math. "</p>
<p>Actually, from 2000 to 2004, Wellesley had more graduates earn PHD's in science and engineering than Smith.</p>
<p>And...for the subset of physical and life sciences, Mounth Holyoke was on top.</p>
<p>From 1966 to 2004, according to the NSF’s Survey of Earned Doctorates, Mount Holyoke graduated more women than any other liberal arts college who went on to get U.S. doctorates in the physical and life sciences (356 and 109, respectively). This puts Mount Holyoke in the top 2 percent of all colleges and universities--even major research universities with at least double the enrollment and faculty.</p>
<p>Among elite liberal arts colleges, Mount Holyoke ranks first in graduating minority women who went on to receive U.S. doctorates (22 total) in life and physical sciences from 2000 to 2004.</p>
<p>From 2000 to 2005, Mount Holyoke science faculty were awarded more NSF grant money—$8,122,015—than any other leading liberal arts college.</p>
<p>So BJM8, you were playing favorites! However, I will agree that there are amazing opportunities for women to excel in science after leaving Smith...along with similar opportunities at Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke and other women's colleges.</p>
<p>Just want to clarify the end of my post...a missing word or two changes the meaning of what I wanted to say!</p>
<p>....there are amazing opportunities for women to excel in science AT SMITH AND AFTER...along with similar opportunities at Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke and other women's colleges.</p>
<p>"I attribute this academic risk to the self-confidence Smith has instilled in her."</p>
<p>I agree. What I find fascinating is how many women arrive at Smith intending on a major in bio, chem. math, (hopes of med school, research, etc) only to change their mind when they experience for the first time courses such as eastern studies, Buddhist studies, art history, philosophy or many other liberal art courses, fall in love with a new found discipline and overnight have a new major. This, I would argue, makes Smith or any liberal art college education invaluable. It offers something irreplaceable, intellectual discovery.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, from 2000 to 2004, Wellesley had more graduates earn PHD's in science and engineering than Smith.
[/quote]
I stand corrected 2boysima. I also noticed that both Wellesley and Smith had more graduates earn Ph.D's in engineering and science than Bryn Mawr, U. Chicago, Wesleyan, Dartmouth, and many others. Great stats, thanks. It appears that Wellesely had 28 more graduates earn these degrees during those four years of data. BTW, thanks for the clarification in your following post, I knew what you meant.
[quote]
It offers something irreplaceable, intellectual discovery.
[/quote]
How true, RLT. This is something my D has mentioned numerous times to us, as she sees herself growing exponentially in other areas of interest as well. And, all this in only her second semester! She feels comfortable, I believe because of her surroundings, to wander off into other academic areas as well.</p>
<p>Hey, these are two great schools with great profs and students. Can't go wrong with either of them as a choice. It's all about fit. Either way, they are both doing a wonderful job preparing women for higher degrees and education in sciences and engineering. Now for my playing favorites part' I do think Smith will have the upper hand once the new Ford Science building opens up, and the engineering program continues to grow. ;) (I couldn't help but get that in!)
[quote]
Notably, 5 of the top 50 baccalaureate-origin institutions for women were liberal arts colleges; four of these five were predominantly women's colleges (Wellesley, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Bryn Mawr). None of the top 50 baccalaureate-origin institutions for men was a liberal arts college.