<p>You misunderstand me. The poster I quoted in my previous post was “implying” something; you were explicitly stating something. Nor was I refuting/arguing against your output data; it is, in fact, a compelling data point to me. I proceeded to bring up a different point in hopes that you would assuage my concerns, which you seem to be so good at doing with regard to women’s colleges.</p>
<p>I do indeed think of Smith/Wellesley/Holyoke/Bryn Mawr/etc. as LACs that happen to be all-women. Can you elaborate more on the distinction you’re making? The curriculum and faculty will be more female-focused (or just plain more female, in the latter case); but I don’t particularly see the “BIG difference.” Nor have I previously ever heard that women’s colleges have better-quality advising than an equivalent coed LAC–aren’t most LACs known for great advisement? There are exceptions, I’m sure, but I would assume those exceptions are evenly distributed no matter the gender ratio of the student body.</p>
<p>One “general” difference that I have heard of, and am attracted to: lack of focus on alcohol abuse. But I’m sure there are other women who want that scene and will receive an amazing education while enjoying it. Will you elaborate on “what happens on fall weekends” at Williams?</p>
<p>The faculty will be more female; the people in leadership positions will be female. The advising will be MUCH better (I can speak to that at close secondhand); as advisors are quite aware that many of their advisees will be going into male-dominated professions, that will heavily be part of the discussion. And advisors will push harder to assure that their women students won’t be shortchanging themselves as women. There will be seminars on the trajectory of women’s lives; and seminars and centers on women and financial independence. There will be the constant example of strong, powerful women, not just students, nor even faculty, but folks brought from the outside. (And you’ll see BIG differences in the career development offices - again, compare with LACs where the 25-75% SATs are the same.)</p>
<p>Weekends at #1? most women are appendages to a gargantuan male bonding ritual. Can women receive a great education there? You bet. But that’s not the question you asked. As a rule, they will receive an inferior education. And the outputs indicate just that.</p>
<p>(Incidentally, I am sure you have gone to the cc forums for LAC #1. Ever count how many women participate? And what kinds of questions they ask?)</p>
<p>I’m not convinced that comparing advising between Smith and Williams automatically equals comparing advising between, say, Bryn Mawr and Grinnell, or Scripps and Carleton. (E.g. Among top LACs of any type, Grinnell is known for especially small classes and strong advising.)</p>
<p>Personally speaking, I am academically interested in one male-dominated field but far more interested (as a probable, rather than possible, major) in female-dominated fields. No stats to back up my intuition, but I think more women than men major in English at most colleges.</p>
<p>I will PM you with a Smith-specific question.</p>
<p>So take a look at women in publishing, or female authors from the women’s colleges and compare with women from schools with similar 25-75% SAT scores.</p>
<p>Grinnell is a great, great school, with women first admitted in the 1870s. So go to the Grinnell Alumni Wikipedia site. The information is likely submitted by the school itself. Count the number of women - in all fields. Then count the number of men.</p>
<p>^Where do you find all of these alumni names? I always hear them bandied about (for lots of different colleges, not just women’s colleges) but never formally cited, since it’s considered common knowledge.</p>
<p>EDIT: Never mind, I didn’t realize you were actually referring to Wikipedia rather than a Grinnell-specific Wiki.</p>
<p>In my view, the problem here is that you are starting from a premise that women’s colleges NEED a “defense.” </p>
<p>This is the same trap that people get into when defending elite NE LACs against the assumptions of the type of person who thinks that a school has to have 15,000 students, big time sports, and hot weather in order to be a desirable school.</p>
<p>At this point I’ve concluded that it is simply a fruitless argument.</p>
<p>^Agreed. Actually, the original poster herself made the observation. “A single-sex education doesn’t stop the glass ceiling from existing; it just gives women tools to fight it and raise it.”</p>
<p>I agree with Consolation. Some people just will never get it, and frankly, that’s fine. Single-sex ed is not for everyone. If you love women’s colleges then just hold on to and be secure in that, and let those that doubt or deride you pass by without a second thought. Not everyone is ready to leave the cave and come into the light. :-)</p>
<p>^ There’s an interesting sentiment. For whom, exactly, is single-sex education “not” for?</p>
<p>I have never derided those who choose women’s colleges; it’s an excellent and logical choice. But I question the notion that women’s colleges are automatically better than coed colleges for women, that everyone who DOESN’T attend a women’s college is hiding in a cave somewhere.</p>
<p>I really think the school should matter more than the single sex vs coed issues. I definately think Smith is better than most schools in this country. Not because it’s a women’s college, but because it’s a great school. But, to say it’s better than, say, Swarthmore is kinda absurd on the basis that it is a women’s college. Now, if you say that Smith produces more history PhDs than Swarthmore(i have no idea if this is true, just an example) than you can say Smith is better for you (if you’re a history major)
Saying “because it’s a women’s college” is kinda sexist.</p>
<p>Keilex: I think that small women’s colleges (aka all women’s colleges) is probably not the right environment for anyone who doesn’t like small coed schools, with most of what that implies. If you want a big sports scene or heavy Greek life, you shouldn’t go to a women’s colleges, just like you shouldn’t go to a comparable small coed LAC. I think the reverse is true as well; if you’re a qualified women interested primarily in LACs, you should at least consider women’s colleges, as they probably meet most of your desires by default.</p>
<p>^ Interesting. So here is a general question, and I may post it as a thread-level question later: for “a qualified [woman] interested primarily in LACs,” is there any particular characteristic–as a generalization–that would make such a woman a poor fit for a women’s college? Disregard individual academic fit and other issues that would be exactly the same if the same college were coed.</p>
<p>Statistically, the majority of Smith students couldn’t get into Swarthmore. The fact that the outputs can be reasonably compared speaks volumes about relative educational quality. And I doubt that it has anything at all to do with the entrance characteristics of the women who choose either.</p>
<p>^^i think that’s a bit rash. I have the stats to get into a place like Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst or even an ivy. Yet, I find a women’s college far more appealing…I’m sure there are others like me</p>
<p>rocket, statistically you would be in the upper quarter of Smith students.</p>
<p>I’m not speaking of entrance characteristics -> output. I’m wondering what, if any, entrance characteristics might make a women’s college a lesser fit for a given student than the identical coed college. Pretend Smith magically had a 50/50 gender ratio–would this hypothetical school be a better fit for any woman than the current 100/0 Smith? Who would that kind of woman be?</p>
<p>“i think that’s a bit rash. I have the stats to get into a place like Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst or even an ivy. Yet, I find a women’s college far more appealing…I’m sure there are others like me.”</p>
<p>You would join my d., who was admitted to them. But still a statistical outlier. </p>
<p>“Pretend Smith magically had a 50/50 gender ratio–would this hypothetical school be a better fit for any woman than the current 100/0 Smith?”</p>
<p>Can’t. Smith is a WOMEN’S college first, LAC second. (and, for the most part, LACs don’t have engineering schools, nor graduate programs.)</p>
This was my point on the first page; there’s really no justification for single-sex colleges unless there is some reason for them other than the fact that they are just good colleges. That reason can just be preference for a single-sex environment, of course.</p>