<p>I believe it was mini who asserted upthread that a single-sex education is always superior to a coed education for women; the implication being that women who choose a coed education are choosing an inferior education, and thus that all women would benefit from attending a women’s college. So no, not a straw man.</p>
<p>I suppose my stance is this: yes, strong women are discriminated against; no, not all strong women need, or want, the special nurture of a single-sex environment. And increasingly, I think strong women are choosing a single-sex college on merits other than or in spite of gender.</p>
<p>I do need to go read up on the various books about single-sex education. It’s an interesting topic.</p>
<p>Sorry rocket, but I would not reccomend commencement. Some parts of it do ring true about Smith women, the way they relate to each other, etc, but a lot of the plot is super preposterous and oh my goodness can we please, please have one piece of fiction (film book whatever) about a women’s college that does not involve students having I’ll considered affairs with professors? That is NOT what we go around doing, but it seems to be the one common thread in all pop culture women’s college representations. still, I think the author has some real talent and am looking forward to a hopefully more polished sophomore effort</p>
<p>While this thread is very interesting to me because I love Smith, it’s also pretty cool on another level. I’m a TA for a 10th grade sex ed class at my school, and tomorrow I’m leading a discussion about single-sex education. So some of the points and examples mentioned in this thread are probably going to find their way into my lessons :)</p>
<p>So why do you think anbody would they choose single sex colleges “in spite” of gender? Do you really thing that a co-ed Scripps or Smith would be the same school? </p>
<p>Personally, I think you are very lucky never to have felt out of place as a strong, assertive, smart woman (as clearly you are). However, with all due respect, Kiel, you don’t seem to me to be someone who has challenged the “good girl” stereotype. </p>
<p>I believe, based on what I’ve seen in my D’s classes, that while it is more true today than when I went to schoo that girls are on par with the boys in every classroom, the boys continue to be free to be far more comfortable in terms of "out of the box’ challenges to authority. </p>
<p>I think the deal today is that girls are ‘smart,’ but the boys have ‘charisma.’ It’s the Hillary Clinton syndrome. We have certainly reached the point where there are plenty of women technocrats–doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. But when it comes to leaders, where are the women? I’d about guarantee you that if Meg Whitman were a man, she’d be a lot further along than she currently is.</p>
<p>I’m thrilled that my D is considering women’s schools. On an individual basis, they may or may not work for any given kid. Sociologially speaking, I think it’s important that they remain an alternative because it validates the idea that gender continues to matter.</p>
<p>Why would anyone choose single-sex colleges in spite of gender? Well, go ask the many, many happy women’s college first-years who, a year ago, would NEVER have seen themselves at a women’s college. They didn’t choose the school because it was a women’s college–they chose it because of excellent academics, or excellent financial aid, or any multitude of reasons–and they thrived there.</p>
<p>What does it take to adequately challenge the “good girl” stereotype–to misbehave in class? Am I possibly not outspoken enough, since I haven’t experienced discrimination on that basis? No, thank you. I think I can judge for myself whether I’ve followed societal dictates for a woman of color. I have not.</p>
<p>I am proud to be a feminist; I don’t think gender discrimination has been eradicated from this world. Far from it. And regardless, I think there will always be a place for women’s colleges, and for men’s colleges, because there will always be people who want to choose a single-sex education, all politics and social justice aside. Even if gender ceased to matter, I would support the OPTION of single-sex education, on principle; because I wouldn’t want to impose my own political views of social justice upon others.</p>
<p>But a woman can be grow as a feminist, and a human being, without attending a women’s college or ever experiencing single-sex education. It is an option, not a lauded should-be-mandatory. There is a common, alternative feminist view–not necessarily one I subscribe to, as I think women’s colleges do fit into a feminist worldview: only through integration can women continue to pursue equality. As Chief Justice Roberts once said regarding race (I paraphrase), “The way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race.”</p>
<p>What Chief Justice Roberts fails to acknowledge is that simply declaring equality does not create equality. If you don’t address the legacy of unequal access that already exists, you can’t hope to have a level playing field in the future. But that is neither here nor there.</p>
<p>I think integration in education does not create equality. I think in order for women to be equal, they need to be as well prepared and as educated as men. In order for that to happen, they need to be educated seperately from men. Especially in science fields, I think women learning seperately and differently will lead them to be stronger and better. Then, when they enter the workplace, they are literally on the same level as men. </p>
<p>So i see seperation as a path to equality, but that’s just my opinion</p>
<p>^ As I said, there are two co-existing, very different views of how best to achieve the ultimate goals of feminism. I, personally, think that both pathways should be utilized and presented as equally valid options.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=rocket6louise]
in order for women to be equal, they need to be as well prepared and as educated as men. In order for that to happen, they need to be educated seperately from men.
[/quote]
That’s a pretty broad generalization. Sure, some women will require separate education in order to become equally as well-prepared and well-educated, because different people have different learning styles and different needs; but the implication in your statement, again, is that women who choose a coed education will not be as well-prepared and well-educated.</p>
<p>I don’t believe every person would benefit from college at all, so I would hardly suggest that each and every woman, raccoon, or Martian would benefit from any particular kind of institution.</p>
<p>What I am asserting, quite firmly, is that women’s colleges offer superior educations to coed ones for groups of female students of equal academic ability, AND for groups of students who are believed to have less academic ability than those entering schools considered more “elite”. And I have the data to prove it. They don’t have to “strive” to do anything; they’ve already done it.</p>
<p>If you want to argue with the point I actually made, go ahead and do so, but don’t make up a straw woman.</p>
<p>^If women’s colleges uniformly offer superior educations–and frankly, if there is a flaw in your data, I haven’t the statistical background to prove or disprove it, so I will take you at your word–then what of the majority of women who attend a coed college? What of their (implied) “inferior” education? Do you believe that certain people would benefit more from an academically inferior education?</p>
<p>And my entirely unscientific comment on “the point [you] actually made,” so to speak, rather than on my inferences from that point: Why do only women alumni “count”? On a gender-neutral basis, simply comparing respective college graduates, does your data still hold? (It may; as I said, I don’t have the statistical knowledge to analyze it nor the inclination to look up your specific claims.) After all, as a feminist member of society, I don’t just discount the achievements of male alumni because they are male, any more than I discount the achievements of white alumni because they aren’t Asian. I’ve never bothered to check which schools have the highest proportion of successful Asian alumni, because I don’t particularly care–if opportunities were offered to white alumni, then as a woman or as an Asian I can take those opportunities myself.</p>
<p>Only women count because only women can attend women’s colleges. Duh! I mean, if you wish, you can compare the data on male graduates or alumni of coed colleges with the male graduates or alumni of women’s colleges, but what would be the point?</p>
<p>Do people benefit from academically inferior educations? All the time. You can start with athletes, then with business students, and work your way down. I would never argue that women’s colleges are better than other colleges. “Better” has everything to do with fit. My rather more limited brief is that women’s colleges are academically superior to coed colleges admitting women with similar academic qualifications on admission, and academically superior to even more elite colleges admitting women with what would seem to be superior academic qualifications upon admission. Not equal - superior. And I have the data to back it up.</p>
<p>Keil, you are posting on a forum where most of us can only give anecdotes, our personal narratives, but you seem to be looking for quantitative proof in defense of women’s colleges. Why do you want that?</p>
<p>Choosing a college is a personal decision. In the final analysis, no study or statistic or mountain of anecdotes matters to an individual. Visit the colleges you believe might be suitable, and make up your mind for yourself. You are clearly capable of formulating your own opinion, as any strong, capable women should. </p>
<p>I wish you could have heard Smith’s President speak at Parents’ Weekend. She ably and convincingly articulated why women’s colleges are still vital. Even so, they may not be right for you. You, the individual.</p>
<p>I liken choosing a college to choosing a mate. Numbers don’t really help. I would go so far as to propose relying on statistics alone, instead of intuition, will more likely result in unhappiness. </p>
<p>Your extensive research ought to have helped you narrow your choices. From there, you would be better off relying on which colleges feel best. After your head has weighed in, go with your heart. </p>
<p>This sounds simplistic and highly subjective, I know. As you grow and mature, you’ll find that’s precisely what some decisions require.</p>
<p>mini - Or you could compare graduates of colleges with graduates of other colleges. Just a thought. Would you please summarize your data in brief, again, for my poor memory? IIRC it was based on output comparisons.</p>
<p>I would argue that some students (of any gender) can benefit academically more from coed colleges than from single-sex colleges. For instance, for some shy women, the best way to gain self-confidence is not to self-isolate, but to jump into the scary fray (i.e. a coed classroom) with support from professors. A friend made a similar decision in avoiding small LACs even though she likes the intimacy, because she feels like a larger environment would be more challenging and ultimately more growth-provoking.</p>
<p>My approach to the college search is, and has always been, to seek out as much information as possible–both quantative and qualitative, objective and subjective–and THEN follow my heart. There’s no point in falling in love with a school that is a poor (objective) academic fit, for instance.</p>
<p>I would be interested in reading what Smith’s president had to say.</p>
<p>^^Keil. I am glad that you found a method that works for you for picking a college. I know for myself and others, some colleges just “feel” right. Maybe they aren’t the greatest academically, but somewhere, deep down, you know you will thrive. That’s my approach on colleges. All the data in the world cannot replace that feeling. </p>
<p>I would rather have anecdotal evidence than data any day. But that’s just me</p>
<p>^ Definitely, I’m not saying my method is BETTER. But I am saying that it works for me, and that it doesn’t necessarily ignore the fuzzy side.</p>
<p>For example, I visited and adored Oberlin. However, Oberlin offers no linguistics and has no plans to do so in the near future. That is an important consideration in my search, even as I still plan to apply there. A close friend of mine visited and adored Kenyon before discovering that she really wanted to major in linguistics, not English; I don’t think she is applying, as much as it pains her.</p>
still, I think the author has some real talent and am looking forward to a hopefully more polished sophomore effort</p>