The Lame Defense of Women's Colleges

College Search & Selection
121

<p>I just saw this thread for the first time and I’m glad I did.</p>

<p>EricLG, my D graduated from Smith in '08 and had a spectacular experience, including a semester in D.C. as an intern on a U.S. Senate staff and a semester in Budapest studying mathematics. She also played in the Smith orchestra for the three years she was on campus.</p>

<p>Smith ranked extremely high when we were scouting schools. On more scorecard, it actually ranked just ahead of Yale(!!!). </p>

<p>My D is straight and had two questions for Smith to seal the deal: was Northampton big enough? (This was a kid for whom Columbia had been #1 on paper, thought she wanted a big city.) Answer: yes. It may be only 30K but it has restaurants, art, music, and is very hip </p>

<p>would she as a straight girl be uncomfortable there? Emphatically not. She has friends who are straight, gay, bi-, and tranny. Never was she made to feel uncomfortable for any reason and my own take is that there’s probably a lot less sexual unwanted sexual advances at Smith than there are at most co-ed institutions. (Also a lot less alcohol abuse and drug use, fwiw.) She had two on-campus overnights a year apart before accepting Smith’s acceptance and both experiences were good…but the next four years were even better. </p>

<p>Thumbnail of why Smith: a contrast. D had e-mailed the orchestra director at Columbia and received a response of “Get admitted to Columbia, come to the audition, then we can talk.” The orchestra director at Smith not only set an appointment to meet with her on the day we were visiting (and was nice enough to come over and talk with us after they were finished) but when he found out that we weren’t leaving for New Haven until the next day, he invited D to come back to an orchestra rehearsal that evening and sit with her section on stage. And virtually <em>everything</em> about Smith was like that.</p>

<p>Negatives: an at times overwhelming amount of PC. Need to let it roll off your back if you’re not so inclined. Many people don’t have right hands…they have a Left hand and a Far-Left hand (and I say this as someone who would be regarded as flaming liberal in many parts of the country). The President is doing a cost-cutting move in eliminating the campus chaplains, which will damage some small but vibrant communities.</p>

<p>Everything else, from the intellectual atmosphere to the housing to the food to alumna network to the opportunities for studying abroad (one of D’s friends spent her year split between Rome and Oxford…drool), Smith is outstanding. I remember at the first prospect part that I was so impressed with the current students and thought they’d be a great group of peers…I was right.</p>

<p>Come on by the Smith Forum under Liberal Arts Colleges if you want to talk more.</p>

122

<p>Good to see you, TD! My d. now has firsthand experience at Princeton, specifically in her subjects. This includes her teaching. Frankly, in terms of the education offered (in her areas), it isn’t comparable to Smith.</p>

123

<p>Hey, Mini. I think mine is another year away from applying to grad schools. It’ll be interesting to see what her experiences are like in terms of contrast.</p>

<p>TD</p>

124

<p>This and other threads have been a big help to me during my D’s college search, so I though I would add a perspective from an “uninitiated” dad.</p>

<p>I knew nothing of WCs until a couple landed on my D’s shortlist. One became her clear top choice and she is thrilled that it came back a match. (No further detail, my D would hate that I have posted here.)</p>

<p>I moved from ignorant (although strongly liberal arts biased) to increasingly impressed the more I learned about WCs (from the window of the two my D liked). It is clear to me that those who are dismissive of WCs (as glorified finishing schools, etc.) are simply uninformed – kind of like Richard Posner recently admitting he had never read Keynes during all of his years spouting Chicago School nonsense :)</p>

<p>My takes:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>WCs will always be highly self-selecting. There is no “correct” reason “why” one should choose a WC. I would guess the reasons are as individualized as the students who choose to attend. The comments above on college selection being intuitive are spot on.</p></li>
<li><p>Each WC is unique; one really must visit the campus to get a sense of whether there is a match with that WC (true for colleges of any stripe). </p></li>
<li><p>WCs have no need to justify/defend their existence: the superb educational opportunity WCs offer is to be celebrated. What a fantastic option for students of the female persuasion to consider!</p></li>
<li><p>A post above (or on another thread) stated WCs are women’s colleges first and LACs second. Well said (see supportive environment comment below), but I would revise to “first among equals”: there is nothing secondary about the quality of the liberal arts education on offer (and I know the original poster did not intend to imply otherwise). </p></li>
<li><p>Highly self-selecting does not mean a lesser quality student body. Painting WC students as weak or timid simply illustrates the ignorance of the painter. These students all have high quality college options and select their WC (acknowledging the occasional merit scholarship admissions bribery). (HYPS devotees may turn up their noses on median numbers, but there is certainly brain power at WCs to rival any campus.)</p></li>
<li><p>WCs offer a superb educational setting: small classes all taught by quality faculty, not grad students.</p></li>
<li><p>On visiting, my D’s impression (I felt the same) was a supportive campus culture – help finalizing papers, cramming for exams, etc. – this is decidedly not the case on many other highly/hyper selective campuses. If there is a defining characteristic of WCs, I would say this is it.</p></li>
<li><p>I find the occasional focus on guys/gay culture concerns silly: these are not nunneries and gay culture is part of life on all campuses (god bless).</p></li>
<li><p>More a small school comment than WC specific, but WCs offer a personalized education where a student will not spend an anonymous four years; depends what you are looking for, but an engaged college experience awaits for sure.</p></li>
<li><p>There does appear to be a low correlation WC => MBA (as opposed to other grad/professional studies), but I view that as a sign of superior intelligence – if one is interested in business/analogues training as a major, I submit that person is not seeking an intellectual life of depth and breadth. :)</p></li>
</ul>

<p>In sum, count me as one dad who moved from “what?” to “let’s figure out how to pay for this” during the search.</p>

<p>Did I mention small classes, all taught by profs and a supportive culture? :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :)</p>

125

<p>You’re clearly not clueless no more. :slight_smile: My D is off to MHC next fall, and the days until then are getting longer and longer to her. We visited 15 LACs, and MHC and Smith stood out for all the reasons you ably listed above. I was in a frat house at a “coed” university with very few women. Yet, I was not a monk. Sure it took some effort, but so? With my experience, a WC was no jump for me or for my D to accept. We met a Wellesley alumna who was bubbling when she heard that my D was joining the Seven Sisters. As Seven Sisters alumnae, they seem to join together and help one another as an Old Girls Club to fight together to break the glass ceiling and get good jobs. Three days ago, one Old Girl Clubber got a Golden Globe – Merryl Streep (Vassar).</p>

<p>(By the way CluelessDad, my D, like your D, is also interested in music)</p>

126

<p>What I don’t understand–as a student who has applied to one women’s college but not due to gender–is the constant repetition of small classes, great faculty, supportive and collaborative environment. That is true of most, if not all, “equivalent” coed LACs. I’m sure you can find students at both coed and single-sex LACs to affirm and support such generalizations.</p>

<p>Many WCs do have a more “visible” lesbian population, which may make conservative students uncomfortable. It’s a valid concern. With regard to self-selection, for example, how does Bryn Mawr compare to Grinnell, a self-selecting coed school due to location rather than gender? I would say that they are approximately the same “tier,” which is a tier down from AWS. Perhaps the student body is more laid-back than, e.g., at Swarthmore; or perhaps not. The quality of education is not any different at Grinnell than at Swarthmore, but the student experience is–because they are different LACs with different prevailing cultures, and yes, different student body “tier” (I dislike the word quality applied to students, because a lower-stat/“tier” student is not lesser-quality).</p>

<p>I agree that WCs have no need to justify their existence, just as Wabash and Deep Springs do not. But unless a given College Applicant A has a special desire to attend a women’s college–for any number of very good reasons–I don’t believe that a WC is inherently better than a coed school that is an equally good “fit.” (And yes, there is such a good thing as “equal” fits. Different but equal is actually true for college preferences.)</p>

127

<p>Keil, I think this is where college preferences inherently ultimately move to subjective intuitive/personal choices: you either feel you connect with a campus or you don’t. </p>

<p>In reading this and related threads, I’ve been very impressed with the high analytical ability and food for thought in your posts (which have been very helpful to me). But I do think you seek to decode universal objective criteria for what is ultimately an individual decision of the heart. Let’s think of college selection like buying a car: any adman will tell you buyers may rationalize the spec sheet, but they buy on emotion. What should speak to your heart more than matching to your future alma mater? </p>

<p>The particular campus either feels right or it doesn’t. For many students, that fact that it is a WC will be key to their decision; for others the WC element may not be a significant (or even a negative) factor. My D wandered into considering WCs as a subset of LACs, interest grew and a campus visit/contacts took her heart. </p>

<p>I suppose I am a CC heretic in that I really could care less about “tiers”; profiles/stats were somewhat helpful to identify a “longlist”. My D was match-level for what some may consider “better” LACs; those (heresy!) didn’t connect as strongly in her eyes and she was happy to commit to an ED. </p>

<p>Which gets us to the whole “better” thing. I would never argue any school (or at least broadly comparable schools) are “better” than any other school or that a WC is “better” than a co-ed LAC. The only ranking that is important is your own.</p>

<p>With respect, I do take issue with your lesbian comment: we came across no concerns that WC campuses were hostile environments for straight students. I don’t think that is a fair basis to knock a WC, other than for a student who herself would be intolerant of gays (and I am not implying in any way that that would describe you) – and I would add we also noticed active conservative faith groups represented in the WC student bodies. The diversity of the WC student bodies was impressive to see.</p>

<p>You also dismiss that collaborative/supportive elements of a WC are any stronger than at co-ed LAC. You are entitled to your view, but I see truth there (and more gender discrimination in career life to follow than young women realize) and that feature should not be declared as obvectively false for students drawn to a WC for this reason.</p>

128

<p>I guess my big thing with WC’s is that I plan to pursue science. I want professors who will place all their attention on the females, not the males. Women are underrepresented in the sciences, and this way, I’m not one of 15% in a Calc class, i’m one of 100%</p>

129

<p>I definitely think that subjective “gut feeling” is important… I just go about it in the opposite way than most people. I consider as many objective factors as possible first, and then visit the objective fits to see which appeal to me. IMO, it doesn’t make much sense to fall in love with a school that’s wholly unaffordable, or that is a perfect social fit but doesn’t offer your major–because I don’t believe in there being one perfect school for anyone. There’s the best school for someone, at any given time, but it’s easier all-around if the unsuitable objective fits are eliminated before you start messing with your gut. JMHO.</p>

<p>I don’t think tiers necessarily distinguish quality, but selectivity–and selectivity does play a not-insignificant role in shaping a student body. Also, I definitely don’t think any WC campuses are hostile to straight students! That would be utterly counterintuitive. But I do think that some people–e.g. some of my conservative evangelical friends–would be uncomfortable with open displays of affection by homosexuals. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are intolerant. And of course, others of my evangelical friends are perfectly fine with homosexuality; but generalizations usually start from anecdotal truth.</p>

<p>Certainly collaboration and support will vary among LACs, but I reject the notion that a given WC will be more collaborative/supportive than a given coed LAC. Some students may be drawn to a WC because they feel more comfortable/confident/supported in a single-sex environment–and that’s one reason why WC fill an important niche. But ultimately I think the preference for WC due to “support” lies in the individual and can’t be generalized across the WC/coed spectrum.</p>

<p>rocket - Definitely another common motivator. I’m taking the other tack of hoping to meet some nice, geeky guys in my CS classes. ;)</p>

130

<p>^^oh Keil…i’m jealous at the notion of geeky guys…they’re my weakness</p>

131

<p>^I’m more of a fan of nerdy guys. And nerdy girls, for that matter, but I’ll have no issues finding those at women’s colleges :D</p>

132

<p>^Geek all the way! Of any or no gender.</p>

133

<p>oh t_c…i forgot about geeky girls…they can be equally my weakness</p>

134

<p>The supportive environment thing may be true at a number of LACs, but until you experience a women’s college environment, you can’t really understand how that kind of supportive environment is fundamentally different from that at co-ed LACs. I can’t explain it, you either have experienced it and get it, or you haven’t and you don’t. But it isn’t the same. For the ones that stay, that love it and make it, it is better. Some don’t care for it though and they go elsewhere. For them, it’s not a better thing. But it is different. </p>

<p>Though small class size and superb educations, yes, you can get anywhere.</p>

135

<p>Smithie, well said, thank you; this is the vibe my D thought she sensed staying overnight on campus. Some like Keil may not value it or see it as true in their perception (perfectly valid), but students considering WCs should be aware of this element and make their own assessments.</p>

<p>Keil, I have no doubt you will choose well and you are correct too much gets made of “the best match” – there are many and acceptances/rejections etc. quickly fade once college life launches. I also understand withholding emotional ties until the objective variables play out. For my D, I knew she was a goner when she refused to buy anything at the campus bookstore – it would have been too painful to have a logo item in the house if she were rejected but she had no such qualms on other campus visits.</p>

<p>Rocket, the stats are clearly with you on hard sciences and WCs – I hope the financial pieces come together for you!</p>

136

<p>I hope I do not offend Mini by re-posting from another thread, but I referenced in my original post and found it influential as my D was considering WCs:</p>

<p>**"I think folks make a mistake if they think these schools are liberal arts colleges that happen to be all women. They are women’s colleges that happen to be devoted to the liberal arts. The differences we found were quite pronounced at my d.'s school, with special attention paid to advising and long-term career advising (i.e. women going into male-dominated fields), a program on women and financial independence, and mentoring (50% of the faculty being women, and a special emphasis on women faculty in the sciences and engineering), and virtually all administrators being women.</p>

<p>"Impact? Well, just as example - add together all the women graduates of Swarthmore, Williams, and Amherst for the past five years, which will then be about the size of the Smith. Then compare the combined Fulbrights awarded to women (which depend heavily on good advising - and what was done at the school itself, as opposed to any special giftedness) of the past 5 years, and also do so relative to median SAT scores. Oh, and if you’re really into it, count the number of research (as opposed to teaching Fulbrights), and add in the Fulbright-like fellowships awarded by the French government (they are really Fulbrights in all but name.)</p>

<p>"See anything interesting?</p>

<p>“(In case you’re wondering where I’m coming from, I am an honors graduate from #1 LAC where I was awarded a Rhodes-like fellowship to Oxford, and later worked on my Ph.D. and taught at UChicago. My d. is a Smith graduate, awarded a 5-6-year fellowship to Princeton for a dual Ph.D. We’ve kicked the tires. I pull no punches: I am saying, for women, academically, generally speaking, that Smith is better than Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams. Not equal; better. Others will feel differently.)”**</p>

<p>I don’t intend to instigate “better” debates, but do encourage WCs to be considered as excellent options for the gender fortunate :)</p>

137

<p>^I remember that post. I wonder, now, how Smith compares to both female and male graduates of AWS.</p>

138

<p>With respect, I believe you miss the point of the post. As a middle-aged white guy, it is interesting to me to note how upcoming women take equal opportunity for granted – you shouldn’t.</p>

<p>Assume equal overall Fulbrights etc. I haven’t run the numbers, but if we take Mini’s “giants and pygmies” comment at face value, and factor in the fact that the average female LAC student holds superior credentials than the average male LAC student … hmmmm.</p>

139

<p>^Oh, I get mini’s point very well. He and I had some interesting discussions on the matter. I concede his superior knowledge of statistics. I also wonder, why only Fulbrights as a stat point? On what post-achievement criteria do AWS outrank Smith–if you tell me that Smith is superior in everything, your credibility becomes nonexistent, because that kind of generalization is impossible with the fine distinctions we’re making–and on what other points do the Seven Sisters outrank AWS? How do these criteria compare?</p>

<p>My point is that even if “male” achievements outnumber “female” achievements at coed colleges–and I have no doubt that they do, because gender discrimination is never-ending–I think a better approach for some people is to challenge that perception head-on. Attending a single-sex school may encourage misogynists to dismiss women as more needing of “nurture” in “special” environments. (I don’t believe this at all, but I can see how some might draw this conclusion.) Coed colleges are not INTENTIONALLY sexist, and I believe that the feminist cause–like the anti-racist cause–is best pursued through integration rather than self-segregation. Similarly I try to stop myself from self-segregating into tight-knit Asian communities, even though life might be “easier” for me in such a community.</p>

<p>On a personal note, Williams is not really similar to Smith except for both being top LACs. I’d be interested in seeing a Bryn Mawr vs. Swarthmore comparison.</p>

140

<p>Perhaps because Fulbrights offer a high quality data point window capable of easy objective comparison? There is no need for a food fight over how many laurels of various types diffferent colleges generate.</p>

<p>Some choose LACs every year and are very happy in their choices. They are very fortunate to get those acceptance letters and deserve congrats for their choices.</p>

<p>But to bring us back full circle, your original post staked out ground (including a dismissive thread title) that WCs have nothing special to offer. WCs most definitely do offer a special opportunity and the potential advantages should not be dismissed for the some others that may find WCs compelling if they explore them.</p>