<p>WCs are indeed women’s schools first, LACs second. Is that the best path to “long-term viability”? I don’t know. But after all this discussion, I find that I still agree with the above quoted excerpt.</p>
<p>Keil, I think I have the general gist of your thread/posts which I read as: (a) a starting premise that WCs must justify their viability in the modern era of co-ed colleges and (b) a support culture unique to WCs either does not exist (denial) or is a somewhat embarrassing vestige of a prior era signaling weakness (ok for weak personalities who cannot fend for themselves, but a turn off for truly strong students) which WCs should shake off to become viable/be taken seriously as first rate colleges.</p>
<p>We have agreed in a post above that WCs in fact have nothing to defend: these are superb and thriving colleges, attracting highly qualified students and offering academic quality second to none. So much for the viability strawman.</p>
<p>As to the merits of a supportive culture, I can tell you that my D is as self-assured and as capable of fending for herself as they come; yet she sensed and saw the value of a supportive college community empowering her and she sensed this as different at WC visits than at LAC visits. Others like you will not see it or care for it – to each their own.</p>
<p>A supportive culture unique to WCs is a hallmark feature consistently reported by WC students and alums. Why do you insist, based on your limited single perspective, that all these people are flatly wrong? It is an important point because prospective students should be aware of this (claimed if you insist) aspect of WCs and encouraged to explore and make their own assessments, just as you have done.</p>
<p>At some points you dismiss that gender discrimination exists in co-ed colleges; at others you insist confronting gender barriers by attending LACs is the best answer. Well, best for you, fine, but it is wrong to suggest a student is somehow making a lesser choice by selecting a WC.</p>
<p>Keil, home ill today so I have reviewed this thread in more detail.</p>
<p>I now realize I have simply resurrected points already ably raised by others, so not sure I have added anything of value to this thread.</p>
<p>It strikes me that you are more interested in rhetorical parries than taking on board the WC experiences offered in good faith by other posters here.</p>
<p>There is also an element in your posts that is, bluntly (head cold candor speaking here) off-putting: starting with an intentionally belittling thread title, to canards questioning WC viability, passive aggressive jibes comparing WCs to LACs and disingenuous comments about rampant lesbianism (this last particularly galling as it is a sexist society’s goto putdown of strong women).</p>
<p>If it is important to you to justify a WC because it is really no different than a LAC, you should select the LAC: the cultures are distinct. Look to your heart: will you truly be happy at a WC and more importantly, will you contribute to the positive experience of your WC classmates? Or are you going to spend four years being the campus snarky naysayer? I think this is where Smithie comes from in an earlier post questioning whether you are a good fit for a WC.</p>
<p>If you are about selectivity, the equivalent LAC will be relatively more selective as to numbers of applicants. If you are really all about selectivity, go to a military academy and learn to kill secure in the knowledge that you are among the most selectively admitted anywhere.</p>
<p>I wish you the best in your acceptances and selection; I understand you like argument and the points you raise may simply be sounding boards as you explore your interests. But if a WC is in your future, I do hope you will respect the culture your classmates see and value there rather than being destructive to that culture.</p>
<p>In point-to-point format. Preface all below statements with “I believe” and somesuch.</p>
<p>1) WCs have justified their viability in the modern era by catering to young women who prefer, or would especially thrive in, single-sex education. There will always be women who fall into this category, though certainly fewer today than 100 years ago. With regard to education, the “quality” is the same as of any top LAC, with different strengths and weaknesses unique to a given school.</p>
<p>2) The support culture in WCs is often cariactured as catering to “weak personalities.” The emphasis on a special “all-female supportiveness” inherent to any and all WCs is detrimental because it encourages this cariacture. While some LACs are more supportive than others–because “LAC” is not monolithic–I question the assumption that any given WC is more supportive than any given coed LAC.</p>
<p>Why do I question this “hallmark feature”? Well, because I have also researched a lot of coed LACs where the students and alums consistently report back with high praise for excellent advising and a “unique” sense of supportive community. Obviously it isn’t truly “unique,” and that’s a good thing. WCs are supportive–yes. WCs are uniformly more supportive than coed LACs–no.</p>
<p>3) Gender discrimination exists at coed colleges because gender discrimination exists in the world. Gender discrimination (of a different sort) exists at WCs, too. My personal preference is against self-segregation, whether by gender or race. I do not particularly wish to impose this personal preference upon others.</p>
<p>4) Lesbianism IS more obvious at WCs than at many coed LACs. This is a simple function of community norms. I fully support the LGBT community for both personal and ideological reasons. However, my experiences in an analogous realm (religious minority) have taught me not to belittle those who are less comfortable with my ideal, socially just world. Young women, often young women raised in a conservative religious environment, who are uncomfortable witnessing open homosexuality should consider this culture difference between WCs and coed LACs in their college search.</p>
<p>That, I believe, should address clearly and succinctly my positions on all of the points raised in this thread. In deference to the forum community here, I will leave the thread at this point with those words to lurkers/researchers past or future.</p>
<p>I always respect your thoughts and they always leave me thinking alot…and I’m grateful for this thread because it really reaffirmed my LOVE of WC’s(SMITH!!!)</p>
<p>Keil, the “I believes” do much for me to clarify you are sharing a personal point of view rather than attempting to declare objective truths.</p>
<p>I will share a few “I believes” as well to round out our differing perspectives so that prospective WC students may explore the merits of WCs for themselves:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I believe WCs have not “justified” their viability, because their viability has never been in question. They offer a fantastic college experience for those given the opportunity to attend.</p></li>
<li><p>I believe an “emphasis on a special ‘all-female supportiveness’ inherent to any and all WCs” is fundamental to the identity and culture of WCs and is to be celebrated, not derided. I don’t believe those who would caricature WCs out of ignorance or sexism are worth acknowledging, and certainly not worth appeasing. While students may variously value (or not) this aspect of WCs and have positive WC experiences, I believe hostility to this core WC value is one of the few reasons a student would not be a good match for a WC.</p></li>
<li><p>I believe gay culture exists on most campuses (or go to a conservative religious campus if it offends one), and is perhaps more accepted at WCs given WCs’ attention to gender rights, but that gay culture is not a defining characteristic of WCs and students should not warned away from WCs due to the spectre that they will feel surrounded by militant femi-nazis.</p></li>
<li><p>I believe LACs also offer superb college educations and students who have the option of selecting either quality WCs or LACs or among WCs and LACs are very fortunate individuals by any measure.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Keil, you are obviously a professional woman and not a student/college applicant. Tell us more about your background so we have some benefit of putting your comments into context. Such as where you went to college.</p>
<p>One of the benefits of Scripps College is that while it is a women’s college, it is part of the claremont colleges and literally adjacent to and steps away from Claremont College, Harvey Mudd, Pomona, Pitzer. So the students have the benefit of coed contacts, dating and such, and can take courses in any of those schools if they choose, but also have the benefit of single sex living arrangements.</p>
<p>Women’s colleges are a choice and we should herald them. Its a pity that there is but one, I believe, all male college remaining: Hamden Sydney College in Virginia. That is my opinion.</p>
<p>I thought I had been following this thread, but now I am seriously confused. I thought keilexandra was a senior in high school, and had recently visited/considered? applying to Scripps?</p>
<p>I think Keil makes a fair argument. If you maintain that students who attend a WC experience a better, more supportive and empowering environment than those who attend a co-ed school, then there is no legitimate reason to have co-ed schools. It’s not fair to force women to live in a less-empowering environment where they won’t be able to succeed to as great a degree as if they were in a WC, right? But then we’d have all single-sex schools (all-male and all-female), which isn’t very progressive and didn’t seem to work out too well when we tried that last time in the early 20th century. </p>
<p>The only conclusion to draw then is that SOME women must benefit from co-ed education, and SOME must benefit from single-sex WCs. You can’t say that ALL women benefit from WCs because then you’d call for the abolishment of co-ed education. It must be that SOME benefit and SOME don’t. That’s the only fair way to talk about single-sex education. It’s good for some people, but not for everyone.</p>
<p>^^^ Haha. I’m guessing the confusion is that ghostbuster hasn’t come across keil in the threads and keil is quite informed/articulate for her age!</p>
<p>Keil is a senior in high school who applied to, among other places, Swarthmore. She apparently did not apply to a women’s college. So responding directly to her is no longer necessary, especially given the rather rude title she gave to this thread.</p>
<p>Just saw the new posts to this thread, which was “Featured” and thus drew my attention after I unsubscribed.</p>
<p>ghostbuster, I am far from a professional woman, though I’m flattered that I come across as such online. And as a Telluride associate, I am compelled to second the pointing out of Deep Springs as an excellent (and utterly unique) all-male college.</p>
<p>I did visit, love, and apply to Scripps. I liked the intimate and supportive environment–but having also visited Bryn Mawr, my perception is based more on size (Scripps has <1000 total enrollment) than the difference between a women’s and coed college. I committed to Swarthmore EDII and was accepted today, so I won’t be attending a women’s college. However, I have several friends at nearby Bryn Mawr, and certainly I’ll be visiting them next year.</p>
<p>The title of this thread is a direct quote of the article that I linked for discussion purposes.</p>
<p>^ Keil, a great achievement! And a win for Swarthmore to attract a student of your talents.</p>
<p>I think Keil stands as an excellent example of the merits of WCs being CONSIDERED by smart college shoppers seeking academic excellence. Of course, ultimate choices will turn on a myriad of personal factors for each student.</p>
<p>If you defend Women’s colleges like sororities then its the wrong way. You should use precise anecdotes, concepts and statistics. It’s a testament how great women’s colleges are doing today- a lot better than men’s colleges and I can understand why. Girls mostly hang out with girls anyway most of the time and then venture out in groups to date so I guess that’s one reason why they might be more successful.</p>
<p>re post #157
Thanks for the clarification and update. And beaucoup congrats on the Swarthmore acceptance - quite an achievement, indeed. Best of luck!</p>