<p>Hi Mythmom:</p>
<p>Perhaps this article from the Vassar encyclopedia might shed a bit of light on Vassar's philosophy - then and now:</p>
<p>"However, after having visited and read many bios of the science professors, it seems as though there are fewer labs and fewer professors who are involved in active research than at other comparable colleges…."</p>
<p>In the main, I'd say it is tradeoff, unless the LAC is specifically committed to professorial research in the sciences. There is no question but that there is more active research going on in the large universities, especially the better state universities. At the same time, however, since the professors' reputations and their jobs are dependent on their research, and since graduate students are being paid handsomely to carry out the research, undergrads are basically competing for precious research space, mentoring, etc. It does happen of course, though mainly in the last two years, and, often, only for the very top students. </p>
<p>On the other hand, generally speaking, there is less active research going on at the liberal arts colleges, but much more of it (percentagewise) involving undergraduates.</p>
<p>Barnard mom here:</p>
<p>First of all, my daughter is getting a tremendous education at Barnard. I personally think that anyone who is obsessed with prestige has their priorities wrong: in my view, that is the viewpoint of someone who lacks confidence in their own abilities so plans to achieve success on someone else's coattails (the "connections" they make, the prestige of their degree) </p>
<p>But that's just my view: in any event, Barnard is full of self-starting, self-sufficient, independent-minded, goal-oriented people, both among the student body and the faculty -- these are the type of individuals who would succeed in any context, who do not need a fancy name on their degree to get ahead. </p>
<p>That being said, no matter what kind of tripe is tossed around on the CC boards, for all intents and purposes Barnard is part of the Columbia University community. Students cross-register among all of Columbia's schools, they attend classes wherever they choose, they participate in clubs and activities on both sides of the street, and they will graduate with Columbia University diplomas. And the "Barnard" name seems to carry an equivalent cachet to Columbia.</p>
<p>Academically, the classes and academic demands are interchangeable, and Barnard/Columbia are hard work. Not impossibly hard, but it takes discipline and focus. In other words, if the student does the work and puts in effort it's not that hard to get an A, but there doesn't seem to be much room for slacking off. </p>
<p>One more word: on the comment about SAT scores and academic standards/prestige. My daughter did not have high test scores. She has an extremely high college GPA, particularly with the courses she has taken at Columbia. Basically, my d. entered with bottom-of-the-heap test scores and has found herself at the top of the heap academically. </p>
<p>I think the obsession about "stats" and test scores has hurt academics at the elite colleges, because it narrows the range of admitted students and excludes from consideration many with unique strengths and talents. Standardized tests favor superficial, conventional thinking and simplistic problem solving strategies. There is no reward for deep or complex analytical thinking or creative, out-of-the-box thinking -- in an environment where all questions can be answered with one of five options, there are no extra points for those who think of a sixth choice or those who ask different questions altogether. </p>
<p>Colleges with more holistic admission practices are more likely to pick up those deep-thinking, creative problem solvers, as well as students with unusually strong strengths and talents in discrete areas, because that will show up in essays , recs, & other accomplishments even if the test scores are not as impressive.</p>
<p>jys and OP - -</p>
<p>We've lost more than just Vassar and Radcliffe. You forgot about Pembroke - - Brown's sister school. (Also lost or gone coed: Douglass (Rutgers), Goucher, Sarah Lawrence, Bennington).</p>
<p>Only 4 sisters left: Bryn Mawr, Wellesley, Smith and MHC.</p>
<p>Thanks twinmom. That was interesting.</p>
<p>Mount Holyoke graduate here, from just before men's colleges went coed. Though I agree that there was a brain drain from Seven Sisters colleges in those early years of coeducation, I think things are different now. Hillary Clinton said (I think in her biography) that when we started college, we were going to girls' schools, but four years later we graduated from women's colleges. It was a tumultuous change, but the benefits are there today. Young women who choose these places do it intentionally, and it shows; they truly want to be there and contribute to a learning community of women. I'm very impressed by MHC today--still a stunningly beautiful campus, still populated by young women with first-rate minds. The SAT/GPA stats may not match those of my brilliant class ;), but as in other arenas, stats don't tell the whole story.</p>
<p>MHC has always excelled in the sciences. From the web site: "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." mini, the site also gives data about professors' research and the substantial grant money they receive.</p>
<p>And then there are our two Pulitzer Prize-winning playwrights, Suzan Lori Parks and the late, wonderful Wendy Wasserstein.</p>
<p>Calmom I appreciate the information you offered but frankly I am offended that you assumed I’m obsessed with prestige. Clearly, you did not see the point of my starting this thread. I was worried that the Seven Sisters' prestige was greater than they academically deserved, in which case I would be wary of them. However the contributors to this thread seem to think that the college’s academics are better than their reputations suggest which is by far the better situation. I said this above as well. I know this just an anonymous internet forum, but still, it’d be nice not to be attacked for a characteristic (obsessed with prestige) that I haven't displayed. </p>
<p>I also clearly acknowledged that scores are not everything but they are the one factor that can be compared across the board. However, that’s a whole different debate. </p>
<p>Thanks for the info about the research mini. </p>
<p>Nyc, Barnard is one of the seven sisters so I’m pretty sure there are five left (Bryn Mawr, MHC, Smith, Wellesley, and Barnard) + Vassar (coed) + Radcliffe (reduced to an institute!)</p>
<p>My psycho-rocker-chick daughter has surprised me by being extremely interested in Bryn Mawr, MHC and Smith. She did a writing program at Barnard and liked it, but wants to get out of NYC. I wouldn't have thought she would have been so interested in those colleges, but her interest in the classics website at Bryn Mawr has led her to consider the other women's colleges. She has no concern about meeting men and having a social life, she's just looking for a place where she can be cool and smart.</p>
<p>There are also Mills & Scripps on the west coast which are womens schools with good reputations</p>
<p>This is interesting reading
<a href="http://www.ed.gov/pubs/WomensColleges/intro.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ed.gov/pubs/WomensColleges/intro.html</a></p>
<p>Agnes Scott and Sweet Briar are well regarded women's colleges in the south, but this is afield of the OP's question.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I took Latin during my senior year at Smith and LOVED it...one of my biggest regrets from college is that I didn't start Latin early, because I think I would have minored in it. Maureen Ryan in particular is an amazing educator--one of the best I've ever had. The department is small but the combined offerings of the 5 colleges definitely make up for it (UMass is huge so can offer things a smaller school can't). A friend of mine was a Smith classics major and is now doing her PhD in classical linguistics at Cornell.</p>
<p>Columbiastudent, I don't know much about med school but women's college grads do well in the law school admissions process. Alumnae from my college have been admitted to all the top schools. I'm at a top-10 law school myself, and among my favorite classmates are alumnae of Smith, Wellesley, and Bryn Mawr. The dean of admissions here is a "Mawrtyr" herself, and I actually got a form letter from the school before I applied, with a hand-written note from her saying "we love women's college grads!"</p>
<p>Add Hollins to the above post.</p>
<p>Questions, I am sorry if you took offense, but here is what you wrote in your opening post:
[quote]
They were, of course, extremely prestigious when the Ivies were not coed. Do you think they still are?
[/quote]
That is very different than what you wrote in post #27. You asked about prestige first, academics 2d.. hence my response.</p>
<p>We are getting off message here. OP asked (to paraphrase) whether Seven Sisters Colleges have retained their prestige in this era of co-ed education. There are many other schools that have retained their all female student body or have gone co-ed but never had the prestige associated with being a Seven Sisters. For the record the originals are Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Smith, Wellesley (all still single sex), Barnard (still single sex in admissions but share umbrella of Columbia Univerisity which also includes Columbia College), Radcliffe (now a part of Harvard) and Vassar (now co-ed).</p>
<p>I agree with point of a previous poster--what is prestige? The "wow" factor when you mentioned where you went to school? If so, on the East Coast you are certain to get a wow for Amherst but probably not for Pomona. I would venture a guess the reverse is true for California.</p>
<p>My point is that academic rigor and challenge are the hallmarks of these schools. OP if you want stats about science please feel free to PM me.</p>
<p>My D is a freshman at a highly ranked public, and the only other school she was really interested in was Bryn Mawr. Everything about it--the academics, environment, community, class sizes and access to professors--seemed ideal. Unfortunately it was way out of reach financially--they don't have any merit money to speak of, but they do invest in providing opportunities for lower income women. I've been reading this year's acceptance thread and it looks like many of the accepted students won't be able to attend for financial reasons, so I suspect the student body is heavily weighted at the ends of the economic spectrum.</p>
<p>"Do they have more prestige than their academics deserve"</p>
<p>Define prestige. Among peers the women's colleges are highly regarded.</p>
<p>E.g. Peer assessment score per USN&WR. Wellesley 4.5, Smith 4.3, MH/BM 4.1, Barnard 3.9</p>
<p>For reference: Williams/Amherst 4.7, Swath 4.6, Bowdoin/Middlebury/Wesleyan4.3, Vassar 4.1, Colgate/Colby/Bates 4.0,CM 3.9, Hamilton 3.7</p>
<p>One of the best kept secrets of the women colleges is that --with the possible exception of Barnard-- the acceptance rates for the early decision make an admission an almost sure thing for about everyone. </p>
<p>Coupled with lower admission standards (read lower selectivity) than at similarly ranked coed colleges, this an opportunity not to be missed for everyone who considers schools such as Smith, MHC, and their women-only peers worthy of a ED application.</p>
<p>PS The peer assessment of USNews that is a complete joke in general is especially prone to well justified criticism of abject cronyism and manipulation for the former Seven Sisters, with again the notable exception of Barnard.</p>
<p>Calmom, yes that is different than what I wrote in 27 because you took my post out of context! If you had included the next sentence, my posts make essentially the same point. I guess I'm sorry I didn't phrase my questions precisely enough?</p>
<p>Xiggi said that these schools have "lower admission standards than at similarly ranked coed colleges". Do you think these schools have managed to tap into the section of students with relatively lower scores but are extremely hardworking?</p>
<p>Questions, please realize that the schools DO tap into a pool that has higher statistics. It's the pool that accepts to attend that exhibits an overall lower selectivity. You also have to analyze the impact of a higher admission rate.</p>