<p>My women’s college student confessed to me that she was going to switch her major from a foreign language to… “something in biology, like neuoscience”. That’s what a women’s college will do to a young lady who was totally unimpressed with natural sciences in high school.</p>
<p>As a Smith alum who took her junior year at Dartmouth (12 College Exchange program) back in the late 70’s, I was able to experience both Seven Sister and Ivy League cultures. Of course, this was back when the Ivies had only just started to admit women ( there were 3 male students to every female student at Dartmouth in the late 70’s). Nowadays I believe Ivies are more of an even mix. But in reflection, I do remember thinking that my course work at Smith was every bit as demanding, and sometimes more demanding, than the courses I took at Dartmouth. The professors at Smith were excellent as well. I remember telling my father and brother (Dartmouth alums) that I often worked harder at Smith than at Dartmouth. I was never at any sort of academic disadvantage while at Dartmouth, and in fact got slightly higher grades there. </p>
<p>But there definitely was a difference in classroom culture back then- Smith classes were places where a quiet person like myself could feel comfortable making herself heard. There was plenty of classroom discussion and lots of opinionated students in my Smith classes and the professors (male or female) truly engaged all of us. Perhaps it was a function of the still male dominated late 70’s era at Dartmouth, but I was more reticent to speak up in class there. The guys pretty much dominated discussions and I ran into some old school chauvinism from the Dartmouth professors on a couple occasions. Some female students thrived on that culture but it was not as easy for someone like me. And again, I have to emphasize, the classroom environment at the Ivies must be different 30 years later and with an almost even distribution of males and females now. </p>
<p>My cousin’s daughter is now looking at colleges and recently asked me if I thought she should look at Seven Sister schools. I had to pause before I answered. It all depends on what sort of person she is and what she wants from a school in terms of culture. In retrospect, I am glad that I got to experience both Seven Sister and Ivy schools and received great educations at each.</p>
<p>Barnard et al are often compared to AWS et al.</p>
<p>Top 10% of HS class:</p>
<p>Barnard 74%
Wellesley 76%
Smith 64%
Mt. Holyoke 62%
Bryn Mawr 65%
Scripps 70%</p>
<p>Amherst 85%
Williams 87%
Swarthmore 87%
Haverford 91%
Pomona 87%
Middlebury 86%
Bowdoin 82%</p>
<p>I think the educational quality at the Seven Sisters is just as good as the top LACs–but statistically, the student bodies ARE weaker. Does this make a difference in intellectual environment? Numerous vehement anecdotes say otherwise. Does this make a difference in how tippy-top the top is, how many truly brilliant students attend? Probably. Does it make a difference in admissions for regular non-brilliant top students? Well, that’s a good question.</p>
<p>And USNWR peer assessment is done by every college president who participates. I’m not convinced that Clemson’s president knows or really cares much about Bryn Mawr.</p>
<p>My daughter is beginning her sophomore year at Smith. This summer she attended a “Career in the Sciences” lecture by a University of Chicago professor/researcher who is here from India. He was extremely impressed with my daughter’s knowledge base and enthusiasm, invited her to do an internship at his lab next summer, and asked where she attended college. He had not heard of Smith. However, when my daughter interviewed with the head (MD/PhD Johns Hopkins) of the entire UChicago lab complex he was immediately reassured she could handle the work after seeing her transcript and learning she attended Smith.</p>
<p>My daughter had the credentials to attend and excel at any college or university. I would even dare say she is “truly brilliant”. She chose Smith because of its academic rigor and climate, and the exceptional financial aid package they offered. I have seen her intellectually, socially and emotionally flourish in a way only possible at a school such as Smith, though I recognize it’s not for everyone. </p>
<p>As far as rankings go, how do you statistically quantify surges in personal confidence? An environment where a woman is encouraged to explore new academic pursuits and openly express intellectual curiosity? The transformative experience of being surrounded by other like-minded, collegial, collaborative women? Smith, especially, has an exceptionally strong and supportive alumnae network that vocationally and socially connects women long after graduation. </p>
<p>Rankings deal in overall numbers and can be affected, both diluted and enhanced, by numerous spurious factors. Furthermore, they say nothing about how an individual will experience a given college. That’s probably why anecdotes can convey as much – if not more – useful information as rankings, and why so many parents here on CC vehemently express their daughters’ exceptional experiences!</p>
<p>I cannot say if the student body at a Seven Sisters college is academically or intellectually weaker than other even more tippy-top schools. If so, I think the difference is negligible and insignificant, and the intangibles offered by a women’s college more than make up for it.</p>
<p>^ When academics are measured by data, the Seven Sisters’ student bodies are undoubtedly weaker than the coed LACs they’re often compared to. (E.g. Not Colby but Bowdoin.) I think the argument many proponents are trying to make is that the students are not necessarily intellectually weaker. Setting aside the intangible “confidence-booster” effect, is there any evidence (anecdotal comparisons or otherwise, preferably of more than just a few merit-scholarship students) to suggest intellectual equivalency despite lower academic standards of admission?</p>
<p>I would like to believe that the Sisters overall are intellectual equals to AWS et al, but I’ve yet to be convinced of it. There are definitely students at Smith or Wellesley, for instance, who could have attended AWS–mini’s D, to cite the obvious example–but I doubt that this is the case for the majority of Smith/Wellesley’s students. After all, Tyler09 chose a full ride at UMich over Stanford; that’s valid and he will succeed brilliantly, I’m sure, but not necessarily good evidence that UMich’s student body is equally as strong (academically/intellectually) as Stanford’s. Personally, I know several students at Bryn Mawr, which is very close to me geographically, who could not have gained acceptance to AWS. One was rejected from neighbor Haverford, her first choice.</p>
<p>And if a women’s college is indeed a confidence-booster–well and good, but for me at least, it must be comparable to coed peers without considering this intangible effect.</p>
<p>
At least at Barnard, those “statistics” are extremely misleading, because of the cross-registration with Columbia. It’s not just an optional cross-registration system – there are shared responsibilities in most departments so most classes are going to have a mix of Columbia and Barnard students. To get a sense of the “student body” at Barnard, you’d really have to throw in all the Columbia student data – and then, if you want to get more sophisticated with statistics, perhaps factor in the average number of classes Barnard students take at Columbia and the average number of Columbia students in most Barnard classes. (Very roughly, 1/3rd)</p>
<p>But I think that if there is one thing that is obvious to anyone attending college in that situation is that the “stats” are irrelevant. My daughter told me her first year that the very smartest students she met were Columbia GS students – “GS” (general studies) is Columbia’s school for non-traditional students – they tend to be much older, the admit rate is around 50%, and Columbia administers its own admission exam to them and won’t release their “stats”. When I asked my daughter what she meant, she said that those students caught onto new concepts much faster than everyone else. I fully believed her because I know something about cognitive development and maturity. A 28 year old who graduated high school with a B average may very well be “smarter” in a college setting than the 19 year old who was their class valedictorian – so again, trying to draw conclusions about “strength” from numbers that are more likely to reflect diversity is not very useful.</p>
<p>I can’t speak for the confusion that is Barnard/Columbia, although it’s important to note (might be a negative, for instance, to someone looking for a truly intimate LAC community in the middle of NYC–Barnard’s practical community is much larger and broader than its statistical size). I personally think that the top women’s colleges are academic powerhouses, but not necessarily equivalent to a tippy-top LAC or to Ivies as they were back in the pre-coeducation days.</p>
<p>In general regarding statistics–they are valuable only to the extent that one can distinguish, for instance, a Swarthmore from a Reed or a Wesleyan from a Macalester. By virtue of many factors, one can afford to be more selective than its counterpart, usually leading to higher statistics. That doesn’t mean that Swarthmore’s education is one whit “better” than Reed’s, but it does mean–at least, in result–that Swarthmore graduates more students than Reed does, and retains more after freshman year as well. Swarthmore’s endowment is also far larger than Reed’s, which affects aspects of the educational experience separate from student body; it can afford a need-blind full-need no-loans policy (also attractive to gifted poor students), whereas Reed is only full-need.</p>
<p>But more importantly to me, as an applicant: if Swarthmore is a reach for me (as for everyone), Reed might be a match. Reed has less luxury in rejecting extremely well-qualified applicants, so it’s easier to get in. I think the same reasoning applies to the Seven Sisters.</p>
<p>Well put Keil…</p>
<p>but i still think a Smith grad could beat the pants off an amherst grad in any field 
but that’s my bias</p>
<p>DD always said the Barnard classes were more rigorous than the Columbia classes. And I don’t think 76% vs 86% is a relevant statistic, especially Barnard attracts many urban/suburban students whose high schools may be more difficult.</p>
<p>Barnard could fill its class with students of higher class rank or SAT scores; It has had a lower than 30% admit rate of late. Instead, it looks for an intangible intellectual qualifty in its students.</p>
<p>Barnard’s approach was much more “intellectual” than Hamilton’s for example, where DD’s BF attended.</p>
<p>I have no hesitation in saying that Barnard’s student body is every bit as intellectual and AWS (and I have a child at W too), and even the Ivies. DD debated with many a Columbia student (and won) in her classes and many a Yale student (she occasionally spent weekends there with a guy friend) and won there too.</p>
<p>^ Not that I don’t believe you, but any evidence aside from anecdotes? I’m an analyst at heart and I don’t really trust gut feeling. E.g. Are there outcome statistics (Rhodes?) where Barnard beats Swarthmore, or the like? Truly curious.</p>
<p>^^Rhodes scholar production is not a battle that the 5 sisters are going to win with Swarthmore and the like. But I’m not sure that is a very good, and certainly not a very broad, measure of the intellectual vitality of a college. Plus, I don’t remember the exact year, but it’s only been in the last 20 or 30 years that women were eligible for a Rhodes Scholarship. So AWS have a head start.</p>
<p>Number of Rhodes Scholars Produced</p>
<p>Williams: 34
Swarthmore: 27
Amherst: 20</p>
<p>Wellesley: 8
Bryn Mawr: 1
Mt. Holyoke: 1
Smith: 0
Barnard: 0 </p>
<p>Source: <a href=“Office of the American Secretary | Office of the American Secretary”>http://www.rhodesscholar.org/assets/PDF/2009/Institutions_for_Website_7_30_09.pdf</a></p>
<p>Having taken classes at Smith, Amherst, and Mt. Holyoke (I went to Smith and used the consortium heavily), I found my Smith classes to be in the middle of the three–my Amherst classes were harder (however they were in econometrics and political theory–not my best subjects!) and my Mt. Holyoke classes (one in math and one in anthropology) were easier. </p>
<p>I don’t think I’d argue that the average Smith student is any smarter than the average Amherst student, and the statistics are there to show that Amherst students on average have higher high school gpas and SAT scores. But both schools can provide plenty of exceptionally smart people to associate with, and plenty of academic challenge. </p>
<p>Also, it’s worth noting that Smith has made a real effort to include students from a variety of economic backgrounds–over a quarter of their students receive Pell Grants, compared to around 13% at Amherst (source: [Despite</a> Surging Endowments, High-Ranking Universities and Colleges Show Disappointing Results in Enrolling Low-Income Students](<a href=“Despite Surging Endowments, High-Ranking Universities and Colleges Show Disappointing Results in Enrolling Low-Income Students”>Despite Surging Endowments, High-Ranking Universities and Colleges Show Disappointing Results in Enrolling Low-Income Students)) So while Smith students may not enter college with the same qualifications as Amherst students, many of them also had fewer opportunities, though perhaps no less potential. When looking at the “value-added” that each college provides–and I’m comparing those two because they’re the single-sex and co-ed LAC about which I’m most familiar–I think Smith comes out on top.</p>
<p>But, just because it was a great place for me doesn’t mean it’s for everyone. I have lots of friends and relatives who thrived in co-ed environments and I’m sure I could too. Women’s colleges are worth checking out, but I’m not willing to say they’re “better.” Better for some, certainly.</p>
<p>Fwiw, objective and well-reasoned posts such as Stacy’s speak volumes about the value of an education at a school such as Smith, and offer a lot more than the simplistic and biased rah-rah that usually is the domain of comparative discussions about colleges.</p>
<p>Don’t Rhodes scholarships involve sports?</p>
<p>And for the Barnard/Columbia comparison I will say this beyond anecdotal evidence: A research study showed that there was no statistical difference between the performance of Barnard and Columbia students in the classroom in terms of grades.</p>
<p>This says nothing about the difficulties/merits of the courses; it only speaks to the abilities of students.</p>
<p>A Barnard student takes, on average, 1/3 of her courses at Columbia; a Columbia student, on average, takes 1/3 of her courses at Barnard. DD took more than 1/3 at Columbia because she double-majored, and one of her majors was not offered at Barnard.</p>
<p>I think Women’s Colleges appeal to a certain segment of the applicant pool and their appeal cannot be defined by numbers. If they don’t hold appeal, there are many other schools available.</p>
<p>I know that after Barnard, D’s next choice was Brown, but Barnard was definitely her top pick. That might have some of you scratching your heads, but for her it was a perfect match.</p>
<p>Good luck to everyone finding his/her own venue, whether it be a co-ed uni, a co-ed LAC, a seven sister school or another women’s college. Bon chance.</p>
<p>I just threw Rhodes out there as the first thing that came to mind; if someone has a better measure of intellectual vitality after four years of a particular college, please suggest it (although do try not to throw out valid measures based on the fact that the Sisters fall short). I wonder if there’s a data source of Rhodes Scholar production by year and college, so that you could add just just the last 20-30 years starting with whenever women first became eligible.</p>
<p>stacy - Can you give specific examples of the “value-added” of Smith over Amherst? (Other than the “intangible” benefits of a women’s college?)</p>
<p>mythmom - How would you characterize the segment of the female population most suited for women’s colleges?</p>
<p>For my daughter, leadership and an affirmation and support of her ambition were very important. And she’s a feminist. The history and traditions of women’s colleges intrigued her. She also has always been one of those women who got along better with guys, and she wanted to change that.</p>
<p>Her strategy was a good one. She has honed her ambitions, had leadership positions that might have been filled by men at a co-ed school, and has close women friends and a boyfriend she is moving in with.</p>
<p>Her graduation, which featured Hillary Clinton, was incredibly inspiring. There were no male speakers among students or administrators. Are we anti-male? Not at all. But it was refreshing to be around all that female empowerment.</p>
<p>So I am talking about the segment of the population that would find that more inspiring than experiences they would find elsewhere.</p>
<p>Everyone is different. I am not an apologist for Barnard. I’m sure there are places much better for many women.</p>
<p>For my D, there was no place better. And she was accepted into a very prestigious graduate program (that she has recently decided to decline.)</p>
<p>je<em>ne</em>sais_quoi - Your comment seems to have disappeared into the interwebs, but my reply: I am, ironically, not a scientist. (I mean, one of my more important criteria is how few lab science courses I’m required to take.) I am an analyst, and an infophile aka librarian at heart. I love information, though I’m not that great at interpreting statistics. It just seems to me that some people tend to overstate the Seven Sisters; I don’t consider them equivalent to AWS but to Wesleyan/Vassar/Oberlin/Carleton, schools that I love just as well but are more realistic in selectivity and also slightly lacking in resources. The student body of this 1.5-tier is also lower in “quality,” IMO, despite my great love for Oberlin–I visited and would have fallen in love if not for the lack of linguistics and no-loans FA (cf. resources).</p>
<p>I live less than an hour away from Bryn Mawr and have visited while school was in session, though not classes (unofficial tour and discussion w/ my friend who attends). I honestly don’t have a gut feeling either way–and I have had gut feelings about other colleges when I visited, so I know I’m capable of them–which leads me to rely on information, the more the merrier.</p>
<p>Keil, I will send you a PM so I can share more information without compromising my daughter’s privacy.</p>
<p>When I said value-added, what I meant was comparing a student when she enters college to when she leaves. Essentially, what did the college do for the student?</p>
<p>To use a baseball metaphor, if two teams get nearly all their players to home base by the end of the game, they’re both good teams. If the first team (let’s call it the As) gets a slightly higher percentage of players to home base than another team (call it the Ss) does, it might be considered better. But if 88% of the A’s start on 3rd base and a quarter of the S’s have only recently picked up a bat, yet the difference in the players at the end of the game is barely noticeable, then the Ss are doing something remarkable. Their players have great untapped potential, or there’s amazing coaching, or they’re given top-quality equipment. Or all three. Finding the players with potential, then coaching and equipping the team well, is the value added.</p>
<p>But those of us who have attended women’s colleges, or who have other reasons for supporting them, can talk all day about why we think they’re great. That won’t mean they’re great for you. No college is perfect, or even a perfect fit for a given person. At this point you have a lot of information and the best thing to do is think about what YOU want in a college, and try and visit the ones you can. If the choice ends up coming down to a Seven Sisters school and a more selective co-ed LAC, go where you want. Interestingly, students who are able to gain admission to a top college do about the same whether they go to that school or a less-selective one (S. B. Dale & A. B. Krueger, “Estimating the payoff of attending a more selective college,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (2002), 1491-1527 is a really interesting article about that).</p>
<p>And I’ll stop hijacking this thread now, I promise.</p>