I think monydad was implying that Wellesley would have chosen to go coed. 
Oh, I missed that! My bad!
I wouldnât be so certain that Wellesley will have the lowest acceptance rate among LACs if it goes co-ed.
First, as all LACs have struggled somewhat to attract male applicants, former womenâs colleges have been especially challenged in that regard. Itâs nearly 50 years now since Vassar went co-ed, and although itâs well-regarded it has only recently, if ever, regained the sort of relative selectivity position it had before the co-education tsunami of the late 60s. Goucher is a shadow of its former self. While Wellesleyâs name, location, and physical attractiveness would give it some real advantages, unless it pulls the trigger on co-education pretty soon I doubt it would climb to the top of the pack as quickly as 2065.
Second, under the circumstances in which Wellesley decided to go co-ed, itâs hardly out of the question that Barnard would also go co-ed as a separate liberal arts college within Columbia University. I guess THAT would be a very, very attractive and selective LAC. Compared to Wellesley, Barnard already admits fewer applicants and has a higher yield of those admitted. Barnardâs comparative advantages wouldnât be eliminated by co-education.
I honestly donât see any reason for a coed Barnard to exist. It would be like a coed Radcliffe. Whatâs the point? The associated university is a bastion of liberal arts education already. Barnardâs comparative admissions advantage over W is that it has men right there. The NYC location can be a plus or a minus, depending on the student.
I think that if Wellesley decided to go coed they would quickly start draining students away from Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin et al, simply because of their location. Vassar had to accept men with lesser stats than its female students. I donât think that would be the case at W. Poughkeepsie is not a great draw; Boston is.
Well, a co-ed Barnard within Columbia could perhaps be like Gallatin within NYU, if it offered a different approach.
In a world where it no longer made sense to have an elite liberal arts college that only enrolled women, Columbia could maintain Barnard as a separate kind of experience and a different curriculum. Why not?
âI think that if Wellesley decided to go coed they would quickly start draining students away from Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin et al, simply because of their location. Vassar had to accept men with lesser stats than its female students. I donât think that would be the case at W. Poughkeepsie is not a great draw; Boston is.â
Suburban Wellesley, MA is pretty boring and staid, though. The town would really need to up the offerings that it provides for college-age students.
PG, I really found it very easy to get into Cambridge/Boston whenever I wanted when I was at W, thanks to the free hourly bus. We were not dependent on the town of Wellesley for entertainment. At all.
The town of Amherst is a lot like the town of Wellesley. Williamstown is a nice little flyspeck version of Amherst/Wellesley. Brunswick is a little funkier, and a great town, but certainly not a place that overwhelmingly caters to college students. You have to have a critical mass of them for that to happen: hence Cambridge.
As a Wellesley alum, I loved single gender education and think it is still very valuable. My sons attend(ed) an all male high school, and frankly, I thought that was just as valuable for them as attending Wellesley was for me. So, I think that for certain young women, an all womenâs institution will still be appealing even when women dominate in every field of endeavor. Arguably now, there are more women attending college overall with many colleges where the gender balance leans considerably female, so womenâs colleges may become less of a necessity. But I think they will still remain desirable for certain women. There was a seriousness of purpose at Wellesley and a support from classmates that was wonderful. I spent a year at a co-ed institution and have a masters, and there are differences in a co-ed environment with the way women treat one another. And the friendships and network that are formed there are something that really is hard to duplicate. Iâm still in touch with many friends from Wellesley and barely anyone from business school.
If you narrowly define a college experience as strictly an academic one, I can see how the mission of an all womenâs institution may not seem important, but if you define it by maturation, growth, supporting other women, and truly understanding what women are capable of achieving, I still think womenâs colleges bring something to the table that co-ed ones donât. Even now.
So while I think many all female colleges may eventually go co-ed, I really really hope Wellesley isnât one of them.
âSecond, under the circumstances in which Wellesley decided to go co-ed, itâs hardly out of the question that Barnard would also go co-ed as a separate liberal arts college within Columbia University.â
Itâs also not out of the question that, in that hypothetical preceding period of stress for single-sex colleges, Columbia would finally have gotten to swallow up Barnard. Or, if its community wouldnât tolerate Barnardâs aspirations to go coed, it could refuse to renew their afiliation agreement. Rather than permitting a coed school that might become more selective than Columbia College itself right across the street from it. (Columbia has a big ego). Leaving Barnard coed but much neutered and less attractive. Remember that, on its own,. Barnardâs endowment is about three dollars and fifty cents.
Or that global warming raised the sea level enough that NYC was under waterâŠ
I stand by #78. Because, for one thing, 50 years from now I will not be around to find out that I was wrong.
Well, many, many womenâs colleges have already gone co-ed, and others have vanished from the face of the earth. When we speculate about Wellesley going co-ed, I think itâs implied that it means that the demand for mainstream, secular, elite womenâs colleges has essentially vanished, and there are none of them left. Based on its history, ideology, pride, and financial resources, Wellesley would likely be the very last such institution to let go of its commitment to providing a distinct educational space for women.
As a practical matter, I doubt the issue will arise â if it ever does â before our great-grandchildren are thinking about college. It seems about as likely to me that no college of the sort with which we are familiar today will exist then, as that colleges like that will continue to be popular, but there wonât be any in that mainstream/secular/elite space for women only.
I think womenâs colleges will be obsolete when women in every economic tier have equal pay for equal work; when boards of trustees of Fortune 500 companies are 50% female; and when half of the CEOs of those companies are female, for starters.
It seems to me that theyâll be obsolete when not enough women want to attend them to fill them upâas has already almost happened with all-male colleges.
I think the test of this will be the extent to which the top womenâs colleges become unable to yield highly able students. Clearly, Sweet Briar became unable to yield students as strong as it had beforeâand it was never all that strong in the first place academically.
âIt seems to me that theyâll be obsolete when not enough women want to attend them to fill them upâas has already almost happened with all-male colleges.â
Just doing a quick google (and apologies if I pull numbers a year apart from one another), hereâs an example of disparate appeal:
Amherst had a total of 476 early decision applicants â they have an overall class size of 476.
Wellesley had a total of 369 early decision applicants â they have an overall class size around 600.
Put another way, Amherst has enough willing to âpledge their trothâ and fill their overall class if they wanted.
Wellesley doesnât. I say this as someone who encouraged my daughter to look at them and who is graduating (god willing!) in May from one â they are still niche in nature and I donât see that going away anytime soon.