<p>Here's part 3
[quote]
Recommendations</p>
<p>
[quote]
Difference in career choice, not gender discrimination, is the most reasonable explanation for the greater number of male faculty in the School of Science at MIT.
[/quote]
I don't think so, and neither do the professors who were working at MIT at the time. Read on:
[quote]
Moving on from discrimination at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MARY-LOU PARDUE, NANCY HOPKINS,
MARY C. POTTER & SYLVIA CEYER</p>
<p>NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR:</p>
<p>AGAIN, PLEASE DO NOT POST ARTICLES IN THEIR ENTIRETY. PROVIDE A SUMMARY OR BRIEF EXCERPT WITH INFO. AS TO HOW TO READ THE REMAINDER.</p>
<p>BJM8:</p>
<p>Your numbers comparing "staff" at the various science departments are meaningless as you aggregate lecturers, lab instructors, associate professors, emeritus professors (retired) and tenured professors.</p>
<p>A comparison between the the ratio of full (tenured) professors is on the other hand the only relevant comparison. They are the ones with the power, compensation and prestige. </p>
<p>As I mentioned earlier the ratio at Smith is 3/11 or 27.2% female. The data is here.
<a href="http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/faculty.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/faculty.html</a></p>
<p>At MIT the number is 13/47 orm 27.7%. The data can be found here.
<a href="http://mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/viewalpha.html%5B/url%5D">http://mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/viewalpha.html</a></p>
<p>Considering that MIT has probably the most distinguished biology faculty of any institution in the US as measured by membership in the NAS, and therefore has to fish in a much smaller pond, the fact that it assembled such a diverse faculty is actually very impressive. </p>
<p>I don't want embarass you further with some of the other departments like chemistry where the number of female tenured faculty at Smith is ZERO.
<a href="http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Chem/facultystaff.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Chem/facultystaff.html</a></p>
<p>Maybe next time you attempt to make a comparison try to compare apples to apples.</p>
<p>This was a very good thread that helps us who have chosen to attend women's colleges reinforce the importance of our choices, we shouldn't make it a place where we get catty- for lack of a better word- with each other.
I think the ultimate question is the value that each school puts on educating women and encouraging personal growth. I think women's colleges- esp. smith- do this very well because they have made a conscious decision to do so. Schools like MIT are wonderful and prestigious but the problem is that most of the time brilliant women are lost in the system. When you are at a women's college, everyone is working towards making sure that you succeed, not just in academics but as a leader and well rounded woman. This is why so many women in leadership come from the women's colleges.</p>
<p>Cellardweller: You keep talking only about "tenured" positions, as if they are the only ones that matter. What a smoke-screen! LOL </p>
<p>If you bothered to read any previous posts, and if you know anything about education and tenure, it is given to teachers (profs) only after a certain amount of service to the school or college, and if they have attained good evaluations. C'mon now...do you think we are all that stupid?</p>
<p>I gave you the numbers of faculty and staff at each college respectively; not just tenured staff. Read post titled "Family-Friendly Policies and the Research University" and learn about females getting tenure at colleges. If you want to compare apples to apples, then let's. But segregating data is what got MIT in trouble in the first place, and as an alum, you follow their strategies!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Considering that MIT has probably the most distinguished biology faculty of any institution in the US as measured by membership in the NAS
[/quote]
Another Cellardweller smoke-screen. Do we only measure distinguished profs by the professional organizations that they belong to? Hey, don't get me wrong, MIT is a great school with great profs. But if the conversation is about the numbers of female faculty members in sciences as compared to their male counterparts at the two schools...you gotta be kidding, right?</p>
<p>Speaking of the NSA however, here is a study still going on. Can't wait till we see the results. I guess they see a problem also?
[quote]
Project Scope<br>
STATEMENT OF TASK</p>
<p>NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR: PLEASE PROVIDE A SUMMARY OR BRIEF QUOTE AND DO NOT POST THE STUDY IN ITS ENTIRETY.</p>
<p>Cellardweller...this is a quote from YOU!
[quote]
Difference in career choice, not gender discrimination, is the most reasonable explanation for the greater number of male faculty in the School of Science at MIT.
[/quote]
I already proved you wrong on this one (see posts 193-194), but I am perplexed that you suddenly disagree with what you said previously about MIT doing a great job with numbers of female faculty?!?! Which is it? Less filling, or more taste? ;) I guess, according to you, males outnumber females by a great margin at MIT. Now, isn't that the data I showed you? (How could I forget...ONLY tenured faculty count, according to you!) <em>LOL</em></p>
<p><<this was="" a="" very="" good="" thread="" that="" helps="" us="" who="" have="" chosen="" to="" attend="" women's="" colleges="" reinforce="" the="" importance="" of="" our="" choices,="" we="" shouldn't="" make="" it="" place="" where="" get="" catty-="" for="" lack="" better="" word-="" with="" each="" other.="">></this></p>
<p>I agree!</p>
<p>It seems that the main points are:</p>
<p>-Smith and other women's colleges are a great choice for some women and schools like MIT are a great choice for other women. </p>
<ul>
<li>Women have some catching up to do in the sciences and MIT and Smith both seem to be taking steps to help that cause along.</li>
</ul>
<p>Yay Smith! Yay MIT! Go team go! ;-)</p>
<p>I'm not sure why Cellardweller wanted to post on the Smith board (can't expect a very receptive audience) but honestly, even though I love it here, I think he made some good points. Others have made good points as well, but it has gone pretty far past being constructive.</p>
<p>This is an information forum for students and parents of students looking for info on schools they may be interested in attending. There are some very helpful people who post here and a few who are not so helpful, but this is not the "Daily Jolt for Adults" guys.</p>
<p>All of the sarcasm and comments just short of name calling are probably not going to portray Smith in a good light.</p>
<p>It is almost starting to sound like the root of the argument is "Mine is bigger than yours!" :-)</p>
<p>I completely agree that that's how it is sounding. I also agree that the info is great to read. Just present it guys, let's decide whether it is relevvant or not based on whether it helps us improve ourselves!</p>
<p>BJM8:</p>
<p>Instead of posting large numbers of random quotes from studies taken from some web source, maybe you could make at least some effort at being specific. That would be more heldpful to those who try to follow the thread. None of the studies you listed have anything to do with why women will do better in science in all-female environment. You pull numbers out the blue without a source, you amalgamate janitors and professors and when everything else fails the anecdote...</p>
<p>You have not provided any convincing evidence as to any of the points we have debated:
-Discrimination of COLLEGE women in coed schools. (Your original premise)
-Evidence that women will do BETTER in science in women colleges than similarly ranked coed schools (at producing PhDs for instance)
-Any evidence that Smith does a BETTER job at finding or promoting female science faculty than an institution like MIT.</p>
<p>Laureldj...the purpose of this thread was to comment on why females are being shortchanged in math and sciences from elementary schools through colleges. As the OP, I can only react when other posters try their best to be counterproductive. My comment has nothing to do with being angry by those who disagree with my opinions. If that were the case, I'd be institutionalized by now! It is the contentiousness that they derive their ideas from. Anyway, I think this thread has proven it's point, and it was fun while it lasted. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to me, I guess CollegeMom edited all my articles because of copyright laws. :(</p>
<p>I wrote this thread with no animosity, and certainly only to have good dialogue with parents and students of Smith. The way females have been treated unfairly in schools has long been my contention, and I have researched the concept in depth. This was not to be a comparison of Smith to MIT; not at all! MIT is a great school that deserves accolades for the work it does in science and math. My point was that Smith (and other all-women's colleges) is and was designed for women, by women, and understands how women learn best. Young women attending this institution are more self-assured and ready to face the coed world better. There definitely has been a male superiority when it comes to math and sciences for centuries. It was a good discussion while it lasted. I always have my doubts when a poster comes on CC for the first time and shoots fire from his/her mouth. Sometimes you think it is only for the sake of playing devil's advocate. I have, and will continue to be, a friendly poster on the Smith board, and you will find no one (sorry Mini, RLT and TD) more dedicated to Smithies past and future.</p>
<p>Cellardweller...I appreciate your posts, thank you. I think this argument is getting a bit long in the tooth, and as I have said before we agree to disagree on many issues. Let's just leave it at that. You attended one the best colleges in the nation, one that is renowned for it's science and math program. The number of female or male staff does not matter...the education you received from MIT was superb and second to none. I'm confident that females are being served very well there. If others wish to comment about the premise of this thread, I will try to be helpful in responding. Thank you.</p>
<p>Speaking as someone who spent half her college years at Bryn Mawr and half at Harvard, I don't think it is accurate to make sweeping statements like:</p>
<p>"Smith (and other all-women's colleges) is and was designed for women, by women, and understands how women learn best." </p>
<p>How ALL women learn best? I don't think so. I entirely agree that an all-female environment is best for SOME; but others (like me) learn far better in a co-ed environment. Why not acknowledge that diversity among women? One size does not fit all.</p>
<p>Likewise, I don't know what you mean by:</p>
<p>"Young women attending this institution are more self-assured and ready to face the coed world better."</p>
<p>Do you mean that Smith students are more self-assured than THEY would have been had they attended another college; or do you mean that they are more self-assured and better prepared than the women at elite co-ed colleges? Because the former may well be true -- after all, women choose to attend Smith because its environment is well suited to their needs -- but I have seen no evidence for the latter. My female classmates at Harvard were and are a tremendously confident group whose accomplishments in the co-ed world since graduation amaze me.</p>
<p>Quote: " found both the campus and the classrooms at the all-girl's schools to be much "quieter" with less discussion. Also, she said in general it seems girls are unwilling to honestly "critique" another's writing; ... The odd thing is that this is what everyone claims is the good thing about women's colleges, that women are free to express their opinions!"</p>
<p>THANK YOU, BalletMom! This was a huge factor in my poor fit at Bryn Mawr. My freshman seminar was virtually a dialogue between me and the professor; so many students were reluctant to speak up and never contradicted one another's opinions. This quieter, less confrontational environment is perfect for young women who need a supportive space to crawl out of their shells and find their own voices. It can be a bad match for women (like me) who are assertive and talkative at a young age, and who may learn more from being forced to listen to contrasting points of view in class and to defend their opinions against challenges. Both my best friend from Bryn Mawr (who likewise transferred and went to Penn) and I benefited greatly from this change of climate after the transfer.</p>
<p>In a nutshell, different strokes for different folks. The women at Yale are not being shortchanged because they're missing out on the Smith experience; likewise, Smith is the perfect choice for many of its students. Overgeneralizations on behalf of one type of school or the other won't help young women figure out where they belong.</p>
<p>Why a College for Women?</p>
<p>A quote from the 1990 Mount Holoyoke commencement address given by the late Wendy Wasserstein:</p>
<p>"I know Mount Holyoke had a profound effect on my life. Not because I got into a better graduate school, learned to organize my time, or keep a file of facts, but because of the dignity of the women I met ...and therefore the dignity that I learned to allow myself."</p>
<p>2boysima,
Thanks for the Wendy W. quotation. Role models were an important part of my education at MHC.</p>
<p>Hi Hanna,</p>
<p>I've been on threads with you in the past, glad you're still active onCC. I found that women did speak up in class when I was at MHC--but that was before any women were allowed in the male Ivy colleges. One experience was illuminating: I attended a weekend discussion group back then bringing MHC and Yale students together. Many of the otherwise articulate women had difficulty getting a word in edgewise with the fast-talking, quick-thinking Yalies. Graduates of women's colleges should also get some opportunities to learn how to speak up among their male peers --although for many this happens naturally in graduate school.</p>
<p>I'm now at a coed college, but I went to an all-girls' high school. I agree with Hanna that this environment is NOT for everyone. Some girls will thrive, and others will feel stifled. My school always overenrolled the freshmen class, knowing that some girls would leave after freshman year because the single-sex environment drove them crazy.</p>
<p>I was surprised, though, by the comment that girls' schools seem "quieter" and that that girls there aren't willing to debate or critique each other in class. The opposite was true at my school. Our class discussions could get very heated and contentious, and we peer-edited each others' writing mercilessly. I felt that my classmates and I could be totally honest with each other because we became so close that we didn't worry about offending each other.</p>
<p>My school always overenrolled the freshmen class,]]</p>
<p>All prep schools over-enroll their freshmen class. There's always a certain amount of attrition due to various factors, difficulty of curriculum being one.</p>
<p>Many co-ed LACs and Us e.g. Trinity, NYU, have the same retention rate for the 1st year class as Smith. </p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification regarding women and their propensity for discussion. :)</p>
<p>Direct association between first-year retention and percentage of low-income students/Pell Grant recipients. Virtually universally the case, from big state schools to little LACs. Most drop out because of a family income situation or a family crisis.</p>
<p>I've missed a lot of posts but I like LaurelDJ's #209.</p>
<p>Otoh, I don't think I'd play poker with CellarDweller as he deals some cards from the bottom of the deck: there are issues about Smith that are relevant to LAC's in general, not just women's colleges as some of his posts might lead you to believe. He vastly overstates <em>general</em> access for undergraduates to research at research universities as a rule...MIT might be different, I don't know, but if so, it's an exception, not the rule. Even at CalTech, the lion's share goes to the grad students. And at UCLA, Cal, and Yale, for instance...you've <em>got</em> to be kidding. </p>
<p>A few months ago I had chance encounter with one of the senior Mathematics professors at Berkeley. He praised Smith's Math program relative to his own because Smith's math department isn't intent on weeding as many students as possible out. He thought the Smith Math program was perfectly sufficient preparation for any graduate program. A datum.</p>