<p>Sorry. It was a figure of speech]]</p>
<p>LOL-Its ok. At times you're correct. I tried to sneak into a class but got busted for failing to register. Damn capitalist college wanted something called tuition money. Go figger. I thought the fact I spiced up the class was enough--:)</p>
<p>Holyoke? I'd put it at least even with Bryn Mawr</p>
<p>MHC and Bryn Mawr aren't as strong across the board as Wellesley or Smith in my opinion, but yes they are both very good and deserve to be on the list. Barnard, too.</p>
<p>"you dont want to lose credibility by haphazardly making statements without any basis in fact or research."</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice. I know you're right, really. I hardly think I'm the only one to use generalities not based in proven fact around here, but I think you're right nonetheless. (Then again, studies can be skewed too, but I guess they're something at least.)</p>
<p>Thanks for the reads. I'll add that to the list of things I'll /tell myself/ I'm going to read this summer :P</p>
<p>I hardly think I'm the only one to use generalities not based in proven fact around here]]</p>
<p>Yeah, no kidding, but your credibility counts b/c you're doing good things on campus--we arent, in a manner of speaking ;)</p>
<p>great book, bobos, if you're willing to laugh at yourself,..</p>
<p>great book, bobos, if you're willing to laugh at yourself,..]</p>
<p>Or others, as the case may be :)</p>
<p>Ya gotta love the generation that invented the Harvey Wllbanger, though, and made it cool to join the Peace Corps</p>
<p>posterX, i'm interested in what you said... how is Bryn Mawr not strong in all areas?</p>
<p>Which areas in particular are strong?</p>
<p>I'm doing art history as a minor but I have no set major as of yet, so I was curious.</p>
<p>CA_girl, Classics (especially Greek), the Growth & Structure of Cities program, Geology, Archaeology, and Physics are among BMC's better majors. I only heard good things about Art History, French, and Chemistry.</p>
<p>Weaker areas at BMC include Psychology, Computer Science, and, believe it or not, women's studies. Linguistics is offered only at Swarthmore (though the program there is very good). As a huge generalization, I think that BMC's humanities and hard sciences are better than the social sciences.</p>
<p>Art history is actually one of the areas in which Bryn Mawr is the strongest.</p>
<p>Bryn Mawr has a strong creative writing department.</p>
<p>Here are some interesting stats: Maybe some things haven't changed as much as you may think in the workforce:</p>
<h2>Table 4- Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty and staff according to field of teaching, by gender and race/ethnicity: Fall 1998 </h2>
<pre><code> Business/
</code></pre>
<p>law/com-
munications Health
sciences Human-
ities Natural
sciences/
engineering Social
sciences/
education Occupa-
tionally
specific Other </p>
<hr>
<pre><code> Total
Total 10.3 15.2 14.6 24.7 17.8 2.9 14.6
</code></pre>
<p>Race/ethnicity<br>
White, non-Hispanic 10.5 15.2 14.4 24.3 17.5 2.9 15.1<br>
Black, non-Hispanic 10.8 13.2 13.2 14.5 26.3 3.5 18.5<br>
Asian/Pacific Islander 8.2 16.2 12.1 41.5 13.9 1.8 6.4<br>
Hispanic 5.7 15.1 28.8 23.1 16.6 2.5 8.2<br>
American Indian/Alaska Native 15.7 15.2 7.8 12.3 27.6 9.9 11.5 </p>
<pre><code> Male
Total 10.5 11.8 12.8 30.1 16.0 3.9 15.0
</code></pre>
<p>Race/ethnicity<br>
White, non-Hispanic 10.6 11.8 12.8 29.2 16.2 3.9 15.6<br>
Black, non-Hispanic 13.6 7.5 13.3 20.4 19.3 3.9 22.0<br>
Asian/Pacific Islander 9.1 14.3 6.3 51.7 11.2 2.2 5.2<br>
Hispanic 4.7 12.4 26.6 29.3 14.2 3.9 8.9<br>
American Indian/Alaska Native 20.2 11.1 7.0 15.0 22.8 14.2 9.8 </p>
<pre><code> Female
Total 9.9 21.1 17.9 15.1 21.0 1.3 13.8
</code></pre>
<p>Race/ethnicity<br>
White, non-Hispanic 10.4 21.3 17.3 15.6 19.9 1.2 14.2<br>
Black, non-Hispanic 7.7 19.4 13.0 8.2 33.9 3.0 14.8<br>
Asian/Pacific Islander 6.0 20.5 25.2 18.4 20.0 0.8 9.1<br>
Hispanic 7.2 19.6 32.4 13.0 20.5 0.2 7.1<br>
American Indian/Alaska Native 5.4 24.5 9.7 6.2 38.8 0.0 15.4 </p>
<hr>
<p>NOTE: Includes full-time instructional faculty and staff at Title IV degree-granting institutions with at least some instructional duties for credit. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty(NSOPF:99).</p>
<p>Excel file with estimates and standard errors (26kb)</p>
<p>Here's the website for further investigating:</p>
<p>Women's colleges provide opportunities for women to be the primary focus in these subjest areas that women historically do get involved in. Please notice that the dates of research publications and data used are pretty current!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Teaching and research activities of male and female faculty members also differed. Women spent a greater average proportion of their total work time on activities related to teaching, averaging about 60 percent of their work time on such activities, compared with about 55 percent for men. Conversely, about 70 percent of men reported that they were engaged in some type of research activity, compared with about 62 percent of women. Men had also produced more scholarly works than women over the previous 2 years.
[/quote]
Women's colleges, in particular Smith College, has 35% of their students majoring in the hard sciences (bio, neuroscience, engineering, chem, physics, etc). Interesting??? I think so! They also offer opportunities for first and second year students to get involved in research in these areas, as well as many others.</p>
<p>You know, from what I understand, there is not so much inequality in the undergrad side of things anymore, as there is in other aspects of academia. Women do better than men at many colleges these days. And many colleges can claim equal numbers of women and men majoring in the sciences. However, once you are talking about professors, only about 1/5th of tenured professors at many top schools are women. (even though the ratio of women to men receiving PhDs is much closer to 1) A Berkeley professor did a study and discovered that on average, female professors at Berkeley were spending 50 hours a week on housekeeping and childcare. A lot of the problem is that our larger economic systems are not set up to meet the needs of women, given the difference in biologies. Some European countries, for instance, give a woman three years of maternity leave, at which point she can come back to the same position in her job she held before. The US gives a few months at the most, and I know at least one female professor who only took 3 weeks off because she was engaged in high-profile research and (presumably) worried about her job. Similarly, when promotions are based on # of publications, it puts women, who usually end up doing more work in the home during childrearing, at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, once you are talking about professors, only about 1/5th of tenured professors at many top schools are women.
[/quote]
Yep!! And they're still paid less regardless of the degree.</p>
<p>Well, I guess part of my point was that encouraging women in science as undergrads doesn't really help the problem. What needs to happen is a lot of basic restructuring of the employment system. (not saying you disagree, just wanted to make sure it was clear)</p>
<p>Aren't women paid less because they typically work less (once you average the ones with kids and all)? The average pay for a woman is lower, but if you adjust it to the hours worked, doesn't it equal out?</p>
<p>No, it doesn't. Please read the attached article. Hours worked or childrearing doesn't come into the equation. A woman hired for the same position as a men in an educational setting is not only paid less, but also is expected to take part in less research or research of a lesser importance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess part of my point was that encouraging women in science as undergrads doesn't really help the problem.
[/quote]
Sure it does! Not entirely, but of course it has to help solve the problem of inequity. The more women scientists graduated, the more in the workforce. Women's colleges, like Smith, emphasize sciences for women and didn't get the idea through accidental happenstance. Sophia Smith's original idea behind founding the college was to allow women with opportunities that were traditionally only offered to men. That thinking still exists at all women's colleges, and rightly so!</p>
<p>Yes, but once upon a time not many women majored in science. Now they are majoring in science, and apparently not being treated well once they get into professorships. Women not going into science isn 't much of a problem anymore, so I say treat the source of our current problem, which seems to be employment structure which makes it difficult for women to be promoted without totally sacrificing a family life. It seems to me undergraduate women will choose science if that's what they think they want to do, but they meet with problems farther down the road.</p>