Why All-Women's Schools?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Smith College
341

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

True! As more and more women entered the workforce, the emplyment structure never really budged. Sure there are probably more female CEO's and CFO's than in years past; but so what? That was bound to happen. There are still a greater number of men holdng top positions, and there probably ever will be. Even women who are holding top positions are making less money than their male counterparts.</p>

342

<br>


<br>

<p>This kind of logic would not have passed muster in my statistics course at Bryn Mawr. There are many factors that drive women from the academic workforce after they receive undergraduate degrees; producing more biochem BA's doesn't do a thing to fix that problem.</p>

343

<p>Maybe you can enlighten us. What will fix that problem?</p>

344

<p>
[quote]
They are gravitating toward what has come to be known among students as the “EROAD” specialties—Emergency Medicine, Radiology, Ophthalmology, Anesthesiology, and Dermatology.

[/quote]

Interestingly, my wife and I were discussing this same topic this week with our D. My wife works in a large teaching hospital that is affiliated with a major Ivy League University, and she has seen the same movement from male and female docs who are graduating or have recently graduated. That's also a great site and article...thanks RLT!</p>

345

<p>Sorry BJM8, I needed to re-post. When will I learn to simply edit --lol</p>

<p>There’s no question there still exists many inequities in the professional fields for women, but quality of life has become paramount for many of both genders when making career choices within the field of medicine or which career or profession to pursue to begin with. Unfortunately it’s a soft stat and difficult to measure. Consequently statistical analyses can be murky.</p>

<p>“What are these future Primary Care doctors doing? They are gravitating toward what has come to be known among students as the “EROAD” specialties—Emergency Medicine, Radiology, Ophthalmology, Anesthesiology, and Dermatology. The reason these specialties are popular is clear; they are all characterized by what is called a “controllable lifestyle,” a practice style that permits substantial time free from professional responsibilities. That time is available for family, hobbies, and other leisure pursuits.3 It is essentially a clearly defined beeper-free respite.</p>

<p>One might then surmise that since women physicians wear so many hats and make up a steadily increasing percentage of medicine’s labor force, they must be the ones opting primarily for lifestyle control when they choose careers. Well, data in this regard may surprise many. Both women and men equally are choosing controllable lifestyle medical careers.”</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cbhd.org/resources/healthcare/rutecki_2005-02-04.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cbhd.org/resources/healthcare/rutecki_2005-02-04.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

346

<p>
[quote]
With respect to their undergraduate experiences, women were more likely than men to major in certain fields, most notably education (18 percent vs. 6 percent) and health professions (10 percent vs. 4 percent). Men, in contrast, were more likely than women to major in business and management (26 percent vs. 19 percent) and engineering (12 percent vs. 2 percent).

[/quote]

Although I respect Bryn Mawr totally, I still must say that my comment does pass muster. Only recently (recently meaning this past decade or so) have more women decided to enter what have traditionally been known as male fields (sciences and engineering). Therefore, more in, more out! Pretty simple really.</p>

347

<p>Baccalaureate degree major</p>

<pre><code> total / women / men
</code></pre>

<p>Professional fields 51.6 52.4 50.6
Business and management 22.1 19.0 25.8
Education 12.6 18.0 6.1
Engineering 6.1 1.6 11.5
Health professions 7.5 10.2 4.2
Public affairs/social services 3.3 3.7 2.9
Arts and sciences 34.4 33.1 35.8
Biological sciences 4.4 3.9 5.0
Mathematics/other sciences 5.7 4.2 7.5
Social science 9.4 8.6 10.4
History 1.9 1.3 2.6
Humanities 9.2 10.1 8.2
Psychology 3.7 5.1 2.1
Other 14.1 14.5 13.6</p>

348

<p>There are many factors that drive women from the academic workforce after they receive undergraduate degrees;]]</p>

<p>You'll enjoy this. Times have changed :) </p>

<p>Shelly Braff Lazarus ’68, CEO of advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather, gave the commencement speech in '05 in which she said, “The engagement ring was all the status we wanted. If anything, work was something done to pass the time until the real work in life, which was husbands and kids, began</p>

<p>"After Smith, the only reason I went on to get an M.B.A. from Columbia was because I needed a job and I heard if a women had an M.B.A they probably wouldn't make her type.</p>

349

<p>The Bryn Mawr bashing on this site is really getting to be annoying. By any objective criteria Bryn Mawr is more selective than Smith. According to the 06 US News and World Report Bryn Mawr accepted 47% of applicants while Smith accepted 57%. 66% of Freshmen at Bryn Mawr were in the top 10% of their graduating of their class, while 59% of Smith were. The 25/75 % on the SAT was 1220-1410 at Bryn Mawr while Smith's was 1160-1370. Let's agree that Bryn Mawr is a great school and so is Smith and stop the bickering.</p>

350

<br>


<br>

<p>Really? Let's look at the traditionally male-dominated field of law. Women had increased to about 40% of the student bodies of the top 25 law schools by 1980; it's been close to 50% for more than ten years. The incoming associate classes at major firms have largely reflected the graduating classes for more than 25 years. Women are going in, so they must be coming out, right? Wrong. It generally takes eight to ten years to make equity partner at such a firm, which is a pretty close analogue to getting tenure in academia. So are the young equity partners at those firms 40% women? Not even close; think ~10%. Nationwide, ALL women partners (including non-tenured income partners) comprise less than 20% of partners at major firms. The higher up the food chain you go (the most elite firms; leadership positions within firms), the fewer women you see.</p>

<p>But somehow academia is so drastically different from law that "more in" leads very simply to "more out"? I won't hold my breath.</p>

351

<p>The Bryn Mawr bashing on this site is really getting to be annoying]]]</p>

<p>Wow, who is bashing Bryn Mawr? I and everyone I know here loves the college. I wanted my daughter to apply, but she refused to look at <em>any</em> college, including Swath, in Pennsylvania. It had to do with proximity to skiing in VT or NH, not Pennsylvania :)
But if you’re going to throw out stats, be intellectually honest enough and look at all of them, including the class of 09.... Bryn Mawr admitted 46% compared to Smith's 48 % ...Smith has 61 % in the top 10% of the graduating class..Bryn Mawr 62% in the top 10%....Big deal. ;) Smith's SAT middle 50% range is a tad lower because Smith admits the greatest number Pell grant students of any LAC.</p>

<p><a href="http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?match=true&collegeId=3408&type=qfs&word=bryn%20mawr%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?match=true&collegeId=3408&type=qfs&word=bryn%20mawr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1376&type=qfs&word=smith%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1376&type=qfs&word=smith&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What you failed to include is the sub “academic rankings” in the US News ranking system. </p>

<p>Since the rankings began (the lower the score the better the academic ranking) Bryn Mawr has averaged around 10 and 11's the last two yrs of the stats... Smith 5.75 with a 5 the last two yrs of the stats. Compare that to Wellesley's 5.0 average, Middlebury's 12 or Bowdoin's 7.5... I’ll take the great academic ranking over a slightly higher SAT or lower admission percentage any day.</p>

<p>I’ll be the first to admit rankings can be ridiculous. It’s very late, I’m cranky, and it wasn’t my intention to belittle Bryn Mawr whatsoever, so please don take it that way. But remember you decided to bring up the issue of stats. I will agree Bryn Mawr is a great college and neither should ever be thought of as <em>better</em> than the other. They're different. :)</p>

<p>US News Academic Rankings</p>

<pre><code> 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001

</code></pre>

<p>Smith nr 7 6 5 5</p>

<p>Mt Holyoke nr 15 18 21 19</p>

<p>Bryn Mawr nr 8 10 11 11 </p>

<p>Wellesley 8 3 3 4 4</p>

<p>Williams 1 4 1 1 1</p>

<p>Swathmore 2 3 1 1 1</p>

<p>Amherst 3 1 3 1 1</p>

<p>Bowdoin 10 10 6 5 7</p>

<p>Wesleyan nr 8 6 8 7</p>

<p>Middlebury nr 12 14 11 11 </p>

<p>Vassar nr 12 14 15 15</p>

352

<p>ptribeca comment in response to my comment:
[quote]
The Bryn Mawr bashing on this site is really getting to be annoying

[/quote]

My comment:
[quote]
Although I respect Bryn Mawr totally...

[/quote]

I must be missing something???? And...RLT is correct even if he is tired and cranky. Check your numbers, and you'll also see that the class of 2010 has 70% of their class from the top 10%.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nationwide, ALL women partners (including non-tenured income partners) comprise less than 20% of partners at major firms. The higher up the food chain you go (the most elite firms; leadership positions within firms), the fewer women you see.

[/quote]

Thanks for proving my point Hanna! ;)</p>

353

<p>Hm, seemed to me that your point was that creating more female science BAs will lead to more women in the upper echelons of academia, which I dispute. If that wasn't your point, what did you mean by "more in, more out"?</p>

354

<p>As I said, Prtibecca, I and everyone I know love Bryn Mawr. However, another often overlooked fact with these blasted 25%-75% SAT stats is they leave out 50% of the students scores. Smith’s bottom 25% may not be as low as Bryn Mawr’s, and Smith’s top 25 % might be much higher. The resulting <em>average</em> SAT if <em>all</em> the students SATs were tabulated could very well result in Smith having a higher total SAT <em>average</em><br>
Then again it might not. :)</p>

<p>Otoh- It really doesn’t matter. SATs have been shown over and over again not to be a great predictor of success in college. Case in point; the students who didn’t submit SATs at Bates ( they were on average 160 points lower than those who reported) had a gpa within .1% of those who did submit scores.</p>

<p>SATs are racially and economically bias. Consider this; poor students can’t afford the SAT prep course that has been proven to raise scores as much as 100-150 points. When a college like Smith accepts a far larger proportion of very low income students over other colleges, it stands to reason the middle 50% SATs would be 40-50 points lower than some competing colleges. I’ll admit there is a great amount of discussion among many in the Smith community that the college is paying a ranking price by admitting so many very low to lower-middle income students and the resulting lower SAT scores.
My answer is, “screw’em.” I’ll take a slightly lower ranking over helping deserving, bright poor in a nanosecond. </p>

<p>Bowdoin and Bates don’t require SATs, resulting in only 50% of the students submitting scores. The true SAT average is completely skewed. Now Holyoke, Midd, Holy Cross et al are playing the same game. Also some colleges submit <em>accepted</em> students SAT scores and not matriculated students b/c doing so would result in a lower average…This is my complaint, among many, with using SATs in the ranking. </p>

<p>Btw-- if you go back to the 2005 USNews ranking (class of 2007) Smith had an acceptance rate of 52%…Bryn Mawr 51% .. Smith’s SATs were (mid 50%) 1150-1370.. Bryn Mawr’s 1200-1400- a measly 40 point average difference and statistically insignificant. Aren’t stats and numbers wonderful?</p>

355

<p>roadlesstraveled--
what are these "sub academic rankings” that you're talking about?</p>

<p>and did you know that Bowdoin went SAT optional in the late 60s, and Middlebury has been SAT I optional for for nearly 20 years?</p>

356

<p>I knew about Bowdoin. That's one reason I respect the college immensely. They discovered SATs were not a good indicator and did away with the requirement /long/ before the rankings had anything to do with their decision. Midd went SAT1 optional a couple of yrs ago according to admissions, not 20. I called to make sure :)
Also, look at their webapge. If SATs had been optional for 20 yrs, they wouldn't have made a point of stating SAT1's were not required for the class of '09. You could always use ACT's but those aren't used in the rankings. Bates has been SAT optional for at least 20 yrs.</p>

<p>“ SAT 1's were not required for the Class of 2009”</p>

<p><a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/admissions/applying/classprofile/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.middlebury.edu/admissions/applying/classprofile/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>[[what are these "sub academic rankings” that you're talking about?]]</p>

<p>“The precise methodology used by the U.S. News rankings has changed many times, and the data are not all available to the public”</p>

<p>I long ago received the info on CC from one of the data gurus (e.g. mini, interesteddad) who had access to info the rest of us might not be privy to. But then again, it might have been published until 2001. You can do a search on CC for the post and the particulars. But USNews doesn’t release all its data, and they may have done away with the “academic ranking” I just don’t know b/c I’m not going to pay to access the US News website where much more detailed info. is given than is published in the infamous mag that comes out each Aug.</p>

357

<p>The SATs Midd reports for the rankings and what those are of the actual enrolled students don’t jive either. Interesteddad discovered Midd reports SATs for <em>admitted</em> students for the rankings, not enrolled.</p>

<p>Needless to say, many of those with the top SATs enrolled elsewhere. See what I mean when I say the SAT scores are a bogus measure of a college?
I realize you’re a Midd alum. Don’t take it personally. :)
I have close ties to Midd too. ;)</p>

<p>Midd website. Enrolled students. <a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/admissions/applying/classprofile/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.middlebury.edu/admissions/applying/classprofile/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>SAT 1 Verbal Mid-50% Range 620-710
SAT 1 Math Mid-50% Range 610-690</p>

<p>Those used for the rankings. Big diff <a href="http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=850&profileId=6%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=850&profileId=6&lt;/a>
SAT Reasoning Verbal: 630 - 750<br>
SAT Reasoning Math: 650 - 730</p>

358

<p>Actually, 75% of Bowdoin students submit their SATs. And when you look at the SATs of ALL incoming students they're not that different from reported scores (not that that's central to this debate). (The middle 50% SAT range for the verbal and math sections of the SAT is 640-730 and 650-710 according to wikipedia) I'm still a little confused about what all these ratings that are /supposed/ to reflect academics mean, though. UChicago is very rigorous and does very well with grad placement, their SATs are very high but their % of students in top-10% of their class are not. I guess I feel a lot of these more selective SATs could be more academically intense in a couple of years if they wanted to be, but for some reason that's not what they're going for. And yeah, I'd definitely be curious to find out what those US News "academic ratings" are supposed to mean, because it's a very dramatic ranking considering it's not defined.</p>

359

<p>And when you look at the SATs of ALL incoming students they're not that different from reported scores ]]</p>

<p>Your correct, it is 75 % for Bowdoin. Bates is 5O%</p>

<p><a href="http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3744&profileId=6%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=3744&profileId=6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>How do you know the scores of <em>all</em> the incoming students if they didn't submit them? Obviously they were lower than those who felt confident enough to report them, so I submit the mid 50% range is inflated b/c 25% of the scores were never calculated in the stats due to never being sent to Bowdoin by Collegeboard. You can’t calculate into the stats that which you don’t have. Collegeboard itself proclaims on its website only 75% of the scores were reported.</p>

<p>There's no argument here. It's common knowledge and fact. I also submit many colleges are making SATs optional, so they too can have higher reported SATs for the USNews rankings</p>

<p>When do you start at Bowdoin? You should be excited. Boys :)</p>

360

<p>Roadlesstraveled, I didn't bring up rankings I was referring to admissions statistics. By the way, wasn't 09 an aberration for Smith? When were the the sub academic ratings last published by US NEWS and World Report?</p>