<p>
[quote]
They were not my d's top choices until she began to visit them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My D's story as well. She was interested as a result of the prospect parties but visiting a lot of schools really jumbled the order of her preferences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The claim that underclassmen at these leading institutions do not participate in research is simply a myth. With endowments an order of magnitude greater than Smith's they can provide an infrastructure that smaller LACs can only dream of.
[/quote]
Now, there's a red herring! Must have been a while since you looked, because Smith's endowment is close to or over one billion (that's with a "B") dollars. Amherst is about the same if not larger. Just because an institution is larger does not make it richer, or better. At Smith, the number of women doing research in their first two years in all areas, not just sciences, is phenomenal. Mini is absolutely right on with the data regarding research opportunities at other elite schools.<br>
[quote]
In most colleges women can live in single sex dorms or at least single sex floors if they wish. They can also join sororities or "affinity houses" if they wish.
[/quote]
True. But...not the same. Period! Ask your wife, she should know!
[quote]
The fact that women's colleges like Smith understood the unique needs of women students earlier does not mean that co-ed institutions have failed to address the issue.
[/quote]
True. But maybe, just maybe, Smith has a running head start. Oh, like, since 1875!! At Smith, 100% of the student leadership roles are filled by women. That means that women have a much greater opportunity to rise to the top and to learn from it than they would at a co-educational institution.
[quote]
Participation in the classroom is largely a function of class size not gender.
[/quote]
Untrue! They are given the opportunity to participate more, in and out of class, due to small class sizes which create a more positive learning experience because of greater individual attention. (You may have forgotten to add in "because of individual attention.") They get that at Smith not only because of small class size, but also because everything at Smith is for women and centered around women. Women at women's colleges are more engaged than women at coeducational institutions, are more likely to experience high levels of academic challenge, engage in active and collaborative learning to a higher degree, and take part in activities that provide opportunities to integrate their curricular and co-curricular experiences than their counterparts at co-educational colleges. Women at women's colleges tend to thrive studying subjects such as science and math subject and career areas in which women are traditionally underrepresented.</p>
<p>As one who went to a private girls' school for grades 7-12 and then to a co-ed Ivy, I have experienced both worlds. I had serious reservations about single-gender college for my daughter but seeing how she has thrived at Smith, I have to say I've changed my tune. Certainly not for everyone, but many women will have a more productive education at an all-women's school for two reasons: (1) they will not suffer from the distractions of relationships with the opposite sex in quite so omnipresent a way as one experiences at a co-ed institution and will therefore have far more time, energy, and focusing power for their academic work; and (2) they will benefit from the support of deeper and longer-lasting friendships than tend to happen at a co-ed institution (because people in intense relationships with the opposite sex tend to concentrate on their significant others, with no room for non-sexual relationships).</p>
<p><<In most colleges women can live in single sex dorms or at least single sex floors if they wish. They can also join sororities or "affinity houses" if they wish. </p>
<p>True. But...not the same. Period! Ask your wife, she should know!>></p>
<p>I disagree with you. I actually joined a sorority and it's been amazing for me. Believe me, I had huge reservations about going Greek just because of all the myths and stories but I had several friends who convinced me just to try rushing. Haven't looked back since. </p>
<p>Smith is just one big sorority (or at least each house is a sorority!)- promotion of academic excellence, community service, individuality, and sisterhood. I found all of that at my comfort level in my current sorority. So I don't see why you think that simply living in an all-women's housing in a co-ed environment is any different from living at Smith. This year is the first year that my sorority got a house and the sisters told me at the recruitment that it's made a huge positive impact on them- bringing them much closer because now they have a place to call on their own without any male distractions. </p>
<p>The most important thing about working, living, and studying with other women is the formation of the social network and support that only they can sympathize with each other. Has anyone read a book called "Connecting: The Enduring Power of Female Friendship" by Sandy Sheehy? Fabulous book and hits right on the spot- you'd find it anywhere- at an all-women's schools or in a co-ed school.</p>
<p>Additionally, it does make a difference to a female student's self-esteem on who's leading her student organization. I actually am finding myself hanging out much more with the women here because of my sorority, Panhellenic Association and my Jewish group (led by two female presidents, only 3-4 guys out of 12 of us). So I am constantly surrounded (unconsciously...) by women- only involving myself in co-ed setting in classroom, dining halls, and around the campus. The presidents of my organizations have amazing self-confidence and I'm not quite sure why... :) Additionally, it's important to have professors who aren't gender-biased, especially during one-on-one sessions. (a-hem, not what you're thinking...lol)</p>
<p>But yes, I get ****ed off when my best friends ignore me for their S.O. in co-ed schools. Fortunately, they're just the minority so I'm not suffering too much.</p>
<p>I am not trying to knock Smith. Some of the most brilliant women I have ever met met are Smithies. My contention is simply that if your daughter is truly talented in the sciences (not the social sciences but the hard sciences) it would be a mistake to send her to Smith. If on the other hand she wants to study english, art history, languages, philosophy then fine. Smith CAN be a good choice. </p>
<p>BJM8, I am very familar with Smith's endowment. (I contribute to it every year with my wife!). But $1 billion in endowment does not go very far these days when it comes to funding top-notch research facilities and attracting world-class faculty. MIT spent over $300 million on a single neuroscience building last year. Yale is investing $500 million into renovating its science facilities. I am simply stating a fact when I claim that the smaller LACs (including the coeds like Amherst and Williams) simply cannot compete at the same level as the big Ivies or MIT and Stanford. </p>
<p>Quote:
Women at women's colleges tend to thrive studying subjects such as science and math subject and career areas in which women are traditionally underrepresented.</p>
<p>Fact: Women at women's colleges avoid math and science like the plague. I should know. I was at MIT when I met my future wife who was then at Smith. I spent every weekend for the better of two years commuting between Cambridge and Northampton. I maintain my previous claim that most Smithies are scientifically illiterate and proud to be. Science at Smith is some sort of mush that has been watered down so as to appeal to the masses. Even then it gets few takers. Just see the post above from current student. Where else could you find a biology class called "Landscape plants and issues". Maybe taught by Martha Stewart! You must be kidding!</p>
<p>Now seriously, Smith is a great college, on par with many of the top coed LACs, but it is losing many (but not all) of the top female candidates to the Ivies and other universities with greater resources, particularly in the sciences.</p>
<p>In a separate response to Monmwaitingfornew, I agree that as a group female candidates are at least as good as the men and that competiton is fierce. Women are typically better in english and social studies, so if your intended major is something like art history or psychology then expect some tough competition as women are overrepresented in these fields. There are exceptions though, and the sciences is one of them. If your daughter is good in physics, engineering or math she will have a much easier time as women are underrepresented in these fields. Biology is a mixed bag as many women gravitate to the field, as it often has no prerequisites in math and physics and is the most common path to med schools. Harder majors such as molecular biology or biochemistry offer greater chances. I know for a fact that MIT is bending over backwards to attract women and the acceptance rate for women is nearly three times that of men to provide at least a semblance of gender balance. They have a tough time finding enough qualified female applicants. But then, MIT is not for everyone, and if you did not take the most advanced science and math classes in high school (which many girls avoid), you will struggle. The odds are not as good for science at Harvard, Yale or Princeton since these schools do not expect you to declare a major by application time, but the fact remains they also want more women in the sciences departments. Just showing a strong science background helps. In my daughters's very competitive high school two out of three early admits at Yale were girls and all had strong science pedigrees.</p>
<p>Wow... this is a very interesting thread regardless of whether I attend Smith or Mount Holyoke or Bryn Mawr or Scripps...</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>In response to your post regarding undergraduate research at Yale, I don't know where you went during your visit or who you spoke to, but you are clearly wrong. I live 20 minutes from the Yale campus and know many science departments well. Every undergrad who wants to do research at Yale can easily find opportunities with over 800 labs. With the addition of their new "Perspective In Science" program, Yale effectively GUARANTEES a research position to every student who takes the course even without a strong prior science background. You can generally do research either for money or for credit but not both. </p>
<p>You should check out <a href="http://www.yale.edu/yser/index.html%5B/url%5D">www.yale.edu/yser/index.html</a> befor making such misinformed comments.</p>
<p>"Now seriously, Smith is a great college, on par with many of the top coed LACs, but it is losing many (but not all) of the top female candidates to the Ivies and other universities with greater resources, particularly in the sciences."</p>
<p>That is definitely true, but I know that there are many people who are willing to go to an all girls school for the environment, small class sizes and in the case of Bryn Mawr, there is Haverford and Swarthmore to make up for the lack of men on campus (same is true for Smith in a way... because of the consortium and also for Wellesley). It is true that women's colleges are losing candidates to Ivies, but it's also true that many people encourage their daughters to attend the Seven Sisters because they believe they will recieve Ivy-par education with much more attention given then those huge institutions.</p>
<p>I know many many cases where people have turned down Ivies (specificially in some cases Dartmouth and Cornell) because they believed schools like Bryn Mawr suit them better and they know that they will recieve personalized attention and care.</p>
<p>I never thought that I would be such a huge advocate for women's colleges, but since I am going to go to one next year and since I've done a lot of research, I realized a women's college is best for me.</p>
<p>Even though I got into schools that can provide me with a similar education, I chose a women's college because I finally realized that choosing a women's college and the lack of men on campus isn't necessarily going to kill me or anything.</p>
<p>I always get the comments from my friends about "why are you going to a women's college? you're a pretty guy-obsessed person" but now I feel content that I made a right choice and that I will recieve better education than the other schools that I was accepted to.</p>
<p>The thought at first of jumping into a new environment is strange and very scary at first, but doing an overnight visit completely made me do a 360 on what I felt at first...</p>
<p>Phew that was long. :)</p>
<p>Cellardweller, much of your response is dead-on, although there have been some changes at Smith in recent years. Their new engineering program has attracted top women scientists because 1. they are giving merit scholarships for those who are interested (and you know how rare merit scholarships are at the top schools) and 2. the program has an arrangement with several prestigious schools including Princeton that allows Smith graduates in engineering automatic acceptance into grad programs. This program is attracting some great candidates in the sciences.</p>
<p>Next, biology is generally strong on women's campuses because so many women want to go pre-med. (All the LACs have to fulfill this need for their students.) At Lehigh, a traditionally male-heavy and science-focused university, men dominate the faculty positions and student population in science EXCEPT in biology. There is a clear majority of women in that department. For a woman's college to thrive, it needs a good bio program.</p>
<p>Doing research is a whole different matter. You are absolutely right that the kind of research being performed at a small liberal arts college--all-women or co-ed--cannot compete with the larger research universities. It's not just endowment; it's graduate students. A professor needs to keep several research projects going at once and cannot unless there is an adequate supply of graduate students. Several ongoing projects means several opportunties for research. Some smaller research universities allow a decent number of undergrads to participate, but in the larger schools, only the top undergrads are invited, primarily because the graduate students get priority, and rightfully so.</p>
<p>Smith has the STRIDE program which gives undergraduates a stipend for doing research with a faculty member. Although I can't say how well this works, it has the potential for allowing faculty members to do better research since the undergrads are taking the place of grad students. Because Smith doesn't have a substantial number of grad students, STRIDE allows the sciences and social sciences to have those several research projects going on at once through a steady supply of undergrads. Of course, no highly ambitious or prestigious scientist is going to come to Smith because the facilities, reputation, and experience of the students is not going to reach university levels, but that doesn't mean that the teaching won't be strong. If a mid-range scientist was looking for a faculty position at a liberal arts college and had to choose between an average LAC and one like Smith that ALREADY (without outside grants) had student researchers lined up, which do you think that scientist would choose?</p>
<p>As I see it, Smith allows future scientists the experience of a LAC undergrad without seriously handicapping the student for the future. Still, if my daughter were interested in physics, we probably wouldn't have looked at Smith.</p>
<p>Cellar, I forgot to address the Ivies and research: they are exceptions to the rule. One reason they offer great undergraduate education in the sciences is because of the research opportunities you cite. Not every university is that generous to undergrads.</p>
<p>And, of course, not everyone can get into the Ivies, either.</p>
<p>Sorry to "hijack" this Smith Thread with info about another women's college...but since the title shows up as "Why All-Women's Schools?"...and Cellardweller adds "other women's colleges" to his comments about smith, I just couldn't let his comments about science go unanswered. He stated:</p>
<p>"The vast majority of students at Smith and other women's colleges go through their four years without ever taking a single math or science class or fill their science requirement with a class that would in most colleges be part of the humanities program not science. I have met many dozens of Smithies from accompanying my wife to many class reunions and although I consider many of them to be extremely bright most are scientifically illiterate."</p>
<p>"Fact: Women at women's colleges avoid math and science like the plague. "</p>
<p>NOT A FACT!!!! I don't have info. on science at Smith, but Mount Holyoke has a long history of excellence in science. From the 1840s to the 1980s, Mount Holyoke produced more women who went on to receive Ph.D.'s in chemistry than any other university or college in the nation. However, recent history is more relevant to this thread's discussion: </p>
<p>"For the period 1996-2001, Mount Holyoke was among the top seven liberal colleges nationwide in graduating women going on to earn doctoral degrees in the physical sciences (chemistry, physics, and astronomy). For graduating women going on to earn doctoral degrees in the geosciences, Mount Holyoke was in the top six liberal arts colleges, and for math and computer sciences, the top nine. And during that same period, Mount Holyoke graduated more women who went on to obtain doctorates in the life sciences than any other liberal arts college in the nation." From:<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/cic/sciences/overview.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.mtholyoke.edu/cic/sciences/overview.shtml</a></p>
<p>2boysima,</p>
<p>Thanks for speaking up for Mount Holyoke. I think the advantages attributed to Smith are shared by the top women's colleges. Each has a somewhat different atmosphere and if you are considering a women's LAC, you should visit more than one to check out the personal fit for you.</p>
<p>From a different perspective...all male schools are bad either. I attended an all male school (basically 3 years out of 4; 6k males year 1, zero females; 5,998 males, 2 females; and 150 and then 500 females 3rd and 4th year). I spent one year in an all male Prep school and then 2 years of four at an all male college. Females were admitted to all three schools eventually. Females certainly made each institution better in the long run; however, I certainly enjoyed being at all male schools. We had almost zero fights in an all male high school. Compare that with any high school today. We were all there for one reason only, to better ourselves through the best education we could obtain. We had a 97% college entrance rate, 3% military service. Guys concentrated on academics and in the afternoon sports and extracurricula activities. We didn't care about who was dating who and what party was happening on the weekend. In college, physical standards were changed to support the female population, all other standards were maintained. Having all male and all female institutions work. It's not sexist just avoids emerging hormones which create problems. The only down side is my high school didn't have a homecoming court or a prom. Doesn't look like a bad trade-off.</p>
<p>Most of the people on this thread would probably be interested in Marie Wilson's "Closing the Leadership Gap." She's speaking at my school this week. It's amazingly well written and brings forth some stunning facts. Marie Wilson is also the founder of the white hose project.</p>
<p>2boysima: BRAVO!! BRAVO!! Worry not about hijacking the Smith thread, as this conversation is about all-women's colleges, not specifically Smith per se. I will have lots to say and to respond to a little later in time, but cannot right at the moment. When there are comments that sciences at women's colleges are run by Martha Stewart...well, let's just say that puts the poster in perspective. Ironically, his wife attended Smith, lol. Obviously he has not heard about the brand new science building that Smith is building, and the new engineering program that places more women in grad schools than any other. When 30% of the women at Smith are majoring in sciences (not the ones run by Martha Stewart, but the "hard" sciences like Biochem, chem, physics, engineering, biology)...shall I go on? Women's colleges like Smith provide opportunities for research that many others cannot touch. That's a fact!</p>
<p>2boysima,</p>
<p>Sciencephobia is alive and well at Mount Holyoke just like at Smith.
<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/951103/newcourse.html%5B/url%5D">www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/951103/newcourse.html</a></p>
<p>Excluding biology and neuroscience there were 55 science majors in 2005 at Mount Holyoke for exactly 10% of the enrollment about the same as Smith (67 out of 670). Smith in adtion has an engineering department that Mount Holyoke does not have. The combined enrollment in science is less than many typical humanities departments. </p>
<p>The low enrollment of women in science programs is not unique to the women's colleges but to a large extent present in all LACs. In general women starting as early as high school shy away from many of the hard science classes. Biology is the lone exception although even there the more advanced fields such as bioinformatics, bioengineering and bioterchnology are largely male dominated. </p>
<p>Sure you can do science at Mount Holyoke or at Smith, but the more advanced classes in the field and world class science faculty (as measured by National Academy of Sciences membership) are virtually non-existent. What can you realistically expect when the total number of science majors is so small? Invariably admissions officers at Smith, Mt Holyoke and Amherst mention the option of taking classes at Umass to complement the scarce science offerings on their own campuses. But then why go to Smith or Mt Holyoke if the advanced work will need to be performed elsewhere.</p>
<p>While I think women's colleges help shape women's futures in a positive way, my sense is that some of the claims are overblown. As an example, I checked the biographies of the (1) leading woman in the president's cabinet, (2) two female U.S. Supreme court justices, (3) two of the highest paid women in media and (4) the country's eight female governors. I don't think I see a single women's college in this list. . .</p>
<p>Condoleezza Rice earned her bachelor's degree from the University of Denver.</p>
<p>Former Justice Sandra Day OConnor majored in economics at Stanford University. </p>
<p>Justice Ruth Ginsburg attended Cornell University.</p>
<p>Katie Couric attended University of Virginia.</p>
<p>Oprah Winfrey attended Tennessee State University.</p>
<p>Janet Napolitano (Governor of Arizona) is an alumna of Santa Clara University.</p>
<p>M. Jodi Rell (Governor of Conneticaut) attended Old Dominion University and Western Connecticut State University.</p>
<p>Jennifer Granholm (Governor of Michigan) graduated from the University of California, Berkeley</p>
<p>Chris Gregoire (Governor of Washington) went to the University of Washington.</p>
<p>Linda Lingle (Governor of Hawaii) graduated from California State University, Northridge. </p>
<p>Kathleen Blanco taught (Governor of Louisiana) received a B.S. degree from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.</p>
<p>Ruth Ann Minner (Governor of Delaware) and Kathleen Sebelius (Governor of Kansas) do not appear to have gone to College-- or at least do not mention it in their official biographies.</p>
<p>Interesting -- only one Ivy on the list!</p>
<p>Cellardweller--
If you want to discuss the merits of studying science at an LAC versus a large research institution -- that's a different discussion. Students hopefully pick the environment that's right for them. A superb preparation for every high level PhD program in any science or engineering discipline can be obtained at Mount Holyoke or Smith. Mount Holyoke's high admissions to, and graduations from, these programs...as well as top Medical schools...proves it.</p>
<p>Not sure why you chose to delete Biology from the science stats....even MIT students consider Biology a science!</p>
<p>Link to course at Mount Holyoke was great! Did you notice the course was developed because there WASN'T an easy science course at Mount Holyoke? Also received a NSF grant of $150,000!</p>
<p>Californian --
You missed one cabinet member -- the current sec'y of Labor - Elaine Chao - attended a women's college.</p>
<p>The first women elected governor in her own right -- Ella Grasso -- graduated from a women's college.</p>
<p>The first female cabinet sec'y - Francis Perkins (sec'y of Labor for FDR) graduated from a women's college.</p>
<p>These are just a few I know off the top of my head. I could go "one on one" with you, but I would lose because there are fewer graduates of women's colleges then women graduates of co-ed schools. </p>
<p>A women's college may not be right for every 18 year old girl...but stating that the colleges do not produce outstanding leaders or leading scientists is false.</p>
<p>I can't contribute a much statistical data to this discussion, but I am a Wellesley alum and I would have to dispute the claim that students at women's colleges do not pursue and excel in the sciences. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. My daughter graduated last year from Spelman College, a historically black women's college, and I was struck at her graduation ceremony by the numbers of her classmates graduating with majors in math and science. I will add that while I did not steer my daughter to a women's college, I was happy she made the choice because it truly is a very special and empowering experience.</p>