<p>"have to wonder, though, whether there was a "lull" at top women's colleges once the Ivies went fully co-ed."</p>
<p>It isn't only the Ivies that have had an impact on women college admission. The little Ivies-- Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan-- along with Bowdoin, Colgate, Hamilton, Trinity and Haverford started accepting women in the early 70’s. </p>
<p>Any lull that was experienced was quickly nullified by the sheer volume of women that entered the elite college application pool in the last 30+ yrs.</p>
<p>I think that Mini's point is that with many more options, the effect of womens colleges <em>may</em> be diluted from historical levels. </p>
<p>Can't say. I do notice the same "growth" phenomenon in my own D that others have noticed in theirs and think it is beyond the ordinary "growing at college" experience.</p>
<p>"Any lull that was experienced was quickly nullified by the sheer volume of women that entered the elite college application pool in the last 30+ yrs."</p>
<p>I don't think it was quickly nullified, although I guess it depends on what your definition of "quickly."</p>
<p>There's no doubt in my mind that the all-women's colleges are benefitting greatly from the increased competition in schools at the top of the national rankings and from the sheer numbers of qualified women. The Ivies, Williams, and Amherst can only take a small percentage of exceptional women applicants. An all-women college can take a large percentage of them.</p>
<p>TD, I think any undergraduate will grow tremendously during the undergraduate years. I know I did - and I was vastly outnumbered by men. However, I think the direction of that growth is often determined by the institution. Because Smith's (and Wellesley's and Bryn Mawr's etc.) mission is to empower women both academically and emotionally, its students and alumnae show the effect of this. These women graduate not only thrilled to be women but also confident in their non-male approaches to problem-solving, research, and academics in general. Such attitudes can indeed happen at co-ed institutions, but they occur on a much larger scale at single gender ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because Smith's (and Wellesley's and Bryn Mawr's etc.) mission is to empower women both academically and emotionally, its students and alumnae show the effect of this. These women graduate not only thrilled to be women but also confident in their non-male approaches to problem-solving, research, and academics in general. Such attitudes can indeed happen at co-ed institutions, but they occur on a much larger scale at single gender ones.
[/quote]
Well said, MWFN, well said! One cannot understate the emotional and academic effects of all-women's colleges on their students. This type of growth is immeasurable, yet we clearly see the outcomes.</p>
<p>MWFN, I'm completely convinced. TheMom has worked at UCLA for more than a quarter-century and we have often compared D's experiences at Smith to those typical of UCLA...and Smith "wins" easily for most students (and UCLA isn't chopped liver in terms of a research university). </p>
<p>Smith may not have quite the peer academic horsepower *as often narrowly defined by GPA & SAT *that the Ivies and AWS, but in the overall witch's brew that constitutes the total environment, something very good, very interesting is happening there.</p>
<p>"It isn't only the Ivies that have had an impact on women college admission. The little Ivies-- Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan-- along with Bowdoin, Colgate, Hamilton, Trinity and Haverford started accepting women in the early 70’s."</p>
<p>I have been reading my alumni magazine at Williams for 35 years (since they started accepting women.) I can say with some degree of confidence that the record of achieving women graduates over that period is distinctly underwhelming, relative to their male counterparts.</p>
<p>These examples, as you so aptly put it, are women of achievement, no doubt. There are men who do just as much with no recognition as well. Unfortunately, when it comes to selling the college, it is the achieving people in their respective careers that make headlines and make the college popular. We spend so much time talking about which college turned out more grads who attend med schools, or who go on to get Ph.D's, and we tend to forget the well-educated women from Smith (as this is the example we are using), who did not go on to be leaders in their fields, but who are bright, articulate members of society who provide help and assistance to others in need. Or...those who did just decide to stay home and raise a family. RLT is correct, that it is in the eyes of the beholder. It is what we make it. Women from women's colleges, regardless of occupation, certainly have that "something special." I wish I could just describe it better in words. Perhaps someone else can help me out, but the word confidence comes to mind.
RLT...it was a great post, certainly worth repeating! ;)</p>
<p>"I can say with some degree of confidence that the record of achieving women graduates over that period is distinctly underwhelming, relative to their male counterparts."</p>
<p>Define achieving women. I’ve always harbored the idea the school or college teacher that changes and enriches lives, the social worker who toils in the inner city for little thanks or compensation, the nurse that makes an ill individuals life a little more comfortable, the single mom who works tirelessly at a job beneath her education by day and has to be both parents by night, or the stay-at-home mom that unselfishly gave up a promising career so her children would always have a parent in the home to nurture them and bandage their scrapes is as achieving as anyone I know that has a corner office, research lab, or fancy title. </p>
<p>These types of women often don’t have their names enshrined in alum magazines, but they should.</p>
<p>Also, college alum publications rely heavily on the contributions of their graduates for the information on the alum update pages. Here’s a thought; could it be women are more modest than their counterparts and don’t send in a brag sheet at every little promotion or election to some meaningless board? :)</p>
<p>LOL--Sorry BJM8...I shouldn't have deleted and reposted</p>
<p>You know, while we're on the subject. I've looked far and wide for information on the net that would tell me what women's college grads do next. I know that the national science foundation gives info on how many went on the get Ph.D's etc. in science and engineering, but I'm looking for more relevant info (relevant to me anyway). How many have gone on to excel in academia, or the business world, have become CEO's of companies, or Congresswomen or senators...that kind of thing. Where the heck do we find that kind of info?</p>
<p>"Also, college alum publications rely heavily on the contributions of their graduates for the information on the alum update pages. Here’s a thought; could it be women are more modest than their counterparts and don’t send in a brag sheet at every little promotion or election to some meaningless board?"</p>
<p>Just the opposite. In fact, Williams has separated the brag sheets into a separate publication from the main one. They would be trumpeting women's successes all over the place if they had 'em to trumpet. </p>
<p>Your point about "achieving women" is well-taken, and I look forward to the time when we say the same about the "achieving man".</p>
<p>"They would be trumpeting women's successes all over the place if they had 'em to trumpet."</p>
<p>My point was, as with the Smith Quarterly, I assume Williams is no different, many of the alums accomplishments are self-reported. Do most of the accomplished Williams alumnae submit their profiles? Or, as I mentioned, could it be the women are less braggadocios? </p>
<p>I couldn’t agree with you more regarding men.</p>
<p>BoBo’s in Paradise, by David Brooks, is an incredible book. Read the chapter The Rise of The Educated Class. </p>
<p>A mistake, I think. I understand why transgender students would feel less threatened at a place like Smith, what with the active GBLQT association, etc. Or "queer friendly" as some might say. But to make a declaration and jump through the medical hoops to live as a man and then say you want to attend a women's college is a bit like saying you want to become a priest but go to Yeshiva. Or something.</p>
<p>See also the pitched battle over the pronouns in the Smith constitution or some such, sparked by this issue. If I were emperor, this would not be allowed. However, it would be waaaay down the list of problems to address.</p>
<p>I thought smith accepts transgender in the sense that they will not kick you out if you do a sex change operation when you are at smith, but they do not take in someone who is already a guy when they apply. I might be wrong though, do correct me if I am wrong. </p>
<p>Hmm..I heard that MHC will kick you out if you do a sex change op while you are attending the college.</p>
<p>The purpose of this post is not to discuss transgendered students and how or why they are accepted anywhere. That came out of the blue. I agree with TD, this would be way down the list of important topics to tackle.
[quote]
In fact, Williams has separated the brag sheets into a separate publication from the main one. They would be trumpeting women's successes all over the place if they had 'em to trumpet.
[/quote]
I agree. I still want to know where we find such information regarding women's successes after attending all-women's colleges. Sure, each college website will list graduates of importance, or those who have made tremendous contributions to society as a whole; but, where do we find such data to back up our convictions? There's no doubt that women's colleges graduate self-confident, articulate women who are, for some reason or another, more willing to pursue areas of study that have been centered around men.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The rest cure was usually administered to a woman patient by a male doctor. In The Yellow Wallpaper the husband, a paternalistic physician, administers the cure. The male authority, as husband and doctor, dictates to the woman that she must not pursue intellectual pleasures, but must only eat and rest, raises the feminist sensitivities of modern readers. We clearly live in a different time, when women are encouraged to follow many more careers than the role of wife and mother espoused as ideal in the 19th century. This contrasting attitude toward women’s intellectual lives raises the question of why there are so few prominent women in the history of neuroscience prior to the current day. What were the forces blocking women from the pursuit of science? Surely one major factor was the belief that women risked damaging their health by intellectual pursuits. Another was the idea that education of women was best directed toward their eventual role of wife and mother. Further discussion of this topic can be informed by Rossiter’s book on the struggles of women scientists in America (Rossiter, 1982).
[/quote]
<a href="http://www.funjournal.org/downloads/HarringtonJUNE06.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.funjournal.org/downloads/HarringtonJUNE06.pdf</a>
This is an excerpt of an article written by Dr. Mary Harrington, a neuroscience prof at Smith. Interestingly, please note that the book "The Yellow Wallpaper" is used in the intro to neuroscience course taught at Smith. Here is a clear indication of why women from all-women's colleges are more confident in their studies and in their lives. The prof not only is a leader in neuroscience teaching throughout the country, but she also has found ways to incorporate the struggle of women in this area, during her teaching. Find that at any co-ed institution? This speaks volumes of the philosophy of Smith and it's strong support of women delving into academic and professional areas previously dominated by men.</p>
<p>Found the link to this article on Smith 2011 Facebook group. It probably won't be anything new to some of you on the Smith board, but i thought I should just post it anyway:)</p>