<p>"Women's colleges are not about separating women from the world but about encouraging them to be active agents within it. Although the colleges educate a tiny percentage of women students, their graduates are overrepresented in positions of influence. Prominent women's college alumnae have filled both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill in recent years and include Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Elaine Chao, Madeline Albright, Donna Shalala, and Christine Todd Whitman. Four of the 10 women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies in 2006 graduated from women's colleges. Faust herself is yet another women's college graduate who will head a major institution.</p>
<p>Despite considerable success, the work that women's colleges pioneered -- and now share with coeducational institutions -- is far from complete. Dishearteningly, so few women are at the top: they fill only 2 percent of CEO positions and 14.7 percent of board seats on Fortune 500 companies; 21 percent of college and university presidencies; 14 percent of senators and 16 percent of members of the House. In fact, the United States ranks 69th in the world in terms of women's representation in national legislatures or parliaments out of 187 countries."</p>
<p>Absolutely! This bears repeating as well:
<a href="http://www.funjournal.org/downloads/...gtonJUNE06.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.funjournal.org/downloads/...gtonJUNE06.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>Isn't it ironic that some French HS are seriously thinking on going back to single-sex education for precisely the opposite reasons? The argument being that , from 12 to 18girls are more mature, both physically and intellectually, thus dominating the classroom and increasing out-of-class masculine agression because of frustration and insecurity of not being recognized in the class...</p>
<p>I have a hard time believing that masculine aggression in schools anywhere in the world is caused by not being recognized in class! Competition and showing off for the fairer sex, yes; but not being recognized in class? Boys are by far more the aggressor in class, getting the teacher's attention much more by yelling out, waving their arms, etc.</p>
<p>What I mean is positive recognition. Yelling and waving arms is a reaction to basic insecurity. Boys who are good students go in for snide comments rather than physical demonstrations. Those who show off intelellctually are rarely those who do so physically.</p>
<p>So, you are trying to create snide boys? (Ha -- just kidding.)</p>
<p>I find the French rationale for single gender education fascinating, primarily because your system has noted precisely what the US system has -- that in general, boys are not achieving academiclally at the same level as girls. In the US, however, we've added to that statement: so why aren't girls confident with their intelligence and achievements? Why do males excel professionally at a higher level than females?</p>
<p>This is obviously a complex issue. I read that boys have an attitude that they don't have to get good grades; they just have to get good enough grades to move to the next level. At the high school and college level, they value partying and comraderie over academic achievement. They figure they are going to get a good job based on the college they attend or the people they know, and this confidence translates into success. Girls are generally insecure about not doing well, and so work hard to get good grades. They are intimidated by boys in the classroom even if the boys are not doing as well academically. (I wish I could remember where I read this! Newsweek? NY Times?)</p>
<p>Because of this achievement gap between the genders, right now in the US it is easier (Note: not easy) for a boy to get into elite schools than for a girl because girls have to compete against a larger pool of impressive applicants. There is obviously a societal problem in the US for young males, just as there is in France, but that doesn't mean that young females aren't facing difficulties as well.</p>
<p>For those of us who have daughters, however, we don't want them to be left behind in the effect to bolster male achievement. We want them to achieve beyond the classroom. Single-gender schools foster self-confidence and ambition, which may better prepare them to excel professionally. Yes, young women can develop these traits elsewhere, even at a third or fourth tier school, but the women's colleges tend to instill them over a broader population of women.</p>
<p>I am in total agreement with you and have tried to educate my daughters to consider themselves on equal footing with their male counterparts. My younger D (the future smithie) has in fact been in a girls’ school since 2nd grade (but, I admit, mainly because it was the only devent school in the neighbourhood!). However, I fear that a woman’s college is only a temporary solution, which may even raise false hopes and result in bitter disappointments when our Ds hit the working world. It may be better in the States, but a recent study here has shown that 7 years after graduating from the top business schools, women are paid on average 25% less than their male counterparts, and the gap widens every year. Even in the top spheres of the French Civil Service (i.e ENA graduates), women are promoted more slowly or even passed over for men with lesser qualifications. One of my closest friends did not get the job she applied for as “There is already one top job in the county filled by a woman”.
Another point to be pondered on is cultural pressure. Despite better HS results in science, few women here choose to pursue a career in pure science and engineering (med is more popular). The French State has recently been giving scholarships to encourage girls to pursue these fields, and so far with very limited success. Out of 10 girls in science universities, seven become HS teachers. Out of 10 boys, only 3. Is this due to peer-pressure or to the hackneyed argument of having to look after prospective children?
Finally, to really let the fox into the chicken-coop (does one say that in English?), there is the biological argument that a majority of women, although capable of it ,do not enjoy demonstrating the aggressive attitude needed for certain jobs. Those who do will succeed whether or not they go to a woman’s college, and maybe even more so if they have practised besting men during their university years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For those of us who have daughters, however, we don't want them to be left behind in the effect to bolster male achievement. We want them to achieve beyond the classroom. Single-gender schools foster self-confidence and ambition, which may better prepare them to excel professionally. Yes, young women can develop these traits elsewhere, even at a third or fourth tier school, but the women's colleges tend to instill them over a broader population of women.
[/quote]
Brava.</p>
<p>As an interesting datum from another culture, my D made an observation about the status of women in Hungary, which to my eye seems to be a jarring combination of 1955 and 2001: women are now free to pursue a top-level education in virtually any field but are not free to realize their potential by having careers. For a married woman to work is still looked very much askance and one Hungarian friend of D´s in her late 20´s said that Hungarian men don't like their women to work. Period.</p>
<p>Does sexism still exist in American culture/society? Then it is still present in higher education. I was a graduate student at Princeton in the early '80s...Princeton's reputation and vision of itself were impeccable, unassailable. One professor held his graduate seminars in his home, where his wife would invite all the female grad students into the kitchen, give them aprons to wear, and have them serve the men. Say no, and ruin your career. Beautiful Princeton.</p>
<p>Ok, I’m a guy, didn’t know what Smith college was, stumbled upon the links, and found this.</p>
<p>I understand that we all have different perspectives, AND i see that the data you have here is very impressive…</p>
<p>But…</p>
<p>But you make it SEEM like all Coed schools are horrible institutions of sexist slavery. This is absouletly FALSE. As a male, I felt demonized.</p>
<p>You say that the reason that so many women who go to women’s colleges have higher self esteem is because of the atmosphere and the lack of “sexism” at these campuses, then you say that the women who go here are “highly self-selecting” and already independent. So…what’s more important, that atmosphere or the people who choose to go to these schools? I will confess that women who CHOOSE to go to girls only colleges are probably stronger, more independent, happier people because they don’t feel the need for male attention. Does that mean the campus and its lack of “sexism” have a great deal to do with it?</p>
<p>Maybe girls who WANT to major in the sciences would choose to go to these schools because they feel like they would be discriminated against at regular colleges. While the fact that womens’ colleges have lots of support for these girls, it’s important to remember who is actually going there in the first place.</p>
<p>I’m not attacking women’s colleges, not in the LEAST: I have great respect for them and their graduates. I just feel like you’re idealizing them.</p>
<p>Also, sexism exists on the other end as well. Men have to be “tough”, muscular, emotionless, jerks, nonchalant, and a whole bunch of other annoying stereotypes. What if I WANT to be a stay-at-home dad? I think that that today would get a whole lot more social stygma than a female scientist. A WHOLE lot more.</p>
<p>I have to disagree that this thread paints co-ed institutions as bastions of sexism. I think it suggests that sexism is far less prevalent at single-sex institutions, for obvious reasons, but certainly does not condemn co-ed colleges.</p>
<p>I agree sexism works both ways. But, I really think that at women’s colleges and ESPECIALLY Smith, they are working against that. I heard at leat 4 or 5 Smithies talk about gender being a social construct, and they were trying to find ways to fix that. They realize that boys do not have to do more “masculine” things and girls do not have to be especially “feminine”…</p>
<p>I admit that the idea of single-gender education (in this case, all-women colleges) is counter-intuitive. As a woman who attended a largely male college and loved every minute of that education, I was doubtful at first that it would be right for my daughter. However, now that I’ve seen what happens over the course of those four years, I’m completely sold on its benefits. When I think back on my own education, I realize that I received a tremendous amount of support from my own female friends, and never from my male ones. I wouldn’t have thought myself capable of being in the top segment of the class without their encouragement and example. At an all-women’s college, that effect is maximized. It doesn’t mean, of course, that women at co-ed institutions cannot excel (I did) or that all students at all-women’s colleges excel, only that the environment is more conducive to achieving that end.</p>
<p>I’ve talked to male professors who teach at all-women’s colleges, and they love it because the dynamics of the classroom are much different than in co-ed institutions.</p>
<p>I admit had been a little skeptical. D wasn’t planning to go to a women’s college but she applied to seven schools and three of the the four she was admitted to were women’s colleges and the fourth was her safety. So.</p>
<p>At this point, two years out, I see nothing but plusses to her experience. At worst, she would mostly agree. </p>
<p>I do know that if she had to make a choice all over again she’d pick Smith and if that happened we’d still pony up our share of the $$$ in a much tighter economic environment.</p>
<p>D1 who is currently doing a PhD at a top French Political Science Institute has just co-written a paper showing conclusively that the women students there are regularly put down, intellectually browbeaten and more appallingly reduced to their physical appearance (face, figure, clothes) by their male counterparts. In the classroom, over 70% of student participation (either asking or answering questions) is male. When she went over this Spring to visit her sister at Smith, she was particularly struck by Smithies’
self-confidence, assurance and unjudgemental interractions, although she agreed that part of this could be due to the basic difference in education between French and American girls.</p>
<p>Listen, in our family, no one will be going to an all girls college. That would be ridiculous. Quit playing the victim, weak gender card. Stand up and run with the big dogs. Our family does!! Females need to stop blaming society, males, genetics, planetary alignments, and what not. Just get on with life!!! Be strong and without excuses!!!</p>
<p>What an off the wall post founded on ridiculous implicit premises.</p>
<p>LiT, I think you may have seen my story of when D was a prospie a then-current Smithie describing the difference between women at Amherst and women at Smith…she said something along the lines of, “The women at Amherst have to be smart or they wouldn’t be there but they just let the guys dominate in the classroom. Smithies aren’t like that.” Struck a chord with D.</p>
<p>The element that I’ve read about that I probably under-appreciate is that because there aren’t a lot of guys on campus, the amount of time & energy put into clothes, make-up, and social competition is waaaaay less at the womens colleges than at co-ed schools. Leading to happier, more engaged students.</p>