<p>This is an excellent thread! Having graduated from a seven-sister school I could go on forever about the camaraderie and the benefits of being in an environment where women taking the lead is not only celebrated but is the everyday norm. However, I came across an article a few days ago in the NY Times regarding the remaining all-male colleges (there are only four) and in light of what seems to be women and girls excelling in the classroom it does raise some interesting questions about the value of single sex education for everyone.</p>
<p>Why would women at women's colleges have fewer opportunities to be published? My best friend was published once while she was an undergrad at Wellesley, with another article in editing during that time. (In the natural sciences, no less.)</p>
<p>Professors publish; therefore, students have opportunities as well, especially if they work with those professors. The lack of graduate students means that undergraduates get all of the opportunities--not just the ones that haven't been claimed by those with seniority.</p>
<p>Since this thread is addressing the benefits/disadvantages to women's collleges, I have another thought to throw out. Do graduates ever feel they now have to "prove themselves" to their male colleagues (in either the work force, or graduate school)? It seems kind of the opposite of "empowering" in a way. I know it is a competitive way to look at it, but let's face it, from the application process on up, college is in some way competitive.</p>
<p>At my LAC we have a very interesting system in which we have two colleges (one for women one for men) coordinating as one entity. We have separate governments, deans, and sports teams; however, we share classes, living spaces, clubs and a president. There has been a great deal of interest this year regarding the inconsistencies between the colleges. Namely, the average GPA at the women's college is significantly higher than at the men's, it is much harder to gain admissions into the women's college, and the dean's list standards are much lower. Furthermore, it appears that the women at my school are thriving. </p>
<p>Just an interesting situation (in my opinion the best of both worlds)!</p>
<p>BJM8:</p>
<p>You accuse me of not giving enough credit to Smith's efforts in the sciences and living in the past while in fact the entire thrust of your post has been that women are being shortchanged in a coed environment. I strongly disagreed with that proposition and believe that it is your stereotyping of co- education in the 21st century that is vastly out of date. </p>
<p>Women are now thriving in coeducational institutions, overtaking men in admission at all Ivies (including Harvard). Some schools like Brown (which interestingly has the former Smith President at its head) are overwhelmingly female. Even historically male bastions such as MIT and Princeton (now both headed by women) are seeing record numbers of applications from the most talented women who would have shied away from the hard sciences a generation ago. </p>
<p>I am sorry to say, but valedictorians and top students in high school (the majority of whom are now girls) are overwhelmingly voting with their feet (and applications) for a coed education at the most selective institutions. While acceptance rates have dropped to historically low levels across the board at leading coed LACs and research universities, no such phenomenon has happened with the women colleges. Your claim that applicants to womens colleges are part of a self-selecting group is contradicted by the SAT scores and average GPAs of applicants. At my daughter's high school (large public HS in the Northeast), women's colleges barely register on the radar screen of applicants except as a possible safety. Last year, not a single girl applied to Smith from her school, which is unfortunate. </p>
<p>While there is always the occasional case of somebody picking Smith or Wellesley over an Ivy League school such cases are very uncommon. That is not necessarily something to be ashamed of. A former president of Amherst was famously quoted as saying they lived off the rejects of the Ivy League and doing very well from it. </p>
<p>The comments I have made about Smith and the sciences apply just as well to Amherst and Williams. Smaller LACs can simply not offer the same research experience as the larger institutions. As I mentioned in a previous post, the virtual absence of top-notch research faculty (as measured objectively by membership in the National Academy of Sciences or Engineering) puts them in a different league altogether. That does not mean the students cannot have a research experience with highly dedicated faculty members. </p>
<p>But beyond the faculty itself is the issue of resources: scientific research is extraordinarily expensive and even the best endowed LACs simply cannot afford to compete with the research universities pouring billions into new facilities. You could take all the research facilities from the top 50 LACs together and it would still not match what either Harvard, Stanford or MIT offers today. And the beauty is that all of it is accessible to undergrads not just graduate students as is often assumed. </p>
<p>So my point is simply: yes you can do scientific research at women's colleges (and other LACs) but if your passion is science and if you want to be part of the field as it develops and be surrounded by the most brilliant minds in the field, that is not where you will find it.</p>
<p>Cellardweller...we agree to disagree on many subjects. Thanks for your posts.</p>
<p>Some sleights of hand going on here: <em>most</em> students, valedictorians or not, are overwhelmingly attending co-ed colleges. The assertion that all these research facilities at <em>most</em> research universities are <em>widely</em> available to undergrads is just. flat. wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do graduates ever feel they now have to "prove themselves" to their male colleagues (in either the work force, or graduate school)? It seems kind of the opposite of "empowering" in a way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Speaking for myself, no. I've said, before, that I'm in a fairly feminized professional degree program (library and info science), but it's a field that has, traditionally, been managed by men. I have never once thought about how I compare to the men (or women, for that matter) in my classes, nor do I feel any need to prove myself better than them.</p>
<p>It doesn't mean that I don't notice gender politics more than I did in high school. The opposite is true. It's more that I don't feel any need to say, "I'm just as good as a man!" Because ... well ... that's silly. Why would a man be inherently better than me, and why would I play by the rules of anyone who thought I was ontologically inferior?</p>
<p>If anyone were to deny me a job, a promotion, or respect with the implication that my femininity counted against me, I'd pitch a fit ... but I still wouldn't try to prove that I (an individual) am just as good as a man (a generalization).</p>
<p>As someone who conducted science research at Smith College and Amherst College as part of a summer program, I can say I saw Smithies doing some serious research. Our group drew undergraduates (sophomores) from a number of schools, but the bulk were LACs. The professor we worked with who came from Smith was excellent and had worked at the college for about 15 years. Through that experience and some of my high school friends who went to Smith and my cousin who went to Mt Holyoke, I would say the academic experience is very good at both those schools.</p>
<pre><code> One of the issues that did come up about attending Smith seemed to be that the students at Smith had fewer opportunities to meet men in a setting that wasn't a dance or hook-up fest. Although, Smithies and the other college students in pioneer valley can take classes at the other campuses, it seemed to me in discussions with various Smith students that few did this because it was a hassle, especially if you didn't have a car. This doesn't mean it's impossible to make friends with other male college students, but the barriers are greater and if a student is less outgoing or sticks to campus (as many students at LACs tend to do because there is a lot happening on campus). I'm sure it was much easier in the past when Amherst only had men and students from the women's colleges would probably arrange social gatherings. Of course this may not bother some of the students who attend women's colleges and others may not realize it's an issue until they are upperclasswomen because they enjoy the community so much. One of my high school friends who attended Wellesley commented about the same issue, but she is very outgoing, so she made friends with guys she met in Boston with little problem.
Maybe this isn't such a big issue, but in my experience at a LAC, some of my best friends from college are women. If I attended an all-male school and the main opportunity I had to meet women was at a dance or a big party where music is loud or people are drinking and the focus was more "hooking up" or meeting a possible girlfriend, I think forming regular friendships would have been more difficult.
</code></pre>
<p>Still, I think the academic experience isn't hurt at all by single gender education, although I'm not necessarily of the opinion that it's a huge boon either. I also had two female Amherst students on my project and they were both willing to stand up for their ideas. One was really intense and both were very intelligent, so I have a hard time seeing much validity to the earlier negatives statements about female students at Amherst letting the men get ahead..</p>
<p>Hobart William Smith I presume? </p>
<p>The reason its more difficult to gain admission to WS is b/c they receive vastly more apps and can afford to be much more selective. The gpa is higher partly because WS doesnt have close to the athlete recruits, which also contribute to the 15% freshmen attrition rate. I'm not fabricating or guessing at the reason for the gpa being higher for the women. I was informed of these facts when they were recruiting my daughter with a nice merit scholarship and I had the pleasure to personally visit with the wonderful Dean of Women. </p>
<p>fwiw- I love Hobart and the location. The reason my daughter was looking a WS is b/c they have a great med school assurance program, and I wanted to borrow the college's race boats to go sailing.</p>
<p>So, how did you get from Hobart to the Smith message board? :)</p>
<p>Well, about the meeting men: I wouldn't deny that my D is looking forward to a year of co-ed environments in her Junior Year Away programs. I know others who have negotiated the obstacles successfully but it takes more work (time!) than my D has been willing to spend.</p>
<p>Padraig, the generalization about Amherst women was second-hand, reported by me, and like any generalization there are exceptions. It could also be that your researchers were self-selected in some way...because I've heard that riff about Amherst vs. Smith women in more than one way from more than one source. It's just that the initial one was such a crystal moment of epiphany.</p>
<p>TheDad:</p>
<p>My two points were:</p>
<ol>
<li>The top ranked female applicants in most high schools do not apply to women's colleges. The vast majority will pick the most selective coed schools if they believe they can get in.<br></li>
<li>My remarks regarding research opportunities were limited to the Ivies, private universities such as MIT, Caltech or Stanford and other elite research institutions such as Johns Hopkins or the University of Chicago. Even at large state universities such as UC Berkeley, the undergraduate research opportunities are numerous.
<a href="http://research.berkeley.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://research.berkeley.edu/</a></li>
</ol>
<p>"Women are now thriving in coeducational institutions, overtaking men in admission at all Ivies (including Harvard). Some schools like Brown (which interestingly has the former Smith President at its head) are overwhelmingly female. Even historically male bastions such as MIT and Princeton (now both headed by women) are seeing record numbers of applications from the most talented women who would have shied away from the hard sciences a generation ago."</p>
<p>Cellardweller --</p>
<p>Overtaking men in admissions does not necessarily mean they are "thriving" once they are at those schools -- which was the point of the original poster.</p>
<p>To reiterate -- there are some students for whom the academic experience in "hard" sciences at an LAC, especially a women's LAC, will be a better fit than at a research university. They will get into top PhD programs or be hired by prestigious consulting firms, and will "compete" on equal footing with students who were undergraduates at research universities.</p>
<p>Do you really think that a generation ago (meaning your generation???) women shied away from the hard sciences? They may not have been at MIT (it wasn't the "friendliest" place for women in the '70's and earlier), but they were studying science at other co-ed universities and women's colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
STRIDE (Student Research in Departments) Scholarships: Selected on the basis of academic merit, Stride Scholars for class years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 receive a four-year grant of $2,500 per year. For the class of 2010 and forward, Stride Scholars will receive a four year grant of $5000 per year. Each STRIDE student is also offered the opportunity to work on a research project with faculty during her first two years at Smith. These students receive a $1,700 stipend for the research position.
[/quote]
Research at Smith for STRIDE students begins the moment they walk in the door. In their first two years, they will work closely with a professor doing research with them, and being published. (In their first two years!!) Every college worth their salt has research opportunities, but how many provide those opportunities for entering freshmen (or, first-years, as they call them at Smith?)</p>
<p>I would love to weigh in on this issue as an alum of Smith and expat mother of a daughter who is now at Cambridge studying Biochemstry and Math. I would have loved my daughter to have gone to Smith but she went to a single sex High School in London and was keen for male interaction for her college years. The Brits have long understood that girls (and perhaps boys too) learn better separated during the teen years and my daughter really thrived and enjoyed her high school years. I made sure though that she spent a summer at the Smith Summer School for Science and Engineering as a sophmore and learned subject matter that helped her in her A- Levels (College Entrance Exams) and in the entry exam for Cambridge not to mention made friends with whom she still is still in contact. </p>
<p>It may be true now that many of the top performing girls will not want to go to a single sex school but I fear that it is due to the fact that they believe they will not have a social life, which is far from the case. Single sex college isn't for everyone to be sure but I attribute my time at Smith (even more than Business School) for my ability to have held my own, succeeded and tremendously enjoyed working in the male dominated field of investment banking for more than twenty years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Overtaking men in admissions does not necessarily mean they are "thriving" once they are at those schools -- which was the point of the original poster.
[/quote]
2boysima...thank you for understanding my original post. "Getting in" and "thriving" are two distinct differences, particularly in a not too women friendly environment. Agree or not, it's still a man's world. Women's colleges, like Smith, provide opportunities and support for women to thrive in men dominated professions.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Cellardweller here; in comparing a top ranked all women's LAC with a top ranked co-ed LAC academically, I don't think there would be any difference. I can't imagine the faculty at a co-ed LAC being any less supportive or enthusiastic about teaching than the faculty at a single sex school! But socially, there is a big difference, and I believe the majority of women who are admitted to both a co-ed LAC and a women's LAC will choose the co-ed LAC. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the statistics! Personally, I was a little sad when my daughter turned down the all women's LAC (she was accepted at several) for the co-ed LAC, simply because the amenities were so much nicer, and I think you form better friendships. But I was glad also, because I want her to have guys as friends, the way she does now, not only as weekend playthings (?!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
It may be true now that many of the top performing girls will not want to go to a single sex school but I fear that it is due to the fact that they believe they will not have a social life, which is far from the case. Single sex college isn't for everyone to be sure but I attribute my time at Smith (even more than Business School) for my ability to have held my own, succeeded and tremendously enjoyed working in the male dominated field of investment banking for more than twenty years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for posting heffeli. Arguments put forth from a dad whose daughter is going to attend Smith as compared to an alumna pale in comparison. It's always nice to for one's argument to be supported by real people who have walked the walk. I agree that single-sex colleges are not for everyone, but you are testiment to the success that Smithies attain in the real world once they graduate from that fine institution. Congratulations, and thank you for speaking up regarding your experiences at Smith and the advantages of women's colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't imagine the faculty at a co-ed LAC being any less supportive or enthusiastic about teaching than the faculty at a single sex school!
[/quote]
Agreed wholeheartedly, balletmom...no argument. The difference lies within the classroom walls, the discussions (or lack of) taking place, and the male dominated opinions. Years ago, I never in my wildest imagination, would have thought of myself as saying these things about how females are treated in coed classrooms. After having a daughter, and having been in the education field for 26 years and doing much research in the area, I can tell you that it is true. For all girls...NO! For all schools?...NO! But for many of the silent majority whom we will never hear from? YES! It is there. Walk into any classroom, in any secondary school in the nation, and watch carefully. You will see more male teachers talking about last night's game with the boys, more classroom discussion being overtaken by the male voice, males jumping out of their seats to answer questions, etc...while most (not all) of the girls will just watch and listen.</p>
<p>"You will see more male teachers talking about last night's game with the boys, more classroom discussion being overtaken by the male voice, males jumping out of their seats to answer questions, etc...while most (not all) of the girls will just watch and listen."</p>
<p>Well that is interesting, in light of the current (and much publicized) studies showing boys lagging behind!</p>
<p>I have heard my daughter (public high school) complain not so much about boys getting special treatment, but athletes....as in, teachers will re-schedule tests if one of the teams has a big game that night, but she never gets special treatment because she is in a ballet performance, and rehearsing every night!</p>