<p>
[quote]
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!
[/quote]
Sadly...TRUE! My D has dance ballet for our state ballet company for 10 years, so I know the scenario too well!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well that is interesting, in light of the current (and much publicized) studies showing boys lagging behind!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>TRUE again! The latest studies show that boys are lagging behind. If you believe even an inkling of the research I presented, then imagine what classrooms must be like when teachers and school administrators are trying hard to bring boys scores back up. What was already a male dominated setting, has become even more male dominated. Do not confuse the fact that girls are doing better on state tests and getting into better colleges mixed up with how they are treated in classrooms throughout the nation, as well as many coed colleges. Particularly those that were or are offering many male dominated majors in the past. Just because they may be doing better grade wise, does not show any indication of how they are doing emotionally or physically.</p>
<p>I have been admitted to wellesley ( no aid) and to usc (with a scholarship). Unfortunately I did not get intot he ivies I applied to.
Im really worried about the decision, which would be the best school to join and possibly transfer from to a better school such as stanford or columbia?
IIf i did not get to transfer, which school would give me a better chance at a career in law or economics?</p>
<p>Worried123...no disrespect, but this might not be the correct thread for that question.</p>
<p>Worried123...no disrespect, but this might not be the correct thread for that question}</p>
<p>Worried is a troll.</p>
<p>Somewhere in this thread, I believe, it was suggested that the lack of distribution requirements at Smith favors low enrollment in math and science classes by math- and science-phobic students. I just wanted to point out that Smith's Latin Honors program, which requires at least one four-credit course in each of seven areas of knowledge, two of which are "Natural Science" and "Mathematics and Analytic Philosophy," is an incentive for Smith students to include math and science even when those areas might not be their strengths. Smith women being the rather achievement-driven students that they are, I would guess that many of them take at least a couple of math and science courses in hopes of graduating with Latin Honors, and becoming the well-rounded scholars that the LH program promotes. And judging from the science classes my daughter has taken, these are not the warm-and-fuzzy, humanities-friendly science courses like "Rocks for Jocks" that I remember taking as an undergrad.</p>
<p>Somewhere in this thread, I believe, it was suggested that the lack of distribution requirements at Smith favors low enrollment in math and science classes by math- and science-phobic students. ]]</p>
<p>When Brown did away with their distribution requirements, they found the students would have met the requirements pre open curriculum, even though they had the opportunity to ignore the sciences and math.</p>
<p>BJM8: </p>
<p>Let me see if I follow your logic. A conspiracy concoted by school administrators, teachers and parents of boys sick of having their *sses kicked by girls will generate a backlash against female students so that the boys can once again reestablish their preeminence in the classroom.</p>
<p>This is turn will somehow mean that girls will no longer get the prime spots in colleges. Professors from english to biology will follow the path of their misogynous colleagues in engineering, physics and math who have mistreated their female students so badly over the years so as to deny them their rightful opportunity. Women will be forced to retreat to the protective world of women's colleges where the bulllying men can no longer hurt them emotionally or physically. There they will finally thrive again.</p>
<p>It is interesting scenario, but I think a little bit on the "wild" side. </p>
<p>There is simply no evidence whatsoever to suggest that women are poorly treated in the classrooms of most coed colleges. If anything the women are already the majority in many classes. To claim that a professor at Yale or Williams would instinctively favor the men in the class and not give equal treatment to the girls is silly! If that was the case, surveys of student satisfaction would show it and women would make different choices. In most schools, professors are rated officially or unofficially by their students. If a professor is overtly or covertly misogynous he will loose half of his students by the next term and probably be kicked out eventually. </p>
<p>The additional proposition that somehow women have been worse treated at coed schools "that were or are offering male dominated majors in the past" is just laughable. MIT and Caltech must therefore be the worst offenders since all their majors except biology are male dominated. This could not be further from the truth. MIT students will do cartwheels to get more women in their classes. So does the administration where affirmative action towards greater gender diversity is openly acknowledged. If women (and men) at MIT sometimes have issues, it is more with their problem-sets not their classmates.</p>
<p>The general argument that women should be protected from men as long as possible before joining male dominated professions is highly suspect. What next: Smith opening a medical school for females only because current medical schools are not sympathetic enough to women's issues, Wellesley opening a law school so that women can feel free to discuss rape law reform without feeling embarrassed by their male colleagues? </p>
<p>Colleges throughout the country have been reformed from within by successive generations of women making their mark and establishing their right to equal treatment through their academic and professional successes. Some of the top schools are now run by women. While women only schools like Smith may have once helped to set the path, they no longer offer any specific advantages over coeducational institutions to women who want to succeed in the workplace. In some cases, they are at a distinct disadvantage, largely because o ftheir limited resources. They remain a sort of anomaly, distinctively American, as no other developed country has found it necessary to emulate the model. They will not disappear because of the fierce allegiance of their alumnae, but will remain at the fringe of the educational system, with too few members and resources to have much impact on it.</p>
<p>roadlesstraveled: Yep, soon to be a proad alum of William Smith :)</p>
<p>Thanks for bringing that up, you are def. right! </p>
<p>A friend of mine is looking into Smith, so I thought I'd stumble on over here. It's a great conversation!</p>
<p>Yep, soon to be a proad alum of William Smith ]]</p>
<p>Congratulations :) Now what?</p>
<p>I would like to know why there is such a prevalent rumor that Amherst women never speak in the classrooms. I've only been here for a year, so perhaps I haven't seen it all, but I have found all my classes to be equally dominated by both genders. I have yet to talk to anyone who finds their classes to be otherwise.</p>
<p>Cellardweller: you have a very interesting way with trying to turn words around to meet your argument. Never did I talk of a conspiracy, those were your words. However, anyone reading your postings can easily see why some men have little respect for the fairer sex. I also do not believe that your wife is a Smithie, as your words would be much better thought out and carefully planned; that way you wouldn't get your proverbial a** kicked when you get home. Because any self respecting Smithie wouldn't allow that kind of trash talk about her alma mata.
And, if you know anything about MIT (which you choose as one of your word-droppers from post to post) you would know that they especially treated women very poorly back in the day. Your ignorance of the subject knows no bounds, and the only way you can argue is by twisting words and fabricating concepts. The jig is up Cellardwellar, everyone can see you for what you are. Now, back to the serious posters.</p>
<p>Here's a pretty good research essay written by a student from Colorado State University on the subject of women's colleges, which was written in 2000: (Part 1)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Students may investigate many variables when exploring options for higher education. The size and location of the institution, types of majors offered, and the amount of financial aid available are just a few of the considerations for potential college students. However, few students stop to contemplate the gender composition of their future institution. While some students might not consider attending single-sex colleges and universities, there are numerous benefits in single-gender institutions. In fact, research suggests there are multiple educational advantages for students, and for women in particular, who attend single-sex colleges or universities. As stated by Riordan (1994), </p>
<p>Coeducation is one of the least studied of all major topics in education. Researcher have attacked the issues of race and social class integration relentlessly. Likewise, the question of ability grouping (separate or mixed) has been investigated extensively. The pros and cons of mixed- and single-sex schooling, on the other hand, have received little attention. (p. 486) </p>
<p>This paper attempts to examine the benefits of a single-sex education for women at the collegiate level. These benefits may come in the form of academic success, identity formation, leadership potential, or future success. It is important to consider the history of women's institutions, as well as the benefits gained by women attending an all-female college or university. In addition, it is notable to consider the challenges presented by a single-sex education. It also is necessary to explore the different educational options provided to women and the viability of each option. Finally, the future of women's institutions is important to examine, especially in a time of social and cultural integration. </p>
<p>HISTORY</p>
<p>"The history of women's education does offer a high road into the fascinating world of women's perceptions of themselves and the world" (Fox-Genovese, 1997, p. 203). The need for women's institutions was realized in the early 1800s. In 1821 Emma Willard, a pioneer for change in the education of women, founded the Troy Female Seminary in Troy, New York, (Komives & Woodward, 1996). As a whole, the southern United States made the first concentrated effort to establish women's institution of higher education. By the 1850s 30 of the 39 chartered female colleges in the country were located in the South. The stated goal of the first southern women's institution, Georgia Female College, later known as Wesleyan College, was to formulate an education for women identical "to that available at the highest levels for men and to use the term college in doing so" (Fox-Genovese, 1997, p. 204). The white male population believed that women could benefit from education, as a woman's role changed following the American Revolutionary War. Women were considered guardians of moral standards, since they provided their children with training and discipline. It was clear that women would need to be educated in a more orderly fashion (Komives & Woodward, 1996). </p>
<p>The process of educating women initially centered on the teaching of others. At the time, teaching seemed to be a natural extension of the woman's role as a nurturer and moral guardian. However, women's colleges eventually matched the proficiency of men's colleges in teaching modern languages such as French, German, Spanish, and Italian (Fox-Genovese, 1997). In addition, women's institutions surpassed men's institutions in the teaching of the arts, foreshadowing modern degrees in the fine arts. Women's schools also offered instruction in science and mathematics, and there were no "discernable differences" in the performance level of men and women (Fox-Genovese, 1997, p. 205). </p>
<p>BENEFITS TO WOMEN</p>
<p>As stated previously, research has suggested women benefit from attending a single-gender institution. Studies have indicated the primary advantages for women educated at single-gender institutions were improved academics and emotional confidence (Smith, Wolf, & Morrison, 1995; Kim & Alverez, 1995; Monaco & Gaier, 1992; Riordan, 1994). Additional benefits included increased opportunities for leadership positions and enhanced post-graduation achievement. </p>
<p>The rationale for improved academic performance for women at single-gender colleges or universities was based upon research comparing coeducational and women's institutions. Research implied that a "chilly climate" in the coeducational, college classroom not only drives women from some "masculine" fields, such as engineering and science, but also hinders their learning processes (Riordan, 1994). "Male students generally receive more attention from teachers, and they dominate discussions and classroom interaction at all levels" (Riordan, 1994, p. 489). </p>
<p>A coeducational climate may dissuade female students from participating in class, prevent them from pursuing help outside the classroom, and cause them to avoid "sexist" classes or professors. Women's institutions, in contrast, "provide special innovative programs for women and, in some cases, tailor to the learning style of women" (Riordan, 1994, p. 490). For example, Ursuline College, in Cleveland, Ohio, has designed its curriculum to emphasize group discussions and collaborative learning, as it has been shown that more women learn in a social context (Gose, 1995). In addition, the mere presence of women, as well as encouragement from female peers, appears to be important in the development of women's interests in academic achievement (Riordan, 1994). </p>
<p>Another possible educational advantage for women attending single-sex institutions is the percentage of same-gender role models. Women at women's colleges and universities are much more likely to consider female faculty as role models (Whitt, 1994; Kim & Alverez, 1995; Monaco & Gaier, 1992; Miller-Bernal, 1993; Riordan, 1994). Some argue this is a result of a higher percentage of women faculty and administrators. According to the website for Scripps College, a women's college in Claremont, California, "more than 80% of all women's college presidents are women, compared to 12% at coed institutions, and the faculty, senior administration, and boards of trustees at most women's colleges are equally divided between male and female" (Scripps College, 1998, On-line source). Miller-Bernal (1993) concluded that students perform better in an atmosphere where it is perceived that the faculty and staff are sufficiently concerned with their needs. A greater proportion of women faculty, staff, and administrators may increase this perception of concern. </p>
<p>One of the many advantages to attending a women's college is gaining a higher level of self-esteem. Monaco and Gaier (1992) state, "Women in single-sex settings are also exposed to an atmosphere in which high-achievement women are the rule rather than the exception" (p. 586). Environments that promote highest potential performance, while at the same time support them in all facets of their education, boost their self-esteem. Miller-Bernal (1993) suggested the key reason women's colleges benefit their students is because the environment encourages students to be more confident in themselves. Miller-Bernal (1993) also proposed a women's centered curriculum, one that focuses on the learning styles of women, among other concepts, is an important instrument from which women learn to value themselves.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here is Part 2:
[quote]
Single-gender institutions for women also increase the availability of extracurricular activities and access to leadership positions for females. All leadership positions at women's colleges are open to women. Phinney (1998) confirmed that attendance at a women's college increases the chance of women acquiring leadership positions during college (Collegexpress, On-line source). In addition, Monaco and Gaier (1992), in their study on adolescent females, observed how single-gender institutions address leadership for women. "First, they give women a better opportunity to become class president and vice-president, instead of secretary and treasurer. Second, they eliminate the conflict between assertiveness and sex-role stereotypes for women" (p. 587). In addition, women at single-gender schools are exposed to more leadership experiences, and these experiences are typically of a "higher quality" (Monaco & Gaier, 1992, p. 92). </p>
<p>An additional advantage for women attending a single-gender institution is success after graduation. Many women's colleges expound these successes on their websites: </p>
<p>Of Business Week's list of 50 female "rising stars" in corporate </p>
<p>America, 30% graduated from women's college (Collegexpress, </p>
<p>1998, On-line source). </p>
<p>One out of every seven cabinet members in state government attended a women's college (Judson College, 1998, On-line source). </p>
<p>Graduates of women's colleges are more than twice as likely as graduates of </p>
<p>coeducational institutions to receive doctoral degrees, to enter medical school, and to receive doctorates in the natural sciences (Judson College, 1998, On-line source). </p>
<p>While this is not a comprehensive list, it is a sample of some of the successes of graduates from women's colleges. Women's colleges are quick to give evidence of their successful graduates. However, little research exists to support the notion that attendance at a women's university guarantees success for females. According to Miller-Bernal (1993), "Entering Wells students [an all women's college] were more likely to have definite career goals" (p. 28). Further studies have suggested that perhaps it is the successful nature of the students who choose to attend women's colleges, rather than the institution itself, that leads to women's college graduates' achievement (Marsh 1989). "When controls were made for women's background characteristics, precollege aspirations, other institutional characteristics, college academic and social experiences, and marital status, institutional gender had only nonsignificant and trivial impacts on women's postcollege educational, occupational, and economic attainments" (Riordan, 1994, p. 488). </p>
<p>THE FUTURE OF WOMEN'S COLLEGES</p>
<p>At this point in time, the future of women's institutions is uncertain. Women's colleges were established in the 1800s because at the time there was no other higher education alternative. Throughout the last 100 years, the number of coeducational colleges and universities has increased, while the number of women's colleges has decreased (Smith et al., 1995). While there were 268 women's colleges in the 1960s, presently only 84 women's colleges exist. These numbers are not encouraging; however, women's colleges have moved forward with the times, incorporating innovative learning opportunities, such as collaborative learning and group discussions, for their students. The future of women's colleges and universities lies with these innovations. Riordan (1994) stated, "A choice of single-sex education is a proacademic/prowomen choice. This choice-making process clearly involves the concept of a shared 'value community'" (p. 491). There always will be a need to produce strong, intellectual women. Women's colleges need to continue to fulfill this role. </p>
<p>In conclusion, Riordan (1994) suggested there are ten theoretical rationales that support the notion that women's colleges may be more productive academic environments than coeducational schools for females. These rationales include: </p>
<p>The diminished strength of youth culture values
A greater degree of order and control </p>
<p>The provision of more successful role models </p>
<p>A reduction of sex differences in curriculum opportunities </p>
<p>A reduction of sex bias in teacher-student interaction </p>
<p>A reduction of sex stereotypes in peer interaction </p>
<p>The provision of a greater number of leadership opportunities </p>
<p>A proacadmic parent/student choice </p>
<p>Possible provision of special programs for women </p>
<p>Accommodations to gender differences in learning (p. 491) </p>
<p>The exploration of these explanations may suggest there are conceivable reasons to attend single-gender schools. While every institution has positive and negative qualities, prospective students need to examine all aspects of an institution to find one that best suits their needs. Research shows that women's colleges and universities are viable and promising choices for female high school students.
Women who attend, or have attended, women's colleges feel there are definite advantages to these kinds of institutions. According to a Wells College graduate, "The best thing [about a women's college] is the friendships I've formed. I feel like there is a special bond among the women here" (Wells College, 1998, On-line source). Another graduate expressed her feelings about a single-gender education by stating, "The most important thing to me was the experience in the classroom, the feeling that the professors expected nothing less than the besta lot of it was about women being able to speak up, not silenced" (Phinney, 1998, On-line). Although an education is a valuable possession, an education catering to specific gender needs and created to help maximize learning, has even more value. Women's institutions may provide the quality and experience that students are seeking. As women's colleges and universities offer precious rewards in learning, self-esteem growth, identity formation, and leadership potential, it is important to recognize them as valuable institutions of higher education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would like to know why there is such a prevalent rumor that Amherst women never speak }}</p>
<p>LOL-- I was wondering when this was coming. I know a sophomore at Amherst and the last word used to describe her would be shy.</p>
<p>PS. Nice research essay BJM8</p>
<p>BJM8:</p>
<p>When rational discussion fails, personal insults seem to do just fine. You have not responded to any of the points I have raised and continue to bring up irrelevant facts, anecdotes, unpublished works, unverifiable statistics and outdated misconceptions and plain myths.</p>
<p>I don't need to convince you that my wife is a Smithie. She graduated in 82 and lived in Albright House. I know that she largely agrees with my comments and does not feel it is an appropriate venue for our two daughters for a number of factors some of them different from mine. Despite it all, we met while she was at Smith (and yes I was at MIT) and we have continued to financially support the school largely for sentimental reasons.</p>
<p>When was the period "back in that day" that MIT treated women so poorly, that you refer to? You may not know that MIT always was coed while the Ivies happily rejected every female applicant. </p>
<p>Since you like to post random quotes from dubious sources what about a serious study by a legitimate researcher with some credibility in the field, Judith Kleinfeld who received her bachelors degree from Wellesley College and her doctorate from Harvard. She was awarded the Emil Usibelli Prize for Distinguished Research and an award for a significant contribution to gender equity by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.</p>
<p>Her report, "The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls: Social Science in the Service of Deception" was publsihed in 1999 in The Public Interest and Gender Issues, and was the subject of articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News and World Report, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Psychology Today and other publications. </p>
<p>Maybe she is also some sort of turncoat without respect for her alma mater.</p>
<p>I am quoting the introduction below with the full text available here:
<a href="http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html%5B/url%5D">www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html</a></p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>Women's advocacy groups have waged an intense media campaign to promote the idea that the "schools shortchange girls. " Their goal is to intensify the image of women as "victims" deserving special treatment and policy attention. Their sophisticated public relations campaign has succeeded. The idea that girls are victimized by the schools has become the common wisdom, what educated people just assume to be true. </p>
<p>But the idea that the "schools shortchange girls" is wrong and dangerously wrong. It is girls who get higher grades in school, who do better than boys on standardized tests of reading and writing, and who get higher class rank and more school honors. It is young women who enter and graduate from college far more frequently than young men. It is women who have made dramatic progress in obtaining professional, business, and doctoral degrees. The great gender gap of the 1960s in advanced degrees has almost closed, especially in the professional fields to which ambitious women aspire. In the view of elementary and high school students, the young people who sit in the classroom year after year and observe what is going on, both boys and girls agree: Schools favor girls. Teacher think girls are smarter, like being around them more, and hold higher expectations for them. </p>
<p>This does not mean that males and females are equal on every educational outcome. In some areas, females do better than males, and in other areas, males do better than females. Females lag behind in two academic areas: mathematics and science achievement. Females also lag slightly behind males in attaining professional, business, and doctoral degrees. But males lag behind females in two other academic areas and by far wider margins: reading achievement and writing skills. Males are far more apt to end up at the bottom of the barrel in school, placed in special classes for students with learning disabilities. Males are also more apt than females to believe that the school climate is hostile to them, that teachers do not expect as much from them and give them less encouragement to do their best. </p>
<p>The myth that the schools shortchange girls is dangerously wrong because it has diverted policy attention from the group at genuine educational risk---African-American boys. This is the group that scores lowest on virtually every educational measure. This is the group where an enormous gap does exist between males and females. But the African American gender gap favors females, who are pulling far ahead of males in college graduation rates and in obtaining professional degrees.</p>
<p>Not supposed to be a thread about MIT, but since Cellardweller couldn't remember when women were treated less than equally at MIT...thought I'd refresh his memory with this link regarding women faculty at MIT:</p>
<p>And a small excerpt from that link - a quote from Professor Mary Potter (who chaired the second committee convened on women faculty in the school of science) regarding female students: </p>
<p>"It's terribly important to increase the numbers [of women faculty.] At a time when the [proportion] of women admitted to MIT is closing in on 50 percent, how can we be pretending to give them a fair education if we tell them, 'You have only a small fraction of the chance to get on the faculty here that your male peers have. Six of them will end up as faculty for every one of you.'"</p>
<p>To MIT's credit, they have realized they have a problem, and are working on it. I'm also glad to hear that Cellerdweller's family continues to support Smith...hopefully at the same level he supports MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since you like to post random quotes from dubious sources
[/quote]
Dubious sources? Riordan, Fox-Genovese, Sadker, Komives & Woodward, Pipher, Whitt, Kim and Alverez, Monaco and Gaier, Miller-Bernal, et al. Shall I go on? It is you, Cellardweller that have responded with venom just to play the "devil's advocate." I have quoted from numerous sources and authors who have done extensive research in the area of single-sex schools. For every one I find, you could find the antithesis. BTW, your last article written by Judith Kleinfeld was quite good, thank you. (see, we do agree on something?) As I have said before, we agree to disagree. My point was to simply point out the inadequacy and lack of fairness that schools have shown towards girls and women for centuries now, and how all-women's colleges have contributed to remedying those ills. Nothing more. You write like I have a conspiracy theory going on, and that is furthest from the truth. I have said in many of my previous postings, if you really have bothered to notice, that women's colleges are not for every woman. But, for those to choose to attend, you cannot deny that they leave it better for the experience, and much more ready to take on a male dominated world through leadership.</p>
<p>Gender inequity is a highly-charged political topic even today, so it's not surprising that studies can be found that dispute each other. I know one highly educated man who is convinced that public schools are trying to make boys more like girls. :-)</p>
<p>The issue of "Why All-Women's Schools?" is an interesting one. I know that I refused to even look at all women's schools when I was applying to colleges (my father's dream was for me to go to Mount Holyoke), and I never regretted it. However, with my daughter, who also initially refused to look at all-women's colleges, I now see the distinct advantages. I've been on three all-women's campuses, gotten tours, and spoken to students, professors, and alum - and I've loved every one for different reasons. Even my husband, who was against the idea at the start of the process, has been extremely impressed with what he has seen. (Both of us teach at the college level, so we are familiar with what is required for a good instructional environment.) </p>
<p>I know exactly why most senior hs girls don't look at all women's colleges: it goes against peer expectations. It has nothing to do with academics, and everything to do with socialization. Even though women no longer (for the most part!) go to college to find a husband, there's an underlying assumption that this will happen. If you doubt that this lies in the subconscious, why would having guys around to date matter? Few girls say, "I want guys in my classroom to round out the academic experience." There's nothing wrong with this need to have guys around for social reasons. After all, we are biological creatures as well as intelligent ones. Those who choose to attend an all-women's college (at least, the straight ones) have decided that they are willing to forgo the desired co-ed social environment in exchange for the specific academics and learning environment. As BJM's article points out, there's no way to determine whether the women who make this decision are the type to excel in leadership roles or whether the colleges make them into this sort of person.</p>
<p>This past year has enlightened me about the benefits of an all-women's LAC. You never would have heard me - or my husband - endorse one before we looked into them for our daughter.</p>
<p>I think if you read other posters on the Smith threads, you will find that many young women who choose to attend an all-women's college did so after visiting. For many of them, it wasn't on their radar screen initially. This is not unusual at all. I think you are right on with your comment about peer expectations (and don't forget parent expectations as well), as many parents do not see single sex colleges as a viable option. And, as I have said before many times, they are not for all women. If you have read any of my other postings on this subject and many others as well, I have been a staunch advocate for "fit" being the priority when deciding on which college to attend. I am not an expert, not even close, but as a parent who has just gone through the process with his D, I can attest to "fit" being of utmost importance. Attending an all-women's school (or a coed one for that matter) just because of its reputation without taking into consideration whether or nor you will be happy and productive in the setting, is wrong. Too many parents rate colleges on what "name" they have, and not what is best for their children in terms of growth and happiness.</p>