Why All-Women's Schools?

<p>Yes, I'm aware of the process by which most women come to apply to an all-women's college, BJM. </p>

<p>As for prestige, we've found that Smith has a reputation that exceeds most of the LACs. I suppose because it was traditionally seen as a counterpart to the Ivies and has been around for a long time, people are impressed. Most don't know about acceptance rate or selectivity; they just know that Smith women are smart and ambitious. Believe it or not, in the general academic and well-educated population, Smith and Wellesley rivial Amherst and Williams in terms of reputation. Although it's much harder to get into Amherst and Williams, once you graduate, the prestige is comparable. That surprised me. Life on CC can be extremely myopic since many posters endlessly compare SAT scores, selectivity, acceptance rates, and all the other stats. If you were to ask any high schoolers or even current college students about this, they would probably say, "No way! College X is much better!" In the reality of the working, adult world, however, it's true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Believe it or not, in the general academic and well-educated population, Smith and Wellesley rival Amherst and Williams in terms of reputation. Although it's much harder to get into Amherst and Williams, once you graduate, the prestige is comparable.

[/quote]

I do believe it. As I have said before, Smith's admission rate seems to be higher than coed elite schools. The applicant pool at Smith and other women's colleges is small and highly self-selected. It's amazing how many Smithies I have met since my D got accepted. I guess I just never noticed, or asked before, but they really are a tight knit group of women alumnae. Many alumnae that we have never met have called my D at home to congratulate her on her acceptance; this totally blew our minds.</p>

<p>A tight-knit community is invaluable when it comes to extending one's network post-college. That's why the Ivies are so desirable. The women's schools and many of the top LACs also have strong communities that offer great connections. You won't find this at larger universities. Of course, the large universities offer things that a small LAC cannot, so it all depends on what the applicant wants.</p>

<p>BTW...great article about MIT 2boysima. Glad to hear they're fixing the problem!</p>

<p>roadlesstraveled: Off to Cornell to get my Masters of Landscape Arch.</p>

<p>I guess everyone can just agree that it is an individual preference, then. I still do not believe the academics at a Smith are any better than at a Williams or an Oberlin. I also do not believe that the only thing men have to offer on a college campus is the "dating" potential. There is a real difference in the classroom dynamic, and some girls will like it, or some won't. My daughter attended several classes (on her college search) to compare the atmosphere at both types of schools, and found both the campus and the classrooms at the all-girl's schools to be much "quieter" with less discussion. Also, she said in general it seems girls are unwilling to honestly "critique" another's writing; I thought that interesting, but agreed with her that it is more helpful if people are not afraid of expressing their opinions. The odd thing is that this is what everyone claims is the good thing about women's colleges, that women are free to express their opinions!</p>

<p>FWIW, in our co-ed high school, all the class officers are women, so I don't think leadership positions are being usurped by the men, at least at high school level.</p>

<p>2boysima:</p>

<p>That study has nothing to do with student treatment at MIT and it never suggested anything of the kind. Even the faculty analysis was widely debunked and most prominently by no less than Judith Kleinfeld, the scholar from Wellesley and Harvard referenced earlier for her gender studies.</p>

<p>MIT Tarnishes Its Reputation with Gender Junk Science
<a href="http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The problem of finding top caliber female faculty in the sciences is a major problem for all institutions and no less so for Smith. The vast majority of full professors in the sciences at Smith are still male. If it had been that easy to find equivalent female candidates don't you think Smith above all would have addressed the issue. In chemistry for instance, Smith does not even have a tenured female professor.</p>

<p>Let us compare the two institutions in the field of science where most women are enrolled: biology. At Smith out of 11 tenured professors in biology only 3 are female, two of whom in ecology, the less technically intensive division of biology for a 27.2% ratio. At MIT, probably the leading biology department in the world with 4 Nobel laureates and 23 members of the National Academy of Sciences, out of 47 tenured biology faculty, 13 are female for a 27.6% ratio, slightly higher than Smith. </p>

<p>At MIT some women in the biology department have large laboratories of their own.
<a href="http://samsonlab.mit.edu/thelab.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://samsonlab.mit.edu/thelab.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>At Smith the only lab always being referred to in biology is headed by a man.
<a href="http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/SWILLIAM/home.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/SWILLIAM/home.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So, maybe when Smith will have found the magic solution to the shortage of female science faculty, it could give lessons to others. In the meantime, MIT is by far the biggest producer of world class female faculty in the sciences, measured in terms of publications and academic honors. In the most recent nominations to the NAS, one of the new members was a female member of the MIT biology faculty.</p>

<p>Ballet, I didn't mean to imply that the only thing men have to offer is the dating possibilities. However, if you listen to hs senior girls discussing the topic of single gender v. coed, the social life is the only concern.</p>

<p>Fit is indeed essential to choosing a college. Some kids never do, and others know from the moment they step onto a campus. Most are somewhere in between.</p>

<p>As for academics, I don't think Smith is better than Williams, but I do feel it is comparable, or, at the very least, close. As for Oberlin, I can't say since I don't know anyone who has recently attended. Obviously, Oberlin is known as a competitive school.</p>

<p>As for prestige, Smith generally tops Oberlin unless you're talking about music; most people respond to the name of a school instead of inquiring about the specific academics. Mostly those who have recently gone through the college app process know how each college stands in terms of the stats of admitted students and the programs it offers.</p>

<p>"I still do not believe the academics at a Smith are any better than at a Williams or an Oberlin."</p>

<p>It will vary by subject. Certainly (in my judgment), astronomy/astrophysics, art history, mathematics, and (by itself, not counting the 5-colleges) music are better at Williams. And certainly, foreign languages are MUCH better at Smith (and for Romance Languages, extremely so - I doubt Williams would break anyone's top 50), and likely in studio art, music (counting the five colleges), dance, and (at least for research opportunities during the school year), biology. Engineering of course.</p>

<p>But the main differences are not in the academics. They are in the mentoring of women, academic advising (which is pretty poor at Williams), study abroad (students of Italian at Williams couldn't even apply for the Smith program - if they took every single course, they couldn't meet the entrance requirements), campus "feel", binge drinking, economic diversity, town, 5-college opportunities (including academic ones - Williams has nothing close to the IR, public health, African studies possibilities that exist within the 5 Colleges), and housing (Williams is spending $4.8 million this year revamping its entire housing system, for the 4th time in 35 years - they still haven't been able to get the right feel.) BUT, if spectator sports are your thing, Smith is definitely not your place (nor marching band.)</p>

<p>mwfn, I know what you mean, I'm just cranky after the whole college app process (yet still addicted)!!! So many choices and parameters, and the kids seem to change so much between say 10th grade (when it starts) and 12th grade, so that what seemed like a good "fit" keeps changing. At the beginning of this academic year, my daughter's priorities were strong writing program, strong ballet program; not too rural, not far from a city. Then in the last 2 weeks that all went out the window!</p>

<p>LOL, BalletMom! It sounds like my d.</p>

<p>Although I'm still addicted to the whole college process (having guided not only my d. through the process but also the kids of a couple of friends), I feel euphoric that it's all over for us as a family. I also found that, as my d's opinions of colleges changed, she acquired an extremely mature way of discriminating among her choices. Having to decide among colleges made her grow up. Although Smith won out, it wasn't anywhere near the top of her list when she sent out applications. Much changed from December to April.</p>

<p>I was originally ticked off at her legacy rejections, but now that I have a clearer head, I see that perhaps it was the best thing that could have happened to her. Her enthusiasm for Smith is infectious. </p>

<p>Obviously, kids don't need Smith, or even a college similar to Smith, to have this same kind of excitement and sense of opportunity.</p>

<p>Mini, my d. was impressed with the language courses at Smith. For open campus, she sat in on both advanced language classes in both French and Japanese - and thought both were well taught. Her experience at Bryn Mawr was less than positive. (The French teacher spoke with a heavy American accent, for one.) She chose Smith because of the breadth and depth of its East Asian studies courses which can be supplemented by equally first-rate courses in the area at Amherst. At first, she wanted Bryn Mawr because its writing program was better (Smith is heavily into poetry, not fiction), but then she realized that she didn't need ten writing classes while in college. Again, she may go to Amherst if she wants to take more than one writing class.</p>

<p>BalletMom:</p>

<p>I agree with you that there many other reasons for women to study in a coed environment outside of searching for a date, the age-old stereotype. Many women, particularly those who pursue higher education defer serious relationships and marriage until they have their careers established. They are simply not willing to sacrifice their career aspirations to those of their partners. </p>

<p>Could it not just simply be that they simply want to be with the best in their respective fields of study, which obviously means men and women. In the sciences in particular, it would be hard to claim that you could get the same academic experience in a women's college and a leading research university. Women have fought hard to be accepted to the leading academic institutions. And that is precisely what the women that excelled in high school do. They apply to Yale and Harvard as their first choice and if they are accepted they enroll. Why shouldn't they? If a woman is top in her school in physics or chemistry why should she go to MIT or Caltech? She has earned the right and will engage with leaders in the field. </p>

<p>I find that many on these boards had their children apply early to an Ivy like Yale and then when rejected turn to a coed or women's only LAC college as a backup option. There is nothing wrong with that. Most Williams and Amherst enrollees have been turned down by the Ivies. The women's colleges are one step below the top coed LACs in academic rankings and selectivity. That means the students will have a slightly less competitive body but can still get a great education. To flatly claim that the difference in academic ranking and student body composition is irrelevant or nonexistent does a great disservice to the women who fought to get in to the more selective institutions by choice. </p>

<p>My advice to my daughters has always been to strive to be the best at what they do and not to set any limits to what they can achieve. If they are qualified to get in to the most selective institutions with the highest achievers why should not take that option?</p>

<p>"Most Williams and Amherst enrollees have been turned down by the Ivies. The women's colleges are one step below the top coed LACs in academic rankings and selectivity. That means the students will have a slightly less competitive body but can still get a great education. To flatly claim that the difference in academic ranking and student body composition is irrelevant or nonexistent."</p>

<p>The differences in student body composition are very, very real. At Williams, 10% of the student body are on Pell Grants; only 42% of the student body receive need-based aid. The student body is far, far wealthier, and the differences are very palpable. And it shows up in SAT scores as well (as the CollegeBoard data show, the difference between a 1200 and a 1400 - old scores - is $100k in family income.) This will also impact their expectations (and possibilities) for future study. (It's kind of like asking whether a full-pay student at Yale is more likely to go to Harvard Law when compared with a Pell Grant recipient at Berkeley - well, duh! And once you've gotten the "duh" on an individual level, you can then look at the entire school.) (Shows up in binge drinking, too.)</p>

<p>Smith students SHOULD by all rights not be performing as well as those at Williams. They just shouldn't be.</p>

<p>Something is wrong. ;)</p>

<p>BalletMom, </p>

<p>Out of curiosity, where is your daughter going?</p>

<p>"In the sciences in particular, it would be hard to claim that you could get the same academic experience in a women's college and a leading research university. "</p>

<p>Cellardweller --
You are absolutely right. But please stop using "women's college" when your claim is based on a research university versus an LAC (not specifically a women's college.) </p>

<p>And claiming the academic experience is "not the same" is different from claiming one is better than the other. For some students, even very high achieving ones, an undergraduate experience with a science major at an LAC (including a womens' college) will be an overall better experience than an undergraduate experience at a research university. This is point of view which you do not appear to share. As noted by the original poster, we must agree to disagree on this point.</p>

<p>You indicated you and your wife have decided that a women's college is not right for your daughters. Hopefully, they've already visited Smith and sat in on classes so that they've had the opportunity to make that decision for themselves.</p>

<p>Lastly, in response to your comments about MIT's own view of the situation for women at their school: the passage I quoted from the study at MIT specifically referred to female students. The wonderful female faculty that MIT has produced weren't all undergrads at MIT...many spent their undergraduate years at an LAC. There are undergraduate academic women's support groups at MIT (such as Undergraduate Women in Physics - UWIP - which has been funded by an alumna who saw a need for this type of organization -- especially among these students you consider the "best" in their field) so MIT has clearly taken this issue very seriously...even if some of their male alumni haven't.</p>

<p>I should have posted this research days ago. I forgot I still had it. Let’s put this silly argument to rest.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>{{Hopefully, they've already visited Smith and sat in on classes so that they've had the opportunity to make that decision for themselves.]]</p>

<p>Great post 2boysima :)</p>

<p>Momwaitingfornew:<br>
After agonizing over Bryn Mawr/Oberlin, she decided on Oberlin; the student body seems more quirky/diverse than at Bryn Mawr, also for her, more challenging (scarey?) and I guess she felt more excitement there. I hope it is right for her, but I did want it to be her decision!</p>

<p>After agonizing over Bryn Mawr/Oberlin, ]]</p>

<p>A good friend of mine attended Oberlin. She loved it and today is an MD.</p>

<p>Good luck to your daughter.</p>

<p>RLT...great post and great research!! Very helpful and eye-opening to some, I'm sure.

[quote]
Someone unfamiliar with undergraduate research in the sciences
might feel quite safe in predicting that the quality of the
research would be far better at research universities than at
liberal arts colleges. After all, the amount of research-grant
funding, the availability of state-of-the-art instrumentation, the
research reputation of the faculty, the quality of the library,
and the frequency with which highly successful scientists visit
to give seminars and share research ideas all weigh heavily in
favor of the research universities. More specifically, while successful
college professors might raise tens of thousands of dollars
a year to support their research programs, successful university
professors often raise half a million dollars per year.
While a college would be justifiably proud to have a 400 MHz
NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) spectrometer costing
perhaps $400,000, research universities vie for 800 MHz NMRs
that cost around $2 million. Finally, while top colleges might
host an internationally known scientist to their campus for a
day or two each month, top research universities are stimulated
by several such seminar speakers every week, in each field of
science.
Yet in spite of these obvious advantages of conducting research
at a research university, there is no compelling evidence
that their undergraduates end up doing better research. At both
types of institutions, successful undergraduate research culminates
not infrequently with a publication in a peer-reviewed
journal with the student as a co-author. Such publication sets a
very high standard, and certainly many good research projects
do not generate publications. But publications provide a universally
appreciated, objective measure of quality. With respect to
the current argument, the frequency with which undergraduate
research is published is not so different between colleges and
universities as to mandate the conclusion that one or the other
set of research projects is generally of higher quality. Furthermore,
in interviews with professional scientists who are familiar
with undergraduate research in both types of institutions,
there was no consensus that research was generally better in
one type than the other. To the contrary, most rated them to be
of similar quality.

[/quote]

Wow, who'd have thunk it? Oh wait, some of us did.

[quote]
Why then do the large grants, expensive equipment, and
famous laboratories available at research universities not lead
to overwhelmingly superior undergraduate research opportunities?
The answers are not so difficult to fathom. University
research labs survive on the productivity of their graduate
students, postdoctoral fellows, and technical staff. The grant
money, the access to multimillion-dollar instrumentation, and
typically the best projects go mainly to these more advanced
scientists. Undergraduate research is promoted because of its
educational value, but it does not determine the research productivity
of the laboratory. In contrast, the research at liberal
arts colleges is carried out almost entirely by undergraduates
and faculty members, and the productivity of the undergraduates
largely determines the research productivity of the laboratory.
As a result, the faculty member spends more time organizing
each project, more time training the students, more effort in
troubleshooting the technical problems that inevitably hinder
progress. At research universities, these time-consuming tasks
are delegated to postdoctoral fellows or graduate students who
are heavily occupied with their own research projects. The
greater investment in time and effort spent with undergraduates
at liberal arts colleges more or less compensates for the
fact that research universities are better set up to carry out
research.

[/quote]

I believe this point was made numerous times in this thread, specifically by Mini. We have been saying all along that Smith and other LAC's, but in this case particularly, Smith provides research opportunities for entering First year students. The research that these young ladies are involved in is as important and meaningful as research institutions like MIT, etc.<br>

[quote]
However, it is noteworthy that the most selective private
research universities (Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Columbia,
and Yale) are more selective than any of the liberal arts colleges,
and their students taken as a group have higher SAT test
scores than the entering classes of any of the liberal arts colleges.
Yet their efficiency of production of Ph.D.’s, while excelScience
at Liberal Arts Colleges 213
lent, lags behind that of the top liberal arts colleges (table 3).
Clearly the liberal arts institutions are doing much more than
simply recruiting talented students and hoping for their eventual
success.

[/quote]

The individual attention they get because of class size enables them to be involved in superior research. Great article! It does put this argument in perspective, and to bed!</p>