<p>I know you weren't demeaning them, BJM. I realized that our frankness and (in my case) occasional hasty posts have been misunderstood by some.</p>
<p>Off to pour myself another glass of lemonade . . .</p>
<p>"As the common data set that is published on the Smith website demonstrates, Smith is as diverse as any LAC and much more so than most. Page 3. Do the math."</p>
<p>And those who do the math correctly would easily compose a list of selective LAC that have substantially better diversity records: </p>
<p>Agnes Scott College
Amherst College
Barnard College
Bowdoin College
Claremont McKenna College
Haverford College
Occidental College
Pitzer College
Pomona College
Swarthmore College
Wellesley College
Wesleyan College
Wesleyan University
Williams College </p>
<p>Smith falls in the same category as Bryn Mawr College, Scripps College, Mount Holyoke College, Harvey Mudd College, Carleton College, Oberlin College, Vassar College, and Middlebury College.</p>
<p>PS Regarding "Since when has the government ever gotten anything accurate?" I am happy to agree that some statistics published by the NSF are irrelevant and misleading, especially some that have been discussed on this forum with apparent glee.</p>
<p>compose a list of selective LAC that have substantially better diversity records: ]]</p>
<p>Bowdoin, for one, certainly isnt. Even if you were to consider Smith's 11% unreported as white, which they aren't, and added that figure to the white/non-Hispanic stat, Smith's white/non-hispanic figure would still be much less than Bowdoin's</p>
<p>Ill leave it to others to compile the stats for the other colleges</p>
<pre><code> Bowdoin
</code></pre>
<p>1st-year students:12% In-state students
88% Out-of-state students
54% Women
46% Men
2% American Indian/Alaskan Native
12% Asian/Pacific Islander
6% Black/Non-Hispanic
8% Hispanic
69% White/Non-Hispanic
2% Non-Resident Alien
1% Race/ethnicity unreported</p>
<p>Here's Williams. Again, the college isn't close to being more diverse</p>
<p>1st-year students:16% In-state students
84% Out-of-state students
52% Women
48% Men
1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
10% Asian/Pacific Islander
9% Black/Non-Hispanic
11% Hispanic
64% White/Non-Hispanic
6% Non-Resident Alien
<a href="http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=4118&type=qfs&word=williams%5B/url%5D">http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=4118&type=qfs&word=williams</a></p>
<p>"For some, and obviously those "some" are women, the all women's colleges provide a valuable education. The reason the system works is not because women need to be segregated to succeed, or because they cannot compete against men, but because such a school creates a unique environment that many women respond to both emotionally and intellectually."</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew--
Great post.</p>
<p>First of all, by definition, women's colleges are less diverse. They lack a certain something....;)</p>
<p>Second, it's very easy to see that, generally speaking, prestige LACs are less diverse than prestige u's, for two obvious reasons: 1) minority students are generally speaking less likely to have heard of 'em; and 2) lots of the prestige u's are in or near major cities, many of the LACs not. (This seems to significantly impact Black and, especially "Asian-American" (hate the term) populations, and, in the west, Hispanic populations.)</p>
<p>Those are things that change slowly, over time, and have been, not just at Smith, but at Amherst, Williams, Hamilton, etc. But change is slow.</p>
<p>The big differences are in what the colleges have control over - the recruitment and enrollment of low-income students (or of students requiring aid generally speaking). Here the differences are quite striking, both across the campus generally speaking, and within racial/ethnic subpopulations.</p>
<p>The other thing that colleges have control over is the percentage of the student bodies that are international. Here Macalester and Mt. Holyoke rule the roost among the LACs.</p>
<p>Overall, among the LACs, Occidental is the diversity king (great school, too!)</p>
<p>Campus Diversity: Liberal Arts Colleges </p>
<p>Occidental College (CA) 0.54
Swarthmore College (PA) 0.52<br>
Amherst College (MA) 0.49<br>
Claremont McKenna College (CA) 0.49
Williams College (MA) 0.47
Smith College (MA) 0.40</p>
<p>*Total enrollment by ethnic diversity *</p>
<p>Williams
African-American 10%
Asian-American 9%
Hispanic 8%
Native American 0%
White 67%
International 6%</p>
<p>Smith
African-American 6%
Asian-American 10%
Hispanic 6%
Native American 1%
White 71%
International 7%</p>
<p>Smith
African-American 6%
Asian-American 10%
Hispanic 6%
Native American 1%
White 71%
International 7%
}}</p>
<p>That's just pain wrong. Smith is not 71 % white--lol</p>
<p>Look at the numbers published by the college. I tend to believe Smith much more than USNews.</p>
<p>Youre the one who is a huge proponent the common data set. <a href="http://www.smith.edu/ir/documents/CDS2005_2006_001.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.smith.edu/ir/documents/CDS2005_2006_001.pdf</a></p>
<p>I believe that what is so irritating about how this thread was started is the premise that women in coed schools are mistreated. Despite BJM8's denials to that effect, you only need to read the start of the thread to get the jist:</p>
<p>Quote:
I have read many books on the sub-standard way girls are treated in coed classrooms throughout high schools in the country. Read books such as "Reviving Ophelia:Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls" by Mary Pipher.</p>
<p>Using a pop-psychologist without any serious credentials to assail the system that educates 99.9% of women in this country is truly pathetic. I certainly respect the choice of parents sending their kids to all-women's colleges. It is another to completely denigrate schools which have an extraordinary job giving women their full share alongside men, as well as the women who attend the schools, together with ridiculous comments and assertions largely without basis. </p>
<p>As I have stated with evidence from recognized scholars the whole premise of this thread is total BUNK! Women do not in general have problem in the current higher education system and no credible current study supports that proposition. </p>
<p>It is OK to be a cheerleader for the all women colleges. Just don't stuff down our throat as some superior approach to women's education. It is one alternative, clearly viable, not better, just different.</p>
<p>It is worth noticing that some of the parents claiming to be total converts to the all womens system were the same ones crying on the Yale board after their kids were denied early admission!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Smith
African-American 6%
Asian-American 10%
Hispanic 6%
Native American 1%
White 71%
International 7%
}}</p>
<p>That's just pain wrong.
[/quote]
Smith
Plain wrong ................CDS 2004-2005 real numbers<br>
African-American 6% .... 153 / 2692 6%
Asian-American 10% .... 264 / 2692 10%
Hispanic 6% .... 160 / 2692 6%
Native American 1% .... 28 / 2692 1%
*Total Subgroup .... 605 / 2692 22% *</p>
<p>International 7% .... 180 / 2692 7%</p>
<p>
[quote]
Youre the one who is a huge proponent the common data set.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I still am, when the CDS numbers are used consistently. If a school reports unknowns, they are not added to the minority numbers, because minorities tend do report their ethnicity. </p>
<p>The source is <a href="http://www.smith.edu/ir/CDS/CDS200405.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.smith.edu/ir/CDS/CDS200405.pdf</a>, which is what was used by USNews for its 2006 edition. </p>
<p>FYI, see Williams's report for same year:</p>
<p>Blacks 184 / 1970 9%
Natives 5 /1970 0%
Asians 183 /1970 9%
Hispanics 176 /1970 9%
*Total Subgroup 548/1970 28% * </p>
<p>International 116 /1970 6%</p>
<p>Your figures are from2004-2205 USNews is always a year behind. Last years figures were for the class of 08</p>
<p>Mine are 2005-2206 ..Im using more current numbers/ <a href="http://www.smith.edu/ir/documents/CDS2005_2006_001.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.smith.edu/ir/documents/CDS2005_2006_001.pdf</a></p>
<p>But even with your set of numbers, the white % is still 53% See page 2. .371 (white students) divided by 696 ( total enrollment)= 53 % white enrollment . Even if you assume half of 14% (99 students) unreported is white ( theyre not) the total whites is still only 60%</p>
<p>Many minorities /dont/ report their ethnicity too. I know of a few myself. Theyre a combination of many different races and do not want to be pigeonholed into any one group. Think Tiger Woods. He refuses to be considered as Black and rightly so.</p>
<p>Cellardweller...you neglected to put the rest of my post into the quote (ironic isn't it?)
[quote]
The Sadkers show us how far women have come in the last century, in claiming their place in the classrooms of schools from elementary to graduate school both in front of the class, and behind the desk. They also show us how different that place is from the space filled by their male counterparts, and how sexism has seeped into every aspect of the female educational experience. The Sadkers studied the numbers ---counting everything from female faces and names in textbooks and among teachers/professors, to school budgets for athletics, to questions and kudos offered to girls by teachers in the classroom. These numbers show that girls attend schools where the bulk of a teacher's attention in the classroom is focused on boys, their studies are centered on men and their achievements, they are taught by men (secondary education and beyond) and the bulk of their schools' budgets (including special ed and athletics) are spent on the boys. It is no wonder that the hopes and dreams of young girls are diminished as they enter adolescence, with doctors settling for nursing degrees, and chemists turning to cooking! They found that in intellectually rigorous girls' schools, few incidents of sexism were uncovered. These schools focused on the intellectual growth, academic curiosity, independence and self-esteem of their female students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you honestly tell me that in the last century of education, beginning with adolescents on up, that women have been treated fairly in schools thoughout the country? If so, I have some land in Louisiana for you to buy! I have been talking all along about how all-women's colleges focus on intellectual growth, academic curiosity, independence, and self-esteem. Not only are they academically challenging; on par with those elite schools you mentioned (and yes, even in research), but in many ways even better than your supposed alma mater MIT. They meet the needs of the women who choose to attend them, and by far surpass the expectations of elitist people like you (to your chagrin, I'm sure.) We are talking about the history of education and how females were treated in schools over time, and why women's colleges and secondary schools were, and continue to be, very important entities. When you have walked in my shoes as an educator for 26 years, write back. I've seen it all.</p>
<p>Hate to break it to you Xiggi, but RLT is correct with his numbers. I would rather use current numbers rather than last year's numbers...wouldn't you?</p>
<p>RLT/BJM8, did I not state that my numbers were from 2004-2005 to MAKE them match the USNews numbers you declared ... "pain" wrong. The purpose of the post was to show that the numbers I posted earlier were identical to the Common Data Set published by Smith. </p>
<p>Obviously, anyone is entitled to interpret the data as they wish, and speculate about the missing numbers.</p>
<p>What a wonderful thread on the incredible merits of women's colleges in America today. I admit I've only read 10 percent of the postings over the past week but I could not be prouder of my daughter for selecting Mount Holyoke College to attend this fall. And she could not be any more excited.</p>
<p>As a student at Haverford College in the 1970s, just prior to its move into coeducation, I had the incredibly good fortune to major in an academic program at Bryn Mawr, which enjoyed a close and productive relationship with Haverford (and still does, to a somewhat lesser extent). Though my diploma says I'm a Haverford graduate, I give plenty of credit to the wonderful academic experiences I had on the Bryn Mawr campus. </p>
<p>Long live the Seven Sisters.</p>
<p>RLT/BJM8, did I not state that my numbers were from 2004-2005 to MAKE them match the USNews numbers you declared ... "pain" wr</p>
<p>Xiggi, there isnt an issue with you or your stats. I knew you knew what you were doing. You always do. ;) It was me that used the new figures for the class of 09 without realizing we were using the different years. No big deal. </p>
<p>I still believe my math is correct however.</p>
<p>Cellardweller, you're obviously talking about me when you say that the converts were "whining" about kids before rejected ED on the Yale thread. While I responded there to one of the posters, I certainly was not whining. I did not attend Yale, nor did my daughter apply to Yale. Yes, she applied to a couple of Ivies and did not get in. Still, she had a choice between good co-ed schools and good women's schools. She happened to choose Smith. Trust me, she did not only get into all-women's colleges. </p>
<p>I am a "convert" because I approached the women's colleges BEFORE the acceptances came out with an open mind. I respect your right to your opinion, but I am offended by your assertion that the only reason our daughters are going to women's colleges are because they were rejected from the Ivies. That is simply untrue.</p>
<p>but I am offended by your assertion that the only reason our daughters are going to women's colleges are because they were rejected from the Ivies. That is simply untrue.]]</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>here is a very interesting website:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.womenscolleges.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.womenscolleges.org/</a></p>
<p>MWFN...thanks from me too. I would also like to apologize to Xiggi for my rude comments on past threads, they were uncalled for.
[quote]
What a wonderful thread on the incredible merits of women's colleges in America today. I admit I've only read 10 percent of the postings over the past week but I could not be prouder of my daughter for selecting Mount Holyoke College to attend this fall. And she could not be any more excited.
[/quote]
Thanks, JP! Congratulations to your D as well as MH is a great school!</p>
<p>
[quote]
long live the seven sisters
[/quote]
AMEN to that!!!!</p>
<p>I certainly did not claim that girls turn to women's colleges as a last resort. My wife went to Smith and was nevertheless accepted at several selective coed schools including Wesleyan and Tufts. </p>
<p>As far as how many women go to the Seven Sisters after being accepted by the Ivies, the numbers are definitely very low. The same holds true with Amherst and Williams so there is nothing to be offended about.</p>