The Lame Defense of Women's Colleges

Keilexandra · 09-12-2009, 11:42 PM

The right and wrong way to defend women's colleges.

Quote:

...a timid smart girl fearful of speaking up in high school, ridiculed by classmates as a lesbian or feminist for her choice of all-female higher education. Then she is transformed by the powers of the single-sex classroom into a poised, successful adult.

The problem is that this defense is actually derisive. It implies that only outside of a coeducational classroom can women trade timidity and lip-gloss for assertiveness and a scholar’s pilled cardigan. The notion that having men around distracts women from academic pursuits and that professors at coed institutions don’t take women seriously is not only dated, but patronizing. If women’s colleges want to survive the 21st century, they need to stop being defensive and reflexively attacking the inadequacies of coeducation. Otherwise, they’ll fulfill the prophecy they seek to avoid—they will become irrelevant to women’s education.

[...]

The long-term viability of single-sex ed depends upon these schools reimagining themselves first as fine academic institutions and second as colleges for women. I graduated from Wellesley in 2007, and there’s no place I would have rather have studied, as an English major, Charlotte Bronte’s deep and highly personal examination of female depression in Villette. But that’s not because I wouldn’t have been taken seriously if there were men in my classes. It’s because of Wellesley’s excellent professors and dedicated students. That’s why I can’t stand to hear women’s colleges justified by the faults of coed classrooms, or the wage gap, or their ability to churn out Secretaries of State.

teenage_cliche · 09-13-2009, 09:29 AM

In some ways I disagree. Yes, many women's colleges are great schools academically by any measurement, and of course that's important. But the fact of the matter is that graduates of women's colleges do go on to earn PhDs in math and science at a higher rate than women from co-ed colleges, and they do tend to become leaders in predominantly male friends (such as government) at a higher rate as well. One can argue for correlation instead of causation, but to completely ignore these statistics is foolish, imo.

Keilexandra · 09-13-2009, 11:41 AM

^ I do agree with you that women's colleges tend to produce a preponderance of women leaders. However:

Quote:

...only outside of a coeducational classroom can women trade timidity and lip-gloss for assertiveness and a scholar’s pilled cardigan. The notion that having men around distracts women from academic pursuits and that professors at coed institutions don’t take women seriously is not only dated, but patronizing.

I take issue with many proponents' equating "women's colleges produce more women leaders" to "women's colleges are better than coed colleges at producing women leaders."

mardad · 09-16-2009, 03:54 PM

Well, logically if you don't argue that women's college are better at producing women leaders then you would have to argue that women's colleges are more appealing to young women who are destined to become leaders. We're back to the nature Vs nurture argument. If leadership is teachable then the women's colleges are doing a better job of producing it. If leadership is something one is born with then more of the natural leaders are chosing women's colleges.

Keilexandra · 09-16-2009, 08:07 PM

^I've experienced a lot of leadership training (and acted as a leader in several capacities), and I don't feel like it's had much impact on me, so I'd personally lean toward the latter. Historically, women's colleges were THE place to go for strong women; today, I think it is divided among women who consciously choose a women's college, women who never thought they'd go single-sex but chose the school for other reasons, and women who want the "safeness" of a single-sex environment.

embord · 09-23-2009, 10:19 AM

I feel that the comparison is not necessarily between women's colleges and co-ed colleges, but rather between large universities and small colleges. Because they are less sought-after, women's colleges are inherently smaller than many other schools; not only does this lessen competition for an elite education, but it also enables women, specifically, to establish and differentiate themselves from the rest of the student body. Women in college become leaders in college because they are ABLE to differentiate themselves; this is MUCH more difficult to do at a large university. As far as the women-only education, most of these schools place a specific emphasis on female empowerment and leadership, which creates the mindset for successful women. Co-ed schools are not necessarily remiss in the promotion of women's rights and "women's lib"; there is just not an emphasis placed on it.

It also helps that the vast majority of women who go to women's colleges are also vast overachievers, such as at Mount Holyoke. ;-)

Hunt · 09-23-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

The long-term viability of single-sex ed depends upon these schools reimagining themselves first as fine academic institutions and second as colleges for women.

I find this to be a nonsensical argument. This would justify them reimagining themselves as co-ed institutions. This argument contains no justification for them remaining single-sex.

Keilexandra · 09-23-2009, 04:50 PM

embord - How, then, is a women's college any different from an equivalent LAC (which is of the same intimate size) other than the emphasis on women's rights/liberation/empowerment? I personally think that this is one of the eternal problems--many women, myself included (although I'm definitely applying to at least one women's college), feel that they are already strong enough to compete in a male-dominated world and take full advantage of a coed education.

upbeat · 09-23-2009, 07:04 PM

keilexandra, never pooh-pooh opportunities for empowerment. The glass ceiling is way higher than you are now...I'm sure you can compete very well in a male-dominated world now...but wait until you are 40 or 50 and reaching the top of your career. That's when the stakes are higher and you'll be glad of the confidence and empowerment you received in your all-womens college!

Keilexandra · 09-23-2009, 07:19 PM

^ But honestly, that's my "problem" with women's colleges--if that empowerment is oh-so-necessary, then coed colleges must offer an inferior education to women. And I just don't believe that.

A single-sex education doesn't stop the glass ceiling from existing; it just gives women tools to fight it and raise it. I think I can do that by myself, thank you very much. I might be able to do it marginally BETTER after receiving a single-sex education--but then again, I might not, and is that possibility worth the social trade-off? (My romantic life will be significantly more limited at a women's college. I know my personality well enough to know that, and am pragmatic enough to consider it a non-deal-breaker negative. But I'm not seeing significant positives to balance it.)

sra08 · 09-23-2009, 07:47 PM

(recent Scripps grad) I don't necessarily think that education at a coed LAC is necessarily inferior to a women's college overall--though for some women, it might be. You'll have to decide for yourself whether that's you. But, having experienced many coed and all-women's classes in college, I can say that there are definitely differences in the course dynamic. I think that men (on statistical average) tend to dominate class discussions and feel more free to demand professors' time. This is only on average, and goodness knows there are plenty of women students who love the sound of their own voices. But when you've gone to dozens of classes in both environments, you do tend to notice a different "feel" on average. I wouldn't say that one is better or worse, necessarily, but it's different. And I would not by any means say that only having women in the class detracts from the educational quality. The presence of men is not necessary for intellectual stimulation.

One aspect which might not have occurred to you yet is how being a women's college affects the curriculum. At a women's college, generally, content about women and gender is not relegated to a single day in the semester. It tends to be more integrated into the curriculum. You don't only talk about women in courses officially deigned "women's studies." I'm in graduate school right now, and I know I wouldn't have chosen to concentrate in women/gender in my field had not I been exposed to a curriculum which introduced me to those issues straight off.

Also, if you want to have women role models in faculty, college presidents, and administrators, you'll probably find more of them at a women's college. (Which is not to say that men can't be great mentors and resources.)

Keilexandra · 09-23-2009, 07:50 PM

^ Thanks for the comments. I hadn't considered the difference in curriculum.

I, personally, am already the type of person who will walk up to professors after class / during office hours and ask questions; I participate in class discussion, though I try not to dominate; I do think there's a distinct difference in the feel of an all-female classroom, but I'm neutral/don't care about the distinction at this point.

Btw, Scripps is the women's college that made it onto my definite list after they flew me out to visit. But Scripps and Barnard largely negate the social drawback of a women's college.

rocket6louise · 09-23-2009, 10:25 PM

My big thing about a women's college is the lifelong friendships. Especially for seven sisters, there is a bond created for life. That is what I look for in ANY college, and i see it a great deal at women's colleges..
That is why i plan on applying

Keilexandra · 09-23-2009, 10:26 PM

^ True!

10char

monydad · 09-24-2009, 01:07 AM

"..Barnard largely negate the social drawback of a women's college."
Best change "largely" to "partly", not being in the dorms is a big deal, as it turns out.