fester%math.Berkeley.EDU@violet.berkeley.edu (09/06/88)
I've been trying to write a detailed article about the issue of scientific education in all-female academic institutions, ever since the issue was brought up about a month ago here. But I seem to be emotionally incapable right now of dealing with it in a public forum. Nonetheless, I want to make one point, because all the other articles were favorable and I have an important opposing viewpoint. The problem with science education in an all-female environment is that IF the predominant cultural attitudes are at play, there is NO recourse for the female student. What I mean by this is that if the teachers are inclined to believe that women can't *really* do math/science, they will teach at a lower level - and that will be the sum of the education the girl/woman will receive. The very expensive and prestigious women's college I attended is plagued by this problem, at least in the mathematics and physics department. At a co-ed school, a teacher who doesn't think women can do well in his/her field nonetheless must lecture to a mixed crowd, and the level of the coursework will correspondingly be higher. A secondary point is that women's colleges are all colleges. Among coeducational institutions, there are many universities. And it is quite well known that in the sciences, it helps *enormously* to be in a place where there is also a graduate program. That way, when you run out of advanced courses to take, you simply go on and take graduate level classes. (There are other benefits like possibly becoming acquainted with older students and developing academically helpful relationships, and so on, but I think the main point is being able to learn much more in your field. If anyone has anything to add, please elaborate on this point.) So at this point I feel compelled to add that it is not categorically true that a science education at a given women's college is inferior, especially since I know a counterexample (hey Karen, bet you never thought of yourself as a counterexample :-) :-)) What IS categorically true is that if this is the case, you are essentially stuck. The type of problems one might run into at a coed school, e.g. a blatantly sexist teacher, are more easily solvable because you can drop the given course and avoid that teacher for the rest of your career, if possible. The really sick thing about being given an inferior education is that there is no way for you to assess it, since until you have some proficiency in a subject you don't have the capability of judging the calibre of a given education in it. So at this point I'm not at all sure I would recommend women's colleges, because although the environment is much more conducive to learning, the calibre of the education may be poor. Alas. Lea Fester fester@math.berkeley.edu ucbvax!math!fester
vicki@gatech.edu (Vicki Powers) (09/08/88)
In article <5726@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, fester%math.Berkeley.EDU@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > > A secondary point is that women's colleges are all colleges. Among > coeducational institutions, there are many universities. And it is > quite well known that in the sciences, it helps *enormously* to be in > a place where there is also a graduate program. That way, when you > run out of advanced courses to take, you simply go on and take > graduate level classes. Not true! I know that Bryn Mawr has a (admittedly small) Ph.D program in mathematics. When I interviewed there for a job, they had one Ph.D student. Other departments have graduate programs as well. I think most good women's college's expect their professors to be active researchers and thus any student who wanted advanced work would be able to get it. -- Vicki Powers | vicki@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED Emory University | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!vicki UUCP Dept of Math and CS | vicki@emory NON-DOMAIN BITNET Atlanta, GA 30322 | [I think that what Lea was saying is that single-sex colleges suffer from the same problems that other colleges do as well. So, to the extent that there is not a graduate program in a single-sex or coed college, there is a problem with getting a quality education. It is, I think, even worse in regard to computer science. The cost of putting together a graduate program in c.s. can be very high (making the salaries competitive, getting the kind of facilities which will draw good people, and so on) and it would be extremely hard for someone to try to get into that game now-- it would also probably not be cost-effective to have a graduate program with only one or two students. TR]
fester%math.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (09/09/88)
In article <5729@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> emory!vicki@gatech.edu (Vicki Powers) writes: >Not true! I know that Bryn Mawr has a (admittedly small) Ph.D program >in mathematics. When I interviewed there for a job, they had one Ph.D >student. Other departments have graduate programs as well. I think >most good women's college's expect their professors to be active >researchers and thus any student who wanted advanced work would be able >to get it. If a college has a *tiny* graduate program, from the point of view of the *undergraduates* the college effectively has NO graduate program. The benefit of a graduate program is, as I said, that when you run out of undergraduate classes you can take graduate level classes - if the program is so small (e.g. one PhD candidate) there probably AREN'T any graduate level classes, and so effectively this advantage fails to exist. Now regarding your last sentence, I unfortunately vehemently disagree. When I ran out of upper division math courses to take, I went around asking for someone to do an independent study class (called reading courses in some places) with me. No one would. And Wellesley College both considers itself, and is considered by most, to be a "good women's college." The math department has its share of weak faculty, but it also has its share of good researchers. This is not the issue. The issue is VERY IMPORTANT, and I want to make sure I am not being too subtle for most of the parents out there reading this. The issue is that if, on a fundamental level, the teachers believe that women cannot do mathematics, they will TEACH IT THAT WAY. And that is why being at a coed school may be better. The teachers there may well also believe that women can't do math, but THEY MUST TEACH TO EVERYONE, and the coursework therefore will be of the appropriate calibre. It really hurts me to be having to say this, especially in public. But it is true. I almost feel like you can't win. At a coed school you might get shafted in all the ways women traditionally are, (though you may not), and at a women's college you may get taught down to (though you may not), in which case you are even worse off than in case 1. (Trish) >[I think that what Lea was saying is that single-sex colleges suffer from >the same problems that other colleges do as well. So, to the extent that Yes, in addition to other problems that might be *particular* to a women's college. >a problem with getting a quality education. It is, I think, even worse >in regard to computer science. The cost of putting together a graduate >program in c.s. can be very high (making the salaries competitive, getting >the kind of facilities which will draw good people, and so on) and it And undergraduate. We were using facilities (for example, in my Computer Graphics course) that a former department chair said were of poorer quality (in this case, far less resolution) than the ones he was using at Harvard in the early 70's. Another point about computer science at women's colleges is that the Big Boys don't bother to recruit there, not for permanent employement and not for those crucial summer internships. Some do, but most don't. This is not the fault of the college, but it is an important disadvantage. Lea Fester fester@math.berkeley.edu ucbvax!math!fester "Her brother's birth announcement, it said 'A pretty babe !' Ah yes, While she got precious little notice in the local press Her mother was a virgin when she carried him therein And if the little girl came later, then was she conceived in sin ?"