Women's schools are all private, since no public school can discriminate on the basis of sex. (until 1996, Virginia Military Institute, however, thought it was just fine to discriminate even though they are publicly funded.) As far as exclusivity, my school (I can't speak for others) has very good financial aid, and though I am NOT rich, I am attending on scholarship, aid, etc. Perhaps in a truly egalitarian society, women's colleges wouldn't be necessary (I'll have to think about that one, though), but in our society, they are a must. Like you said Miguel, to get us to a truly equal society, we need strong women, and women's colleges are a great way to get us there. :) Hayley All of Hayley's comment seems to indicate >that women's schools are a good thing, and over the last couple of years I >have been gradually becoming converted to this standpoint. In the long >run, obviously, equality would be a great goal- but, to get us there, we >obviously need strong women, and perhaps this is a good way to insure of >that. > -miguel > >______________________ >Miguel Ordorica >Washington State Univ. >Dept. of Sociology >Wilson 206 >(509) 335-4595 (msg.) >(509) 332-4442 (hme) >______________________ > >On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Hayley Lynch wrote: > >> >> >> >> I go to a women's college for these exact reasons. And yes, it does >> prepare women to live with and interact better with men in the "real >> world". It's a common misconception that women's colleges and >> single-sex learning don't prepare women for the "real world"--actually, >> the opposite is true. Consider this: Only 1.5% of college women attend >> women's colleges, yet 25% of women members of Congress are women's >> college graduates, women's college graduates make up 1/3 of women board >> members of Fortune 1000 companies, women's college graduates are twice >> as likely to earn PhDs, of BusinessWeek's 50 highest ranking women in >> corporate America, 30% were women's college graduates, etc, etc, etc. >> Clearly, single-sex education makes women "better able to deal with men >> later in their lives". >> >> Hayley >> >> > I find this to be an interesting debate- a lot of people have made >> >good arguments that women can become more assertive and comfortable by >> >having intelligent discussions without men around- men often do make a >> >mess of things. However, would it help make these women better able to >> >deal with men later in their lives? One thing I find interesting is >> that >> >if you are in a setting where men and women are giving equal attention >> by >> >a teacher, the men think that they are being snubbed and that the women >> >are being favored. Maybe a solution would be to have the women get >> >together for awhile, and the men get together separately, and then put >> >them all together later, and see what happens. I really don't know- I >> >just find that this topic is pretty intriguing. It is hard for me to >> be >> >in favor of something that excludes based on gender or ethnicity, but I >> >can see good reasons for doing so when the excluded group tends to be >> >beliggerent and domineering. >> > -Miguel >> > >> >______________________ >> >Miguel Ordorica >> >Washington State Univ. >> >Dept. of Sociology >> >Wilson 206 >> >(509) 335-4595 (msg.) >> >(509) 332-4442 (hme) >> >______________________ >> > >> >On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Bertina Miller wrote: >> > >> >> The real world includes men, until there are no men in existence, >> then you >> >> can say its ok not to include them in something. As for challenging >> the >> >> status quo I am all for that. Doesnt mean that a person should be >> >> exclusionary. Everyone learns from diversity not from exclusion. >> >> >> >> Bertina >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > >> >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
