Women-only colleges at Cambridge, why?

I was just on wikipedia and stumbled across a fact that Cambridge has women-only colleges such as Newnham College.
Isn't that unfair on men? If a woman applies to Cambridge, then doesn't she have a marginally greater chance of being offered a place (through pooling or not) simply because she not only has access to the mixed-sex colleges but the single-sex colleges too?

Can someone please explain to me how it's fair to have women only colleges at Cambridge?

Sorry if I come across as ignorant but I always thought universities tried to champion equality.

I was just on wikipedia and stumbled across a fact that Cambridge has women-only colleges such as Newnham College.
Isn't that unfair on men? If a woman applies to Cambridge, then doesn't she have a marginally greater chance of being offered a place (through pooling or not) simply because she not only has access to the mixed-sex colleges but the single-sex colleges too?

Can someone please explain to me how it's fair to have women only colleges at Cambridge?

Sorry if I come across as ignorant but I always thought universities tried to champion equality.

Why does it become unfair that these three colleges have retained their original status, just because other colleges have chosen to become mixed?

Why does it become unfair that these three colleges have retained their original status, just because other colleges have chosen to become mixed?

Wouldn't it lead to more spaces for women than men at Cambridge?

The are two answers to that.

Firstly to whom are we being fair? Why shouldn't we be fair to the colleges and those who endowed them. What have they done that is wrong? They are both doing what they have always done and what is perfectly lawful. If I set up a ladies hairdresser, I am not being unfair to men just because someone else doesn't set up a barbers next door. Why should they have to change just because a lot of former male colleges have decided to go mixed?

Secondly, of course for 775 years of its existence Cambridge had vastly more spaces for men than women.

A cracking long speech that ignores the questions posed by everyone above and wades in with a 'just because' that nobody else has said.

Either way, I actually have no opinion on the matter, I just have an intense dislike of poorly constructed arguments.

I'm not sure I like the second, though: two wrongs don't make a right and all.

The are two answers to that.

Firstly to whom are we being fair? Why shouldn't we be fair to the colleges and those who endowed them. What have they done that is wrong? They are both doing what they have always done and what is perfectly lawful. If I set up a ladies hairdresser, I am not being unfair to men just because someone else doesn't set up a barbers next door. Why should they have to change just because a lot of former male colleges have decided to go mixed?

Secondly, of course for 775 years of its existence Cambridge had vastly more spaces for men than women.

As a Newnham offer-holder, I would say it is fair in a way. I'm sure there are some colleges that have a greater number of males than females (likely in those that have 70% science students as they do tend to have more males studying these subjects overall).

Also, not all women would like to be living in the same accommodation as men. Particularly those who come from countries, backgrounds or religions who are against it or really don't like it. For me, Newnham felt as if it caters much more to the needs of women than other colleges (same opinion about Murray Edwards).

In a way, it's like at other universities where you sometimes can choose whether you live in mixed it same-sex halls. You live in college (most of the time) so really you're essentially choosing the type of accommodation alongside the other factors.

All Cambridge colleges were founded as single sex institutions. When the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was passed an exception was specifically made for single sex educational institutions and at that time most Cambridge colleges were single sex. That exception is now in Schedule 12 to the Equality Act 2010. That exception is used by many schools as well as by Cambridge colleges. Since the 1975 Act was passed, all of the other Cambridge colleges except Newnham, Murray Edwards and Lucy Cavendish has chosen to go mixed. Each college is an autonomous institution. Why does it become unfair that these three colleges have retained their original status, just because other colleges have chosen to become mixed?

For the first point, that logic would also permit the notion of keeping Cambridge almost entirely male-only as 'that is what they have always done'. I presume you agree with me that this would be unequal and anachronistic. Further, you cannot compare a private business serving customers for gender-specific needs to a publicly funded institute of higher education.

For the second point, I'm sure you don't really think that retributive justice is really justice at all. If you do, then why not black-only colleges?



Sure, some colleges have more males than females because more of the students do sciences. Equally some of the colleges probably have more females than males because more of the students do arts (e.g. Homerton). What's that got to do with the price of fish?

As for the bit in bold: first, not all men would like to be living in the same accommodation as women, either. Secondly there are really a very tiny minority of people whose religion would not permit them to attend Cambridge unless they could go to a single-sex college. In my college, there were quite a few conservative religious people and they got on fine. Attending a mixed-sex college does not mean you're going to be forced into having sex at gunpoint. To be honest a lot of the mixed colleges are considerably tamer than the girl's colleges when it comes to drinking and sex.

Personally I don't necessarily think it's vastly unfair that the colleges exist. However both of your arguments in support of their continued existence are sketchy, and that's because there's not really a good case to be made. If Oxford can do without them with no problems, I fail to see why Cambridge can't.

Sex at gunpoint... That wasn't the point I was actually referring to, it was more that you would feel less comfortable sharing things like bathrooms with the opposite sex, nothing to do with sexual advances/assault or similar. I don't think womens colleges should go. The male only colleges chose to become mixed, they didn't have to.