The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Oh don't worry - I know that there will be lots of a,b,c and d as there will be, I'm sure, somewhere in most colleges. I'm not an aggressive, man-hating uber feminist as I said, though I'm sure there will be some of those to contend with too. Just hope I get those grades so I can start digging that moat around the college :wink:

Reply 21

Bryllyg, although I appreciate and respect the fact that you had a good feeling about Newnham and wanted to be there, I was wondering how you feel the existence of all-female colleges nowadays is pro-feminist? I'd have thought it almost the opposite, as their existence (when there are no corresponding all-male colleges) means that women are treated differently from men, almost implying that women can't be expected to compete on an equal footing. I appreciate that in origin they were very brave female incursions into an all-male university, and thus might be considered proto-feminist, but times have changed.

Reply 22

I'm really enjoying this thread and Bryllyg and Alexander are both putting up strong arguments :biggrin:. I don't think there's anything wrong at all with same-sex colleges, although (not that I'd want to go to one!) I don't see why they don't have male-only ones too, when all the above facts are taken into accound :cool:

Reply 23

yelwalkietalkie
I think they served a very valuable function to readdress the huge gender imbalance in Oxbridge, but now that it's pretty even there's no use for them.


It's pretty even ONLY because there are two women's colleges. I personally think that they are absolutely necessary, with the amount of people in high-up places that think women shouldn't be allowed into the university.

Reply 24

Helenia
From what I can see, that is essentially a large part of the makeup of these colleges. However, there are some girls who decide they want an all-female environment for their own reasons, which may not be religious or cultural. I'm still a little undecided about women's colleges - the religious issues could easily be addressed by having all-female halls at a mixed college, but at the same time I do think that there are some girls who benefit in a single-sex environment.


i feel that the 'some girls' would be in a minority. hilda's (ox) is generally seen as undesirable (unfairly) BUT i'd be in favour of keeping a female-only college - the dean ('registrar', officially) of christ church pointed out to me in a pub, somewhere in the dirge of 7th week, that oxford admits mainly men, and if hilda's was to admit men as well, the ratio of female students would hence decrease. being a humanities student who can't really add double figures i'm not too good with ratios, but this seemed to make sense.


alexander - i don't agree with your idea of feminism or 'proto-feminist' colleges (?) but i've just noticed one of your posts was somewhat a prototype of mine.

Reply 25

xx_ambellina_xx
It's pretty even ONLY because there are two women's colleges.

That can't be true: three colleges out of about 30 which accept undergraduates can only make a difference of a few hundred students, which is hardly anything out of a total of about 18,000. And also, presuming that the women's colleges are not an easy way in for female applicants, if they went mixed then the women who would have gone to them should be distributed across the university (and thus bringing the male:female ratio even closer to 50:50 in other colleges, which would be a good thing).

xx_ambellina_xx
I personally think that they are absolutely necessary, with the amount of people in high-up places that think women shouldn't be allowed into the university.

Why does separating women from men make things better for women, or give them more influence and opportunity? I really don't accept that argument. Look at the history: at first the men wouldn't allow female students into their colleges, so they had to set up their own; but now all the men's colleges have gone mixed the existence of all-female colleges is just harking back to a long gone era of sexism.

And I don't think Alison Richard (the vice-chancellor) is likely to be against women being allowed in the university -- and nor the people who chose her (who were presumably high-up members of the university).

Reply 26

I'm going to jump in with Bryllg here, though she's doing a better job than I could. :smile:

I also applied straight to Newnham, and certainly did not consider that it was an easy option. It may have been, who knows...but this year, the applications were at University average. So, no matter what the motivation was for applying to all-female, the competition (numerically) was pretty much the same as elsewhere.

As for meeting feminists/the religious/the over-protected/the lesbian population of the world...surely that's many many times better than the situation in some colleges, where the concentration of white, upper-middle class (as far as those distinctions exist) men is huge? A bit of diversity is what makes the world go round, and all that.

There are of course disadvantages to an all female environment, for certain people. However, the University is FULL of men...we can't just mope about it and hope they'll materialise in our rooms...have to go and get them! :wink: And clearly there are boxers in the shower, and the loo seats are left up...and there are as many manly cries as girly screams going on at night. :eek: :biggrin:

Something that no-one's yet commented on is the education provided by the all female colleges. Although, yes, in terms of admissions women are pretty much on a par with men now, the results are decidedly NOT. Men still, the vast majority of the time, do better than women. Although this *might* have something to do with inherent ability (who knows), it has much to do with exam style. The Triposes are still marked, broadly, in a very similar way to several decades ago...when men dominated the student population. Essays, for example, are marked in a way that favours the traditionally 'male' writing and thinking style - a little dogmatic/blinkered, but consequently making a complete argument: the more female tendency to look at all sides involved is not marked anywhere near as highly, despite the equal (if not superior) knowledge involved. (Obviously, some women are able to write 'like men', before you jump on me).

Additionally, there is a marked sexism in the teaching by some (generally old) male fellows. In a mixed class, men are often asked directly to contribute, while women seem expected to watch and learn. Men have a tendency to be more outspoken in classes etc., and so generally dominate the conversation...this can make it really quite intimidating for female members of the group, who have to either sit in silence, or force their way into the conversation, often to looks of disapproval. Essentially, I suppose I'm saying that there is not yet equality between men & women in the universities -although of course we can't expect everything to be 50:50 (admissions, results, etc.), an equal starting-point is massively important...and isn't really there yet. Outward equality there may be (look! Oxbridge lets in women!), but there really *is* still prejudice and disadvantage against women. Sorry, but tis true.

Reply 27

I would just like to know which pea-brain neg repped me for my earlier post.

Cheers.

Reply 28

epitome

As for meeting feminists/the religious/the over-protected/the lesbian population of the world...surely that's many many times better than the situation in some colleges, where the concentration of white, upper-middle class (as far as those distinctions exist) men is huge? A bit of diversity is what makes the world go round, and all that.


Yeah, Newnham is great. So different from Robinson where we have, in my year and the year below, 65/35 split between boys and girls. We do still have our share of religious fanatics, lesbians etc, but we're rather lacking on the feminist front (I seem to be one of the only ones, which is rather depressing). We certainly have plenty of the over-protected, as that is very much a Cambridge-wide syndrome.

epitome
There are of course disadvantages to an all female environment, for certain people. However, the University is FULL of men...we can't just mope about it and hope they'll materialise in our rooms...have to go and get them! :wink: And clearly there are boxers in the shower, and the loo seats are left up...and there are as many manly cries as girly screams going on at night. :eek: :biggrin:

Something that no-one's yet commented on is the education provided by the all female colleges. Although, yes, in terms of admissions women are pretty much on a par with men now, the results are decidedly NOT. Men still, the vast majority of the time, do better than women. Although this *might* have something to do with inherent ability (who knows), it has much to do with exam style. The Triposes are still marked, broadly, in a very similar way to several decades ago...when men dominated the student population. Essays, for example, are marked in a way that favours the traditionally 'male' writing and thinking style - a little dogmatic/blinkered, but consequently making a complete argument: the more female tendency to look at all sides involved is not marked anywhere near as highly, despite the equal (if not superior) knowledge involved. (Obviously, some women are able to write 'like men', before you jump on me).

Additionally, there is a marked sexism in the teaching by some (generally old) male fellows. In a mixed class, men are often asked directly to contribute, while women seem expected to watch and learn. Men have a tendency to be more outspoken in classes etc., and so generally dominate the conversation...this can make it really quite intimidating for female members of the group, who have to either sit in silence, or force their way into the conversation, often to looks of disapproval. Essentially, I suppose I'm saying that there is not yet equality between men & women in the universities -although of course we can't expect everything to be 50:50 (admissions, results, etc.), an equal starting-point is massively important...and isn't really there yet. Outward equality there may be (look! Oxbridge lets in women!), but there really *is* still prejudice and disadvantage against women. Sorry, but tis true.


Unfortunately this is all rather difficult to back up as the Joint Committee on Academic Performance are a bunch of ****ing jokers. From what I know of the report on the academic results of women in the university, it is rubbish. Unfortunately it is private, and CUSU only has one copy available only to those sabbs that sit on JCAP. Unfortunately the same applies to the report that has just been brought out on the status of three ethnic minority groups (again this is confidential but there is an 11 page summary available in the latest copy of the reporter). Of the four demands it makes to even out these balances, two are putting halal food in colleges, and having more non-aclohol based ents. It's a complete joke. It's been 3 years in the making (similar to the report on women). Our uni should not be allowed to get away with it.

MB

Reply 29

Alexander
That can't be true: three colleges out of about 30 which accept undergraduates can only make a difference of a few hundred students, which is hardly anything out of a total of about 18,000. And also, presuming that the women's colleges are not an easy way in for female applicants, if they went mixed then the women who would have gone to them should be distributed across the university (and thus bringing the male:female ratio even closer to 50:50 in other colleges, which would be a good thing).


Why does separating women from men make things better for women, or give them more influence and opportunity? I really don't accept that argument. Look at the history: at first the men wouldn't allow female students into their colleges, so they had to set up their own; but now all the men's colleges have gone mixed the existence of all-female colleges is just harking back to a long gone era of sexism.

And I don't think Alison Richard (the vice-chancellor) is likely to be against women being allowed in the university -- and nor the people who chose her (who were presumably high-up members of the university).



Have you looked at the stats for each college's male/female ratio? Lots of colleges are below 50:50, and Newnham/New Hall/Lucy Cavendish help to redress the balance. And there is STILL a problem regarding the position of women in the University, so I think New Hall and Newnham are still as necessary as ever. Incidentally, the example of Alison Richard is an isolated case, hardly representative of the pattern right across the faculties and colleges. Just because our VC is a woman, does not mean that Cambridge is a level playing field for men and women.

Quick check of the History faculty website reveals, out of a sample of 124 fellows, 40 women and 84 men. Not exactly equal, is it? And that's in an arts subject.

Looking at Chemistry, out of 96 fellows and staff, just 14 are women.

I'm sure the pattern is repeated across many faculties. There is, obviously, a problem.

Reply 30

xx_ambellina_xx
I'm sure the pattern is repeated across many faculties. There is, obviously, a problem.

I never said that there wasn't a problem. What I am arguing is that the existence of all-female colleges isn't the best way of addressing the problem, but rather (if anything) exacerbates the problem. For example, you say that all-female colleges are necessary to balance things out as some mixed colleges are significantly under 50% female; however I would say that the reason why some colleges are under 50% female is because the female students who would be at them are instead at Newnham/New Hall/Lucy Cavendish.

epitome: I genuinely haven't noticed 'marked sexism' in the teaching. In fact the majority of my supervisions are with female supervisors anyway; and although I'm male and thus mightn't be attuned to it, I'm pretty sure that my male supervisors haven't been in any way sexist in supervisions I've shared with girls. But if there is sexism in the teaching, how is the existence of all-women colleges actually doing anything to combat it? (apart from providing all-female supervisions to a small proportion of the women in the university, which to my mind is just accepting the problem rather than combatting it).

Reply 31

I think at the end of the day, people (in general) look to far into everything and are paranoid - it's as if people are on the look out for sexism, religious discrimination blah blah blah.

Reply 32

Duck and Cover
I think at the end of the day, people (in general) look to far into everything and are paranoid - it's as if people are on the look out for sexism, religious discrimination blah blah blah.

I would hardly call it paranoia when the most conservative elements of university bureaucracy agree with you.

MB

Reply 33

There seem to be two main questions in the discussion so far:
1) is there sex discrimination in Oxbridge that needs to be addressed?
2) would making New Hall/Newnham/St Hilda's/Lucy Cavendish mixed solve the problem?

So:
1) With the ratios of male:female fellows, it is clear that the academia and high-level teaching is still one of the male-dominated professions. But does this result from discrimination? I'm more inclined to point to the following: spending most of your life doing (lonely) research and occasional teaching sounds like a job appealing to a masculine, rather than feminine, brain. Besides, why are people assuming that a high male:female staff ratio imply discrimination for undergraduates? Sure, there will be a few old-fashioned professors who probably think the woman's place is in the kitchen, or certainly at home. However, in my (admittedly, limited) experience of Cambridge, discrimination has not seemed a big problem. I'm going to Trinity - one of the colleges with a high male:female student ratio; but I think that's self-feeding, rather than discriminatory: girls know the ratio, feel intimidated and don't apply. In general, I sympathize with people who say positive discrimination has gone too far. Women are *not* inferior to men, so why do we need to imply they need lots of extra special help to make sure they get the same results? I'm all for sending a message that Oxbridge is as much for women as for men - but is playing the numbers game (i.e. setting quotas, whether formally or informally) really the way to achieve that?

2) While I don't think there is sex discrimination, I concede that the number of females in Oxbridge could be improved. But would making colleges go mixed really do that? Suppose they did. So what do all the girls who wanted to go to an all-female college do? Some apply to one of these colleges that hypothetically sets up a female-only corridor [might I point out that it would probably take them at least a couple of years to realise this is a good idea; certainly for it to become prolific]. Some more say they don't care and apply to mixed colleges. But there will be a number of girls who would feel threatened or uncomfortable at the thought of living next to boys, sharing bathroom facilities etc. So they would go elsewhere. Does this increase the number of girls at Oxbridge? I think not.

So, some girls want to go to female-only colleges. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? If men wanted to go to male-only colleges, I say they should be allowed to do that, too. They just happen not to. Equal opportunity is about giving in equally to the demands people make, not producing conditions *you* think are equal, or favourable, over the wishes of the people concerned.

Reply 34

It's very easy to ignore any difference, or even to not notice it at all, because most people find it so very normal and this is the most worrying thing. People who appear "paranoid" are usually not accusing people of being overtly sexist and going around telling girls not to worry their pretty little heads about things; inequality still exists but it is practiced in a much more discreet manner than...say, not letting women in the library without being escorted by a male student at the university (good job that's no longer a rule:rolleyes: ).

My history teacher likes to tell me that he is surprised girls like studying history at a-level because it's all about "maps and chaps"...:confused:

Reply 35

opolunina
There seem to be two main questions in the discussion so far:
1) is there sex discrimination in Oxbridge that needs to be addressed?
2) would making New Hall/Newnham/St Hilda's/Lucy Cavendish mixed solve the problem?

So:
1) With the ratios of male:female fellows, it is clear that the academia and high-level teaching is still one of the male-dominated professions. But does this result from discrimination? I'm more inclined to point to the following: spending most of your life doing (lonely) research and occasional teaching sounds like a job appealing to a masculine, rather than feminine, brain. Besides, why are people assuming that a high male:female staff ratio imply discrimination for undergraduates? Sure, there will be a few old-fashioned professors who probably think the woman's place is in the kitchen, or certainly at home. However, in my (admittedly, limited) experience of Cambridge, discrimination has not seemed a big problem. I'm going to Trinity - one of the colleges with a high male:female student ratio; but I think that's self-feeding, rather than discriminatory: girls know the ratio, feel intimidated and don't apply. In general, I sympathize with people who say positive discrimination has gone too far. Women are *not* inferior to men, so why do we need to imply they need lots of extra special help to make sure they get the same results? I'm all for sending a message that Oxbridge is as much for women as for men - but is playing the numbers game (i.e. setting quotas, whether formally or informally) really the way to achieve that?


I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Now, the reason that there are more male fellows is both a question of discrimination and one of history. To start with, 50 years ago most of the colleges were all male. The students who came up through these all male colleges may now be fellows, and so that is one source. There is also the aspect that it is the academics who mark exam papers. There has been research on 'male' and 'female' answers. It is clear from good statistics that less women get 1sts/2.is. etc.

MB

Reply 36

To this, I feel the need to remind you of my point:people (in general) look to far into everything

Reply 37

Duck and Cover
To this, I feel the need to remind you of my point:people (in general) look to far into everything


And I think I should remind you of something. if you look into something and find out something that seems important, then that tends to make the looking worthwhile.

MB

Reply 38

epitome: I genuinely haven't noticed 'marked sexism' in the teaching. In fact the majority of my supervisions are with female supervisors anyway; and although I'm male and thus mightn't be attuned to it, I'm pretty sure that my male supervisors haven't been in any way sexist in supervisions I've shared with girls. But if there is sexism in the teaching, how is the existence of all-women colleges actually doing anything to combat it? (apart from providing all-female supervisions to a small proportion of the women in the university, which to my mind is just accepting the problem rather than combatting it).


Not every male supervisor is sexist. It's just noticeable with a fair few (particularly the older ones...!). It also has much to do with male/female differences in class: men tend to be bolder & consequently dominate. It's easier to ask the men what they think than the females, simply because answers are more forthcoming.

I think a lot of what we're talking about is not *sexism*, but the *difference between* the sexes. We ARE different. We think differently, and have (generally) different aptitudes. Some of what goes on, however, such as the style of marking the exams, does display inherent (and often unconscious) sexism.

All female colleges provide an environment in which women can speak out, encouraged, in supervisions and classes. They have female fellows (mostly), who don't automatically look down on women (yes, this does happen. Not necessarily consciously, but very definitely). Although of course and all female environment isn't representative of real life, a year or two in a place not dominated by the Y-chromosome tends to build up confidence, which can then be transferred into the real world (or a wider academic setting)...thereby putting females in a position to compete with men academically.

Just to add...I'm not someone who believes that all departments should have 50:50 ratios in staff and student populations. Men and women are, naturally, suited to different ways of thinking. It's a truth, and it's not a bad thing at all. A major reason there are less female academics is, as Music Bloke pointed out, that there are simply more suitably qualified men at the moment...we have to let changes in the education system filter though (which will take a good 60 or so years before a measurable equilibrium is reached).
Even if there are *different* ways of thinking about things, however (e.g. dogmatic arguments vs. methodical consideration of many different points of view), if they demonstrate the same insight and the same knowledge-base, one style should not be penalised merely because it is not the 'traditional' Cambridge way of doing things.

Reply 39

I think that all-women colleges are more anti-feminist. It means the girls that are good enough to get into Oxford are less likely to get the college they want. If somewhere has too many applicants then it can't pool any of its men to a girls college: only girls. Also, women underperform men at oxbridge academically, and women at all-girls colleges underperform those at womens colleges. There is no point having equality of entrants, when those who arrive underperform men.

How The Student Room is moderated

To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.