Why are there all-girl colleges but not all-boy colleges in cambridge?

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.

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.

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.

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! 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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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?

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