The Women's Center, Barnard College, pamphlet, 1971, page 9

Download: Transcript

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 View All

Show transcript

          I am not arguing that all talented young women
should work for a Ph.D. or even should have a de-
manding career. What I am arguing for is that the
options should be opened to women who might wish
to do these things so that they have a greater oppor-
tunity to do them than they currently have. The options
are what I am concerned about. Talented young men
also need their options widened and broadened so
that every bright young man does not need to feel that
he must pursue a full-time professional career and
leave homemaking to his wife. In short, I am arguing
against sexual stereotyping at home and at work.

Perhaps the situation is different for Barnard women.
The most compelling item I can cite about Barnard
graduates’ academic performance is that a recent
study of women Ph.D.’s shows that in the years studied
(the mid-fifties), on a per capita basis, Barnard led all
institutions in the country in the numbers of its women
receiving doctorates. It was second nationally in total
numbers of women Ph.D.'s, leading such eminent (and
much larger!) institutions as the University of California
(Berkeley), the University of Chicago, and Stanford.
Three of the leading ten undergraduate producers
of women doctorates were women's colleges: Hunter,
first; Barnard, second; and Wellesley, eighth. (Hunter
of course, was a women's college until 1964.) This is
true despite the fact that only about ten percent of the
women undergraduates were enrolled in women's col-
leges at the time that these women were students.
Hunter, Barnard, and Wellesley, which have been
such leading nurturers of women doctorates, have
several things in common. All three have that increas-
ing rarity, a woman president, which Barnard and
Wellesley have had throughout their histories. All have
had women in leading administrative positions. Fur-
thermore, Barnard, Wellesley, and Hunter all had a
majority of women on their faculties, and Barnard and
Wellesley still do.

But at a time when 95 percent of the women who are
in college in America are in coeducational institutions,
those colleges and universities should show greater
concern for the quality of the education they provide
for women. Rarely have male colleges gone coed
because they thought it would be better for girls;
generally it has been because they thought it would
improve the place for the men who were already
there. I am not against coeducation, only urging that
the institution be as truly coeducational in its graduate
school, faculties, and ad-
ministrations as it is in its
undergraduate body. Tokenism has no place in
higher education today.

Patricia Albjerg Graham
Associate Professor
of History and Education