I have prepared the diagram for 1870 from the U. S. ed. rep. for 1870, pp. 506–516, and the diagram for 1897–98 from the U. S. ed. rep., pp. 1848–1867, and from the table, opposite page [9] of this monograph. The diagrams for 1880 and 1890 are copied from the report for 1889–90, p. 764. For assistance in the preparation of this and other diagrams, and in working out the percentages given here, and elsewhere, in this monograph I am much indebted to Dr. Isabel Maddison.
If Catholic colleges are excluded, as in the map opposite page [10], coeducational colleges formed, in 1898, 80 per cent, and colleges for men only 20 per cent of the whole number—a still more favorable result for coeducation.
All the arguments against the coeducation of the sexes in colleges have been met and answered by experience. It was feared at first that coeducation would lower the standard of scholarship on account of the supposed inferior quality of women’s minds. The unanimous experience in coeducational colleges goes to show that the average standing of women is slightly higher than the average standing of men.[[13]] Many reasons for the greater success of women are given, such as absence of the distraction of athletic sports, greater diligence, higher moral standards, but the fact, however it may be explained, remains and is as gratifying as astonishing to those interested in women’s education. The question of health has also been finally disposed of; thousands of women have been working side by side with men in coeducational institutions for the past twenty-five years and undergoing exactly the same tests without a larger percentage of withdrawals on account of illness than men. The question of conduct has also been disposed of. None of the difficulties have arisen that were feared from the association of men and women of marriageable age. Looking at coeducation as a whole it is most surprising that it has worked so well.[[14]] Perhaps the only objection that may be made from men’s point of view to coeducation in America is that it has succeeded only too well and that the proportion of women students is increasing too steadily. Not only is the number of coeducational colleges increasing but the number of women relatively to the number of men is increasing also. In 1890 there were studying in coeducational colleges 16,959 men and 7,929 women; or women, in other words, formed 31.9 per cent of the whole body of students. In 1898 there were 28,823 men and 16,284 women studying in coeducational colleges, women forming 36.1 per cent of the whole body of students. Between 1890 and 1898 men in coeducational colleges have increased 70.0 per cent, but women in coeducational colleges have increased 105.4 per cent.[[15]]
There is every reason to suppose that this increase of women will continue. Already girls form 56.5 per cent of the pupils in all secondary schools and 13 per cent of the girls enrolled and only 10 per cent of the boys enrolled graduate from the public high schools. It is sometimes said that men students, as a rule, dislike the presence of women, and in especial that they are unwilling to compete for prizes against women for the very reason that the average standing of women is higher than their own. If there is any force in this statement, however, it would seem that men should increase less rapidly in coeducational colleges than in separate colleges for men. The reverse, however, is the case. During the eight years from 1890 to 1898 men have increased in coeducational colleges 70.0 per cent, but in separate colleges for men only 34.7 per cent.[[16]] This is all the more remarkable, because in the separate colleges for men are included the large undergraduate departments of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania. It is women who have shown a preference for separate education; women have increased more rapidly in separate colleges for women than in coeducational colleges. It will be observed, however, that the separate colleges for women, like the separate colleges for men included in my list of fifty-eight, are in the east; it is in the east only that any preference for separate education is shown by either sex.[[17]]
Independent colleges for women—Since independent colleges for women of the same grade as those for men are peculiar to the United States, I shall treat them somewhat more fully.[[18]] The independent colleges here taken into account are the eleven colleges included in division A[[19]] of the U. S. education reports.[[20]] The independent colleges for women fall readily into three groups: I. The so-called “four great colleges for women,” Vassar, Smith, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr. It will be seen by referring to the classification on page [12] that these four colleges are included among the fifty-eight leading colleges of the United States; they are all included in the twenty-two colleges admitted to the Association of collegiate alumnæ; two of them, Bryn Mawr and Wellesley, are included in the twenty-three colleges belonging to the Federation of graduate clubs; they are all included in the list of fifty-two leading colleges of the United States given in the handbook of Minerva; they are all, except Bryn Mawr, included in the list given by the U. S. education report for 1897–98[[21]] of forty-six colleges in the United States having three hundred students and upward; three of them, Bryn Mawr, Smith and Vassar, are included among the fifty-two colleges of the United States possessing invested funds of $500,000 and upward, and two of them, Vassar and Bryn Mawr, are included among the twenty-nine colleges of the United States possessing funds of $1,000,000 and upward; three of them, Smith, Wellesley and Vassar, rank among the twenty-three largest undergraduate colleges in the United States; one of them, Smith, ranks as the tenth undergraduate college in the United States.
Vassar college, Poughkeepsie, New York[[22]]—Founder, Matthew Vassar; intention, “to found and equip an institution which should accomplish for young women what our colleges are accomplishing for young men;” opened, 1865; preparatory department dropped, 1888; presidents, three (men); 45 instructors (16 Ph. D.s.)—35 women, 2 without first degree; 10 men; 584 undergrad. s., 11 grad. s., 24 special s.; productive funds, $1,050,000; a main building with lecture rooms, library and accommodation for 345 students, and two other residence halls accommodating 189 students; a science building; a lecture building; a museum with art, music and laboratory rooms; an observatory; a gymnasium; a plant house; a president’s house; five professors’ houses; total cost of buildings, $1,044,365; vols. in library, 30,000; laboratory equipment, $33,382; acres, 200; music and art depts., but technical work in neither counted toward bachelor’s degree; tuition fee, $100; lowest charge, tuition, board and residence, including washing, $400.
Wellesley college, Wellesley, Massachusetts—Founder, Henry F. Durant; intention, “to found a college for the glory of God by the education and culture of women,” opened 1875; preparatory department dropped, 1880; requirement from students of one hour daily domestic or clerical work dropped, 1896; presidents, five (all women); 69 instructors (13 Ph. D.s.)—64 women, 16, apart from laboratory assistants without first degree; 5 men; 611 undergrad. s., 25 grad. s., 21 special s.; productive funds, $7,000;[[23]] a main building with library lecture rooms and accommodation for 250 students; a chemical laboratory; an observatory; a chapel; an art building; a music building; 8 halls of residence, accommodating 348 students (new hall being built); total cost of buildings, $1,106,500; vols, in library, 49,970; laboratory equipment, $50,000; acres, 410; music and art depts., but technical work in neither counted toward bachelor’s degree; tuition fee, $175; lowest charge, tuition, board and residence (beds made, rooms dusted by students), $400.
Smith college, Northampton, Massachusetts—Founder, Sophia Smith; intention, to provide “means and facilities for education equal to those which are afforded in our colleges for young men;” opened, 1875; no preparatory department ever connected with the college; president, one (man); 49 instructors (13 Ph. D.s.)—27 women, 9 without first degree; 12 men; 1,070 undergrad. s., 4 grad. s.; since 1891 no special s. admitted; productive funds, $900,000; two lecture buildings; a lecture and gymnastic building; a science building; a chemical laboratory; an observatory; a gymnasium; a plant house; a music building; an art building; 13 halls of residence accommodating 520 students; a president’s house; total cost of buildings $786,000; vols, in library, 8,000 (70,000 vols. in library in Northampton also used by the students); laboratory equipment, $22,500; acres, 40; music and art depts., technical work in both, amounting to between one-sixth and one-seventh of the hours required for a degree, may be counted toward bachelor’s degree; tuition fee, $100; lowest charge, tuition, board and residence (beds made, rooms dusted by students), $400.
Bryn Mawr college, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania—Founder, Joseph W. Taylor; intention, to provide “an institution of learning for the advanced education of women which should afford them all the advantages of a college education which are so freely offered to young men;” opened, 1885; no preparatory department ever connected with the college; presidents, two (one man, one woman); 38 instructors (29 Ph. D.s. 1 D. Sc.)—15 women, 23 men; 269 undergrad, s., 61 grad. s., 9 hearers; productive funds, $1,000,000; a lecture and library building; a science building; a gymnasium; an infirmary; five halls of residence and two cottages, accommodating 323 students; a president’s house; 6 professors’ houses; total cost, $718,810; vols. in library, 32,000; laboratory equipment, $47,998; acres, 50; no music department; no technical instruction in art; tuition fee, $125; lowest charge, tuition, board and residence, $400.