A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

A Closer Look At Women's Colleges, July 1999

Chapter 3

Research Issues on Women's Colleges

Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel
University of Kansas

Introduction

According to a significant body of literature, women's colleges have demonstrated a positive impact on their women students. Compared to women at coeducational institutions, for example, students at women's colleges are more satisfied with their overall college experience (Astin 1992; Astin 1977; Smith 1990); are more likely to major in non-traditional fields (Bressler and Wendell 1980; Scheye and Gilroy 1994; Sebrechts 1993; Solnick 1995); and express higher levels of self esteem and leadership skills (Astin 1992; Astin 1977; Kim and Alvarez 1995; Riordan 1992; Smith 1990; Smith, Wolf, and Morrison 1995; Whitt 1994; Whitt 1992). In addition, students at women's colleges are more likely to graduate, to have high expectations of themselves, to attend graduate school and to be "successful" in their adult lives (Astin 1992; Astin 1977; Conaty 1989; Ledman et. al 1995; Riordan 1992; Smith 1990; Smith, Wolf and Morrison 1995). Further, studies that examine the baccalaureate origins of women who have achieved some measurable degree of post-baccalaureate success overwhelmingly find that women's colleges graduate disproportionate numbers of successful women (Fuller 1986a, 1986b, 1989a, 1989b; Oates and Williamson 1978; Rice and Hemmings 1988; Sharpe and Fuller 1995; Tidball 1973, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1986, 1989; Tidball and Kistiakowsky 1976). However, there is currently little evidence on the impact of women's colleges on women of color.

What types of institutions demonstrate an ability to produce successful black women graduates? Similar to research on women's colleges, there is a significant body of literature on historically black colleges that demonstrates their ability to facilitate the success of black students (Allen, Epps, and Haniff 1991; Fleming 1984; Green 1989; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities 1991; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). As with the research on women's colleges, studies conclude that historically black colleges have granted undergraduate degrees to disproportionate numbers of blacks who subsequently earned advanced degrees (Brazziel 1983; Fuller 1989b; Payne 1987/1988; Pearson and Pearson 1985; Thompson 1986; Thurgood and Weinman 1991). Unfortunately, these studies on historically black colleges fail to disaggregate data by gender so the impact on women's colleges for black women is unclear.

In contrast to the large number of studies about women's colleges and historically black institutions, there is almost no evidence on which types of institutions facilitate the success of Hispanic women. Recently, however, Solarzano (1995) published an analysis of the baccalaureate origins of doctorates earned by Hispanics and concluded that Hispanic-serving colleges[1] appear to be the major producers of Hispanic social science doctorates. The impact of women's colleges on Hispanic women is obscured by studies that fail to disaggregate by race and gender.

A New Look at Baccalaureate Origins of Successful Women

A recent study conducted by this author attempted to determine the baccalaureate origins of black, white, and Hispanic women who earned doctorates and who were listed in a recent edition of one three reference books, Who's Who in America, Who's Who Among Black Americans, and Who's Who Among Hispanic Americans. The methodology used in this study replicates other baccalaureate origins studies (see Wolf-Wendel 1998).

Results of this study confirm the impact of women's colleges, historically black colleges, and Hispanic-serving colleges in graduating disproportionate numbers of successful women (see Table3-1). Specifically, predominantly white women's colleges graduated a disproportionate number of white women who achieved post-baccalaureate success as compared to comparably selective coeducational institutions. For black women, the results indicate that historically black women's colleges produce the highest proportion of successful graduates, followed by historically black coeducational institutions, followed by predominantly white women's colleges, followed by predominantly white coeducational institutions. This same pattern emerges for successful Hispanic women. That is, Hispanic-serving former women's colleges (there are no longer any Hispanic-serving women's colleges) disproportionally produce the successful Hispanics, followed by a tie between coeducational Hispanic-serving colleges and predominantly white women's colleges; predominantly white coeducational institutions graduate the smallest proportion of successful Hispanics.

Examination of the data in the table reveals little overlap among successful institutions for the different groups of women. For the most part, institutions successful with one group of women are not as successful with other groups. This finding is important given that previous research has concluded that predominantly white women's colleges are the most productive institutions for women who have either earned doctorates, been admitted to medical school, or been listed in a Who's Who book (e.g. Tidball, 1985, 1986, 1989.) Despite the apparent differences between the most productive institutions for each group of women, there is an important similarity. If one examines the lists of most successful institutions for each group, one cannot help noticing that selective, predominantly white, coeducational institutions do not appear. Given that the institutions most credited by the public for "success" are the research universities and the prestigious Ivy League institutions, their absence is notable.

Along with comparing the productivity of various institutional types for the three groups of women, the Wolf-Wendel study also examined which institutional factors were predictive of successful institutions. The results of these analyses for the white women indicate that institutional gender was the best predictor; institutional selectivity, mean enrollment, and institutional control were also significant predictors of the baccalaureate origins of white women. In other words, single-sex, more selective, smaller, private institutions graduated the largest proportions of successful white women. Interestingly, the results of similar analyses conducted for both black women and Hispanics indicated that institutional race and institutional gender, in that order, were consistently the most predictive indicators of success. As with the analyses based on white women, other significant predictors included institutional size and institutional control. In contrast to the results found for white women, however, institutional selectivity was not a significant predictor of institutional success for black women. Further, for the Hispanics, selectivity was a significant negative predictor of institutional success. In other words, for the Hispanics, the more selective the institution, the less likely it was to graduate a large proportion of successful Hispanic alumnae. These findings for ethnic/racial minority women are striking given that institutional selectivity is often equated with institutional success.

Institutional Characteristics Associated with Success

To gain a deeper understanding of the institutional characteristics associated with the success of women's colleges it is helpful to visit some campuses. Through such visits, a researcher can build case studies that allow for in-depth exploration and holistic descriptions that represent people and institutions in their own terms (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Yin 1989). This section of the paper presents a summary derived from qualitative case studies of two women's college campuses – Bryn Mawr College and Bennett College. They were selected as case study sites because they both have a demonstrated record of facilitating the success of their women students and by understanding how members of these campuses see their institution, it becomes easier to see how these places can be institutional models. Although the characteristics of these institutions are not necessarily "typical" of women's colleges, they represent some of the variation among women's colleges.

Bryn Mawr College is a prestigious and resource-rich women's college located in an affluent suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It has a national reputation for attracting bright women who go on to achieve great things. Specifically, Bryn Mawr graduates one of the highest proportions of white women who earned doctorates and who were listed in Who's Who In America. In contrast, Bennett College, located in Greensboro, North Carolina, is one of two historically black women's colleges. Though relatively resource poor and "non-selective" in its admissions criteria, Bennett also graduates high achieving women. In particular, Bennett College was among the most productive institutions in graduating black women who subsequently earned doctorates and who were listed in Who's Who Among Black Americans (Wolf-Wendel 1998).

Four-day site visits were conducted at each of these colleges during the spring of 1994. The visits included approximately 30 hour-long interviews with students, faculty members, alumnae, and administrators. In addition, at each campus the researcher attended campus events, visited residence halls, and interacted informally with a range of campus members. During the formal interviews, participants were asked to describe why they thought their institution was so successful with women students. The formal interviews were tape recorded, transcribed and coded to discover themes. Lessons resulting from the case studies are presented below.

Seven Lessons

There are many lessons that one can learn from visiting such different campuses as Bryn Mawr and Bennett. They were founded for different reasons and serve different populations, yet each of these institutions takes every female student seriously and works to foster her success. A brief examination of the main traits responsible for creating an environment that facilitates the success of students illuminates important differences and similarities between the cases. This analysis also provides an opportunity to make connections between the two cases and the wider literature regarding campus climate.

Lesson 1: Clarify and communicate the mission. The relationship between a strong, focused mission and educational quality has been discussed often in the literature (cf. Astin 1985; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, et. al. 1991). One of the key elements common to both Bryn Mawr and Bennett is the existence of a strong, focused mission. Campus constituents at both schools know the mission and believe in the mission. Members of the Bennett community reiterated the importance of being a college dedicated to serving the needs of African-American women. At Bryn Mawr, there was an emphasis on the importance of the college's focus on educating high-achieving women. The effect of serving a narrowly focused student body was likened to the notion of Virginia Woolf's "room of one's own." Institutional traditions at both colleges symbolically reinforce the idea that students at these colleges are going to be successful. However, it is important to remember that the singular focus on meeting the needs of a particular group of students puts both campuses in an advantageous position compared to many other postsecondary institutions, which have to respond to the needs of a wider range of students.

Lesson 2: Believe students can achieve and hold them to these expectations. High academic expectations are known to be one of the key institutional traits associated with facilitating student success. In Involving Colleges, for example, Kuh, Schuh, and Whitt qualitatively examined how campuses foster student learning and development outside the classroom. They found the presence of faculty members who "assume that all students can learn anything, given the proper circumstances"(284) to be a trait common to successful institutions. Faculty and administrators at Bryn Mawr and Bennett have high expectations of their students, though they enact the trait differently.

Bennett, with its non-selective admissions policies, follows a "value added model" of education that is geared to "bring students from where they are when they enter, to where they should be when they exit." One means of achieving this goal was by repeatedly telling students that they could succeed, that they were capable, and that they could do, or be, anything they wanted to if they just kept trying. At Bryn Mawr, particularly in traditionally male fields, many of the faculty members described a form of high expectations that was quite similar to that found at Bennett. Specifically, Bryn Mawr faculty talked about not giving up on students who were having academic difficulties and reiterated the notion that women are capable of achieving in male dominated fields. However, in other academic areas at Bryn Mawr, high admission standards become inextricably linked to high expectations. Many at Bryn Mawr emphasized the idea that student success is related to how good students are when they enter the institution. Respondents believed that the better the student is when she enters, the more one can expect of her while enrolled, and the more successful she will eventually become. Those interviewed at Bryn Mawr talked about how they treated their students like scholars and colleagues, engaging them in research and other active learning experiences. Institutions that have high expectations of their female students while taking into account students' pre-collegiate experiences are models of ways to take women seriously.

Lesson 3: Make students feel like they matter. Some degree of personal support on a campus is pivotal for student success. Schlossberg's (1989) theory of mattering puts the importance of support into perspective. Mattering, which is measured by student perceptions, occurs when students feel that they are noticed, that what they say or do is important, and that they are appreciated. Though the levels of support differ between Bryn Mawr and Bennett, it is clear that students at both campuses feel that they matter. At both schools the norm is for faculty to take a personal interest in student success –"to get involved in their lives." One-on-one interaction between faculty and students characterized both institutions; faculty promotions and pay raises were connected to faculty working with students. The Involving Colleges (1991) study also talks about the importance of mattering, although they use the term "ethic of care" to describe support given to students. Students at "Involving Colleges" perceive "that faculty care and are interested, responsible and available" (286).

Lesson 4: Provide strong, positive role models to demonstrate unlimited possibilities. Given Tidball's (1973) research demonstrating a connection between women achievers and the ratio of women faculty to women students, it is not surprising that members of both campuses emphasized the importance of role models in explaining their success with students. Both campuses provide environments in which members of underrepresented groups are central and present in diverse roles throughout the institution. Students, alumnae, campus visitors, administrators, support staff and faculty members all were identified as important role models for students. Members of both campuses explained that role models were important because they conveyed to women students the idea that "I can do that too" and created a "visual correlation between image and possibility." In places where "the portraits on the wall are women" success seems inevitable.

Lesson 5: Have enough women on campus to form a critical mass. Respondents at both campuses also mentioned the importance of having a critical mass of students who are similar to one another. Tidball (1983) wrote about the concept of critical mass, explaining it as being "enough to produce a response that is self-generating" (6). She further explained that in higher education the term connotes the "necessity for enough women on a campus to make their presence felt." The benefits of having a critical mass of similar students, according to respondents across the sites, include the following: students don't feel marginalized and in the minority; they feel comfortable and safe; they feel like they have voice; they feel like part of the campus community; and, they feel freer to express differences within the group. While having students of similar backgrounds was said to be important, more specifically, respondents mentioned the critical importance of being surrounded by driven, motivated, talented students. A faculty member at Bryn Mawr, for example, talked about the importance of having a place where intellectual women "find camaraderie and colleagueship of other women who are trying to do the same thing." Similarly, a professor at Bennett stated, "Here, you have a group of students who look like you, who come from similar backgrounds, and who all have the same high achievement goals."

Lesson 6: Provide ample opportunities for students to hold leadership positions. Of all of the factors listed, the area of increased involvement opportunities at women's colleges has been given the most attention in the wider literature. Research by Whitt (1994) and the Involving Colleges study both emphasize how women's colleges provide involvement opportunities for their students. Involvement, as defined by Astin (1977), entails the investment of psychological and physical energy in tasks, people, and activities. Astin's theory of involvement suggests that students learn by being involved. Whitt's case studies of students at three women's colleges identified the ways that women's colleges provide extensive opportunities for women to assume leadership positions. Whitt's research findings echo the situation found at both Bryn Mawr and Bennett. Students at both campuses had a large variety of opportunities to be involved. These opportunities, according to respondents, help students develop strong leadership skills, keep them active in their institutions, and generally facilitate their overall success. At both Bryn Mawr and Bennett, respondents suggested that because they were at a women's college, women were not only expected, but obligated, to hold all of the available leadership positions. As one respondent stated, "If it needs to be done, it's a given that women will do it."

Lesson 7: Include women in the curriculum and educate them about social realities. Though not widely studied, a review of the literature on the impact of diversity initiatives indicates some positive outcomes associated with addressing issues of race, gender, and social class in the curriculum (Appel, Cartwright, Smith, and Wolf 1996). As such, it was not surprising to find that members of both the Bryn Mawr and Bennett campuses mentioned the importance of learning about gender and racial issues in both the formal and informal curriculum. However, respondents at both campuses also emphasized the importance of providing students with a "traditional" curriculum. A faculty member at Bennett College explained that their curriculum is fairly mainstream because "we need to prepare them to know the same material as other students so they can do well on the standardized tests." Nonetheless, members of both campuses emphasized the importance of exposing students to their own history, literature and backgrounds. Women are infused into the curriculum at both institutions, providing students with role models and knowledge about where they come from. This inclusion in the curriculum was also credited with helping students become aware of racism, sexism, and classism faced by those in the "real world." Faculty at both institutions explicitly tried to "equip students with knowledge" to combat social problems such as the glass ceiling, while providing a temporary haven for women to gird themselves to face external realities.

Areas in Need of Further Inquiry

There are a large number of questions that remain unanswered about the types of institutions that have positive effects on women students and more specifically about the characteristics associated with these successful colleges. In particular, there is a need for more case studies that examine, from a qualitative perspective, how different types of women's colleges facilitate the success of their students. For example, compared to Bryn Mawr and Bennett, how alike, or different, are Catholic women's colleges, southern women's colleges, urban women's colleges, etc.? How do institutions with varying resources, both monetary and in terms of student characteristics, create environments that help their students succeed? These questions are important because the research conducted on the impact of women's colleges does not show that only those with resources are successful– there are many women's colleges that graduate successful women without the benefit of ample resources (Wolf-Wendel, Baker, Murphew 1998.)

Given the changes in the market demand for women's colleges, it would be fruitful to explore how the remaining women's colleges have survived without changing their mission to admit men or without "going under." How have women's colleges managed to stay competitive? How are they marketing their institutions and who is attending? In particular, it would be interesting to explore those campuses that are purposefully attracting non-traditional aged students to see the ways in which these campuses are facilitating their success.

Conclusion

The characteristics inherent at both Bryn Mawr and Bennett parallel findings from other sources on the traits connected to successful institutions. High expectations, support, presence of role models, critical mass of high achieving students, opportunities for extracurricular involvement, inclusion of women in the curriculum, and a recognition of the social realities facing women in the "real world," are all traits associated with institutions that facilitate the success of their women students. Bryn Mawr and Bennett carry out these traits in different ways, exemplifying the idea that women's colleges–though they take women seriously–are not all alike. Differences in race, ethnicity, social class, and other experiences influence what students need from their campuses and how campuses should respond.

While separate examinations of the characteristics of each institution are illuminating, it is important to understand that the whole of these institutions is greater than the sum of their parts, and one cannot look at a single element in isolation. Instead, it is the combination of characteristics, the aura of these institutions, which makes them unique and able to facilitate the success of their students. Bryn Mawr and Bennett are only two examples of the many ways that women's colleges take women seriously. Other colleges, in other contexts, have other means by which to facilitate the success of their women students. Nonetheless, institutions like Bryn Mawr and Bennett offer concrete lessons for other colleges to follow.

Table 3-1 — Top 10 institutions for doctoral achievement for women and women graduates in Who's Who, by race/ethnicity

White

   Institution

State

Gender1((1)

Control

Race

Carnegie

Prestige

Mean Size

Total PhD

Ratio

1

Bryn Mawr

PA

Wc

Priv

pw

la1

6

944

381

404

2

Wellesley

MA

Wc

Priv

pw

la1

6

1945

615

316

3

Barnard

NY

Wc

Priv

pw

la1

5

2100

652

311

4

Mt. Holyoke

MA

Wc

Priv

pw

la1

5

1896

522

275

5

Smith

MA

Wc

Priv

pw

la1

5

2518

662

263

6

Swathmore

PA

Coed

Priv

pw

la1

6

1224

294

240

7

Sarah Lawrence

NY

Wch 68

priv

pw

la1

4

817

159

195

8

Vassar

NY

Wch 69

priv

pw

la1

5

2112

411

195

9

Radcliffe

MA

Wch 72

priv

pw

la1

6

1942

376

194

10

Goucher

MD

Wc

priv

pw

la1

3

912

170

186

 

Black

    Institution

State

Gender

Control

Race

Carnegie

Prestige

Mean Size

Total PhD

Ratio

1

Spelman

GA

wc

priv

hbcu

la2

3

1199

109

91

2

Fisk

TN

coed

priv

hbcu

la2

3

1089

85

78

3

Bennett

NC

wc

priv

hbcu

la2

2

578

38

66

4

Tougaloo

MS

coed

priv

hbcu

la2

3

748

34

45

5

Talladega

AL

coed

priv

hbcu

la2

2

552

23

42

6

Hampton

VA

coed

priv

hbcu

comp1

3

2742

96

35

7

Tuskegee

AL

coed

priv

hbcu

comp1

2

2803

93

33

8

Howard

DC

coed

priv

hbcu

res1

3

6915

208

30

9

Lincoln

PA

coed

pub

hbcu

la2

2

1016

24

24

10

Morgan State

MD

coed

pub

hbcu

comp1

2

3919

86

22

 

Hispanic

  Institution

State

Gender

Control

Race

Carnegie

Prestige

Mean Size

Total PhD

Ratio

1

Our Lady of the Lake

TX

Wch 69

priv

hacu

comp2

2

1016

22

22

2

Incarnate Word

TX

Wch 70

priv

hacu

la2

3

1034

14

14

3

Barry

FL

Wch 75

priv

hacu

comp1

3

1383

13

9

4

Barnard

NY

wc

priv

pw

la1

5

2098

18

9

5

U. of Miami

FL

coed

priv

hacu

res1

4

9272

60

6

6

Bryn Mawr

PA

wc

priv

pw

la1

6

944

5

5

7

Texas Woman's U.

TX

wc

pub

pw

dg1

2

4130

21

5

8

Texas A&I

TX

coed

pub

hacu

comp1

2

4922

25

5

9

Pan American

TX

coed

pub

hacu

comp1

1

6196

30

5

10

Pomona

CA

coed

priv

pw

la1

6

1333

6

4

 

White

  Institution

State

Gender

Control

Race

Carnegie

Prestige

Mean Size

Who's Who

Ratio

1

Wellesley

MA

wc

Priv

pw

la1

6

1945

35

18

2

Sarah Lawrence

NY

Wch 68

Priv

pw

la1

4

817

12

15

3

Vassar

NY

Wch 69

Priv

pw

la1

5

2112

30

14

4

Bryn Mawr

PA

wc

Priv

pw

la1

6

944

13

14

5

Radcliffe

MA

Wch 72

Priv

pw

la1

6

1942

24

12

6

Barnard

NY

wc

Priv

pw

la1

5

2100

24

11

7

Smith

MA

wc

Priv

pw

la1

5

2518

26

10

8

Manhattanville

NY

Wch 71

Priv

pw

la1

4

979

9

9

9

Connecticut College

CT

Wch 69

priv

pw

la1

5

1654

15

9

10

Bennington

VT

Wch 78

priv

pw

la1

3

585

5

9

 

Black

  Institution

State

Gender

Control

Race

Carnegie

Prestige

Mean Size

Who's Who

Ratio

1

Fisk

TN

coed

priv

hbcu

la2

3

1089

44

40

2

Bennett

NC

wc

priv

hbcu

la2

2

578

20

35

3

Spelman

GA

wc

priv

hbcu

la2

3

1199

30

25

4

Howard

DC

coed

priv

hbcu

res1

3

6915

131

19

5

Tougaloo

MS

coed

priv

hbcu

la2

3

748

11

15

6

Knoxville

TN

coed

priv

hbcu

la2

3

778

11

14

7

Lincoln

PA

coed

pub

hbcu

la2

2

1016

13

13

8

Stillman

AL

coed

priv

hbcu

la2

3

644

8

12

9

Mills

CA

wc

priv

pw

la1

4

794

9

11

9

Mills

CA

wc

priv

pw

la1

4

794

9

11

10

Talladega

AL

coed

priv

hbcu

la2

3

552

6

11

 

Hispanic

  Institution

State

Gender

Control

Race

Carnegie

Prestige

Mean Size

Who's Who

Ratio

1

Our Lady of the Lake

TX

Wch 69

priv

hacu

comp2

2

1016

10

10

2

Incarnate Word

TX

Wch 70

priv

hacu

la2

3

1034

7

7

3

New Mexico Highlands

NM

coed

pub

hacu

comp2

2

1749

9

5

4

Trinity U.

TX

coed

priv

pw

comp1

4

2362

11

5

5

Barry

FL

Wch 75

priv

hacu

comp1

3

1383

6

4

6

Barnard

NY

wc

priv

pw

la1

5

2098

8

4

7

Texas Women's U.

TX

wc

pub

pw

dg1

2

4130

12

3

8

Texas A&I

TX

coed

pub

hacu

comp1

2

4922

13

3

9

U. of Miami

FL

coed

priv

hacu

res1

4

9272

23

2

10

Pomona

CA

coed

priv

pw

la1

6

1333

3

2

Note: Data in this table represent the top 10 institution that granted undergraduate degrees to women since 1965 who subsequently earned doctorates between 1975 and 1991 or who were listed in the 1992-93 editions of one of three Who's Who reference books. Gender: This designation determined from the Women's College Coalition. wc=women's college, Wch=women's college changed to coed, coed=coeducational institution. Control and Carnegie: These data come from the Classification of Higher Education (1987). Priv=private, pub=public, la 1=Liberal Arts 1, la 2=Liberal Arts 2, comp1= Comprehensive 1, comp2 =Comprehensive 2, res1=Research 1, dg1=Doctoral Granting 1. Race: The designation comes from a list of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Black Issues in Higher Education (1992) and information from the membership list of The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. pw=predominently white institution, hbcu=historically black college or university, hacu=member of Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. Prestige: This is a measure determined by Barron's Profiles of American Colleges (1996) using a 6-point selectivity index ranging from "most selective" (6) to "non-competitive" (1). Mean Size: Data come from a survey conducted by the Federal Office of Civil Rights under the authority of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The survey, conducted every other year since 1966, asks every postsecondary institution to indicate their full-time equivalent enrollment. These figures represent the mean undergraduate enrollments from 1966 to 1988. Total PhD: Data on doctorates earned comes from The Doctorate Records File (DRF) gathered by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. These figures include all women (by race/ethnicity) who earned an undergraduate degree since 1965 and who earned a doctorate between 1975 and 1991. Who's Who: Data on Who's Who comes from the 1992-1993 editions of three reference books Who's Who in America (Marquis, 1992) Who's Who Among Black Americans (Brelin, 1992) and Who's Who Among Hispanic Americans (Unterburger, 1993). The column contains all women listed in these reference books (by race/ethnicity) who earned an undergraduate degree since 1965. Ratio: Computed by the author, these numbers represent the number of doctorates (or Who's Who entrants) divided by the mean enrollment per institution. This figure is then multiplied by 1,000.

Sources: American Council on Education, Guide to Colleges and Universities. Washington D.C.: Author, 1994; Barron's Profiles of American Colleges, New York: Barron's Inc., 1986.; Black Issues in Higher Education, Directory of HBCUs and Other Predominantly Black Colleges and Universities. Black Issues in Higher Education, 1992, 9:3, 68-69.; Brelin, C. (Ed.). Who's Who Among Black Americans, 7th Edition. Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1992; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Classification of Higher Education Institutions. Princeton: Author, 1987; College Entrance Examination Board, The College Handbook, 1993-94, 31st Edition. New York: Author, 1994; Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. Annual Report, 1993. San Antonio: Author, 1993; Marquis, Who's Who in America, 1992-1993, 2nd Edition. Detroit: Gale Research Inc., 1992.


References

Allen, W. R., E. G. Epps, and N. Z. Haniff. 1991. College in Black and White: African American Students in Predominantly White and in Historically Black Public Universities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Appel, M. D. Cartwright, D. G. Smith, and L. E. Wolf-Wendel. 1996. The Impact of Diversity on Students: A Preliminary Review of the Research Literature. Washington: American Association of Colleges and Universities.

Astin, A. W. 1977. Four Critical Years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Astin, A. W. 1985. Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Astin, A. W. 1992. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Brazziel, W. F. 1983. "Baccalaureate College of Origin of Black Doctorate Recipients."  The Journal of Negro Education. 52(2), pp. 102-109.

Bressler, M., and P. Wendel. 1980. "The Sex Composition of Selective Colleges and Gender Differences in Career Aspirations." Journal of Higher Education 51(6), pp. 650-663.

Conaty, J. C. 1989. "College Quality and Future Earnings: Where Should You Send Your Sons and Daughters to College?" Paper presented at the 84th annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Fleming, J. 1984. Blacks in College: A Comparative Study of Students' Success in Black and White Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fuller, C. H. 1986a. An Analysis of Leading Undergraduate Sources of Ph.D.'s, Adjusted For Institutional Size. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Colleges Association.

Fuller, C. H. 1986b. "Ph.D. Recipients: Where Did They Go to College?" Change 18(6), pp. 42-51.

Fuller, C. H. 1989a. Undergraduate Origins of Women and Men 1970-1982 Graduates Who Received Doctorates Between 1970-1986. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Colleges Association.

Fuller, C. H. 1989b. Baccalaureate Sources of 1975-1986 Doctorates Earned by American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic and White Men and Women Who Received Baccalaureate Degrees Between 1975-1982: Total Numbers Adjusted for Institutional Size. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Colleges Association.

Green, M. F. 1989. Minorities on Campus: A Handbook for Enhancing Diversity. Washington: American Council on Education.

Kim, M., and R. Alvarez. 1995. "Women-only Colleges: Some Unanticipated Consequences." The Journal of Higher Education: 66(6), pp. 641-668.

Kuh, G. D., J. H. Schuh, E. J. Whitt, and Associates. 1991. Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Development Outside the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Ledman R. E., et. al 1995. "Successful Women and Women's Colleges: Is There an Intervening Variable?" Sex Roles: Journal of Research 33(7), pp. 489-97.

Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. 1991. Minorities on Campus. Independent Minority Colleges and Universities: National Models of Educational Pluralism. Washington: Author.

Oates, M. J., and S. Williamson. 1978. "Women's Colleges and Women Achievers." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 3, pp. 795-806.

Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. 1991. How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Payne, N. J. 1987/1988. "The Role of Black Colleges in an Expanding Economy." Educational Record Fall/Winter, pp. 104-107.

Pearson, W., and L. C. Pearson. 1985. "Baccalaureate Origins of Black American Scientists: A Cohort Analysis." Journal of Negro Education 54(1), pp. 24-34.

Rice, J. K., and A. Hemmings. 1988. "Women's Colleges and Women Achievers: An Update." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 13(3), pp. 546-559.

Riordan, C. 1992. "Single-and Mixed Gender Colleges for Women: Educational, Attitudinal, and Occupational Outcomes." The Review of Higher Education. 15(3), pp.327-346.

Riordan, C. 1994. "The Value of Attending a Women's College: Education, Occupation and Income Benefits." Journal of Higher Education. 65(4), pp. 486-510.

Scheye, P. A., and F. D. Gilroy. 1994. "Women's Career Efficacy and Educational Environments." Career Development Quarterly. 42, pp. 244-251.

Schlossberg, N. K. 1989. "Marginality and Mattering: Key Issues in Building Community." In Designing Campus Activities to Foster a Sense of Community. New Directions for Student Services, 48, ed. D. C. Roberts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sebrechts, J. S. 1993. "Cultivating Scientists at Women's Colleges." Initiatives 55(2), pp. 45-52.

Sharpe, N. R., and C. H. Fuller. 1995. Baccalaureate Origins of Women Physical Science and Engineering Doctorates: Relationship to Institutional Gender and Science Discipline. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 2, pp. 1-15.

Smith, D. G. 1990. "Women's Colleges and Coed Colleges: Is There a Difference for Women?" Journal of Higher Education. 61(2), pp. 181-197.

Smith, D. G., L. E. Wolf, and D. Morrison. 1995. "Paths to Success: Factors Related to the Impact of Women's Colleges." Journal of Higher Education. 66(3), pp. 245-266.

Solnick, S. J. 1995. "Changes in Women's Majors from Entrance to Graduation at Women's and Coeducational Colleges." Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 48(3), pp. 505-514.

Solorzano, D. G. 1995. "The Baccalaureate Origins of Chicana and Chicano Doctorates in the Social Sciences." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 17(1), pp. 3-32.

Thompson, D. C. 1986. The Black Elite: A Profile of Graduates of UNCF Colleges. New York: Greenwood Press.

Thurgood, D. H., and J. M. Weinman. 1991. Summary Report 1990: Doctorate Recipients From United States Universities. Washington: National Academy Press.

Tidball, M. E. 1973. "Perspective on Academic Women and Affirmative Action." Educational Record 54(1), pp. 130-135.

Tidball, M. E. 1974. "The Search for Talented Women." Change, 6(4), pp. 51-52, 64.

Tidball, M. E. 1976. "Of Men and Research: The Dominant Themes in American Higher Education Include Neither Teaching nor Women." Journal of Higher Education 47(4), pp. 373-389.

Tidball, M. E. 1980. "Women's Colleges and Women Achievers Revisited." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 5(3), pp. 504-517.

Tidball, M. E. 1983. "The Ideal Gas, a Critical Mass, and Homeostasis." Women's Studies Quarterly 11, pp. 2, 5-7.

Tidball, M. E. 1985. "Baccalaureate Origins of Entrants into American Medical Schools." Journal of Higher Education. 56(4), pp. 385-402.

Tidball, M. E. 1986. "Baccalaureate Origins of Recent Natural Science Doctorates." Journal of Higher Education. 57(6), pp. 606-620.

Tidball, M. E. 1989. "Women's Colleges: Exceptional Conditions, Not Exceptional Talent, Produce High Achievers." In Educating the Majority: Women Challenge Tradition in Higher Education, ed. C. Pearson, D. Shavlik, and J. Touchton. New York: American Council on Education/ Macmillan Series on Education.

Tidball, M. E., and V. Kistiakowsky. 1976. "Baccalaureate Origins of American Scientists and Scholars." Science. 193, pp. 646-652.

Whitt, E. J. 1992. "Taking Women Seriously: Lessons for Coeducational Institutions from Women's Colleges." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Minneapolis, MN.

Whitt, E. J. 1994. "I Can Be Anything! Student Leadership in Three Women's Colleges." Journal of College Student Development. 35, pp. 198-207.

Wolf-Wendel, L. E. 1988. "Models of Excellence: The Baccalaureate Origins of Successful African-American, European-American and Hispanic Women." The Journal of Higher Education. 69(2), pp. 144-172.

Wolf-Wendel, L.E., Baker, B.D., and C. Murphew. 1998. "Dollars and Sense: Resources and the Baccalaureate Origins of Women Doctorates." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL.

Yin, R. K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Notes

1 Hispanic-serving colleges are defined through their membership in the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), an association representing post-secondary institutions in the United States in which Latino students represent at least 35 percent of the total student enrollment. In 1990, there were 28 baccalaureate-granting Hispanic-serving institutions located in the United States. These institutions enrolled 9 percent of the Latino students attending 4-year colleges and universities in the continental United States (Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 1993).


-###-


[Chapter 2 - Who Attends a Women's College Today and Why She Should] [Table of Contents] [Chapter 4 - Diversity and Women?s Colleges]