Women Did It Better: Higher Education

By Blythe Gifford

I'm going to approach this subject in a roundabout way. Instead of starting with something that women have done better, I'm going to start with something they were originally not allowed to do at all: go to college.

For most of recorded history, women were excluded from institutions of "higher learning." And when I say excluded, I mean that in the strictest sense. At Cambridge in the 14th century, for example, it was forbidden for a female laundress to even enter the hostels where the young scholars lived. A female student couldn't even be imagined.

The reasons for putting the "No Girls Allowed" sign on the tree house were, on the surface, "logical." The medieval explanation, as Thomas Aquinas stated it, was that women were "deficient," and needed to be ruled by men, who were rational. This was all part of God's plan, particularly at Cambridge, which I researched for IN THE MASTER'S BED. Cambridge did not confer its first degrees on women until 1948.

Nearly 600 years later, little had changed. In the mid-19th century, women-only institutions were created because women were still kept out of the "men-only" schools. The first women allowed to study beside men at a four-year, American college attended Oberlin in Ohio, graduating in 1841. In Britain it wasn't until 1880 that the first women were awarded degrees from a coeducational institution (the University of London), although women were allowed to study at Queen's College as early as 1848.

But even then, "everyone knew" that women were unsuited by nature for the physical and mental rigors of the higher forms of learning. A few unusual women might have been allowed to attend college, but medical school, law school and the like continued to be off limits. By then the reasons were attributed to science, not the Almighty, but the rationale was much the same. Women had measurably smaller brains. Their reproductive organs would draw away blood from the brain, rendering their mental faculties incapable of processing academic information. Not their fault, of course. They were simply, physically incapable of understanding such complex material.

While this may seem like ancient history, it was only within the last 30 years that there was any requirement that men and women be treated equally in higher education. We think of Title IX, passed in 1972, as requiring girls to have the opportunity to play sports, but the language of the act is much broader. Now called the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, it says "No person...shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

What's been the result of this? The number of women in all levels of higher education has grown by leaps and bounds. In 1972, women earned 7% of law degrees and 9% of medical degrees. In 2001, women earned 47% of law degrees and 43% of medical degrees. And in 2006, women earned 58% of the bachelor's degrees and 60% of the master's degrees. Not only do women earn the majority of bachelors and masters degrees, recurring reports indicate that women maintain higher grade point averages than men. (Truman College, for example, reported in 2002 a consistent gap, which that year was between a 2.87 GPA for male freshmen and. a 3.19 GPA for female freshmen.)

We can put forward many arguments as to why women are, arguably, more successful than men in higher education. Explanations have ranged from the earlier onset of maturity in women to a male tendency to party more. (I do not cast aspersions on our brothers. I simply report a hypothesis.) Once again, we look to science for answers. And today's science has discovered that women's brains are larger than men's when it comes to the area governing the verbal skills so helpful to success in the classroom.

Will this look any more rationale in hindsight than the arguments of the 19th and 14th centuries? We'll see. But for now, it appears that women do higher education better.
Makes you wonder if we were excluded all those years because someone had a sneaking suspicion this might happen.

Literature & Education: One-Room Schoolhouses

By Jacquie Rogers

One-room schoolhouses were the norm in 19th Century America, especially in the rural areas. In the West, they lingered on for many decades more, into the mid-20th Century. A one-room school in the area where I grew up closed in the late 1950s, and I remember that even years later, many residents mourned its closing.

Why were one-room schoolhouses so successful?

In a word: efficiency. All the children attended one school, so the townspeople could put their expendable resources into a single source of education. The building was generally used for other purposes as well, such as town council meetings, court room proceedings, and sometimes church services. This concentration of resources enabled a small town to offer much more in the way of civic services than would otherwise be possible.

How did these schools operate?

In some districts, a trustee was appointed. His job was to hire the schoolteacher, acquire supplies, keep the building in good repair, and oversee any contentious situations. Other district elected a school board to do these jobs.

Students numbered from five to 50. One schoolteacher could handle many children because older children mentored the younger children. While the schoolteacher was working with one grade, the other students were studying, usually together. And of course the older students learned well since they also taught the lessons.

Children also did chores--cleaning the blackboard, sweeping, hauling in wood, and all the general duties required to keep a building in operation. Many times, a chore was an award for a job well done.

Most schoolteachers were female, young, single, and well-spoken, which meant they attracted young men. The trustee never knew if one of the young farmers would steal their schoolmarm out from under their noses. It happened. A lot. A this is probably why rules for schoolteachers came about.

Not all schools used these rules, but I did find them associated with schools on the East and West Coasts, and all the way through the Midwest. From New Hampshire Historical Society:

Rules for Teachers

--You will not marry during the term of your contract.
--You are not to keep company with men.
--You must be home between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless attending a school function.
--You may not loiter downtown in ice cream stores.
--You may not travel beyond city limits unless you have the permission of the chairman of the board.
--You may not ride in a carriage or automobile with any man unless he is your father or brother.
--You may not smoke cigarettes.
--You may not dress in bright colors.
--You may under no circumstances dye your hair.
--You must wear at least two petticoats.
--Your dresses must not be any shorter than two inches above the ankle.
--To keep the school room neat and clean, you must:

sweep the floor at least once daily; scrub the floor at least once a week with hot, soapy water; clean the blackboards at least once a day; start the fire at 7 a.m. so the room will be warm by 8 a.m

I wonder who was in charge if checking her petticoats.

Have a great day!

Jacquie



Myspace *** Bebo *** Faery World

Faery Special Romances *** See the book video
Royalties go to Children's Tumor Foundation, ending Neurofibromatosis through Research

Available Now: Down Home Ever Lovin' Mule Blues

Professions: School Days

Carol A. Spradling

Not so long ago, wealthy households hired private tutors to teach their sons a variety of disciplines. This luxury was intentionally not afforded to their daughters. After all, a highly educated woman was thought an oddity. As unfair as this may sound, girls were not completely overlooked. To help females establish marriage-material status, governesses tutored females in reading and writing as well as various household duties. These were the only skills deemed necessary to allow a woman to maintain her husband’s household. Anything past this basic education was considered of no use.

Business enterprises were an important means to advance a family's social standings in the community. This training began at an early age and in order to advance the family, a young man with means was expected to expand more than his mind and succeed beyond rudimentary occupations. To help in this endeavor, the names of private schoolmasters seeking employment could be found in local papers. Their services offered everything from math, to navigation, to foreign languages. In exchange for these services, parents would provide for the teacher’s material needs. A competent instructor could provide a nice living for his own family.

Middle class families could not afford to educate their daughters in even rudimentary knowledge, and lower classes gave no distinction between educating either sex. Instead of formal education, lessons began with their mother and ended with their father in the fields or barn. These methods were effective enough for what they offered, but generally meant the student had limited resource and little to no interaction with other children outside of siblings.

Socialized education, a predecessor to modern daycare, was dame schools. These schools offered basic education to both boys and girls. Numbers, writing, and basic reading skills were taught by a local woman while she went about her daily routine. Enough comprehension was offered to enable a boy to enter a town school with ease. Since girls were generally barred from town schools, they continued their education with needed skills such as social etiquette, music, needlework, cooking, and nursing.

Although lacking a family, orphans were not overlooked. Apprenticeships not only taught a trade but also included reading and writing as part of the training. Trade-skills in exchange for room and board were deemed a fair exchange.

Since dame schools, tutors, and apprenticeships were limited in the number of students who could benefit from instruction, public schools became a necessity. This usually occurred when a township reached a population of fifty families. Secondary schools were mandated when populations grew to one hundred or more. These community services were not to be provided by the educator for gratis. Funds for a school and teacher were to be guaranteed through private or public monies.

Providing for a teacher was not seen as burdensome since teachers held status among the community. Teachers and clergy were generally more educated than the rest of society and were expected to adhere to a high moral character. Local townsfolk kept careful watch that they did just that. The town got a bargain when hiring a teacher. In addition to scholarly duties, teachers cleaned the school and conducted church responsibilities, even substituting for the minister when necessary.

Whether knowledge was learned from a paid tutor, behind a plow, or in a one-room classroom, teachers provided needed tools to shape families and communities. In return, the next generation was able to continue traditions and change the future.