The GENDER GAP IN educational opportunity in HIGHER EDUCATION

By

Cheryl A. Dugas

Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology

Indiana State University

Introduction – Current Issue

It seems there has always been a gender gap in educational opportunity. The earliest schools were created for the education of males only. Although there is evidence of literate females in the Middle Ages (Lucas, p. 39), they were a small minority. In post medieval Italy, “upper and middle class families were inclined to seek much the same education for their daughters as for their sons” (Lucas, p. 75), but again this is notable largely because of its being so unusual. So, when the New World, later to become the United States of America, was settled, it is no wonder that educational opportunity was still considered more important for males than for females. In fact, puritan culture regarded women as evil, and intellectually inferior to men (Palmieri, p. 174). The purpose of higher education at the time was to prepare its students to become ministers, an occupation available only to males, and so women were excluded. It was not until after the Revolutionary War that the issue of higher education for women was addressed to any significant degree. Progress since then has been much greater, but sporadic, and not great enough to make up for past inequities. Educational opportunities for one half of the population are still inferior to those of the other half. This paper explores the gender gap in educational opportunity in higher education, a gap that has been narrowed over the centuries but that still persists into the twenty-first century. The paper describes women’s opportunities in higher education in the United States from the birth of the nation through the present, and discusses how we might use the lessons learned from this history to close the gender gap that still exists in educational opportunity in higher education today.

Thesis

The number of women enrolled in higher education has grown during the years since the founding of the United States of America. Today, women make up more than half of all undergraduate students in this country. If one looks at only the numbers, one might conclude that the gender gap in educational opportunity no longer exists. However, the numbers are misleading, and do not reflect equity. The 1954 Supreme Court decision, Brown vs. the Board of Education, ruled that “separate but equal” educational opportunity did not constitute equality. This paper argues that “equal but separate” educational opportunity is also not equality. Women appear to have equal access to higher education, but they are still encouraged to follow paths separate from those followed by men. Women continue to be vastly underrepresented in certain fields of study. These are usually those that have been traditionally considered male fields, and that lead to higher-paying careers and more career opportunities. So, like their predecessors, women today are treated differently from their male counterparts. They are encouraged to enter fields traditionally held by women, and discouraged from entering those traditionally held by men.

Post-Revolutionary Period: 1780 -1865

Following the Revolutionary War, there was a great “college rush” as nineteen colleges were established in the new United States of America, more than twice as many as had been created in the past century and a half (Lucas, p. 117). Opportunities for women in higher education, however, were still largely confined to “female seminaries” and “female academies”. These more closely resembled finishing schools than they did colleges. In the post-Revolutionary War period, the attitude toward women changed remarkably. No longer were they considered evil, but were now considered to be pure, moral, and sentimental (Palmieri, p. 174). This era was noted for the emergence of the “cult of true womanhood” (Perkins, p. 1823). This did not enhance women’s chances for educational equality, however, because women were expected to be passive and innocent. These traits did not seem to fit a well-educated woman. However, a conflicting force that wanted women to be models of perfection meant they should be educated, even if they weren’t expected to put their education to productive use. Another factor that helped to improve women’s chances for education was the increased industrialization of the new United States, which made women less needed for help on farms. Women who were educated could “teach, add to the family income, and support themselves until they entered marriage” (Palmieri, p. 175). The common-school movement created a demand for a cheap labor pool of teachers, and women were poised to fill that need. This acceptance of women as teachers was the first time women were viewed as having a role outside of their place as a homemaker, and provided justification for higher education for women.

So women’s colleges began appearing in the United States. The first, the Troy Female Seminary, opened in 1822. The institution “sought to preserve the traditional social and political status of women while challenging the notion of women’s inferior intellectual status” (Perkins, P. 185). That is, it addressed the conflicting ideals of “true womanhood” and feminism. The Wesleyan Female College of Macon, Georgia, in 1836, became the first institution of its type to grant a formal academic degree to its graduates (Lucas, p. 121). Other women’s colleges that opened around that time were the Hartford Female Seminary in 1823, Ipswich Female Seminary in Massachusetts and Judson College in Alabama in1836, Mount Holyoke Female Seminary in New York in 1837, and Mary Sharp College for Women in Tennessee in 1852. The women who chose to attend these all-female schools had a chance to define themselves on their own terms. As in the male colleges, there were two main types of student. The first were the affluent students, who recreated at the all-women schools the same type of societal structure that they enjoyed at home, with its divisions and exclusions (Horowitz, p. 17). The other group consisted of the students who came from humbler backgrounds, and who studied hard in order to succeed and better their lives. These latter students found themselves outside of the mainstream society of the school. Women in all-female schools enjoyed many advantages over those in coeducational schools. They were able to enjoy college life without enduring male hostility. They were able to participate fully in athletics and extracurricular activities, and hold office positions in campus organizations. Unfortunately, there were no positions available to them following graduation at which they could exercise their leadership skills.

Coeducation was a rare phenomenon in this time period. Oberlin College was the first to open its doors to women, in 1833. In 1841 it awarded Bachelor of Arts degrees to three women, all of whom had completed precisely the same course of study as their male peers (Lucas, p. 122). Contrary to the view that coeducation meant equal access for men and women, the lifestyle that women led in early coed colleges like Oberlin recreated their domestic roles at home. The women students were required to do all of the cooking, cleaning, laundry and mending for the men students. Women were educated to become men’s helpmates (Conway, p. 6). In the coeducational schools of this period and the one that followed, women were cast in the role of outsiders (Horowitz, p. 17).

Post-Civil War Period: 1865 – 1890

As is often the case during periods of war, women became much more active outside the home during the Civil War. For instance, many women served as nurses during the war. Historians note that there was a pre-Civil War women’s rights movement, whose effects lingered. But the conventional wisdom still held that women should pursue a limited number of career options, ones that matched their perceived biological role as nurturers. The outcome of more education for women was application of that education within their limited realm of domestic life (Conway, p. 8). Following the war, there was a surplus of women in some places, notably in New England. “In 1873, William Tyler claimed that there were 30,000 more young women than men in the region; he thus welcomed the opening of colleges for women” (Palmieri, p. 175). Many others shared his point of view. At the same time, Vassar’s president, John Raymond, spoke out in support of an emerging point of view that said that women should not have to sit around waiting for a man. He felt that “Women, no less than men, should be provided with the kind of education that promoted independent activity and prepared them for work” (Palmieri, p. 175). This sounds more progressive than it actually was, since even Raymond viewed women as potential helpmates for men rather than equal partners, but it was an improvement over previous attitudes, nonetheless. The movement for women’s higher education during this period has been compared in historical importance to the abolitionist and suffragist movements (Palmieri, p. 176). There were many people opposed to the women’s higher education movement. Most notable among them was Dr. Edward Clarke of Harvard University, who in 1873 published Sex in Education: A fair chance for the Girls. In this book, Clarke claimed that higher education “would damage women’s health and ultimately inhibit their reproductive capacity” (Palmieri, p. 176). So, as in the post-Revolutionary War period, there were two conflicting points of view regarding higher education for women. In the earlier time period, there was conflict between the view that women should not be educated too much, as they should be passive and docile, and the view of uneducated women as frivolous. In the post-Civil War period, the conflicting points of view were that women should have the same educational opportunities as men, versus the view that higher education would damage women’s health and reproductive capacity, making them less valuable to men. Many women refused to take Clarke’s book seriously, and defiantly proved to themselves and to the rest of society that women could be men’s intellectual equals and remain healthy at the same time. It should be noted that “women always had to prove themselves to a suspicious male world” (Palmieri, P. 177), a situation that still existed during the women’s movement of the 1970s, and experienced first-hand by the author of this paper.

In the mid-1800s, women’s colleges were still little more than finishing schools and high schools. The founding of Elmira Female College, which began issuing its own academic degrees in 1859, changed all that (Lucas, p. 155). Elmira Female College set the example for women’s colleges which were on an academic par with men’s colleges, and schools like Mt. Holyoke and Bryn Mawr soon transformed themselves from their less-academic beginnings to full-fledged collegiate institutions. In addition, a new wave of women’s colleges began to appear. Wellesley, Vassar and Smith Colleges all opened in the 1870s, and other women’s colleges followed. Another institution which greatly enhanced women’s access to higher education was the “coordinate” college, separate but affiliated with an established men’s college (Lucas, p. 155). Some of the well-known coordinate colleges that opened at this time were Radcliffe at Harvard, Barnard at Columbia, Newcomb at Tulane, Pembroke at Brown, Jackson at Tufts, and Flora Stone Mather at Western Reserve.

The post-Civil War era also saw an increase in coeducation in American higher education. Many viewed coeducation as going against the natural order of humans. There was fear that it would “coarsen or masculinize young women, even as it made men more effeminate and less aggressive” (Lucas, p. 155). But attitudes were changing, as illustrated by Wisconsin’s governing board, which in 1872 declared, “It is too late, amid the noontime splendors of the nineteenth century, to ignore the claims of women to higher education” (Lucas, p. 156). Land-grant colleges were among the first to become coeducational. Iowa admitted women in 1855, followed by Wisconsin in 1863, then Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, and California. By the mid-1870s, most western colleges admitted women (Lucas, p. 156). The eastern part of the country was slower to change. Although there were more than two dozen coeducational institutions in the mid-Atlantic and southern states, in the northeast – where America’s first colleges were founded – there were not more than a handful. By the 1880s, a third of all U.S. colleges admitted women. Some of these institutions actively worked to attract female applicants. They set up on-campus residence halls and created rules regarding issues such as curfews and male visitors, in order to convince skeptical parents that their daughters would be safe at school. This had the desired effect of increasing the number of middle class women applying to the schools.

This increase in coeducational opportunities available to women did not translate into equal treatment, however. At the University of Wisconsin, women were obliged to stand in the classroom until all the males were seated. And women were commonly barred from extra-curricular activities. Sometimes women were relegated to female-only classes, or were allowed to use facilities such as the library only during certain hours (Lucas, p. 157). Olive Anderson, who graduated from the University of Michigan during this period, described the life of the first coeds in her autobiographical novel An American Girl and Her Four Years in a Boys College. “The title expressed Anderson’s sense that in coming to the university she and her women classmates were treading on male turf” (Horowitz, p. 194).

Progressive Era: 1890 – 1920

During the progressive era, women began to enter the professions of medicine, law, social work, and academe (Palmieri, p. 177). College education for women was much more common, and socially accepted, and the numbers of women in college grew. The growing presence of women in the college scene and in the professions was perceived as a threat by some men, and there came a backlash against college-educated women in the early twentieth century. Where some of the pioneering college-educated women had enjoyed professional success, this was often due to a tolerance of them as an anomaly. College-educated women were viewed as over-achieving exceptions to the rule. College was seen as a place for a few “genius” types, not for the ordinary woman. As their numbers grew, college-educated women were perceived as threatening to the men in the professions, who feared that women would take jobs from men. Women were advised, “You may have the same studies as the men, but you must put them to different use. You are …here for the preparation of marriage and motherhood” (Lucas, p. 158). Thus, college-educated women faced discrimination. Some people bemoaned the large numbers of intelligent women who were not marrying and so not having children, saying that they were committing “race suicide” (Palmieri, p. 177). It was feared that the white, educated race would die out and that the leadership of the country would be left in the hands of the intellectually inferior Central and Eastern European immigrants (Palmieri, p. 178). These factors led to a negative atmosphere for women in higher education at the beginning of the twentieth century.

In coeducational institutions at this time, women were still cast in the role of outsiders. However, “as more affluent and conventional women entered college at the end of the nineteenth century, they found a way to get partly inside: they created the sorority world that allied them with male power on campus” (Horowitz, p. 17). This alliance did not happen automatically, however. At Cornell, for example, fraternity men were forbidden to even speak to a female student on campus, whether she was in a sorority or not (Horowitz, p. 68). But eventually these rules became more relaxed, and sorority women gained additional acceptance when they were sought out as dates for fraternity men. Less affluent women or those women who were most serious about their studies, women who were generally not sorority members, remained as outsiders. Some of these outsiders were rebels, fiercely independent, strong-minded and unconventional (Horowitz, p. 94).

In spite of the negative atmosphere encountered by many female students, women continued to make inroads into higher education. By the turn of the century, nearly three quarters of all institutions of higher education had become coeducational. Women on campus were still vastly outnumbered by men, but progress was being made. By 1920 women made up over forty-seven percent of undergraduate enrollment in American higher education institutions (Lucas, p. 206).

Mid-Twentieth Century: 1920 – 1960

This period was marked by changes in sexual attitude and behavior. No longer did college men ignore the women on campus; now they sought them out as companions and sexual partners. Women on campus no longer felt the need to be non-sexual beings. “As they cut their hair, shortened their skirts, and lit cigarettes, coeds and their sisters in the women’s colleges announced that they were ready for fun” (Horowitz, p. 127). Heterosexual fun and dating were a big part of college life. The sorority’s purpose now included keeping all of its members safe in their relations with males, and properly eligible for marriage (Horowitz, p. 211).

Studies of female students at coeducational institutions in this period found them to be more conservative than their male counterparts. However, at some of the all-female schools, women were becoming quite liberal in thought, and rebellious (Horowitz, p. 215). This disparity continued until after World War II.

During the 1920s, women achieved their highest proportion of the undergraduate population, of doctoral recipients, and of faculty members (Lucas, p. 206). Nearly one third of all college presidents and professors were women. Women made up nearly half of other professional fields. Even at the peak of their participation, women were not treated equally with men, however. They were paid lower salaries and promoted more slowly than their male peers. From 1930 to 1960, the numbers of women in higher education and the professions steadily declined.

Following World War II, as veterans arrived on campuses, there was a renewed focus on marriage, and “ideological pressures mounted on women to return to the home after college” (Horowitz, p. 216). The atmosphere had changed, and women were once again expected to be submissive and to find fulfillment in a domestic calling rather than a professional career. There was a division between the women seeking careers and those following traditional paths. The former became the rebels, and began laying the groundwork for the women’s movement to come (Horowitz, p. 218). Some college women combined marriage and a career. Working wives became more common after World War II. But working wives faced discrimination, being paid less than not only males, but also less than single women.

Late-Twentieth Century: 1960 – 1990

The number of women in higher education, both as students and as faculty, began to rise again in the 1960s. Women began to outnumber men in higher education enrollment (Lucas, p. 231). In 1989, women received 53 percent of all baccalaureate degrees awarded.

The Women’s Movement began around this time. In 1963, Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique, and in 1966 the National Organization for Women was founded. But neither of these had a major impact on the lives and attitudes of college women at the time (Horowitz, p. 242). It took a few more years and the influence of women who were already out of college, before feminism made significant inroads on campus. In the 1970s, more women began to aspire to traditionally male careers such as business executive, physician, and attorney. The numbers of women in business, medical, and law school grew rapidly. They were in direct competition with their male counterparts for opportunities in the fields, which decreased those available to men.

Another outgrowth of the feminist movement of this period was the emergence of women’s studies programs as part of higher education curricula. These programs were seen as a challenge to the “male hegemony” over the curricula (Lucas, p. 246). But, despite their proliferation in higher education, they are still seen as marginal, and outside of the academic mainstream (Lucas, p. 246). This led to a change in emphasis from women’s studies as a separate curriculum to the integration of women’s issues into mainstream courses. This was viewed as a better way to expose more students to gender issues (Lucas, p. 247).

Sororities of this era found their purpose changing as well. Although they still served a social purpose, they now also provided leadership skills and an “old-girl network” valuable for future careers (Horowitz, p. 279). Many sororities placed more of an emphasis on academic success as well.

Summary of Findings

The number of women enrolled in higher education in the United States has increased dramatically over the years. In the colonial era, before the United States was an independent nation, higher education was reserved for men who were being prepared for the ministry. Later, a few women began to enroll, and their numbers gradually increased over the years. Women represented 21 percent of the undergraduates in 1870, 32 percent in 1880, 40 percent in 1910, and 47 percent in 1920 (Horowitz, p. 206). Although there were women who entered traditional male fields such as science, medicine, and law, these women were generally regarded as different from “normal” females, as exceptions to the rule. Women were not encouraged to enter traditional male fields. On the contrary, they were usually encouraged to enter traditional female fields such as nursing or teaching, fields that were deemed as more appropriate to the nurturing disposition of females. In the nineteenth century, women at coeducational institutions were treated differently than their male counterparts. They were excluded from extracurricular activities, and in some schools they were required to do domestic chores like laundry and cleaning for the males. Women in all-female schools enjoyed more freedom and greater opportunities to participate in school activities. But even there, they were regarded as preparing for a future in a traditional female role or as a helpmate to males. In the twentieth century, women were treated more equitably in college admissions and extracurricular activities. Following the Women’s Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the number of women studying in nontraditional fields increased. But conventional wisdom still held that women should pursue women’s careers and leave the others, like engineering and science, to the men.

Conclusion – Implications for Current Issue

Today, women make up more than half of all undergraduates in the United States. It has been several decades since the passage of Title IX, a law that promises equal opportunity in all programs that receive federal funding. Since that time, women have made great strides in some traditionally male fields, such as medicine and law. But women are still vastly underrepresented in other fields, especially in science and engineering. For example, the number of female undergraduates in computer science peaked in 1984 and has been dropping steadily since then. Yet, many of the best opportunities and highest paying jobs are in computer science. Why is there still a gender gap in educational opportunities for women in higher education? How can we use our knowledge of the history of women in higher education in the United States to remedy this inequity?

Title IX has made it unlikely that overt discrimination, now illegal, is the cause of the inequity. Rather, it is more likely that attitudes and teaching practices are to blame. In computer science, for example, it has been shown that most introductory classes use programming assignments that appeal more to males than to females. In textbooks, pictures of scientists and engineers are more often of males, while pictures of nurses and teachers are more often of females. The message that both males and females receive is: science and engineering are fields for men, and nursing and teaching are fields for women. This appears to be the conventional wisdom held by much of society. The situation today is still very similar to that of fifty, one hundred, or even more years ago.

It is hard to imagine what we can learn from the history of women in higher education that will help to remedy a situation that has changed so slowly over the past 200 years. But perhaps there is something to be learned anyway. For instance, women’s colleges have always provided an environment of freedom and acceptance for women, an environment free from male competition or disdain. Science and engineering programs in those institutions could be expanded, and more effort could be made to attract women – both current and potential students – into those programs. It is important, however, to ensure that these programs are of the same quality as comparable programs in coeducational schools, especially engineering schools. In this way, we will be using history as a means to guide us regarding something to avoid. The example being referred to is that of the early all-women colleges which were little more than finishing schools, and were not on a par with their all-male or coeducational counterparts. This situation must be avoided in science and engineering programs in women’s colleges.

Something else we might learn from in the history of higher education for women is the reason for the creation of specially run housing in coeducational institutions. These housing facilities were created in order to convince parents to send their daughters to their institutions; that is, the residences were a tool used to increase the number of female students. Perhaps schools could work to educate today’s parents about the benefits to their daughters of studying science and engineering. This might work to increase female enrollment in science and engineering at coeducational schools as well as at all-female schools.

It appears that we can learn from history even in situations like the gender gap in educational opportunity in higher education; an inequity that, sadly, persists to this day.

References

Conway, J. K. (1974). Perspectives on the history of women’s education in the United States, History of education quarterly, 14:1, 1-12.

Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus life: Undergraduate cultures from the end of the eighteenth century to the present. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lucas, C. J. (1994). American Higher Education. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

Palmieri, P. A. (1987). From republican motherhood to race suicide: Arguments on the higher education of women in the United States. In Carol Lasser, Ed. Educating men and women together: Coeducation in a changing world. University of Illinois Press.

Perkins, L. M. (1988). The impact of the “cult of true womanhood” on the education of black women. Journal of social science education, 39:3, 183-190.