St Hildas just went co-ed

[bunn]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5870398,00.html

Dunno if I think that is good thing or bad thing. Just thing, probably.

It was nice of them to email everyone to tell us though.

Comments

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

I think it's a bad thing. In almost any other context reducing choice and diversity would be regarded as unwholesome.

I think it would be good to have at least two single-sex colleges, one of each, so people who want to be in that sort of environment have the opportunity to be so.

The academic record argument just seems to be silly. So far as I can tell it's along the lines of "we get some of the weaker students, so our record isn't good, so the stronger candidates don't want to come". Well so what? If one assumes that you'll have pretty much the same few thousand students coming, what does it matter if the spread of intellect isn't the same among different colleges? Everyone still gets the same education anyway: pulling stronger candidates to St Hilda's would only pull them out of the other colleges, to no net benefit either to the students or the University. It's not as if a 2:1 from St Hilda's isn't as good as one from Merton (in the way that, for example, ones from Notapolyanymore University might be regarded as less valuable).

Not that I ever perceived any particular trends among members of colleges anyway, except in colours of scarf.

I was going to say it's as absurd as going male-only in order to get better results on the rugby field, but then that's probably not outside the realms of possibility either.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

It's a good point, but the fact that many people had a choice of a single sex college or no Oxford place is - not ideal, and the poor college did always seem to be ekeing things out from candle-ends and straw.

Personally I chose it as my first preference, but I felt a bit daft when I got there and found that most people regarded it as a second-best fallback option.

One would have thought there might be other ways to resolve that though.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

In almost any other context reducing choice and diversity would be regarded as unwholesome.

I don't think this is true. "Diversity" currently means that we should all be free to live our own lifestyle, and also must happily embrace and support other people's choices. However, free choice is only allowed if it embraces diversity. You aren't allowed to choose to set up a "no black people allowed" golf club, or a "no gays allowed" restaurant, for example.

There are far fewer single sex institutions than there used to, because they've been got rid of in the name of diversity and equality. Men-only clubs are pressured to let women in. Boy scout groups now seem to have more girls in them than boys. Interestingly, though, it doesn't go the other way as often. Boys don't join the Brownies; men don't clamour to get into the WI. Women-only Colleges have lasted decades longer than the all-male ones did.

(I'm not saying that I think all the above is correct and right; it's just my perception of how things are.)


As for choosing a College on the basis of academic performance... How many people actually do this? I chose Merton because it was old, pretty, small, and did good food. I told them so at interview, too.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

As for choosing a College on the basis of academic performance

I'm not sure there is any need to - not in History, anyway. I think I only took one option that was actually taught by tutors at my own college in my whole degree.

My Mum recently went on holiday to Croatia with the WI (male and female!), and had a whale of a time. She resisted them for many years because of their jam-making image, but I think now she has given in she's thinking she should have joined years back.