Safe Zones Are they havens or isolation chambers?

[kvnchrist]

 

The 30% Businessweek link actually just goes to a womens college application help site and the other relevant link just goes to a blank page

 

Sigh... Learn to Internet. I found the original source inside of two minutes. As for the rest of you, I've given proof. I've requested contrary evidence from any of you, and you've failed to provide it. Instead, you're just restating the same false assumption over and over again, and giving each other high-fives after each iteration.

 

 

First. Please don't degrade others, especially when all you give is a link. We don't need to degrade this into something it need not become.

 

 

Secondly, Could you please show me the post where you claim to have given evidence. All that I've seen is an assuption and that is far from what I call evidence.

[Marxist ßastard]

Can you even read?

[HeyYou]

You used the huffington post as your 'evidence', and you expect us to accept it? That's pretty funny.

[kvnchrist]

Can you even read?

I asked you to treat people the way they treat you. I asked you a question and this is how you respond. I have left it up to the staff to see if your responce is appropriate.

 

I would like to continue discussing things with you, but that is up to you, since you are the only one here who have been unnesesrarily rude.

[Lisnpuppy]

My argument is that they are far more successful in male-dominated fields than women who went to co-ed schools. That brief respite from sexism gave them better ability to deal with it.

Your argument is an inherent logical fallacy as the point you raise about women in women's colleges and their ability to perform vs males in their respective fields has really nothing to do with the original issue (and just because you can play seven degrees of Kevin Bacon with it really doesn't make it work.). I think you have a straw man argument going on this one. I am sure you will disagree to the extreme.

 

Now I meant my post to be anecdotal as I know it has no "facts" in it. However the already hostile turn this topic has taken has given me stomach pains and I will take my leave at this time.

[Harbringe]

 

The 30% Businessweek link actually just goes to a womens college application help site and the other relevant link just goes to a blank page

 

Sigh... Learn to Internet. I found the original source inside of two minutes. As for the rest of you, I've given proof. I've requested contrary evidence from any of you, and you've failed to provide it. Instead, you're just restating the same false assumption over and over again, and giving each other high-fives after each iteration.

 

 

No again this is incorrect.

 

You made the claim of women who had attended womens colleges of being hugely over - represented in fields such as politics or the corporate world and it was linked to the Huffington Post article . I show how the links are not what they say they are and you fault me for not finding the original source for a article you provided , like its up to me to do Huffington's Post's research for them. So lets see what this original source is.

 

This is its title.

 

Women Students at Coeducational and Women's Colleges : How do their Experience's Compare.

So does this study affirm the 30% Businessweek claim . No it doesn't , because its not even about that. Its a study purely about comparing College of women/mixed experiences of its students . It in no way corroborates a claim that womens colleges is resulting in more of them entering politics or the corporate world , in fact its not even speaking to that . Its literally a study on the experiences and feelings of students who attended womens colleges vs those who attended mixed colleges , put out by Project Muse a pro womens advocacy group.

There is no evidence provided in that study that attending womens only colleges is resulting in increases in women getting into political/corporate fields , none whatsoever . Its a promotional study of like minded individuals.

This is yet again an example of self narrative safe space hive mind thinking . Make a claim and conflate a result and dont even question it. Just read the study and anyone can see it has nothing to do with the 30% Businessweek claim.

[Marxist ßastard]

Could you possibly learn to read beyond the first sentence of anything I link? It says right on page 160 (of that volume of Journal of College Student Development):

 

 

 

The results of this study also show that women’s colleges seem to foster an environment that fuels women’s understanding of self and others. That is, students at women’s colleges report greater gains in self-understanding, including learning effectively on one’s own and working effectively with others, than women at coeducational institutions. These skills, which are typically associated with career success and leadership, reveal some of the conditions that contribute to the high production of leaders from women’s colleges (e.g., graduates of women’s colleges constitute more than 20% of women in Congress and are 30% of a Business Week list of rising women stars in corporate America). Women’s colleges also appear to create conditions that support women’s development of quantitative skills, and these gains are particularly significant for science and math majors. This is contrasted with studies that show that women generally report relatively low gains in quantitative skills in college (see Davis et al., 1996).

[Aurielius]

 

Could you possibly learn to read beyond the first sentence of anything I link? It says right on page 160 (of that volume of Journal of College Student Development):

 

 

 

The results of this study also show that women’s colleges seem to foster an environment that fuels women’s understanding of self and others. That is, students at women’s colleges report greater gains in self-understanding, including learning effectively on one’s own and working effectively with others, than women at coeducational institutions. These skills, which are typically associated with career success and leadership, reveal some of the conditions that contribute to the high production of leaders from women’s colleges (e.g., graduates of women’s colleges constitute more than 20% of women in Congress and are 30% of a Business Week list of rising women stars in corporate America). Women’s colleges also appear to create conditions that support women’s development of quantitative skills, and these gains are particularly significant for science and math majors. This is contrasted with studies that show that women generally report relatively low gains in quantitative skills in college (see Davis et al., 1996).

 

Just curious why you could not just post the above with a link to the original source instead of requiring someone to read fifteen pages to get to the relevant passage that supports your contention? Given that you just linked instead of going to the trouble of actually copying and pasting don't you think implying intellectual laziness is a bit of pot / kettle / black?

This is still a seven degrees of Bacon argument to expand the original political safe zone debate into one extolling the virtues of single sex institutions., vaguely related..yes....relevant..no.

[kvnchrist]

 

Could you possibly learn to read beyond the first sentence of anything I link? It says right on page 160 (of that volume of Journal of College Student Development):

 

 

 

The results of this study also show that women’s colleges seem to foster an environment that fuels women’s understanding of self and others. That is, students at women’s colleges report greater gains in self-understanding, including learning effectively on one’s own and working effectively with others, than women at coeducational institutions. These skills, which are typically associated with career success and leadership, reveal some of the conditions that contribute to the high production of leaders from women’s colleges (e.g., graduates of women’s colleges constitute more than 20% of women in Congress and are 30% of a Business Week list of rising women stars in corporate America). Women’s colleges also appear to create conditions that support women’s development of quantitative skills, and these gains are particularly significant for science and math majors. This is contrasted with studies that show that women generally report relatively low gains in quantitative skills in college (see Davis et al., 1996).

 

I'm very sorry you could not keep to the original topic and then ejected people wishing to discuss the issue with you by your attitude.in dealing with people.

[Harbringe]

 

Could you possibly learn to read beyond the first sentence of anything I link? It says right on page 160 (of that volume of Journal of College Student Development):

 

 

 

The results of this study also show that women’s colleges seem to foster an environment that fuels women’s understanding of self and others. That is, students at women’s colleges report greater gains in self-understanding, including learning effectively on one’s own and working effectively with others, than women at coeducational institutions. These skills, which are typically associated with career success and leadership, reveal some of the conditions that contribute to the high production of leaders from women’s colleges (e.g., graduates of women’s colleges constitute more than 20% of women in Congress and are 30% of a Business Week list of rising women stars in corporate America). Women’s colleges also appear to create conditions that support women’s development of quantitative skills, and these gains are particularly significant for science and math majors. This is contrasted with studies that show that women generally report relatively low gains in quantitative skills in college (see Davis et al., 1996).

 

 

I did read that , but with 80% of women in Congress not being from womens colleges and 70% of the Business Weeks list (and remember someone selected that list and its not representative of all women in business) also not being from womens colleges , I didn't think it was making the relevant point you were making. Which was that sexism and its enviromental removal was a defining factor . Also the study isn't about the actual Business Weeks list , so we will never know if those women only got their degree's from womens colleges , did they go on to post graduate studies , did they go further on and get a doctorate . And given that most colleges be they mixed or solely womens only offer undergraduate/graduate studies and that if you further your studies your likely going to a mixed college/university. Its a pretty weak correlation they are making and its vastly just a feel good study on how good it is to go to a solely womens college based largely on the experiences and feelings. If Huffington Post is gonna use Business Weeks list on actual women at least provide data on those actual women so I can ascertain if their claims are true , dont flip me off into something else and claim thats evidence . Seriously there were 3 relevant links provided in Huff piece , one was blank , one was disputing their claim and the Business Week list , leads to womens college site, which you correct , yet in the correction there is no actual correlation to the women in the business week list , nothing , just a study by an advocacy group making a claim. Thats dishonest journalism. I expected to get a list of those women citing their credentials (including anything beyond their womens only college) , maybe some quotes from them and instead I am eventually (by you) misdirected off into an advocacy study and I am just supposed to believe.

 

Lets be real they are making a assertion between today and a study done in 1996 , well there has been lots of changes since then , better teaching methods , societal attitudinal change to women and biggest of all a demographic change , in 1996 61.1% of college students were male (this is entry to post graduate studies) , it went roughly 50/50 in 2003 and today its roughly 60/40 female , thats a huge shift , thats millions of more women going to college than men. This to me would be far more indicative of why women are rising in any field , if there is more of them its just more likely they will end up in those roles. I have no doubt womens only colleges would provide a more focused study enviroment (just like all male military colleges) but sexism is a weak argument. Its just a claim and a conflation.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Harbringe