A Hostile Gender Offer.

The topic of Wellesley College came up in my last post (“I Wandered like a Tear Gas Cloud” 9/22) and that got me thinking about single-sex education, particularly girls’ schools. This formerly common practice is now rare enough to be considered exotic. I wonder why it exists at all.

Having only been to co-ed schools myself, I turned to to my authority on such matters: Town and Country Magazine. They’re better known, of course, for shining a spotlight on lives undimmed by the financial crisis. Yet, sometimes - between the ads for execrable art and stiffly posed photos of Dr. and Mrs. Bunshaft at their beach wedding in Guatemala - an article appears that is, well, the genuine article. In this case, it’s, “Single-Sex Schools: Let’s Hear It For The Girls.” (1/04) by Diane Guernsey

One reason for single sex education seems to be academic necessity. Ms. Guernsey claims that, “Girls are called on, and speak up, less often than boys; they emerge from middle school with their interest in math and science dampened, if not demolished; their high school grades are often higher than boys’, but they tend to score lower on the high stakes test that influence college admissions.” I won’t dispute any of that, but it raises two questions. First, when is the damage done? The allusion to middle school suggests that all-girl high schools and women’s colleges may be closing the barn door after the mare has escaped. Second, is it gender related? After all, the same could be said of shy boys.

The author also claims that girls’ schools “Offer a unique in-depth knowledge of girls’ particular learning styles and how to make the most of them.” I’m sure that’s true, too, but it’s true across the board. The best co-ed schools are also distinguished by close, personal attention to the learning styles of their students. Yet, according to JoAnn Deak, a psychologist, even these elite institutions are compromised. “The mere presence of boys has a repressive effect.” If that is true, then it points to a more fundamental social evil than educational inequity. One that, like racism, is only perpetuated by segregation.

What concerns me most are the purported psychological benefits of going to a girls’ school. Greater self-confidence, for instance. Ms. Guernsey states, “The absence of boys means girls hold every leadership post, from editor of the newspaper to school president.” What happens when these girls enter a world filled with boys and men or, shudder, men who act like boys? Some will succeed and that’s fine, but some will be disillusioned and that’s unfair. It’s not the sleepwalking I object to, it’s the rude awakening.

The parents of these students are engaging in a bit of sleepwalking, too. They are hoping that the right school will keep their daughters pure and innocent. Not that I blame them. Everyone wants their children to remain children for as long as possible. Single-sex, however, doesn’t mean no sex. At least, if the movie, Caged Heat, is to be believed. Granted, that was about a women’s prison, but the principle is the same. It doesn’t mean no boys, either. Ironically, the social life at these schools consists largely of dances where girls are judged exclusively (even brutally) on their looks. Travel to and from these ordeals is usually by car and not always unaccompanied by alcohol. Even if someone succeeded in sheltering their daughter through high school and college, two outcomes are likely: the young woman will either try to make up for lost time or, like people who were deprived of television and popular music in their youth, always wear a slightly puzzled expression when someone mentions The Man From U.N.C.L.E. or The Dave Clark Five.

Do girls’ schools, therefore, have any reason to exist? Yes, but like a wedding, it’s more about the parents than the daughter. From her point of view, it’s like being a bridesmaid. You don’t regret buying the dress, but it’s not something that you would ever choose for yourself.