Going Coed: Women's Experiences in Formerly Men's Colleges and Universities, 1950-2000 (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Going Coed: Women’s Experiences in Formerly Men’s Colleges and Universities, 1950–2000 Linda Eisenmann (bio) Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susan L. Poulson (Eds.). Going Coed: Women’s Experiences in Formerly Men’s Colleges and Universities, 1950–2000. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2004. 392 pp. Paper: $29.95. ISBN 0-8265-1449-9. Early in the preface to their interesting collection, Going Coed, editors Leslie Miller-Bernal and Susan Poulson deconstruct the word "coed." Noting that the prefix "co-" simply means "with, together, or joint," the editors argue that either women or men could be "coeds" as joint partners in collegiate education. However, since the mid-19th century, the term has always referred to a female student, defined by Miller-Bernal and Poulson as "a young woman being educated at the same institution with young men" (p. x). The editors explain—rightly—that this use of the term diminishes the role and place of women in higher education, "perpetuating the concept of relational otherness" (p. x). Whenever women appeared on campuses designed primarily for men, the "representative student" was always male. Women accommodated themselves to a male norm where the normal expectations for curriculum, housing, and social life were built around men's needs. This crisp discussion (only two paragraphs) matches the tone throughout the book. With data and efficient analysis, the editors outline historical issues, raising but never belaboring feminist implications in their findings. This book is well conceived and covers a topic needing historical analysis. Coeducation has been the normative experience of American collegians for more than a century, especially since the rise of state universities. By 1900, 60% of college women studied in coeducational settings, a percentage which grew steadily so that by 1955, three-quarters of institutions served both sexes. That figure persisted until the mid-1960s, reflecting the fact that single-sex institutions like the Ivy League or Seven Sisters institutions dated from earlier eras. As Miller-Bernal and Poulson remind us, however, these well-known schools were not the only sites of single-sex education. Catholics preferred to educate men and women separately, and regional differences sometimes appeared, with the Northeast and South offering more single-sex options than the Midwest and West. The editors recognize that the earlier history of coeducation has been covered by previous scholars. That story has focused on women's access and the idea that access rarely provided equitable education. Miller-Bernal and Poulson aim to complete the story, examining the most recent half-century when some of the country's most prominent schools chose coeducation. Careful organization and wide coverage constitute impressive strengths of this book. Recognizing its usefulness for historians and generalist readers of higher education, the editors offer a historical chapter summarizing women's movement into higher education. Although a reader might ask for greater attention to more recent historical scholarship and less reliance on the editors' previous work, this chapter provides a sound base for the case studies that follow. The section also includes a good chapter on Catholic and historically Black institutions which emphasizes the influences of race, religion, class, and ethnicity on educational choices. Another section notes that some men's schools turned to coeducation prior to the better-known push of the late-1960s. Here, the book provides a strong case study of the University of Rochester's moves among single-sex, coordinate, and coeducational arrangements. Historically Black Lincoln University also chose coeducation in the 1950s; its story is complicated by joining the state university system. The book covers the best-known recent instances of men's colleges admitting women, with chapters on how Yale and Princeton spurred each other's decisions, how Dartmouth brought in women to "civilize" men, and how the University of Virginia relied on its past mission to resist coeducation until the 1970s. But less familiar histories complement these more popular stories, strengthening the historical coverage and analytical reach of Going Coed. Lehigh University, for instance, sought women as a curricular balance to its extant emphasis on technology and engineering. Hamilton College also hoped to provide a missing curriculum emphasis by creating short-lived Kirkland College for women as a more progressive, pedagogically innovative...