• Home
  • About Mr. Robertson
  • Services
  • College Blog
    • GR Blog
    • Student Blog
  • Testimonials
  • Links
  • Contact
blog

God Girl and Women’s Colleges

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

For her birthday last week, I took my wife to see a play running at St. Paul’s History Theatre, housed in the McNally Smith College of Music, entitled God Girl.

My wife loved the play, even though this was a classic example of a Garth gift – something that I believe the recipient will love but that I KNOW I will enjoy. It depicts the true story of a young woman who attended a not-fully-gender-integrated Princeton Theological Seminary in the 1970s. With my own seminary education (I actually was admitted to Princeton myself and came very close to attending PTS) and interest in feminism, the play was particularly engaging for me.

In many ways, God Girl is horrifying. Sexual harassment is rampant, gender-based discrimination is both blatant and structural, and male professors and classmates alike treat their female classmates as “special,” and not in a good way.

At the same time, though, God Girl is empowering: when the protagonist (Kristine Holmgren) is denounced for attempting to discuss the feminist theology of Rosemary Radford Ruether, the progress made in theological education is clear – Ruether was standard reading in the first year theology course at my own East Coast Presbyterian seminary (especially fun for me is that Ruether currently teaches at the Claremont School of Theology, the seminary from which I ultimately graduated). The clear progress toward gender equality is moving.

But the harsh reality is that society – and higher education – is still far removed from gender equality. Holmgren’s story isn’t old; it’s set in 1976. Many of today’s elite institutions first went coed in the ‘70s. Check out the undergraduate colleges that women could not attend as recently as 1968: Princeton University, Trinity College, Yale University, Colgate University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Virginia, Williams College, Bowdoin College, Brown University, Lehigh University, College of the Holy Cross, Dartmouth College, Davidson College, Duke University, Amherst College, Claremont McKenna College, Harvard University, Haverford College, Washington and Lee University, Columbia University, and more. In fact, the first Columbia class that included women was the class of 1987. 1987!!!

Just two years ago, Harvard’s Business School revamped its curriculum because it had become increasingly apparent that the education was hostile to women. The gender gap in STEM fields at most universities remains immense, and has been tied to the contrasting experience of men and women in STEM classes at college. The past couple of years have been filled with discussion of mishandled sexual assault cases (the victims of the vast majority of these were women). Watch the trailer for the new documentary The Hunting Ground. Schools that are explicitly highlighted in the film include many of the country’s finest (and even supposedly most “progressive”): University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Harvard University, Florida State University, the University of California at Berkeley, Occidental College, the University of Notre Dame, Arizona State University, the University of California at Davis, George Mason University, the University of Southern California, Swarthmore College, Columbia University, Yale University, Brandeis University, Stanford University, Vanderbilt University, Amherst College, and more. Obviously, this is just the tip of the iceberg. While the film has been critiqued for oversimplifying a complex issue (here, here, and here, to share just a few), it’s nonetheless clear that sexual assault on campus is a problem.

The point to all is this simple. Colleges are life-changing places, and they have made incredible gains in shrinking the gap between the experience of women and men as they have grown into their co-educational identities. At the same time, though, equality has clearly not arrived.

Just last week, I had two female students tell me that they were not interested in attending a women’s college, something I’ve grown accustomed to in my years as a counselor. And in many cases, if a student IS interested, a parent will veto the possibility. While it’s definitely okay to choose not to apply to or attend a women’s college, I am saddened by how quickly people forget the history of gender segregation or fail to see the more subtle discrimination that presently pervades society, including colleges and universities. Women’s colleges are not for everyone, but they persist (unlike most men’s colleges) because they still address a very real need, the need for an educational environment that empowers women.

I’m an unabashed and enormous fan of women’s colleges. Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mt. Holyoke, Scripps, Smith, Wellesley – to name just a few – are unquestionably among the country’s elite schools according to almost any metric. As a bonus, they are slightly easier to gain admission to due to the self-selective nature of their applicant pool. Students and parents too often envision some form of secluded monastery where nuns are grown. A deeper look, though, will reveal schools that offer an incredible education that is not only empowering for women, but also hardly isolated from men (for example, my Y chromosome and I took two semesters of French at Scripps College, along with several other men).

And while women’s colleges now are facing new questions about their mission as questions of gender identity break down our historical dichotomy (here, here, here, and here), they still serve an important and valuable role in a society marked by gender gaps in pay, leadership positions, social expectations, and more.

In many ways, we as a society have progressed greatly from the experience of Kristine Holmgren in God Girl, but my experience in higher education shows that there is still a long way to go. And until gender equality becomes a reality in both higher education and society as a whole, the importance of women’s colleges cannot be underestimated.

I’ll be supportive of any school one of my daughters chooses to attend, but a selection of a women’s college would undoubtedly be a mature and thoughtful one.

March 5, 2015
1 Comment
1

The Talent Code and College Admissions

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

During several evenings last fall, I spent about an hour each night (well, almost) before going to sleep playing the piano. But if anyone were to listen in and catch my choppy, halting progression on “On Top of Old Smoky” or “Goodbye, Old Paint,” she would immediately recognize my lack of talent. Unless, of course, she’d just read Daniel Coyle’s The Talent Code.

I like books like Coyle’s The Talent Code and Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers (which I wrote on relatively recently) in part because they model good writing. They tell stories, stories that pull in the reader, and make the author’s argument tangible and personal. But much more importantly, The Talent Code, like Outliers, is immeasurably empowering. Empowering enough to send me eagerly to my basement after I put my kids to sleep to practice the piano.

In Outliers, Gladwell creates an equation for success–success = talent + hard work + opportunity–but his overriding message is that talent is overrated. Hard work and opportunity are truly the defining traits of successful people. Coyle’s work creates the perfect counterpart for Outliers; The Talent Code zeroes in on a particular definition of talent itself, incorporating a layman’s introduction to recent findings in neuroscience.

Myelin is the headliner in Coyle’s brief intro to neuroscience, which I’ll make even briefer here. The brain’s firing of neurons is what enables us to do, well, anything. This “firing”–the transmission of a signal–is much faster and stronger when its path is insulated. Myelin is this insulation, and it grows when we practice, especially when we engage in what Coyle calls “deep practice.” When these signals are faster and stronger, whatever action they support is likewise improved. In short, Coyle argues that heavy myelin insulation for one or another particular signal is the literal definition of talent.

Let’s look back to that equation I derived from Outliers–success = talent + hard work + opportunity. Now if we modify the equation with Coyle’s understanding of talent, our new equation is this: success = hard work + hard work + opportunity. And since opportunity can be created by hard work, our ultimate equation could really be simplified to this: success = hard work (or hard work times three, if you prefer).

Now that might seem overly simple. Really, it is. But Coyle’s presentation of hard work illustrates the nuance of what some might call “perfect practice.” The type of hard work that most effectively grows myelin to wrap neural circuits, thereby creating talent, is hard work that is at the edge of one’s ability.

If I’m skiing, I’m not really working hard if I’m not falling down on occasion. If I’m playing the trumpet, I’m not really working hard if I play the piece flawlessly. If I’m playing basketball, I’m not really working hard if I make moves and take shots with which I’m already comfortable.

Practicing on the edge of my ability, though, is where I make rapid improvements in short amounts of time. The beauty of this is that I, and anyone, can apply this recognition to any part of my life and know that, through struggle, I can gain skill in ANYTHING. I didn’t mean to yell at you there, but literally, anyone who wants to improve at anything, quite simply, can.

In the realm of college admissions, this philosophy can be applied almost everywhere. Test prep with a focus on the problems that are just a touch too hard right now. Cold calling local non-profits or businesses to explore the possibilities of an internship or alliance with a school organization. Reading ever more challenging material. Regularly writing about advanced topics. Applying for numerous competitions or awards in any field, even–maybe especially–if it seems unlikely that you will win. All of these efforts will build–incredibly efficiently–the types of skills needed to succeed in college admissions, and much more importantly, college itself and life thereafter.

The current trend in the most competitive college admissions is to be interesting, to stand out from other high school superstars through some extraordinary accomplishment, to be a pseudo-expert in one particular topic as a high school student. Coyle’s message is this: pick an area that you love–any area–and put in as many focused hours of practice on the edge of your ability as possible. With enough time and effort, you will become that pseudo-expert. Be empowered.

 

March 2, 2015
Leave a comment
0

US News College Rankings Release Day

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Well, in honor of US News College Rankings Release Day, I thought I’d share some apropos critiques.

First, from Reed College, the leader of the vanguard of US News critics. This article actually links to a bevy of articles all critiquing US News and the rankings game.

This piece is important and accurate.

And second – from the Onion, the leader of the vanguard of creating parodies of news stories that are especially funny due to their proximity to the truth.

Enjoy!

Of course, all of my critiques are immensely hypocritical due to my own hobby of playing with rankings, but self-critical skills are among the key reasons for attending college, so I’ll proceed regardless.

September 9, 2014
Leave a comment
0

School vs. Major

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

What’s more important: the school or the major?

In the wake of increasing Internet chatter elevating the major over the school, one of my former students wrote a post for my website (Thanks Jess!) that articulated her dissent: even though her school does not have her major, she couldn’t be happier with her collegiate choice. I couldn’t agree more.

Of course, I need to temper my consent. After all, Jess is at Yale; for a school like that – where the network combined with the culture of ambition all but guarantees fiscal success – it’s obvious that one should indeed choose Yale over the vast majority of other options. (This is particularly true in Jess’s case, where her interest is in the less fiscally-rewarding field of education.)

To analyze this debate, it’s important to deconstruct the sides. The pro-school side really isn’t a voice, but something I’d describe as the US News College Ranking hegemony. It’s that unseen, intangible “knowledge” – that “everyone” has – that some schools are just “better” than others. The pro-major side is formed as a direct response to this inchoate Big Brother: a major correlates more directly to future earnings than does a school, and many “fancy” schools leave their graduates in piles of debt.

But there are two primary issues at stake in this debate that are always underdeveloped in both sides of the conversation. The first is the cost of education, and the second is the definition of success.

The cost of education is a topic far from neglected by media sources. In fact, it’s unquestionably one of the hottest topics in conversations on higher ed in the US. It’s so hot that NPR created a special series entitled Paying for College and a Google search will offer seemingly unending results.

I’m not going to write about whether or not college is worth it. As stories from the Washington Post, the Pew Research group, and the New York Times (twice) have recently illustrated, college clearly does pay off and never has the income discrepancy between college graduates and those with less education been greater.

Even so, the rising cost of attending college is a serious concern for many, leading to articles illustrating how the trend hurts the poor the most, how families need alternative forms of higher education, and even how the trend itself is a scandal.

Much more telling though than the rising cost of college is the rising debt levels. After all, for most students, the sticker price of any college is not what they will pay. In fact, the need-based financial aid offered by essentially every school follows a specific formula to calculate the demonstrated need of each family. A select group of schools guarantee aid that covers 100% of all need for any admitted student and many more come close. What is missing from generic presentations of need-based financial aid statistics, though, is student debt. If all need is covered, but it’s covered by massive loans, this creates a serious burden for young graduates that can be extremely difficult to overcome.

This burden has become known as the “debt crisis,” which you can read about here, here, here, here, and innumerable other sources. It’s led to the development of a website devoted to understanding and alleviating the spiral of debt facing students and their families.

What does all this mean? Simply that college is expensive, potentially so expensive that it can financially cripple students and their families for decades. The pro-school side underestimates this reality, and its proponents often invest everything (often literally) in the brand of a school to ensure, hopefully, a stable future for self or children.

For the proponents of major selection, in contrast, the debt crisis, the challenges of new graduates finding employment, and those ever rising sticker prices have provoked a move in the opposite direction. They argue that this economy values particular skills, skills that are earned through particular majors. The name of the institution doesn’t convey skills, and therefore, the wisest path is to pursue a practical major at an affordable school.* There are many weaknesses to this side as well, not limited to the reality that the skills in demand now may not be so in ten years and an underestimation of the so-called “soft-skills” that aren’t necessarily a part of pre-professional training.

This conversation, however, fails to incorporate the realities of financial aid, as well as the colleges that – regardless of sticker price – do a remarkable job of making their education affordable for anyone who can get in (and increasingly at some top schools, debt free). While one could legitimately gripe about the cost of college anywhere, by being very wise and careful in selecting colleges, it is not hard to find a wonderful, affordable education.

What is really at stake in this debate is the definition of success. Tying back to my earlier post on Andrew Delbanco’s The Purpose of College, college serves many purposes. Delbanco isolates three “purposes” of college: 1) economic, 2) democratic, and 3) life enriching.

The school vs. major debate is sadly limited to only one of these three purposes, and utterly ignores the theoretical role of college in the formation of a viable and effective democracy as well as the reality that education enriches life in ways that stray from (and may be deeper than) any bottom line.

In the end, there is no right or wrong purpose of college. The diversity of humanity indicates that there be multiple purposes of college for each of these different individuals. Personally, I come down heavily on the pro-school side, but not because of a belief that the name of a school will better serve long-term earnings than a particular major; instead, the life-enriching part of Delbanco’s three-headed purpose inspires me more deeply than the other two. Practicality, both for individual economic stability and societal balance, is undeniably important. But my personality and experiences push me to elevate option three. When I advise students on college and major selection, it’s horribly inappropriate for me to elevate my priorities. Instead, my role is to help students find their priorities and then direct them to the schools and majors that match.

The same goes for this debate. It’s not about whether the school or major is more important. It’s about empathetic self-analysis. It’s about individuals learning what is most important for them and pursuing it, while appreciating that their path is not the ideal path for everyone. It’s about respecting the value of diversity.

 

 

* In fact, the rise of MOOCs and increasing access of information via the Internet is steadily giving rise to an even more anti-school camp – the group that aims to eliminate the import of college education as a whole, instead promoting self-education of whatever skills one needs to achieve whatever goals one sets forth.

 

August 28, 2014
Leave a comment
0

A Visit to Carleton

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

A Visit to Carleton

A family friend visited Minnesota this week – not to see my little girls or our family’s new house and neighborhood, but instead to visit and interview at Carleton College, 45 miles to the south in Northfield, Minnesota.

I’d been to Northfield on several occasions previously – visiting cross-town rival St. Olaf, actually – but somehow had yet to make it to Carleton, despite the fact that I’ve long held Carleton as among the very best schools in the country.

I normally don’t write blog posts about my visits to schools – I’ve seen enough of these to know what admissions officers will say and see through the overly professional marketing that inevitably happens at these events. In fact, we’d visited Macalester – easily one of my top 15 schools in the country – that same morning, and I’d come away impressed, my extremely high opinion of the college unchanged.

But Carleton was different. Carleton floored me.

Let’s get the basics out of way. Carleton is a prestigious place. It’s been a top 10 US News Liberal Arts College for as long as I’ve paid attention to such rankings (at least 1996 – it’s currently tied for #7 with Wellesley). This means that Carleton 1) has a lot of money, 2) has strong branding and “hype,” and 3) is extremely difficult to get in to. More importantly as far as I am concerned, though, Carleton is one of the Super Five – my own designation for the five colleges that dominate PhD placement rankings: Swarthmore, Grinnell, Reed, Oberlin, and Carleton. As such, Carleton is clearly and unquestionably one of the best schools in the United States.

None of this is new, and none of this was highlighted in the info session or tour (the PhD placement rank was briefly alluded to). And nonetheless, I was floored. Following my visit, I’m leaning towards putting Carleton into a three-way tie with Swarthmore and Pomona for the all-important (please feel my sarcasm here) top spot in Garth’s personal college rankings.

Why? I already knew about the excellence of Carleton, as well as bits and pieces of the college’s culture, and generally thought of it as a smaller, rural University of Chicago. That’s a profound compliment coming from me. But that assessment misses two crucial points of Carleton that struck me as almost completely unique among elite schools.

Those two points: 1) non-pretense and 2) campus-wide interest in sports while maintaining an intellectual campus culture.

I love elite colleges. The ambition and creativity in the air is infectious and the environment as a whole is, to me, more invigorating than any other on Earth. But that “eliteness” often comes with a price. Arrogance. And that gross, old money, exclusive arrogance that is among the least attractive things I can imagine. Even for the down-to-earth, would-like-to-think-of-themselves as humble (including yours truly) students at “elite” schools, many wouldn’t be there if they weren’t attracted at some level to exclusivity as such. To me, this cultural valorization of exclusion is despicable (despite my guilt), and one that is unquestionably prevalent at any top school – even stretching to the top 30+ in US News.

Carleton gave me zero sense of this vibe. In fact, the longer I was on campus and the more Carleton people I talked to, the more I saw Carleton as the school that elite students who dislike arrogance and exclusivity choose to attend. Looking back at myself as a high school student, I’m disappointed I didn’t give Carleton a deeper look.

One of the reasons I didn’t give Carleton a longer look, though, ties to my other surprising discovery. When I applied to schools, I limited myself to four of the elite schools – “reaches” if you will: Williams, Princeton, Duke, and Northwestern. The reasoning is simple: all four of these schools, when compared with their peers at the time, had a strong sports culture. Princeton was the Ivy power in basketball at the time, recently coming off the back-door lay-in upset of UCLA in the Big Dance. Williams was a widely respected DIII powerhouse where everyone supposedly played intramurals. Northwestern and Duke, of course, are members of the Big Ten and ACC, respectively, and alongside Stanford are the only elite academic universities in a major sports conference (I elected to drop Stanford from my own choices simply due to location; I planned to go east for undergrad and west later; and sorry, Notre Dame, Georgetown, and Vanderbilt, you’re just behind in my admittedly biased ordering).

As I’ve learned more about myself and more about colleges over the years, I’ve discovered a trend. Schools with a stronger sports culture tend to be more preprofessional in nature. I’m not saying that Williams, Duke, Northwestern, and Princeton are heavily preprofessional schools as a whole – but they are in comparison with their more intellectual-leaning peers like Swarthmore, Brown, and UChicago. And this is a problem for me. I love the authenticity and learn-for-the-sake-of-learning character of the intellectual/theoretical schools much more than the polished professionalism that the more preprofessional schools exude. But I love sports. The more I’ve looked at schools, the more I’ve doubted whether the two – prevalent sports culture plus intellectual character – coexist at an academically dynamic institution.

Carleton says that they do. Unquestionably, Carleton is a theoretical, learn-for-the-sake-of-learning school, but my conversations on campus on Tuesday showed me the level of enthusiasm for and excitement surrounding sports on campus. Not to the level of a place like Northwestern or Stanford, of course, but far removed from the anti-sports culture that exists at places like Reed or UChicago.

At the end of the day, this relatively athletic and humble, exceedingly intellectual and ambitious student body forced me to reevaluate my own top schools, my playlist of where I would apply if put in the shoes of the students with whom I work. Again, I should reinforce that this doesn’t mean that Carleton should be the top choice school for anyone else – school selection is very much about knowing yourself, knowing the schools, and playing matchmaker – but for me, Carleton is unquestionably on my list now and a serious contender for the #1 spot.

And if you don’t know about the cookie house, you should find out.

I’ll be back.

August 14, 2014
Leave a comment
1

Chinatown!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

by Justin

For those of us who live in Chicago, the “L” is a way of life. The “L” is a rapid transit system that extends throughout Chicago and some of the neighboring suburbs. Through it, we gain access to many of Chicago’s ethnic neighborhoods and foods.

As a student at UChicago, the L’s Red Line is the main way by which students can travel to downtown (the Loop), which is the center point of the L system. It runs from 95th street in the South Side all the way up to Howard in the Far North Side. On the way, we travel by Chinatown, the White Sox’s stadium and the city’s largest Trader Joes. Chicago’s L system has allowed students to travel quickly and inexpensively throughout Chicago.

Chinatown is the nearest Ethnic neighborhood to UChicago. You will find bubble tea, savory dim sum and greasy donuts. What is probably most interesting about Chicago’s Chinatown is its rich history and culture. Chinatown was first formed in the late 1800s when approximately 150 ethnically Chinese settled in the southern Loop to escape anti-Chinese laws and violence that had developed on the West Coast after the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad.

In 1928, the first traditionally styled building was built to commemorate Chinese culture and heritage at the cost of 1 million dollars. Perhaps ironically, the first commemoration was built to house the headquarters of the powerful Chinese gang, On Leong Tong. Today, Chicago’s Chinatown is one of the largest in America and stands as a testament to the longevity of an ethnic group that has been repressed over the years.

Personal recommendations include: Lao Szechuan, Lao Hunan, and Lao Shanghai.

 

Read more about Justin here.

July 20, 2014
Leave a comment
1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 8
Stay connected.
Recent tweets.
  • T
garthmarvin
Recent posts.
  • Congrats to My Class of 2022
  • A Stanford Story (Admission Decisions DO NOT Define You)
  • On "Dream Schools"
  • Going Outside, the COVID-19 re-boot
Recent projects.

© 2025 by GR College Consulting

  • Home
  • About Mr. Robertson
  • Services
  • College Blog
    • GR Blog
    • Student Blog
  • Testimonials
  • Links
  • Contact