(1) The VMI references. Yes, VMI was a state-funded school, and Randolph-Macon is not, and that was the crux of the case. As a private institution, Randolph-Macon can pretty much do whatever it wants, including only admitting women. No one is disputing the legality of doing so, it's perfectly legal. However, it's a wholly different question of whether it is actually beneficial, based in science, etc. So, the relevant discussion from the court's opinion in VMI is the dissection by Ginsburg of the "evidence" presented by Virginia arguing that women learn differently and are not well-suited to the VMI method because of their gender.

A synopsis:

"Justice Ginsburg found that Virginia failed to provide the "exceedingly persuasive justification" needed to sustain gender-based government action. Virginia had defended its categorical exclusion of women from VMI offered on the grounds that admitting women would destroy VMI's adversative training method because such training was fundamentally unsuited for women. According to Justice Ginsburg, this justification rested on overly broad generalizations about women in disregard of their individual merit, and represented precisely the type of self-fulfilling prophecies once routinely used to deny rights or opportunities to women."

http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/winter2004/opinions

(2) "Because We Like It" -- well, fair enough, but imagine if you had a school that only wanted to admit white people, instead of only women. You could rewrite it like this:

"The point is, we LIKED the atmosphere. No weren't going to change our opinions or participation levels because of what black people might say, but the simple truth is...we didn't have to put up with what black people might say. Sorry, but thats a damn nice luxury that I enjoyed thuroughly! I also didn't have to worry about being politically correct when I went to class, I didn't have to think about black people during the week. I don't hate black people, I love them."

Nice, eh? Because, what could men (or black people) possibly contribute of value to a class? Diversity of opinion isn't important, but "not having to worry about what you look like for class" is. (btw, the fact that the presense of men makes you care more about what you look like is truly bizarre to me, and sounds kind of ditsy). You sound very dismissive of men; when you say "we didn't have to put up with what boys might say" you sound like you're saying that boys' comments can never be relevant or intelligent, they're almost always a a nuisance. And this is why i said that women who go to all women's colleges don't discover (unless they proceed to co-ed grad schools) that, no matter how annoying and immature men may have been in high school, they can and often do grow up into thoughtful, intelligent, mature people, whose contributions to a class could be of equal value to the contributions of women. Imagine that!

"I didn't have to think about my boyfriend during the week." -- um, in the co-ed world, you don't HAVE to think about your boyfriend during the week, or ever, if you don't want to.

I believe that, if women's colleges do a good job of marketing themselves, that they can become increasingly *more* relevant in a nation where more women than men have been attending college since the 80s and it is becoming increasingly more competitive for women to get into top ranked co-ed schools. Excellent women's colleges provide a way for women who might not get into Harvard but are nevertheless brilliant to receive an outstanding education.

Um, okay. So

(1) After Harvard, of, i'll give you the whole Ivy league, there are no co-ed schools with outstanding educations?

(2) what if some white men decided to establish a college with the same reasoning? "our school provdes a way for white men who might get into Harvard but are nevertheless brilliant to receive an oustanding education." Is that okaY, or would you be screaming bloody murder?

(3) I guess i'm unclear as to why this benefit should only be conferred on one gender, as opposed to one race, or one age, or one ethnicity, etc.

Your story about the widening of your ambitions is great, congratulations, but i think the point of disconnect is that women who went to women-only colleges feel that the women-only part of their college education was responsible for giving them self-confidence, motivating them etc., but these women never went to college anywhere else, and therefore, don't know whether a co-ed college would have had the same effect, because of the college atmosphere, that they are getting a little older, etc., generally things that have nothing to do with women-only. So, i also think what we need is actual concrete data, not the experience of people who didn't try anything else.

Bottom line, women's colleges spend four years telling women one thing: "dream bigger. You can do it. Don't let anyone or anything stop you. Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible. You can be the first. You are intelligent and capable."

(1) what do you think co-ed schools tell women, "get back in the kitchen"?!

(2) Why do women need this kind of repetitive encouragement at the ripe ages of 18-22?

As for traditions, Randolph-Macon has some charming ones too, like a tower on campus, and if a woman steps into it before she is engaged, she will never marry, and a statue of someone with a sword, and the hand holding the sword is supposed to rise if a virgin walks by the statue. Charming.