Talk:Women's education in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 June 2019 and 12 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KP1215.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ABeach20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KayleeLong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Molly- here are my thoughts about your article. Good job so far and good luck completing it!

Daydreambeliever (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope/Ideas

There's already a Wikipedia article about female education. However, the focus of that article is global and geared more toward the philosophy of women and education. Judging from what you've written so far, you seem to be going in the direction of women's education in the United States- perhaps you can take the article farther on that track and either edit the former article, merge the articles, create a new page, or merge with the History of Education in the United States article as suggested?

My main concern about your current article is its scope (no matter what direction you decide to eventually go in). However it is interpreted, "Women in education" is a broad topic but so far you've only covered a very small part of it (namely women in historical and Western education). There are many other aspects to women in education. In addition to seeing a differentiation between U.S. and non-U.S. education, I would be interested in seeing separate sections for historical education (evolution of women's education; pioneers in women's education), modern education (primary/secondary; post-secondary), gender disparities in education, notable schools (which either are run by women, have awesome programs for women, or solely educate women), organizations that work with women and education, and women working in education. There could also be a section discussing policy issues, from historical to modern (Title IX, creation of women's schools, lawsuits, etc).

There's also a lot of room for statistics in your article. Many people would be interested in knowing hard facts on how women are educated. How does women's performance measure up to men's? What percentage of women of women are being educated in various groups (ethnic, by country, by state, etc)? What state policies exist regarding women and education?

Resources

Some specific resources you might be interested in:

• Girl's Education from World Bank- pretty interesting resource with lots of stats; international focus
• Mobilizing Resources for Girls' Education- talks about the economic importance of educating women
• Women, Education, and History- a book resource available through JSTOR
• A history of women in education
• Evolution of Women's Education in the United States
• Historic Firsts in Women's Education in the United States
• Pioneers of Women's Education in the United States- a book resource- perhaps the library has a copy?
• Texas Women and Education- an example of state-specific information
• Oprah Winfrey's Leadership Academy for Girls

Formatting

As others have warned you, the formatting of your article doesn't follow Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia makes it really easy to make articles that look fancy. You can read Wikipedia's summary of editing/formatting basics. There are also some recommended tools to make the editing process easier.

The most obvious formatting concern that I have is the lack of organization of your article. Most articles have an introduction section which summarizes the topic followed by sections that address various parts of the topic (some of the topics I suggested above could work well as section headings). Also, most articles contain links to other Wikipedia articles. When you write a word/phrase that has a Wikipedia article associated with it and you think someone reading your page might be interested in that topic, you can surround the word with two square brackets to create an internal link. For example, [[Female education]] shows up as Female education.

See Also

I would recommend adding a See Also section. These are also articles from which you could link to your article from, or get more information pertinent to your topic. Some potentially related articles (or at least places from which you can link to your article) from off the top of my head:

• Women's colleges in the United States
• Women in science
• Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls
• Women's history
• Women in the workforce
• Educational Inequality
• Education in the United States
• Women's studies
• Coeducation
• Timeline of women's colleges in the United States
• History of education in the United States

References

This article would benefit from in-line citations of references. You should cite resources at the specific places in the article that you use information from them. This page gives a good run down on the formatting required to cite sources (including how to make the ref-list thing I was talking about in class).

Your current references seem to be solid- they're well-written and pertinent to the topic at hand; however, they all refer to the history of women's education. In addition to gaining a larger variety of sources about the broader points of women in education, I would recommend finding a slightly bigger and more varied selection of sources regarding the history of women in education. Because of the nature of history, many authors will write from different points of view (for example, one of your resources is written from the feminist perspective). Making sure to include information from a wide range of perspectives will increase the relevancy of your article.

Peer Review

Hey, here are my thoughts of your article.

Overall, I think your article about women in education is very interesting, as most people are aware of the fact that there was discrimination in women for pursuing education compared to men in history. The scope of your article is focused on how women in the United States have gained more chances to be educated and how this is significant. While I was reading the article, it has some pieces of factual evidence; however, it either covers it very broadly or sometimes it leaves out some crucial points. Therefore, I think more information is needed in completing this article as a well-constructed paper.

Introduction

As it is focused on women in the United States, I think you can use more of the historical information in your article. As you refereed back to the American history, i.e. the first wave of feminism in the 19th century, it could be further elaborated by providing more pieces of information by questioning how much it affected women to have themselves exposed to education compared to how much they were in the past.

In that sense, the reference below basically provides all the information about women in education in depth. It lists all of the sources that you can use for your article, but I would recommend you to take a look at the statistics which can help you to find a variety of sources related to women in education. [1]

Significant Achievement / Reformation

You mentioned that Oberlin College was founded and it was the first university to accept women. Therefore, I was thinking you could also use the numbers of universities or colleges which have studies in women specifically and how the numbers have been changed over time. The number of women colleges and universities can be a significant example to show how women in education stands in the American society and for conducting this information more effectively, I think you can either go to visit each of the notable universities or colleges which are well-known for the prestigious women related studies or you can just simply go to the website that I provided below [2], it is authorized by the Association of American Colleges and Libraries. In addition, you mentioned The Morrill Act of 1862, which promoted women to get a higher education by finding co-educational universities. I think bringing in some political decisions and how those acts acted to the education of women could be also useful.

Timeline

For the timeline, I think you can use data which can display the dates and the significance of the events in chronological order. Through using a constructed table, it will be easier for the readers to visualize the whole thing. One point to make: I think you can find more significant events than those ones that you have already listed. You can also look for some notable women in American history through using an internal link of Wikipedia.

Reference and External Links

As far as sources, I think you can cite your sources how Wikipedia cites its sources. For more information, you can go to “how to cite sources” to further learn about the method to cite your sources. In addition, you can also use many of the sources internally, for example, through internal links you can link your sources to other articles within Wikipedia which is also very convenient to do.

For resources, I found a handful websites that you might be interested in looking at:

• Center for Education for Women University of Michigan: [3]

• Women’s Education Center: [4]

• Washington Women’s Education and Employment Center: [5]

Good work! Yjchang86 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

There is not a whole lot more for me to elaborate on that the first two reviews did not give but ill add a few things here.

So far you are going in a good direction with your article. There is a lot of good information in the article and it is very focused, specifically on the education of women in the United States. Some of this information however seems to be left in pieces. The are good specific points of historical moments but more are needed as well as more elaboration on those. Tell in depth why they are significant.

A good idea would be to link some of the main items like Oberlin College and the Sececa Falls Convention to the other wikipedia articles( do this by using doublebrackets [[]]around the word or phrase – Oberlin college. Connection these items to your article will help add more to your topic.

You need to have inline citations throughout your article and match up which information you got from which sources

About the timeline: you may want to create a more visually appealing way to present the material, maybe by having one item per line or making a chart- this way all of them do not run together. More dates would be batter as well.

Structure is key in the article. Most wikipedia articles have a short intro followed by major topics. It may be a good idea for you to have a broad overview or thesis like statement then break off into large sections.

The main thing that I would suggest working on is expansion of all the ideas you have laid out as well as adding more. Depth and detail are great. You could also add a picture of a significant school or place

So far so good, good luck working on finishing up your article!

JLowman (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

Wow. I really will have to stretch to find an angle this article has not been reviewed at... Everything said thus far has been spot on to what this article needs to make it a little more "Wikipedia-esque." Although the information offered is quite informative, it is very limited in its scope. The suggestion to merge the article into the "History of education in the United States" article would probably help enhance the other article. This article would be acceptable on its own if it can: follow Wikipedia formatting, use in-line references, and expand on it. This is only a look at the history aspect of the topic, and plenty of information is offered on the early years in America but only a few facts concerning the last century and a half. This review was not meant to seem so negative, yet most of the suggestions made previously have covered most of the ones I could give. Overall, great information and well-written, just focus on the scope. Cliftonc3 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

possible need for correction

Article stated that there were 3 all-female colleges. Oberlin, which was always coeducational, was included on the list. I removed it. I'm not sure if the remaining enumerations are correct or not. My grandmother (b. 1900) has said that when she went to college there were only 2 coeducational schools in America at the time: Oberlin and Alma. (She went to Alma because Oberlin was "too liberal"). There may have been others, I can't say conclusively, but in the inclusion of Oberlin on the makes me concern about the un-referenced remainder of the list.

Wellesley, on the other hand, founded 1875, was All-female. Was the list supposed to be those that were NOT all female? 68.114.59.167 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

History

This article is oddly unbalanced. The history section seems to only mention the decade of the 1930s, although it goes into detail there.

The statement "Prior to the American Civil War only five colleges admitted women" seems to be contradicted by the article Timeline of women's colleges in the United States, which lists many more.

The article states that Antioch was all female before the Civil war. I can find no reference saying this; the Antioch College article says women were admitted "on the same basis" as white males. 76.241.131.70 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible mistake?

This article has a section labeled "1980s" that seems to be about the entire 20th century, not just the 1980s. In fact, it focuses almost entirely on the 1930s and little if at all after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.196.190 (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Female education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720234225/http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/3887/Northwestern-University-School-of-Law-Chicago-Illinois/ to http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/3887/Northwestern-University-School-of-Law-Chicago-Illinois/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110504043737/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20110426/ap_on_re_us/us_census_educated_women to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110426/ap_on_re_us/us_census_educated_women

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Gender of Jesse Jarue Mark

Although the source cited here reports JJ Mark to be a woman, in the source the name is spelled "Jessie". This is a mis-spelling, which apparently has led to this inaccurate historical record. I changed the gender on the Jesse Jarue Mark page, but am unsure what to do about this page. I think JJ Mark should be removed. Hildabast (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)