1. I discovered this morning that, in the words of the principal of St. Hilda’s, “well over half” of the undergraduate intake are either applicants who were rejected by their preferred colleges or those who made an open application and were assigned to St. Hilda’s. It would not be surprising of most of these women would prefer to be at a mixed college.

2. It is, I think, clear that St. Hilda’s can’t survive as a women-only establishment without support from the University - the present arrangements, both as regards undergraduate admissions and as regards the shared employment of college Fellows between the college and a University department, are not sustainable. To save Hilda’s, the University would have to decide that a women-only college was a valuable thing to have, and at a minimum subsidise it to the level that it loses out on through not being to advertise women-only jobs in conjunction with the University. As I mentioned earlier, admissions would need a little work, too. You’d also want to address the perception, particularly in the sciences, that Hilda’s is the easy option for borderline women to get in. That certainly isn’t true - I wouldn’t describe Hilda’s as a top-flight college for the sciences, but its standards are no lower than many middle-of-the-road colleges.

“I wonder if an additional question on the application form might allow the seperation of the group of women who didn’t chose Hilda’s as a first choice, but would be well-disposed towards ending up there, and the group of women who didn’t list Hilda’s as a choice because they really don’t want to be at a women-only college. That might, in principle, allow a better optimisation of the distribution of students amongst colleges”
———————
I am also aware that in, never having been to Oxford, I am not really qualified to give a proper opinion about the internal politics of Oxford University. But they are my thoughts for what it’s worth

I’m sure it won’t surprise you that I tend to favour the rights of both all-male and all-female colleges to exist, on grounds of liberty.

Having all-male colleges dominating the University, either by numbers or by being the most prestigious or richest is obviously a bad thing. Having a couple of all-male colleges to cater for a minority of men who prefer to live in an all-male environment I don’t see as a big problem. I’m not sure there would be all that much demand for them, though - if you gave the average 17-year-old boy the choice between a college full of men and a college full of women who all desire his skinny pimply body, I think we know what he’ll want Religious establishments are the obvious exception. There are unlikely to be many men who are deterred from applying to Oxford because they’re afraid that they might encounter women there.

By contrast, there is an obvious utility, as Antonia mentions, in having some women-only provision, particularly given that Oxford gives more of an impression than modern Universities of being a stuffy male-dominated old boys’ club. Each time St. Hilda’s receives an application from a smart young woman who would not otherwise have chosen to apply to Oxford, that’s a success, for the University, for anyone interested in equality of opportunity in Education, and for the nation as a whole.

I wonder if an additional question on the application form might allow the seperation of the group of women who didn’t chose Hilda’s as a first choice, but would be well-disposed towards ending up there, and the group of women who didn’t list Hilda’s as a choice because they really don’t want to be at a women-only college. That might, in principle, allow a better optimisation of the distribution of students amongst colleges.

It’s interesting that the JCR has voted for a mixed JCR - I don’t remember them having done that before. Were I forced to make a guess, I might suspect that in times gone by, altough Hilda’s had the reputation of being the place where women that were rejected by their first choice colleges ended up, a significant fraction of the student body were there because they had explicitly chosen a women’s college. I might guess that the balance has now shifted, fewer undergraduates are chosing a women-only college and more undergraduates who would prefer to be at a mixed college are ending up at Hilda’s, either because they make an open application or because they are rejected by their first choice colleges.

Hilda’s must know what fraction of its students listed it as a preferred choice, and how that has changed over the years. If my guess is right, and Hilda’s now unique position is being abandoned by students who never really wanted to be at a women’s college in the first place, I think it’s a real shame (and I might have some stronger words for it…)

The last time I remember this debate coming around, the big argument in the JCR was over a mixed fellowship. As I recall, when Hilda’s offers a tutorial fellowship in conjunction with a University post, it is required to do so with an alternative college that accepts male fellows (as Hilda’s exemption from the Sex Discrimination Acts doesn’t apply to the University as a whole), and that the result was that often even when the best candidate for the University job was a woman, she chose to take up the fellowship offer from the mixed, possibly more prestigious, college rather than from Hilda’s.

Do you happen to know how often that happened?

It would be a silly anti-feminist who would take that line, anyway: much easier is the line that “well, women don’t really want to go there anyway”, which is, unfortunately, true.