If, of course, you can't do math.

Since students must belong to a college, and since established colleges remained closed to women, women found admissions restricted to colleges established only for women. All of the men's colleges integrated genders between 1960 and 1988. One women's college, Girton, also integrated genders, but the other women's colleges took the view that until the gender ratio problem was completely solved, they should not reduce the number of women's places available by admitting men to their colleges. As of 2005, the university's gender ratio is male 46%: female 54% (Source: Push guide, [6]).

Somehow I feel they have about as much chance as integrating as Barnard does. What's so wrong with all-male education? I mean, how does this quote make any sense:

Barnard is unequivocally dedicated to the success of women. That's immediately obvious in the way issues are considered in almost every field of inquiry, from classical studies to the history of science, or in the prominence of the nationally acclaimed Barnard Center for Research on Women.[src]

Clearly, standard Latin grammars are sexist (or is that genderist?) and must be destroyed, replaced with new Latin grammars that don't make distinctions between masculine, feminine, and neuter. I mean, who are we to say that a forest if feminine, while a mouse is neuter?

Then they go on about how much better women's colleges are for women. But when you try the opposite

After VMI won its case in U.S. District Court, the case went through several appeals until June 26, 1996 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision in United States v. Virginia, found that it was illegal for a school supported by public funds to exclude women.

Is Barnard supported by public funds? Oh yes.

Now you might say that that's a public institution, whereas this is a private one that happens to receive federal funds. But look at what happened to religious schools in the 60s and 70s in New York . . .

Bah I should be studying for finals. I should write this up later.