Though most women at Hope College from 1925-1950 majored in the humanities or fine arts departments, a significant proportion majored in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM). Given that Hope was created to prepare students for teaching, missionary work, and ministry, this finding seemed unusual at first glance. The first reason why this seemed unusual was because STEM departments at Hope were newer and less established. Moreover, STEM did not seem to directly correlate with any of the fields that Hope was meant to prepare students for. Lastly, given that women in STEM are still a minority, it seemed to be progressive for 26.32% of female Seniors at Hope College in 1934 to have majored in STEM.

Historical Women in STEM

Assuming that female interest in STEM is a recent phenomenon is both an oversimplification and blatantly incorrect. According to the Historical Dictionary of Women’s Education in the United States, women have been players in the creation of STEM since its early days in the United States. Science was a practice for amateurs in the nineteenth century as practitioners rarely had degrees and found informal education through lectures, museum visiting, and reading textbooks. Women were such avid consumers of these textbooks that an entire genre of textbooks was dedicated to female readers. These textbooks were imported from England and taught young women about topics like philosophy, biology, and chemistry. Two popular books were Conversations on Chemistry, published in 1806 by Jane Marcet, and Conversations on Natural Philosophy, published in 1819 [1].

Education and Separate Spheres

However, women in science were effectively marginalized as the field became formalized. Single gendered schools, common for the time, were part of this process. Male colleges formed their curriculums around classical training in Latin, Greek, and English. Classical training was seen as disciplined and masculine. These schools utilized the theory of “separate spheres,” meaning that men and women belonged in different roles. The public sphere, politics, work, law, etc. was meant for men. The private sphere, childcare, housework, religion, etc, were for women. Therefore, classical training was a part of the male, public sphere. Moreover, because women rarely entered higher education, they had no need for classical training. Instead, administrators looked to the sciences to teach “critical observation and… logical thought” [2]. Science became a core part of many female academies and colleges, whereas, it was a more peripheral addition to men’s education. 

STEM at Hope

Origins

Hope College was originally a men’s college founded on classical and biblical training [3]. Evidence of this foundation in classical training is clear in the 1866 Catalog where it explicitly states “the Academy has been conducted mainly, though not exclusively, with reference to the training of ministers and teachers… those pursuing a full classical course, are preparing for College.” [4]. Classical training was not the only training that students received, but it was the basis for further education and future vocations. Moreover, the academic week was divided between Latin days (Monday and Wednesday), Greek days (Tuesday and Thursday), and a Rhetoric day (Friday) [5]. Most of the students in 1866 took the classical track or course with only two men out of twenty-seven listed students in the catalog taking a different course [6]. It is not clear whether the students listed are academy or college students given that the academy was incorporated into the College in 1866 [7]. Regardless, the frequency of the classical track is significant. Hope College’s reliance on classical training was normal for colleges and universities of the nineteenth century. 

Students were required to train in Dutch so that they could preach to a region populated with Dutch immigrants. Although Hope College’s emphasis on classical training was typical, its emphasis on STEM was unique. Science was regarded highly though the practice was newer. This is exemplified in Reverend Issac Wickoff’s speech at President Phelp’s inauguration in 1866 where he says, “It is intended and expected that this college shall be a seminary of evangelical religion as well as of secular science” [8]. By 1893, students could matriculate with bachelor’s degrees in science or the arts [9]. From the founding of Hope, science was not seen to be contradictory to religion but rather, complementary. 

Courses

By the 1906-1907 school year, STEM’s burgeoning popularity can be seen with the introduction of three STEM courses. The course catalog offered a biological course, a Philosophical course, and modern-language-mathematics alongside modern-language-English, and classical courses [10]. According to the catalog, this was meant to develop a “refined sense and aesthetic taste, a practical utility in the life and affairs of a progressive world, a manly character and loyal citizenship.” [11] Moreover, the storage building, established in 1867, was the original science lab. By 1903, Van Raalte Hall opened up a section of laboratories [12]. In 1909, the chemistry and physics departments were separated into two departments [13]. 

Departmental Expansion

The science wing of Hope expanded greatly under Gerrit Van Zyl from  1923-1964. Gerrit Van Zyl, a former Hope student, was appointed as head of the chemistry department in 1923. By 1929, 125 alumni had earned PhDs in chemistry from leading research universities [14]. Van Zyl created research opportunities year round, mentored future educators, and attended American Chemical Society’s national meetings to promote Hope’s chemistry department and network [15]. 

The science wing at Hope continued to expand with the hiring of Harvey Kleinheksel in  1928 to teach chemistry and biology [16]. Similarly, Harry Frissel, the first Hope teacher with a doctorate in physics, was hired to teach physics in 1948 [17]. Science became a general education requirement for the first time in 1936 [18]. The catalyst for the growth of the science curriculum was the creation of the science building (now Lubbers Hall) in 1941-1942 [19]. To showcase the growth, you only have to compare course offerings from 1865 to 1945. In 1865, the science curriculum was composed of a single class in astronomy and chemistry and four courses in mathematics [20]. Within a single century, our team counted that the curriculum grew to sixty four different courses in biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics [21]. The alumni magazine reported that by April 1947, there were over 200 medical doctors and 100 college science professors alumni [22].

STEM has only continued to expand at Hope College. Currently, Hope College is tied with Cornell in national rankings for undergraduate research. Moreover, Franklin and Marshall’s 1998 study found that Hope ranked in the top three percent in the nation out of 1,036 institutions for producing graduates who went on to earn a PhD in the sciences between 1920 and 1995 [23]. 

 

References:
[1] Linda Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary of Women’s Education in the United States (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998), 349, EBSCOhost. 
[2] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, 350.
[3] Jacob Nyenhuis, Hope College at 150 (Holland: Van Raalte Press, 2019), 4.
[4] 1865-1866. Catalog (Holland: Hope College, 1865), 31, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/2/.
[5] 1865-1866. Catalog, 34.
[6] 1865-1866. Catalog, 31-33.
[7] 1865-1866. Catalog, 1.
[8] Nyenhuis, Hope College at 150, 74.
[9] 1892-1893. Catalog. (Holland: Hope College, 1892), 30, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/22/.
[10] 1906-1907. Catalog. (Holland: Hope College, 1906), 10, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/36.
[11] 1906-1907. Catalog., 11.
[12] Valerie Van Heest, A Century of Science: Excellence at Hope College (Holland: Hope College, 2009), 19.
[13] Van Heest, A Century of Science, 13. 
[14] Articles, 1924-1966, Box 1, Van Zyl, Gerrit (1894-1967). Papers, 1923-1968. (H88-0183.), Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.; Van Heest, A Century of Science, 25.; Milestone 1942 (Holland: Hope College, 1942), 17, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/milestone/26.
[15] Van Heest, A Century of Science, 25.
[16] Van Heest, A Century of Science, 27.
[17] Van Heest, A Century of Science, 86.
[18] 1935-1936. V74.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1935), 30, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/103.
[19] Milestone 1943 (Holland: Hope College, 1943), 70, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/milestone/24.
[20] 1865-1866. Catalog, 34.
[21] 1944-1945. V83.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1945), http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/112.
[22] Nyenhuis, Hope College at 150, 84-85.
[23] Van Heest, A Century of Science, 59.