This page is referenced by:

• 1 2021-07-07T00:41:29+00:00 Founding of STEM at Hope 34 Founding of STEM at Hope plain 2021-08-15T18:37:27+00:00

  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.  
  
  
  
  

• 1 2021-07-06T15:16:49+00:00 Women in STEM - Data Analysis 21 plain 2021-07-13T20:03:26+00:00
  

  Once on campus, women gravitated towards STEM majors. By 1925, three out of eighteen women (16.67%) in the Senior class majored in STEM with one student in science and two in math. The two years with the highest STEM enrollment were in 1934 and 1947. In 1934, ten out of thirty-eight Senior women majored in STEM (26.32%) with 4 in science and 4 in math. In 1947, nine out of thirty-six (25%) of Senior women majored in STEM with two in science, one in biology, three in chemistry, and three in math. The years with the lowest portion of women who majored in STEM were 1937 and 1943. In 1937, one woman out of 37 majored in STEM (2.70%); she majored in mathematics. In 1943, no senior women majored in STEM. There is no data available for 1931, 1933, and 1941.

  Until 1939, science and mathematics were the only two courses that women majored in within STEM. These two majors are some of the oldest at Hope and contained broad possibilities depending on the resources of the school at the time. If there were more resources, then there were more classes and disciplines available for students to study in. Mathematics still remains a popular major at Hope though general science majors were less common after 1947. In general, science and mathematics were the most popular STEM courses for all students at Hope from 1925-1950 even after new departments were created, though men also majored in chemistry, physics, and pre-medical. 
  Chemistry was first listed as a student’s major in the 1936 Milestone and the major soon increased in popularity. The first time that women majored in chemistry was in 1945 when two out of nine women in STEM majored in chemistry. Chemistry was consistently chosen by a few (one to three) women each year until 1950 when no women majored in it. Similarly, biology was first listed as a student’s major in the 1939 Milestone and the major grew exponentially in the years after. A significant proportion of women in STEM majored in biology that year. Three out of the seven female students in STEM majored in biology which is 42.90%. For every year after that, at least one woman majored in STEM with 1943 as the exception. 
  The pre-medical track was offered in 1925 as individual courses, but female students first picked it as a major in 1938. Two out of six women in STEM took a pre-medical course in 1938. Pre-Medical majors were less frequent for women than men. This is reflected in the data because only one other woman was a pre-medical major from 1925-1950; she was a senior in 1945. According to the 1945 course catalog, the four-year pre-medical curriculum had been available to “pre-medical students at Hope College for some time” and was designed to meet the most “rigid requirements of medical schools.” [1]

  In 1945, nursing was available for the first time to students. Our data would only have accounted for two cohorts of Seniors (1949 and 1950) that could have majored in it because the only data on majors available was from Seniors. Regardless, no Senior women were recorded as having majored in nursing in 1949 or 1950. Similarly, pre-forestry and pre-dental tracks were offered for the first time in 1945 and no women were recorded as having majored in either during the scope of this project [2].
  Two glaring omissions are the “T” and “E” in STEM - technology and engineering. Technology, mostly comprised of computer science and information technology majors, is a fairly recent field and career path. Therefore, no women within the scope of our project majored in technology. Engineering was offered during our study, though not until 1942, and no women majored in engineering during the duration of our study [3]. Other common majors that would fall under the STEM umbrella term are geology, physics, algebra, geometry, and statistics. Physics is the only course that was offered during this time period and no women majored in it. The other disciplines were not available to Hope students to major in.
  
  References:
  [1] 1944-1945. V83.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1945), 39, http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/112.
  [2] 1944-1945. V83.01. February Bulletin., 35.
  [3] 1941-1942. V80.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1941), 55, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/109.
  
  

• 1 2021-06-29T16:53:19+00:00 Missionaries and STEM 19 This page details the link between majoring in STEM and becoming a missionary. plain 2021-07-28T18:36:19+00:00

  It is important to acknowledge that the findings of this research are inherently biased. In an attempt to try to find more information on the women who majored in STEM at Hope from 1925-1950, I cross-referenced the names from the Milestone  with records at the Joint Archives of Holland, where our research is based out of. Out of the 951 women recorded, only a small portion of them had files in the Archives. It was more likely that there would be information on them if they were a part of an established Dutch family in Holland. The archives had many files on these women’s husbands but rarely information on them. Of the women that did have files, most were prominent missionaries for the Reformed Church of America. 

  Context

  According to the Hope College 1916 Semicentennial Catalog, the founding had a clear religious purpose. The catalog explicitly states that 

  They wanted a Christian school to prepare, in a general way, for high grade American citizenship and the intelligent development of Christian character; but, more specifically, they wanted a school to serve the three-fold purpose— to equip competent teachers, to train ministers, and to prepare missionaries for the foreign field [1].

  This statement hints at the college’s long-standing mutualistic relationship with the Reformed Church of America (RCA). Dennis Voskuil, a scholar and interim president at Hope College, argues that the RCA supplied resources for the college and in return, the college supplied people in his chapter “Continuity and Change” in the Hope College at 150 [2]. This can be seen in the college course bulletin as the college emphasized prerequisites for seminary training and Christian ministry. Voskuil also argues that Hope College was valued by the RCA because of the volume of missionaries coming out of the school. By 1941, over ⅓ of Hope College alumni were missionaries (2,300 people). In 1926, out of 1,410 graduates, 60% were religious workers [3].

  The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) was a major Protestant organization sending missionaries abroad. Even now, much of the missionary movement in the United States can be tied back to the ABCFM. Initially, women could only go abroad if they were wives of male missionaries [4]. Many women married in part because it was the most accessible pathway abroad. However, this changed in the 1830s as the ABCFM became desperate for missionaries. According to the Historical Dictionary of Women’s Education in the United States, this policy change resulted in “hundreds of unmarried women” finding employment as assistant missionaries and going abroad [5]. By 1880, women represented 57 percent of the missionary force [6].

  While researching women who majored in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics at Hope College from 1925-1950, there was a noticeable amount of students who entered the missionary field after graduating. This makes sense given that science and classical training were perceived to be dichotomous in the United States. Classical training was masculine and prepared men for the public sphere. Science was not as explicitly linked to gender. However, females and science were implicitly linked as science education was utilized by many female seminaries to teach “critical observation and… logical thought” [7].  Classical training was not essential for future female careers since they were most often entering the private sphere. 

  STEM and Missionary Work

  Similarly, missionary work during this time period was founded upon gendered separation and the idea of the “private sphere” as the woman’s domain. Women were seen as inherently pious and religious with special skills in nurturing and teaching [8]. Serving as a missionary complimented women’s perceived influence over religion and the family. Only eight of the women who majored in STEM during this time period (1925-1950) at Hope had files in the Joint Archives of Holland. Of the eight, seven were missionaries. Of that seven, three of them had parents who were missionaries and were raised to enter the field. Those women were Anne De Young, Mary Louise Talman, and Marjorie Van Vranken. Two of them, Helen Zander and Alida J. Kloosterman, decided to become missionaries through religious communities. Women were instrumental in recruiting, retaining, and becoming missionaries. 
  STEM was a logical primer for missionary work because it allowed women to take a pre-medical track and obtain education in nursing. While none of these women have a pre-medical track specified in the Milestone, a few of them specified that they took a pre-medical track in their archival files. This means that the women who majored in STEM might also have taken pre-medical tracks even though that is not noted in my data.

  Moreover, these women may have become missionaries because of the clear alternative to marriage and child-rearing. Women no longer had to be married or mothers in order to live abroad and have careers. The Church has a history of providing a certain amount of independence to women through positions as nuns, missionaries, and other religious work. Therefore, missionary work could have been correlated with STEM as well as other potential factors relating to marriage, motherhood, and family. 
  Of the eight women that have files in the Joint Archives of Holland, four were nurses while serving abroad. The other four women were not employed in the medical field but instead, specialized in education. Eva Van Schaack was the only woman who majored in STEM during this period with an archival file who did not become a missionary. She worked as an associate professor and professor at Hope College in the biology department [9]. 

  Higher Education

  Moreover, an interesting trend became apparent while analyzing these women’s files - all of them obtained some form of higher education. Eva Van Schaack and Bernadine Siebers De Valois both received doctorates, though Siebers De Valois’ was an honorary degree from Hope College [10]. Van Schaack obtained a PhD from John Hopkins University [11]. Helen Zander attended Columbia University and got an M.A. degree in rural education with emphasis on industrial arts after taking a furlough in 1940 [12]. Mary Louise Talman received an M.A. from Albany State Teacher’s College in 1944 [13]. Marjorie Van Vranken got a master’s degree in physiology from the University of Illinois in 1949 [14]. Jeanette Veldman recieved a M.A. from Columbia University in 1946 for Nursing Education and Administration [15]. Lastly, Bernadine Siebers De Valois obtained a M.D. in 1936 while specializing as an E.N.T [16].
  Though the sample size is small, the proportion of women who majored in STEM and received higher degrees after college is noteworthy. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, even though women participated in science before it was formalized in higher education, the professionalization of science pushed many women from the field. Women found barriers blocking them from graduate school, gaining doctorates, and getting jobs in equal value to their level of training. Some women were able to obtain entrance into colleges through attending women’s colleges, taking advantage of quotas in co-ed colleges, finding advocates on their behalf, or moving to Europe. Still, most women found themselves at the margins of science and the women who had gained entry in the field were the minority. 

  Nevertheless, women still pushed for space in education and science. Prior to 1900, nearly 30 percent of doctorates earned by women were in the sciences. By 1900, American women had earned 229 doctorates and at least 60% of the doctorates were in the sciences. However, women scientists lacked employment opportunities unless they found employment at a women’s college. If they did find employment at a college, they were typically valued as teachers over researchers. Government and industrial employment followed this same pattern of valuing teaching over researching which further marginalized female scientists. By the mid-twentieth century, land-grant institutions became significant employers of female scientists rather than just women's colleges [17].

  Career Paths

  Though these eight women from Hope College majored and obtained advanced degrees in STEM, most of their career trajectories followed the pattern described above as they became employed as teachers. Helen Zander, Mary Louise Talman, Eva Van Schaack, and Alida J. Kloosterman found teaching as their primary employment. Helen Zander specialized in English and stenography. Mary Louise Talman taught general science. There is no information on what Alida J. Kloosterman specialized in. Eva Van Schaack is the anomaly in that she obtained a doctorate, taught, and researched - though it is noted in her file that she did less research than other professors in her department. 
  Meanwhile, Jeanette Veldman, Anne De Young, Marjorie Van Vranken, and Bernadine Siebers De Valois found their primary employment in the health field. Regardless, teaching became an important part of their vocations as they trained future health professionals and locals. Bernadine Siebers De Valois, a practicing surgeon and doctor, emphasized the importance of education in both preventative and reactive health interventions. Her method emphasized educating mothers and caretakers in order to influence domestic life. This pattern is significant not because of an unimportance of teaching degrees but rather, the lack of female scientists. Teaching has been historically feminized and women rarely achieved higher positions. Even highly trained and degreed women in STEM rarely purely stayed in STEM. Teaching was a clear vocational route when employment for women had many barriers. 

  World War II gave women job opportunities as the men went off to war and positions opened up. However, as can be seen by these women’s stories, this change was not inherently lasting after the war. The veterans came back and entered higher education in large amounts and reclaimed their positions. The 1950s, introduced a need for “scientific womanpower” during the Cold War as the United States’ technological weaknesses were shown. Women were an untapped resource of trained, educated, and willing workers. Still, the national rhetoric “never matched the reality of women’s employment opportunities” [18]. Eventually, the Civil Rights and Feminist movements made gains for women’s rights. However, this is an issue still relevant today inside and outside of STEM.
  
  References:
  [1] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1916), 13-14, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/49.
  [2] Jacob Nyenhuis, Hope College at 150 (Holland: Van Raalte Press, 2019), 150.
  [3] Nyenhuis, Hope College at 150, 165.
  [4] Linda Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary of Women’s Education in the United States (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998), 48, EBSCOhost.
  [5] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, 49.
  [6] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, 48.
  [7] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, 350.
  [8] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, 350.
  [9] "Biographical, 1950-1969." Van Schaack, Eva (1904-1981). Papers, 1911-1976. (H88-0177), Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
  [10] Bernadine Siebers De Valois, “Science Plus-Miracles in India."
  [11] "Biographical, 1950-1969."
  [12] “Helen Zander: Educational Work in Japan,” Woman’s Board of Foreign Missions, July 1942. Western Biographical File, Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
  [13] “Hope Graduate Buried in Peru,” Holland City News, July 24, 1947. Hope Biographical File, Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
  [14] “Marjorie Alice Van Vranken,” Board of Foreign Missions Reformed Church of America, September 1953. Western Biographical File,  Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
  [15] "Biographical Materials," Box 5.Veldman, Jeannette (1901-1994). Papers, 1912-1989. (W89-1012), Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.; Greg Carlson and David M. Vander Haar, "Veldman, Jeannette Oral History Interview: Old China Hands Oral History Project I and II." in Old China Hands Oral History Project (former missionaries to China) (H88-0113) (Holland: Hope College, 1976), https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/old_china/?utm_source=digitalcommons.hope.edu%2Fold_china%2F15&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.
  [16] “Dr. and Mrs. J. J. De Valois,” Board of Foreign Missions, October 1955. De Valois Family. Papers, 1938-2001. (W11-1384.10). Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
  [17] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, 351-352.; Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, xvii-xix.
  [18] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, 352.