This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Women at Hope College in the 1930's and 1940's

Pop Up Definition - Hope College Catalog/Bulletin

The Hope College Catalog or Bulletin is the college's self-published yearly record of all official admissions guidelines, classes, clubs, majors, faculty, and other various information. Tuition prices are also documented in this source.

This page is referenced by:

Founding of STEM at Hope
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.
Popularity of Female Majors
Detailing Popular Majors
Modern-Language English
Consistently, some form of English has been in the top two most popular majors for senior women from 1925-1950. Until 1932, the most popular course of choice was modern-language English. The 1925 Bulletin, the equivalent of a modern course catalog, lists the requirements for a major in modern-language English as 30 semester hours in English, 20 in French, 20 in German, 8 in history, 6 in biblical literature, 2 in public speaking, 4 in political science, 4 in psychology, 4 in evidences, and 32 in electives. This list includes general education requirements that other majors also had to complete [1]. In the 1929 Bulletin, the major name switched to English modern language, though the requirements remained identical [2]. This course was recommended for high school teachers, for graduate work in English or modern languages, or for training in journalism. In general, this major was advertised as flexible and adopted to “general cultural work.” [3]
English Modern Language
In 1932, English modern language was separated into two majors - English and modern language [4]. Modern language remained popular with eleven women majoring in it that year but only one Senior woman took English. There is no description written from that year to differentiate requirements between the two. Moreover, there is an English department with courses but no modern language department. Even though there is no official description of what a modern language major was, modern languages offered were French, German, Dutch (until 1942), and Spanish (offered beginning in 1943). These French, German, Dutch and Spanish are considered to be modern since they are currently spoken which is in contrast with ancient languages offered like Latin and Greek. 1938 was the last year that modern language and English modern language were listed as any Senior women’s majors in the Milestone.
History
Until 1940, history was also a consistently popular major. According to the 1925 Bulletin, a major in history required 24 semester hours in history, 20 hours in a modern language, 15 in English, 8 in political science, 8 in philosophy, 6 in biblical literature, 6 in history of education, 4 in psychology, 4 in evidences, 2 in public speaking, and 33 in electives [5]. The course was recommended for students who planned to enter “law, the diplomatic or civil service, to teach or to do graduate work in history.” [6] The recommended career paths for history majors is of interest because graduate school during this time period had many barriers for women. 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 [7]. However, graduate degrees were rarer for women from 1925-1950.
Moreover, law, diplomatic and civil service were all traditionally male fields which fit into the idea of the “public sphere.” Women were expected to enter the “private sphere” which included influence over the family, household, children, and religious affairs [8]. A relevant question is whether these women hoped to pursue these career paths or typically forged a path of their own instead. Our research team found that a portion of women who attended Hope College during this time period used college as a means to find potential partners in marriage. This finding is in alignment with national trends as women found economic returns from attending college through both labor and marriage markets [9]. Therefore, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that while recommended career paths were influential for some women, for others it was less relevant.
Education
Notably, after 1940, education or elementary education were the most popular majors for women until the end of our research scope (1950). This trend is not surprising considering the rapid feminization of the field of teaching. By the 1880s, 80% of school teachers were women according to the Historical Dictionary of Women’s Education in the United States [10]. However, men occupied most of the upper level roles; women were effectively sequestered to the classroom. This is not to degrade individual women’s roles as teachers considering how important education is. Rather, the trend of feminization is key in understanding what women’s lives were like at Hope and throughout the United States during this time period.
The sudden popularity of education in the 1940s gives the false impression that women at Hope were taking a newfound interest in the field. On the contrary, teaching was one of the original three vocations that Hope was founded to train workers for [11]. Originally, teaching was a certification that students could obtain through Hope College but it was not a major to concentrate in. Therefore, women could have been obtaining certifications and attending Normal Colleges but that would not have been listed as their primary major in the Milestone where we pulled our data from. The creation of a teaching major that prepared students for certification was new in the late 1930s at Hope College. Our data reflects this change in available majors. Though it is significant that education became a major later because teaching might have been a less valuable degree before 1935 because married women were barred from employment [12]. Therefore, the creation and popularity of an education major shows the shift in this policy.
Data Analysis
Only providing the two most popular majors made sense for the first half of the data set because options were limited and there was a distinct mode. For the second half of the data set, providing only the two most popular majors may be misleading. After World War II, the G.I. bill allowed enrollment to increase exponentially [13]. As a result, more incoming tuition money allowed for the expansion of resources and more majors were available. Therefore, the data is less condensed around two majors. In this chart, it seems as if no women majored in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In reality, STEM majors were consistently the chosen majors for most years following English, education, and history. During some years the margins between the most popular majors and STEM majors were slim. For example, in 1934, the second most popular major was history with seven senior women majoring in it. The third most popular major was science with six women majoring in it. In 1939, six women majored in history and four women majored in mathematics. In 1948, thirteen women majored in English and six women majored in biology.
Other years, the gap between the two most popular majors and STEM as the third most popular was wider. For example, in 1942 - the most popular major was tied between English and education with fourteen senior women in each. The second most popular was biology with three women majoring in it. In 1944, twelve women majored in English and four majored in biology. In 1945, ten women majored in elementary education and three women majored in biology. In 1947, four women majored in English and three majors tied for the third most popular major with three women in chemistry, three women in music, and three women in mathematics. Lastly, in 1949, education was the second most popular major with seven senior women in it and four majors tied for third place with five women majoring in math, five women in social studies, five in elementary education, and five in biology. The rise in biology is notable as it was particularly suited for students to take a pre-medical or pre-nursing track.
However, for many years, the third most popular majors were still in what we would now call the social sciences or humanities. In 1935, the third most popular major was in Latin with four women in it. The third most popular in 1936 was English modern language with six women in it. In 1937, the third most popular was French with three women in it. In 1938, the third most popular major was modern language with four women in it. In 1940, the third most popular major was Latin with four women in it. In 1943, the third most popular major was education with four women in it. In 1946, French was the third most popular with six women in it. In 1947 and 1949, music, social studies, and elementary education tied for third place with STEM courses as listed above. Lastly, the next highest major was education with ten in it in 1950.
Other Majors
Least Popular Majors
Typically the least popular majors differed from year to year. Consistently, the classical track was less popular with only ten women taking it from 1925-1950. Possible reasons for the lack of women in this track was that classical training was meant to prepare students for politics, work, law, and graduate school. Plus, classical training was seen as a masculine subject [14]. While analyzing the Milestones from 1925-1950, I noticed that many men took the classical course which illustrates a clear gender division. Similarly, women did not major in engineering during this time period. Engineering tended to be less popular overall at Hope as it was newer. However, men did major in engineering more than women. This pattern of women majoring in certain areas less than men also holds for ancient, classical languages like Greek and Latin, philosophy, business, and economics. Latin was more popular until 1942. After that, only one woman every few years would major in it. Philosophy and economics were consistently unpopular as only two women majored in it for the duration of this study. Though, economics was introduced much later than philosophy. Business was typically a less popular major for all students as business administration was preferred.
Other Majors
Other majors that had some popularity were sociology, psychology, religious education, social service, and business administration. Sociology was added as a major in 1945 and attracted a few women each year. Similarly, psychology was introduced in 1948 and remained somewhat popular. Religious education was established longer than the other two but only remained marginally popular during this period. Lastly, social service was a composite major that was established in 1944, though no women majored in it until 1946. To major in this, a student would take courses in philosophy, economics, political science, and history [15].

References:
[1] 1925. V63. 03. November Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1925), 11, http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/86.
[2] 1928-1929. V67.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1928), 16, http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/95.
[3] 1928-1929. V67.01. February Bulletin., 16.
[4] 1931-1932. V70.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1931), 28, http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/99.
[5] 1925. V63. 03. November Bulletin., 11.
[6] 1928-1929. V67.01. February Bulletin., 16.
[7] Linda Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary of Women’s Education in the United States (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998), 351-352, EBSCOhost.
[8] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, xii.
[9] Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 134, 10.1257/jep.20.4.133.
[10] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, xvii.
[11] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1916), 13-14, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/49.
[12] Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women,” 136.
[13] Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women,” 133.
[14] Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary, 350.
[15] 1943-1944. V82.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1943), 31, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/111.
Tuition at Hope
Background Information
According to Hope College’s first catalog, created during its founding in 1866, a fee of ten dollars was required from each student for “contingent expenses.” Other than that blanket fee, no official charges were established - including tuition. Students were not turned away from the school if they could not afford to pay. If deemed worthy and had “promise of usefulness,” beneficiary aid was offered to students to assist in covering costs [1]. The first time that a consistent, formal tuition was charged and included in the yearly course catalogs was in 1916. The amount charged was 24 dollars [2]. After that, tuition remained a consistent cost for students. Room and board was listed as a consistent cost but aid was available for those unable to pay. Plus, many students were local and able to commute.
My assumption upon starting this project was that any women who attended Hope College before 1950 were middle to upper-class women who could afford to pay tuition. On one hand, this reality is true. Tuition during the scope of our research (1925-1950) coincided with two major world events - the Great Depression and World War II. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to find that wealthy people were able to afford tuition and attend school during this time. However, our exploration found that a significant portion of the attendees struggled to find the financial means to attend Hope. The focus on tuition is potentially misleading because other extraneous costs like travel, room, board, books, laboratory fees, and various sundries are glossed over. While Hope’s tuition may have been more affordable in comparison to other schools, the full cost of attending college added up quickly. Therefore, in this analysis, I am comparing the full price for college in one academic year including tuition, room, board, and sundries that is listed in the course catalogs. Hopefully, this is more accurate in portraying the cost of attending college during this time.
Making Ends Meet

As a result of hidden, higher costs, many students relied on beneficiary aid, scholarships, loans, donations, and part time employment to afford higher education. One woman, Alida J. Kloosterman graduated from Hope in 1948 after majoring in mathematics. Kloosterman detailed her financial struggles in her biography for the Reformed Church of America’s Board of Foreign Missions. Kloosterman took a gap year after her mother’s death and worked to pay off debts and mortgages on the house. She saved enough for one year in college when room, board, tuition, and sundries were $410-450 per year. While at Hope, she worked summers, vacations, evenings, and Saturdays, to finance her remaining years. Kloosterman worked in the dorm collecting and dispensing linen, in laundry as a cleaning girl, in the library, and filing [3].

Kloosterman was far from being the only student struggling to make ends meet. Helen Zander, a 1928 graduate, was financed by her church in Schenectady [4]. She would have paid $340 per year from 1925-1927. In 1928, the total given cost increased and she would have paid $380. In a 1927 letter to Mrs. Durfee, the Dean of Women from 1909-1936, one female student begged for grace from the college. The student apologized for not having the ability to pay back what she owed and promised to get a job to pay back the money with two years of interest within the next year [5]. In 1927, the listed price for attending Hope was $340 for the whole year which is now equivalent to $5,260.13. These are just a few stories of many students who toiled in order to finance their education.
Data Analysis
In general, the overall listed price of attending Hope College for one year rose from 1925-1950 though there was a dip in 1938 and 1939. To give summary statistics, the minimum for this data set is $340 which was the given total price from 1925-1927. The maximum was $750 in 1950. The mean or average is $436.92. The median is $397.50. The mode is $380. As previously mentioned, the scope of this research project includes two major international events - the Great Depression in the 1930s and World War II in the 1940s. Therefore, college pricing was influenced by the global context.
The Great Depression
During the Great Depression, pricing initially increased significantly and then decreased. In 1929, the total cost for one year at Hope College was $380. The 1928-1929 Bulletin, which is the equivalent to modern course catalogs, that listed this amount was published in 1928. During the 1929-1930 academic year, costs increased to $400. The 1930 Bulletin was published in February 1929, a few months before Black Tuesday in October. The 1931 school year was the first year where the Bulletin would be published during the Great Depression as it was published in February of 1930. Room, board, and tuition costs still increased during the Great Depression as total costs remained at $400 but deflation made the same amount of money have higher value. The highest cost was $410 in 1932. Pricing at Hope was not this high again until 1943.
After 1932, listed costs for the 1932-1933 school year decreased to $390. In 1934, it increased again to $400. Then, it decreased to $380 in 1935. In order to understand the cost of attending Hope, which may appear arbitrary at first glance, it is important to look at the economic health of the school. Overall enrollments began decreasing before the Great Depression, though this trend continued for the first few years of the 1930s. In 1929, months before the stock market crash, President Dimnent sold Hope’s stock portfolio. This helped to ease some of the economic distress that Hope was subjected to during the Great Depression. The money from the stocks was invested into the endowment. During the Depression, the school was able to pull money from the endowment in order to finance operating costs [6]. The health of the endowment contrasted with the struggle that the other sections of the school experienced. Enrollment rates decreased marginally in contrast to national trends where enrollment increased [7]. Professors and staff took a pay cut [8]. Dr. Nykerk, an important faculty member at the college, ended up losing his wealth and had to live in the female residence hall [9]. In 1930, to the distress of the Board of Trustees, President Dimnent stepped down from his role as President [10]. While relying on funds from donors and the RCA, Hope stayed afloat.
World War II
During the war, total enrollment decreased from 529 in 1943 to 300 in 1944. Enrollment increased by 12 to 312 in 1945. During these years, total pricing for one year at Hope was in the range of $410-$450. In 1943, the Army Specialized Training Program began at Hope with 76 enlisted men. Participants were able to train and take courses. Hope provided engineering courses for this program as the Army College had an emphasis on mathematics and science. The civilian college had an emphasis on liberal arts education [11]. This program was funded by the government and helped subsidize operating costs.

When the ASTP ended in April of 1944, there was a loss of revenue for the college as the government had reimbursed the college for its resources. The first semester from 1944-1945 was difficult until the war ended in 1945 and veterans began to return to campus [12]. Veterans were encouraged to attend Hope because it was approved by the Veterans Administration to qualify for benefits from the G.I. Bill. Also, Hope gave academic credit to veterans for service school training. Enrollment mushroomed from 312 to 700 in 1946 and 1300 in 1947. Post-war financial difficulties challenged the college, but another concern was the ability to provide resources to the influx of students.
Nationally, wartime inflation increased operating expenses and decreased resources in higher education. There were less students whose tuition money could cover costs. Therefore, many colleges were unequipped to handle the influx of students who enrolled during peacetime [13]. As a result, tuition and other expenses rose to match the rise in students. After World War II, the total cost of attending Hope College increased exponentially, as more students enrolled. For the 1944-1945 school year, a range for pricing was given at $410-450. That price was determined and published in 1944. In 1945-1946, pricing jumped to $500. Then, $600 in 1947 and $700 in 1948. In 1949, pricing increased but with a smaller margin as it cost $720 to attend Hope. In 1950, attending Hope was priced at $750. After World War II, “sundries” were not included in calculation of total costs. Therefore, the real cost of attending Hope was even higher.

References:
[1] 1865-1866. Catalog (Holland: Hope College, 1865), 35, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/2/.
[2] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1916), 184, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/49.
[3] “Alida J. Kloosterman”, Board of Foreign Missions Reformed Church in America, January 1950. Western Biographical File, Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
[4] “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.
[5] "Letter to Winifred Durfee," January 26, 1927. Durfee, Winifred Hackley (1861-1950). Papers, 1796-1963. (H88-0045), Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
[6] "October 1930", Board of Trustees (H88-0246), Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.; "14 June, 1932", Board of Trustees (H88-0246), Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.; "10 June, 1933", Board of Trustees (H88-0246), Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.; Wynand Wichers, A Century of Hope (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), 204-207.
[7] Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 136, 10.1257/jep.20.4.133.
[8] Edward Dimnent, "Letter to Adelaide Dykhuizen," Adelaide Dykhuizen, Teaching Contracts, 1931-1068 (H88-0046), Joint Archives of Holland, Holland, MI.
[9] "Biographical, 1891-2014," Nykerk, John Bernard (1861-1936). Papers, 1885-1961, 2014 (H88-0111), Joint Archives of Holland, Holland, MI.
[10] "June 1930", Board of Trustees (H88-0246), Joint Archives of Holland, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.; "Edward Daniel Dimnent" by Paul Wackerbarth, 1964, Biographical, 1889-1965 Dimnent, Edward D. (1876-1959). Papers, 1892-1972. (H88-0040), Joint Archives of Holland, Holland, MI.
[11] "Correspondence between Hope College and Army", July 1943-September 1943, Military Training Programs, records, 1917-1951, (H88-0266), Joint Archives of Holland, Holland, MI.
[12] "Correspondence between Hope College and Army."
[13] Roger L. Geiger, The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 427, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7ztpf4.1?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Enrollment at Hope College
Historical Context
According to the 1916 Hope College semicentennial bulletin, Holland, Michigan was founded in 1847 by Albertus Van Raalte and other immigrants from the Netherlands. As they started settling and laying foundations for the future, the obvious need for a school took precedent. However, the community lacked the resources to establish the Christian school that they desired so they reached out to the Reformed Church of America (RCA) that provided resources for their journey to Holland [1]. In October of 1851, a Pioneer School was founded to the relief and excitement of the community. Eventually, it was reorganized as Holland Academy in 1857. Finally, the school was incorporated as Hope College in 1866 [2].
Hope College was created with the intention of training teachers and ministers and preparing missionaries to serve abroad [3]. This reflected the importance of its relationship with the RCA; the RCA supplied resources and the college supplied people. The first cohorts that matriculated from Hope were small with the first consisting of only eight men in 1866. Six men graduated the next year. Financial struggles restricted growth in the college which prompted the opening of Hope College to women in 1878. Slowly, cohorts increased with the upward growth condensed mostly around the turn of the century. By 1927, there were 513 total students enrolled at the college [4].
National Trends
National trends indicate that there was a parity between men and women in college enrollment from 1900 to 1930 [5]. Moreover, higher education enrollments increased after 1915 and doubled by 1924. Overall enrollments rose during the Great Depression, stalled, and resumed growing in the latter half of the 1930s [6]. Specifically, male enrollment increased during the 1930s and the Great Depression because many men sought ways to increase their employability. Also, many men had little else to do so working towards a degree was a productive way to spend time [7].
During World War II, male enrollment sharply decreased as they were enlisted and shipped off to battle. This changed after the end of the war as the G.I. Bill was created in order to provide benefits and assistance to veterans. Some of these benefits included finances for higher education and as a result, many men enrolled in college. This was significant in furthering the national shift from elite higher education to mass higher education that began in the interwar period (1918-1939). Schools had begun shifting from elite higher education which served students of privileged social backgrounds or those with impressive talent to mass education which served anyone who met the admissions qualifications. Moreover, elite higher education emphasized culture as it sought to form character and prepare students for leadership. Meanwhile, mass higher education aimed to prepare students for a broad variety of vocations [8]. Traits of elite higher education and mass higher education were not mutually exclusive and one college could inhabit traits of both. However, the interplay between the two shifted who attended higher educational institutes and for what purpose.
Male college graduates continued to increase after World War II with the expansion of men who were eligible for the G.I. Bill after serving in the Korean War (1950-1953). The trend of mass higher education led to the expansion of college and the subsequent creation of higher education as a requirement for entry into jobs [9]. The national maximum in college enrollment gender imbalance was in 1947 [10]. However, by 2021, the gender ratio has flipped and there are more women than men enrolled nationally and at Hope [11].

Hope College Data Analysis
Comparison to National Trends
During the span of our research, 1925-1950, Hope broadly matched these trends, though there was some variability. The main deviation was that enrollment began decreasing in 1927 and continued through the 1930s. Therefore, the Great Depression was not the only factor in the shrinkage of total enrollments. Moreover, at Hope, there was never a parity between male and female enrollments. Except for during World War II when men were drafted, men were always more numerous at Hope. However, Hope followed the Post-WWII boom in male enrollments. Similarly, 1947 was the year with the most extreme gender imbalance. Overall, Hope conformed to broad trends in enrollment but deviated with specifics.

The Great Depression
The overall pattern that enrollment at Hope College followed was a decline in all students after 1927 when 513 students were enrolled. This number was not surpassed again until 1940 when 525 students were enrolled. The decrease happened during the years 1929 (434 people), 1930 (423), 1931 (420). Then, enrollment increased slowly with occasional dips. According to national trends, this increase may have been due to the lack of employment opportunities available for men. Therefore, education would ease boredom and provide potential job opportunities [12]. Another reason may have been that incoming students were able to find resources to fund their college education when before they were unable to. Regardless, Hope benefitted from the gradual expansion of enrollment.

World War II
During 1941 and 1942, enrollment stayed consistent with only six more students counted in 1942. There was a slight decrease in enrollment in 1943 with 529 students. Enrollment sharply decreased in 1944 with 300 students registered at Hope which is the minimum of this data set. This is directly related to the start of American involvement in World War II and the draft. However, 276 men took part in the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) that used Hope’s facilities. With the men included, the total number of students was 576 which continued the upward trajectory that Hope’s enrollment had previously taken.
In 1945, the total number of students increased from 1944 (without the ASTP included) with 312. There were no figures presented for the ASTP because it had ended the year prior. After the war, enrollment increased by 224.4% in one year with 700 students enrolled in 1945. The next year, 1946, jumped by 185.7% from 1945 with 1300 students registered for classes. The next years (1947-1948) increased marginally until 1949 with 1189 students listed. Then, enrollment began to decrease in 1950 with 1124 students.

Gender Demographics
Looking at gender demographics, which were self-reported by the school in the bulletin after 1935, reveals distinct gender ratio patterns throughout the 15 years analyzed. Men were consistently enrolled more than women except for 1944 and 1945 during World War II. By 1947, this imbalance was as extreme as men outnumbering women two to one. This ratio juxtaposes the year prior, 1946, as 1946 was the year closest to gender parity in this time period. In 1946, there were 408 men and 339 women. However, this data may be skewed because in 1946, 1947, and 1948, students were deducted for double counting but we do not know what gender they were. Therefore, we have kept them included in the data set. In the bulletin, 47 people were listed as being deducted for counting twice in 1946. 113 were deducted in 1947. However, the gender parity in 1946 could make sense if men took a gap year after the war while recovering emotionally and physically. Regardless, male students clearly outnumbered female students from 1935-1950 with the 1935-1941 being the closest to gender parity and the war (with more female students) and post-war years (with many more male students) being the furthest from parity.

References:
[1] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1916), 10, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/49; 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin., 14.; 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin., 15.
[2] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin., 1.
[3] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin., 13-14.
[4] 1927. V65.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1927), 62, http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/90.
[5] Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 133, 10.1257/jep.20.4.133.
[6] Roger L. Geiger, The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 429, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7ztpf4.1?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
[7] Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women,” 136.
[8] Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 428.
[9] Geiger, History of American Higher Education, 428.
[10] Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 133, 10.1257/jep.20.4.133.
[11] Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women,” 134.
[12] Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko, “The Homecoming of American College Women,” 136.
Missionaries and STEM
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.
Majors for Women at Hope
Historical Context
Hope College was founded in coordination with the Reformed Church of America (RCA) [1]. The 1916 Semicentennial Catalog reveals the intention behind the creation of the college as it says
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 [2].
Teaching, missionary work, and ministry were the three vocational pillars that guided the founders in creating the school curriculum. As a result, emphasis was placed on classical training in Greek, Latin, and English. Classical curriculums were often elemental parts of higher education for male colleges in the United States since it was meant to prepare men for the public sphere. This included politics, work, and law. Moreover, knowledge of Greek, Latin, and English were required for admission to graduate programs. As a result, classical training was seen as disciplined and masculine [3].
The importance of classical training to Hope is evident in the 1866 Course Catalog where the only three options for courses of study were normal (teaching), English, and classical. The two men who took normal and English courses were temporarily absent from the school. Therefore, the classical course was the only active option for students [4]. This analysis does not include the Junior College or the School of Music. We only looked at Hope College. As the school expanded, more departments and courses of study opened up. By 1916, the semicentennial, there were six courses of study open to students - classical, philosophical, natural science, modern-language English, modern-language mathematics [5].
By 1925, the first year analyzed in this study, there were six courses of study available - classical, science, modern language-English, mathematics, history, and Latin [6]. Those remained the same six courses available until 1930. There is no available data on majors recorded in 1931 since the course catalog does not list available courses and no Milestone was published. In 1932, eight courses were offered - business administration, classical, English, history, Latin, mathematics, modern language, and science [7]. These same courses were offered until 1936.
From 1931-1932, the four year course schedule for each major that had been in the bulletins was no longer included. They were reintroduced in 1933 but only for Freshmen and Sophomores rather than Upperclassmen. After 1933, formal recommendations for four year plans were no longer included in the bulletin. However, in 1945, four year plans were listed for those on pre-professional tracks like nursing, dentistry, law, forestry, journalism, engineering, theology, social service, library science, and business administration. These plans were listed under “suggested professional curricula” [8]. This continued after the 1950 school year which is out of the scope of this research. No schedule recommendations were given during this time for majors. It is important to clarify that women could take different tracks like the pre-medical track or pre-professional tracks without them qualifying as their primary major. These would not be listed in the Milestone sometimes. Therefore, the lack of women in these fields during this time period (1925-1950) does not necessarily mean that they did not take them. For example, stenography was a certification that women could get but could not major in.
Moreover, lists of available majors were not included in 1931 but were reintroduced in 1932. This could have been due to the expansion of available majors. However, a more likely theory is that the college wanted to save money on printing costs or felt that it was unnecessary to include the information. By 1936, only “groups” were specified that students could take courses in rather than majors. These groups were English, foreign languages, science, and social studies in 1936 [9]. After 1936, music was added to the list of groups. Departments and majors fit under these umbrella categories but were not individually listed [10].

The option of three science and math courses in the 1916 Semicentennial catalog (philosophical, natural science, and modern-language mathematics) reveal a significant shift towards incorporating hard sciences in addition to classical courses [11]. In 1942, a science building, Lubbers Hall, was opened which allowed room for physical expansion of the science department [12]. In 1943, the Army Specialized Training Program began at Hope. The College provided engineering courses for the troops, so Hope split into the Army College with an emphasis on mathematics and science and the other was civilian with an emphasis on liberal arts education [13]. More information on the creation of the STEM departments can be found on our page about the Founding of STEM at Hope and Women in STEM.

References:
[1] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1916), 15, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/49.
[2] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin., 13-14.
[3] Linda Eisenmann, Historical Dictionary of Women’s Education in the United States (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998), 350, EBSCOhost.
[4] 1865-1866. Catalog (Holland: Hope College, 1865), 31-33, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/2/.
[5] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin, 105.
[6] 1925. V63. 03. November Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1925), 10-11, http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/86.
[7] 1931-1932. V70.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1931), 28, http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/99.
[8] 1944-1945. V83.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1945), 35, http://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/112.
[9] 1935-1936. V74.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1935), 30, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/103.
[10] 1936-1937. V75.01. February Bulletin. (Holland: Hope College, 1936), 28, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/catalogs/104.
[11] 1916. V54.01. May Bulletin., 105.
[12] Milestone 1943 (Holland: Hope College, 1943), 70, https://digitalcommons.hope.edu/milestone/24.
[13] Correspondence between Hope College and Army, July 1943-September 1943, Military Training Programs, records, 1917-1951, (H88-0266), Joint Archives of Holland, Holland, MI.