Before the Midâ€‘19th Century: How Women’s Schooling Diverged from Men’s-and How Access Slowly Opened

Overview: What Differed in Women’s vs. Men’s Education Before the Midâ€‘19th Century

Before the midâ€‘1800s, men held near-exclusive access to formal academic education, especially at the college level; women’s schooling, when available, was typically limited to basic literacy, religious instruction, and domestic arts, with rare exceptions in select academies and seminaries that offered more advanced subjects. [1] [2]

In the United States, early higher education was designed for men, and women’s entry into colleges began only gradually in the 19th century through coeducational pioneers like Oberlin and through dedicated women’s colleges and academies. [1] [3]

Access: Who Could Attend, and Where?

Men in early America and Britain commonly pursued grammar schools, classical academies, apprenticeships, and-importantly-universities and colleges, which largely excluded women prior to the 19th century. [1]

By contrast, girls’ access was often local and informal. In Britain, many working-class girls encountered instruction in “dame schools,” informal settings in a woman’s home where basic literacy and numeracy were taught for a small fee; quality varied widely and sometimes resembled childcare more than structured education. [2]

Philanthropic and religious initiatives created early institutions for girls and young women in North America. Notable examples include the Ursuline Academy (1727) in New Orleans, Moravian-founded Bethlehem Female Seminary (1742) in Pennsylvania, Linden Hall (1746), and Salem Academy and College (founded for girls in 1772). These schools were exceptions that provided sustained female education within religious frameworks. [3]

In Britain, significant institutional change began midâ€‘century. Queen’s College, London (founded 1848), was the first school in Britain to offer girls a serious academic education with qualifications, marking a shift from charity-based and domestic-focused instruction. [2]

Curriculum: What Was Taught to Women vs. Men?

Men’s curricula prioritized classical languages (Latin, Greek), advanced mathematics, philosophy, rhetoric, and, later, scientific study-subjects tied to civic leadership, the professions, and university preparation. Women’s curricula, when formalized, generally emphasized religion, reading, writing, music, needlework, and domestic economy, reflecting expectations for household management and moral influence. [1] [2]

Important exceptions emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Some female academies in the U.S. introduced more rigorous academic subjects, and certain institutions began to claim parity with male academies, often driven by religious or reform motives to prepare women as educators or informed mothers. Historical analyses document the development of women’s academies and seminaries that, in select cases, incorporated mathematics, natural philosophy, and modern languages. [4]

In Britain, Queen’s College, London, organized instruction by subject with lectures and essays and included topics such as arithmetic, mechanics, and geology-signaling a break from purely domestic curricula by midâ€‘century. [2]

Purpose and Outcomes: Why Educate, and to What End?

For men, education was a pathway to the professions, public office, law, the clergy, and scientific fields. The system channeled boys and men toward degrees and credentials that translated into recognized careers and civic status. [1]

For women, schooling was often justified under the ideology sometimes termed “Republican Motherhood” in the U.S.-the idea that women should be educated to raise virtuous citizens-or for refinement and domestic management. As academies expanded, a practical vocational goal also took hold: preparing women for teaching, a field they entered in large numbers as common schools spread across the 19th century (with women eventually comprising a large majority of teachers, paid significantly less than men). [5]

Early coeducation did not guarantee equal treatment. For instance, when Oberlin admitted women in 1837, female students were still expected to perform domestic labor, illustrating persistent role segregation even within the same institution. [1]

Segregation vs. Coeducation: Institutional Pathways

Before the midâ€‘1800s, most higher education institutions were male-only. Two pathways expanded women’s access in the 19th century: coeducational colleges (e.g., Oberlin) and women’s colleges (e.g., Wesleyan College, chartered in 1836 to grant degrees to women). Both models contested prevailing beliefs that advanced study was unsuitable for women. [1]

Even so, many educators and policymakers argued women were not interested in or capable of advanced study, or that they should learn in segregated settings; these expectations shaped program design and access, including the rise of normal schools that trained women teachers at lower pay than men. [5]

Religious orders and Protestant denominations also played outsized roles in founding girls’ academies, providing a framework in which communities accepted female learning as morally and socially beneficial while still bounded by gender norms. [3]

Case Examples: Institutions that Shifted the Landscape

Ursuline Academy in New Orleans (founded 1727) sustained long-running instruction for girls, demonstrating how Catholic orders integrated female education into community life over generations. [3]

Moravian schools-Bethlehem Female Seminary (1742) and Linden Hall (1746)-provided structured boarding-school models for girls, balancing religious instruction with broader learning, and serving as early precedents for later academies and colleges for women. [3]

Queen’s College, London (1848), helped normalize subject-based instruction for girls with lectures and essays, including mathematics and sciences, showing how reformers leveraged teacher training and certification to raise standards for women’s schooling. [2]

Oberlin College’s move to admit women (1837) and later degree conferrals to women-alongside the founding of women’s colleges like Wesleyan-were milestones that began to close gaps between curricula for men and women, even as social expectations tempered equality on campus. [1]

How to Research or Access Historical and Institutional Records

If you want to explore how women’s education differed from men’s in a specific place or decade, you can:

Identify local archives and denominational repositories. You can contact diocesan archives, Moravian archives, or city historical societies to request catalogs, curricula, and enrollment records. Ask for “female academy catalogs,” “seminary prospectuses,” and “normal school reports.”
Search institutional timelines. Many historic schools maintain digital histories. You can search for terms like “Ursuline Academy New Orleans history,” “Bethlehem Female Seminary catalog,” or “Queen’s College London 1848 curriculum” to locate official pages and digitized documents.
Use academic databases and open repositories. You can consult education history journals and digitized theses. For example, open-access papers analyzing women’s curricula from 1750-1850 can help triangulate course offerings and institutional missions. [4]
Corroborate with policy histories. To understand why women entered teaching in large numbers, review scholarship on common school reforms, teacher training, and gendered wage structures in the 19th century. [5]

When institutional websites are not readily available, you can contact the school’s registrar, alumni office, or archives by phone or email and request guidance on historic catalogs, subject lists, and first admission dates for women. Provide approximate years and keywords (e.g., “female department,” “ladies’ course,” “seminary for young ladies”).

Common Challenges and How to Address Them

Challenge: Inconsistent terminology. Before the midâ€‘19th century, words like “academy,” “seminary,” and even “college” varied in meaning. Solution: Compare course lists, admission requirements, and examination standards across multiple institutions to assess rigor rather than relying on labels alone. [4]

Challenge: Patchy records. Many girls’ schools were charitable or local with incomplete archives. Solution: Triangulate using newspapers, religious society reports, and city directories. Look for references to “governess training,” “ladies’ academy exhibitions,” and “prize lists.”

Challenge: Presentism. It’s easy to project modern expectations onto past curricula. Solution: Read institutional mission statements and trustees’ reports to understand stated purposes-moral formation, domestic economy, or teacher preparation-and then test whether course content aligns.

Key Takeaways

Prior to the midâ€‘19th century, men’s education was formal, classical, and geared toward public and professional life, while women’s education was often informal, locally provided, and oriented toward domestic roles-with notable exceptions in religious and reform-driven institutions. [1] [2] [3]

The 19th century brought gradual change via coeducation, women’s colleges, and subject-based curricula that included mathematics and sciences for girls, especially in institutions founded or reformed by religious orders and social reformers. [1] [2]

References

[1] BestColleges (2021). A History of Women in Higher Education.

[2] Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine (2024). The history of women’s fight for education.

[3] Wikipedia. Women’s education in the United States (timeline and early institutions).

[4] University of Minnesota Conservancy (Thesis). The Mysterious Education of American Women, 1750-1850.

[5] ERIC (Peer-reviewed). The Impact of Historical Expectations on Women’s Higher Education.