SOME . OF THE CAUSAL FACTORS IN 
THE INCREASED HEIGHT OF 
COLLEGE c: WOMEN 


; • .. : :" ; : ~",. co~· .. : : '":.. : 
THIRD NOTE 
•• • 9 ~ .. ,. ... .. ,. .... . . . .. .. .. ...... ~ .. ~ 
"' .... : ..: : ..._. 
CLELIA DUEL MOSHER, M.D. 

Associate Professor of Personal Hygiene and 1\.Iedical Adviser of \Vomen 

STA.XFORD UXIVERSITy, CALIF. 

College women during the last three decades have 
increased in size. The studies 1 made at Stanford 
University of 4,170 women students who entered during 
a period of thirty years show at the time of admission 
not only an increase in weight but also an increase 
of 1.2 inches in average height. These results have been 
confirmed by the Vassar College statistics 2 based on the 
examinations of 7,064 women during thirty-seven years, 
an investigation which shows an increase in height "well 
over 1.5 inches" ; and also by Smith College measurements 
3 of 10,149 women during a period of twentytwo 
years. 

Table 1 gives the data concerning height for Stanford 
University, Vassar College and Smith College 
individually in year groups, with the number of cases, 
and the average height for each year, and also shows. 
the same data for 21,383 women, the combined examinations 
from the three institutions. · 

Table 2 gives the same data for Stanford women by 
decades. 

Consideration of the average height of college 
women either separately in terms of the individual 
college and university group, or in terms of the measurements 
of the 21,383 examinations of women from 
Stanford, Vassar and Smith combined, shows the same 

I . .:\Iosher, C.. D.: Concerning the Size of \Vomen, Preliminary 
Note, Califomia State J. :Med. 19: 53 (Feb.) 1921; The Height of 
College \Vomen, Second Note, M. \Voman's J., November, 1921. 
2. Newcomer, Mabel: The Physical Development of Vassar College 
Students, 1884·1920, Quart. Pub. Am. Stat. A., December, 1921. 
3. Smith College Statistics,· New York Herald, May 9, 1921. These 
were submitted to ~Iiss Elizabeth Richards of Smith College for correc~ 
tion and approval, after having been arranged tQ correspond to the 
Stanford and Vassar :figures. · 


2 

mcrease ( Tab:e 1). \Ve may therefore conclude that 
college women have increased in average height 1.2 
inches or more in the last thirty years. 

A careful study of "t!{e;:,~f.l-zci:~Jh~n ~who entered 
Stanford University darlng.:~t'he ~ h~~'Hhee decades 
shows that whj!; Jht; .r~~m~~. i~")~~gh~ ~~s" ~e.mp.ined 
:-~ ._'7J.: '-::~ !, ~ ·~ ~:!{ ~ ~_: ~~ -:;-:z ~ 3 
T.~BLE 1.-Heig1tr' of 2i-,sJ3 Collegr>-Womflz bj' f~~s* 

Stanford, Smith 
Stanford Smith Va8sar and vassar Com· 
University College College bined (21,383) 
r--~,-----A-----, ,----J-----., 
.so. Average .So. ·Average No. Average No. Average 
College of Height, of Height, of Height, of Height,

Year Women Inches Women Inches Women Inches Women Inches 
!884-1885 30 63.5 
18&'>-1886 39 52.8 
188&-1887 31 62.5 
!887-!Wl 44 63.5 
1888-1889 52 62.9 
!88!1-!8!10 59 63.4 
1800-1891 51 63.4 
!891-189-2 94 62.4 113 63.1 207 62.8 
!89"2-1893 91 63.2 127 63.0 218 63.1 
!Bre-1894 1!0 63.0 129 63.1 2!8 63.0 
189-1-1895 124 63.3 tOo 63.4. 229 63.4 
18\&1896 JOB 63.0 146 63.0 254 63.0 
1896-!897 127 63.4 164 63.5 291 63.4 
181l7-l&l8 124 f3.2 £01 63.5 325 63.4 
18!1S-1899 124 63" 185 63.5 309 63.4 

1800-1000 117 63.5 300 63 •) 218 63.6 635 63.4. 
1900-1901 us 63.4 335 63.6 222 63.8 675 63.6 
1901-190'2 104. 63.8 262 63.5 21lO 63.9 656 63.7 
190"2-1903 !50 63.8 309 63.6 2"20 63.7 679 63.7 
1903-J!Jl\4 102 64.9 307 63.7 2()'j 64.2 616 64.2 
190!-19C5 39 62.9 !OJ 63.3 247 64.0 689 63.4 
1905-1006 78 63.5 406 63.6 208 63.8 002 63.6 
1006-1007 158 63.8 469 63.0 160 64.0 787 636 
1907-1908 180 63.6 44,} 63.2 295 63.8 920 63.5 
190S-1909 63 63.5 494 60.9 w; 64.2 843 62.9 
Jtl00-1910 133 63.9 501 62A 26) 64.2 894 638 
1911\-1\111 lll3 63.& 454 63.5 267 63.8 914 63.6 
1911-1912 131 63.8 414 63.8 256 64.3 801 63.9 

1912-191~ 91 .63.7 480 63.2 276 64.1 847 63.7 
1913-1914 146 63.7 498 63.6 296 64.2 940 63.8 
1914-1915 168 63.9 545 63.6 343 64.1 1,000 63.9 
1915-1916 178 63.7 526 63.7 303 64.2 1,007 63.8 

191&-1917 17() 64.0 642 63.6 2'27 64.1 1,039 63.9 
1917-1918 238 64.2 646 64.1 241 6U 1,125 64.2 
1918-1919 276 63.8 730 6l.3 228 64.5 1,234 64.2 
191!1-1~20 157 63.6 479 64.1 242 64.4 878 64.0 

1~2(}.!~21 299 64.0 504 64.0 296 64.7 1,099 64.2 

• Stanford, 4-,1';0; Smith, 10,149; Vassar, 7,0&1. 
about the same ( 14 inches), there has been an increasing 
number of women in the upper end of the series; 
or, in other words, while there are women coming to 
the uni\·ersity just as short in height as during the first \ 
decade, their riumber is decreasing, while at the same \ 
time the number of tall girls is increasing. Not every 
woman has gained in height 1.2 inches, but an increas



3 

mg number of women who are tall are entering the 

university. 

EXPLANATIONS FOR INCREASED HEIGHT OF 
WOMEN 


Is the increase in height during these later )'ears due 
to the greater admixture of the northern races through 
immigration? This does not appear to be the case. · 

The arguments against this are several. First, this 
increase in height is found in a western university and 
in two eastern colleges. There is a greater increase in 
the Vassar height than in the height of the Stanford 
women. Although the Smith records show a some• 
what smaller average increase, yet these records extend 
over twenty-two years, only a little more than the last 
two decades, and at both Stanford and Vassar the 
increase in average height is greater from the first to 
the second decade than from the second decade to the 

TABLE 2.-Average Height of 4,110 Stanford University 
TVomen by Ten-Year Periods (from Table 1) 

Number of Average Height,
Years in 10-Year Periods Women Inches 

1891-1892 to 1900-1901 (inclusive)............ 1,116 63.2 
1901-1902 to 1910-19ll (inclusive) .......... .. 1,200 63.6 
19ll-1912 to 1920-1921 (inclusive)............ 1,854 63.9 


third. Moreover, the study of the birthplaces of the 
Stanford women shows that these women are a cross . 
section of the college women of the United States and 
not a localized group (Table 3). Every state in the 
Union, with the exception of North Carolina and Delaware, 
is represented, only about 37 per cent. being from 
California. There are 135 from the New England 
states and 127 from Oregon and \Vashington; 248 
from the Middle Atlantic states, as contrasted with 297 
from the Mountain states; the Southern states show a 
smaller attendance in college-the South Atlantic having 
forty-three, and. the East South Central forty-six, 
together having eighty-nine representatives at Stanford, 
as contrasted with the \Vest South Central states, 
with seventy-four daughters in the university; the East 
North Central states, which have 695 students, are not 
far away from the \Vest North Central states, which 
have 703 students, only eight more than in the previous 
division. Again, may not the question he raised 


4 

TABLE 3.-Birthp/aces of 4)70 Stanford Women by Decades 

New England States (135) Pacifts States (1,701) 

,....----'-~

First Second Third First Second Third 
Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade 

Connecticut... . 8 5 13 California..... 3&1 HO 763 
Maine......... . 
JUassachw~etts. 
13 
21 
9 
14 
11 
19 
Oregon.........
Washington... 
29 
11 
16 
16 
35 
30 
N. Hampshire.• 
Rhode Island.. 
4 
2 
3 
1 
1 
2 
Vermont....... 6 2 1 
Total No.... 54 Total No. • • . 401 

Middle Atlantic States (248) Mountain States (297) 

First Second Third First Second Third 
Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade 


New Jersey ..n. 
New York..... . 
'5 
67 
10 
.36 
11 
36 
Arizona....... . 
Colorado....•• 
2 
8 
7 
29 
is 
61 
Penn•ylvania.• 32 22 29 Idaho.•........ 
Montana.•...•• 
2 
4 
6 
16 
17 
2"1 
Nevada ...••..• 19 10 . 9 
New Mexico.•.. 4 4 3 
Utah.....••.... 3 11 26 
Wyoming.•...• 4 2 8 
Total l'\o. •• • 101 68 76 •rota! No.•.. 46 8> 166 

South Atlantic States (43) East South Central States (46) 

F•rst Second Third First Second Third 

Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade 
Dist. Columbia 4 4 5 Alabama.••...• 2 1 1 
Florida....••.• 0 2 1 Kentucky.••.•• 9 6 7 
Georgiu..•••.•. 1 3 1 Missouri ......• 4 1 1 
Maryland .•.•• 1 3 3 Tennessee..... . 2 3 7. 
So. Carolina•.. 1 0 2 
Virginia........ 5 1 1 

w: \"irglnia..•• 1" 2" 2 
Total No.... 13 15 15 Total No., •• 17 11 20 

East North Central States (695) West North Central States (700) 

First Second Third First Second Third 
Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade 


Illinois........ . 89 70 106 Iowa........... 71 8'l 94 
lndiana........ 48 29 50 Kansas......... 24 40 54 
Jllichigan......; 
Ohio.......... . 
2.3 
47 
23 
47 
34 
29 
Minnesota..... 
Missonrl.. .. ..• 
19 
2.4 
20 
37 
55 
42 
Wisconsin..... . 37 2.4 37 Nebraska...... 10 32 48 
N. & S. Dakota 1 20 3) 
Total No. .. • 244 193 258 Total No. •.. 149 231 323 

West South Central States (74) Foreign Born 

First Second Third First Second Third 
Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade 


Arkansas..... . 3 6 5 Alaska .... .. .. 0 1 1 
Louisiana..... . 3 2 2 Hawaii......... 2 6 2 
Oklahoma.... . 
Texas......... . 
o 
3 
o 
10 
1 
33 
Foreign........
Cnknown...... 
56 
18 
32 
34 
53 
20 
Total Xo.... 9 18 Total No.... 76 73 76 


5 


whether the daughters of parents born in other countries 
are able to go to college in any very great numbers 
in the first generation? The answer seems to be in the 
negative; certainly they do not go in sufficient proportion 
to influence the height in a consideration of 21,383 
\Vomen who are represented in this study: 

It is therefore evident that we must seek some other 
explanation for the increased height of women than 
either a greater percentage of the northern races due-to 
immigration, or the presence of westerners who are 
known to be on the average somewhat taller than 
eastern people. 

It is quite true that the average height of California 
women is slightly greater than the height of non-

TABLE 4.-Height of California'ns a11d NoiiCalifomialls 
by Decades* 


Total Birth· 
Californians Non-Californians of places Un· 
Ca!!for· known: 
No AYerage A\'erage No. nians and No. 
of Height, Height, of Non-Call-of 
Ten-Year Groups ·Women Inches Inches Women fornlans Women 

1891-1!192 to 1900-1!101 3M 63.4 63.0 745 1,109 7 
(inclusive)
1901-190"2 to 191<>-1911 «0 63.8 63.7 722 1,162 ss 
(lnclusin)
1911-1912 to 192<>-1921 763 63.9 63.8 1,072 1,835 19 
(inclusive) 

Total..•••••.... 1,567 63.7 63.5 2,539 4,106 64 

• Eight women were known to be non-Californians but the birth 
state was unknown. Thus there is a discrepancy In Tables 3 and 4 in 
-the number of unknown birthplaces. 

California women, as shown in Table 4. But the inclusion 
of a greater number of Californians in the later 
decades will not account for the increase in height, for 
it will be noted that the non-Californians increased in 
height to a much greater extent than did the Californians. 
That the non-Californians have shown a 
greater increase in height than have the Californians 
is an indirect p-roof of the contention that exercise and 
more hygienic clothing are among the causal factors in 
the development of this finer physical type of woman. 
The outdoor life with its tramping, climbing, riding 
and exercise in the open was common to women to a 
much greater degree in California in the first decade 
than in the eastern United States. Certainly bicycling, 
which was one of the chief forms of athletics in the 


·6 

first decade, was almost universal at Stanford, where 
the limited means of transportation made it an essential 
to every-day living during those pioneer days. With 
bicycling came the necessity for shorter, lighter and 
looser clothing. It became imperative to discard the 
voluminous skirts measuring from 9 to 15 feet in 
diameter, which often weighed as much as 7 pounds,4 
and thus here and there some venturesome college girl 
tried something in the way of dress which was the 
forerunner of the sport suit of today. 

In my first paper, "Concerning the Size of Women," 1 
it was stated after a general survey of all the available 
data that two great factors are concerned in these 
results : ( 1 ) the change in fashion, making possible 
the wearing of clothing which interferes less with the 
hygiene of the woman (2) the increased physical 
activity, which has been brought about by the (a) 
change in dress; (b) development of physical training 
and sports in the secondary schools as well as in our 
colleges, and (c) change in the conventional attitude 
toward these activities for women. 

INCREASED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY OF WOMEN 

Let us consider, first, the increased physical activity 
of women. It is a matter of common knowledge that 
the modern college girl is more physically active than 
the. women of thirty years ago, but the Vassar studies 
make a real contribution to this subject. From 1896 
to 1900, 26.5 per cent. of the entering students at 
Vassar College had engaged in no form of sport before 
coming to college; from 1916 to 1920, only 0.6 per 
cent. reported no sports before admission to the college. 
This almost universal physical activity during the 
preparatory years has been fostered, not only by the 
laws for compulsory physical training in the secondary 
schools, but also by the municipal play grounds and 
swimming pools. This eagerly to be· desired, more 
fully developed woman will, therefore, be found in constantly 
increasing numbers among all classes of women, 
those who go to college and those who do not go, thus 
insuring better wives and mothers, and consequently a 
better race. 

4. 1\Iosber, C. D.: Health and the \Voman Movement, Ed. 2, New 
York, \Voman's Press, 1918, p. 22. 

7 


INFLUENCE OF FASHION 

The other factor is the influence of fashion. It has 
already been noted that, with increasing physical activity, 
a change to lighter and looser clothing was made and 
fashion was forced to adapt itself to the introduction 

. of the bicycle and automobile. The changes in fashion 
have been studied by A. L. Kroeber,5 the anthropologist, 
who has traced these variations over a period of more 
than sixty years. His figures for twenty-nine years 
of the period covered by the Stanford measurements 
have been plotted in curves. The ratios given for the 
width of skirt, the length of skirt, and the width of 
waist throw some light on the problem of the relation 
of change in fashion to increased height and functional 
disability, as shown by the Stanford studies on these 
two subjects. 

The detailed curves after Kroeber are given, and 
also the average curve, which shows even more clearly 
the gradual narrowing and shortening of the skirt and 
at the same time the increased breadth of waist. 

In any consideration of the advantages to the health 
of women in the narrowing and shortening of the skirt, 
we must bear in mind that I am not referring to such 
vagaries of fashion as are represented in the detailed 
curve for the year 1911, and again in 1920, developments 
which would be just as hampering to freedom of 
motion as were the. heavy, voluminous skirts, although 
the excessive narrowness was compensated for in part, 
at least, by an equally and unduly excessive shortening. 
These very extreme styles were of relatively short 
duration and therefore of minor significance. The 
trend of the curve, when studied in connection with the 
Stanford curves for periodic disability and height, 
shows an unmistakable parallel. 

Reliable data on the menstrual conditions of ·the 
women ~t Stanford were available only for the years 
1893, 1894, 1895, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917. 
In an earlier paper I discussed the unreliability of general 
statements about the menstrual function as collected 
from the women concerning themselves.• ·The 

5. Kroeber, A. L.: On the Principle of Order in Civilization as 
Exemplified by Changes in Fashion, Am. Anthropologist 21: 235-263, 
1919. 

6. llosher~ C. D.: Functional Periodicity in \Vomen and Some of 
the Modifying Factors? Second Note, California State J. A.Ied.• January 
and February, 1911; :II. Woman's J., April, 19ll; Am. Phys. Ed. Rev., 
November, 1911. 


8 

records for the years mentioned I can personally vouch 
for as being as reliable as single statements can be 
made. No case in which there was pain has been overlooked. 
The close relation between these changes in 
fashion and the relief from menstrual pain is cibviom:. 
This relation has been repeatedly shown in my clinical 
experience, but lack of space prevents the citing of 
cases. The evil effect of heavy clothing is also reflected 
in the percentage of pain at the menstrual period, as 
shown in the Stanford no dysmenorrhea curve, which 
from 1911 to 1917 steadily rises, until in 1915 and 1916 

TABLE 5.-Arithmetical Means of Girth of Waist of Vassar 
College Students, 1884-1920 * 

Standard Standard 
No. of Mean, Deviation, No. of Mer..m, Deviation, 

Year Women em. em. Year Women em. Cm. 
1884...... 30 65.2 4.6 1!103...... 206 00.5 4.9 
1885...... 39 63.2 3.6 190!...... 248 59.0 4.8 
1886...... 31 02.7 6.4 1905...... 206 60.0 4.6 
1887...... 44 62.7 4.3 1906...... 160 61.5 5.4 
1888..... , 53 62.9 3.8 1907.. : ... 293 61.2 5.5 
1889...... 59 62.7 3.9 l!Jffi...... 283 61.0 5.1 
1800...... 51 6'2.1 4.9 1909...... 267 63.8 5.5 
1891. ..... 112 63.0 4.5 lSIO....... 263 63.3 5.0 
189'2...... 127 6'2.6 3.6 1911. ..... 254 63.8 4.9 
1893., .... 127 52.7 4.0 1912...... 274 63.9 5.2 

1894...... 107 62.5 5.1 1913...... 297 63.9 4.5 
1895...... 146 62.7 4.4 19H...... 340 65.4 4.4 
1800...... 160 59.6 4.2 1915...... 207 65.6 5.0 

1897...... 199 60.2 4.1 1916...... 227 65.6 4.7 
1~...... 183 60.9 4.8 1917...... 239 64.9 4.3 

ISW...... 216 61.2 4.8 1918...... 
1900...... ~ 61.0 u 1919...... 240 65.1 4.4 
1001. ..... 283 00.6 4.5 1920.....-296 65.3 4.1 
190"2 . ..•.. 220 60.8 4.5 

Total............................. ; .••••••••••• 6,812 62.7 5.1 


• .Sew~omer, Mabel: The Physical J>evelopment of Vassar CollegeStudents, 1084-1920, p. 979. 
it shows that 68 per cent. of the women were free from 
pain at the time of menstruation-a great contrast to 
1894, when there were but 19 per cent who did not 
suffer pain at their menstrual periods. · 

The Vassar investigation in regard to the girth of 
waist is shown in Table 5. It will be noted that there 
was a steady decrease in the girth of waist up to 1904, 
and ·a steady increase from 1904 to the present time. 
This is readily explained by the study of Dr. ·Kroeber's 
curve for breadth of waist given in the accompanying 
chart. As breadth of wai!>t is a fair indicator of the 
degree of compression, it is not surprising that the 
demand of fashion for a small waist should be evident 


9 

I RELATION OF Ill 1 I I I 
..... I I CHANGE IN FASHION I I I I 
~~ I I TQ1I 
I I I 
~~ ~ 
~EIGHT i. PERIODIC DISABILITY OF WOME~ 
~~ I 1891-1' 2 
" I 
~ I ~ t14.0 4 . \ 
1::5.5 i ::\ :· / 
13(: 
\ '' : ...... / 
IZ~ 0 r-L I .•' 
lU ~6 J..-'f'l. \ : IIi>:. I'I/o• 
11.5 ~4 
~-.. :; \ '... ~/ : j 
ItO 12 'li \ I \ : ' . 
"" 
.. 
"' I : 
IQ.5 
10.0 
f'<: ! 
95 J.,.6 . ' v 1\. ~ 1\\. \ 
90 ~4 
,___._ ~-/\ I ...... 
\ '" : 
as ~2 \,(,\ JfiTl.t 'F \ !\. : ! 
80 1'-· \ i'\. I \ 
\. : \-
100 
\ I ,; I 
~ ~4 ~!-"', ..... . :::.. !T , 1'i. I i 
2 
...,. i:-.. ."'. If\. I 
~6 .;., ,_ I 1: \I ['., i 
K II ··' N ' 
8 ' 
!):4 ~6 I~ b~oh.. /,~....., ~~ ...,. \ ~ ·!:
~2 t.· 
~4 !5t '17 ,,.!i '2, ~~"" 1\/ ~ :ti 
~ ~2 I 
~6 
IN \' 
\ 
~4 ~~~z V=J lA~ HI I i~ T 
80 ...,..a 
63.6 
., ~ .... : 
"-4 -~J.:-f 
~2 ·:..: I I 
'•. ~ \/ \ i 
1-~ ll ...... 1./ 
~ ~ I ~ 
~ ~ [ lC --~ 
!!<40 I p~~
2 _] \1/ I 
~ !l!~~~~~~g: -~~~;:~~-~:;.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~l~~~~~~~~~~~l~~t~~~~~~~~~~~ 
' ~~~~~~~~~'~'~'''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Relation of change in fashion to height and periodic disability of women, 1891-1921. 

10 

in the ratio of less than 0.5 up to 1904, while as this 
demand gradually lessened, the ratio changed to 3.5 
from 1905 to 1919. The ratios should be correlated 
with a decreasing girth of waist as a result of continuous 
compression over a period of years. When the 
demand of fashion for a small waist finally ceased, the 
increase in width of waist occurred, as shown in 
the curve from 1904 to 1921. To this is related the 
increase previously considered in the number of women 
who do not suffer pain at menstruation. 

RELATION OF CHANGE IN FASHION TO 
INCREASED HEIGHT 


How is this chatige in fashion, which permits more 
normal functioning and greater freedom of exercise, 
related to increased height? 

One of the serious problems in regard to college 
girls during the early days was how to induce these 
delicate, undeveloped women to eat enough nourishing 
food. The girl of this first decade-lacked appetite. 
The vigorous modern girl, physically fit, eats in season 
and out, and is .as hard to satisfy a5 a growing boyand 
for the same reason : the body is working normally 
and needs more food for growth and development. 
Here we find a reasonable explanation of the fact that 
the woman not only functions more perfectly, but 
weighs more and is growingtaller, while, as was demonstrated 
in 1917, the difference in muscular strength 7 
between men and women is due to the difference in use 
of muscles and not to sex. 

This more fully developed and more perfectly functioning 
woman is well fitted for motherhood, while 
her desire for children is shown by the fact that she no 
sooner comes out from under the anesthetic at orie 
labor than she begins to plan for the coming of her 
next baby. · 

In this age, when questions 'of population and the 
falling birth rate are of such vital import, it behooves 
us to give attention to eyery factor that has any bearing 
on this subject. 

It is time that we ceased thinking in terms of the· 

unfitness and weakness of women. This splendid 

7. l\Iosber, C. D., and Martin, E. G.: Muscular Strength of College 
Women,_ J. A. 111. A. 70: 140 (Jan. 19) 1918. The Strength of \Vomen, 
Proceedmgs of the International Conference of \Vomen Physicians 1: 

160, 1919. 



11 

modern woman, grown taller and more vigorous 
because, freed from restricting fashions of dress, she 
exercises more and consequently eats more, has become 
better fitted to be the mother of finer sons and daughters, 
the promise of a stronger race. 

RePrinted from The Journal of the American J!edical Association 

Aug. 18, 1923, Vol. 81, pp. 535-538 

Copyright, 1923 

American .ilfedical A.rsociatitm_. 535 N. Dearborn St., Chicago