NYT op-ed by a college admissions officer: To All the Girls I've Rejected

Op-Ed Contributor
To All the Girls I've Rejected
By JENNIFER DELAHUNTY BRITZ
Published: March 23, 2006
Gambier, Ohio

....Had (an applicant) been a male applicant, there would have been little, if any, hesitation to admit. The reality is that because young men are rarer, they're more valued applicants. Today, two-thirds of colleges and universities report that they get more female than male applicants, and more than 56 percent of undergraduates nationwide are women. Demographers predict that by 2009, only 42 percent of all baccalaureate degrees awarded in the United States will be given to men.

We have told today's young women that the world is their oyster; the problem is, so many of them believed us that the standards for admission to today's most selective colleges are stiffer for women than men. How's that for an unintended consequence of the women's liberation movement?

The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance. Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants? At those colleges that have reached what the experts call a "tipping point," where 60 percent or more of their enrolled students are female, you'll hear a hint of desperation in the voices of admissions officers.

Beyond the availability of dance partners for the winter formal, gender balance matters in ways both large and small on a residential college campus. Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive.

What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options? And what messages are we sending young women that they must, nearly 25 years after the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, be even more accomplished than men to gain admission to the nation's top colleges? These are questions that admissions officers like me grapple with....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html?ex=1143781200&en=93dac5ba192a7f44&ei=5070&emc=eta1

(NOTE: Ms. Britz is an admissions officer at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio.)

Please dont stop these girls from coming to our town. If anything I...er...we need more girls here.

...Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males ...find your campus attractive.

I have to say, if I were 18 years old again, and just entering college, the idea of a campus that was 60% female would have enormous appeal to me.

I mean, why on earth would an 18 year old male want to go to college where the women drastically outnumber the men? Shudder the thought!

be pubished for being academically successful? Even though women now receive more college degrees, men still recieve higher wages. If we start discriminating against women in the academic world, they'll lose the one tool they have to overcome discrimination in the working world.

But The #s of women in college should attract men to school like
bears to honey. Smart horny coeds where the women outnumber the men.
The downside is??????????????

They think they don't fit in or will be considered gay.

interested in veterinary medicine any more. It has come to be dominated by women, so maybe it's not "good enough" for men anymore???

Since gals get the better grades then they would dominate. What are the current sex ratios in vet med school?

woman, and we had 33% women. By about 1995 the classes in vet schools around the country were all over 50% women, and there have been some approaching 75% women in the years since.

Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah. (ok, stop being juvenile)

When I was in HS I applied for a kennel job at a vet clinic (1973) and was specifically rejected because I was female. When I told the vet I wanted the experience because I wanted to go to vet school, he laughed and said it was ridiculous, that women didn't go to vet school, and if they did they just quit the profession to get married and have kids.

Right. A whole lot of us have showed him otherwise, I guess.

And, Help Wanted ads were segregated by "Help Wanted - Men" and "Help Wanted - Women".

You can always find enough guys to get drunk with, crack wise to,
and watch football with ..... Hell i took a women in the American novel
class w/ a friend just because we knew that 85% of the students would be
female.

Seriously forget about the sex thing I AM SCARED WITLESS WITH THE DESTRUCTION
OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THIS COUNTRY BY THE RIGHT WING. What is happening to
my country?

Women have had to jump into places that were "overly masculinized" for a lot longer, and we're managing to work it out.

If your greatest fear is that someone might think that you are a homosexual, you have it pretty damn good.

Poor men having to deal with "over-feminized" campuses. Boo-friggin-hoo. :rofl:

That's pathetic.

female.

not just the ones that are majority anything.

Colleges are currently 60-40.

So where are the young men?

They're in jail, on the streets, working dead end jobs, taking drugs, drinking booze, etc.

The problem isn't attracting a boy to this college over that one. The problem is they aren't getting college degrees, going to college, or graduating high school in anywhere near the rates young women are.

And just this Sunday there was a front page story in our ocal paper that made me laugh. There was some group that came into town to do a presentation encouraging girls to get a higher education.

The inability to make the grades? Parents who think a man can get a job w/o the benefit of a higher education? Lack of Trade Schools for mechanically gifted kids? What?

but by far the most important is the number of boys currently being raised in homes without a father.

an international phenomenon. While sociologists in my part of the planet have raised the absent father as a factor, they also examined the issue of the reduction in the number of male teachers in high schools.

what in the hell do you base the notion that boys aren't going to college because they're not being raised by a father?
what a strange stereo-type.

Why wouldn't the same logic apply to girls from the same socio-economic conditions?

comparing boys in single parent homes versus boys in homes with both parents?

There's a huge difference.

There have been articles written about who's in jail and one of the chief factors people in jail have in common is that they were raised without a dad in the home at a much higher rate than people who are not in jail.

I don't know if the same statistics would apply to girls without dads. I would guess maybe but at a much lower rate since the girls have a role model as they are growing through adolescence into adulthood. That's what the boys are lacking without dads.

That's not to say that every boy raised in a single parent home is going to jail. Far from it. It's just statistics. If you are raised in a home without a dad and you're a boy, you are more at risk for all kinds of societal problems from dropping out of school to fathering a child out of wedlock.

my nephew is 20 years old, works a part-time job, and is basically aimless.
my niece is 18 years old and has a full academic scholarship from her college, plus enough money in other scholarships to fully support herself.

my other niece is 16 years old, and she already planning for medical school.
all three grew up in the same house, but clearly my sister raised her daughters, but never held the boy to the same standard.

on the other hand, my other sister's two sons are both in college. one just got his BA and is going to grad school, and the other is still doing his undergrad work.

for men. Also, some colleges have what they consider an overenrollment of minorities. UC Berkeley wants caucasians. I hope whatever bills and SC rulings against AA, also include the bias for men and caucasians. This is so unfair that women have to do so much better to be on the same playing field as men.

Any ideas?

It is still statistically valid that boys feel more comfortable raising their hands and getting involved in classroom activities than girls do, so I don't think there is a favoritism issue here.

Maybe our boys in school should learn to shut up and sit back and learn something once in awhile?

I know that when I was in high school, I would be sitting and taking notes and making sure I really understood what was going on, and that it was always a boy making wisecracks from the back of the room or asking 100 questions of the teacher to get him/her to change the subject and end up behind on the lesson.

Just a thought...

Girls in general do better than boys in a sit down and listen environment. Boys tend to learn better by touching and moving around.

Some people seem to have the attitude that if boys would only act like girls they'd learn better.

I hope our schools don't feel this way. I hope they are trying to address the ways boys learn instead.

I fear the behavior modifying drugs is an attempt to medicate the boys to fit the way we want to teach instead of us teaching the way they want to learn.

How are they going to be able to teach algebra in a "touch & move around" kind of way? The expectations schools have are the same expectations companies have 20 years later. Most office jobs involve paying attention, sitting still, & doing boring things. There's no way to make all of these things "fun".

In the very early grades boys are already falling very far behind girls.

How do we teach elementary subjects with more senses than sound?

That'sup t the teachers to come up with. Using vried instructional techniques is a basic tenet of elementary curriculum development, but teachers have to be convinced there's a reason to do it before they will make the special effort.

be raised BEFORE they enter school? Isn't it fairly well-known that most parents tend to treat boys and girls differently even from infancy? I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to look at different CAUSES for your claim that boys learn differently rather than putting the onus entirely on teachers to solve this "problem."

boys learn the way they do.

The data is clear that boys and girls tend to learn best differently.

For researchers it's important to find out why, but to the teacher in the classroom it doesn't matter much. The teacher must work with the students she has right now, not the ones she wishes she had. If the teacher knows how boys learn best, she needs to develop curriculum to fit within those parameters. She owes that to the boys she's teaching.

The researchers can compile the data that can lead to societal changes, but in the meantime there's the kids in the classroom that need to be taught in ways that will lead them to succeed the best they can, right now.

I see a lot of amazing sterio typing in this thread, the same kind of stereo typing that's been promulgated in this country for decades, always avoiding looking at the very premise our institutions are built without challenging those premises.

I think it might be a matter of interest to compare data on all of these conclusions in these studies, by looking at the Waldorf and Montessori systems - my guess is that there is likely to show starteling different results.

We need to encourage the research and find what works best and institute programs to build on the most successful systems.

having more time for kids to exercise, run around in recess, etc. It makes sense to helpwork off steam so they can settle down during class. Both boys and girls need more exercise so I'm all for it.

seemed to interest some of the boys i tutored.

sociologists looking into.

It's a lot more helpful than telling boys to get off their lazy asses and work.

i've always been a firm believer in that approach vs. expecting everyone to learn the same way.

Sorry, but I trace all of this back to indoctrination, not biology.

We teach our daughters to be quiet and respectful and sweet and we teach our sons to be tough and have a take-charge attitude.

It's time to stop making excuses.

I think males and females have some intrinsicly wired tendencies that differ, and they are encouraged in our cultural mores.
Both probably contribute to the different results\outcomes we see.
We have had some good ideas for "cultural correction" ie. educational integration. And someone suggested that medications are an effort to "balancing the sexes" - a valid point that is worthy of exploration.
In order to find a correction, we should first ask if one is necessary?
What are the outcomes for the boys who don't go to college? It is possible that they have successful lives.
Have they started their own businesses or gone to trade schools for example?
We have gotten a little more college obsessed than is healthy IMO. Not everyone shares the same level of interest, and it does not always offer everyone the best opportunity for success.

I am just suggesting the old addage- let boys\girls be themselves. I think that your point about early education is important and parents should be aware of it. If such efforts were undertaken en masse, I believe it might be interesting to see what kind of potential shifts in educational exploration could occur.
However, at an intstitutional level, I am not convinced that a higher level of female enrollment is cause for concern unless I am offered evidence that men are having worse employability outcomes.

As for the rejections.......
Remove consideration of gender from the evaluation procedure.

... girls performed rather consistently at a higher average level than the boys.

My conclusion as to the cause was that the girls were more likely to follow my instructions and suggestions. (who woulda thunk it? Doing the homework leads to better test-day performance!). It seemed to me that the boys thought of themselves as too cool to do what I said and suggested. Too bad for them and their gpa.

I think your experience probably corresponds to most other teachers.

So if you have one gender which lags behind the other year after year have you read much research on teaching boys more successfully and have you followed some of their recommendations? How have the results been? Can you help us other parents and professional educators out here?

... the girls typically quit after a year or two...

My impression was that *that* phenomenon is due to girls dumbing themselves down for boys, or "it's hard to be a hottie when all you do is prove theorems about Banach spaces".

Um, this is college we're talking about. My job isn't to "play catchup teaching" games. My students were adults and made their own decisions about what they needed and what they didn't. My job - at the university level - is to make learning possible. The student's job is to make learning actual.

At a younger level of schooling "catch-up teaching" may be a relevant thing, but not at university level. That's not practice - that's game-time.

About all I'm inclined to do is what I did at the start of every course:

"You will be successful in this class if you follow the instructor's instructions and suggestions. You may or may not be otherwise. Now let's do some math."

when it comes to video games.

when playing video games. It's not passive listening.

Also, they'd probably like sitting in class more if someone exploded every 10 seconds too. That would be cool.

and it's very interesting for me to observe the differences.

1) Girls (and I'm speaking mostly about myself here) like to PLEASE adults. My sons aren't so interested in that, for some reason. I have to resort to very different incentives to get them to work at school: namely, extrinsic rewards and punishments. I never needed that. I just wanted my parents to be proud of me!

2) Boys have more physical energy. I need to RUN them -- a couple hours of physical exercise every day, or they're bouncing off the walls. They're perfectly capable of sitting still for long periods, but if they do... I have to make sure they get exercise later.

3) They need rules and boundaries more. Girls like them too -- but without them, my boys would be flailing. I think boys are suffering under the more permissive parenting styles that are common now.

Obviously... lots of exceptions to my sweeping generalities, I'm sure....

I think most teachers would pretty much agree with you.

My grandson has refused to take his meds, is flunking and has no interest whatsoever in finishing hs. He wants to take his GED and go directly to college. He is smart, but I don't think passing the GED will be as easy as he thinks. However, two members of our family have quit high school to go to college. They have been that disappointed in high school. However, both of them had more years of school than he does. We'll see how it goes. BTW, they are both female. One has a graduate degree and one will start graduate school in the fall.

I believe there is definitely a disconnect between gifted kids and most high schools. Even in all gifted classes, one of my children just hated the school itself, and opted out. She was in college within three months on a gifted and talented scholarship. I believe most teachers can't teach outside the box. If you do not fit the norm in either direction, there are problems. We are not educating our teachers well enough.

Posted in the wrong spot.

atmosphere we are currently living in.

I just overheard a man call his son a "loser" today b/c he wasn't playing the free x-box game at Target.

way before high school.

Start with such a high percentage of boys taking behavior modifying drugs.

Elementary school have reduced recess time which was the boys chance to run off some energy. PE class has changed from chasing each other and throwing stuff at each other to lifetime exercise and nutritional education which reduces run around time.

Men have completely dissappeared from elementary schools. Many elementary schools today have the only men working as custodians. For inner city neighborhoods without many dads, it's got to be a disaster for small boys without dads in the home to see custodians as the only males they see.

Zero tolerance rules have hit boys much worse than girls. One of the only times I ever got sent to the office was for whittling my pencil with a pocketknife that I had earned my cub scout tote padge for. The woman teacher sent me to the office and the male principal chuckled, talked to me about cub scouts and asked me not to take it out in her class anymore. Today I would be suspended for sure and maybe arrested.

I would guess the fact that so many boys grow up in single parent homes without a male role model is right up there at the top of the reasons.

Schools have been working on programs to make their classrooms and curriculum more girl friendly for 30 years now, and in many ways continue to do so even as girls have soared past boys.

Anyway, those ae some reasons.

Men are getting stupider and/or less ambitious, so we should hold women to higher standards to even things out?

HA!

Talk about validation.

But seriously, "affirmative action" for men? Listen, they aren't being "discriminated" against. They've ruled the friggin world for thousands of years, and now they don't like the taste of second best?

Suck it.

in the last 30 years? It is my understanding that there are less male teachers in primary and secondary education.

One of the few jobs we were "allowed" to do back in the good old days. Novel argument though.

All I'm saying is this--tough shit. Turns out y'all aren't intellectually superior to women? Aw, how sad for you. Poor little men aren't scoring as high on the SATs? We better make it easier for them to get into college to bridge the gap!

The missing link here is--it's not society's fault that men aren't doing as well as women. Men are given every, and I mean EVERY, opportunity in life that women are given and more, and if they choose to squander those opportunities, the privelege of being male in this world, then that sucks for them.

How about this for an explanation--before there were so many women attending colleges, men had LESS COMPETITION, and could therefore seem more intellegent than they really were, because the pool of competitors was smaller. Now it is bigger, and some of the duds sink to the bottom instead of floating around in the middle.

Study harder boys, instead of feeling entitled, and maybe you can actually EARN acceptance to a good college.

These statistics aggregate a lot of different sub groups. When you say boys are given every advantage, I would say that is true of upper middle class and upper class white boys.

Working class and poor white, black and really all boys have it pretty tough -- I think tougher than the girls in the same social class. The elementary school and high school environment is so feminized in terms of its expectations of behavior, that basically just being a boy and acting like a typical boy acted when I was growing up in the 60s is pretty much enough to get you expelled or at least disfavored by teachers and administrators.

It seems to me that ADD is practically the diagnosis for being a boy. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Hardy Boys, not to mention Alfalfa, Spanky and Buckwheat, would have been either medicated or expelled from any modern school.

Why is it that the military who expects such conduct is seen as a masculine institution and has a high percentage of men?

in the context of lots of physical exercise, personal combat (wraslin'), shooting guns, gadgets and more gadgets, blowing shit up for fun (that is during training -- not so fun in combat), very strong male leadership figures, etc, etc, etc -- very boy things. That's why lots of young guys love the military and thrive there.

School is about sitting still for 8 hours.

If a boy can't sit still for eight hours there's always ritalin.

I don't think any child in this country should be at a disadvantage for economic or class reasons, but I do think that the general disadvantage of "minorities" (a word I am seriously considering scrapping from my vocabulary since there are a hell of a lot more brown and black and yellow etc people in the world than white ones...) translates equally to males and females.

Educational acheivement is much lower for males and incarceration rates much higher. They are murdered in much, much higher numbers as well as commit suicide.

My dad attended all boys Jesuit grade and high school. According to him, you got the crap beat out of you if you stepped out of line. This was in the 30s and 40s, when the Lil Rascals were very popular at the local movie house. I guess people realized that it was fiction back then, not a reflection of reality or a childrearing primer.

I don't know where this recent idea of "the poor boys are having their natural boisterousness tamped down" originates. There may be some merit to the fear that some kids are being misdiagnosed and medicated for normal juvenile behavior. I don't know about that because I'm not an expert in that area. However, give me a freakin' break about schools being feminized, whatever the hell that means. It seems to imply that you think boys should be held to a lower standard of behavior than girls. At what point should males be expected to start acting like civilized human beings in public? Age 10? 12? 16? 25? Never?

As an aside, I went to public schools in the 70s and 80s. They couldn't hit us anymore but the general understanding was that the teacher or principal's word was law whether you were a girl or boy. I do remember one teacher admonishing the class to calm down where she made the comment that she expected better behavior from the 'young ladies' than from the guys. I told her she was being sexist and she gave me a dirty look but she didn't say that again.

I would hate to see people get so hung up on the "fashionable diagnosis" thing that they again start neglecting those kids who have been consistently neglected for generations.

I was one of those kids who went through school always knowing there was "something wrong with me," something that was given various names (all wrong) according to the currently fashionable diagnoses of the 1960s and 1970s. Three years ago I learned that this mysterious "something" was ADD, and I was NOT told about it by a shrink! I happened to pick up a library book on adult ADD and looked at the self-quiz on the back cover. Until that moment, I didn't even realize there was such a thing as adult ADD. When I answered "Yes" to every single question, I realized what the true story was.

Just for the record, I'm female but I know a number of men who could tell the same story.

Maybe it is because it is possible for them to find jobs that don't require a degree but still pay well (well until the Republicans find a way to outsource them)? I mean I think that girls get told over and over again that in order to get ahead they NEED a college degree. And also that they do not need to depend on a guy to take care of them. And for years the message has been that girls can do whatever they set their minds to (which is a very good message). Perhaps boys are expected to figure it out on their own. Or it isn't "cool" to be smart.

when i was in graduate school, i dropped out of my original class to tend to some famly business, then went back a year later to join the next class. there were only four of us in the program (a very non-tradtional business program). i was informed by several people that this one guy in the program was "brilliant," so i started paying attention to him. he was an "alpha male"...young, attractive, and white. so...i'm really listening to this guy, and looking for evidence of the brilliance i constantly hear attributed to him by all the professors, and honestly: i was having trouble seeing or hearing all the brillance.
after a few weeks of classes, we had to post some papers online, and as it turned out, the brilliant one couldn't write...i mean not at all. it occurred to me that this guy had no business in a graduate program given his poor writing skills, and it also occurred to me that i would not have been accepted if my writing skills were are terrible as his were.
the conclusion: the professors were covering for him because they really wanted him to be brilliant, and at least two of them wanted to sleep with him. unfortunately for them, when we found out that he wasn't doing the work (an certainly not at the level that we were), but was still getting good grades...we raised hell.

than their daughters.

In my family it certainly felt that way at least.

(less than willing) women into the workforce--and rather than make women's wages equitable, they let mens sink. Now women have more motivation that ever to excel in school, and it shows. Too bad we still hit the glass ceiling in the workplace. Maybe someday there'll be some balance there.

I bet you didn't mind the changes schools had made for women over the past 30 years. The engineering scholarships for women only? The push to get more women into college? Things have not only been made more level for women, for a long time they were made EASIER! Now, that things have shifted, that girls get more attention in school, that curriculum's have become more 'female friendly' so that more women have the chance to go to school, and of course, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for women, which you don't seem to mind as long as its for women, you say that men are obviously dumber and too bad for them. I bet if someone had said 'Study harder girls, instead of feeling entitled, and maybe you can actually EARN acceptance to a good college" years ago, you would have labeled them sexist.

granted to otherwise not bright young men were ASTOUNDING. THAT ALONE probably influenced the higher number of guys in college. You say college curric's have gotten easier but if so perhaps it was to cater to boys...I DO know that grade inflation has made a mockery of many previously great Universities.

Your last line is insulting. I earned acceptance (was recruited, actually) by West Point for its first co-ed graduating class and it wasn't based on looks lol, connections, or popularity SO THERE.

Look at today, not the 70s.

back when I was growing up it was considered important to get African-American teachers into primary schools because it was bad if a kid saw that the only person in the school who looked like them was the custodian.

Well today that's true in many elementary schools for all boys, and many more boys live without a dad in their home too.

In 1950 4 % of ll children were born outside of mariage. What's the percentage today? 35 ? Think of how many boys are growing up without dads in their homes and then they go to school everyday and don't see a man there either.

Can't be good for them or society.

I mean in the past 40-50 years. I know that during the 80's, there were a couple 5th and 6th grade male teachers at both elementary schools that I went too. My parents, who attended different elementary schools, also had few male teachers at their schools and none of the male teachers taught children 3rd grade or younger. Teaching young children is considered women's work in America and in many cultures. Is there a way to encourage men to go into elementary school teaching, a profession that doesn't pay all that great and is not considered masculine.

that the aministrators were all men back then so you had an overwhelming amjority of female teachers and an overwhelming majority of male principals and assistant principals. That's hardly a fair gender parity, but I guess it achieved some sort of balance. It did for me in the whittling episode I wrote about elsewhere in this thread.

Now we still have the overwhelming of female teachers, but the principal and assistant principals are more likely to be female too.

That leaves the custodians as the only males in the schools so we replaced one unhealthy system with another.

I went to elementary school many moons ago (I'm in my fifties) and all the teachers from 1st to 4th grades were women, but in 5th and 6th we had male teachers. After that the gender of the teachers was pretty balanced; in fact, most of my mathematics teachers were women.

were men.

but the female teachers i had back then were a different breed. they were tough, no-nonsense types, and they ruled with iron fists.

Right on. The burden is always on women, isn't it, somehow? WE are the ones who are expected to sacrifice, to accomodate, to either do LESS or do MORE according to the needs of men.

Laughing in response to your last comment, BTW.

Also, to clarify: in no way do I not consider the possibility there is a problem in education for our young men, not at all. I want everyone to succeed, to do as well as they can. It's just that this whole issue focuses on GENDER and a binary differentiation in sex and sex roles while ignoring a whole culture of difference and competition and a whole host of more complicated issues which, if explored, might actually better help provide solutions and answers to these problems.

The whole time I taught the educational establishment embraced the goal of getting girls to do better in school.

We made many educational systemic changes to accomplish that goal and we've done an excelent job of accomplishing it. The burden was on the professional educators to raise women's statistics and they took up the challenge and achieved big results.

Some of the changes were difficult and expensive. Setting up completely new programs for pregnant teens to keep them in school is one amazing success story. Another is achieving more participation in extra-curriculars by girls. Teacher inservices year after year brought in experts to teach teachers how to encourage their young women students more effectively. Another is setting up special mentoring programs for girls considering "boy" degrees, societies of woman science and engineering students, special scholarships for worthy young woman only. One of the greatest successes was in pushing to hire more women into the administrating of our schools as principals, vice-principals and central office administrators.

So in short, no the burden is not always on women. Two generations ago the educational establishment saw they were failing their young women, and the establishment went into action and created major change and major success.

We need that same effort now into finding out how we can make our young men more successful students and major changes need to be implemented.

Nursing immediately comes to mind.

Certainly nothing wrong with being a nurse.

Gender is not natural. Gender does not follow from biological sex. We should look at short term and long term strategies.

And the women applaud.

I'm sorry, but I think your post contains the same "you fail because your kind are inferior" attitude that's at the root of most of our problems. It's sad that, if you only swap the labels, so many people will cheer for what they usually despise.

language part of the SAT. Girls scores were not adjusted on the math portion. There were articles written about it when I was in college.

Okay, any links to an archived article or anything on that? That is very, very interesting.

I went for a job interview for a government internship when I was 20. I was interviewed by a panel that included a female statistics professor who looked very bored. I mentioned a newspaper article about the SAT rescoring their tests and she perked up. She was doing research on this and she was the one who told me this. I never went to find her published papers on it, but I'll see if I can now. This was around 1978 so none of this is probably online now.

whoever is most qualified to be admitted, admit them regardless of gender, race, blah, blah, blah.

Too hilarious! Oh, she won't find a husband! How awful! Isn't that the reason she WENT to college?

LMAO!

"Real men" don't want to do anything that women do in large numbers.
I think that this occurance of women being more educated than men did occurr in certain circumstances in the past. I should find actual numbers on these things, but antedotally it seemed to be the case in rural areas amongst family farmers. The high school that I went to has senior class pictures up that were at least 2/3 female until the 60's. In my geneology, all the white farm families had women attending high school and college a generation or two before the men did. I think it was because men could earn decent money, staying on the farm or taking up a trade, without an education where as women needed an education to get a decent job or meet a husband from a slightly higher class. I think the same is true today. "Men's work" requiring little or no education pays as well or better than "women's work" requiring advanced education. "Women's work" not requiring an education pays the worst.

And getting an education is hard, requires concentration and patience, and time. If men can go make $15 an hour pounding nails, why go through all the frustration of studying, besides, it costs a fortune anyway. That's how alot of young males I know think.

Men better get off their lazy asses and crack a book or two.

I say enroll EVERY woman who is as qualified or more qualified than the men.

I might add that I would enjoy VERY MUCH being surrounded by lots of smart women on campus. ;)

of uneducated and angry men isn't good for women either. You can only build so many jails.

Good exercise, fresh air, sunshine... it'll build character in all those angry men.

African-Americans or another group, they'd be called an awful lot of ugly names.

Huh?

me of what racists used to say about African-Americans when I was growing up 30 years ago. It seems like after 30 years, the same bigoted crap gets thrown around except now it's against a different group.

changed in 30 years.

:puke:

latino men - I think if you're going to bring race up, we'd need to look at this study again and break it down further by race. To compare what Swamp Rat is saying to say, a group of white uneducated men, they would laugh you (not swamp rat) out of town.

men, white men in particular, were not systematically excluded from the playing field, as were ALL african-americans. of course classism limits options for some white men, but there is no apartheid-like system that keeps men from competing.

During the Kerry campaign it became very apparent to me that a large number of American men have internalized the idea that education and knowledge are effete and unmasculine pursuits. That's why the meme of Kerry as elitist snob and Bush as regular guy you could have a beer with was so effective. I work in a male-dominated blue collar job and I see this attitude in some (though not all by any means) of my dude co-workers.

And you're right. They tend to be angry. :scared:

Some men are just plain weak... and it scares the shit outta them.

What can we do about it, besides try to speak truth to power? :shrug:

Your posts sound like you're putting down men. Men have every bit as much right to human dignity as women. WE'RE ALL PEOPLE, and all people have a mind, a soul (except republicans), a life. Life is a struggle for anybody... just different issues cause the struggle for different people.

Personally, I support the world's MEN as much as I support the world's WOMEN. If one or the other of the genders, OR ANY RACE, is having more than their share of the struggle in some area, it needs to be addressed.

It is obvious that numbers in education are being skewed, and it's a problem that needs to be addressed without the arrogant sexism .... coming from either side.

Little boys deserve to grow up and fulfill their potential every bit as much as little girls do.

I'm a woman, and a feminist. I don't believe in holding women back for any reason. NOR do I believe in holding men back. I totally believe that it takes more brains to figure out how to make things work for ALL of us, than it does to spew arrogant, oppressive messages at ANYONE.

We're all in this together. We are all ONE. Males & Females, and all colors of such.

Lighten up on the men. Some of my best friends & children are men.

:kick::kick::kick:

:rofl: I am a man.

Whenever I challenge the patriarchy, even when I am joking, I get attacked by small-minded men who are scared shitless of a world run by women... "You traitor!" You should hear them! :eyes:

I am a traitor to my sex... so be it. :)

Personally, I am tired of mass murder, slavery, rape, famine, mostly brought about by MEN in this world. I am ready for a change - women in charge. How about you?

Yes, the whole pop culture urges boys to be tough and macho and to spurn academic work. Even 15 years ago when I was teaching college, most of the male students seemed compelled to put on a "tough and dumb" attitude. They seemed to be in much more of a behavioral straitjacket than the female students.

If you talk to grown men who are in academia or the arts, they'll tell you tales of being bullied and taunted and ganged up on in high school.

It takes a brave boy to defy the stereotypes and get A's in English and music.

Even being a math whiz can be social death. I once knew a math graduate student whose T.A. job in the department was organizing math camps for gifted kids. He said it was such a relief for some of the boys, especially the ones from small schools, to learn that there were other boys with intellectual interests (as well as for some of the girls to see that other girls were interested in math).

go to school as whites.

Good for whites! Let the minorities get off their lazy asses and crack a book or two. I say enroll every white who is as qualified or more qualified than the minorities. I might add that I would enjoy VERY MUCH being surrounded by lots of smart whites on campus.

Sounds racist. For 40 years, it was considered racist. In fact, put in "men" for whites, and you get the way universities sounded for many a decade: sexist. Because it was sexist. Minorities and women had their scores bumped, outreach done for them, special tutoring programs set up. In engineering school I tutored Latinos, blacks, and Asians, both men and women; no white men need apply for the tutoring program.

The assumption was that if you didn't get equal outcomes by race and ethnicity and sex, then since the input was equal, there was discrimination. The questions asked by the enlightened were, Where is the discimination, and how to we remedy it?

Suddenly it's a result we approve of. Our usual arguments are, well, distasteful, on principle. Not that equality is wrong; but, hey, they're not really deserving.

But, of course, the same arguments still hold, as far as we're concerned, for minorities. Esp. for black men, who have a truly, truly dismal HS graduation rate ("let them get off their lazy asses and crack a book or two"!?) and college application, acceptance, and graduation rate.

The attempt at sophistry should be entertaining to behold.

And a bad attempt at sophistry! :puke:

You sound like some white people I know.

In fact, I just replaced a couple of words in your obnoxious post with their opposites. The obnoxiousness remained untouched. I was rather surprised, because I thought better of you, and didn't expect that kind of hate from you.

Concerning the OP, there are only a few options.

One is that we declare the only principle is "there are groups we like and groups we don't like ... we root for the ones we like, because we like them." Then the difference between us, those presumably against racism and sexism, and those that are racist and sexist, evaporates into one of which groups we're racist and sexist against, and which we're racist and sexist and in favor of. It's not that racism and sexism are wrong--hey, race and sex-based hatred and notions of superiority and victimization are well and good, as long as the proper group is hated and despised. This is a respulsive idea, and antithetical to anything that can be called liberal. Soviet, fascist, Maoist ... freeper ... sure. But not liberal.

The other is that we can abide by our principles, and reject the idea that the reason that there's differential outcome has nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with the individuals involved (and their personal efforts). And we can do so even-handedly. If whites (or blacks) are the social losers, there must be a reason. We gloat neither when blacks lose, nor when whites lose; instead, we figure out why there's inequity and work to resolve it. But then again, I'm one of those high-minded elite liberals to whom principle is important: either the reasons for affirmative action are valid, or there's no justification for it besides a power struggle. If it's just a power struggle, there's no whining, since it's all fair, and pretty much everything is justified.

It's possible to try to contort things to somehow justify oppression in the name of greater equality. I've seen it done. Never well, and never fairly. When you deal with people whose attitude is that kids (or members of some group) deserve to be treated like crap because of their parents (or other members of their group), there's neither a Xian attitude there, nor a socially justifiable one. It usually takes a lot of wresting of terms and obfuscation to make this sort of illogic seem reasonable, and only the benighted fall for it. They flip between group rights and individual punishment in a way dizzying in its "ad hocness", all in the interest of their goal: To dress race-, gender- and class-hatred respectably, so that those that need to feel civilized as they revel in their hatred and selfishness can revel with abandon. Give me an ol' fashioned klansman-style racist any day, whatever his/her color--at least they're honest, and you don't have to deal with a veneer of false intellectualism and self-justifying arrogance before you get down to the base ignorance and error. There's just one thing for them to unlearn, not two.

I will certainly associate your screen name with the words "false intellectualism" from now on.

My initial post was intended for WOMEN DUers and not even serious. You took something light-hearted and turned it into something ugly and racist.

:puke:

By the way, the use of buzz words commonly found in the social sciences is not impressive to experts in the field.

Good luck in your quest for whatever it is you seek.

:hi:

about how men get their scores bumped now.

When I tutored chemistry, the engineering students I tutored were mostly white men, and the nursing students were mostly women. Even among my peers at college, the women went into education and the men into research.

I have heard women older than myself talk about how they were discouraged from studying the hard sciences or engineering. It was only in the 1970s that women were belatedly invited to sit at that table.

Bill

Playing video games has robbed young men of their motivation to do well in life. It's becoming an addiction.

And I'm working on my bachelor's in zoology :shrug:

If a guy out of high school can be a laborer at a construction site, and earn twice minimum wage, where does that leave women? McDonalds? WalMart? Or College.

What's the ratio of dollars earned (m/f)?

Bill

I believe that women still only earn 60-70 cents per dollar that men earn. Many jobs that require little or no education but pay decently are traditionally done by men, some of which require above average physical strength. Even at the company where I work, most men earn $1.50/hour more than women for general production labor because most men do "heavy labor" and most women do "light labor".

Watch out, boys! Soon we will need you only as love slaves! :D

:bounce:

I think every student who shows promise should have their education paid for by the government. At least at state schools. It is an investment in the future of our country.

This and universal health care. Early childhood and senior programs. Job training. Energy efficiency.

These are the issues our government needs to grapple with.

We cannot afford PAX AMERICANA. We can't even protect our own borders. Every dime we spend on foreign wars makes us more vulnerable to new attacks against us. Makes us more impoverished as a nation: economically as well as spiritually.

Why don't we ever GET it. We are losing the class war being waged against us.

in the early twentieth century there were far more jewish american college applicants than WASP male applicants, because the argument was that more jewish families valued education. So, the admissions requirements were stiffer for jewish college students. Also, on civil service exams, African americans had to score much higher than their white male counterparts to even think about being interviewed. In the military, my daughter is schooling for flight medic in an almost all male group and her so-called mentor who is supposed to be helping her is attempting to sink her--I told her she is going to have to know it better than he does and you are going to have to do a lot of it on your own. However, she has found someone who wants to help her because he wants to be a trainer. His first pupil?

Its a major philosophy thats what has been behind MINORITY given preference... to education jobs etc...

The Girls have done great now the boys are the minority

the tide has turned... Its now time for society to get back into balance... its not a one way train now its time to see how women the majority like being more qualified and yet a man get admission...

Welcome to what the men did for women....... Now its time for Women to do for men

and all of a sudden it appears women are not as generous ...

This was a law enected to create equality...

and this will happen with whites when they turn to minority status and Spanish becomes the majority thats about to happen in Texas

will the Spanish majority be generous to the minority

We will see We will see...

kinds of discussions. You seem to be working from the statistical one. Just because women are over-represented, numerically, in this situation does not give them any more social power. The latter refers to the other use of minority, meaning a group with a lack of representation in the ruling power structure.

Women will stop being a "minority" when they are given equal pay, equal career opportunities, and equal representation--among other things.

After all, women have always been the numerical majority in society, and that hasn't done much for their share of the power structure. Nor will this achieve any more for Latinos as their numbers rise, because in the end it is still the rich, white, male, old-money numerical minority that control most things.

:applause:

There was a study out about 2 years ago. Jobs for men without college pay more than jobs for women without degrees, usually in the pink collar ghetto.

that about 60% of the students admitted would be women as well?!

The sad thing is that I have found out that a college degree (at least one in computer science) is worthless without any work experience in the Bush economy. The only people making progress here are the banks. I will hate Sallie Mae till I die.

as she is attending Harvard (a Freshman), and got into all of the schools that she applied to!

Harvard, Class of 2009, has more female undergraduates than males this year....again.

I think it is just a matter of time before some of these schools will be all women without the universities even trying....

Men don't have to be smart to succeed anymore.

The problem with all these overhyped MSM headlines about "the crisis in the education of our young men" and so on and so forth, is that it's totally misleading. Men aren't just going blindly and stupidly into adulthood without education-- they're just increasingly doing it outside of the traditional 4-year college system. Since the late 1980's, there's been enormous growth in job-training programs at community colleges, trade schools, vocational tech centers that teach things like electronics or computer systems management-- the vast majority of the students being male.

There's also been some growth in bilingual dual immersion English/Spanish tech schools and community colleges (for both the Latino and non-Latino populations), which are fairly new and not in the traditional mold, and thus also not reflected in these statistics. (One of my very Anglo friends is interested in one of these, since speaking fluent Spanish is an *enormous* boost to job prospects these days.) So there's no "crisis" in education for young men, they just tend to be looking these days at alternatives to the traditional educational patterns and schools.

... like men that are intellectual 'n' stuff...

making admissions decisions (women's colleges being the exception.)

The Asian community would strongly support that (and the Republican party).

minority enrollment has increased since they stopped considering race.

I don't want colleges to use race or gender in admissions.

Poverty could still be a factor.

Black and Hispanic numbers way down at top universities in Cali

down on some campuses, up on other campuses, and up overall.

There are other factors to consider: overall population increase, internal migration, matriculation, etc.

in the system (3 yrs after AA ended)

and up only by only about 100 students since 1997.

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/edu/pd040500d.html

I'm looking for more recent reports.

since AA ended.

"The 22,585 black students enrolled in the 400,000-student Cal State system last year were the fewest since 2001 and represented the lowest percentage -- 6.9 percent -- of total enrollment in more than a decade. The decline, which educators have found difficult to explain, has been matched at the 10-campus University of California system and other large universities nationwide."

http://www.thatsracin.com/mld/cctimes/13059309.htm

... We used to want the BEST, now we want the WORST...

What a crappy country this is becoming...

More young people are going to college now than in the past. Isn't the problem not that fewer boys going to college, but that female enrollment has increased at a higher rate than male enrollment?
Perhaps some people are more inclined/interested in academic learning while others are more inclined/interested in hands on learning and getting into the workforce as quickly as possible. Perhaps in the past, a higher percentage of men with academic inclination were going to college while many academically inclined women were not going to college. Perhaps now, most people with academic inclinations of both genders go to college and more women are academically inclined than men. I am not intending to be sexist but it seems to fit with the whole theory of boys failing because education is less hands on and active and more about sitting still and listening.
As I mentioned before, several male dominated careers do not require a 4 year degree and pay well compared to many female dominated careers, including ones that require 4 year degrees. These men who are less academically inclined, who do choose one of these careers are not at an economic disadvantage and may have saved a good deal of money that they would have spent on a 4 year degree.

'gender balance' wasn't a problem when women were being systematically EXCLUDED, was it?
so much for the so-called 'meritocracy' :puke:

The education community was full of new ideas and new programs to get more young women through high school and into higher education.

Even very expensive programs were instituted like special programs for pregnant teens.

Every school district set up special hiring committees to identify potential administrators among woman teachers. Many districts started intern programs just to get women into administration.

Title IX was instituted to get more girls into extra-curriculars.

Teachers were given special training and inservices on how girls learned and how we could encourage them to go into traditionally male jobs like engineering.

Special groups like "Society for Women Engineering Students" were set up to mentor young women. Special scholarships were set up just to encourage young women.

Gender balance wasn't a problem then? Where were you? It was sure a problem we were hitting hard year after year in the educational community a generation ago.

you know, those few hundred years before all that

Our society has proven that when we decide to tackle an issue, we can generate tremendous reources and a panoply of good ideas and we can make great headway quickly.

However, as you said, we've also proven that we can ignore poblems for hundreds of years and let them fester.

That's the choice we have when we identify a problem. We can address it or ignore it. We're good at doing both.

like the fact that we know little about the face of real, fair, open, accessible competition because we have had so little of it in our history.
what we have come to consider "the norm" was in fact mostly manufactured by limiting competition, and perhaps it is time to evaluate our notions of "how things are supposed to be," especially if we are interested in creating a real meritocracy, as opposed to just claiming we have one already.
on the other hand, i do think there is a crisis with boys and young men that needs to be addressed.