Gender Ratios are so lop-sided? What is going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of the stats that PPs posted are off. I saw 60-62% female for UCLA & UNC, and 57% female for Michigan.

That said, I don't really understand how selective colleges have a hard time making their classes at least 45% male.

It's not the responsibility of the college for men to earn spots.

It's a choice, silly.

[Anonymous]

so sick of how political DCUM has become. This is to discuss college admissions, not your weird conservative cultural gripes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of the stats that PPs posted are off. I saw 60-62% female for UCLA & UNC, and 57% female for Michigan.

That said, I don't really understand how selective colleges have a hard time making their classes at least 45% male.

It's not the responsibility of the college for men to earn spots.

Yeah, but UCLA's admission rate in Fall 2024 was 9%. 9%! There weren't plenty of qualified male applicants in the 91% of applications rejected? The women were THAT much better? I have a hard time buying that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of the stats that PPs posted are off. I saw 60-62% female for UCLA & UNC, and 57% female for Michigan.

That said, I don't really understand how selective colleges have a hard time making their classes at least 45% male.

It's not the responsibility of the college for men to earn spots.

It's a choice, silly.

No, it isn't. It shouldn't be in a post DEI world. Nothing silly about wanting a meritocratic process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of the stats that PPs posted are off. I saw 60-62% female for UCLA & UNC, and 57% female for Michigan.

That said, I don't really understand how selective colleges have a hard time making their classes at least 45% male.

It's not the responsibility of the college for men to earn spots.

Yeah, but UCLA's admission rate in Fall 2024 was 9%. 9%! There weren't plenty of qualified male applicants in the 91% of applications rejected? The women were THAT much better? I have a hard time buying that.

Being qualified has never been a reason to be admitted to a highly competitive college. We, luckily, got rid of affirmative action because of this ridiculous logic.
? The women were THAT much better?
Yes, if they gained admission.
I have a hard time buying that.
I don't. Women are better students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many complex factors contribute to this. To over simplify and scratch just the surface, we have...

1) An education system that rewards young kids who sit still, can follow orders, take standardized tests since age 4-7, do hours of homework since 5th grade. All of these favor girls who mature sooner, are under greater gender pressure to be compliant. This education hamster wheel is enough to burn any kids out and turn them off school by college age, esp for boys.

2) At the same time, the last two generations of kids (after Gen X who are left to roam wild by themselves) are over-programmed to an inch of their lives for schools, sports, music and other ECs that require unreal level of executive functioning. Girls again fare better here...they are recognized even if they don't score or win the big trophy but are hardworking, collaborative team player; boys in general face higher expectation to have to win gold and be the future MLB/NBA/NHL/NFL start since age 4. All these ES and unrealistic expectations also mean kids (both genders) have multiple opportunities each day to feel bad about themselves that make them crave emotional outlets.

3) This takes us to the addiction to social media, video games, online influencers...boys often dive a lot deeper into these escapes and addictions; some get so lost and disillusioned they can't climb back up from the deep hole. So many of these teen boys are not sleeping even 5-6 hours a night, let alone build the kind of school and EC portfolios and do SAT preps to get into these colleges OP is touring.

This was how education has worked essentially since the 1700s and it used to be much worse. Teachers would literally smack kids in the head who didn't sit still and follow orders...yet boys seemed to do just fine in the 1950s or all the previous eras that were much worse than today.

Let's stop blaming a disciplined classroom for anything...because again, it used to be much, much worse yet we never worried about boys back in the day.

It's not true that education is the way it always has been. In another thread that I cannot remember now, someone mentioned it is not just the sitting and learning part that is harder for boy, but the way things are taught now, with a lot more group projects and collaboration. This person said her boy did much better in a Catholic school that just had direct instruction and clear expectations, even though there was a lot of sitting.

But also recesses are shorter now, and there are way less male teachers. Those are also huge factors.

Guess what...the Catholic school definitely expects the boys to sit still and follow orders and do hours of homework. So which is it...boys are falling behind because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework...or boys are great because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework.

As I said, it is a combo of things. Recess is shorter, so there is more sitting. Add to that the method of schooling nowadays requires more executive functioning (vs direct instruction). Add to that more less male teachers to connect with and female teachers perhaps preferring/understanding girls better, and you get not great results for boys. But all of this is just one piece of it. There are many other contributing factors I'm sure.

Disagree. School requires less executive function now. Kids hardly even get homework until high school. Most things are done and submitted electronically- they don’t even have to remember to bring on their homework. There are no papers to lose or keep track of, few things to ever print, quizlets and study guides pre-made for them. But computers have fried their brains and many kids have a hard time with most basic organization and tasks

School is far more complicated now. instead of a simple textbook with problems in the back of the chapter, it's a mishmash of paper and online, a hurricane of handouts, clunky and incompatible online systems, and tech illiterate teachers putting things in disarray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many complex factors contribute to this. To over simplify and scratch just the surface, we have...

1) An education system that rewards young kids who sit still, can follow orders, take standardized tests since age 4-7, do hours of homework since 5th grade. All of these favor girls who mature sooner, are under greater gender pressure to be compliant. This education hamster wheel is enough to burn any kids out and turn them off school by college age, esp for boys.

2) At the same time, the last two generations of kids (after Gen X who are left to roam wild by themselves) are over-programmed to an inch of their lives for schools, sports, music and other ECs that require unreal level of executive functioning. Girls again fare better here...they are recognized even if they don't score or win the big trophy but are hardworking, collaborative team player; boys in general face higher expectation to have to win gold and be the future MLB/NBA/NHL/NFL start since age 4. All these ES and unrealistic expectations also mean kids (both genders) have multiple opportunities each day to feel bad about themselves that make them crave emotional outlets.

3) This takes us to the addiction to social media, video games, online influencers...boys often dive a lot deeper into these escapes and addictions; some get so lost and disillusioned they can't climb back up from the deep hole. So many of these teen boys are not sleeping even 5-6 hours a night, let alone build the kind of school and EC portfolios and do SAT preps to get into these colleges OP is touring.

This was how education has worked essentially since the 1700s and it used to be much worse. Teachers would literally smack kids in the head who didn't sit still and follow orders...yet boys seemed to do just fine in the 1950s or all the previous eras that were much worse than today.

Let's stop blaming a disciplined classroom for anything...because again, it used to be much, much worse yet we never worried about boys back in the day.

It's not true that education is the way it always has been. In another thread that I cannot remember now, someone mentioned it is not just the sitting and learning part that is harder for boy, but the way things are taught now, with a lot more group projects and collaboration. This person said her boy did much better in a Catholic school that just had direct instruction and clear expectations, even though there was a lot of sitting.

But also recesses are shorter now, and there are way less male teachers. Those are also huge factors.

Guess what...the Catholic school definitely expects the boys to sit still and follow orders and do hours of homework. So which is it...boys are falling behind because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework...or boys are great because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework.

As I said, it is a combo of things. Recess is shorter, so there is more sitting. Add to that the method of schooling nowadays requires more executive functioning (vs direct instruction). Add to that more less male teachers to connect with and female teachers perhaps preferring/understanding girls better, and you get not great results for boys. But all of this is just one piece of it. There are many other contributing factors I'm sure.

Disagree. School requires less executive function now. Kids hardly even get homework until high school. Most things are done and submitted electronically- they don’t even have to remember to bring on their homework. There are no papers to lose or keep track of, few things to ever print, quizlets and study guides pre-made for them. But computers have fried their brains and many kids have a hard time with most basic organization and tasks

School is far more complicated now. instead of a simple textbook with problems in the back of the chapter, it's a mishmash of paper and online, a hurricane of handouts, clunky and incompatible online systems, and tech illiterate teachers putting things in disarray.

None of this sounds complicated. Online tech is not difficult-especially for kids who are currently obsessed with technology. We aren't asking them to open the terminal and start cracking out simulations. They're simply googling an online ed program and watching a video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll get slammed for this, but as a society we’ve abandoned our boys. They don’t have role models to look up to. We disparage men in general and white men in particular. We cater to those who claim victimhood.

Maybe give some thought to the qualities that your culture lauds as being exemplary, or successful. I’m thinking people like Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, DOGE. How many of these wealthy, influential white men finished college? How many of them proudly discuss their college experiences as being foundational in their success? So, I wouldn’t slam you for your viewpoint, although I do encourage you to take a deeper look at who you are openly valuing as role models. What many of you actually value is DOGE: Very young white men — with limited education, lots of power, and extravagantly generous paychecks.

Lol: You do get that you’re claiming “ victimhood” for “white men in particular “ — right? Tell the truth, do you REALLY wish that your “boys” had the opportunities that get offered to people who are not white males? You wish that your kid was a target for ICE?

The only person on that list that I might even consider a worthy role model for a young man would have been Charlie Kirk, primarily for his way of speaking with people who disagreed with him. Do you consider the rest of them people our boys should admire or emulate? That to me is a sign of a sick culture.

Can you provide some examples of this? I have never seen him speak with those who disagreed with him in any way that I would find admirable.

This is a really sad video. “I think you exhibit sinful behavior and you shouldn’t tell people who you are, but WELCOME! Just don’t bring up being gay (Kirk brings up being Christian constantly) and we’ll get along.

That’s not what he said. He said to not lead with your sexuality. Who you sleep with should be the least interesting thing about you.

Charlie Kirk believed that man should not have a right to marry a man. His coy little "let's all be friends; all you need to do is to ignore your concerns" condescension doesn't fool anyone with atrast half a brain who isn't on his bully side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many complex factors contribute to this. To over simplify and scratch just the surface, we have...

1) An education system that rewards young kids who sit still, can follow orders, take standardized tests since age 4-7, do hours of homework since 5th grade. All of these favor girls who mature sooner, are under greater gender pressure to be compliant. This education hamster wheel is enough to burn any kids out and turn them off school by college age, esp for boys.

2) At the same time, the last two generations of kids (after Gen X who are left to roam wild by themselves) are over-programmed to an inch of their lives for schools, sports, music and other ECs that require unreal level of executive functioning. Girls again fare better here...they are recognized even if they don't score or win the big trophy but are hardworking, collaborative team player; boys in general face higher expectation to have to win gold and be the future MLB/NBA/NHL/NFL start since age 4. All these ES and unrealistic expectations also mean kids (both genders) have multiple opportunities each day to feel bad about themselves that make them crave emotional outlets.

3) This takes us to the addiction to social media, video games, online influencers...boys often dive a lot deeper into these escapes and addictions; some get so lost and disillusioned they can't climb back up from the deep hole. So many of these teen boys are not sleeping even 5-6 hours a night, let alone build the kind of school and EC portfolios and do SAT preps to get into these colleges OP is touring.

This was how education has worked essentially since the 1700s and it used to be much worse. Teachers would literally smack kids in the head who didn't sit still and follow orders...yet boys seemed to do just fine in the 1950s or all the previous eras that were much worse than today.

Let's stop blaming a disciplined classroom for anything...because again, it used to be much, much worse yet we never worried about boys back in the day.

It's not true that education is the way it always has been. In another thread that I cannot remember now, someone mentioned it is not just the sitting and learning part that is harder for boy, but the way things are taught now, with a lot more group projects and collaboration. This person said her boy did much better in a Catholic school that just had direct instruction and clear expectations, even though there was a lot of sitting.

But also recesses are shorter now, and there are way less male teachers. Those are also huge factors.

Guess what...the Catholic school definitely expects the boys to sit still and follow orders and do hours of homework. So which is it...boys are falling behind because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework...or boys are great because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework.

As I said, it is a combo of things. Recess is shorter, so there is more sitting. Add to that the method of schooling nowadays requires more executive functioning (vs direct instruction). Add to that more less male teachers to connect with and female teachers perhaps preferring/understanding girls better, and you get not great results for boys. But all of this is just one piece of it. There are many other contributing factors I'm sure.

Disagree. School requires less executive function now. Kids hardly even get homework until high school. Most things are done and submitted electronically- they don’t even have to remember to bring on their homework. There are no papers to lose or keep track of, few things to ever print, quizlets and study guides pre-made for them. But computers have fried their brains and many kids have a hard time with most basic organization and tasks

School is far more complicated now. instead of a simple textbook with problems in the back of the chapter, it's a mishmash of paper and online, a hurricane of handouts, clunky and incompatible online systems, and tech illiterate teachers putting things in disarray.

None of this sounds complicated. Online tech is not difficult-especially for kids who are currently obsessed with technology. We aren't asking them to open the terminal and start cracking out simulations. They're simply googling an online ed program and watching a video.

Then why can't teachers figure it out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many complex factors contribute to this. To over simplify and scratch just the surface, we have...

1) An education system that rewards young kids who sit still, can follow orders, take standardized tests since age 4-7, do hours of homework since 5th grade. All of these favor girls who mature sooner, are under greater gender pressure to be compliant. This education hamster wheel is enough to burn any kids out and turn them off school by college age, esp for boys.

2) At the same time, the last two generations of kids (after Gen X who are left to roam wild by themselves) are over-programmed to an inch of their lives for schools, sports, music and other ECs that require unreal level of executive functioning. Girls again fare better here...they are recognized even if they don't score or win the big trophy but are hardworking, collaborative team player; boys in general face higher expectation to have to win gold and be the future MLB/NBA/NHL/NFL start since age 4. All these ES and unrealistic expectations also mean kids (both genders) have multiple opportunities each day to feel bad about themselves that make them crave emotional outlets.

3) This takes us to the addiction to social media, video games, online influencers...boys often dive a lot deeper into these escapes and addictions; some get so lost and disillusioned they can't climb back up from the deep hole. So many of these teen boys are not sleeping even 5-6 hours a night, let alone build the kind of school and EC portfolios and do SAT preps to get into these colleges OP is touring.

This was how education has worked essentially since the 1700s and it used to be much worse. Teachers would literally smack kids in the head who didn't sit still and follow orders...yet boys seemed to do just fine in the 1950s or all the previous eras that were much worse than today.

Let's stop blaming a disciplined classroom for anything...because again, it used to be much, much worse yet we never worried about boys back in the day.

It's not true that education is the way it always has been. In another thread that I cannot remember now, someone mentioned it is not just the sitting and learning part that is harder for boy, but the way things are taught now, with a lot more group projects and collaboration. This person said her boy did much better in a Catholic school that just had direct instruction and clear expectations, even though there was a lot of sitting.

But also recesses are shorter now, and there are way less male teachers. Those are also huge factors.

Guess what...the Catholic school definitely expects the boys to sit still and follow orders and do hours of homework. So which is it...boys are falling behind because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework...or boys are great because they have to sit still, follow orders and do homework.

As I said, it is a combo of things. Recess is shorter, so there is more sitting. Add to that the method of schooling nowadays requires more executive functioning (vs direct instruction). Add to that more less male teachers to connect with and female teachers perhaps preferring/understanding girls better, and you get not great results for boys. But all of this is just one piece of it. There are many other contributing factors I'm sure.

Disagree. School requires less executive function now. Kids hardly even get homework until high school. Most things are done and submitted electronically- they don’t even have to remember to bring on their homework. There are no papers to lose or keep track of, few things to ever print, quizlets and study guides pre-made for them. But computers have fried their brains and many kids have a hard time with most basic organization and tasks

School is far more complicated now. instead of a simple textbook with problems in the back of the chapter, it's a mishmash of paper and online, a hurricane of handouts, clunky and incompatible online systems, and tech illiterate teachers putting things in disarray.

None of this sounds complicated. Online tech is not difficult-especially for kids who are currently obsessed with technology. We aren't asking them to open the terminal and start cracking out simulations. They're simply googling an online ed program and watching a video.

Then why can't teachers figure it out?

I'm not convinced they can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should apply to Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, which has 75% men.

But how many of those are neurotypical men?

Why does that matter? She's not a neurotypical woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll get slammed for this, but as a society we’ve abandoned our boys. They don’t have role models to look up to. We disparage men in general and white men in particular. We cater to those who claim victimhood.

Maybe give some thought to the qualities that your culture lauds as being exemplary, or successful. I’m thinking people like Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, DOGE. How many of these wealthy, influential white men finished college? How many of them proudly discuss their college experiences as being foundational in their success? So, I wouldn’t slam you for your viewpoint, although I do encourage you to take a deeper look at who you are openly valuing as role models. What many of you actually value is DOGE: Very young white men — with limited education, lots of power, and extravagantly generous paychecks.

Lol: You do get that you’re claiming “ victimhood” for “white men in particular “ — right? Tell the truth, do you REALLY wish that your “boys” had the opportunities that get offered to people who are not white males? You wish that your kid was a target for ICE?

The only person on that list that I might even consider a worthy role model for a young man would have been Charlie Kirk, primarily for his way of speaking with people who disagreed with him. Do you consider the rest of them people our boys should admire or emulate? That to me is a sign of a sick culture.

Can you provide some examples of this? I have never seen him speak with those who disagreed with him in any way that I would find admirable.

This is a really sad video. “I think you exhibit sinful behavior and you shouldn’t tell people who you are, but WELCOME! Just don’t bring up being gay (Kirk brings up being Christian constantly) and we’ll get along.

That’s not what he said. He said to not lead with your sexuality. Who you sleep with should be the least interesting thing about you.

Charlie Kirk believed that man should not have a right to marry a man. His coy little "let's all be friends; all you need to do is to ignore your concerns" condescension doesn't fool anyone with atrast half a brain who isn't on his bully side.

+1. I don't know why people think he made some saintly point.
It's the same BS racists used to do when they just shout down people to not see race and ignore it. "We're all human" means crap when you don't hold accountable those who treat others like they're subhuman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using the BU reference by OP - girls may be more attracted to the big city college experience while guys might be more attracted to sports culture of larger state U's?

Almost every boy in the world lives in a region where there is no "sports culture" at college. College sports is very US aberration.

[Anonymous]

STOP taking about Charlie Kirk!!! No one cares and it's unrelated to this thread. Just get out and take your discussion with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:STOP taking about Charlie Kirk!!! No one cares and it's unrelated to this thread. Just get out and take your discussion with you.

many boys looked up to him.