General admission bias in favor of male applicants

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/magazine/men-college-enrollment.html

‘There Was Definitely a Thumb on the Scale to Get Boys’
Declining male enrollment has led many colleges to adopt an unofficial policy: affirmative action for men.

According to the article, it's pervasive at the majority of colleges, since most of them wish to be within waving distance of gender parity.

Take-aways:
1. Girls overachieving in school compared to boys (a fact of life since the 1980s) actually hurts them in college admissions, since they need a better application profile to be considered on an equal footing with boys.
2. Colleges try to appeal to boys: one way is to provide more college sports, which then ensures that a significant proportion of boys are recruited athletes, which then has an impact on school culture: academic girls, less-academic boys.
3. Gender imbalance on campus counter-intuitively can trigger a scarcity dating mindset, which means that women may believe they need to accept all sorts of things they might not have accepted had the pool of available dates been larger. On other words, hook-up culture.
4. In the wider world, the implications of fewer men graduating than women is concerning as well: some people are worried about the group of males without college degrees who may be unable to earn enough to support a family, and may not find a wife or have kids, possibly leading to toxic masculinity issues.
5. Finally, the article raises the question of what our broader conversation should be surrounding privilege and who has access to college, if the real beneficiaries of affirmative action are males?

[Anonymous]

Finally!

[Anonymous]

Invest in engineering, CS and business and don't have to worry about a gender imbalance. UMD is 52% male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Invest in engineering, CS and business and don't have to worry about a gender imbalance. UMD is 52% male.

Do you understand what college admissions might have had to do to achieve parity?
Because I think you missed the point of the article, PP.
The gender percentages you're seeing is AFTER the sausage was made.

[Anonymous]

Yes at most but not all colleges males get a few percentage point bump in admissions to keep some semblance of gender equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Invest in engineering, CS and business and don't have to worry about a gender imbalance. UMD is 52% male.

Do you understand what college admissions might have had to do to achieve parity?
Because I think you missed the point of the article, PP.
The gender percentages you're seeing is AFTER the sausage was made.

I skimmed it. Tulane needs to adapt. Half a$$ CS program (a second "major" is required) and only TWO (biomedical and chemical) engineering fields. They don't even have an accounting major in the business school.

[Anonymous]

"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

[Anonymous]

Wharton UG still gives a massive boost to female applicants.

A lot of the above article is due to test scores being optional

Men still outscore women on mcat, lsat, gmat, sat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

What do you do then if your student body is 80% mostly middle class, white or asian, female applicants?
I am all for an academic meritocracy, but if all colleges do this, what are the consequences on society for the next generations?
The article tries to get at this.

I understand we are in a patriarchy. It's hard to accept that we need men in college, even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group, and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

What do you do then if your student body is 80% mostly middle class, white or asian, female applicants?
I am all for an academic meritocracy, but if all colleges do this, what are the consequences on society for the next generations?
The article tries to get at this.

I understand we are in a patriarchy. It's hard to accept that we need men in college, even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group, and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

Difficult times create strong men.
Weak men create difficult times.

I think we better buckle up. This is intentional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

I believe in meritocracy but without sufficient men in the student population it would not be possible to keep order on campus.

[Anonymous]

Not for engineering & CS. Women have a better chance of getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wharton UG still gives a massive boost to female applicants.

A lot of the above article is due to test scores being optional

Men still outscore women on mcat, lsat, gmat, sat

Women have been admitted to law school at a greater proportion than men for over a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

I believe in meritocracy but without sufficient men in the student population it would not be possible to keep order on campus.

Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wharton UG still gives a massive boost to female applicants.

A lot of the above article is due to test scores being optional

Men still outscore women on mcat, lsat, gmat, sat

Women have been admitted to law school at a greater proportion than men for over a decade.

1. Law schools admit on more than lsat

2. It’s irrelevant what any law school under t14 — well tbh t10 — does.

Men score the majority of 170+ scores and 161+ scores

Women def beat men on UG gpa - I agree