What SHOULD the top 50-75 colleges do in their marketing to attract more men to attend to improve gender ratios?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My highly motivated male finds the female dating pool equally disappointing. They are not interested in partiers or those obsessed with social media and the like. They are at a top school, so even there it limits the options.

I think worse than the partier social media obsessed girls are the ones who are so political that they only want to date some combo of far left beliefs with 100% political agreement conformity, and guys that look good on social media.

Teaching your girls that only one cluster of political beliefs and 100% political agreement is a non negotiable will significantly reduce their dating options. There are soooo many wonderful guys that they are missing out on meeting, due to recent polarizing attitudes.

You want your sons and daughters to have a positive dating life, go back to raising them like an 80s or 90s teen.

I don't think there's anything wrong with making political beliefs a filter - lord knows MAGA men aren't dating blue-haired women. And vice versa, albeit to a slightly lesser extent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for my DD who is a strong candidate for top 75 and wants to be in an intellectually stimulating enviro with lots of impressive straight men who are equally strong to date. What kinds of outreach should the top 75 schools be doing with strong male candidates to make their ratios closer to 50-50 or even 55-45 (and not 60-40 or 65-35 or worse)?

Our straight daughters deserve better than recruited squash players and recruited lax bros who barely passed their academic pre-reads.

What about open houses run by male AOs with video-game themes? More profiles of outstanding male students on brochures (my DD's college brochures she gets in the mail feature majority women)? Webinar or student panels which are at least 50-50 women-men. I was at panels at BU, Pomona, USC and Tufts where the student panels were all female and the tour guides were all women except for one lonely male. That doesn't give a reassuring signal to prospective male students so I can understand why they go elsewhere.

Additional ED3 round with later deadline for males (since they are slower to develop)?

Your DD should apply for MIT or Caltechn.

To answer your question, they can adjust their holistic admissions process to get a 50/50 gender ratio, the same way Caltech changed theirs.

So gender conscious admission is okay but race based is not. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for my DD who is a strong candidate for top 75 and wants to be in an intellectually stimulating enviro with lots of impressive straight men who are equally strong to date. What kinds of outreach should the top 75 schools be doing with strong male candidates to make their ratios closer to 50-50 or even 55-45 (and not 60-40 or 65-35 or worse)?

Our straight daughters deserve better than recruited squash players and recruited lax bros who barely passed their academic pre-reads.

What about open houses run by male AOs with video-game themes? More profiles of outstanding male students on brochures (my DD's college brochures she gets in the mail feature majority women)? Webinar or student panels which are at least 50-50 women-men. I was at panels at BU, Pomona, USC and Tufts where the student panels were all female and the tour guides were all women except for one lonely male. That doesn't give a reassuring signal to prospective male students so I can understand why they go elsewhere.

Additional ED3 round with later deadline for males (since they are slower to develop)?

The boys need to sign up for this stuff and get out of bed on Saturday morning. Again, it’s not that they’re being rejected from these panels, they don’t want to participate in the first place.

We toured BC recently. They also had an all female student panel, which was pointed out by my son. They were all lovely and very impressive. But it is hard for a 17 year old boy to picture day to day social life at a school when the woman are talking about their experience on the dance team, shopping on Newbury Street on the weekends and getting boba with friends.

Our panel at BC was very similar. My DS scratched it off his list.

Agree.

Sons had similar experiences at other schools

+1 Cornell.

What’s wrong with the male students on these campuses? Why are they less visible or involved than their female peers? I don’t get it.

Perhaps the school wishes to market itself towards girls to increase female representation at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys frontal lobes are years behind girls in development. So looking at grades they got when they were 14 is going to disadvantage a lot of boys … and they won’t even apply when they see the acattergram for their gpa.
It’s actually pretty depressing as the mom of a teen boy. He’s really smart and is very iijterested in a lot of things. His IQ is very high and he takes all the hardest classes because he likes learning. But his grades are very mediocre because he just isn’t organized with respect turning in work, making up missed tests, etc, the way his sisters are. His sister (who is not any smarter than him) is at a top 10 college, but he’ll be lucky to get into something in the 50-100 range. I feel like school now has a LOT of check the box assignments — much more than when I was in HS — and that all advantages the kids with high executive function. The girls have a huge advantage neurotically in EF at ages 14-16, at least.

I have a 14 year old boy and a 17 year old girl and I just can’t understand this, to be honest. Kids are given so much grace these days with respect to turning in work whenever they want and retaking tests. It didn’t used to be like this and the boys seemed to do much better back then.

"Back them" your grades were mainly based on your performance on the final exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys frontal lobes are years behind girls in development. So looking at grades they got when they were 14 is going to disadvantage a lot of boys … and they won’t even apply when they see the acattergram for their gpa.
It’s actually pretty depressing as the mom of a teen boy. He’s really smart and is very iijterested in a lot of things. His IQ is very high and he takes all the hardest classes because he likes learning. But his grades are very mediocre because he just isn’t organized with respect turning in work, making up missed tests, etc, the way his sisters are. His sister (who is not any smarter than him) is at a top 10 college, but he’ll be lucky to get into something in the 50-100 range. I feel like school now has a LOT of check the box assignments — much more than when I was in HS — and that all advantages the kids with high executive function. The girls have a huge advantage neurotically in EF at ages 14-16, at least.

I have a 14 year old boy and a 17 year old girl and I just can’t understand this, to be honest. Kids are given so much grace these days with respect to turning in work whenever they want and retaking tests. It didn’t used to be like this and the boys seemed to do much better back then.

But, truly, if people want more 50-50 non-STEM campuses, then you’re going to need to accept high achieving girls being declined while mid dudes get accepted. Boys both apply less & generally have lower acceptance rates.

Do you think Caltech and MIT got to 50/50 by rejecting high achieving boys in favor of mid girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don’t think they can or should to anything. Those men who can compete with women, should. Those who can’t, should not. College is not for dating, it is for education. Stand back and let the deserving get their education.

Do you feel the same way about MIT and Caltech's enforced 50/50

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for my DD who is a strong candidate for top 75 and wants to be in an intellectually stimulating enviro with lots of impressive straight men who are equally strong to date. What kinds of outreach should the top 75 schools be doing with strong male candidates to make their ratios closer to 50-50 or even 55-45 (and not 60-40 or 65-35 or worse)?

Our straight daughters deserve better than recruited squash players and recruited lax bros who barely passed their academic pre-reads.

What about open houses run by male AOs with video-game themes? More profiles of outstanding male students on brochures (my DD's college brochures she gets in the mail feature majority women)? Webinar or student panels which are at least 50-50 women-men. I was at panels at BU, Pomona, USC and Tufts where the student panels were all female and the tour guides were all women except for one lonely male. That doesn't give a reassuring signal to prospective male students so I can understand why they go elsewhere.

Additional ED3 round with later deadline for males (since they are slower to develop)?

Your DD should apply for MIT or Caltechn.

To answer your question, they can adjust their holistic admissions process to get a 50/50 gender ratio, the same way Caltech changed theirs.

So gender conscious admission is okay but race based is not. Got it.

Gender conscious admissions has not his the supreme court yet. They would probably rule against it in mixed colleges, at least.

Personally I'm not a fan of it, but what really grinds my gears when people only disagree with gender conscious admissions that advantages the opposite gender while making every excuse and justification for gender conscious admissions that favors their gender. I can't stand double standards.