A Generation of American Men Give Up on College: ‘I Just Feel Lost’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good news for sons, now more spots for boys available as schools seek gender balance (even if they won't talk about it)

Is this really how it will be for my son? Or is it still just as competitive, considering my son is part Asian and colleges consider us undesirable?

This is really not the case.

[Anonymous]

I don't really see a problem.

If you told me, males who want to go to college are not getting in, I would have a problem.

I think it's stupid to think that college is the only way to go. We need to normalize jobs that don't require college degrees.

My niece makes $70K/year climbing towers, photographing them and sending the photos to engineers to determine if they need to be fixed. She is getting ready to hire 2 people and increase the number of towers she can manage a week. Qualifications: climbing and able to use a phone.

My nephew is working at a dispensary, is now in charge of the warehouse and "supply chain". They have sent him to supply chain management classes, he does not need calculus to do this job.

Colleges are often a bunch of bull$hit

[Anonymous]

We are going to have a generation of man/babies who can't seem to get it together.

Well, great for my DS since he's on track for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are going to have a generation of man/babies who can't seem to get it together.

Well, great for my DS since he's on track for college.

because college never created a man baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going to have a generation of man/babies who can't seem to get it together.

Well, great for my DS since he's on track for college.

because college never created a man baby.

LOL. My favorite post of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see a problem.

If you told me, males who want to go to college are not getting in, I would have a problem.

I think it's stupid to think that college is the only way to go. We need to normalize jobs that don't require college degrees.

My niece makes $70K/year climbing towers, photographing them and sending the photos to engineers to determine if they need to be fixed. She is getting ready to hire 2 people and increase the number of towers she can manage a week. Qualifications: climbing and able to use a phone.

My nephew is working at a dispensary, is now in charge of the warehouse and "supply chain". They have sent him to supply chain management classes, he does not need calculus to do this job.

Colleges are often a bunch of bull$hit

Your nephew absolutely has a ceiling with how far he can go in logistics and supply chain management without a degree. There are lots of jobs where you can make an ok living, but most have a cap and that cap is usually below what people imagine their child will earn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy. What losers

I did not read them as whiny at all.

me either. where are these comments coming from?

People who want to blame young people for their own problems without even considering whether the system is setting them up to fail.

It’s the same system that has been in place for two centuries.

The reality is a lot of men got by/get by coasting and they’re being out worked by girls who become women.

1+. The entire higher education system was *set up* by white males, and until fairly recently, 1960-70s, many prestigious institutions explicitly excluded women (and POC). It's hardly a shock that your "stats" are going to be "worse" once you let in the rest of humanity.

Um, again, you didn't read the article because it specifically mentioned that the male students aren't less qualified - they aren't applying.

DP... no one is preventing them from applying.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Have you read the article?

I read a similar article. Not WSJ since it's behind a paywall.

One of the great things about this country is that you don't have to apply to college straight out of HS. You can work, go to community college, trade school.. even be a complete bum and dropout then decide to go community college, then to a four year. You can even join the military and have them help pay for college (my brother did that).

I have no sympathy for men (who are still paid more than women for the same job) who can't figure it out.

I say this as a mother of a boy and girl, and who grew up lower income.

You have zero sympathy for 17-year-olds who feel hopeless and lost? Got it. You sound lovely.

The article I read basically stated that the girls were on top of their applications, but that the boys needed more hand holding.

Not that long ago men were the predominate group in college. So, what changed, really. From what I can see, boys have more direct competition now academically.

This. Now that girls are finally given an equal playing field, the right (which is what WSJ represents) cries that it's unfair to boys

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy. What losers

I did not read them as whiny at all.

me either. where are these comments coming from?

People who want to blame young people for their own problems without even considering whether the system is setting them up to fail.

It’s the same system that has been in place for two centuries.

The reality is a lot of men got by/get by coasting and they’re being out worked by girls who become women.

1+. The entire higher education system was *set up* by white males, and until fairly recently, 1960-70s, many prestigious institutions explicitly excluded women (and POC). It's hardly a shock that your "stats" are going to be "worse" once you let in the rest of humanity.

Um, again, you didn't read the article because it specifically mentioned that the male students aren't less qualified - they aren't applying.

DP... no one is preventing them from applying.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Have you read the article?

I read a similar article. Not WSJ since it's behind a paywall.

One of the great things about this country is that you don't have to apply to college straight out of HS. You can work, go to community college, trade school.. even be a complete bum and dropout then decide to go community college, then to a four year. You can even join the military and have them help pay for college (my brother did that).

I have no sympathy for men (who are still paid more than women for the same job) who can't figure it out.

I say this as a mother of a boy and girl, and who grew up lower income.

You have zero sympathy for 17-year-olds who feel hopeless and lost? Got it. You sound lovely.

The article I read basically stated that the girls were on top of their applications, but that the boys needed more hand holding.

Not that long ago men were the predominate group in college. So, what changed, really. From what I can see, boys have more direct competition now academically.

This. Now that girls are finally given an equal playing field, the right (which is what WSJ represents) cries that it's unfair to boys

I guess, if the ability to complete a college application at age 17 is the measure of college and career success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going to have a generation of man/babies who can't seem to get it together.

Well, great for my DS since he's on track for college.

because college never created a man baby.

LOL. My favorite post of the day.

yes, you are right.. of course, there are many man/babies who have degrees, but the situation seems to be getting worse with these men who are "lost".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy. What losers

I did not read them as whiny at all.

me either. where are these comments coming from?

People who want to blame young people for their own problems without even considering whether the system is setting them up to fail.

It’s the same system that has been in place for two centuries.

The reality is a lot of men got by/get by coasting and they’re being out worked by girls who become women.

1+. The entire higher education system was *set up* by white males, and until fairly recently, 1960-70s, many prestigious institutions explicitly excluded women (and POC). It's hardly a shock that your "stats" are going to be "worse" once you let in the rest of humanity.

Um, again, you didn't read the article because it specifically mentioned that the male students aren't less qualified - they aren't applying.

DP... no one is preventing them from applying.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Have you read the article?

I read a similar article. Not WSJ since it's behind a paywall.

One of the great things about this country is that you don't have to apply to college straight out of HS. You can work, go to community college, trade school.. even be a complete bum and dropout then decide to go community college, then to a four year. You can even join the military and have them help pay for college (my brother did that).

I have no sympathy for men (who are still paid more than women for the same job) who can't figure it out.

I say this as a mother of a boy and girl, and who grew up lower income.

You have zero sympathy for 17-year-olds who feel hopeless and lost? Got it. You sound lovely.

The article I read basically stated that the girls were on top of their applications, but that the boys needed more hand holding.

Not that long ago men were the predominate group in college. So, what changed, really. From what I can see, boys have more direct competition now academically.

This. Now that girls are finally given an equal playing field, the right (which is what WSJ represents) cries that it's unfair to boys

I guess, if the ability to complete a college application at age 17 is the measure of college and career success.

It's a good measure of college acceptance. Maybe the colleges should be more understanding and accept PS4 leader boards are ECs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy. What losers

I did not read them as whiny at all.

me either. where are these comments coming from?

People who want to blame young people for their own problems without even considering whether the system is setting them up to fail.

It’s the same system that has been in place for two centuries.

The reality is a lot of men got by/get by coasting and they’re being out worked by girls who become women.

1+. The entire higher education system was *set up* by white males, and until fairly recently, 1960-70s, many prestigious institutions explicitly excluded women (and POC). It's hardly a shock that your "stats" are going to be "worse" once you let in the rest of humanity.

Um, again, you didn't read the article because it specifically mentioned that the male students aren't less qualified - they aren't applying.

DP... no one is preventing them from applying.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Have you read the article?

I read a similar article. Not WSJ since it's behind a paywall.

One of the great things about this country is that you don't have to apply to college straight out of HS. You can work, go to community college, trade school.. even be a complete bum and dropout then decide to go community college, then to a four year. You can even join the military and have them help pay for college (my brother did that).

I have no sympathy for men (who are still paid more than women for the same job) who can't figure it out.

I say this as a mother of a boy and girl, and who grew up lower income.

You have zero sympathy for 17-year-olds who feel hopeless and lost? Got it. You sound lovely.

The article I read basically stated that the girls were on top of their applications, but that the boys needed more hand holding.

Not that long ago men were the predominate group in college. So, what changed, really. From what I can see, boys have more direct competition now academically.

This. Now that girls are finally given an equal playing field, the right (which is what WSJ represents) cries that it's unfair to boys

I guess, if the ability to complete a college application at age 17 is the measure of college and career success.

well, one can't get into college without applying first, right?

And if college is not a measure of success then why are we having this conversation. Who cares if men aren't going to college?

[Anonymous]

Here’s the words that stand in it to me in the thread title: Give Up. If the first time men aren’t the dominant demo in an institution society places a high value on and their reaction is to give up, maybe they don’t belong in college.

I wonder what would happen to these poor fragile men if large numbers were sexually assaulted and sexually harassed at school and in the workplace with no consequences to the perpetuators; were raped and force to carry pregnancies to term; had their civil rights taken away; were disadvantaged by an old girls network; were paid less for equal work; we forced to bear children the didn’t want; had a glass ceiling; were significantly under-represented in Congress, the judiciary, corporate boardrooms and C-suites; had occupations they participate in in large numbers devalued (financially and in terms of prestige); were expected to do 2x to 4x more work in managing a home and raising children while working full time; etc, etc. it will take years for women’s job market participation to get back to where it was pre-COVID.

So, for the first time in this nation’s history, there is one area where white men don’t a structural advantage that makes everything easier for them and makes them the de facto dominant. Who cares? No one can argue with a straight face that they don’t have equal opportunities. In fact, my kids applied to SLACs and the standards were lower for DS.

If boys don’t have equal outcomes, maybe of the “boys will be boys” “it’s fine to spend hours on video games” mentality that has lowered our expectations of them. Or, maybe they are so unprepared for adversity because they literally never face it that they just “give up.”

Maybe boys and men need more adversity so they develop so coping skills and Grit, and not less.

But, but, but… think of the white men!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's called affirmative action. It's working to discourage men and whites at all levels of education and employment, just as designed. American women and minorities keep the pressure on big education and business as if they're being discriminated against ("It's the kind you can't see or hear and the statistics don't show it....but it's there"). Leftists feel the "enlightened view" is to discriminate against males and whites so this will continue. Feminists and other men haters should greet this news with joy. In fact, they probably think it hasn't gone far enough, after all - 2 wrongs make a right. Of course, when these women look for mates, statistically they tend to favor those who make more $$$ than them. There will be fewer men available who fit that bill. Maybe they can all become lesbians. Ahhh progress.

Considering the VAST majority of people in power are White males (CEOs, business leaders, politicians, etc.) your post makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

[b]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the words that stand in it to me in the thread title: Give Up. If the first time men aren’t the dominant demo in an institution society places a high value on and their reaction is to give up, maybe they don’t belong in college.

I wonder what would happen to these poor fragile men if large numbers were sexually assaulted and sexually harassed at school and in the workplace with no consequences to the perpetuators; were raped and force to carry pregnancies to term; had their civil rights taken away; were disadvantaged by an old girls network; were paid less for equal work; we forced to bear children the didn’t want; had a glass ceiling; were significantly under-represented in Congress, the judiciary, corporate boardrooms and C-suites; had occupations they participate in in large numbers devalued (financially and in terms of prestige); were expected to do 2x to 4x more work in managing a home and raising children while working full time; etc, etc. it will take years for women’s job market participation to get back to where it was pre-COVID.

So, for the first time in this nation’s history, there is one area where white men don’t a structural advantage that makes everything easier for them and makes them the de facto dominant. Who cares? No one can argue with a straight face that they don’t have equal opportunities. In fact, my kids applied to SLACs and the standards were lower for DS.

If boys don’t have equal outcomes, maybe of the “boys will be boys” “it’s fine to spend hours on video games” mentality that has lowered our expectations of them. Or, maybe they are so unprepared for adversity because they literally never face it that they just “give up.”

Maybe boys and men need more adversity so they develop so coping skills and Grit, and not less.

But, but, but… think of the white men!

Teenage boys didn't create any of these things, nor have they enjoyed a structural advantage in education. But thank you again for pointing out that you want today's youth to suffer as much as possible, and demonstrating that you have no concern or compassion for them that would lead you to consider, for even a moment, whether there are some issues at play when it comes to our schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy. What losers

I did not read them as whiny at all.

me either. where are these comments coming from?

People who want to blame young people for their own problems without even considering whether the system is setting them up to fail.

It’s the same system that has been in place for two centuries.

The reality is a lot of men got by/get by coasting and they’re being out worked by girls who become women.

1+. The entire higher education system was *set up* by white males, and until fairly recently, 1960-70s, many prestigious institutions explicitly excluded women (and POC). It's hardly a shock that your "stats" are going to be "worse" once you let in the rest of humanity.

Um, again, you didn't read the article because it specifically mentioned that the male students aren't less qualified - they aren't applying.

DP... no one is preventing them from applying.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? Have you read the article?

I read a similar article. Not WSJ since it's behind a paywall.

One of the great things about this country is that you don't have to apply to college straight out of HS. You can work, go to community college, trade school.. even be a complete bum and dropout then decide to go community college, then to a four year. You can even join the military and have them help pay for college (my brother did that).

I have no sympathy for men (who are still paid more than women for the same job) who can't figure it out.

I say this as a mother of a boy and girl, and who grew up lower income.

You have zero sympathy for 17-year-olds who feel hopeless and lost? Got it. You sound lovely.

NP, but why would I feel sympathy for a historically and currently-advantaged class of people *as a class* if in one area they do not quite have the hegemony they used to have? I certainly might have sympathy for individual 17 year olds who felt lost--of any gender or ethnicity, etc.--but that it is different question. You are conflating the two.