Are schools allowed to use gender in admissions?

[Anonymous]

From another thread, it looks like most/all of the kids getting off of the WL for T10 universities are male.

I thought that DEI was over? Schools are getting rid of their “women in stem “ focused programs. Why still allowed to have male-preferences for admission?

Can a girl just check the male box to help with admissions? Or leave it blank?

[Anonymous]

Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

Sounds like affirmative action. Trump & co. should get on this ASAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From another thread, it looks like most/all of the kids getting off of the WL for T10 universities are male.

I thought that DEI was over? Schools are getting rid of their “women in stem “ focused programs. Why still allowed to have male-preferences for admission?

Can a girl just check the male box to help with admissions? Or leave it blank?

The other thread is just anecdotal information. I don't think any schools have state "male preferences" or "male policies". At many schools, male admission rates are lower than female admission rates. That said, to attract the best women students, they need to consider male admits at the wait list levels since many women won't want to go to college if it's all women or near all women.

The wait list is where schools that are ending up being 70% female may try to pick up some highly qualified men to make up numbers a bit.

The reality is that many colleges will be pretty lopsided gender wise since traditional schooling and age of brain development does favor women (and I'm a woman myself with two daughters). That said, my DDs don't want college to be significantly majority women either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

And Yale.

[Anonymous]

Gender consideration has always been constitutional. Huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

yeah but my DD doesn't want to attend college that are either male dominated or female dominated. she wants a normal mix and colleges are in the sales business of selling their product! colleges can recruit better applicants long-term if they can show they have a healthy mix of genders. so I don't blame college for gender balancing at the margins.

we also should examine what it is about our education system and brain development that's favoring girls.

I do think boys benefit from entering kindergarten older.

[Anonymous]

You might find this eye-opening:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1170639.page

[Anonymous]

Gender balancing in schools is still considered constitutional under Title IX.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to apply differently to race-based rules and sex-based rules and to give more leeway to the latter. One key 1996 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and decided without dissent struck down an all-male admissions policy at a military institute but indicated that the decision would allow sex-based policies in education under the right conditions. So now race and sex have different standing constitutionally: Providing a college admissions preference just on race is now verboten, while providing a preference based on sex is still fair game.

Sex-based preferences can be a good thing. Girls and women continue to be sorely underrepresented in STEM and might need a boost. So too, boys and men are missing from what have been called the HEAL fields, like health and education. Using sex in admissions to address these types of gender imbalances can help to remedy stereotypes that steer men and women into roles based on sex and limit their opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Before Caltech went 50/50, they were 86% male. Nowadays the students say it's an improvement in terms of quality of life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gender balancing in schools is still considered constitutional under Title IX.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to apply differently to race-based rules and sex-based rules and to give more leeway to the latter. One key 1996 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and decided without dissent struck down an all-male admissions policy at a military institute but indicated that the decision would allow sex-based policies in education under the right conditions. So now race and sex have different standing constitutionally: Providing a college admissions preference just on race is now verboten, while providing a preference based on sex is still fair game.

Sex-based preferences can be a good thing. Girls and women continue to be sorely underrepresented in STEM and might need a boost. So too, boys and men are missing from what have been called the HEAL fields, like health and education. Using sex in admissions to address these types of gender imbalances can help to remedy stereotypes that steer men and women into roles based on sex and limit their opportunities.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gender balancing in schools is still considered constitutional under Title IX.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to apply differently to race-based rules and sex-based rules and to give more leeway to the latter. One key 1996 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and decided without dissent struck down an all-male admissions policy at a military institute but indicated that the decision would allow sex-based policies in education under the right conditions. So now race and sex have different standing constitutionally: Providing a college admissions preference just on race is now verboten, while providing a preference based on sex is still fair game.

Sex-based preferences can be a good thing. Girls and women continue to be sorely underrepresented in STEM and might need a boost. So too, boys and men are missing from what have been called the HEAL fields, like health and education. Using sex in admissions to address these types of gender imbalances can help to remedy stereotypes that steer men and women into roles based on sex and limit their opportunities.

+1
I support schools being able to gender balance - even though I have a daughter (which means admissions skews against her presently). Gender differences are much more significant than race differences. And count me as another that thinks it's a negative once a college gets up near the 60/40 female/male ratio.

[Anonymous]

If my DD wanted to go to an all girls college she'd apply to Smith or Bryn Mawhr.

She wants to learn with males and she wants to be in college with straight males!

She loves Vassar but has concerns over high number of women and straight men doesn't seem to be reflective of corporate enviros she wants to be prepared for later, or tbh give her good dating prospects in college as a straight woman.

[Anonymous]

My high stats DS won't go to a college that's less than 40% men. So in order to attract the highest stat male applicants like him, schools have to show they can attract males in a healthier balance.

It doesn't have to be 50-50, but shouldn't be 70-30 or 65-35 either.

[Anonymous]

OP, you know there are single sex college right?