60% of girls say they want college, only 46% of boys

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Discussed before
Boys = minority group in college
why there's a group of magas steering the country into what we have.
As Laura Bush (yes a first lady at the beginning on the 21st century) said something along the lines of we are focusing on the young girls which we should, but we should also be concerned about the young boys. Well, she wasn't wrong to have worried about them.
#getyourboytoattendcollegeANDgraduate

100%%%%. I said that all of the time. Laura Bush was rightly focusing on boys falling behind—especially her reading initiatives and the school systems designed to the way girls learn/develop. And, Laura has only daughters, btw. We had take your daughters to work (changed eventually to child), girls on the run, girls in stem, as nauseum

I’m a female PhD (in my 50s) and I played competitive college sports, etc. I had no problem in that realm.

We started just medicating every boy that couldn’t sit still in kindergarten and first grade. Labeling them all toxic..until what we did eventually came to fruition in MAGA-types

I voted Harris—but I am not dense enough to not notice why Trump was able to win

Where was this 'labeling ALL boys toxic' occur? Please state facts and not opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who will our daughters marry then?

No worries, and I say this with all seriousness. Alot of successful, educated women marry “down”. Lots of senior level women at my corporate job have low-achieving husbands, househusbands, SAHD husbands etc. That seems to be the norm among that cohort UNLESS they don’t have kids. In that case, the husband may or may not have a good career like the wife. I can also think of a couple high achieving exec women at work who are single, either via divorce or never married.

Get ready - it’s rough out there. My beautiful Ivy grad daughter is dating a drop out server. Great guy - I’ve grown to be happy for her because at least he’s kind and thoughtful and not a weirdo or ahole. He supports himself, has a car and apt (with roommates). She’s young - who knows where life will go. But many of her friends are in similar situations. Another friend’s Law school daughter is dating an Uber driver. Ivys have high percentages of gay men so that adds to the shortages.

I think young women are going to have to temper their expectations if they want to get married. There just aren't enough high achieving men out there compared to women. It's kind of sad, really.

Ugh. I'm just going to encourage my smart and driven HS senior daughter to stick with her HS boyfriend who is just as ambitious, smart, and plans to go to med school. Hopefully they survive. 😂

If your daughter is smart and driven why do you have to encourage her to do anything? Let her decide!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is depressing but also not that relatable as a parent of a son. In my son's HS peer group (private SF Bay), the majority of the guys he hangs with are funny, deep, motivated and college-bound. I don't think he has a single friend who isn't talking about college as the next goal. He has noted many girls in his school peer group appear to be more intense and organized than his guy friends - who cultivate a more laid back, chill vibe - but they both go to great colleges in extremely high numbers. Almost 100%.

So for all the parents of girls who say there aren't any motivated or ambitious males for your daughters to date, don't despair. There are lots of gems in my son's school!

Oh thank goodness! It’s great to be rich, isn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean that boys that go to all boys schools are ALL doing great? Because the learning and activities are centered around them? No failing boys from private all boys schools? None.

I'm curious about this, too. Do boys from all boys schools get a completely different style of education that is tailored to them? Do they have more recess, more time to wander around the classroom, jump around, talk loudly, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for people to talk about how teaching has changed to be more advantageous to girls.

Some of it is biological according to NYT article about this - boys mature later than girls do, yet the academic expectations of the younger grades has increased over time as have testing standards which affect how classroom time is utilized (prep to test bc experiential).

Recess used to be 60-90 min daily, unstructured. That was early to mid 20th century. Yet weekly recess time has decreased by sixty minutes since just 2001.

So first you're saying that the focus on girls activities and programs meant for girls has caused the downfall of boys, but now you're saying it's just lack of recess? Make up your minds.

I never said any of that. You realize there are a lot of posters here, right? I’m answering the question.

Don't be stupid, that was a general question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean that boys that go to all boys schools are ALL doing great? Because the learning and activities are centered around them? No failing boys from private all boys schools? None.

I'm curious about this, too. Do boys from all boys schools get a completely different style of education that is tailored to them? Do they have more recess, more time to wander around the classroom, jump around, talk loudly, etc.?

Interesting how everyone ignored this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean that boys that go to all boys schools are ALL doing great? Because the learning and activities are centered around them? No failing boys from private all boys schools? None.

I'm curious about this, too. Do boys from all boys schools get a completely different style of education that is tailored to them? Do they have more recess, more time to wander around the classroom, jump around, talk loudly, etc.?

Not at my son's Catholic school. They enforce consequences for behavior. That's the biggest difference IMO. There was no enforcement in public school. The line was out the door every morning at the dean of student's office. It was mostly the younger boys who were learning that their behavior actually had consequences. Most everything else was similar to the girl's Catholic schools. 45 minute classes, 1-2 free periods per day, lots of homework every night, no retakes, no extensions, etc. The expectations were high. No excuses. Even athletes missed practices and sometimes games if they broke a rule. It was very no nonsense and once boys learned this, most fell into line. They would expel kids for drugs. No questions asked. Suspensions for other offenses like smoking, vaping (vaping pot was an expulsion).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son says he wants to drop out of college and become an influencer. I said, “Uh no, you’re going to finish your civil engineering degree.”

+1 he can be an influencer after he gets his degree. You can't be in influencer for the rest of your life. Eventually, you will be a nobody. Then what?

You can…look at Mr Beast…that guy has created a massive empire and makes like $100MM+ a year these days. His company has hundreds of employees and he essentially owns a media company.

It’s no different than deciding to make it as an actor or musician. Less than 1% will ever really make it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who will our daughters marry then?

No worries, and I say this with all seriousness. Alot of successful, educated women marry “down”. Lots of senior level women at my corporate job have low-achieving husbands, househusbands, SAHD husbands etc. That seems to be the norm among that cohort UNLESS they don’t have kids. In that case, the husband may or may not have a good career like the wife. I can also think of a couple high achieving exec women at work who are single, either via divorce or never married.

Get ready - it’s rough out there. My beautiful Ivy grad daughter is dating a drop out server. Great guy - I’ve grown to be happy for her because at least he’s kind and thoughtful and not a weirdo or ahole. He supports himself, has a car and apt (with roommates). She’s young - who knows where life will go. But many of her friends are in similar situations. Another friend’s Law school daughter is dating an Uber driver. Ivys have high percentages of gay men so that adds to the shortages.

So my straight, good looking Ivy sons should have a lot of great women to date is what you are saying? It sounds like all of the women will be competing for the same small group of successful men.

This is what I’m wondering as well. But aren’t tippy top schools close to gender balanced at the undergraduate level? I believe HYPS, for example, are all about 51-52% women, 48-49% men. Of the T5 schools, MIT is the least balanced, with about 54% men, 46% women.

[Anonymous]

As long as taxpayers don't pay for Mrs degrees, no problem with more women going to college. More men are go into military and skilled trades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Discussed before
Boys = minority group in college
why there's a group of magas steering the country into what we have.
As Laura Bush (yes a first lady at the beginning on the 21st century) said something along the lines of we are focusing on the young girls which we should, but we should also be concerned about the young boys. Well, she wasn't wrong to have worried about them.
#getyourboytoattendcollegeANDgraduate

100%%%%. I said that all of the time. Laura Bush was rightly focusing on boys falling behind—especially her reading initiatives and the school systems designed to the way girls learn/develop. And, Laura has only daughters, btw. We had take your daughters to work (changed eventually to child), girls on the run, girls in stem, as nauseum

I’m a female PhD (in my 50s) and I played competitive college sports, etc. I had no problem in that realm.

We started just medicating every boy that couldn’t sit still in kindergarten and first grade. Labeling them all toxic..until what we did eventually came to fruition in MAGA-types

I voted Harris—but I am not dense enough to not notice why Trump was able to win

I happen to have a girl with ADHD and much of what you say is true for her. Our schools are not set up for the way many people (including presumably a lot more boys) learn. For us, the answer is private school.

I’m not sure how things like Women in STEM and Girls in the Run hurt boys. Most of the traditional STEM clubs are male dominated. It almost drove my daughter out of STEM, but a women’s college saved her and gave her the space to explore those interests without being dominated and condescended to by guys.

I think the point the pp was making is that investment in our girls should not be at the detriment of our boys — which for the past several years, maybe the past decade, it has been exactly that. I’m a girl mom and a feminist that can acknowledge the fact that if our highly educated empowered women have no one of equal merit to partner up with we are in trouble as a society

I disagree that investment in girls has come at the detriment at boys.

We should be very worried about boys, they need our attention. We need to get them off the video game addiction, get them reading, get them playing outside and building and making and working together as a team to solve problems. They brain rot in their basements, it’s terrible.

So you are able to acknowledge the pragmatic problems yet cannot see the cultural and systemic undertones that got us here?? You’re an idiot.

NP. We’re not allowed to talk about systemic issues that disfavor any one particular part of the population anymore. Or are we, as long as it’s boys?

The issue I have with this whole “schools are designed for girls” idea is when have schools ever been any different? Even when it was only boys attending school, they were expected to stay in their seats, shut up and pay attention. Things that girls tend to have an easier time with than boys. Boys are probably attending college at the same percentage that they always have. It’s just that now that girls are expected to go as well, more are attending because they don’t struggle as much with the characteristics needed for doing well in school.

Good point.

If you go to an all boys schools, they are expected to sit in their seats and learn. It's about expectations.

Looks like a graph showing women who get married later need something to do to pass the time, so they go to college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as taxpayers don't pay for Mrs degrees, no problem with more women going to college. More men are go into military and skilled trades.

Only 25% of young men are even eligible to join the military due to health issues, educational level, and/or criminal record.

[Anonymous]

This is felt in our schools. Slightly high academic boys get into very good schools, while girls with top stats rejected almost entirely across the board. It is very easy these days for men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean that boys that go to all boys schools are ALL doing great? Because the learning and activities are centered around them? No failing boys from private all boys schools? None.

I'm curious about this, too. Do boys from all boys schools get a completely different style of education that is tailored to them? Do they have more recess, more time to wander around the classroom, jump around, talk loudly, etc.?

They should, but if they don't, it's probably because no private school wants to rock the boat too much / give Joe Rogan vibes, etc.