Why aren’t males attending college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to teach men that discipline was necessary for a quality life and successful career. Now people complain of it being “anti-male” to discipline boys rightfully for erratic behavior. I do think more boys would benefit from an all male environment, since girls are socialized to be more disciplined and still than men.

Counterpoint, for generations we kept women out of academics when they are far capable both there and in any thing that requires time management and executive function. The guys will experience discipline in their gigs driving for Amazon and Doordash.

Yes, this. I don't think it's "anti-male" to acknowledge this and say to them "sorry, if you don't have the grades and ability to take up a spot in XXX college, then you shouldn't." Especially since they are at least being judged on their merits instead of arbitrarily excluded like women were for generations.

By what metrics are women being judged on their merits? You need to move past the patriarchy is bad drivel. Girls do slighlty better on grades and slightly worse on standardized testing like the SAT. Definitely not what you'd expect from the admission percentages quoted earlier.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

If boys and girls do about the same in high school, it is legitimate to ask why the university enrollment doesnt reflect that.

Girls do better in school because teachers show favoritism these days. In the past, parents always complained that boys were favored by teachers so I guess their girls grew up and became teachers.

The SAT has been revised several times because the girls weren't scoring as high as the boys. What has happened is that the test, itself, has been dumbed down to allow girls to catch up. The average may look the same but traditionally boys outperformed girls among the high scorers. Now there are so many kids that get so-called high scores because the test is so easy. It's also a shorter test that allows a calculator. What a joke. This is just another way of harmonizing scores and results by racing to the bottom. I mean they added the stupid third section (writing) for the benefit of girls for several years before getting rid of it and just making the test even easier. Arguing for a gender or culture gap makes no sense because plenty of Asians who are also girls have always scored high. Even the test optional movement is partly driven by the gender gap. I mean my kid just got a 99++ percentile in the PSAT in 10th grade without even studying for it--I doubt they would have gotten that score if they had taken it 30 years ago...

"Colleges are dropping the SAT in admissions: Evidence of a gender gap has existed for decades"
https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/careers/032622/colleges-are-dropping-the-sat-in-admissions

"The Highest-Performing Women Are (Still) Scoring Lower Than Men on the SAT"
https://msmagazine.com/2018/02/15/highest-performing-women-still-scoring-lower-men-sat/

"Colleges are dropping the SAT in admissions. That’s a good thing for most girls"
https://19thnews.org/2022/03/colleges-admissions-dropping-sat-exam-gender-gap/

College Board data show that more boys score higher at the top end than girls
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

[Anonymous]

I guess this supposed feminization of education could be addressed by having more men as elementary and high school teachers. How many of you would encourage your boys to pursue that path?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my case, a big part of it was socialization and expectations at home.

I rode my DD hard. I expected her to excel and to put in the time. She is off at a T10 college.

I was much more lax with her brother. He was always so dang cute and I always felt he was going to figure it out at some point. By 9th grade, I decided he hadn’t figured it out fast enough and started holding him to the same standards I had held his sister to. I didn’t let things slide and told him i expected straight A’s. He gave me the usual “I am trying my best, etc” and I told him “your best needs to be better. You are smart enough to get it done if you put in the work.” And to my surprise - he rose to meet the challenge. He is on track for a selective school and for a while there, that didn’t seem like his path.

I still don’t know why I expected more from my DD than my DS. But if others are like me, maybe that could explain parts of it?

My mother was a little bit pushy about her grand-daughters being financially independent and being able to walk away from a bad marriage if they needed to.
My mother's marriage wasn't bad but I think she might have felt a little trapped in marriage because of her kids. If she was financially independent, she would have left my dad.
She was the same way with my sisters but not with me or my son. She loves us but she never worried about us making our way in the world.
For a lot of women, financial independence requires an education, for boys we just think everything is going to work out.
It's not working out for the boys as effortlessly anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to teach men that discipline was necessary for a quality life and successful career. Now people complain of it being “anti-male” to discipline boys rightfully for erratic behavior. I do think more boys would benefit from an all male environment, since girls are socialized to be more disciplined and still than men.

Counterpoint, for generations we kept women out of academics when they are far capable both there and in any thing that requires time management and executive function. The guys will experience discipline in their gigs driving for Amazon and Doordash.

Yes, this. I don't think it's "anti-male" to acknowledge this and say to them "sorry, if you don't have the grades and ability to take up a spot in XXX college, then you shouldn't." Especially since they are at least being judged on their merits instead of arbitrarily excluded like women were for generations.

By what metrics are women being judged on their merits? You need to move past the patriarchy is bad drivel. Girls do slighlty better on grades and slightly worse on standardized testing like the SAT. Definitely not what you'd expect from the admission percentages quoted earlier.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

If boys and girls do about the same in high school, it is legitimate to ask why the university enrollment doesnt reflect that.

Grades are valued more than test scores by colleges, even though test scores are better predictors of college performance than grades.

That's changing. Slowly but surely.

[Anonymous]

I have a black son who is a senior this year (public school) and applying to colleges (and excited about it).

We are blessed to have several men in our family with college degrees (masters + PhDs), and he has several male teachers at school that he admires and looks up to, in his favorite subjects (music, science, social studies). All of those teachers have advanced degrees as well.

I have also made sure to enroll my son in college-based residential summer camps every year since 9th grade, and he attended regular residential summer camps before that, including NASA. He’s had a lifetime of exposure to academic male leadership.

As a single parent, I am so very grateful for all of this. This system of role models and support for male higher education is rare.

I don’t know what the solution is for increasing male college enrollment, but I do think exposing young boys to academic role models during their formative years can make a positive and lasting impact for their future goals and standards for themselves.

[Anonymous]

There is no question exposing boys to higher education at a young age makes a difference, including through role models. I ran track at a young age and the visits to competitions at universities really stuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to teach men that discipline was necessary for a quality life and successful career. Now people complain of it being “anti-male” to discipline boys rightfully for erratic behavior. I do think more boys would benefit from an all male environment, since girls are socialized to be more disciplined and still than men.

Counterpoint, for generations we kept women out of academics when they are far capable both there and in any thing that requires time management and executive function. The guys will experience discipline in their gigs driving for Amazon and Doordash.

Yes, this. I don't think it's "anti-male" to acknowledge this and say to them "sorry, if you don't have the grades and ability to take up a spot in XXX college, then you shouldn't." Especially since they are at least being judged on their merits instead of arbitrarily excluded like women were for generations.

By what metrics are women being judged on their merits? You need to move past the patriarchy is bad drivel. Girls do slighlty better on grades and slightly worse on standardized testing like the SAT. Definitely not what you'd expect from the admission percentages quoted earlier.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06292-0
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

If boys and girls do about the same in high school, it is legitimate to ask why the university enrollment doesnt reflect that.

Girls do better in school because teachers show favoritism these days. In the past, parents always complained that boys were favored by teachers so I guess their girls grew up and became teachers.

The SAT has been revised several times because the girls weren't scoring as high as the boys. What has happened is that the test, itself, has been dumbed down to allow girls to catch up. The average may look the same but traditionally boys outperformed girls among the high scorers. Now there are so many kids that get so-called high scores because the test is so easy. It's also a shorter test that allows a calculator. What a joke. This is just another way of harmonizing scores and results by racing to the bottom. I mean they added the stupid third section (writing) for the benefit of girls for several years before getting rid of it and just making the test even easier. Arguing for a gender or culture gap makes no sense because plenty of Asians who are also girls have always scored high. Even the test optional movement is partly driven by the gender gap. I mean my kid just got a 99++ percentile in the PSAT in 10th grade without even studying for it--I doubt they would have gotten that score if they had taken it 30 years ago...

"Colleges are dropping the SAT in admissions: Evidence of a gender gap has existed for decades"
https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/careers/032622/colleges-are-dropping-the-sat-in-admissions

"The Highest-Performing Women Are (Still) Scoring Lower Than Men on the SAT"
https://msmagazine.com/2018/02/15/highest-performing-women-still-scoring-lower-men-sat/

"Colleges are dropping the SAT in admissions. That’s a good thing for most girls"
https://19thnews.org/2022/03/colleges-admissions-dropping-sat-exam-gender-gap/

College Board data show that more boys score higher at the top end than girls
https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/sat-percentile-ranks-gender-race-ethnicity.pdf

Rewarding people for completing assignments is not *favoritism*. In isolation, scores may be a better predictor of success than GPA, but at best scores help to calibrate grades. High scores with bad grades is not a predictor of college success, and that's the best case scenario the boys who don't choose college are in. People who can't be bothered to work in HS are very much at risk of not finishing college. This may be untapped potential or a late bloomer, but more often it's simply someone who will be a failure in all walks of life.

[Anonymous]

Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre. Girls are expected to be flawless and parents hold them to much higher standards.

This plays out in high school, college and even most recently in the presidential elections. It's unfathomable that any woman who was convicted of multiple felonies (much less having assault allegations against her) would be elected to be president of the us, much less any position in government. It's shockling how low standards for character and hard work are required of males in our society. Women get picked on for every little flaw, men get a pass most of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of going to college when they can’t get a job?
DS did his degree in microbiology. Hasn’t found a job in his field even though he applied to 100’s of positions.
The same is true with his classmates. There are those who went to grad school. The others are working minimum wage jobs that don’t require any degree.
DS is now attending a trade school to make decent money.

How is this possible? Is he trying to get a job in remote Alaska? There are so many unfilled jobs out there.

There aren't that many open jobs in the sciences, especially for white and Asian males who have to stand behind less qualified women and DEI hires when applying.

That’s utter BS. As a bench scientist who graduated from undergrad 25 years ago, the job market in biological sciences for people with only undergrad degrees has *always* been crappy. Some find jobs in industry, but the vast majority go on to grad school, advanced degrees in medicine, nursing, etc., or take on very low-paid jobs for a few years to prepare for getting a graduate degree. Getting a biology or microbiology degree has never been the path to an easy career and to get through college without realizing is really naive- you’d have to have never talked to a single advisor or professor to not realize how few “S” jobs are out there for people with only a STEM undergrad degree.

[Anonymous]

UMC and wealthy boys still are attending college in great numbers. Working class/lower middles class are the groups that aren't.

Nobody in my husband's home town is going to college---even his nephews that were great students/GT program when they were young. The town gets them by high school. One started college and dropped after first semester. Took a trade job--got injured on the job--mishandled equipment, fired and now pumping gas. The other has big loans for the short time he was there and never graduated.

My sons are at Ivies. Straight A students, high test scores, always very motivated in school. Never had behavior issues. Nephews on my side of the family all have graduate degrees. Finished undergrad in 4-years. Successful (late 20s/early 30s).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre. Girls are expected to be flawless and parents hold them to much higher standards.

This plays out in high school, college and even most recently in the presidential elections. It's unfathomable that any woman who was convicted of multiple felonies (much less having assault allegations against her) would be elected to be president of the us, much less any position in government. It's shockling how low standards for character and hard work are required of males in our society. Women get picked on for every little flaw, men get a pass most of the time.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the point of going to college when they can’t get a job?
DS did his degree in microbiology. Hasn’t found a job in his field even though he applied to 100’s of positions.
The same is true with his classmates. There are those who went to grad school. The others are working minimum wage jobs that don’t require any degree.
DS is now attending a trade school to make decent money.

How is this possible? Is he trying to get a job in remote Alaska? There are so many unfilled jobs out there.

There aren't that many open jobs in the sciences, especially for white and Asian males who have to stand behind less qualified women and DEI hires when applying.

That’s utter BS. As a bench scientist who graduated from undergrad 25 years ago, the job market in biological sciences for people with only undergrad degrees has *always* been crappy. Some find jobs in industry, but the vast majority go on to grad school, advanced degrees in medicine, nursing, etc., or take on very low-paid jobs for a few years to prepare for getting a graduate degree. Getting a biology or microbiology degree has never been the path to an easy career and to get through college without realizing is really naive- you’d have to have never talked to a single advisor or professor to not realize how few “S” jobs are out there for people with only a STEM undergrad degree.

100%%%%%

I was making 18k a year with my Biology B.S. in the 90s. A lab that did work for the NIH. I couldn't get hire anywhere. The Feds either. I had to go to graduate school and was then able to find work after that. Luckily, I had my graduate degree paid by a teaching stipend.

Strict biological sciences or undergrad marine bio, etc. is very hard to find work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre. Girls are expected to be flawless and parents hold them to much higher standards.

This plays out in high school, college and even most recently in the presidential elections. It's unfathomable that any woman who was convicted of multiple felonies (much less having assault allegations against her) would be elected to be president of the us, much less any position in government. It's shockling how low standards for character and hard work are required of males in our society. Women get picked on for every little flaw, men get a pass most of the time.

+1

Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre.

Wtf? Not in my family. I actually see in my wealthy neighborhood it's the girls that get the leeway--esp. if pretty. The moms still are looking at Mrs degrees for them so they can stay home like they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre. Girls are expected to be flawless and parents hold them to much higher standards.

This plays out in high school, college and even most recently in the presidential elections. It's unfathomable that any woman who was convicted of multiple felonies (much less having assault allegations against her) would be elected to be president of the us, much less any position in government. It's shockling how low standards for character and hard work are required of males in our society. Women get picked on for every little flaw, men get a pass most of the time.

I agree somewhat with this. I don't have sons but we are on our daughters constantly. If we did have a son, to be truthful, I imagine that we would not be as strict on him. I think that there's this perception (conscious or unconscious) that boys will be okay (especially white boys) for the most part; and that girls need to work extra hard to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre. Girls are expected to be flawless and parents hold them to much higher standards.

This plays out in high school, college and even most recently in the presidential elections. It's unfathomable that any woman who was convicted of multiple felonies (much less having assault allegations against her) would be elected to be president of the us, much less any position in government. It's shockling how low standards for character and hard work are required of males in our society. Women get picked on for every little flaw, men get a pass most of the time.

+1

Boys are given more leeway to be mediocre.

Wtf? Not in my family. I actually see in my wealthy neighborhood it's the girls that get the leeway--esp. if pretty. The moms still are looking at Mrs degrees for them so they can stay home like they did.

The mindset of your "wealthy neighborhood" sounds very reactionary and traditional. "MRS degree"? Yikes, how patronizing for women. This isn't the 1950s.