UVA just offered spots to 57 people on its wait-list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

Could not agree more about the weird hook up culture, but if colleges did what you suggest then people would be upset that they were discriminating against women.

DP, my thoughts go more, why would it be okay to do a preference for males but not other criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

My kid loves W&M, but honestly is somewhat bothered by the lower ranking. She is deciding between W&M (where she loves everything, but the ranking) v. UVA (where she mainly loves it for the ranking). She understands that the ranking methodology is based on things that don't affect her personally (i.e. Pell grant recipients) - but still seeing the ranking so far away from UVA is bothersome to her. Yet, W&M is one of those rare schools that seems to have maintained its prestige and reputation without the corresponding ranking. I wonder if its small size made it unable to cater to the metrics that are important in the rankings.

DD feels pressured to go to UVA (from her friends mainly b/c of the ranking), but she, too, genuinely feels like W&M is a better fit. She wants to like UVA b/c she is "supposed to," but keeps feeling drawn to W&M. We are going to the admitted students event this weekend and will most likely make a decision at the end of the day.

DP. My DC knew at the W&M admitted students day that it was *not* the school for her. Your DD will probably know either way right away.

Just curious - what specifically made the school not the right one for her based on DFAS?

I don’t want to diss the school or have the W&M boosters jump all over me, but suffice it to say she just felt completely uncomfortable around the other admitted kids. Totally different personalities from her.

Fit is an important thing!

My kid selected between 2 schools ultimately. Both very similar academically, both with a strong stem and premed focus. One has more LA/Humanities along with the very strong STEM/premed. At admitted students day, my kid picked the one for mostly the same reason. The one with LA/Humanities kids was a better fit for my kid. My kid is all STEM but is not "nerdy/robotics/geeky" at all. The other school tended more that way. Every visit to the other school had my kid really seeing themselves gel with the tour guides and all the students we spoke to.
Fit is a key factor in making decisions for most students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

There are simply many more qualified and applying women in the U.S. than men now. 60/40 nationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

There are simply many more qualified and applying women in the U.S. than men now. 60/40 nationally.

The past 20 years of 'bring your daughter to work', girls on the run, girls in STEM and every other conceivable program aimed solely at the girls, combined with the feminization of the American education system has promoted women and we see that result. Laura Bush saw the boys falling behind and aimed reading groups at them--but pretty much fell on deaf ears. The boys fell behind as the girls rose.

However, in upper socioeconomic groups you do not see this disparity. The boys of UMC/rich do just as well in school. They had parents looking out for them. Poor boys and boys of lower MC were just labeled as problems in K and treated differently.

[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:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

There are simply many more qualified and applying women in the U.S. than men now. 60/40 nationally.

The past 20 years of 'bring your daughter to work', girls on the run, girls in STEM and every other conceivable program aimed solely at the girls, combined with the feminization of the American education system has promoted women and we see that result. Laura Bush saw the boys falling behind and aimed reading groups at them--but pretty much fell on deaf ears. The boys fell behind as the girls rose.

However, in upper socioeconomic groups you do not see this disparity. The boys of UMC/rich do just as well in school. They had parents looking out for them. Poor boys and boys of lower MC were just labeled as problems in K and treated differently.

It is going to be a real problem in coming years, decades when women are looking for a comparable mate to raise a family. It's like in Indian/China when they got rid of the females and then realized there aren't any 'mates' for the men.

[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:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

There are simply many more qualified and applying women in the U.S. than men now. 60/40 nationally.

The past 20 years of 'bring your daughter to work', girls on the run, girls in STEM and every other conceivable program aimed solely at the girls, combined with the feminization of the American education system has promoted women and we see that result. Laura Bush saw the boys falling behind and aimed reading groups at them--but pretty much fell on deaf ears. The boys fell behind as the girls rose.

However, in upper socioeconomic groups you do not see this disparity. The boys of UMC/rich do just as well in school. They had parents looking out for them. Poor boys and boys of lower MC were just labeled as problems in K and treated differently.

It is going to be a real problem in coming years, decades when women are looking for a comparable mate to raise a family. It's like in Indian/China when they got rid of the females and then realized there aren't any 'mates' for the men.

Someone on another thread suggested that due to the influx of male illegal immigrants, the educated women in the US may end up marrying one of these guys.

[Anonymous]

I definitely looked at the male:female ratios when applying to college. I was a female STEM major and was happy to see more males at the schools I was interested in---more potential dating opportunities.

That really doesn't exist anymore.

[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:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

There are simply many more qualified and applying women in the U.S. than men now. 60/40 nationally.

The past 20 years of 'bring your daughter to work', girls on the run, girls in STEM and every other conceivable program aimed solely at the girls, combined with the feminization of the American education system has promoted women and we see that result. Laura Bush saw the boys falling behind and aimed reading groups at them--but pretty much fell on deaf ears. The boys fell behind as the girls rose.

However, in upper socioeconomic groups you do not see this disparity. The boys of UMC/rich do just as well in school. They had parents looking out for them. Poor boys and boys of lower MC were just labeled as problems in K and treated differently.

It is going to be a real problem in coming years, decades when women are looking for a comparable mate to raise a family. It's like in Indian/China when they got rid of the females and then realized there aren't any 'mates' for the men.

Someone on another thread suggested that due to the influx of male illegal immigrants, the educated women in the US may end up marrying one of these guys.

HA. yeah, right. Never going to happen. UMC/rich girls aren't going to marry day laborers and mini mart operators.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

There are simply many more qualified and applying women in the U.S. than men now. 60/40 nationally.

The past 20 years of 'bring your daughter to work', girls on the run, girls in STEM and every other conceivable program aimed solely at the girls, combined with the feminization of the American education system has promoted women and we see that result. Laura Bush saw the boys falling behind and aimed reading groups at them--but pretty much fell on deaf ears. The boys fell behind as the girls rose.

However, in upper socioeconomic groups you do not see this disparity. The boys of UMC/rich do just as well in school. They had parents looking out for them. Poor boys and boys of lower MC were just labeled as problems in K and treated differently.

It is going to be a real problem in coming years, decades when women are looking for a comparable mate to raise a family. It's like in Indian/China when they got rid of the females and then realized there aren't any 'mates' for the men.

Someone on another thread suggested that due to the influx of male illegal immigrants, the educated women in the US may end up marrying one of these guys.

HA. yeah, right. Never going to happen. UMC/rich girls aren't going to marry day laborers and mini mart operators.

Unless they think it's trendy or they want to rebellious against their parents. But I also imagine that a lot of these illegal immigrants may be very motivated to better their status in life (and the Biden administration is currently giving them every opportunity). Personally, I got a son that epitomizes the problem with a lot of boys these days - too much video game playing. He would rather play video than even hang out with his girlfriend (in fact, I am shocked that he even has a girlfriend, but the relationship is pretty much the girlfriend doing all the work).

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

There are simply many more qualified and applying women in the U.S. than men now. 60/40 nationally.

The past 20 years of 'bring your daughter to work', girls on the run, girls in STEM and every other conceivable program aimed solely at the girls, combined with the feminization of the American education system has promoted women and we see that result. Laura Bush saw the boys falling behind and aimed reading groups at them--but pretty much fell on deaf ears. The boys fell behind as the girls rose.

However, in upper socioeconomic groups you do not see this disparity. The boys of UMC/rich do just as well in school. They had parents looking out for them. Poor boys and boys of lower MC were just labeled as problems in K and treated differently.

It is going to be a real problem in coming years, decades when women are looking for a comparable mate to raise a family. It's like in Indian/China when they got rid of the females and then realized there aren't any 'mates' for the men.

Someone on another thread suggested that due to the influx of male illegal immigrants, the educated women in the US may end up marrying one of these guys.

HA. yeah, right. Never going to happen. UMC/rich girls aren't going to marry day laborers and mini mart operators.

Unless they think it's trendy or they want to rebellious against their parents. But I also imagine that a lot of these illegal immigrants may be very motivated to better their status in life (and the Biden administration is currently giving them every opportunity). Personally, I got a son that epitomizes the problem with a lot of boys these days - too much video game playing. He would rather play video than even hang out with his girlfriend (in fact, I am shocked that he even has a girlfriend, but the relationship is pretty much the girlfriend doing all the work).

My 16 and 18 year old go outside. Play at the field. Meet to play hoops. We have limited electronic use as hard as that road is—computer/phones plugged in in kitchen before bed, Xbox time limits etc. Taking Tik tok off phone. It made a big difference in interpersonal relationships, looking people in the eye, communication, etc.

I agree —boys have addictive personalities and these companies/apps are designed ti get them hooked

[Anonymous]

^try to prevent when they are young so it’s not a default later.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA was not our backup, but we did pick William and Mary over UVA.

smart decision, it's a private ivy-like education for a public school price.

The sad thing about William & Mary is its free fall in the rankings. It's not even a Top 50 school anymore.

W&M might as well be an all female school at this point.

W&M is 41%/59% M/F. UVA is 43%/57% M/F. National is about 40%/60 M/F.

Where the heck are the boys!?

Wherever they are, probably not studying.

Why would you say that? How bizarre.
DP

I think because there are now 3 women for every 2 men at college.

Why wouldn’t they admit more men by a huge margin to try and get the balance correct? It creates a weird hook up culture in college.

There are simply many more qualified and applying women in the U.S. than men now. 60/40 nationally.

The past 20 years of 'bring your daughter to work', girls on the run, girls in STEM and every other conceivable program aimed solely at the girls, combined with the feminization of the American education system has promoted women and we see that result. Laura Bush saw the boys falling behind and aimed reading groups at them--but pretty much fell on deaf ears. The boys fell behind as the girls rose.

However, in upper socioeconomic groups you do not see this disparity. The boys of UMC/rich do just as well in school. They had parents looking out for them. Poor boys and boys of lower MC were just labeled as problems in K and treated differently.

It is going to be a real problem in coming years, decades when women are looking for a comparable mate to raise a family. It's like in Indian/China when they got rid of the females and then realized there aren't any 'mates' for the men.

Someone on another thread suggested that due to the influx of male illegal immigrants, the educated women in the US may end up marrying one of these guys.

HA. yeah, right. Never going to happen. UMC/rich girls aren't going to marry day laborers and mini mart operators.

Unless they think it's trendy or they want to rebellious against their parents. But I also imagine that a lot of these illegal immigrants may be very motivated to better their status in life (and the Biden administration is currently giving them every opportunity). Personally, I got a son that epitomizes the problem with a lot of boys these days - too much video game playing. He would rather play video than even hang out with his girlfriend (in fact, I am shocked that he even has a girlfriend, but the relationship is pretty much the girlfriend doing all the work).

My 16 and 18 year old go outside. Play at the field. Meet to play hoops. We have limited electronic use as hard as that road is—computer/phones plugged in in kitchen before bed, Xbox time limits etc. Taking Tik tok off phone. It made a big difference in interpersonal relationships, looking people in the eye, communication, etc.

I agree —boys have addictive personalities and these companies/apps are designed ti get them hooked

Nice to see parents that actually view parenting as a verb. You are absolutely correct, it goes a long way in how they relate to others in the world. A young person that can actually engage in a meaningful conversation, write effectively, and look someone in the eye is rare these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I definitely looked at the male:female ratios when applying to college. I was a female STEM major and was happy to see more males at the schools I was interested in---more potential dating opportunities.

That really doesn't exist anymore.

Sure it does. VT, to name just one university, is 50/50 male/female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely looked at the male:female ratios when applying to college. I was a female STEM major and was happy to see more males at the schools I was interested in---more potential dating opportunities.

That really doesn't exist anymore.

Sure it does. VT, to name just one university, is 50/50 male/female.

I am a Tech alum. And it wasn't 50-50. There were many more males than females which is what I said above. Technical/STEM schools used to weigh more heavily male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely looked at the male:female ratios when applying to college. I was a female STEM major and was happy to see more males at the schools I was interested in---more potential dating opportunities.

That really doesn't exist anymore.

Sure it does. VT, to name just one university, is 50/50 male/female.

I am a Tech alum. And it wasn't 50-50. There were many more males than females which is what I said above. Technical/STEM schools used to weigh more heavily male.

But I'm old--but it was a big difference when viewed against all the other VA universities at the time.