General admission bias in favor of male applicants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is though that high school and middle school favors girls because they go through puberty earlier and that leads to changes in the brain that are advantageous for doing well in school. Boys do catch up eventually, but the current system does make them look like weaker college applicants (esp now that it is so competitive to get into top colleges).

Everything about American education from the time they are in K favors girls. And then we’re surprised at the outcome.

Many of them by middle school or high school have just checked out. A system that tells them they are not good at school so why bother.

[Anonymous]

Ironically the easier they make it for boys to get in to get to the 50 pct gender balance, the more girls will want to attend, making it even more competitive for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wharton UG still gives a massive boost to female applicants.

A lot of the above article is due to test scores being optional

Men still outscore women on mcat, lsat, gmat, sat

It’s not TO— colleges have been doing this for at least 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

What do you do then if your student body is 80% mostly middle class, white or asian, female applicants?
I am all for an academic meritocracy, but if all colleges do this, what are the consequences on society for the next generations?
The article tries to get at this.

I understand we are in a patriarchy. It's hard to accept that we need men in college, even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group, and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

PP you're responding to. Fair points. My first inclination to answer your question was "yes, of course that's fine" but that is some food for thought. I doubt it is that skewed though. It's 55/45 or 60/40 ok? And why not try to address the problem at elementary age instead?

I actually doubt men will end up taking menial positions just because they don't go to college. There are lot of very high paying jobs that men are more likely to take than women. There was the recent thread about UPS drivers earning 6 figures. There's plumbing and contracting and electrical work. Police and Corrections may not require college. And you could also see new industries develop, like the coding explosion where many programmars were self-taught. Women can do all these jobs of course, but don't tend to go into them in high numbers.

I worry that they will try to might-makes-right bulldoze the merits of education, Joe the Plumber style. We already saw the prominence of that with the previous pres and the whole effort to stigmatize education as "elite." You have ones like Trump in it for the name (like the guy who doctored transcripts actually did any college level work?) but capitalizing on the appeal of his crude uninformed ramblings. And ones like DeSantis, Hawley and Cruz trying to divorce/bury their education to appeal to the grass roots anti ed momentum. Dude culture is already brewing. Guys foregoing higher ed will be the hops. The next era will be dominated by 24 hr beer pong on ESPN 9.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

What do you do then if your student body is 80% mostly middle class, white or asian, female applicants?
I am all for an academic meritocracy, but if all colleges do this, what are the consequences on society for the next generations?
The article tries to get at this.

I understand we are in a patriarchy. It's hard to accept that we need men in college, even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group, and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

PP you're responding to. Fair points. My first inclination to answer your question was "yes, of course that's fine" but that is some food for thought. I doubt it is that skewed though. It's 55/45 or 60/40 ok? And why not try to address the problem at elementary age instead?

I actually doubt men will end up taking menial positions just because they don't go to college. There are lot of very high paying jobs that men are more likely to take than women. There was the recent thread about UPS drivers earning 6 figures. There's plumbing and contracting and electrical work. Police and Corrections may not require college. And you could also see new industries develop, like the coding explosion where many programmars were self-taught. Women can do all these jobs of course, but don't tend to go into them in high numbers.

I worry that they will try to might-makes-right bulldoze the merits of education, Joe the Plumber style. We already saw the prominence of that with the previous pres and the whole effort to stigmatize education as "elite." You have ones like Trump in it for the name (like the guy who doctored transcripts actually did any college level work?) but capitalizing on the appeal of his crude uninformed ramblings. And ones like DeSantis, Hawley and Cruz trying to divorce/bury their education to appeal to the grass roots anti ed momentum. Dude culture is already brewing. Guys foregoing higher ed will be the hops. The next era will be dominated by 24 hr beer pong on ESPN 9.

I don’t think men ready to give up that easily. Look what we’re doing at New College. Trying to wrest control back of the institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

What do you do then if your student body is 80% mostly middle class, white or asian, female applicants?
I am all for an academic meritocracy, but if all colleges do this, what are the consequences on society for the next generations?
The article tries to get at this.

I understand we are in a patriarchy. It's hard to accept that we need men in college, even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group, and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

PP you're responding to. Fair points. My first inclination to answer your question was "yes, of course that's fine" but that is some food for thought. I doubt it is that skewed though. It's 55/45 or 60/40 ok? And why not try to address the problem at elementary age instead?

I actually doubt men will end up taking menial positions just because they don't go to college. There are lot of very high paying jobs that men are more likely to take than women. There was the recent thread about UPS drivers earning 6 figures. There's plumbing and contracting and electrical work. Police and Corrections may not require college. And you could also see new industries develop, like the coding explosion where many programmars were self-taught. Women can do all these jobs of course, but don't tend to go into them in high numbers.

I worry that they will try to might-makes-right bulldoze the merits of education, Joe the Plumber style. We already saw the prominence of that with the previous pres and the whole effort to stigmatize education as "elite." You have ones like Trump in it for the name (like the guy who doctored transcripts actually did any college level work?) but capitalizing on the appeal of his crude uninformed ramblings. And ones like DeSantis, Hawley and Cruz trying to divorce/bury their education to appeal to the grass roots anti ed momentum. Dude culture is already brewing. Guys foregoing higher ed will be the hops. The next era will be dominated by 24 hr beer pong on ESPN 9.

I don’t think men ready to give up that easily. Look what we’re doing at New College. Trying to wrest control back of the institutions.

It’s… not about wresting control from women, but from crazed Leftists. Many of whom are women, to be sure, but women as such are not seen as the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

What do you do then if your student body is 80% mostly middle class, white or asian, female applicants?
I am all for an academic meritocracy, but if all colleges do this, what are the consequences on society for the next generations?
The article tries to get at this.

I understand we are in a patriarchy. It's hard to accept that we need men in college, even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group, and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

PP you're responding to. Fair points. My first inclination to answer your question was "yes, of course that's fine" but that is some food for thought. I doubt it is that skewed though. It's 55/45 or 60/40 ok? And why not try to address the problem at elementary age instead?

I actually doubt men will end up taking menial positions just because they don't go to college. There are lot of very high paying jobs that men are more likely to take than women. There was the recent thread about UPS drivers earning 6 figures. There's plumbing and contracting and electrical work. Police and Corrections may not require college. And you could also see new industries develop, like the coding explosion where many programmars were self-taught. Women can do all these jobs of course, but don't tend to go into them in high numbers.

I worry that they will try to might-makes-right bulldoze the merits of education, Joe the Plumber style. We already saw the prominence of that with the previous pres and the whole effort to stigmatize education as "elite." You have ones like Trump in it for the name (like the guy who doctored transcripts actually did any college level work?) but capitalizing on the appeal of his crude uninformed ramblings. And ones like DeSantis, Hawley and Cruz trying to divorce/bury their education to appeal to the grass roots anti ed momentum. Dude culture is already brewing. Guys foregoing higher ed will be the hops. The next era will be dominated by 24 hr beer pong on ESPN 9.

I don’t think men ready to give up that easily. Look what we’re doing at New College. Trying to wrest control back of the institutions.

Hmm. Perhaps. I'm curious how they will coexist. But, I guess that vision for New College just distills anti academic rhetoric and mixes it with Western/Euro ideals. It's a weird mashup.
My kid won an award from an organization that was supposed to be nonpartisan, but the key speaker was all about how 1619 project was assaulting our "great western traditions/ideals," going on and on about how essentially everything great is from Europe. Most of the honorees were Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

I understand we are in a patriarchy.

Um, what now? How do we have a patriarchy if women are doing so much better than men that colleges have to actively compensate for it?

It's hard to accept that we need men in college,

Oh vey. How would you feel if a man said women aren’t needed in college?

even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group,

Now do blacks.

and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

Nobody for your daughters to marry, oh well.

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

[Anonymous]

Girls should be encouraged to go into trades, that would help even things out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

What do you do then if your student body is 80% mostly middle class, white or asian, female applicants?
I am all for an academic meritocracy, but if all colleges do this, what are the consequences on society for the next generations?
The article tries to get at this.

I understand we are in a patriarchy. It's hard to accept that we need men in college, even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group, and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

PP you're responding to. Fair points. My first inclination to answer your question was "yes, of course that's fine" but that is some food for thought. I doubt it is that skewed though. It's 55/45 or 60/40 ok? And why not try to address the problem at elementary age instead?

I actually doubt men will end up taking menial positions just because they don't go to college. There are lot of very high paying jobs that men are more likely to take than women. There was the recent thread about UPS drivers earning 6 figures. There's plumbing and contracting and electrical work. Police and Corrections may not require college. And you could also see new industries develop, like the coding explosion where many programmars were self-taught. Women can do all these jobs of course, but don't tend to go into them in high numbers.

I worry that they will try to might-makes-right bulldoze the merits of education, Joe the Plumber style. We already saw the prominence of that with the previous pres and the whole effort to stigmatize education as "elite." You have ones like Trump in it for the name (like the guy who doctored transcripts actually did any college level work?) but capitalizing on the appeal of his crude uninformed ramblings. And ones like DeSantis, Hawley and Cruz trying to divorce/bury their education to appeal to the grass roots anti ed momentum. Dude culture is already brewing. Guys foregoing higher ed will be the hops. The next era will be dominated by 24 hr beer pong on ESPN 9.

I don’t think men ready to give up that easily. Look what we’re doing at New College. Trying to wrest control back of the institutions.

Hmm. Perhaps. I'm curious how they will coexist. But, I guess that vision for New College just distills anti academic rhetoric and mixes it with Western/Euro ideals. It's a weird mashup.
My kid won an award from an organization that was supposed to be nonpartisan, but the key speaker was all about how 1619 project was assaulting our "great western traditions/ideals," going on and on about how essentially everything great is from Europe. Most of the honorees were Asian.

Asia is wildly successful precisely because it has adopted European economic and technological developments and started beating the West at its own game.

[Anonymous]

a significant proportion of boys are recruited athletes, which then has an impact on school culture: academic girls, less-academic boys.

The stereotype that athletes are “less academic” is dumb and false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

What do you do then if your student body is 80% mostly middle class, white or asian, female applicants?
I am all for an academic meritocracy, but if all colleges do this, what are the consequences on society for the next generations?
The article tries to get at this.

I understand we are in a patriarchy. It's hard to accept that we need men in college, even if they don't do as well in school as women. Why would we give them a break if they don't have the best academic profiles as a group, and if the people at the top are mostly all men anyway? But then what do you when hardly any men go on to graduate college, and take menial positions in society?

It would be a very interesting experiment, but perhaps not with the result you have in mind.

PP you're responding to. Fair points. My first inclination to answer your question was "yes, of course that's fine" but that is some food for thought. I doubt it is that skewed though. It's 55/45 or 60/40 ok? And why not try to address the problem at elementary age instead?

I actually doubt men will end up taking menial positions just because they don't go to college. There are lot of very high paying jobs that men are more likely to take than women. There was the recent thread about UPS drivers earning 6 figures. There's plumbing and contracting and electrical work. Police and Corrections may not require college. And you could also see new industries develop, like the coding explosion where many programmars were self-taught. Women can do all these jobs of course, but don't tend to go into them in high numbers.

I worry that they will try to might-makes-right bulldoze the merits of education, Joe the Plumber style. We already saw the prominence of that with the previous pres and the whole effort to stigmatize education as "elite." You have ones like Trump in it for the name (like the guy who doctored transcripts actually did any college level work?) but capitalizing on the appeal of his crude uninformed ramblings. And ones like DeSantis, Hawley and Cruz trying to divorce/bury their education to appeal to the grass roots anti ed momentum. Dude culture is already brewing. Guys foregoing higher ed will be the hops. The next era will be dominated by 24 hr beer pong on ESPN 9.

I don’t think men ready to give up that easily. Look what we’re doing at New College. Trying to wrest control back of the institutions.

Hmm. Perhaps. I'm curious how they will coexist. But, I guess that vision for New College just distills anti academic rhetoric and mixes it with Western/Euro ideals. It's a weird mashup.
My kid won an award from an organization that was supposed to be nonpartisan, but the key speaker was all about how 1619 project was assaulting our "great western traditions/ideals," going on and on about how essentially everything great is from Europe. Most of the honorees were Asian.

Asia is wildly successful precisely because it has adopted European economic and technological developments and started beating the West at its own game.

I think you missed the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes at most but not all colleges males get a few percentage point bump in admissions to keep some semblance of gender equity.

Outside of Engineering/CS and Business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

a significant proportion of boys are recruited athletes, which then has an impact on school culture: academic girls, less-academic boys.

The stereotype that athletes are “less academic” is dumb and false.

Not in my experience.
--Professor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Equity" at work. Trying to achieve "balance" instead of just going with the best candidates.

No one complained when "Equity" worked in favor of women (and continues to do so in many domains) for decades. Now the pendulum has to swing to the other side.