A Generation of American Men Give Up on College: ‘I Just Feel Lost’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"College." What about specific majors? Men are still overrepresented in the hard stuff, girls in the fluff stuff "studies" etc. That's what "college"
has become today. Relax, men do just fine.

+1 seriously. Do they need a cookie and a hug?

-mom of DD and DS who is doing just fine.

Maybe your DS is ok but not every other young man is "doing just fine." Google deaths of despair in Appalachia or just look at what's happening right here in DC.

+1 "My kid is fine," therefore there is not problem? There fore everyone else must be doing something wrong? Yikes.

No, not everyone is doing fine, but it's not like they don't have any opportunities. They just choose not to take them. What happened to personal responsibility?

In any case, 1/3 of working age men aren't in the workforce for various reasons: homeless, working under the table; trading bitcoin; retired early. They made their choices. Yes, it is a choice. You may not like the choices, but you do have choices.

It's a lot easier for white men to get a job than black men, that's for sure.

This is so disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Men don't generally go into Nursing, Education and Elementary Education - some of the most popular majors.
I'm sure the story is different in Computer Science, Physics, Math, i.e, the hard stuff.
Not sure about Business Administration, THE most popular major in American colleges.

[Anonymous]

The biggest takeaway from this data is that guys have a better chance of getting laid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest takeaway from this data is that guys have a better chance of getting laid.

Is that even allowed these days? Won't that get you kicked out (unless you have written consent)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest takeaway from this data is that guys have a better chance of getting laid.

Is that even allowed these days? Won't that get you kicked out (unless you have written consent)?

Not all college women are "woke" and require full written consent. Verbal consent is OK.

[Anonymous]

This is a bigger problem for liberal arts colleges than it is for men. They are losing half of their potential “customers.” The gender ratios are reversed in STEM programs, while the women go get degrees in gender studies or art history.

These top schools used to be finishing schools for the children of the wealthy, who would then go to work at Daddy’s firm. Now, only a small portion of those kids can get in, and the first Gen kids that are replacing them are just now starting to figure out that the degree itself was just a small part of the package that allowed those kids to succeed in life. (See, the sudden spate of articles whining about how their $320,000 SLAC degrees don’t lead to careers that can provide a good lifestyle without generational wealth.)

Not to mention that there are more men who are foregoing degrees altogether, and going straight into business. Go straight into business, have four years of income vs. no income and a $80,000 to $320,000 expenditure? Unless you think you’re going to be one of the tiny fraction that end up in investment banking or at a T-14 law school, it’s an easy call.

How many women posting on this board have Ivy League degrees and are SAHMs? These colleges have become finishing schools for the UC/UMC. They were just gatekeeping for certain jobs, and now people are realizing that it isn’t necessary as these colleges have begun to price themselves out of the market. It wasn’t that long ago that the press and stock traders, for example, didn’t have college degrees (and the press, for one, was better for it). “College for all” has devalued the product to the point that we’re realizing it never really added that much value in the first place.

FWIW, I’m not anti-intellectual. I love to sit around and read history, and would have done it for a living had I been born wealthy. But doing that for a living is not really feasible for people without generational wealth, and we had to see a whole generation of students who didn’t know any better figure that out for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a bigger problem for liberal arts colleges than it is for men. They are losing half of their potential “customers.” The gender ratios are reversed in STEM programs, while the women go get degrees in gender studies or art history.

These top schools used to be finishing schools for the children of the wealthy, who would then go to work at Daddy’s firm. Now, only a small portion of those kids can get in, and the first Gen kids that are replacing them are just now starting to figure out that the degree itself was just a small part of the package that allowed those kids to succeed in life. (See, the sudden spate of articles whining about how their $320,000 SLAC degrees don’t lead to careers that can provide a good lifestyle without generational wealth.)

Not to mention that there are more men who are foregoing degrees altogether, and going straight into business. Go straight into business, have four years of income vs. no income and a $80,000 to $320,000 expenditure? Unless you think you’re going to be one of the tiny fraction that end up in investment banking or at a T-14 law school, it’s an easy call.

How many women posting on this board have Ivy League degrees and are SAHMs? These colleges have become finishing schools for the UC/UMC. They were just gatekeeping for certain jobs, and now people are realizing that it isn’t necessary as these colleges have begun to price themselves out of the market. It wasn’t that long ago that the press and stock traders, for example, didn’t have college degrees (and the press, for one, was better for it). “College for all” has devalued the product to the point that we’re realizing it never really added that much value in the first place.

FWIW, I’m not anti-intellectual. I love to sit around and read history, and would have done it for a living had I been born wealthy. But doing that for a living is not really feasible for people without generational wealth, and we had to see a whole generation of students who didn’t know any better figure that out for themselves.

+1. You said it much better than I did above, but the premise that men giving up college is a "problem" is just bogus. The worthlessness of liberal arts degrees is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest takeaway from this data is that guys have a better chance of getting laid.

Is that even allowed these days? Won't that get you kicked out (unless you have written consent)?

Not all college women are "woke" and require full written consent. Verbal consent is OK.

A bit of a slippery slope there considering oral consent can be rescinded during or after. Then it's "he said, she said." Really not worth it these days for a guy to to get in that situation.

[Anonymous]

These sorts of threads are just the product of some kind of Putinite effort to trash all of the movements and institutions that help us stand up to tyranny, including the press, the Catholic Church, the courts, Hollywood, the EU, the health care system, capitalism, feminism, well-meaning billionaires, social media services, the press, efforts to promote racial and ethnic harmony, etc.

Putin saw how Lech Walesa worked with the Catholic Church to free Poland, and he hates that.

He saw how people like Soros worked with academics to spread liberal ideas, and he hates that.

He saw that the Republicans used to try to stand up for America and liberty, and he hates that.

He’s been doing everything he can to knock down our sources of civic strength one by one. Now he’s put the liberal arts on his hit list, and the people helping to amplify that effort might as well be helping Putin blow up U.S. bridges or armories.

There’s good and bad in every thing human, including liberal arts colleges, and of course the student loan system started a bubble that was going to pop. Of course kids should understand that simply getting a liberal arts degree does not lead to wealth.

But this whole systematic effort to tear down all sources of civic strength and independence, one by one, is offensive. Having too many women’s studies majors is better than having too few people who can notice an ocean of propaganda when we’re drowning in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These sorts of threads are just the product of some kind of Putinite effort to trash all of the movements and institutions that help us stand up to tyranny, including the press, the Catholic Church, the courts, Hollywood, the EU, the health care system, capitalism, feminism, well-meaning billionaires, social media services, the press, efforts to promote racial and ethnic harmony, etc.

Putin saw how Lech Walesa worked with the Catholic Church to free Poland, and he hates that.

He saw how people like Soros worked with academics to spread liberal ideas, and he hates that.

He saw that the Republicans used to try to stand up for America and liberty, and he hates that.

He’s been doing everything he can to knock down our sources of civic strength one by one. Now he’s put the liberal arts on his hit list, and the people helping to amplify that effort might as well be helping Putin blow up U.S. bridges or armories.

There’s good and bad in every thing human, including liberal arts colleges, and of course the student loan system started a bubble that was going to pop. Of course kids should understand that simply getting a liberal arts degree does not lead to wealth.

But this whole systematic effort to tear down all sources of civic strength and independence, one by one, is offensive. Having too many women’s studies majors is better than having too few people who can notice an ocean of propaganda when we’re drowning in it.

Interesting take. I read very many DCUM threads (things posted not as questions or comments on DMV issues but rather more general commentary on how liberal arts or horrible, gender equality is horrible, the "gay agenda" is horrible, trying to have cops obey the law is horrible, etc.) and I seriously wonder if Putin's Internet Research Agency is paying people to post on DCUM or if there are really Americans who have absorbed so much propaganda that they just reflexively parrot this nonsense. Wonder what would happen if Jeff limited anonymous posts from outside the US.

[Anonymous]

*liberal arts are horrible...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These sorts of threads are just the product of some kind of Putinite effort to trash all of the movements and institutions that help us stand up to tyranny, including the press, the Catholic Church, the courts, Hollywood, the EU, the health care system, capitalism, feminism, well-meaning billionaires, social media services, the press, efforts to promote racial and ethnic harmony, etc.

Putin saw how Lech Walesa worked with the Catholic Church to free Poland, and he hates that.

He saw how people like Soros worked with academics to spread liberal ideas, and he hates that.

He saw that the Republicans used to try to stand up for America and liberty, and he hates that.

He’s been doing everything he can to knock down our sources of civic strength one by one. Now he’s put the liberal arts on his hit list, and the people helping to amplify that effort might as well be helping Putin blow up U.S. bridges or armories.

There’s good and bad in every thing human, including liberal arts colleges, and of course the student loan system started a bubble that was going to pop. Of course kids should understand that simply getting a liberal arts degree does not lead to wealth.

But this whole systematic effort to tear down all sources of civic strength and independence, one by one, is offensive. Having too many women’s studies majors is better than having too few people who can notice an ocean of propaganda when we’re drowning in it.

Koch's, who got their money from Stalin and the USSR.

The Russians/Soviets truly played the long game.

[Anonymous]

ok, I have 3 daughters and the reason boys fail at American schools has been very clear to me - because curricula are dumbed down and academic competition is suppressed. Classes are taught by overwhelmingly female teachers who know very little and prioritize discipline and busywork.

We are immigrants but moved back to our old country mainly because schools are much better. And boy, do boys thrive here. They are so much better academically (about equal with girls) and more confident. Society needs both men and women, and men and women need each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a bigger problem for liberal arts colleges than it is for men. They are losing half of their potential “customers.” The gender ratios are reversed in STEM programs, while the women go get degrees in gender studies or art history.

These top schools used to be finishing schools for the children of the wealthy, who would then go to work at Daddy’s firm. Now, only a small portion of those kids can get in, and the first Gen kids that are replacing them are just now starting to figure out that the degree itself was just a small part of the package that allowed those kids to succeed in life. (See, the sudden spate of articles whining about how their $320,000 SLAC degrees don’t lead to careers that can provide a good lifestyle without generational wealth.)

Not to mention that there are more men who are foregoing degrees altogether, and going straight into business. Go straight into business, have four years of income vs. no income and a $80,000 to $320,000 expenditure? Unless you think you’re going to be one of the tiny fraction that end up in investment banking or at a T-14 law school, it’s an easy call.

How many women posting on this board have Ivy League degrees and are SAHMs? These colleges have become finishing schools for the UC/UMC. They were just gatekeeping for certain jobs, and now people are realizing that it isn’t necessary as these colleges have begun to price themselves out of the market. It wasn’t that long ago that the press and stock traders, for example, didn’t have college degrees (and the press, for one, was better for it). “College for all” has devalued the product to the point that we’re realizing it never really added that much value in the first place.

FWIW, I’m not anti-intellectual. I love to sit around and read history, and would have done it for a living had I been born wealthy. But doing that for a living is not really feasible for people without generational wealth, and we had to see a whole generation of students who didn’t know any better figure that out for themselves.

I have no generational wealth, went to an Ivy League school on full scholarship where I got a humanities degree and now I read a lot of history and other interesting things for my job at a cultural institution where I make a decent salary that pays my bills. Of course you might sneer because of where I live and that I won’t be retiring in my 50’s with 6 million in savings, a 4000 sq foot house, and plans on spending 40k a year on travels. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not my priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ok, I have 3 daughters and the reason boys fail at American schools has been very clear to me - because curricula are dumbed down and academic competition is suppressed. Classes are taught by overwhelmingly female teachers who know very little and prioritize discipline and busywork.

We are immigrants but moved back to our old country mainly because schools are much better. And boy, do boys thrive here. They are so much better academically (about equal with girls) and more confident. Society needs both men and women, and men and women need each other.

Teachers have been overwhelmingly female in the US for more than a century.

I do agree the curriculum has been dumbed down, but I don't see that as a reason boys in particular are generally less successful or less prepared.