RD admission trends (gender)

[Anonymous]

Don’t you get that it isn’t DEI when it favors boys? If white boys come out on top, that’s a sign the system is working great. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t you get that it isn’t DEI when it favors boys? If white boys come out on top, that’s a sign the system is working great. /s

And it is the white boys who are doing very well this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WASP schools seem to have pretty even admissions rates as well

Swarthmore has a higher acceptance rate for males. It is even higher for domestic males because international applicants skew male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On Sara H’s application nation, every boy is getting in RD. Girls are generally not.

It’s actually quite stark and I hope they do some analysis of it. I’ve never seen so much gender imbalance or data laid out like this so blatantly.

My daughter met with her CCO yesterday to discuss a waitlist letter and her counselor got teary when they started talking about the boys results versus the girls at her school. She said that the girls results across the board were “devastating” and they could not have predicted it.

This is what's happening at our school. Everyone is STUNNED. The boys are generally a tier or two below the girls and HITTING IT OUT OF THE BALLPARK.

WTF

This is not the case at all at my son’s school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can this be?
The executive order was clear
"Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans."

Trump stated that they can not be discrimination based on sex.
"The Federal Government is charged with enforcing our civil-rights laws. The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination."

If Trump is not there to protect these applicants who are more deserving based on merit - who will?

Please raise this up as these schools are practicing DEI and clearly making choices that benefit men.

I agree the process favors boys but I think it is because colleges have a genuine commercial viability need to keep sex ratios from getting too out of whack. They don’t do it to help boys. They do it to help keep themselves as appealing as possible to students applying.

I say this as the mom of a girl too. But - I posted earlier - I don’t want her going to a massively female heavy school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have girl, boy twins. Final apps for both are pending but my son has received admissions that his sister has not despite his grades not being as strong. Also true among their friends with average boys getting admitted over girls with perfect grades.

As a woman it makes me secretly very frustrated.

DEI for boys. What is Trump going to do about it?

Trump made clear it’s against the law and always has been to discriminate by sex. It’s proving it in court that is challenging especially because there are so many variables - specific choices in major, athletic recruitment etc.

[Anonymous]

Not seeing this at our school at all. Girls are on the whole doing much better than boys. Early admits to Ivies and WASP were mostly girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WASP schools seem to have pretty even admissions rates as well

Even admissions rates do not mean what you think it means, not when an entire applicant pool is way stronger than another, particularly for non-business, non-econ, and non-physical science applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a new trend. Colleges seem to be around 60% female, 40% male with more selective schools and tech universities being more even. Colleges know that families prefer a more even gender ratio if possible.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a new trend. Colleges seem to be around 60% female, 40% male with more selective schools and tech universities being more even. Colleges know that families prefer a more even gender ratio if possible.

colleges also know that families preferred diversity in other areas - BUT they were told - you can't do that.

how is it any different from the Asian applicants to Harvard?
replace "asian" with "female" and it is the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t this mean that the boys do worse once they are there? Are we really expecting the 2.9 test optional student to perform as well as the girls at Tulane?

In general boys have lower GPAs than girls in college. But colleges need to shape a class that meets their needs. Have a university that is 70/30 F/M and you are going to have a lot of unhappy students.

So in the current (last several years) applicant pools boys have had an advantage. Fair, no, reality of the situation, yes. Schools make holistic admission decisions. Part of that is making a class that will not revolt due to too large of a gender imbalance.

Starting next year advantage will go to full pay boys vs boys needing financial assistance. Just the reality of the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting next year advantage will go to full pay boys vs boys needing financial assistance. Just the reality of the situation.

Why do you think full pay boys will have an advantage next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t this mean that the boys do worse once they are there? Are we really expecting the 2.9 test optional student to perform as well as the girls at Tulane?

In general boys have lower GPAs than girls in college. But colleges need to shape a class that meets their needs. Have a university that is 70/30 F/M and you are going to have a lot of unhappy students.

So in the current (last several years) applicant pools boys have had an advantage. Fair, no, reality of the situation, yes. Schools make holistic admission decisions. Part of that is making a class that will not revolt due to too large of a gender imbalance.

Starting next year advantage will go to full pay boys vs boys needing financial assistance. Just the reality of the situation.

Well not my sons. Uw 4.0s in HS abd at their T10s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting next year on advantage will go to full pay boys vs boys needing financial assistance. Just the reality of the situation.

Why do you think full pay boys will have an advantage next year?

Boys will continue to have an advantage as long as more girls apply and schools want to maintain some semblance of gender balance.

Full pay will add an advantage as schools get less federal research funding. Have to make up the money somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting next year on advantage will go to full pay boys vs boys needing financial assistance. Just the reality of the situation.

Why do you think full pay boys will have an advantage next year?

Boys will continue to have an advantage as long as more girls apply and schools want to maintain some semblance of gender balance.

Full pay will add an advantage as schools get less federal research funding. Have to make up the money somehow.

But the Executive Order said they can't.

I will ask in the next Admissions session / tour I go on what it means.