Are schools allowed to use gender in admissions?

[Anonymous]

Once it's more than 60/40 in favor of women: the campus college is noticeably unbalanced. I don't know about you, but in college, it was the guys who brought all the fun. We need men in college and in the world after college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

yeah but my DD doesn't want to attend college that are either male dominated or female dominated. she wants a normal mix and colleges are in the sales business of selling their product! colleges can recruit better applicants long-term if they can show they have a healthy mix of genders. so I don't blame college for gender balancing at the margins.

we also should examine what it is about our education system and brain development that's favoring girls.

I do think boys benefit from entering kindergarten older.

This has been discussed many times on this site.

Schools are more flexible than ever. Remember stories of how strict schools were when our parents were enrolled? And yet boys thrived. They were valedictorians and honors students and leaders.

Classrooms have become remarkably more relaxed, less punitive, more walking time, more accepting of boy wiggles. All to accommodate their learning styles.

And yet boys are floundering.

The schools are not to blame, you parents are. Stop letting your boys play video games all the time! While boys are playing video games when they’re little, girls are playing make believe and dolls and crafting, coordinating, role playing, reading, drawing, and cooperating on teams.

Boys are held to a lower standard. You a rarely see a boy who enjoys to read these days, and that didn’t always used to be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once it's more than 60/40 in favor of women: the campus college is noticeably unbalanced. I don't know about you, but in college, it was the guys who brought all the fun. We need men in college and in the world after college.

60-40 is fine for my daughter. She’d rather be a rigorous friendly supportive environment and if that means more females, that’s fine with her.

[Anonymous]

You would agree though, that there is a number at which point the imbalance would not be "fine" for you or your daughter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

It is Catch-22. Girls do not want to matriculate at a school with a lot more girls than boys, so many colleges try to limit their gender imbalance. This means girls have a harder time being admitted with equal academics. Girls also want admissions with identical academics as boys to be equally probable. Boys (as a group) underperform girls (as a group) academically nationwide. Athletics gave boys an admissions advantage over girls many years ago, but not as much now due to Title IX. It is impossible to square that circle.

The answer is standardized test scores. There are significantly more boys at the far right end of the curve than girls. Especially if you don't count Asian girls.

WTF.

In what world do we not “count” Asian girls?

Please explain yourself.

I'm saying that at the very highest test scores, boys outnumber girls.

If you remove Asian girls from the chart, the disparity becomes quite significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

It is Catch-22. Girls do not want to matriculate at a school with a lot more girls than boys, so many colleges try to limit their gender imbalance. This means girls have a harder time being admitted with equal academics. Girls also want admissions with identical academics as boys to be equally probable. Boys (as a group) underperform girls (as a group) academically nationwide. Athletics gave boys an admissions advantage over girls many years ago, but not as much now due to Title IX. It is impossible to square that circle.

The answer is standardized test scores. There are significantly more boys at the far right end of the curve than girls. Especially if you don't count Asian girls.

So you want to tip the balance to young men who do slightly better on the math portion of standardized tests, but don’t have the executive functioning to excel in their schoolwork, day in and out? I’m not even going to touch your last sentence.

No I don't. I think this notion of trying to achieve equality of results is bad for society and bad for civilization. But if you were looking for a metric that is better than how well they can handle a lacrosse stick, standardized test scores provides a metric that is objective and boys do better than girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

It is Catch-22. Girls do not want to matriculate at a school with a lot more girls than boys, so many colleges try to limit their gender imbalance. This means girls have a harder time being admitted with equal academics. Girls also want admissions with identical academics as boys to be equally probable. Boys (as a group) underperform girls (as a group) academically nationwide. Athletics gave boys an admissions advantage over girls many years ago, but not as much now due to Title IX. It is impossible to square that circle.

The answer is standardized test scores. There are significantly more boys at the far right end of the curve than girls. Especially if you don't count Asian girls.

WTF.

In what world do we not “count” Asian girls?

Please explain yourself.

I'm saying that at the very highest test scores, boys outnumber girls.

If you remove Asian girls from the chart, the disparity becomes quite significant.

DP. Can you share this chart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The waitlist may favor males and full pay if schools find their enrolled class is lacking in those areas.

But I did an experiment a few years ago when my son was applying to look up CDS reporting. The vast majority of schools are consistent across the breakdown of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students. In other words, more girls apply, more girls are accepted, and more girls enroll, often at 60% or higher for each category. There were very few schools that I found where there appeared to be a big advantage to being male.

Your experiment was flawed. The qualifications of females are in general much higher. It is a superior pool. If the acceptance rates are the same, that means boys did, in fact, have a big advantage: the superior pool was treated as equivalent to the inferior pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The waitlist may favor males and full pay if schools find their enrolled class is lacking in those areas.

But I did an experiment a few years ago when my son was applying to look up CDS reporting. The vast majority of schools are consistent across the breakdown of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students. In other words, more girls apply, more girls are accepted, and more girls enroll, often at 60% or higher for each category. There were very few schools that I found where there appeared to be a big advantage to being male.

Your experiment was flawed. The qualifications of females are in general much higher. It is a superior pool. If the acceptance rates are the same, that means boys did, in fact, have a big advantage: the superior pool was treated as equivalent to the inferior pool.

It’s not clear if PP even looked at acceptance rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

It is Catch-22. Girls do not want to matriculate at a school with a lot more girls than boys, so many colleges try to limit their gender imbalance. This means girls have a harder time being admitted with equal academics. Girls also want admissions with identical academics as boys to be equally probable. Boys (as a group) underperform girls (as a group) academically nationwide. Athletics gave boys an admissions advantage over girls many years ago, but not as much now due to Title IX. It is impossible to square that circle.

The answer is standardized test scores. There are significantly more boys at the far right end of the curve than girls. Especially if you don't count Asian girls.

WTF.

In what world do we not “count” Asian girls?

Please explain yourself.

I'm saying that at the very highest test scores, boys outnumber girls.

If you remove Asian girls from the chart, the disparity becomes quite significant.

Why are you keep removing Asian girls?!

So if keep all girls, the disparity is insignificant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gender balancing in schools is still considered constitutional under Title IX.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to apply differently to race-based rules and sex-based rules and to give more leeway to the latter. One key 1996 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and decided without dissent struck down an all-male admissions policy at a military institute but indicated that the decision would allow sex-based policies in education under the right conditions. So now race and sex have different standing constitutionally: Providing a college admissions preference just on race is now verboten, while providing a preference based on sex is still fair game.

Sex-based preferences can be a good thing. Girls and women continue to be sorely underrepresented in STEM and might need a boost. So too, boys and men are missing from what have been called the HEAL fields, like health and education. Using sex in admissions to address these types of gender imbalances can help to remedy stereotypes that steer men and women into roles based on sex and limit their opportunities.

Does Trump agree with you? That it is ok to give preferences to woman? I don't think so.
I think people are talking about the opposite. Preferences to men to balance the gender ratio.
I have no doubt my son benefited from this. And it is ok. But if it is ok to want a balanced gender ratio in college, then why the heck isn't ALSO ok to want more POC representation to "balance out" what the country actually looks like. That is the question. That MAGA can't answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender balancing in schools is still considered constitutional under Title IX.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to apply differently to race-based rules and sex-based rules and to give more leeway to the latter. One key 1996 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and decided without dissent struck down an all-male admissions policy at a military institute but indicated that the decision would allow sex-based policies in education under the right conditions. So now race and sex have different standing constitutionally: Providing a college admissions preference just on race is now verboten, while providing a preference based on sex is still fair game.

Sex-based preferences can be a good thing. Girls and women continue to be sorely underrepresented in STEM and might need a boost. So too, boys and men are missing from what have been called the HEAL fields, like health and education. Using sex in admissions to address these types of gender imbalances can help to remedy stereotypes that steer men and women into roles based on sex and limit their opportunities.

Does Trump agree with you? That it is ok to give preferences to woman? I don't think so.
I think people are talking about the opposite. Preferences to men to balance the gender ratio.
I have no doubt my son benefited from this. And it is ok. But if it is ok to want a balanced gender ratio in college, then why the heck isn't ALSO ok to want more POC representation to "balance out" what the country actually looks like. That is the question. That MAGA can't answer.

You are just as stupid as maga idiots. For the thousand times, race based preference is unconstitutional, whereas gender based preference is constitutional.

If you want to change that, amend the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender balancing in schools is still considered constitutional under Title IX.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to apply differently to race-based rules and sex-based rules and to give more leeway to the latter. One key 1996 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and decided without dissent struck down an all-male admissions policy at a military institute but indicated that the decision would allow sex-based policies in education under the right conditions. So now race and sex have different standing constitutionally: Providing a college admissions preference just on race is now verboten, while providing a preference based on sex is still fair game.

Sex-based preferences can be a good thing. Girls and women continue to be sorely underrepresented in STEM and might need a boost. So too, boys and men are missing from what have been called the HEAL fields, like health and education. Using sex in admissions to address these types of gender imbalances can help to remedy stereotypes that steer men and women into roles based on sex and limit their opportunities.

Does Trump agree with you? That it is ok to give preferences to woman? I don't think so.
I think people are talking about the opposite. Preferences to men to balance the gender ratio.
I have no doubt my son benefited from this. And it is ok. But if it is ok to want a balanced gender ratio in college, then why the heck isn't ALSO ok to want more POC representation to "balance out" what the country actually looks like. That is the question. That MAGA can't answer.

You are just as stupid as maga idiots. For the thousand times, race based preference is unconstitutional, whereas gender based preference is constitutional.

If you want to change that, amend the constitution.

Sex discrimination is fine as long as it benefits white men.

If it didn’t, it’d be the next thing on the corrupt SCOTUS’ agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

It is Catch-22. Girls do not want to matriculate at a school with a lot more girls than boys, so many colleges try to limit their gender imbalance. This means girls have a harder time being admitted with equal academics. Girls also want admissions with identical academics as boys to be equally probable. Boys (as a group) underperform girls (as a group) academically nationwide. Athletics gave boys an admissions advantage over girls many years ago, but not as much now due to Title IX. It is impossible to square that circle.

The answer is standardized test scores. There are significantly more boys at the far right end of the curve than girls. Especially if you don't count Asian girls.

I don't know. DD just did a University level summer program abroad and the maturity level of male versus female skewed female even with upperclassmen. I don't know that this maturity level evens out until post college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because girls dominate college admissions now. They have stronger applications and do better overall. As a result, many colleges have more females than males (UVA is an example). So, they admit males at a higher rate to combat this. Good examples are Brown, Wesleyan, and Vassar.

It is Catch-22. Girls do not want to matriculate at a school with a lot more girls than boys, so many colleges try to limit their gender imbalance. This means girls have a harder time being admitted with equal academics. Girls also want admissions with identical academics as boys to be equally probable. Boys (as a group) underperform girls (as a group) academically nationwide. Athletics gave boys an admissions advantage over girls many years ago, but not as much now due to Title IX. It is impossible to square that circle.

The answer is standardized test scores. There are significantly more boys at the far right end of the curve than girls. Especially if you don't count Asian girls.

So you want to tip the balance to young men who do slightly better on the math portion of standardized tests, but don’t have the executive functioning to excel in their schoolwork, day in and out? I’m not even going to touch your last sentence.

No I don't. I think this notion of trying to achieve equality of results is bad for society and bad for civilization. But if you were looking for a metric that is better than how well they can handle a lacrosse stick, standardized test scores provides a metric that is objective and boys do better than girls.

Well, if you ran the zoo you could use that as a stronger metric than is currently in place. As it stands, lacrosse skills seem to be pretty important to a lot of American colleges.