Will top schools except for top SLACs become extremely overweighted toward women because of Trumps DEI rampage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The operative word in the story (also reported in Hechinger) is “may”. Everyone quoted in the article, including the author, is liberal. No one from the administration is quoted. This is a story ginned up to create hysteria. There is no proof of what the author thinks “may” happen. There are no federal actions on the matter. I’m in higher education and have seen no action along this line.

The Washington Post has lost all credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post article this morning highlights that proper implementation of Trump's DEI executive orders will disproportionately impact males as their academics records are typically inferior to female HS students and far more females apply to colleges than males at most selective schools.

Estimates indicate that schools would quickly become about 2:1 female/male without preferences for males. The top SLACs have better gender balance than top universities (slightly better than top privates, significantly better than top publics) and have more tools to maintain this balance due to their small sizes and significant athletics programs. Its going be interesting going forward and any thoughts on what admissions decisions will look like this year in light of these events?

https://wapo.st/48DqaAZ

Not if they emphasize standardized test scores more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women will certainly flock to top schools in blue states to avoid the misogyny in the south.

I know more girls flocking to SEC schools and schools in the SE, S and Texas than in the NE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women will certainly flock to top schools in blue states to avoid the misogyny in the south.

I know more girls flocking to SEC schools and schools in the SE, S and Texas than in the NE.

Like Alabama where they just suspended publication of a student magazine about women's issues. Sure send your daughter off to a college where a student discussion of women's issues cannot even be tolerated. That sounds so amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women will certainly flock to top schools in blue states to avoid the misogyny in the south.

I know more girls flocking to SEC schools and schools in the SE, S and Texas than in the NE.

Sure you do.

Most girls who have the stats for top schools aren’t heading to backwards red states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD is worried about this. I think it's a real problem. She doesn't want to go to an all-women or nearly all-women college. And my DS doesn't want to go to an all-male college either.

Why can't colleges balance for gender since most students want this?

Why can't colleges seek DEI because students want this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is worried about this. I think it's a real problem. She doesn't want to go to an all-women or nearly all-women college. And my DS doesn't want to go to an all-male college either.

Why can't colleges balance for gender since most students want this?

Most people want to go to a racially balanced school too.

Either it’s ok or it’s not.

+100.

Not to mention, then nods went to historically marginalized groups, not white men which is being asked here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD is worried about this. I think it's a real problem. She doesn't want to go to an all-women or nearly all-women college. And my DS doesn't want to go to an all-male college either.

Why can't colleges balance for gender since most students want this?

Most people want to go to a racially balanced school too.

Either it’s ok or it’s not.

+100.

Not to mention, then nods went to historically marginalized groups, not white men which is being asked here.

This conversation is the opposite of this comment. The thread started as a discussion of the potential 'self-own' that Trump created because boys get a bump in admissions relative to girls but his executive order of properly implemented will make that bump illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post article this morning highlights that proper implementation of Trump's DEI executive orders will disproportionately impact males as their academics records are typically inferior to female HS students and far more females apply to colleges than males at most selective schools.

Estimates indicate that schools would quickly become about 2:1 female/male without preferences for males. The top SLACs have better gender balance than top universities (slightly better than top privates, significantly better than top publics) and have more tools to maintain this balance due to their small sizes and significant athletics programs. Its going be interesting going forward and any thoughts on what admissions decisions will look like this year in light of these events?

https://wapo.st/48DqaAZ

What's your evidence that SLACs have a better gender balance than T20s? Seems like at almost all the top schools, other than Cornell and MIT, more women than men apply and women have lower acceptance rates. At SLACs, athletic recruiting and a heavy thumb on the scale for male applicants keeps gender balance roughly in line but SWAP still all have a higher percentage of women students, from a 1.6% difference at Williams to 5.7% more women than men at Pomona.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post article this morning highlights that proper implementation of Trump's DEI executive orders will disproportionately impact males as their academics records are typically inferior to female HS students and far more females apply to colleges than males at most selective schools.

Estimates indicate that schools would quickly become about 2:1 female/male without preferences for males. The top SLACs have better gender balance than top universities (slightly better than top privates, significantly better than top publics) and have more tools to maintain this balance due to their small sizes and significant athletics programs. Its going be interesting going forward and any thoughts on what admissions decisions will look like this year in light of these events?

https://wapo.st/48DqaAZ

What's your evidence that SLACs have a better gender balance than T20s? Seems like at almost all the top schools, other than Cornell and MIT, more women than men apply and women have lower acceptance rates. At SLACs, athletic recruiting and a heavy thumb on the scale for male applicants keeps gender balance roughly in line but SWAP still all have a higher percentage of women students, from a 1.6% difference at Williams to 5.7% more women than men at Pomona.

It is all reported information and nobody said The top privates and SLACs are almost all better balanced gender wise than top publics. They all get there by giving bumps to men. If they can't give bumps to men the higher application rates and better academic profiles will lead to more women. SLACs have a few more levers because of their small size and large number of recruits.

Finally, SWAP doesn't exist.....SWAMP does but the acronym is WASP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are twice as many women applying to Brown compared to men? Maybe Brown should work on attracting more male applicants so it has a better shot at gender balancing.

Because most smart men are interested in engineering and finance these days, and Brown isn't particularly strong in either.

And one of the big reasons smart men are interested in engineering and finance today is because they want to be able to provide for their eventual families. Not every boy can study art history at Brown or Swarthmore and feel confident they can make a go at life. Soft majors for soft boys at soft schools.

Brown is top tier for applied math, which is great for finance. Its engineering degree has no gen eds. It's a target school for high finance. It has a higher acceptance rate for boys than girls. I don't see what's not to like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought SLACs have a gender issue. For instance Vassar is 35% male and 65% female. I know many boys who don't want to apply to LACs because they are looking at STEM or business majors.

Vassar is an exception among the top SLACs, likely because it started out as an all women's college. The top 10 private universities and the top 10 SLACs are all much closer to gender balance than the top public schools which pretty much ruins your hypothesis.

Gender balance is easy if you make each gender compete for 50% of the spots (see: Caltech)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are twice as many women applying to Brown compared to men? Maybe Brown should work on attracting more male applicants so it has a better shot at gender balancing.

Because most smart men are interested in engineering and finance these days, and Brown isn't particularly strong in either.

And one of the big reasons smart men are interested in engineering and finance today is because they want to be able to provide for their eventual families. Not every boy can study art history at Brown or Swarthmore and feel confident they can make a go at life. Soft majors for soft boys at soft schools.

Brown’s Division of Applied Mathematics is one of the top programs in the world.
It is consistently ranked Top 5–10 globally for applied math. Brown pioneered modern applied mathematics, especially PDEs, dynamical systems, and stochastic processes.

Faculty include some of the most cited researchers in the field. The culture of interdisciplinary math is connected to: Computer science (algorithms, machine learning), Engineering, Physics (fluids, statistical mechanics), Biology and medicine (biomath, systems biology)

It’s very rigorous but flexible and has Strong pipeline into top PhD programs. There are plenty of opportunities to do research early with small group faculty seminars.

They also have PLME with direct entry into their Med school.

PLME might be the single most competitive undergrad program in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post article this morning highlights that proper implementation of Trump's DEI executive orders will disproportionately impact males as their academics records are typically inferior to female HS students and far more females apply to colleges than males at most selective schools.

Estimates indicate that schools would quickly become about 2:1 female/male without preferences for males. The top SLACs have better gender balance than top universities (slightly better than top privates, significantly better than top publics) and have more tools to maintain this balance due to their small sizes and significant athletics programs. Its going be interesting going forward and any thoughts on what admissions decisions will look like this year in light of these events?

https://wapo.st/48DqaAZ

The article stated specifically that white males will suffer. Not exactly what the racist Trump administration wants.

The mediocre Pete Hegseths of the world will drop like flies at colleges.

But like MAGA wants, there are always plumbers, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought SLACs have a gender issue. For instance Vassar is 35% male and 65% female. I know many boys who dont want to apply to LACs because they are looking at STEM or business majors.

Top colleges had the gender issue of being almost exclusively male for generations and the world continued to spin. Vassar is fine.

Boys aren't interested in schools like Vassar.