Boy applicant pool has lower acceptance rate at LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a (hypothetical) male applicant had the same profile as a (hypothetical) female — identical grades, rigor, test scores, EC profile, recs, etc. — the edge at most LACs would go to the male. Not saying he's *definitely* getting in over her, but he's statistically more likely to. Many AOs have come out and said this directly. (No, it's not illegal, not even after SCOTUS ruling).

Thing is, most males are not applying with the same profile as their female counterparts. For whatever reason, girls tend to outperform boys in school. They get higher grades. They join clubs at higher rates. They participate more in the arts and music. They volunteer more.

So, yes. A school can accept girls at a higher rate while simultaneously giving the "all things being equal" edge to boys. These things are not contradictory, because for whatever reason, all things are not equal. I don't know why they're not. The "why" has been extensively discussed on other threads.

This post sums it up nicely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fewer boys are interested in LACs to begin with. So it's a smaller applicant pool. And it's no secret that boys and young men are not performing as well as girls and young women. LACs also tend to appeal primarily to private school kids. Obviously schools like Williams, Amherst, Pomona, and Bowdoin can fill their classes with qualified students and maintain gender balance. But other schools are making choices. There aren't a lot of smart and accomplished boys that are interested in LACs. The applicant pool is therefore more mediocre. And they get rejected accordingly.

It is not proven that boys who apply to the top LACs are less qualified than the girls. Certainly not at all clear that private school boys perform less well than private school girls.

"There aren't a lot of smart and accomplished boys that are interested in LACs" - just the tens of thousands of boys who applied to Williams Amherst Pomona etc etc.

"But other schools are making choices. The applicant pool is therefore more mediocre. And they get rejected accordingly." - what exactly are these LACs where the mediocre boys are applying and getting rejected? How far down the rankings do we have to go to find these LACs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The selective LACs are rejecting nine applicants or more for every one they accept. The rejection pool of boys and girls includes numerous highly qualified applicants. The idea that they are accepting un- or underqualified boys instead of qualified girls is ridiculous. They are simply accepting more qualified boys instead of qualified girls in order to achieve some semblance of gender balance - which by the way still usually favors girls 55 to 45. No need to cry that girls are somehow getting shortchanged here.

I just read the whole thread. Where was the crying? Or anything resembling it? People are mostly sharing data.

Constant repetition of “girls are more qualified, waaaah!”

Fascinating that you read it that way. There is absolutely a different way to read those posts.

In this thread the women are the female version of MAGAs who complain that unqualified minorities are stealing “their” admission slots.

Except that’s not true. OP had a question that was based on an underlying assumption — an assumption that according to AOs and education journalists is faulty.

You tell me which AOs and educational journalists said what, and I'll tell you why it's faulty.