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

[Anonymous]

Men are still over represented in (most of) the STEM fields. The question is whether we should be pushing the no-college men to go into fields that are otherwise dominated by women (teaching, social work, etc). On one hand, improved gender balance in those fields might have a net positive outcome for society. On the other hand, those are lower-paying professions, and should we be pushing additional college debt to go into those fields?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lack of a college degree really held back Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Ted Turner, Michael Dell, and David Geffen from any real success. Poor guys.

A lot of these guys figured out what top-level NBA players know: superstars are wasting their time if they stick around college for four years.

It’s this type of BS that sends the wrong message. The average male or female, by definition, is not a superstar. College matters for the average person. Unfortunately, there is a loud group on the right that now disparages college as elitist, feminist nonsense and promotes anti-intellectual, anti-scientific BS and the notion that boys can do better by starting YouTube channels, selling crap on Amazon, learning a trade, or being a hack programmer. Sounds like a horrible recipe for society.

This. Boys are being indoctrinated by idiots that college doesn’t matter. This was also mentioned in the WSJ article but mostly passed over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's some bizarre rationalization and bias on this thread. I have 2 boys and was surprised as we started gathering info about colleges about how skewed the gender balance is. For liberal arts colleges, it's particularly true for liberal arts schools but it also is the case for some of the larger universities my son is looking at: AU, BU, GWU, Univ of Washington, UC Davis, etc etc. At most schools, the gender balance is about 55-45, but at some it is as skewed as 60-40. I looked at the numbers for applications, acceptances, and enrollment, and there isn't a big difference in most cases. So no bump for male applicants. I have to admit that I was a little surprised by this since there is a lot of talk about 'holistic admissions' and the active efforts of many schools to build student bodies with racial, ethnic, geographic, socioeconomic, etc diversity.

There is absolutely a bump for male applicants; it's just that they can't make it 50/50 without tanking their stats. And they don't need it to be 50/50 to have diversity. It's not like they are admitting poor kids at rates equal to their prevalence in the population, for example.

It is less true of schools known to be very focused on engineering and football, and more true of liberal arts schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lack of a college degree really held back Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Ted Turner, Michael Dell, and David Geffen from any real success. Poor guys.

A lot of these guys figured out what top-level NBA players know: superstars are wasting their time if they stick around college for four years.

It’s this type of BS that sends the wrong message. The average male or female, by definition, is not a superstar. College matters for the average person. Unfortunately, there is a loud group on the right that now disparages college as elitist, feminist nonsense and promotes anti-intellectual, anti-scientific BS and the notion that boys can do better by starting YouTube channels, selling crap on Amazon, learning a trade, or being a hack programmer. Sounds like a horrible recipe for society.

This. Boys are being indoctrinated by idiots that college doesn’t matter. This was also mentioned in the WSJ article but mostly passed over.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men are still over represented in (most of) the STEM fields. The question is whether we should be pushing the no-college men to go into fields that are otherwise dominated by women (teaching, social work, etc). On one hand, improved gender balance in those fields might have a net positive outcome for society. On the other hand, those are lower-paying professions, and should we be pushing additional college debt to go into those fields?

The reason they are lower paying is they are perceived to be women’s fields. Wasn’t always the case with most such “female” fields including nursing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of far left posters on page 5 - perhaps the same guy or gal over and over again.
"The thinking should be left to the (physically) weaker sex making most of the financial and childrearing decisions in families. Women tend to look out for the collective and will make better leadership decisions anyway. I think this is the future."
The above quote has to be the stupidest statement ever written. The technological marvel that is the world today was crafted by men. Since women got the vote, our country has taken a nose dive.

You’re longing for the days of segregation, lynching, child labor, high poverty rates, high infant mortality? Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's called affirmative action. It's working to discourage men and whites at all levels of education and employment, just as designed. American women and minorities keep the pressure on big education and business as if they're being discriminated against ("It's the kind you can't see or hear and the statistics don't show it....but it's there"). Leftists feel the "enlightened view" is to discriminate against males and whites so this will continue. Feminists and other men haters should greet this news with joy. In fact, they probably think it hasn't gone far enough, after all - 2 wrongs make a right. Of course, when these women look for mates, statistically they tend to favor those who make more $$$ than them. There will be fewer men available who fit that bill. Maybe they can all become lesbians. Ahhh progress.

What’s your job position, HHI, and where did you go to college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men are still over represented in (most of) the STEM fields. The question is whether we should be pushing the no-college men to go into fields that are otherwise dominated by women (teaching, social work, etc). On one hand, improved gender balance in those fields might have a net positive outcome for society. On the other hand, those are lower-paying professions, and should we be pushing additional college debt to go into those fields?

The reason they are lower paying is they are perceived to be women’s fields. Wasn’t always the case with most such “female” fields including nursing.

Nurses, at least the ones with bachelor’s degrees, are not exactly low paid. Although, by DCUM standards they might be.

This is a chicken vs the egg phenomenon that could go either way. Men are usually more compelled to jobs that quickly bring money and prestige and will shift careers and studies accordingly. This contributes to the correlation as much as anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little surprised that no one has pointed out yet that the WSJ in the past few years has become a Trump Republican mouthpiece. I'm very skeptical of ANYTHING that they print.

My son (who has ADHD and loves video games) was admitted to 100% of the colleges he applied to and is doing great. Same with all his friends. Same with my nephew. Not quite sure where this sense of grievance is coming from, but I'm really skeptical of anything that WSJ tells me about it.

There is a paywall, so I couldn't read the article, but I gotta say this whole "the system has failed me" stuff sounds a whole lot like the misandry nonsense that I've been hearing forever wherein anti-social loser men claim to be "lost" because they aren't allowed to abuse women and make racist jokes anymore. As a middle aged white guy who recently went through a job search, I don't find the world hard for men. It's certainly far easier for me than for women in my life or the people of color I know.

Wow! You sure wrote a lot and have a ton of biased opinions for someone WHO DIDN’T READ THE ARTICLE !
Obviously, there were tons of cited sources and statistics

PS you come across as delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little surprised that no one has pointed out yet that the WSJ in the past few years has become a Trump Republican mouthpiece. I'm very skeptical of ANYTHING that they print.

My son (who has ADHD and loves video games) was admitted to 100% of the colleges he applied to and is doing great. Same with all his friends. Same with my nephew. Not quite sure where this sense of grievance is coming from, but I'm really skeptical of anything that WSJ tells me about it.

There is a paywall, so I couldn't read the article, but I gotta say this whole "the system has failed me" stuff sounds a whole lot like the misandry nonsense that I've been hearing forever wherein anti-social loser men claim to be "lost" because they aren't allowed to abuse women and make racist jokes anymore. As a middle aged white guy who recently went through a job search, I don't find the world hard for men. It's certainly far easier for me than for women in my life or the people of color I know.

Speaking of beta men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great! (Sarcastically) now there will be even more underpaid, in/underemployed men who feel emasculated and threatened by women and anyone who is non-white. Then they can take their realized fear of falling behind and being powerless and lash out at others and prop up people like Trump who feed their desire to feel strong and in control.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the mother of three boys, this whiny-nonsense pisses me off. My boys don’t feel this way since I raised them to see everyone as an equal and they never expected to be treated or judged more favorably than anyone else.

Parents failed these young men who feel defeated so young.

It’s not that they aren’t treated more favorably, it’s that they are treated less so

🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little surprised that no one has pointed out yet that the WSJ in the past few years has become a Trump Republican mouthpiece. I'm very skeptical of ANYTHING that they print.

My son (who has ADHD and loves video games) was admitted to 100% of the colleges he applied to and is doing great. Same with all his friends. Same with my nephew. Not quite sure where this sense of grievance is coming from, but I'm really skeptical of anything that WSJ tells me about it.

There is a paywall, so I couldn't read the article, but I gotta say this whole "the system has failed me" stuff sounds a whole lot like the misandry nonsense that I've been hearing forever wherein anti-social loser men claim to be "lost" because they aren't allowed to abuse women and make racist jokes anymore. As a middle aged white guy who recently went through a job search, I don't find the world hard for men. It's certainly far easier for me than for women in my life or the people of color I know.

Speaking of beta men

Speaking of old fashioned, outdated, antiquated, behind-the-times men. Get with it grandpa!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little surprised that no one has pointed out yet that the WSJ in the past few years has become a Trump Republican mouthpiece. I'm very skeptical of ANYTHING that they print.

My son (who has ADHD and loves video games) was admitted to 100% of the colleges he applied to and is doing great. Same with all his friends. Same with my nephew. Not quite sure where this sense of grievance is coming from, but I'm really skeptical of anything that WSJ tells me about it.

There is a paywall, so I couldn't read the article, but I gotta say this whole "the system has failed me" stuff sounds a whole lot like the misandry nonsense that I've been hearing forever wherein anti-social loser men claim to be "lost" because they aren't allowed to abuse women and make racist jokes anymore. As a middle aged white guy who recently went through a job search, I don't find the world hard for men. It's certainly far easier for me than for women in my life or the people of color I know.

Interesting, because my young for his grade son, who also was admitted to every college he applied to and loves video games, will be the first to tell you that he doesn't speak up in class - ever - because he is afraid he will say something wrong and realizes that, regardless, his perspective isn't welcome. He doesn't feel sorry for himself. He accepts this as truth.

My younger son, who also gets good grades now that he is older, feels the same. I can assure you that neither boy is racist, woman hating, or even self-pitying. They are actually pretty insightful.

My daughter doesn't speak up in class either because she's afraid she might say something wrong. I was the same. It's not unique to boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Interesting, because my young for his grade son, who also was admitted to every college he applied to and loves video games, will be the first to tell you that he doesn't speak up in class - ever - because he is afraid he will say something wrong and realizes that, regardless, his perspective isn't welcome. He doesn't feel sorry for himself. He accepts this as truth.

My younger son, who also gets good grades now that he is older, feels the same. I can assure you that neither boy is racist, woman hating, or even self-pitying. They are actually pretty insightful.

This is also the experience of millions (millions) of women.

My favorite part of this piece is the "moms need to do more to help their boys succeed" bit: https://twitter.com/rebeccamakkai/status/1435073794968858648. It is definitely the fault of women, all the way down.