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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ever notice how when women are “behind” in something, it’s usually framed in a way that minimizes the amount of control that women have over their situation. But, when men fall behind, they are assumed fully responsible for their apparent misfortune.

Cry me a river. The same people who assumed black people were fully responsible for their misfortune are now trying to blame everyone else for everything. After centuries of having the system stacked toward white men, they can't handle the fact that the stacked deck isn't so favorable anymore. That's life. Teach your boys resilience and they will be fine.

[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.

Asians have the highest standards required of them for college admissions. They seem to be plowing forward. Suck it up buttercup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh, please! Men are getting into the same schools with on average lower SATS/GPAs, they still earn on average 1.25% for the exact same job. They are still wildly overrepresented in positions of power in every field bc those who were in power before tend to picture men as leaders etc. If the tides are turning ever so slightly (which still remains to be seen--as soon as white men aren't getting into good colleges they will --are--deem them now unnecessary etc.).

Yes, I wonder if it is the relative "absence" of a leg-up for white men in the educational area that is the difference--esp. since they still get an assist in hiring, promotions, etc. in the working world. I guess the absence of a long-standing privilege in one area (particularly when you still enjoy it in other areas) can feel like a "disadvantage." But PP is right that the stats re: admission don't back that up (and were glaringly absent from the WSJ article).

In a sense, it is rational to go straight to the working world where you perceive your advantages are greater.

[Anonymous]

So more educated chicks to go around for fewer college educated boys or will homeless men finally start scoring college-educated wives?

Asking for a friend

[Anonymous]

Probably more going into trades.

There's likely also a demographic shift too. People ignore younger demographics are increasingly non-white and I can easily see a clear pattern of, say, Latino men of recent immigrant heritage following their fathers into trade while their sisters go off to local state schools for nursing degrees. Trades pay VERY well these days. A skilled tradesman can easily out earn many white collar positions that require college degrees.

When you look at the actual data the picture is probably not quite so complicated nor sad.

I seriously doubt there's a decline in white boys from educated upper middle class families going to college. It's most likely the same.

Last but not least, boys and girls are different. No matter what the woke progressives want to claim these days. I grew up back in the 80s and 90s and people were already talking about broad differences in learning approaches and intuition that made more boys better suited for trade related occupations while the academic track came easier to girls (as cohorts, of course, not applicable equally to every single boy versus every single girl). There was all this talk about how this wasn't a problem when the US economy was dominated by farms and then later industry, but with the shift to a service and knowledge economy it was starting to be more problematic.

But now that a generation has elapsed since the first of these woe is me boys aren't going to college articles, in reality it hasn't been meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But is it even across different SES communities? I would think that if it is the distractions having an effect it would be more pronounced in lower SES families where students have to be more self motivated to go to college, they don’t have all the supports and expectations that are in higher SES families. I could see young women having a real advantage.

One excuse after another. SES, or they want to go into trades, or they're not applying, etc,etc.

Now imagine if the article said it was POC admissions are low at colleges instead of men. Would we start trying to blame SES, going into trades, etc?

I was opining on what might be causing it. I noted that higher SES families do more for their kids, boys and girls, (just look at DCUM) to push to go to college. The most significant correlation for college success is a mother's education level. This thread has gone off the rails. My mother was the first in her family to go to college in the 60s and it was entirely self motivated, her brother had no interest and never went. Their life trajectories were worlds apart.

I think we should be helping all lower SES children regardless of race (meaning white, black, asian, latino) prepare for college or trades in our schooling, depending on their interests. At school ages, girls may just be more inclined to to go to college as a group. Individual cases, of course, vary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ.

Everyone knows their opinion pages are full of extreme-right drivel.

Ignore.

Ooh, now tell us about the NYT and Washington Post. Tell us how unbiased and straightforward they are. We'll wait.

Ok.

The NYT and Washington Post have opinion pages designed to maximize attention and profit.
That’s why they’re filled with rightwing liars like Bret Stephens, Henry Olsen, Marc Thiessen, and Megan McArdle.

Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ is basically only right wing liars. Not a single honest smart person is employed by WSJ Opiniom, which is designed to lie to suckers to get them to vote for Murdoch’s preferred pro-billionaire policies.

You can stop waiting and sit down now.

NP here.
The piece we are discussing is NOT an opinion piece. And you can’t make the same ridiculous claims about the Journal’s news division.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So more educated chicks to go around for fewer college educated boys or will homeless men finally start scoring college-educated wives?

Asking for a friend

Yes. I graduated from a highly regarded college and went to grad school, but married a person in the trades. We've been married for 20 years and it's worked out well. Our kids have exposure to both sides of the working world and know there isn't one path to success.

[Anonymous]

It is frighteningly obvious that most of opining here did not even read the whole article.
Typical DCUM. I shouldn’t be so surprised

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It is frighteningly obvious that most of opining here did not even read the whole article.
Typical DCUM. I shouldn’t be so surprised

And the outright hatred of males, especially white males, is on display, even though the article was not solely addressing white males.

We are talking about kids who are struggling here. We don't have to hypothesize that they are being treated as worthless. It is clearly stated in the forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It is frighteningly obvious that most of opining here did not even read the whole article.
Typical DCUM. I shouldn’t be so surprised

they whole article is behind a paywall

[Anonymous]

DS is doing quite well on campus as a white, but exotic looking, straight male. Gender ratio F/M 55:45. He seems to have a good group of diverse guy friends. In group pics that he occasionally texts us, he's swarmed by girls. He's smart enough, a gentleman, and the kindest human I've ever known. He's very 😁

[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.

This is such BS. The WSJ, while being overall more conservative than the WaPo (which isn't hard to do) was very critical of Trump during his administration. However, they are also excellent at showcasing - and calling out - the leftist BS which insists Trump is the root of all evil. I trust the WSJ far more than I do the WaPo or NYT, both of which are merely mouthpieces for the left.

You're part of the problem. And frankly, I question your critical thinking when you dismiss entire publications as "leftist" or otherwise. Honestly, I just dismiss your opinion out of hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is frighteningly obvious that most of opining here did not even read the whole article.
Typical DCUM. I shouldn’t be so surprised

And the outright hatred of males, especially white males, is on display, even though the article was not solely addressing white males.

We are talking about kids who are struggling here. We don't have to hypothesize that they are being treated as worthless. It is clearly stated in the forum.

Meh. Very few normal people have a "hatred of males", including white males. It's just that when they are forced to share, after centuries of having an advantage in everything, many men view that as "oppression" or it being unfair. Instead, they'd be better served understanding history to put their "oppression" in context. And working a little harder, as women and POC and other minority groups have always had to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is frighteningly obvious that most of opining here did not even read the whole article.
Typical DCUM. I shouldn’t be so surprised

And the outright hatred of males, especially white males, is on display, even though the article was not solely addressing white males.

We are talking about kids who are struggling here. We don't have to hypothesize that they are being treated as worthless. It is clearly stated in the forum.

Meh. Very few normal people have a "hatred of males", including white males. It's just that when they are forced to share, after centuries of having an advantage in everything, many men view that as "oppression" or it being unfair. Instead, they'd be better served understanding history to put their "oppression" in context. And working a little harder, as women and POC and other minority groups have always had to do.

Today's college applicants have not enjoyed the historical advantage that you are speaking of. They can't resent being forced to share it because it was never a thing for them in an educational setting. Sorry, but that is what I mean about being anti-mail. You want today's young males to fail to even some historical score, even though they had nothing to do with past injustice and have not enjoyed the advantages males enjoyed in generations past. We should want all people of any gender to be confident, capable citizens. Treating any group as second class does not promote justice.