As a woman, I wouldn't want my college experience to be 70%+ women. My DD does not want that at all and is scratching off anything that isn't at least 60/40 although 50/50 is her ideal.

This policy is hurting women. This is not the skewed college environment they are seeking.

Anonymous wrote:I think the administration is fine with DEI when it benefits men at the expense of women.

I agree and believe that the unintended consequence is going to be interesting.

I think the administration is fine with DEI when it benefits men at the expense of women.

Anonymous wrote:^Get a hobby

It doesn't matter who wrote the article. Liberal or Conservative this is now a very real issue worthy of serious discussion. The Executive Order's specifically call out Gender and it is well know (and visible in the numbers) that for most top schools admissions is harder for women than men. The safe path for schools will be to admit more women because their admission will easily stand up to scrutiny while it will be hard for a school to justify a large imbalance in acceptance rates between the sexes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nearly every top 20 university strives for gender balance.

But outside of that group of colleges, yeah, it's an issue. The smart and accomplished male students all tend to gravitate to certain schools - typically strong in engineering and/or business.

Boys aren't doing great these days. We've really failed them. A 2:1 ratio at colleges isn't surprising at all.

How have we failed them? Why were they doing better in the past?

Something about boots on necks.

Anonymous wrote:^Get a hobby

OK, MAGA trash.

Anonymous wrote:Nearly every top 20 university strives for gender balance.

But outside of that group of colleges, yeah, it's an issue. The smart and accomplished male students all tend to gravitate to certain schools - typically strong in engineering and/or business.

Boys aren't doing great these days. We've really failed them. A 2:1 ratio at colleges isn't surprising at all.

How have we failed them? Why were they doing better in the past?

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.

Right. Because MAGAs are fvking hypocrites.

It's OK to consider gender and race as long as it benefits white men.

Nearly every top 20 university strives for gender balance.

But outside of that group of colleges, yeah, it's an issue. The smart and accomplished male students all tend to gravitate to certain schools - typically strong in engineering and/or business.

Boys aren't doing great these days. We've really failed them. A 2:1 ratio at colleges isn't surprising at all.

If women are more qualified they should get the slots.

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.

Anti-Trumpers with lots of time. Perhaps fired Federal employees.

^Get a hobby

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

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