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.

Then let the market speak. If schools don't want to offer the programs they want then they can suffer the consequences.

Another reason is girls are doing better in high school. The girls with the GPAs and SATs are applying. The boys don’t have the numbers. They’re gaming and “using the computer in the bathroom” and not playing sports, doing ECs, or getting their work done. And when their parents look up from their phones, they are saying their kids need stimulants and anti anxiety accommodations.

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.

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.

Depends. The nepo babies can study whatever they please. The internships and jobs come from parental connections even for an art history boy from Brown.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If women are more qualified they should get the slots.

This makes sense to me, too.

I just envision a world where college degrees become less sought after all together. Billy can get a "college-entry" job at uncle Jim's firm without a degree or one from a lesser school. The goalposts will always change to advantage white men.

going through life with a poor quality education is not an "advantage".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If women are more qualified they should get the slots.

This makes sense to me, too.

I just envision a world where college degrees become less sought after all together. Billy can get a "college-entry" job at uncle Jim's firm without a degree or one from a lesser school. The goalposts will always change to advantage white men.

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.

Anonymous wrote:hey if we don't let young men into our liberal colleges they'll all be doomscrolling driving their cybertrucks to burn down the capitol.

Women were cut out of higher education for a very long time and yet they managed to not attack the capital and the capital police. Get it together young men.

hey if we don't let young men into our liberal colleges they'll all be doomscrolling driving their cybertrucks to burn down the capitol.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hurting women is such a stretch. The dramatics here by the same crowd who demand merit admissions are hilarious.

The top colleges could give more weight to academic scores on tests such as the math SAT, AP Calc BC, Chem, Physics, Comp Sci, etc. Those are the competencies that best predict big lifetime impacts in entrepreneurship, hard sciences, engineering, income, etc. If the colleges did that, and ignored how kids did in 10th grade English or how many volunteering orgs they started, they’d have more males than females in their classes. It’s all a matter of priorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If women are more qualified they should get the slots.

This makes sense to me, too.

MAGA voted to beat down higher education generally and also to get rid of DEi which has the effect of more slots going to women.

Anonymous wrote:If women are more qualified they should get the slots.

This makes sense to me, too.

Anonymous wrote: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.

This policy hurts everyone. DEI is beneficial.