Anonymous wrote:Test Optional admissions.

Trend will reverse as standardized tests come back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? It's time for women to be in charge of everything. We're better, smarter and work harder.

Bingo.

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? It's time for women to be in charge of everything. We're better, smarter and work harder.

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? It's time for women to be in charge of everything. We're better, smarter and work harder.

Anonymous wrote:Two reasons

The traditional college is antiquated dead man walking

Boys are not with the woke program and are checking out.

It’s kind of like society suicide

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Losers

They want to be a stay at home parent like you. Your daughter can support them.

Women created this problem. So much girl focus since “bring your daughters to work”, girls on the run, girls in STEM blah blah. Laura Bush is the only one that tried to invest in young boys with reading initiatives aimed at them. Feminization of the American education system happened. It did nor speak to boys developmental differences and needs early on.

Agree- The pendulum swung too far.

Yes, and that is not in the interest of girls either. So many girls will want to be SAHMs (just look at the attacks the majority of posters on this board, who are SAHMs, level against career women) and this does not bode well for that because they will be competing for an incredibly small subset of successful men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Losers

They want to be a stay at home parent like you. Your daughter can support them.

Women created this problem. So much girl focus since “bring your daughters to work”, girls on the run, girls in STEM blah blah. Laura Bush is the only one that tried to invest in young boys with reading initiatives aimed at them. Feminization of the American education system happened. It did nor speak to boys developmental differences and needs early on.

Agree- The pendulum swung too far.

Yes, and that is not in the interest of girls either. So many girls will want to be SAHMs (just look at the attacks the majority of posters on this board, who are SAHMs, level against career women) and this does not bode well for that because they will be competing for an incredibly small subset of successful men.

They don't aspire to be SAHMs, probably won't even aspire to be Ms. Where does this mythology come from? Neither of my grandmother's were SAHMs. They were limited in career options, but worked outside of the home. My kids would have to go back 4 generations to find such a role model. Even those would turn out to be farm workers whose young kids had more responsibility than today.

Mythology? Have you not seen the countless threads just on this site extolling SAHMs and how they are “doing what’s best for their families”? Do you not think this reflects a social trend that influences young girls?

Anonymous wrote:The expectation for kids to be perfect (all As, ECs curated, super scheduled days) beginning in 9th grade does not match where most boys are developmentally at age 14. Girls are ahead here. So they start off behind and it is hard to catch up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Losers

They want to be a stay at home parent like you. Your daughter can support them.

Women created this problem. So much girl focus since “bring your daughters to work”, girls on the run, girls in STEM blah blah. Laura Bush is the only one that tried to invest in young boys with reading initiatives aimed at them. Feminization of the American education system happened. It did nor speak to boys developmental differences and needs early on.

Agree- The pendulum swung too far.

Yes, and that is not in the interest of girls either. So many girls will want to be SAHMs (just look at the attacks the majority of posters on this board, who are SAHMs, level against career women) and this does not bode well for that because they will be competing for an incredibly small subset of successful men.

They don't aspire to be SAHMs, probably won't even aspire to be Ms. Where does this mythology come from? Neither of my grandmother's were SAHMs. They were limited in career options, but worked outside of the home. My kids would have to go back 4 generations to find such a role model. Even those would turn out to be farm workers whose young kids had more responsibility than today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a Harvard professor and mom of two boys who is a neuroscientist, and she wrote extensively about this. Boys develop at a later age than girls. The college admissions process favors things where girls are stronger. That is what you are seeing in admissions results.

I have a son and a girl and see this difference. The current trend is that in areas where girls are weak it is taken as sign of discrimination and there a tons of programs that encourage girls. Same DEI nonsense.

Take math for example, even after so many pink this and girl that programs, girls are not even remotely close to boys in math competitions.

Now, take emotional maturity, planning, and introspection. Girls are about 10 years ahead of boys in these skills. These skills are just as important as math; however, these skills are critical for college admissions and boys have a tough time due to this.

It is ok, given enough time it would just normalize.

Boys had been doing just fine in academics until recent decades. I’ll also note that the boys in advanced math classes at my child’s schools are almost uniformly children of immigrants. White boys have become low academic achievers. Slackers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Losers

They want to be a stay at home parent like you. Your daughter can support them.

Women created this problem. So much girl focus since “bring your daughters to work”, girls on the run, girls in STEM blah blah. Laura Bush is the only one that tried to invest in young boys with reading initiatives aimed at them. Feminization of the American education system happened. It did nor speak to boys developmental differences and needs early on.

Agree- The pendulum swung too far.

Yes, and that is not in the interest of girls either. So many girls will want to be SAHMs (just look at the attacks the majority of posters on this board, who are SAHMs, level against career women) and this does not bode well for that because they will be competing for an incredibly small subset of successful men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to teach men that discipline was necessary for a quality life and successful career. Now people complain of it being “anti-male” to discipline boys rightfully for erratic behavior. I do think more boys would benefit from an all male environment, since girls are socialized to be more disciplined and still than men.

Counterpoint, for generations we kept women out of academics when they are far capable both there and in any thing that requires time management and executive function. The guys will experience discipline in their gigs driving for Amazon and Doordash.

As this comment illustrates, many people don't care about boys at all. That's the real problem.

Not really, truth is this is nothing new, kids who can't get it together have always been expendable.

Until we’re talking about your kid, who can’t possibly be expandable, because you’ve done an awesome job as a parent. Or can’t have difficulty finding a partner to start a family because again you’ve proofed their life for any kind of setback.

The point is males seem to have difficulty enrolling in higher education and getting degrees, regardless of what their grandfathers did. I think it’s worth looking on the causes instead of just chucking it to video games and being lazy.

We want people in our society to be successful regardless of gender, not settle some score.

Yes but we also must attach personal responsibility somewhere in the equation. Men undoubtedly have various social advantages over women that should result in their success. There’s something implicitly sexist that all these discussions derive at women teachers being the issue and not the boys who’ve had continued broad access to education.

Can you give some examples of those undoubtful social advantages men have today?

Totally curious what the imaginary advantages are for 13 year old boys today?