Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is heresay

Where did you “here” that?

Maybe PP was making a new word mash-up of hearsay and heresy!

Anonymous wrote:Fewer boys are interested in LACs to begin with. So it's a smaller applicant pool. And it's no secret that boys and young men are not performing as well as girls and young women. LACs also tend to appeal primarily to private school kids. Obviously schools like Williams, Amherst, Pomona, and Bowdoin can fill their classes with qualified students and maintain gender balance. But other schools are making choices. There aren't a lot of smart and accomplished boys that are interested in LACs. The applicant pool is therefore more mediocre. And they get rejected accordingly.

They are tiny school and they have a lot of sport teams to fill. If you are a boy and not recruited it is near impossible to get in.

It's helpful when setting expectations for our kids to know this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The male and female pool at SLACs is definitely not equal. But rather going in circles on that, think about “boy” majors like computer science and econ. These majors are already oversubscribed so, no, SLACs don’t want more male computer science and econ majors; don’t expect a gender boost there.

So you think that the boys at Amherst or Pomona or Oberlin, wherever, are less qualified than the girls there? I call BS

What I think is irrelevant. What AOs say and do, less so. The NYT article (I'm the PP who posted it) is interesting, and more nuanced than several posts in this thread. For example, it describes different strategies colleges are employing to try to increase the number of male applicants --for example adding football programs, or investing in ostensibly (but not numerically) gender-neutral programs like esports. But...it also talks about applicant-specific decisions AOs make in order to achieve, if not gender parity, something a bit closer to parity than they would otherwise.

For some reason, this whole thread keeps getting framed as an argument between individual posters, as we're all engaged in some adult version of "girls rule/boys drool" taunts. But that's silly. If you're curious, you can read the article, or listen to the podcast that another PP posted, or find any number of other resources on the topic. If you don't want to do that, have a great night, and a great life. Bless.

Fewer boys are interested in LACs to begin with. So it's a smaller applicant pool. And it's no secret that boys and young men are not performing as well as girls and young women. LACs also tend to appeal primarily to private school kids. Obviously schools like Williams, Amherst, Pomona, and Bowdoin can fill their classes with qualified students and maintain gender balance. But other schools are making choices. There aren't a lot of smart and accomplished boys that are interested in LACs. The applicant pool is therefore more mediocre. And they get rejected accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The male and female pool at SLACs is definitely not equal. But rather going in circles on that, think about “boy” majors like computer science and econ. These majors are already oversubscribed so, no, SLACs don’t want more male computer science and econ majors; don’t expect a gender boost there.

So you think that the boys at Amherst or Pomona or Oberlin, wherever, are less qualified than the girls there? I call BS

Rather than try to make sense of your assumption-laden inanity, I’ll say this: this thread is — or should be — about whether it is easier for males of specific majors, and occupying particular spaces on the continuum of their overall, respective gender candidate pool, to get in — vis à vis females.

Since the vast majority of applicants at any of these schools are “qualified,” that there conversation is a big nothing-burger. So of course I don’t, by definition, “think” anything about it. Nor do you.

Anonymous wrote:The male and female pool at SLACs is definitely not equal. But rather going in circles on that, think about “boy” majors like computer science and econ. These majors are already oversubscribed so, no, SLACs don’t want more male computer science and econ majors; don’t expect a gender boost there.

So you think that the boys at Amherst or Pomona or Oberlin, wherever, are less qualified than the girls there? I call BS

Anonymous wrote:The selective LACs are rejecting nine applicants or more for every one they accept. The rejection pool of boys and girls includes numerous highly qualified applicants. The idea that they are accepting un- or underqualified boys instead of qualified girls is ridiculous. They are simply accepting more qualified boys instead of qualified girls in order to achieve some semblance of gender balance - which by the way still usually favors girls 55 to 45. No need to cry that girls are somehow getting shortchanged here.

they are not accepting more boys, it is that fewer boys apply in the first place! And yes agree completely with the above.

Anonymous wrote:Trinity College: Girls 41%; Boys 31%
Conn College: Girls 45%; Boys 34%
Sewanee: Girls 57%; Boys 47%
Dickinson: Girls 38%; Boys 31%
Bucknell: Girls 35%; Boys 30%
Lehigh: Girls 39%; Boys 35%
Furman: Girls 71%; Boys 62%
Oberlin: Girls 37%; Boys 32%
Grinnell: Girls 12%; Boys 9%
Lake Forest: Girls 64%; Boys 54%
St. Olaf: Girls 60%; Boys 52%

Lehigh is not a LAC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The selective LACs are rejecting nine applicants or more for every one they accept. The rejection pool of boys and girls includes numerous highly qualified applicants. The idea that they are accepting un- or underqualified boys instead of qualified girls is ridiculous. They are simply accepting more qualified boys instead of qualified girls in order to achieve some semblance of gender balance - which by the way still usually favors girls 55 to 45. No need to cry that girls are somehow getting shortchanged here.

I just read the whole thread. Where was the crying? Or anything resembling it? People are mostly sharing data.

Constant repetition of “girls are more qualified, waaaah!”

Fascinating that you read it that way. There is absolutely a different way to read those posts.

In this thread the women are the female version of MAGAs who complain that unqualified minorities are stealing “their” admission slots.

Except that’s not true. OP had a question that was based on an underlying assumption — an assumption that according to AOs and education journalists is faulty. PPs responded by pointing out what this assumption was, explaining what the data apparently say, then providing links to articles where this was discussed.

Interpret the posts however you want, but I’m telling you: there is absolutely a different way to read the conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The selective LACs are rejecting nine applicants or more for every one they accept. The rejection pool of boys and girls includes numerous highly qualified applicants. The idea that they are accepting un- or underqualified boys instead of qualified girls is ridiculous. They are simply accepting more qualified boys instead of qualified girls in order to achieve some semblance of gender balance - which by the way still usually favors girls 55 to 45. No need to cry that girls are somehow getting shortchanged here.

I just read the whole thread. Where was the crying? Or anything resembling it? People are mostly sharing data.

Constant repetition of “girls are more qualified, waaaah!”

Fascinating that you read it that way. There is absolutely a different way to read those posts.

In this thread the women are the female version of MAGAs who complain that unqualified minorities are stealing “their” admission slots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The selective LACs are rejecting nine applicants or more for every one they accept. The rejection pool of boys and girls includes numerous highly qualified applicants. The idea that they are accepting un- or underqualified boys instead of qualified girls is ridiculous. They are simply accepting more qualified boys instead of qualified girls in order to achieve some semblance of gender balance - which by the way still usually favors girls 55 to 45. No need to cry that girls are somehow getting shortchanged here.

I just read the whole thread. Where was the crying? Or anything resembling it? People are mostly sharing data.

Constant repetition of “girls are more qualified, waaaah!”

Fascinating that you read it that way. There is absolutely a different way to read those posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The selective LACs are rejecting nine applicants or more for every one they accept. The rejection pool of boys and girls includes numerous highly qualified applicants. The idea that they are accepting un- or underqualified boys instead of qualified girls is ridiculous. They are simply accepting more qualified boys instead of qualified girls in order to achieve some semblance of gender balance - which by the way still usually favors girls 55 to 45. No need to cry that girls are somehow getting shortchanged here.

I just read the whole thread. Where was the crying? Or anything resembling it? People are mostly sharing data.

Constant repetition of “girls are more qualified, waaaah!”

Anonymous wrote:The selective LACs are rejecting nine applicants or more for every one they accept. The rejection pool of boys and girls includes numerous highly qualified applicants. The idea that they are accepting un- or underqualified boys instead of qualified girls is ridiculous. They are simply accepting more qualified boys instead of qualified girls in order to achieve some semblance of gender balance - which by the way still usually favors girls 55 to 45. No need to cry that girls are somehow getting shortchanged here.

I just read the whole thread. Where was the crying? Or anything resembling it? People are mostly sharing data.

The selective LACs are rejecting nine applicants or more for every one they accept. The rejection pool of boys and girls includes numerous highly qualified applicants. The idea that they are accepting un- or underqualified boys instead of qualified girls is ridiculous. They are simply accepting more qualified boys instead of qualified girls in order to achieve some semblance of gender balance - which by the way still usually favors girls 55 to 45. No need to cry that girls are somehow getting shortchanged here.