Article on admissions in new Alumni Gazette

[cartera45]

<p>Those interested in admission should find this article of interest. I already knew this, but the article really confirmed how admissions has changed in 30 years. I didn’t know what EC even meant. My EC was riding a school bus 4 hours a day in order to get to and from high school and working on my parents’ farm in the summer. I know - at least I didn’t walk barefoot uphill both ways. </p>

<p><a href=“https://alumni.wm.edu/magazine/spgsum_2007/feature_5.shtml[/url]”>https://alumni.wm.edu/magazine/spgsum_2007/feature_5.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[soccerguy315]

<p>good read, thanks.</p>

<p>shows that W&M is not just a numbers game.</p>

[standrews]

<p>Good article. DS plans to apply to W&M this fall.
I do have one question though: why is there no mention of gender in the selection process. In 2005, 6604 women applied and 4406 men. Acceptance rates were 26% and 39% respectively. Are there different standards for men and women, or are that many less qualified women applying?</p>

[inchoative]

<p>There are not different standards, but because so many more women apply than men, and WM tries to keep the gender balance fairly equal, of course that means acceptance rates for women will be lower than those of men. </p>

<p>It means that if you are a woman, it will likely be a little more difficult to get in.</p>

[standrews]

<p>

It means that if you are a woman, it will likely be a little more difficult to get in.

</p>

<p>How is that not a different standard? My point is that the gender gap is not something W&M wants underlined in the article, but it is the reality, just as it is at a number of other schools. The 2006 numbers are even more slanted against women: 26% admission rate vs. 43.8% for men.</p>

<p>Consider this from the Kenyon dean of admissions.

Few of us sitting around the table were as talented and as directed at age 17 as this young woman. Unfortunately, her test scores and grade point average placed her in the middle of our pool. We had to have a debate before we decided to swallow the middling scores and write “admit” next to her name.</p>

<p>Had she been a male applicant, there would have been little, if any, hesitation to admit. The reality is that because young men are rarer, they’re more valued applicants.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html?ex=1300770000&en=3cfba679d5fb9b06&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html?ex=1300770000&en=3cfba679d5fb9b06&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Believe me, I’m not happy about the disparity. It helps DS, but hurts DD. However, it is something the college should be addressing. Women account for 64% of the applications, but only 52% of those enrolling. Should W&M allocate more seats to women?</p>

[namtrag]

<p>They are having to do reverse affirmative action with boys now. I think the enrollment nationwide is 55/45 (fuzzy recollection), so boys have an easier time getting in.</p>

[Squiddy]

<p>Just to have a basis of comparison, women apply to W&M at a rate nearly double that of men, (roughly 65%/35% f/m ratio) while UVA’s applications ran about 55/45 f/m.</p>

<p>As for admissions, UVA offered admission at roughly the same ratios as applications, (55/45) while W&M offered admission at more nearly equal numbers (52/48 f/m), leading to more competition per “female” admission (ratio of applications / admit):</p>

<pre><code>UVA W&M
</code></pre>

<p>M(2.69:1) (2.28:1)
F(2.66:1) (3.85:1)</p>

<p>Simplistic, I know, but I think it’s safe to suppose that the greater competition for “female” seats vice “male” seats makes things more difficult for females, which, by extension, makes it relatively easier for males, (i.e. “different standards”.) </p>

<p>A true meritocracy sounds good, in theory, but in practice, it could be self-defeating. If they admitted 65% women, at some point, a tipping point may be reached, where more qualified men shy away from what’s thought of as a “women’s” college, leading to even greater disparities in applications, and the choice between lowered standards for men or greater numbers of women accepted becomes even starker. Either way, it’s likely the College’s academic reputation would suffer, fairly or not. </p>

<p>For the long-term health of the College, I think a better way forward is to try to make W&M more attractive to the top-tier males coming out of high school, continuing to build its reputation in areas traditionally of greater interest to males, such as business/finance and hard sciences (comp. sci, math, chem, etc), to the benefit of everyone. </p>

<p>Far better (and far cheaper) than trying to build a national championship football team, for example :)</p>

[cartera45]

<p>I’m interested in thoughts as to why so many more women apply to W&M - I understand the culture of UVA attracting men.</p>

[standrews]

<p>

If they admitted 65% women, at some point, a tipping point may be reached, where more qualified men shy away from what’s thought of as a “women’s” college, leading to even greater disparities in applications

</p>

<p>The article I cited above puts the tipping point at about 60% and it affects how both men and women view the school.</p>

<p>

The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance. Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants? At those colleges that have reached what the experts call a “tipping point,” where 60 percent or more of their enrolled students are female, you’ll hear a hint of desperation in the voices of admissions officers.
[snip]
Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive.

</p>

[namtrag]

<p>reverse affirmative action is starting to happen. I think in the 1970’s the ratio of f/m in colleges was the reverse of what it is now, and colleges probably were letting less qualified girls in. Now it’s the other way around. It’s sure not fair, no matter what.</p>

[parentstwo]

<p>I would be very interested in any responses to cartera45’s question. Perhaps we should even start a separate thread. </p>

<p>My D attends W&M. It has really been the right school for her. S–current Sr–didn’t think of applying to W&M, and I don’t think it was a matter of his sister being in school there. Thus, I see the disparity in my own house but am not completely sure what it’s all about.</p>

[namtrag]

<p>Here are a couple of reasons I can think of for the disparity:</p>

<p>Lack of an engineering school.</p>

<p>Lack of big time sports.</p>

[Tim_ND08]

<p>The lack of a big sports scene is what makes me think twice about WM.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>I forgot about sports - I suppose that makes sense. Everyone I knew at W&M played rugby - it was really big and of course had the really big parties. None of the guys I knew missed or cared about football or basketball, but we still had great times at the football games. Of course, back then, they let us bring kegs into the stadium and roll them up in to the stands. We never even had to get up - just pass the cup back and a full one came back. Since I have a teenage daughter now, the thought of that scares me to death. Kids now can’t believe we were able to drink openly at the games.</p>