<p>Respectfully, you are again missing the boat. No court has ever held that the same arguments justifying affirmative action in college admissions for African Americans apply to justify admitting suburban white guys over equally deserving suburban white girls to selective state colleges. The justification for affirmative action is the state’s compelling interest in redressing past wrongs and improving access for underserved and previously disenfranchised minority groups. A selective public college’s interest in keeping a high “stature” and in staying “desirable” may be “valid,” as you say, but it’s hardly a compelling state interest. Furthermore, even if it were a compelling interest, you’d have to make a showing that having as many (or as close to as many) boys as girls (and discriminating against women in order to accomplish this) is the only reasonable way of maintaining high stature and desirability. Again, just take a look at UNC-Chapel Hill. No one can reasonably argue that its stature is any less than William and Mary’s. </p>
<p>Besides, Title IX is a LAW. It’s not the constitution. Your argument is essentially that it’s ok to violate the law so long as you have good reason. That’s not the way it works.</p>
<p>You and I know the same facts – the numbers being reported by the college, how those numbers compare to other public colleges, and the quotes by admissions officials in the media that William and Mary does not aspire to be “Mary and Mary.” </p>
<p>Also, as I’ve said before, that fewer girls are accepting admissions offers than boys suggests only that, generally speaking, admitted girls to William and Mary, being more highly qualified than admitted boys, have more offers from other colleges that are even more selective and highly regarded than William and Mary and are choosing those colleges over William and Mary. </p>
<p>Finally, I’m not disparaging William and Mary as an institution and I’m not disparaging you as an individual. I’m sure you’re a very smart guy (despite your apparent inability to avoid getting nasty and personal when cornered). All I’m saying is that without question William and Mary has an admissions policy to favor men.</p>
<p>Rather than subject other readers to this continued debate, from this point forward I’ll respond privately to pedsox or anyone else who might be interested. I see no reason for a continued public discussion.</p>
Based on the study that said that students are less interested in schools with disparate male:female ratios, maintaining a balanced ratio helps the school retain a skilled student base. Considering that quality schools like UVA and W&M are what helped Virginia maintain its status as the “Best State for Business” for 3 years in a row, the State obviously does have a valid interest in maintaining its quality.</p>
<p>
The stats that I saw show different situations. First off its a larger school, which changes everything (larger = chance for better, say, football program). Secondly, it has not reached the 40-60 ratio. Thirdly, who’s to say that the ratio hasn’t affected applying students’ decisions?</p>
<p>
Strawman Fallacy (or me not being clear enough). Again, my argument is (more clearly, hopefully): Based on the definition of discrimination, derived from judicial interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, this would not go against the Title IX clause. </p>
<p>
I think you’re both right. The selection process, especially for W&M, is more than about numbers. From my experience, the essays matter a lot.</p>
<p>
We (at least I) was not questioning this. It does. My argument was that it has a valid reason.</p>
<p>Besides, this has already been reviewed by a State committee:
Agreed, though I believe I’ve had enough for a little while =D</p>
<p>If it could be litigated, it would have happened already.</p>
<p>Is it unfair that UVA’s engineering school is easier for women to get into than men? Sure it’s unfair, but it’s life. The schools are trying to keep or create a balance.</p>