“I wonder how many of you believe in proof of discrimination based on statistics that skew the other way? Like, for example, the gender pay gap.”
What’s your point? What analogy are you trying to draw here? It’s not clear to me.
Let me spell it out. Is it a fact that fewer men are going to college relative to women? Yes. Can that be used as evidence to bolster an argument that the current enviornment in many colleges is relatively less welcoming to men than in previous years/decades/generations? Yes. Is it also more than plausible that many men are seeking opportunities in careers that are both (a) generally masculine and (b) not dependant on a college degree? Also yes. Similarly, can the gender wage gap be used to argue that women are disadvantaged in the professional world? Yep. But it also could more than plausibly be a reflection of voluntary choices made across populations. Like with everything of any significance, nothing is all one thing or another.
My point is that we should not take these statistics as iron clad proof of discrimination against men any more than we should take the “gender pay gap” as iron clad proof of discrimination against women. My query was designed to perhaps get a few people who seem to think in absolutes to reflect on why they would find fairly clear statistical evidence dispositive in one of these areas but not the other.
And for what it is worth, there is nothig more persuasive than the argument that (paraphrasing) “men discriminated against women for centuries, and now that women have the whip hand they should stop whining and just deal with it.”
"Can that be used as evidence to bolster an argument that the current enviornment in many colleges is relatively less welcoming to men than in previous years/decades/generations? Yes. "
I’d argue for NO because I think there are other reasons for it than “less welcoming” one of which you state:
"Is it also more than plausible that many men are seeking opportunities in careers that are both (a) generally masculine and (b) not dependant on a college degree? Also yes. "
“fairly clear statistical evidence dispositive in one of these areas but not the other”
Is it fairly clear? If so I haven’t seen such evidence to support that so I’m a NO vote to your analogy here. Women attend college in slightly greater numbers which can easily be explained by what others have posted: military path, trades path, higher incarceration rates. That doesn’t equate to discrimination. If anything, males have an easier time getting accepted vs. female counterparts at many colleges. They get a boost not a knock.
It is interesting that when men out numbered women in college 50 years ago, this was a problem.
It is interesting that when men out numbered women in pursuing graduate and professional degrees, this was a problem.
It is interesting that when men out numbered women in STEM fields, this was a problem.
It is interesting that when women out number men in college now, this is not a problem.
I do think it’s a problem for our society and it’s important to figure out why they are dropping out.
This quote concerns me, partly because it’s not even close to the first time I’ve heard it … particularly from professors:
"Observers say many young men delude themselves into thinking they are one idea away from being the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. They think they can make a fortune without a college degree, said Riseman. “As a result, they enter college with little sense of purpose and end up failing out,” he said.
When women were not allowed to go to college, it was a problem. When they were actively (and institutionally) discouraged from pursuing STEM or grad degrees, it was (is) a problem.
What I read in that article was that some men are choosing to do different things - trade school, whatever.
Is that a problem?
Agree with @OHMomof2 and I repeat, if anything, males have an easier time getting into college than females do in that some colleges will favor them or have slightly lower standards. I don’t see any systemic discrimination against them at all.
"It is interesting that when men out numbered women in college 50 years ago, this was a problem.
It is interesting that when men out numbered women in pursuing graduate and professional degrees, this was a problem.
It is interesting that when men out numbered women in STEM fields, this was a problem.
It is interesting that when women out number men in college now, this is not a problem."
This is a concern and many colleges are admitting men with weaker qualifications to balance their classes.
It is less of a concern because it does not appear to be about inclusion. The boys can go, they just choose not to.
With women and African Americans, the situation is very different. Women did not gain full access to the Ivy League until 1983. African Americans went from 300 years of slavery, to a very brief reconstruction period, them right into Jim Crow for another 80 years. Even then, the parents aren’t educated and the schools are often not as good, so the kids never have much of a chance. We need to break that cycle.
What is odd to me is that we almost never have the anti-affirmative action crowd opposing the boost men are getting at places like Brown. As soon as it benefits them they stop objecting.
[quote] if anything, males have an easier time getting into college than females do in that some colleges will favor them or have slightly lower standards.
This is a concern and many colleges are admitting men with weaker qualifications to balance their classes.
[/quote]
YUP!
The old problem:
Fifty years ago there were written quotas on women. When I applied to BU’s 6 year med school in 1967, they accepted 48 men and 2 women. I was one of the 2 women waitlisted (it turned out for the best). Harvard accepted 4 men for every 1 woman accepted at Radcliffe. Aside from the explicit quotas, there were implicit quotas fueled by the “you wouldn’t want to take a man’s place” attitude. I once had that said to me in an interview. There was a huge loss of the best and brightest…
The new problem:
Men, though I can’t help think boys , don’t want to go to college. The causes are many. I don’t believe anyone has mentioned an evolving model of masculinity. Some images of masculinity seem more tied to selfishness, violence, and arrogance than self-sufficiency, leadership, and generosity. Whatever happened to the John Wayne sensibility? The captain must go down with his ship just seems silly, but there was a time when “women and children first” was a social emblem of the strength of men. The old masculinity had its issues, but it seemed to do better by many men. Just look at the forum with the public problems of frats, Harvard brats, and threats of violent demonstrations
The solution:
I don’t know, but it is a symptom of a massive systemic problem. computers/robots increasing do our work, from accounting to welding. There will be more leisure. I hope the under-educated find purposeful activity. It’s pretty clear the current government isn’t going to help the unemployed. How does a teen not worry, drop out in this context?
If it does not appear to be about inclusion, then why are there all of these current initiatives to promote women in STEM fields? The girls can go, they just choose not to.
A few years ago, we toured an engineering school with another family. Both kids were NMF’s, but the tour guide spent the entire time addressing the girl with how many special programs and initiatives this school had for female engineers, and how there were special scholarships and mentors just to attract women. The boy, with essentially the same academic credentials, was totally ignored. It was embarrassing.
What is odd to me is that we almost never have the pro-affirmative action crowd recognizing the hypocrisy of continuing to promote female enrollment when 57 out of 100 college students are women.
Who is promoting female enrollment? I don’t see much concrete evidence of it. I suspect you might find something somewhere in engineering, but having gone through the process with a DD interested in engineering, I sure didn’t see it.
And this isn’t a new phenomenon and in some cases, it’s more than “slightly lower standards”.
Back when I was a HS senior applying to colleges in the mid-'90’s, the gap between the average stats of admitted female applicants vs male applicants to Vassar was such that female admits who accepted the admission offers were highly respected whereas the male applicants who did the same were often suspected of doing so because their stats would have otherwise consigned them to colleges a tier or two down. And this mentality wasn’t limited to my HS.
This is somewhat reinforced by an account from an older HS alum from the '80’s who admitted he attended Vassar because he didn’t have the stats to be admitted to LACs like Kenyon or Oberlin.
Pretty odd considering the latter colleges would have been considered safeties for most female Vassar admits back then.
No one is “promoting female enrollment” in any scenario EXCEPT tech schools that are very gender lopsided. And they do that partly for the same reason most all other colleges favor male applicants - not many people, of either gender, want to go to gender lopsided colleges.
I refer you to post 5.
I really hope that some of you are posting ironically. Because if not, man. I have been a lawyer a long time, but I have nowhere near the rhetorical skill necessary to argue that women are de facto discriminated against based on statistics, but men are not, in spite of statistics, because there is no de jure discrimination.
@doschicos, the numbers are the numbers. You can certainly make a great argument that they are the way they are for a non nefarious purpose, for either the number of men in college, the number of women in STEM, or the gender wage gap. It is the arguing from different sides that bothers me.
And one last point. I have a son and daughter pursuing STEM degrees. There were a metric ton more outside scholarships available to my daughter, despite slightly lower stats, then to my son. If you don’t think we as a society are promoting women in STEM you simply aren’t looking
I was very disappointed in my DD aid from engineering schools, “Ohiodad51”
Meanwhile plenty in high places say women can’t do stem. Even 10 years ago, the Harvard president publicly noted women’s inability to do science. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/1/14/summers-comments-on-women-and-science/
What do you think is said behind closed doors?
Also, in the mid-'00s, one grad Prof at an Ivy who just came off a stint looking over undergrad applications admitted to our grad class that if said Ivy didn’t lower academic standards for male applicants in an attempt to maintain a semblance of an even gender ratio, that Ivy could have easily ended up being 80% female/20% male.
@mamalion, first, that is not at all what Larry Summers said. Read the transcript, it is widely available. Second, were you happy with your son’s aid from the same engineering schools? If not, hard to draw any conclusions. And I have been behind some of those closed doors. Believe it or not, most men responsible for promotion and hiring want to see women succeed, if only because it keeps the EEOC awayand protects a bit against discrimination lawsuits the problem is that they want women to succeed the way men do, and that is a problem, no doubt.
@cobrat, you should ask your friends and former classmates at college board what the gender gap is on standardized tests. Heck, if the Ivy only used those, maybe their classes would be 80/20 guys. But that would be discrimination, right? Or better yet, ask them why it was necessary to change the scoring ruberic on the PSAT to harmonize the number of NMSFs. Women/girls do better on GPA and for the most part standardized tests on verbal skills. Men/boys do better on standardized tests in math/science. It’s been that way for awhile. News flash, men and women are different.
Arguing that one set of differences is based on discrimination while another is just the way it is is intellectually dishonest.
Actually, one of my grad classmates did ask whether greater weighing of standardized scores would have made a difference.
Answer: No…especially considering there’s far more women who scored well-within/beyond the range of that Ivy on average than their male counterparts. The only area on the SAT where males tend to outperform females on average is the math section…and that Ivy (Arts & Sciences division) doesn’t only weigh the math section.
The results might be more what you’re expecting if this admission office was that of the engineering division…but it wasn’t.
Women tend to outperform males in the verbal and writing sections.
Something which explains why males tend to be the majority at engineering/tech colleges such as Caltech or Harvey Mudd.