<p>alumother, cute story.</p>
<p>I don’t have any issue with boys being let into colleges to keep the numbers equal. After all, I have one boy and one girl. So I want the boys there so that a) my son has a shot at the most challenging academics and that b) my daughter has a shot at a boyfriend. But I am really clear that it’s self-interest that determines my opinion here.</p>
<p>Good thing they are cute huh or we might have thrown them in the ocean when they were four and a half and saying “No!” to everything:).</p>
<p>JHS: As usual, my hero.</p>
<p>DS who played the piano at four and violin at six did not lag behind. And there were plenty of boys at his Suzuki school who had been playing since they were 2. No fine motor skill problems. </p>
<p>I have kids who hated gym, but I do think it’s good that they can both play tennis. Based on his performance in gym, my S even got recruited for the track team. He declined. Of course. D could do more crunches, sit-ups than any other kid and more push ups than any other girl from dance. She still hated gym and still had to do it. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, I think a lot of teachers do give inane busy work that no one learns from. </p>
<p>And I agree with JHS, the negate results of lost males is very severe among disadvantaged kids of all ethnicities. Part of my job at a very diverse community college to help.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah yes, this brings back the memory of the earth science “art” project in 8th grade. My son spent about 10 minutes on it because he felt it was imbecilic, and got a lousy grade along with the written comment that it “looks like something a 6th grader would do”. He wrote a note to her that he “figured a 6th grade effort was OK since it was a 4th grade assignment.”</p>
<p>Thank heavens that teacher managed to get fired half way through the year (yes, she was that bad) because she really had it in for him after that.</p>
<p>Stereotypes don’t work for me. The truth is, my son always knew how to sit quietly when it was expected of him. Many, if not most, of the top students at his large public high school were boys.</p>
<p>Mythmom, the fine motor skills needed to play a violin are different than those needed for writing. My son was a Suzuki preschooler, too. You can bring up individual boys who were less plagued with “ants in the pants” or were doing perspective drawings at age five, or any number of anecdotes. But elementary school teachers, pediatricians, occupational therapists – anyone who deals with large numbers of children can attest to the gender differences. The brain physiology is different in boys & girls; how could we expct behaviors and skill mastery schedule to be the same?</p>
<p>“truth is, my son always knew how to sit quietly when it was expected of him.”</p>
<p>My son sits quietly, plays the clarinet beautifully, is progressing nicely through karate, scores in the top 1-2% on math standardized tests and is a generally nice kid. He does, however, have enormous difficulty in “embellishing” his writing. Can’t comprehend how a one sentence answer should use enough “details from the story” without plagiarizing. That’s his word, by the way, and “embelilish” is the school’s. They actually had a seminar on a Saturday morning about this and it was almost all boys’ families who came. I really wonder about some of these tests. The reading director, who is the standardized testing point person, expressed great concern about that and they seem to not have gotten a handle on it.</p>
<p>“WesDad: You proved my point! Where’s Wesleyan?”</p>
<p>Regrettably, Wesleyan does not post its CDS. The information on the admissions site, though getting better, does not breakdown apps/admits by gender.</p>
<p>Last year, when one of my sons finished elementary school, there were 14 “graduates” who received an academic award for high grades.
Only 3 of them were boys. </p>
<p>There were plenty of smart boys in the gifted program, on the quiz bowl team, etc., but apparently most of them weren’t getting straight A’s. I do think some of this has to do with neatness, and the
“eh, not perfect, but good enough. . .” attitude. All female teachers might be a factor, too.</p>
<p>Good point that most young women don’t want to go to a college where there are few young men. I can see why some colleges will try to admit more men to keep a balance.</p>
<p>OTOH, in my S’s class, half the top ten were boys, including the top three, and as far as I ever saw, they all had atrocious handwriting, and were disorganized (at least, I can speak for no. 7 for sure…:)) They won many awards, too. It’s pretty out-there to assume that smart boys weren’t given awards, because they were penalized for sloppiness.</p>
<p>“Good point that most young women don’t want to go to a college where there are few young men. I can see why some colleges will try to admit more men to keep a balance.”</p>
<p>I agree with that policy also. When ZG was college hunting that was a consideration.</p>
<p>That’s fine for the women who get into the colleges they desire. For the ones being shut out the presence of the boys will make no difference.</p>
<p>StickerShock: Thanks for making that distinction for me. And thanks goodness for computers which are very helpful to challenged boys.</p>
<p>I think a well trained teacher should be able to deal with these differences. Developmental psychology is a course for elementary ed. I think.</p>
<p>It’s absolutely terrible that boys are being admitted at higher rates than girls at universities and colleges across the country. It’s not fair. Sex, like race, is utterly meaningless and should not be considered during college admissions. No AA for males! No AA for anyone!</p>
<p>The problem might not be as pronounced at the tippy top, but in more of the midrange males. I don’t know. Perhaps they are more unorganized, more sloppy, even less engaged as a group (than the females as a group). I cannot say, but I do see that there is a gap in gpa between the girls and the boys, and then we hear the stories about it being more competitive in admissions for women.</p>
<p>NearL, I don’t think that they are being admitted at higher rates. Some schools seem to be admitting males with somewhat lower stats than females.</p>
<p>I agree with earlier posts that the middle school placement exams, if used for more or less permanent HS tracking, are harmful for late-bloomers, many of which will be boys. My D happens to be a late bloomer and I’ve had to fight to improve her HS placement.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the honor roll comes out twice a year, and counting our neighborhood kids, the ones I had some experience with during grade school, there are about twice as many girls names listed as boys (very small sample size, of course). I think some of those ‘missing’ boys are missing due to emotional (e.g. macho) reasons. I would never have said they were less capable in grade school.</p>
<p>Is all this unwarranted male-boost happening?</p>
<p>Here are the 2007 SAT data sets:</p>
<p><a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools;
<p>As an aside: The greatest predictor of success on the SAT is: family wealth</p>
<p>Males have a higher total mean score for all three tested areas. 1526(M) v. 1501(F)</p>
<p>Males have the higher mean score in all but Writing (!!!)</p>
<p>In 1972 the males’ mean score total (M + CR) was 40 points greater than the females. In 2007, the males’ mean for those two test areas is 36 points greater than the females. Factor in Writing and the males’ mean is 25 points greater than the females. </p>
<p>The 2007 reports are of 690,000 males and 798,000 females. Therefore, there are over 108,000 MORE females than males who are reported.</p>
<p>In the 750-800 score ranges, the ratio of males to females, by test area are:</p>
<p>CR: 13,647(M): 14,713(F)
M: 23,281(M): 11,852(F)
W: 8,418(M): 11,398(F)
_______ ______
45,346(M) 37,963(F)</p>
<p>So, conceivably, there might be more 2250+ male applicants.</p>
<p>At a glance it is hard to see that there is too much boost being given to males in admissions based on SAT’s. Before you start in, I KNOW that these figures don’t allow for any precise assessment of the actual applicants.</p>
<p>At the top, males seem to be blooming just fine. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Since more females are reporting scores, perhaps some potentially lower scoring males don’t take the test at all, whereas comparable females do, thereby raising the mean for males. Just a thought.</p>
<p>I know utterly brilliant boys in both kids’ grades. Have no idea if they were hurt by writing problems (motor skills) when young.</p>
<p>I think the only place differential admissions (significantly higher admit rates for males) is really noticeable is in small LAC’s, partially because males are not as interested in LAC’s and don’t apply as much. (An exception can be made for some, particularly formally all men’s schools. Just as this is particularly noticeable at schools that used to be women’s colleges, i.e. Vassar, Skidmore, Conn. College. for obvious reasons.)</p>
<p>A friend, a psychiatrist, said to S when he said he was applying to Vassar, “Aren’t all those boys gay?” His son is at Bucknell. That, emphatically, is not the reason S chose Williams over Vassar, nor was finances, but I am definitely grateful he did.</p>
<p>I don’t know how I feel about the admissions of the former women’s colleges, and I haven’t applied to any.(I don’t see why this isn’t relevant in the discussion. It’s not just making up for educational failures, it’s that not that many men apply, if that makes sense. Liberal arts colleges, while very good, have a few stigmas against them, including sports and a perceived(in some boys) high-school quality to them. Thus they have to reach a bit deeper into the men’s pool. I don’t see it as social justice, but gender equality. While I wouldn’t mind going to a school that was 70-80 percent women, I highly doubt that, outside of the entirely different women’s college environment, most women would like a college of 20% men. </p>
<p>So I think the issue of college applications is a bit null. For those who might compare it to Affirmative Action(which I have no problem with, personally) I’d argue that, while the racial makeup of a school can affect its atmosphere, the gender ratio defines it at a much greater rate. Especially at the often rural liberal arts colleges. </p>
<p>As for males in school, while I agree that it is entirely unfair to say that girls “enjoy” busywork, I will say that with the highly women based elementary teaching staff and the general lack of energy expenditure, it is just not a good fit for men.</p>
<p>(As an aside, it wasn’t until I was in 6th grade that I realized men were even allowed to be teachers. For my entire life prior, I hadn’t seen a single counter example. In three separate states and as many schools, I’d not once seen a male teacher.)</p>
<p>Furthermore, I say this as a person that really doesn’t fit a lot of male stereotypes, but it is true that at the lowest levels of education, there is no help for those of us who are born with a deformed x chromosome(otherwise called “Y”.) I didn’t ask to be a talkative, jocular child. Nor to like walking around daydreaming(emphasize the walking, the reason is irrelevant.) I don’t think either was so terrible, but I know I was constantly detained from going outside for recess because I liked to talk or get up(not even moving!) While girls seemed to like to chat(I still don’t understand them in the least. I mean they seem so amazing, but so incomprehensible) but I don’t recall many girls ever sitting down beside me when we were left behind at lunch and recess. This may just be selective memory, of course.</p>
<p>Still, I also think that art and handwriting was given way to much emphasis. I know I failed a variety of projects because I have no ability to control my hands(I think?) My first grade teacher called me out to, basically, make fun of my handwriting. I can type like the best of them now though, so that hasn’t been the problem that every single teacher I’ve ever had(except one, who will remain nameless but in my heart) has said would be the death of me. I’m still hoping for the paperless society.</p>
<p>I also see another problem in these situations. Although I’ve made myself out to be some sort of rascal, in general, I’m actually rather calm, kind, and contained. So, I’ve never(not even when I should have) violated rules or even gone so far as to speak out when I disagree. Not every guy does, the Y chromosome doesn’t include, to my knowledge, a predisposition to mischief. But, everyone thinks it does. So, when the “boys will be boys” types insulted/threatened/hurt/pranked or whatever they might do to us, it was entirely ignored.</p>
<p>(Despite it being said they do it to girls, the segregation(forced or self selected I don’t know, I think the latter) of boys and girls throughout school generally prevents that needed contact to want to make problems for someone.) </p>
<p>When I was more or less put into a room of people who seemed to hate me, and by the ordained rules could do nothing back, I was basically abandoned to that horrible phrase.</p>
<p>“Boys will be boys” has become one of the verbal banes of my life. I refuse to think that parenting can be ignored or indeed physical and emotional trauma simply because someone was born in the way he had about a fifty percent chance to. Pardon my aside. </p>
<p>I know I’m digressing a bit, but the double standards and somewhat blatant sexism of some teachers is also to be noted. I can recall a teacher, who when asked by a new kid(from a not so good school district) was asked what a word(I think it was commissioner) was, she basically insulted him and called him an idiot. When the exact same question was asked not five minutes later by one of her “favorite” girls, she gave a very nice, although wrong, reply.</p>
<p>Now, before anyone jumps on me, I also know of some teachers who don’t believe that women are capable. To be honest I know of those male teachers who discuss in their lounge the “quality” of their female students(and not academic quality, if you understand.) There are just more women teachers than male teachers, so it generally benefits them.</p>
<p>So I’ve gone around in a few circles, but I think:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>LAC admissions are not trying to accomplish any social justice, just a balanced class.</p></li>
<li><p>Schools are generally biased towards girls due to the preponderance of women teachers(I hope this doesn’t seem insulting. It’s just neigh impossible for a female to fully comprehend what it’s like to be male. Of course the same holds true for males and understanding females. The amount of empathy for either by either is universally, sadly, lacking.)</p></li>
<li><p>A sedentary teaching style</p></li>
<li><p>Punishments that are given to the wrong people at the wrong time(generally detentions in middle school went not to people who would openly make fun of others, but those who somehow disrupted the teacher. This included the brilliant kid I knew who was given detention when he made a loud noise (tripping or his computer crashed, something silly. I can’t recall the details, I’m afraid.) </p></li>
<li><p>Artistic basis for much of the lower levels that devastates self-esteem(using the “classic” term.) The focus on neatness is just not something many young boys do well with, same with organization. Somewhat good skills, but the focus is far too intense, even in high school. Not every English assignment needs to be an art project as well, but it seems to me that they are. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Finally,</p>
<p>I think education benefits both boys and girls(although I support a more home based approach) and that we shouldn’t be willing to throw people to the wolves because they were born of the wrong gender(whichever that is).</p>
<p>While some girls can get by on their looks, and some guys on their brawn, it seems silly to regulate an entire half of the population to very specific jobs and lifestyles, when they are all capable of a million others.</p>
<p>Well, if giving an advantage to boys over girls is unfair, what about girls over boys in many tech schools, or URMs over Asians in general?</p>
<p>Just a reply to the overall topic…</p>
<p>I’m in the honors program at my university, and it is largely dominated by women. For instance, in my honors humanities course, there are 30 kids, only 2 of which are boys. </p>
<p>Close to 80% of the students admitted into our honors program are female.</p>
<p>^ wow.</p>
<p>Serithin, I appreciated your post. I have a “boy-like” girl (sloppy, hyper, etc) and was that way myself. I think the correlation between teaching style and student style has to be considered. Teachers are often those who succeeded in school; the profession isn’t dominated by those who were miserable in school. Teachers are often auditory learners themselves, good with their hands, etc. And like everyone else on earth, they’d rather their job be easier than harder, and the hyper sloppy kid makes their job harder. I doubt that most of them had very many traumatizing experiences in school and probably aren’t sensitized to them.</p>
<p>Obviously sex correlates with “successful” (at school) learning styles, but I just want to point out this other influence.</p>