The Gender Gap Continues
The Weekly Standard has a great article on higher education and boys. The widening of the gender gap in colleges continues as well as the apathy towards boy's education:
Are we going to wait until no men attend college to address this issue? I expect the answer will be yes, as long as the PC crowd has plenty of women to fill up their schools. Can we really allow this apathy towards men's education to continue?
Today's shortage of men, by contrast, is largely ignored, denied, or covered up. Talk to university administrators, and few will admit that the imbalance is a problem, let alone that they're addressing it. Consider the view of Stephen Farmer, director of undergraduate admissions at the University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill, where this year's enrollment is only 41.6 percent male. "We really have made no attempt to balance the class. We are gender blind in applications, very scrupulously so."
Why the blind devotion to gender--blindness? Because affirmative action for men is politically incorrect. And at universities receiving federal funding like UNC, it's also illegal. "My understanding of Title IX is that an admissions process that advantages men would be very difficult to defend," Farmer says.
Are we going to wait until no men attend college to address this issue? I expect the answer will be yes, as long as the PC crowd has plenty of women to fill up their schools. Can we really allow this apathy towards men's education to continue?
posted by Helen at 9:05 AM
33 Comments:
I question the relevance of these statistics. Are fewer boys going to/graduating from college than were doing so ten years ago? My impression is that boys dominate majors that give marketable skills (engineering, hard sciences, business, even the pure liberal arts) while more and more women are showing up and getting degrees in soft majors such as psychology (sorry, but without a graduate degree Psych is barely marketable) and sociology.
I have done recruiting on the MS and PhD for the R&D arm of a Fortune 500 company and we still see very few Masters and PhD candidate that are women. But look around the personnel department and it is dominated by low wage college educated women with degrees in soft majors.
Anecdotally, I was outnumbered these past few years while working on MBA. There were quite a few more women than men. Kept the classes interesting when the subject matter was boring, but we need to look at the big picture here!
I think that any policies that give anyone an unfair advantage due to their gender, skin color, or whatever, are stictly contrary to the principles upon which America was founded. I need to do some more research on it, but clearly, that's what these policies do.
The article speaks to that question somewhat; it kind of makes the conclusion that some fields are male-dominated still, but that only makes the university environment weird and separates men and women further. I don't see why one would think the trend isn't relevant. Unfortunately, for every high-powered PhD engineer, there's a bunch more twenty-something males working patching drywall. Worse, they're on the street or in someone's basement. The problem is bad for young men--women have infrastructure to support each other, and men don't yet because these are new problems.
Nick,
Good point--I do think men need more support--especially from other men. Everyone just tries to ignore any study or sign that men are having problems in certain areas and writes it off, just like these colleges. These problems are new, as men now are made to feel ashamed of themselves and not stick up for justice. Remember, justice is supposed to be about fairness--for both genders.
Can we really allow this apathy towards men's education to continue?
We shouldn't, but we might.
With the state of elementary education, in particular, which oftimes is conducted in ways absolutely contrary to the way in which little boys learn best, it strikes me that the situation is likely to get much worse before it gets better.
If we don't fix the early ed problems, the issue of college may be moot--because many young men, even if intelligent, may have long been turned off by school by the time they're 18. Or, by dint of not having their natural talents developed in a system hostile to their learning modes and personalities, they may actually end up not being as good of college material as by rights they should been.
Very distressing, especially for those of us raising a young boy who's already getting turned off by school.
Perhaps the answer doesn't lie in affirmative action, but rather in new approaches to marketing: "Hey, guys, you really ought to go to college, if for no other reason than that's were all the good-lookin' women are!" Is there any commodity other than education that hasn't used sex to sell itself?
I suspect there's another dimension to this issue. There are good-paying jobs, in the traditionally male construction, mining, and manufacturing industries to name a few, that don't require a sheepskin for entry. How many $50,000-a-year jobs are there available to a woman without a college diploma?
Of course, with power steering and hydraulically assisted everything, we're seeing more women operating heavy machinery and driving trucks all the time, but they're still very much a minority.
anonymous 9:54 said "I have done recruiting on the MS and PhD for the R&D arm of a Fortune 500 company and we still see very few Masters and PhD candidate that are women. But look around the personnel department and it is dominated by low wage college educated women with degrees in soft majors."
I see the same thing in my work, but I don't know how long it will last. Our oldest son attends college in an honors program whose graduates typically go on to obtain medical, legal, engineering, MBA, and other professional graduate degrees. For at least the past 5+ years, the program has trended heavily female. This year the freshman class is over 65% female and under 35% male. When he was applying to college, including at several ivy league colleges and other honors programs, the stats were similar. How can it be good for a typical Fortune 500 company that its pool of qualified professional applicants will be skewed toward one demographic?
Also, Swen, while there may be lots of smart women around, our son also enjoys male company now and then. At the risk of sounding old-fashioned, there still aren't as many females in college who love football, basketball, and other sports as much as males.
DRJ asked: How can it be good for a typical Fortune 500 company that its pool of qualified professional applicants will be skewed toward one demographic?
Anonymous answers: It's not, but you recruit from the available pool. We were certainly looking for a diverse demographic workforce but of the folks who requested interviews 50% were South Asian (without permanent residency so we would not hire them) of the rest, 45% were male and 5% were female. As an aside, females with PhDs in engineering are in such great demand that they are difficult to hire and typically are offered more to start than similarly situated males. Some kind of supply and demand thing going on.
I also found that female PhD, on balance, are much more qualified to enter into the business world where human interaction is valued. A lot of the male doctoral candidates were tech nerds. In contrast, I would have felt comfortable introducing almost all of the female candidates to the CEO.
Anonymous 2:05-
Are you male or female?
Degreed in?
Level of degree?
Active profession?
As a big believer in calibrating the source of opinions, I would find this information useful.
Are you male or female?
-Male
Degreed in?
-MS Chemical Engineering
-JD Law
Level of degree?
-MS & JD
Active profession?
-Technology Manager, I manage money and push paper while others invent.
I know a very feminist women who has stated that this trend is good, "because now men will know what it like---the shoe is on the other foot now!" So might not some of this "looking the other way" be revenge motivated?
Let me clarify:
"business world where human interaction is valued"-- as opposed to an institution that is focused on pure research and you are judged by the quality of your publications rather than your ability to give a presentation to a business manager or V.P.
"Tech nerd"-- not an insult, I'm a tech nerd, many of my friends are tech nerds. It's a 'tech nerd' thing, you wouldn't understand. (that is a joking byy the way)
"typically are offered more to start than similarly situated males"-- Believe me everyone makes a living wage and the pay scale flattens out after a year or two. I've got money to hire engineers and scientists. I also need a diverse pool of employees. I spend money to get what I need. Chemical PhD's make more than Mechanical PhD's its all supply and demand.
--------------
I'm a guy and I have three boys one of which is looking at colleges now. I'm not trying to desparage men, I'm just giving you my observations.
My oldest son is a tech nerd just like his daddy and is going to need to learn how to give a presentation to a large group (like I did) or find a research institution where this skill is not as valued.
My youngest son is going to be a tech star because he has the rare combination of logical reasoning, presentation skills salesmanship and innate drive to win.
The youngest son had the best third grade teacher in the world. One minute speeches on a variety of topics every week, an interactive classroom, no busywork (which I think girls tolerate and boys resist). She ran a class that valued everyone as unique and she turned out great boys and girls. I wish all of my kids and every kid in the country had a teacher like her once.
Anonymous 2:05-
Thanks. Interesting ed background. Mine is in EE, CS and business (MBA). I have done a lot of recruiting also, 25 years worth or so, though primarily not on campus.
----------------------------------
One of my pet and currently discounted beliefs is that men and women are wired differently, and that the women found in hard disciplines will tend to have more male-like demeanors. Not "nerdy" so much as tough, serious, capable, no-nonsense, less concerned about appearance and preferring conversation with like-minded men or women to empathetic chats with "touchy-feely" advocates.
My theory on education, not very original I'm afraid, is that K-12 has been overrun with angry PC middle aged feminists with big ankles and lesbian tendencies (picture a less-devious Hillary Clinton with an ED degree) - and their general hatred of men has no age constraints. University hiring and tenure committees suffer from the same illnesses, and men who do not "measure up" will have difficulties. Like most such conditions that have been allowed to worsen and fester over time, I don't think that there will be any quick or easy fixes. And I further don't think that the solution to every social ill should be another federal law.
Auld pharte:
My theory is less complicated:
They are just crappy teachers.
Testsubj . . .
Congratulations you have driven this way off topic.
I hate to break it to you but:
- boys and girls are different;
- markets work;
- some people have a sense of humour; and
- no guy in the history of the world has asked "Why should I make less for being male?"
Lighten up, Francis
My impression is that boys dominate majors that give marketable skills (engineering, hard sciences, business, even the pure liberal arts) while more and more women are showing up and getting degrees in soft majors such as psychology (sorry, but without a graduate degree Psych is barely marketable) and sociology.
The article makes this point, but also says that more of the slots for those "male" degree areas are being filled by foreign students because there aren't enough applicants from the U.S. So the areas that trend male are also seeing declining enrollment.
I agree with the points made by testsubjectxp at 3:29. These issues merit serious discussion, and I urge anonymous 3:35 - the self-described tech nerd - to join the debate rather than indulge in condescending comments.
That's a fact, Jack.
Female PhD's are in greater demand, that is a fact. Because they are in greater demand they reply to an offer with "thanks, but IBM has offered 110% of what you have offered, I would like to work for you but. . ."
I look at her qualifications and decide whether she is worth an extra 10% and if so I match or exceed IBM's offer.
If a man has the same offer from IBM, I go through the same decision tree. I don't just do this with women but I can tell you it happens more with women than with men.
My statement that women "are offered more to start than similarly situated males" was not exactly accurate. 'Women, on average, have a higher starting salary than men' would have been more accurate.
There is no pro-female sexism here it is just a fact. Just as PhD's from MIT make more than PhD's from Florida State (which a fine institution by the way) women make more because they are more often in a position to force a second offer.
I was toungue in cheek using the phrase 'living wage' when I meant $80-$90K for people in their mid to late 20's.
First of all, let me say that I am glad there are some folks out there who are discussing this issue. (Dr. Helen and DADvocate are the ones on my personal reading list...)
But I really think there is far too much emphasis put on the 'pc culture' and Title IX being at fault for the dearth of men in college.
First and foremost, you're going to have to deal with the anti-intellectual culutre that comes from men that is an equvalent to male on male crime. This starts in elementary school (or at least it did in mine), as quick learners were identified as the geeks and that was that. Grades mattered to them and didn't seem to matter to other boys, who seemed far more interested in playing sports. Dads seemed far more interested in their sons' little league teams then they were interested in their grades. We had far too few "renaissance men" whose parents encouraged both good grades and sports interaction.
The little monsters we had to deal with (bullies) came after the geeks instead of the jocks because the jocks knew how to use baseball bats.
Second, you have to look at the island/penitentiary that is today's public high school. Block scheduling and hand wringing has cut high schools off from any element that shows high school boys that there is a world beyond graduation that they are going to have to be a part of.
Third, and probably the most imporant (in my experience) deferred rewards. You can make a ton of cash working in construction, computers or the food service industry right out of high school (at least where I live). College classes just get in the way. If you do choose to get a degree, you're not going to see the results of that for several years, you're going to spend valuable resources and time on those classes and oftentimes they are classes with no real explanation of why you have to take them (if I had Pre-Calculus in High School, why do I have to take Algebra again in college?).
In my experience, this deferred reward is far more chafing to men than it is to women. Scholarships are difficult to maintain, student loans are today's equivalent of indentured servitude and even if Mommy and Daddy pay for the whole thing, you're still rolling out with credit card debt.
Triple this if you go straight to grad school (or have maintained the grades to do so), double the difficulty level of getting back in if you want to take a few years off and work down some of the debt (or maybe just have a little fun), triple the difficulty if you are a man who wants to start a family at a young age.
Then there is the social pressure for a man to be 'independent' and take care of himself both through college and immediately afterwards.
An entry level salary can barely keep up, so a lot of folks end up back in the food service industry: my roomate has no degree and waits tables. He makes at least twice as much as I do a year.
When I was working in food service (immediately out of college) I was making (as a beginner) factory level wages, and was offered management of a restaurant. I could have done the same at 18 without college. Working in promotions (a job whose skills could be acquired in a garage band) I could be making 6 figures a year right now. I could have done that at 18 without college. 2 friends of mine have dropped out of college to work with computers, they make more than me and their degree holding wives. Another friend dropped out of college to work as a journalist, and went back later when he was making enough money at his job to take classes.
Why go jump through the hoops that is college in the first place?
so, what dr. helen-- are you supporting affirmative action now? as long as it benefits men? i'm curious.
>>'I know a very feminist women who has stated that this trend is good, "because now men will know what it like---the shoe is on the other foot now!" So might not some of this "looking the other way" be revenge motivated?'
Do these people even realize they're making the "two wrongs make a right" justification?
anonymous 5:45:
I typically am not for affirmative action--but if schools insist on affirmative action--it should be fair across the board--not just aimed at women and minorites. I also think colleges and universities need to examine why men are not attending and make the classes more inclusive for men. Classes often turn political and alienate men while embracing women's issues. This is a turn-off and unfair to men in the class--just as it would be if men talked only about their rights and made fun of and alienated women.
Turnabout is not fair to men in college who have not done anything wrong. Women who are out for revenge against men are playing a power game--justice demands that we try to be fair to both sexes.
I always get confused with the semantics of the 'affirmative action' debate. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had to deal with an oppressive affirmate action structure. I guess we just did things different in Bulldawg Country.
It has probably changed since 1999, but back in the day the University of Georgia's 'affirmative action' policy was applied only to borderline cases. There were a number of 'rounds' in which GPA and standardized test scores were taken into consideration. Those with very high marks in either of these categories were in the door on merit alone.
When you got to a lower round, those GPA's and test scores that were -just- good enough to make the school, there were a lot of 'ties.' The tiebreakers came in a 14 point system. Gender and race were given a certain amount of points, but so were certain extracurricular activites, legacy status, and if you came from a high school in a 'rural' area. Those who got the most points got in over the ones with less points.
Remember that this system only applied to borderline GPA's and test scores, where there was also a far larger pool of applicants.
When we were sued over our 'affirmative action' policy by two white girls from Atlanta, no one (to my knowledge) ever brought up that those girls were trying to get in with mediocre GPA's and test scores, and were competing with about 2000+ other applicants for a limited number of slots.
Again, I can only speak for when I was there and working with and around UGA, but our minority recruitment focused mainly on getting minorities to apply in greater numbers. Most that did apply got in on merit alone. Unfortunately, many decided not to attend UGA, which is a problem the University deals with to this day.
But if there was a quota system in place, I was never aware of it.
There was no real recruitment problem with men, but we did have a retention problem (in my experience anyway). I have already put my $0.02 in about why I think that is.
Strange enough, the guys I always spoke with never really had a problem with the 55-45 ratio of women to men.
helen:
but the article reflects that the school is completely gender-blind. they've made no allowances for gender either way. so it sounds like just what you have argued for. it is based on merit alone. and that has, rather unfortunately, resulted in a minority of men.
sure, we can look into why this is so. but that's bound to be a very compliated issue.
so, we can't talk about women's issues, because that would be a turn-off? which i guess means we cant talk about men's issues, or race issues or gay, etc.
now, what does PC mean again?
Anonymous 10:56:
The article does not say the schools are gender blind--it says that there is a problem with men attending and they choose not to care. I do not have a problem with some discussion of politics-gender issues in classes--the problem is they are one-sided. Men are shut down or shut out and women's issues are embraced. When men can talk as freely as women about how they feel about gender issues, then maybe it will be fair. I am always leery when people talk about an "open discussion" and then can only listen to one side. It is like race relations. If you mention any problem you have and you are white--you automatically are disqualified from the discussion.
Try going into a classroom as a male or white and bringing up any point of view you might have that disagrees with the PC crowd on what view you should take. I guarantee the conversation will not last long--if at all. That is what I object to.
Helen:
I'm just going on the portion you quoted.
From the director of UNC Undergrad Admissions: "We really have made no attempt to balance the class. We are gender blind in applications, very scrupulously so."
Anonymous,
I stand corrected--UNC did point out that they are gender blind in their applications. My question is: would everyone be this willing to believe them if the tables were turned--women were coming up short in the applicants accepted? I am concerned that no one is doing research or asking more questions as to why there are fewer men in college. Money was pumped into women's programs, research and education when they fell short. We should at least study the problem more in-depth with men before it is written off as men can just get a better construction job etc. and that is why they no longer attend college.
An archive of articles on the gender bias can be found at the Illinois Loop.
If a link does not work, just cut & paste an excerpt to google and a reference is bound to show up on an alternate site.
~ TP
TP,
The link works fine--thanks,there are some good articles there.
The bias of the educational system against boys has always been pronounced in the elementary grades. In the Boomer generation, that drifted up to highschool. Now it has drifted to college and graduate school. But it is an advantage to the smarter boys. It screws the boys who aren't fitting into the school structure, but the smarter boys benefit. They learn early that life isn't fair, the school doesn't care, and there's more than one way to skin a cat. The smarter girls are basically taught there's only one way to skin a cat. Many, unfortunately, believe it, follow the good-in-school track to its conclusion, and are really ticked when they find out the real rules were different.
It seems to me there's also another problem with the distribution. When the female-male balance gets out of whack, the school is likely to become a radical feminist enclave. That's a big price to pay for having a better choice of dating partners.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
一葉晴貼影片區一葉晴貼影片區聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費ut13077視訊聊天聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet激情網愛聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet
Post a Comment
<< Home