Should Colleges Favor Guys?

Rio says:
Wed, 11th Nov 200911:15 am 

I was engineering and the gender gap went in the opposite direction; females were a striking minority. Wonder if they plan on start evening that gap as well. Somehow I doubt it.

Rio says:
Wed, 11th Nov 200911:17 am 

*TO start evening that gap

Ryan says:
Wed, 11th Nov 200911:19 am 

By this argument, it makes sense not to consider race in admissions either. Does the author agree with that?

But as an engineer, I can only dream of my classes being half full of girls. Or even 20% female.

Erich says:
Wed, 11th Nov 200912:05 pm 

If you want to agrue this point then we can also argue ladies night at the local club.

Liz says:
Wed, 11th Nov 20091:15 pm 

Except ladies night at the local club won't get you a degree, or a job, or really any advancement in life.

I don't like using demographics in acceptance in any way. Race, gender, socioeconomic status, whatever it may be. It's even worse in this case, however, because I don't believe that there is any social stigma or structure that may persuade or cause a man not to go to college based solely on the fact that he is a man. Perhaps a male minority, but that is likely more of a cultural thing than a gender thing. The male demographic doesn't really need to be advanced to reach a fair footing, which is usually the goal of favoring demographics.

If more women are applying to college, then more women should get in. Men have not been systematically denied college acceptance, rather they were exclusively allowed college acceptance for quite some time.

Perhaps I should look at this as a great moment for women though. It seems as though Shakespeare's sister has overtaken him. I believe it was a NYT article that showed that white women with a college degree ages 25-31 that had the lowest unemployment rate current. Maybe college should favor guys, as they seem to be displaying themselves as the weaker sex currently.

Liz says:
Wed, 11th Nov 20091:27 pm 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/06/bus…

This is what I referred to in the last comment, but it was actually 25-44. However, across the board women are better off than their male counterparts.

belle says:
Wed, 11th Nov 20091:33 pm 

To Ryan: considering race in admissions decisions isn't the same thing because there is no historical persecution/discrimination of men as a minority causing them to be at a disadvantage academically and professionally. That was always the main factor behind race-based decisions.

Kelly says:
Wed, 11th Nov 20093:07 pm 

I have mixed feelings on this as well, but I definitely think a less qualified man shouldn’t be allowed in over a more qualified woman — thats sexism and will lead to men doing less work because they don’t have to compete against women who are working their butt off to try and get in. I also agree that having a mix of men and women in classes is important, at my school there are slightly more women than men but in my major its way more women than men so its hard to get a range of opinions. Curious to hear what others have to say.

T says:
Wed, 11th Nov 20093:21 pm 

It is a tough thing to decide – I understand the Psychology aspect of diversity creating a better learning environment that would be beneficial to all.

However, if men are getting in just because they're male, who may even have lower scores than females; that's very wrong. After all, the entire purpose of college (ideally at least) is to get a job and become a productive member of society.

I'm a bit torn, but leaning towards forgetting gender and looking for ability instead.

Row Faster I Hear Ba says:
Wed, 11th Nov 20096:04 pm 

Ty: lol moer liek STFU biatch!!!! mirite?!

Brent says:
Thu, 12th Nov 200912:08 am 

There are more women than men. Naturally, more of those applicants will be women. More of them being turned away will be women. Also, logic tells me that if I were to take a group (a) and group (b) one is going to outperform the other, not by much but there is going to be a difference. Stop playing the sides game with gender and realize it has to do solely with the individual. None of what this person wrote about is based on facts or evidence but presumptions to satisfy her own pre decided opinions and prejudices. She is a by definition a bigot.

Lily says:
Thu, 12th Nov 20091:06 am 

I personally think that college acceptance boards should be blind, meaning that the person considering you for acceptance does not see your name, your age, your race, or your gender, and you are judged soley on the contents of your transcript and resume. That would eliminate bias, because there is nothing to be biased about, and the best would truly rise to the top, instead of people being selected to fill the "poor people" or "black people" or "make/female" people quota.

belle says:
Thu, 12th Nov 20093:44 am 

Lily: the blind acceptance boards idea is a nice ideal, but the reason that affirmative action exists is less because of a present-time discrimination, but b/c of past discrimination that is assumed to have occured, putting minorities at a disadvantage as they grow up and attend school.

Their performance is not a pure reflection of their abilities; it also reflects the opportunities that they have been excluded from. While racism is obviously less prevalent than it used to be, it still exists and can affect many facets of life leading to decreased performance. This is why programs like Head-Start exist. So underprivildeged children can get a leg-up from a young age, rather than throwing unprepared minorities into a college setting their educational backgrounds have left them unprepared for. But, even these have their faults.

Lisa says:
Thu, 12th Nov 20096:19 am 

Title IX was a bill passed to get more women into higher education. At the time, the balance of men to women was 56 percent men and 44 percent women. Now, the balance is 43 percent men to 57 percent women.

We don't mandate equal men in dance classes, home ec classes, and english classes, so why would you require more women to be admitted into engineering and math programs, especially if they are less qualified?

Equality by discrimination is not equality. Furthermore, the way that Title IX compliance regulations are structured, it makes it more difficult to get men to afford to go to college, continuing the increase of the percentage of women.

This is a topic that I'm passionate about–I, as a woman, should not get ahead of men in life by virtue of my gender. That's unfair and un-Constitutional. Title IX is actually forcing colleges into this kind of gender-preference trap. What kind of sense does that make? It only points to the fact that Title IX needs desperately to be re-evaluated in light of the harms its inflicting on men (and even more disproportionately on low-income and/or racial minority males).

I'd love to get feedback on another piece I've written about Title IX for my school newspaper: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2009/10/04/memo-…
My solution might not be perfect, but it stops a lot of the harms going on right now.

Lily says:
Thu, 12th Nov 20097:32 am 

Maybe I am a bit of an idealist, but I think that college education should follow the same ideals as the market….competitiveness… that means giving slots in colleges to people who are the best qualified. Period. I am from a low income family and went to a school that offered few opportunities, yet I managed to make myself attractive to colleges while holding down a job and seeking out things like would look good on a resume outside of school…I don't think that it is unreasonable to ask people to fight for their place in higher education. Other nations are similarly competitive, and that is why they are out-testing us at the collegiate level. I think that having quotas for people undermines their intelligence, and all too often they end up as poster children for diversity, not students who are taken seriously because of their brains.

Kathryn - Georgia Te says:
Thu, 12th Nov 20098:49 am 

I work in the admissions office at Georgia Tech, and I really like our system. Sure, we only have 30% girls, but for an engineering school we're definitely going in the right direction. The way we do things is that we heavily recruit women, we have tons of programs to entice them to apply. However, once they turn in their applications, all applications are given a number. Our admissions deciders never see a name, gender, race, etc. All they see is the student. It has worked for us, since we're getting more girls in. And I feel like it's the least discriminatory practice, since our girls don't have to say that they got in just because they are female.

Engineer says:
Thu, 12th Nov 200912:58 pm 

I dont notice this trend at my university. Funny

snarktastic says:
Fri, 13th Nov 20096:21 am 

that isn't an instance of title IX, you twat.

Joe says:
Fri, 13th Nov 20098:43 am 

As I guy, I would love a mostly female college. The more women in college, the more sane this world will be.

AaronMatthews says:
Fri, 13th Nov 20099:25 pm 

I love good satire on the weekends! "a seemingly blatant violation of Title IX," ". And you don’t see many people trying to fix the wage gap that exists between us!" and the best "It’s not our fault that we woman are more intelligent than guys"

I had to share it with my class, what a great way to end the week with a good laugh!

Thanks

Flannery says:
Sat, 14th Nov 20099:05 am 

Affirmative action in any forms screws over people who deserve to get in.

JohnE says:
Tue, 17th Nov 20095:21 am 

Further proof why engineers should rule the world. We're results based. We don't care if you feel good about the results we care that you get results. College isn't a place to make you feel good aout your life it is a place to educate. The best candidates should get in regardless of race, gender, creed. Title IX is a crime against humanity.

Kate says:
Tue, 17th Nov 200911:55 am 

Erich- it should be a club owner's personal business what they decide to do with their private company. If a club wants to make it free for women to get in but 20$ for men to get in… if men don't like it, they don't have to go. Or do you want the gov't interfering and stepping in even further in the matters of privately owned businesses?

I find it ironic that the same men who argue that affirmative action represents too much government infringement on the private sector will then go and say such a thing as Erich did (that clubs shouldn't be allowed to charge less for a sex- if that's what they want to do, then the business owner should have the freedom to do so).

I don't agree with affirmative action and I don't agree with people like Erich who think they're making some profound point… consider, Erich, that if a club was empty of girls, NO GUYS WOULD GO TO IT. Clubs make ladies night knowing that if there are a lot of women at a club, a lot of men will show up… we all know no straight guy wants to go dancing at a "sausage fest". Therefore, the club has to entice women to come in order to stay in business.

No affirmative action, regardless of race, sex, whatever… if someone works for it, let them in to a school (Can you tell I'm a Libertarian?). If a minority student doesn't have the grades or skills to go to a prestigious university, she or he can go to a 2 year school first and work her or his way up… no need for favoritism here. All affirmative action does is perpetuate the myth that "race" even exists as a biological fact.

Darwin - New York Un says:
Tue, 17th Nov 20092:16 pm 

I care not to discuss the normative arguments about affirmative action. Instead, I consider the legitimacy of the interest in ensuring gender diversity in establishments of higher education.

Rather than focusing on Title IX, I redirect the argument onto the Fourteenth Amendment. We have substantial, and relatively recent, cases dealing with race diversity in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger). While these cases applied the scrict scrutiny test (race classifications are of the upmost suspicion, Adarand Constructors v. Pena), gender by the Supreme Court is held at intermediate scrutiny (Craig v. Boren).

I would argue that there exists a compelling state interest to have a diverse student body. However, the procedures in utilizing affirmation action must not be quota based (Regents v. Bakke) and take a wholistic view of the applicant when considering gender (Grutter v. Bollinger).

Lisa says:
Tue, 17th Nov 20092:25 pm 

They do it for racial minorities, to the point of, in some overwhelmingly white areas of the country, admitting people who don't meet the admissions criteria, just to guarantee diversity. So preferring guys over girls, even if more girls applied, would be consistent with minority preference policies already in existence. If you can get into school based on your race, why not on your gender? (I'm not saying that this policy has merit, just that if you're going to criticize gender preference, it's necessary to also disapprove of any kind of minority preference.)

the violator says:
Thu, 19th Nov 20097:13 pm 

women have far more opportunities for colloege than men do these days and it has been that way for quite a while now. there are many scholarships that are for women only as well as those for minorities only. i have not heard of scholarships that are for us guys only (that would of course be sexist or racist). many guys end up not going to college because they cannpt afford it. lets face the truth people- college aint free and it sure as hell ain't cheap either.

the ratio of women going to college over men will only get worse as opportunities (scholarships) for women only continue to grow and the guys are left out in the cold.

Beg to differ says:
Fri, 4th Dec 20098:16 am 

As the adult woman around here I will explain my perspective. For the last 40 years I have seen the tables turn on men and women. Men are every bit as intelligent as women but beside the fact they develop later they have been neglected. They have basically been told their perspective is inconsequential.This isn't healthy. Young men need a higher purpose in life and to be appreciated. How would you like being told for the first 18 years of your life that women are better than men? This wasn't true for older men so they don't understand how this affects the boys. Nobody can argue that taking the maturity gap into account makes sense.

Jeff says:
Sun, 13th Dec 200911:12 am 

Brittany,

No preferences in admissions for males. If the women beat us out because of their higher GPA's, extracurricular activities or just higher intellectual capacity, more power to them. I did not get accepted to an MBA program because I could not score high enough in 2 attempts on the rigorous 3.5 hr. GMAT exam, due to my confusion and brain fatigue. I met lots of women who beat me out on the GMAT and are doing extremely well in the MBA program or have earned their MBA. Admissions must be merit based and , when it is, the women win!

brandi says:
Wed, 31st Mar 201010:20 am 

Beg to differ, how about a woman being told for the first 18 years of her life that she shouldn't expect to work too hard because she won't get anything seeing as she's a woman…by her own mother?

Andreas Moser says:
Sat, 19th Feb 20115:43 am 

Here is the REAL reason why women earn less than men: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/gend… They have different expectations in life, and the female preference for rich men forces men to earn more.