At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust

Applying to College
1

<p>NYTimes article on how women are enrolled and accepted at a higher rate in colleges across the country. I thought it was spot on. In my high school, in the honors and AP classes, girls outnumber guys 3-1 and 4-1. If you want to have a conversation about academics, you talk to a girl, sports, talk to a guy.
Reading the article made me a bit happier though, as a guy with decent grades maybe gender will give me a slight boost into college.</p>

<p>Here are some excerpts; the link is here:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?hp&ex=1152417600&en=9e7c68c097d2ec04&ei=5094&partner=homepage%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?hp&ex=1152417600&en=9e7c68c097d2ec04&ei=5094&partner=homepage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"A lot of women want a 4.0 average, and they'll work for it," Mr. Nelson said. "I never wanted it because it's too much work to be worth it. And a lot of women, they have everything planned out for the next three years."</p>

<p>Mr. Johnson jumped in: "Yeah, and it boggles my mind because I don't have my life planned for the next 10 minutes. Women see the long-term benefits, they take their classes seriously, and they're actively learning. We learn for tests. With us, if someone calls the night before and says there's going to be a test, we study enough for a C."</p>

<p>University has been relatively unconcerned to see its student body tipping female, faster than most others.</p>

<p>The admissions office said that its decisions were gender blind, and that it accepted a larger share of female applicants. In an interview, Ivy Broder, the interim provost, seemed surprised, but not bothered, that American had a higher proportion of women than Vassar College, which formerly admitted only women.</p>

<p>American has no engineering school and no football team; it is a campus where the Democrats' organization is Democratic Women and Friends; "The Vagina Monologues" sells out at annual performances; and almost 1,000 people turned out for the Breastival, a women's health fair.</p>

<p>At Greensboro, where more than two-thirds of the students are female, and about one in five is black, many young men say they are torn between wanting quick money and seeking the long-term rewards of education.</p>

<p>"A lot of my friends made good money working in high school, in construction or as electricians, and they didn't go to college, but they're doing very well now," said Mr. Daniels, the Greensboro student, who works 25 to 30 hours a week. "One of my best friends, he's making $70,000, he's got his own truck and health benefits. The honest truth is, I feel weird being a college student and having no money."</p>

2

<p>Hmm, now I see another reason to take AP classes :D</p>

3

<p>Quite frankly, I'm tired of all of these posts which claim that women are more successful in college and the real world. It just makes me mad. I'm sorry.</p>

<p>I wonder why all the scientists, engineers, and inventors of the past 5000 years have been men. (with the notable exception of Madame Marie Curie). Maybe, as president of harvard Lawrence Summers suggested, Men are just smarter?</p>

<p>Nah. Must be women are smarter just cuz they can suck up to teachers and benefit from affirmative action. Btw, 4.0 and more AP classes does not mean smarter. It just means more grade oriented and harder working. both of these are important, but in no way measure intelligence. Boys consistently outscore girls on the SAT and ACT to the extent that college board had to add a whole new section biased towards girls, and guess what? Boys still get higher scores. Coincidence? You decide.</p>

<p>No offense intended, Im just stating the facts, and I bet many of us can agree. Men make more in the workplace, are just plain more innovative, and with God's grace, it will still be a man's world for many generations to come.</p>

<p>Proud to be a boy. Proud to be the dominant gender. ;)</p>

<p>P.S. The New York Times is probably one of the most liberal major newspapers in the nation. My man, Bill O'Reilly, has debunked their false claims in the past. New York Times is very biased and unobjective; Maybe even possibly un-american.</p>

4

<p>"I wonder why all the scientists, engineers, and inventors of the past 5000 years have been men."</p>

<p>Because women were considered second class citizens until the women's rights movement a few decades ago! It wasn't "appropriate" for them to go out and get jobs that were considered at the time to be strictly for men. Duh...</p>

<p>"It just means more grade oriented and harder working."</p>

<p>Is there something wrong with that? And how does being harder working make you less intelligent? Are you saying that boys can sit back and be lazy and their 4.0 GPAs will magically fall into their lap? And honestly, it makes more sense biologically for the men to be they harder working ones, since men are supposed to be more competitive than women. Also, women are biologically designed to pay closer attention to details and getting the job done right without cutting corners (i.e. harder working...?). So what's wrong with that? Well, nothing basically. It just means that a woman makes one heck of an engineer (or anything else for that matter) because they pay attention and get the job done right. If I was going to have someone operate on me or build my house, I want them to watch the details and work to make sure they do it right! What if your heart surgeon only got 70% of the operation correct when you were having open heart surgery???</p>

<p>And by the way, simranchawa, I'm not necessarily a feminist either. Both men and women have their strengths and WEAKNESSES, but women are as equally qualified in the realm of education as men.</p>

5

<p>FACT: there are very few women in engineering, despite all the BS about equality and the travesty known as Affirmative Action, which gives more points for being a woman than doing well on the SATs.</p>

<p>I never implied that being hard working means you are less intelligent. However, it does not necessarily mean you are more intelligent than someone who is less hard working. I have a 3.95 GPA, however I know that someone with a 3.5 GPA is not dumber than me. SAT and ACT are a better measure of intelligence, however they indeed are not perfect.</p>

<p>And the part about women "doing the job better" is just BS. Sorry, kathryn07, although I respect your opinion, women are multi-tracked. This means that they cannot focus on just one thing at one time. This is also one of the reasons why women are seriously lagging in spatial reasoning (and hence IQ tests). The fact is, that a man will do the job better and more efficiently than a woman (which may explain why they get paid more even compared to woman who don't get leave for pregnancy 93 cents to 1.00). </p>

<p>I understand that there are different opinions, however misconstruing my opinion or offering misleading or incorrect "evidence" is not right. That is why I had to respond. Feminism is ruining this great country. It is destroying our society. In order for society to function, males must continue to dominate. And for the record, the only thing that women are really "qualified" for is the arts and maybe cooking and cleaning. Anything else strays from the fundamental biological roles you mentioned.</p>

6

<p><em>High Five simranchawa</em></p>

<p>Here's my theory:</p>

<p>Joking aside, I actually believe that it has more to do with the teaching body's composition and, more importantly, how the different genders learn. I think that men, and this may have a biological root, learn on their own better than they do in class. Consequently, females appear more interested during class than their male counterparts. However, because society as a whole does not understand the male desire to work/compete/learn on his own merit, it mistakenly labels classroom males as slackers who don't pay attention. Over time, this repeated stigma convinces the male student body that they are, on the whole, lazy. In turn, the males adopt this identity of slacking for themselves.</p>

7

<p>"And for the record, the only thing that women are really "qualified" for is the arts and maybe cooking and cleaning."</p>

<p>I vehemently disagree with that statement. However, I'm not going to bother trying to argue with you on this... because you seem to be adamantly opposed to considering any other point of view.</p>

<p>I personally believe that women should take their responsibilities at home seriously. While that includes the cooking and cleaning which you mentioned in your list of things women are "qualified" to do, this also includes raising children, which is a very important and difficult job. However, I also believe that women are just as qualified as men in education and in the work force, and in some cases more qualified. Just because women and men learn and work differently does not mean that they one is inferior to the other.</p>

8

<p>if women are "equal" to men, then why don't they acknowledge their equality and oppose affirmative action which is based on the premise that they cannot compete academically? The fact is, they dont. Why the double standard? As long as affirmative action is around, no conciously concerned person can consider women equal to men. Affirmative action is a testament to that. Either repeal affirmative action, or know your place in society.</p>

<p>If women are qualified in education, as you assume, they shouldn't benefit from affirmative action. It's all a level playing field at that point.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
In order for society to function, males must continue to dominate. And for the record, the only thing that women are really "qualified" for is the arts and maybe cooking and cleaning. Anything else strays from the fundamental biological roles you mentioned.

[/quote]

Meaning as a woman, I am required to take a job in order to make a man's life more pleasureable? I am sorry, I am not getting a $45,000 education in order to serve someone else.</p>

10

<p>"If women are qualified in education, as you assume, they shouldn't benefit from affirmative action. It's all a level playing field at that point."</p>

<p>I agree with you completely! I never said that I was pro affermative action or pro feminism. I feel the same way about minorities who feel that the government owes them something. BUT, I still believe that if given the chance to play on this level playing field they would fair just as well as men would.</p>

<p>So here's some food for thought. What if a woman does not marry, and therefore doesn't have a husband to support her? Don't you think these women should be given the same oppertunities as men to earn a living??? And don't come back with "well women should go and marry then" because that's the kind of thinking that kept women from owning property and getting jobs in past centuries and that kind of thinking screwed over a lot of very intelligent and qualified women!</p>

<p>If you're going to continue with your "male domination" ideals then you should at least concede that there are exceptions to this very sexist rule. </p>

<p>So just for curiosity's sake, smranchawa, exactly what subjects are supposed to be more male oriented than female oriented, since you appear to have a very strong opinion on this?</p>

11

<p>They do have a level playing field. There is not discriminatory practice against women in the USA in 2006. Then why do we still have affirmative action on this level playing field? Because men would outcompete and DO outcompete women without it. Did you know you get more points for being a woman at U of M than 100 SAT points?</p>

<p>Subjects that are more male oriented:</p>

<p>Math
Science
History
Engineering
Medicine
Driving jobs (women can't drive)
Labor Jobs</p>

<p>Subjects that are more female oriented (require less analytical ability)</p>

<p>Cooking
Cleaning
Housework
Raising kids
Service jobs
cashiers
the people that greet you at wal-mart
maids
telephone operators</p>

<p>Woman that do not marry are not fulfilling their role in society and thus should realize the consequences of their own actions. And women were better off in the past. Today, in the name of equality, we justify aborting babies and sending our kids to daycare centers. This is morally reprehensible.</p>

12

<p>"Woman that do not marry are not fulfilling their role in society and thus should realize the consequences of their own actions."</p>

<p>Oh, so women who become doctors or engineers or politicians who save lives and work to make society a better place to live AREN'T fulfilling their role in society?</p>

<p>"Subjects that are more female oriented (require less analytical ability)</p>

<p>English
Writing"</p>

<p>HAVE YOU TAKEN AP ENGLISH??? Oh my gosh English, Literature, and Writing take the MOST analytical ability! Subjects like math and history are based on memorizing facts and formulas. Sciences take a lot of analytical ability, of course, but Literature is HIGHLY ANALYTICALLY BASED!!! Any moron who has ever stepped into a college level discussion of any major work of literature would realize that.</p>

<p>Now you need to realize that there are exceptions to these "rules" of gender that you have spelled out for us. I know lots of girls who are way more math and science oriented than they are history and english oriented. I'm one of these girls, so I would know. My top two SAT II scores are Math IIC and Biology M, both of which I received an 800. I also got a 770 in Literature, and that test was so analytical it would be crazy for someone to say it wasn't! I personally hate history with a passion, yet I still manage to get an A in the class (AP US) even though it's my worst subject. My best friend, Jenn, has higher stats than I do, and took AP Physics B and had a 106 in that class at the end of the year. Also, I know guys who suck in math and science, but who can write like the dickens and have superfluous grades in history! (BTW, the highest average for my school's AP History class has been a girl for at least the past two years, if not longer.) Also, who says women can't drive? I drive just fine, thank you.</p>

<p>"There is not discriminatory practice against women in the USA in 2006."</p>

<p>Really? So then, are you just cynical and sexist? Because all that you've said so far sure sounds discriminatory to me.</p>

13

<p>Obviously you, my friend, haven't taken AP Statistics. One stray data point says NOTHING about the trend, you and your girl friends being the isolated data points. So all of your rather cocky bragging about scores, grades, and driving, bears no relation to the performance of all women as a whole. Don't they teach you that at your high school? Or is your female mind too feeble to understand that?
Women such as yourself who claim others of being patriarchal and sexist are ruining our society. Do you support abortion? Do you support sending kinds to daycare centers? Do you support lesbians getting married? Sure seems like it.
Not many women go into politics. Only 15% of the congressMEN are women. And yes, women that abdicate their duties to pursue such careers are not bettering society in any way.
So please, do society a favor, stop being feminist, stop accusing others of patriarchy, and stop making illogical statements.</p>

<p>No offense intended.</p>

<p>And for the record, im not being discriminatory. I'm just stating the facts and exposing the filth known as Affirmative Action.</p>

14

<p>woman, make me a sandwich</p>

15

<p>"Women such as yourself who claim others of being patriarchal and sexist are ruining our society. Do you support abortion? Do you support sending kinds to daycare centers? Do you support lesbians getting married? Sure seems like it."</p>

<p>No, no, and no. I also don't necessarily support feminism. I just think that women are just as capeable as men. I also, as I pointed out earlier, believe women should take their responisibilites in the home seriously.</p>

<p>"And yes, women that abdicate their duties to pursue such careers are not bettering society in any way."</p>

<p>Not all women get married and have children; not all women who marry have children.</p>

<p>You are making a very good general assessment of society as a whole from a scientific standpoint. HOWEVER, YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE STERIOTYPICAL, SEXIST, AND BIASED, AND VERY LIKELY STEM FROM THE PRECONCIEVED DISPOSITION, AS A MALE, THAT YOU ARE THE SUPERIOR SEX. IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, I AM THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN ARGUING POINTS FOR EQUALITY, WHILE YOU HAVE ASSERTED THAT MEN ARE DOMINANT AND THERE IS NO EQUALITY NO MATTER WHAT. NOT ALL WOMEN FIT YOUR INFERIOR MOLD, SO WHILE YOU CAN MAKE THESE GENERAL STATEMENTS, YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, AND LOTS OF THEM!</p>

<p>And no, I haven't taken AP Stats. I'm taking it next year. However I did take AP Biology and yes, I definately understand the superfluocity of the stray points on a trend line.</p>

16

<p>Equality doesn't mean women getting 20 points for not having balls.</p>

17

<p>I've already said I'm not pro-affermative action.</p>

<p>I'm also not saying women are greater than men.</p>

<p>All I'm saying, is that women can compete with men in education and in the work force and hold their own. Some women will also do better than the men who share their field. You cannot subject women to the stereotype that they are intellectually inferior, because in most cases they aren't.</p>

<p>I'm also agreeing with you, that women should take up their responsibilites and take care of their families. However, as I've already said, not all women marry and have children. Therefore, these women should have the same oppertuinites as men do in the work force and should not be automatically judged because of their sex.</p>

18

<p>bja - uncalled for. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the debate, then find another forum.</p>

19

<p>They can't and affirmative action proves it.
Heres a hint for you:</p>

<p>For women who don't get pregnant vs men, the salary rate is 93 cents vs 1.00. Employers pay men for doing a better job.</p>

<p>Case Closed</p>

<p>Thank you for playing</p>

<p>And bja, good one:)</p>

20

<p>just showing how ingrained sexism is in our society</p>