<p>
[quote]
but it's hardly a compelling state interest.
[/quote]
Based on the study that said that students are less interested in schools with disparate male:female ratios, maintaining a balanced ratio helps the school retain a skilled student base. Considering that quality schools like UVA and W&M are what helped Virginia maintain its status as the "Best State for Business" for 3 years in a row, the State obviously does have a valid interest in maintaining its quality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, just take a look at UNC-Chapel Hill. No one can reasonably argue that its stature is any less than William and Mary's.
[/quote]
The stats that I saw show different situations. First off its a larger school, which changes everything (larger = chance for better, say, football program). Secondly, it has not reached the 40-60 ratio. Thirdly, who's to say that the ratio hasn't affected applying students' decisions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, Title IX is a LAW. It's not the constitution. Your argument is essentially that it's ok to violate the law so long as you have good reason. That's not the way it works.
[/quote]
Strawman Fallacy (or me not being clear enough). Again, my argument is (more clearly, hopefully): Based on the definition of discrimination, derived from judicial interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, this would not go against the Title IX clause. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, as I've said before, that fewer girls are accepting admissions offers than boys suggests only that, generally speaking, admitted girls to William and Mary, being more highly qualified than admitted boys, have more offers from other colleges that are even more selective and highly regarded than William and Mary and are choosing those colleges over William and Mary.
[/quote]
I think you're both right. The selection process, especially for W&M, is more than about numbers. From my experience, the essays matter a lot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I'm saying is that without question William and Mary has an admissions policy to favor men.
[/quote]
We (at least I) was not questioning this. It does. My argument was that it has a valid reason.</p>
<p>Besides, this has already been reviewed by a State committee:
[quote]
Virginia
Pending SJR 176. Authored by Ticer: Jan. 26, 1998; Passed Senate Feb. 13, 1998; To House, establishes a subcommittee to:</p>
<pre><code>* review Title IX requirements relating to female participation in intercollegiate sports.
* determine extent of Title IX compliance in Virginia institutions of higher education.
* make recommendations to ensure Virginia colleges and universities comply with federal laws and regulations prohibiting gender discrimination.
</code></pre>
<p>
[/quote]
[quote]
Rather than subject other readers to this continued debate, from this point forward I'll respond privately to pedsox or anyone else who might be interested. I see no reason for a continued public discussion.
[/quote]
Agreed, though I believe I've had enough for a little while =D</p>