<p>The conventional wisdom is that males have a higher standard deviation on normed tests than females, resulting in more at both ends of the spectrum, but a comparable average score.</p>
<p>I’ve seen recent studies that questioned this, and claimed the disparity between the numbers of males and females who score high on math tests disappears in countries where gender roles are less stereotypically defined. I don’t believe there’s any dispute, however, that males at the extreme left of the bell curve greatly outnumber females.</p>
<p>I was being sarcastic - people tend to get appalled and offended at the idea that men could be smarter than women so it was a good moment to try to be sarcastic. Chalk another one up for internet misinterpretation</p>
<p>There are more girls applying to college right now then guys. So the admissions rate at the majority of the nations top colleges are lower for girls than they are for guys. Of course there are exceptions like tech schools such as MIT, Caltech, etc. But the vast majority have more female applicants than males</p>
<p>“There are more girls applying to college right now then guys. So the admissions rate at the majority of the nations top colleges are lower for girls than they are for guys. Of course there are exceptions like tech schools such as MIT, Caltech, etc. But the vast majority have more female applicants than males
There are more non-valedictorians than valedictorians applying to college. Therefore it must be harder for non-valedictorians to get into college.”</p>
<p>am i missing something because both of these seem true</p>
<p>^what? The valedictorian thing makes no sense. You cant classify valedictorians and non valedictorians the way you separate guys and girls. Being a valedictorian is something you work hard for, of course it would benefit them in college admissions.</p>
<p>Like Greybeard said: in countries where gender roles are less stereotypically defined (for example, Sweden), women tend to do better at everything that’s not considered particularly feminine, not just math tests; they have a higher percentage of women in politics, etc., than most other countries. Correlation does not always imply causation, but in this case, it makes sense. </p>
<p>@LogicWarrior: The valedictorian argument hardly holds up. Being a valedictorian means by its very definition that you’re one of the top, top students. Being a boy or girl does not, and I can’t see how it would affect that at all (unless, of course, you’re told such things as “boys/girls are less clever/less good at reading/less good at math than girls/boys,” - delete as appropriate)</p>
<p>I think what I’d really like to know is if more boys than girls GRADUATE from top colleges. That would be an interesting study. Does anyone know if there’s been a study done on that? I mean, that would probably be a pretty interesting piece of information, but in percentages only. As in, % of enrolled girls who graduate. % of enrolled boys who graduate.</p>
<p>I’m the only person who has posted statistics in this thread, but apparently no one looked at them (or perhaps people just don’t want to believe them), so I will post them again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now is it clear to everyone that it is more difficult to get into the top colleges if you are a boy?</p>
<p>Of course boys have an easier time getting into lower ranked colleges (simply because there are more girls applying), but that is not what this thread is about.</p>
<p>On the other hand girls graduate HS and apply to college in significantly larger numbers than boys, and significantly more girls applying to college have high HS GPAs and are vals/sals/top 10% of their HS class. So it kind of balances out—more boys have top test scores (especially pronounced in math), more girls have top grades/class rank. Because more girls apply to college, on balance girls probably have it a little tougher.</p>
<p>I still don’t think that would make any difference at the top schools. First, a student who wanted to go to a top school would need at least a 700 on the math and verbal sections of the SAT. That requirement would immediately disqualify 95% of boys and 98% of girls. So all of the girls who are valedictorians but have SATs below 1400 are irrelevant. Second, I find it hard to believe that among students who score above 1400 on the SAT there would be a significant difference in GPA between genders.</p>
<p>Engineering, Math, Physics (and related fields), and sometimes Chemistry attract significantly more males, so females get a slight to moderate advantage.</p>
<p>Business and Economics attract slightly more males, so females get a very slight advantage.</p>
<p>Biology (and related fields) and Environmental Science attract slightly more females, so males get a very slight advantage.</p>
<p>English, psychology, culture-related fields, languages, history, and the arts/music attract significantly more females, so males get a slight to moderate boost. </p>
<p>In general, female students outnumber males at college and in college admissions, so it’s likely that as this trend continue, males will begin to recieve boosts in more and more fields (not just the traditionally female-dominated ones).</p>
<p>IN REALITY:
If you get into a major at a top college, 99% odds your gender had no effect on your admissions decision. In 1%, it had a slight or moderate effect and you were still incredibly qualified and lucky. I’m sorry to say that your genitials will not get you into Harvard.</p>