<p>I have a question I hope won't be considered politically incorrect. I teach at a private university and I know the admissions folks are very concerned about tipping past the 60/40 female/male student population ratio. It does seem that we (my school) may be a little more lenient with males than females on admission criteria. This is based solely on my personal impressions, though - I have NO data to support this. However, I sense that this may be the case at other schools as well judging from some other posts.</p>
<p>Do others get this feeling, too? Is there any actual documentation of this happening?</p>
<p>Vassar admitted to us that it was easier for males to be accepted than females. I don’t think the standards are a lot lower, but the acceptance rate is quite different.</p>
<p>From what I’ve read, the conventional wisdom is that at most LACs, guys have an edge. Not a huge one; schools don’t admit unqualified men just because they’re men. But if they’re choosing between a similarly-qualified guy and gal, the tip goes to the guy.</p>
<p>A school is a business afterall. It is free to choose whomever they please for the benefit of the business.
For a purist perspective, any discrimination based on sex, race, ethnic background, country of origin are not fair practices. In real life, that is what we have to deal with, unfortunately.</p>
<p>It is simply supply and demand. The most qualified women want to go to colleges that are close to fifty-fifty women/men. There are more highly prepared women applying to LACs than men. The AdComms have to fight to get the few men that are applying in order to keep the most qualified women interested in their schools.</p>
<p>There are a few schools that do not do this (American University) and they are over sixty percent women. It is really not that big a deal if your school is in an urban setting that is not dependent on the campus for the social life. Women cannot live on books alone. It is a tough world out there.</p>
<p>kxc is right, that private school is a business. Public should be bound by federal standards.
Yet, many police forces and firefighters, and military have easier standards for women.
In general, it is my opinion that if one chooses to hire or house a person of one race(or gender, or religion) over another because of that aspect, it is considered more acceptable if the one chosen is the minority. But according to law, one such preference over another is illegal- regardless of the majority/minority status.</p>
<p>“… though - I have NO data to support this.”</p>
<p>I don’t have data either, but I do have a data point … DD was deferred at an OOS public where her stats would have put her at the 90th percentile of accepted students. Fortunately we’d warned her that she’d be a difficult admit given the existing M/F ratio at the school.</p>
<p>mathmom - most schools that were previously all female to want to keep the ratio of female to male high in respect to the schools origins. At least that’s what I’ve heard. It seems to be true if you look at Sarah Lawrence, Bennington, Vassar, Bard, etc. </p>
<p>If your daughter is interested in any traditionally “male fields” ie. engineering, computer science, math, etc. you will find she will be the one who gets the edge. Same reason, look at MIT and other similar schools and you’ll see their ratio is greater male to female.</p>
<p>I don’t want my younger daughter going to a school with a greater than 60/40 female to male ratio. It’s one of my criteria because social activity and daily life is more realistic and friendly if the ratio is closer. I guess you could say from a marketing point of view they are looking at me!</p>
<p>First, there is a major difference in motivation between “we don’t want to accept Suzie because we don’t think girls can be as successful here” and “we want to accept Tommy because we need more boys”. Similar to giving African Americans or Hispanics, or students from Alaska an edge. </p>
<p>Second, I don’t think sociologists know why, exactly, this imbalance is happening, but there’s a general feeling that it is not a positive thing for society and schools have a role in keeping it from having a long-term negative impact.</p>
<p>My Ds would not even consider applying to any colleges that were more than 60/40, and even that ratio was unappealing and bumped the college lower on their lists.</p>
<p>I believe demographics dictate the rigor of acceptance. More girls were born in 1989 (the year my DD was born), and we projected this would influence college acceptances. Young males in her HS were accepted to prominent universities with less developed ECs, and test scores/GPA lower than DD-and she was initially waitlisted at those schools. I think this still is playing a part in college acceptances.
My two cents~APOL-a Mum</p>
<p>You can look at the Common Data sets and see whether the ratio of men to women applying is roughly similar to the ration of men to women being accepted. Oddly, despite the Kenyon article, they are actually the least discriminatory. Overall–except Vassar and Swat, it’s hard to say that being male is a huge advantange.</p>
<pre><code>Men Applied Men Accepted Women Applied Women Accept % Men applied %Men accepted
</code></pre>
<p>I want to let every young lady know that there are plenty of eligible young men who are more concerned in learning and gaining the foundation for making a career and finding the things that will make them happy; and Before they find ‘drama’ in a gf.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Hint: Go after older men, grad student or more, rides a bicycle (so you have to match their speed if you want to talk).</p>
<p>Girls at my daughter’s high school know by their sophomore year that it is more difficult for a girl to get into a college than a boy, given the general statistics.</p>
<p>They know this and they work accordingly. </p>
<p>Not to be political, but doesn’t anyone find it ironic when white guys complain about AA?</p>
<p>My personal data point- Son born in 89. I think he was admitted to several liberal arts schools that he would not have been admitted to if he was female.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd seems to be a liberal arts college where women have an edge in admissions. Again it’s that engineering/tech focus of the school that makes the imbalance the other way around.</p>
<p>This is another reason for the continued existence of women’s colleges. A female applicant might be accepted to a single-sex school and not to a co-ed school of similar caliber.</p>
<p>I’ve seen several sibling pairs where the boy gets into a top school (Williams, Grinnell, Carleton, Macalaster) and his sister–with better qualifications–is rejected, waitlisted, or awarded less financial aid.</p>