Justifying discriminating against girls in favor of boys for college admissions

[Keilexandra]

<p>

@rocket6louise

The top 5% of our class(20 kids) has 3 boys
Our class officers are all girls
AP Classes are 70% girls, except Calc…that’s only 60%
We have 26 student organizations. There is one male president.

I hear this all the time, and it makes me wonder if my school is just weird. We have a reasonable gender balance in all ^cited areas of achievement, without any trying. Granted, I do attend a math/science school that is ~55% male, but that 5% difference in demographics doesn’t account for equality, if one takes rocket’s example as the norm.</p>

<p>Yurtle, over on the Asian Discrimination thread I have long supported both race-neutral and gender-neutral admissions. Caltech is the closest to a true (note: still holistic) meritocracy in admissions. I believe lizzardfire on CC is a student who sat on a Caltech adcom at one point, and is vehement about Caltech not practicing gender discrimination. Certainly it takes a specific type of woman to apply to a high-level tech school dominated demographically by men. And along the grapevine, math/science girls are encouraged to choose MIT over Caltech because 1) there’s a more balanced gender ratio, and 2) MIT does practice gender preference, so they will be more easily accepted. Certainly this has been the trend at my school, a math/science magnet where many, many people apply to MIT every year.</p>

<p>(P.S. As a WOC, I owe a great debt to LJ for nurturing my views on racism, and indirectly on affirmative action, though my position on AA is contrary to most anti-racism activists.)</p>

<p>URMs graduate from elite schools, too, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would have been competitively qualified at time of admission, without AA. I won’t counter the rest of your argument, since the proper place for that is not here.</p>

[soveryscared]

<p>I think colleges balance it out largely because men do not develop until later than woman. I think men and woman both have as much potential, yet men do not really reach this potential until later in life. For instance in my school, the girls work so much harder than any of the guys, and yes they get better grades, but does this mean they’re smarter? No, not necessarily. Colleges obviously realize that girls, for some reason, will go up to a teacher to debate a grade. Girls in my school have had no problem telling their parents to call a certain teacher to complain about a grade - they promote and advertise themselves more. I don’t know why guys don’t. It’s probably the same reason guys don’t ask for directions.
Really what I’m saying is in high school girls will work harder than guys in general, and they are mentally more developed. Does this mean they deserve to go to the large colleges more than men is a question that people will have to answer for themselves.</p>

[fogfog]

<p>I too would like to see the data…</p>

<p>have a hard time believing its correct because there are tons of qualified candidates…of all makes and models so to speak…
however its like the same argument about admitting URM with lesser credentials or an athlete … </p>

<p>I do know that better qualified IB candidates have not been accepted to our highly sought after state university in order to take more out of state students to get a broader mix/diversity.</p>

[ctyankee]

<p>

I don’t think that gender is necessarily a good way of going about this, but the stereotypical male is a lot different from the stereotypical female. Perhaps colleges are just searching for the right balance.

</p>

<p>Perhaps but except for the very top colleges, balance has been lost and unlikely to be restored any time soon (for a liberal arts education, that is). However, peer colleges may differ significantly on their approaches. For example, I remember Providence College significantly weighing the scales in favor of males while Loyola of Maryland kept it very even (based on applications received). Perhaps families of girls should vote with their wallets to enroll at schools that don’t just embrace the spirit of fairness but do something about it. </p>

<p>Is there any perfect approach? No. But as someone with two boys, I can still empathize with a female denied admission with higher scores and grades so that a male with lower grades and scores can be admitted. I’m guessing that it will only be a matter of time before public universities won’t be able to do that. A positive outcome to that would be a reduced supply of females to private schools, thus helping move to a more balanced mix.</p>

[Yurtle]

<p>"Colleges obviously realize that girls, for some reason, will go up to a teacher to debate a grade. Girls in my school have had no problem telling their parents to call a certain teacher to complain about a grade - they promote and advertise themselves more. I don’t know why guys don’t. It’s probably the same reason guys don’t ask for directions.
Really what I’m saying is in high school girls will work harder than guys in general, and they are mentally more developed. Does this mean they deserve to go to the large colleges more than men is a question that people will have to answer for themselves. "</p>

<p>Interestingly enough, the idea switches as a stereotype come jobs. Supposedly men are more likely to ask for their raise than a woman is…</p>

<p>Hm.</p>

<p>"A positive outcome to that would be a reduced supply of females to private schools, thus helping move to a more balanced mix. "</p>

<p>What? How does that one make sense? Again…this isn’t the fault of smart girls, this is a problem that needs to be addressed with boys. You would suggest to discriminate against girls even in High Schools (even if they may be qualified) there too?</p>

[fogfog]

<p>Maybe admissions should be
gender and race blind</p>

<p>only admit based on gpa/grades/ec/rec…</p>

[Yurtle]

<p>"Maybe admissions should be
gender and race blind</p>

<p>only admit based on gpa/grades/ec/rec… "</p>

<p>From the sounds of this article, then there would be even LESS boys in College…as well as minorities…and the poor. One of my biggest problems with people suggesting that instead of looking for AA based on race we should look for socio-econmic diversity is that it’s so hard to compare a rich student who’s had the money to take tests multiple times/do certain ECs/afford test prep books and tutors etc and the student who can’t afford it…</p>

<p>Plus no one can truly give a base line for socio-economic ‘poor’ ness. </p>

<p>At any rate, you’ll find as a whole, an admit process based only on GPA/ECs/RECs isn’t realistically going to help any problems already inherent in the system. The gap between those who have and those who don’t grows wider.</p>

<p>We need more, better, cheaper schools…but obviously the need for AA or the need to help boys won’t just ‘go away’ if we have good Colleges. </p>

<p>The problem doesn’t get solved this way, unfortunately.</p>

[PayFor]

<p>

I was interested until this line: “But, in truth, it’s really a social consideration. Colleges simply want to avoid approaching the dreaded 60-40 female-male ratio. At that point, men start to take advantage of their scarcity and make social life miserable for the women by becoming “players” on the dating scene.”</p>

<p>I’d like to see his data on this assertion. Sheesh.

</p>

<p>He’s referring to the operational sex ratio, a well researched area of biology from what I understand, although I’m not sure if many human studies have been conducted. However, it certainly seems reasonable to apply this to a college campus.</p>

<p>*In sexually reproducing animals, individuals of one sex may have to compete for access to mating partners of the opposite sex. The operational sex ratio (OSR) is central in predicting the intensity of mating competition and which sex is competing for which.</p>

<p>* [ScienceDirect</a> - Trends in Ecology & Evolution : The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates](<a href=“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-3WJG1PC-45&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1082266931&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed87165fde739d9bb207ac14171351b0]ScienceDirect”>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-3WJG1PC-45&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1082266931&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed87165fde739d9bb207ac14171351b0)</p>

[1down_1_to_go]

<p>Just wondering what will happen to the high achieving girls vs the lower achieving boys after graduation. Will the lower achieving boys who have learned they can get by nicely on less effort continue to outearn the smarter harder working girls or will there come a time in the next decade where the wage gap will close?</p>

[fogfog]

<p>Hi Yurtle
You make great points</p>

<p>I do think the educational system in the US is broken…just look at the way kids learn–meaning are they kinestetic, visual, auditory etc…</p>

<p>Or how research again and again discussed how the way boys learn is so different from girls…and yet the traditional classroom is geared to the way girls learn -and run mostly by women.
Another issue–is teaching kids to learn “how” to learn, and to think, reason and apply the knowledge…not just regurgitate it…kwim? I was reading a post from an MIT prof who said many students lacked critical skills for lab sciences etc</p>

<p>While living overseas I was impressed at how the kids there had oral and written exams and had to for example be able to explain the mathematical principles not just crank out the mechanics…
People yell that we “teach to the test” but miss that a great curriculum would both teach material expected on the exam and the mastery of it AND also teach the why’s , application, and critical reasoning. </p>

<p>Hasn’t reasearch also shown that some kids “overthink” standardzied test questions because they are looking for details, or supplying details in their assumptions that aren’t there.</p>

<p>Lots of room for improvement both on the way we educate our students and how we evaluate them as well…I do think that much has been said by the court system about AA and how colleges can or cannot apply it. Correct?</p>

[u_ername]

<p>This thread is hilarious.</p>

<p>Basically people are arguing that</p>

<ol>
<li>More girls deserve spots at colleges than boys (because girls are obviously superior)</li>
<li>Less girls are getting what they deserve, especially in jobs (because of sexism)</li>
</ol>

<p>So basically, it’s sexist to think that girls should earn less, while it’s absolutely the truth that girls do better than guys. How hypocritical.</p>

<p>I’m too lazy to find the data, if you don’t believe me then look for yourself, but </p>

<ol>
<li>No. of USAMOers that are male vs female. Just look at it. You don’t even need to look at it to realize how many more guys there are than girls</li>
<li>Average SAT for guys is higher than average SAT for girls.</li>
</ol>

<p>and though more girls participate, there are more guys than girls for every single score above 1980 (not sure about the exact # but somewhere around 1980)</p>

<p>Girls mature earlier, so they try harder at a younger age. They’re also more willing to coax teachers into giving them a higher grade in school. </p>

<p>But in reality, boys catch up, and some even surpass girls. Just as there’s a valid reason for how girls get a higher GPA, there’s also a valid reason why guys earn more.</p>

<p>And Universities see that in the end, the boys catch up while the girls slow down. GPA is absolutely meaningless.</p>

[Old_College_Try]

<p>Here’s what I’ve learned from being on this board a year and one-half. First, Asians are discriminated against. They have almost no chance at getting into good schools, while the rest of us non-Asians basically have a free pass. Second, females are discriminated against. They have almost no chance at getting into good schools, while we males (excepting, of course, Asian males) basically have a free pass. I guess I should thank my lucky stars I’m not an Asian female. I’d have no chance in life. But wait. I just took a tour of Berkeley and Asian females were the dominant group I saw. Before that, our senior class too a trip to Stanford. Again, the most common group I saw were Asian females. How could this be? I didn’t think Asian girls had a chance to get into top schools.</p>

[Yurtle]

<p>"He’s referring to the operational sex ratio, a well researched area of biology from what I understand, although I’m not sure if many human studies have been conducted. However, it certainly seems reasonable to apply this to a college campus.</p>

<p>In sexually reproducing animals, individuals of one sex may have to compete for access to mating partners of the opposite sex. The operational sex ratio (OSR) is central in predicting the intensity of mating competition and which sex is competing for which."</p>

<p>That just gives me this weird vibe that people seem to think men can’t overcome sexual urges because ‘they just can’t control it’. I understand that in sexually reproducing animals, this is true, but it’s not as if men and women (humans in general) haven’t been able to control other ‘natural urges’ like peeing to mark their territory or beating up males who have come into their domain. We may <em>have</em> those places that we consider ours…but we still seem to be civil enough to invite folks over for dinner without bearing our teeth and beating our chests. </p>

<p>I’d like to give men more credit than just being a walking libido they can’t control.</p>

<p>“Or how research again and again discussed how the way boys learn is so different from girls…and yet the traditional classroom is geared to the way girls learn -and run mostly by women.
Another issue–is teaching kids to learn “how” to learn, and to think, reason and apply the knowledge…not just regurgitate it…kwim? I was reading a post from an MIT prof who said many students lacked critical skills for lab sciences etc”</p>

<p>We can agree education always is a process on the move…it’s something that needs to be fixed and refined and that process can’t stop. </p>

<p>But I don’t agree that all classes are being geared towards girls. I’m curious as to how anyone can prove that the forms of learning have changed so drastically in the last 40 years that it’s actually a gender biased form of teaching. </p>

<p>It seems strange to say. The implications are that girls are more verbal critical thinkers, and that “I was reading a post from an MIT prof who said many students lacked critical skills for lab sciences etc” don’t really mix well. If people in the sciences don’t have enough critical thinking (just a general statement off of this one quote) then shouldn’t schools gear even more towards the verbal/critical style in conjunction with hard sciences and math?</p>

<p>"1. More girls deserve spots at colleges than boys (because girls are obviously superior)
2. Less girls are getting what they deserve, especially in jobs (because of sexism)</p>

<p>So basically, it’s sexist to think that girls should earn less, while it’s absolutely the truth that girls do better than guys. How hypocritical."</p>

<p>I don’t think that’s what’s being argued…at least not by me.</p>

<p>1.) Girls can be just as, or equally qualified to a do a job or get into a school, but are often paid less or get worse jobs than their male counterparts do. This is one of those well known facts that has been cited in various ways throughout the thread.</p>

<p>2.) Many girls are completely qualified to attend schools/colleges, but for whatever reasons, people (and schools) are finding that less boys seem ready. This doesn’t make ‘all girls smarter’ it just means for whatever reason we are failing the intelligence boys do have…</p>

<p>3.) Girls also seem to be more evenly distributed in their readiness. GPA/ECs/Essays etc (from what the article says…) </p>

<p>4.) Boys aren’t stupid by any means and certainly not across the board, and yet schools are finding they have to reject scores of more qualified girls in order to maintain a gender balance. </p>

<p>5.) This is a problem, because ideally you should get accepted to a school if you meet their expectations. </p>

<p>6.) We need more boys to be doing better. </p>

<p>Frankly, I don’t believe girls ‘slow down’. </p>

<p>"But wait. I just took a tour of Berkeley and Asian females were the dominant group I saw. Before that, our senior class too a trip to Stanford. Again, the most common group I saw were Asian females. How could this be? I didn’t think Asian girls had a chance to get into top schools. "</p>

<p>O_o. Well okay…but I don’t know what you mean by this? This article is that there is an abundance of qualified girls in comparison to qualified boys for some unknown reason…and schools are reaching 60-40 points. I still don’t think this really has to do with race, so I’m avoiding the asian part of that whole comment. </p>

<p>I don’t really know what you mean. Are you trying to say that in fact girls are becoming the majority?</p>

[PayFor]

<p>Yurtle – just because all the facts in a news piece do not include sources does not mean they are untrue. And just citing one survey about risk-taking by women does not refute the points made in Whitmire’s article. </p>

<p>

Existing empirical research on gender and risk suggest women are risk-averse, particularly assessments that measure risk through financial resource allocation, and health and safety precautions. But a survey of more than 650 women managers polled during the 2008 Simmons School of Management national leadership conference in Boston revealed that businesswomen are highly likely to take risks related to business or professional opportunities."

</p>

<p>As stated, there is much research that shows men/boys are wired to take more risk, related to testosterone levels. There was recent buzz about how “men caused the crash” after the latest stock market collapse because of their reckless investing. Here’s an interesting story about a study done at Northwestern that showed women took less financial risks than men did.</p>

<p>But it also turned out that women with higher levels of testosterone were almost seven times more likely to take risks that women with lower hormone levels.</p>

<p>[Women</a> With More Testosterone Take More Risks: Discovery News](<a href=“http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/24/women-testosterone.html]Women”>http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/24/women-testosterone.html)</p>

<p>Also, this NYT article that referred to the revenue generated by women’s businesses as being under 5% agrees with the WSJ piece.</p>

<p>Only 4.2 percent of all revenue is generated by businesses owned by women in the United States, the report found.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/business/smallbusiness/05sbiz.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/business/smallbusiness/05sbiz.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Men and women are different. The fields that women choose tend to make less money than those chosen by men. It would take more than what I’ve seen posted on this message board to convince me that most of this is due to discrimination.</p>

[bertoffski123]

<p>I think girls have distinct (and perhaps unfair) advantage over boys in USA in gaining admission to elite technical schools like MIT and CalTech. I feel that these institutes favor female candidates in order to bring a balance. The real problem is the barbie doll culture in which a lot of American girls grow up in. If you go to countries where this “disease” has not spread, you see a lot more girls in engineering colleges. They don’t have to favor any gender to balance the mixture.</p>

<p>My sincere apologies if this message comes across as disrespectful to girls/women who are currently enrolled in these institutes. I am not saying that they don’t deserve to be there.</p>

[Kei-o-lei]

<p>is this they “colleges are not fair unless they admit everyone only using grades and test scores” thread?</p>

<p>Kei</p>

<p>P.S. Our family’s joking response to this article was to lament that the golden age of women’s equality only lasted about 15 years.</p>

[bertoffski123]

<p>Here is an interesting article titled “Re-Gendarizing Science”.</p>

<p>[Seattle</a> Woman Magazine: Re-Genderizing Science](<a href=“http://www.seattlewomanmagazine.com/articles/nov06-3.htm]Seattle”>http://www.seattlewomanmagazine.com/articles/nov06-3.htm)</p>

<p>People mentioned in this article are very good teachers and wonderful role models for all.</p>

[limabeans]

<p>I don’t mean that we need to “pull the women down”, but we do need to build men UP.</p>

<p>We need to recognize the girl/boy differences in school—elementary school–and not cater to the girl pleasers. (It’s so easy to do, believe me!) What about boy books, like The Hardy Boys? Old Yeller? Well, that’s just not at all what kids have to read, as a class, today. (Kids I tutor have to read Esprenoza in 5th, Red Moon at Sharpsburg in 8th). Boys are more kinesthetic, girls more visual/auditory. Schools: auditory.</p>

<p>And while the “women’s movement” may have only occurred in the last 30+ years (since Ms.), that’s still a lifetime for the kids who are applying to college today.</p>

<p>Any argument about how successful women are may be true, but look at who’s expense.</p>

[Yurtle]

<p>Payfor: I didn’t say that all women didn’t take risks, or that they all did, just that saying that women don’t at all is blatently untrue. </p>

<p>"But men and women are not the same. At the same levels of education, women remain less inclined to roll the dice on risky business start-ups or to grind out careers in isolated tech labs BUT:</p>

<p>"We’ve heard it a million times – that women in business face the ultimate challenge of [by nature] not taking enough risks. Well, turns out that’s not so true, at least not about women in business.</p>

<p>According to a survey by Boston’s prestigious Simmons School of Management, women business leaders don’t shy from taking risks, but rather take advantage of risky opportunities on a regular basis." </p>

<p>Which negates the statement previously used. Women DO take risks with their businesses, and DO go to tech labs. </p>

<p>And I also never denied the 4.2 stat. I just pointed out that that SAME study announced that women bring in 3 trillion dollars and if that alone was looked at, just women’s businesses in the US, then they’d have the 5th largest GDP in the world. So it was a case of picking and choosing stats to pose something in a different light. </p>

<p>_</p>

<p>Yes it is Kei. Yes is is.</p>

<p>_</p>

<p>I don’t think it’s necessarily that we’re ‘tearing down’ boys in order to build up girls. I think it’s more the case of we’ve had a sudden influx of new competition…</p>

<p>I don’t know about your local school Limabeans, but ours has plenty of ‘boy’ books that we had to read…and even in HS we do. I’m more likely to see a male main character than I am a female one…</p>

<p>Red Badge of Courage, Where the Red Fern Grows, White Fang, Call of the Wild, Maniac McGee, The Sign of the Beaver, Holes, james and the giant peach…</p>

<p>Tons of Elementary books we had to read directed towards boys. Not to mention the fact that the book I get asked for most in my library happens to be Diary of a Wimpy Kid- at book aimed at boys- but checked out by just as many girls. </p>

<p>The older I get, actually, the more ‘boy centric’ reading feels for me. It’s annoying to have to hear about the beautiful almost untouchable GOLDEN ONE~ lady who stands for every virgin/wh*re complex in literature… IE Anthem, 1984, Frankenstien, A tale of two cities, Fountainhead, Brave New World, Much Ado about nothing, Portrait of the Artist as a young man… etc etc etc.</p>

<p>I’m loving having three english classes, but I think if I have to hear about one more woman who glows with beauty and is perfect in every way but is also terrible and AWFUL and tainted by society and the world and omg everything! My head will explode.</p>

<p>But I digress. </p>

<p>I volunteer at my local elementary library and do the best I can to find boys good books, just as I do the girls. :)</p>

[Keilexandra]

<p>

@Yurtle

One of my biggest problems with people suggesting that instead of looking for AA based on race we should look for socio-econmic diversity is that it’s so hard to compare a rich student who’s had the money to take tests multiple times/do certain ECs/afford test prep books and tutors etc and the student who can’t afford it…</p>

<p>Plus no one can truly give a base line for socio-economic ‘poor’ ness.

Why is it hard to compare? Colleges already give low-SES students a “break” on ECs, by highly esteeming a committed part-time job. Just take the current double-standard for URMs and apply it to race-blind low-SES. Allow colleges to set their own baseline for what constitutes “low,” or use the federal government’s qualifications for Pell grants.</p>

<p>The real problem is that recruiting low-SES students costs too much.</p>