Kenyon's Dean of Admissions in Today's NY Times Op-Ed Page

<p>By JENNIFER DELAHUNTY BRITZ
Published: March 23, 2006
Gambier, Ohio</p>

<p>A FEW days ago I watched my daughter Madalyn open a thin envelope from one of the five colleges to which she had applied. "Why?" was what she was obviously asking herself as she handed me the letter saying she was waitlisted.</p>

<p>Why, indeed? She had taken the toughest courses in her high school and had done well, sat through several Saturday mornings taking SAT's and the like, participated in the requisite number of extracurricular activities, written a heartfelt and well-phrased essay and even taken the extra step of touring the campus. </p>

<p>She had not, however, been named a National Merit finalist, dug a well for a village in Africa, or climbed to the top of Mount Ranier. She is a smart, well-meaning, hard-working teenage girl, but in this day and age of swollen applicant pools that are decidedly female, that wasn't enough. The fat acceptance envelope is simply more elusive for today's accomplished young women.</p>

<p>I know this well. At my own college these days, we have three applicants for every one we can admit. Just three years ago, it was two to one. Though Kenyon was a men's college until 1969, more than 55 percent of our applicants are female, a proportion that is steadily increasing. My staff and I carefully read these young women's essays about their passion for poetry, their desire to discover vaccines and their conviction that they can make the world a better place.</p>

<p>I was once one of those girls applying to college, but that was 30 years ago, when applying to college was only a tad more difficult than signing up for a membership at the Y. Today, it's a complicated and prolonged dance that begins early, and for young women, there is little margin for error: A grade of C in Algebra II/Trig? Off to the waitlist you go.</p>

<p>Rest assured that admissions officers are not cavalier in making their decisions. Last week, the 10 officers at my college sat around a table, 12 hours every day, deliberating the applications of hundreds of talented young men and women. While gulping down coffee and poring over statistics, we heard about a young woman from Kentucky we were not yet ready to admit outright. She was the leader/president/editor/captain/lead actress in every activity in her school. She had taken six advanced placement courses and had been selected for a prestigious state leadership program. In her free time, this whirlwind of achievement had accumulated more than 300 hours of community service in four different organizations. </p>

<p>Few of us sitting around the table were as talented and as directed at age 17 as this young woman. Unfortunately, her test scores and grade point average placed her in the middle of our pool. We had to have a debate before we decided to swallow the middling scores and write "admit" next to her name.</p>

<p>Had she been a male applicant, there would have been little, if any, hesitation to admit. The reality is that because young men are rarer, they're more valued applicants. Today, two-thirds of colleges and universities report that they get more female than male applicants, and more than 56 percent of undergraduates nationwide are women. Demographers predict that by 2009, only 42 percent of all baccalaureate degrees awarded in the United States will be given to men. </p>

<p>We have told today's young women that the world is their oyster; the problem is, so many of them believed us that the standards for admission to today's most selective colleges are stiffer for women than men. How's that for an unintended consequence of the women's liberation movement?</p>

<p>The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance. Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants? At those colleges that have reached what the experts call a "tipping point," where 60 percent or more of their enrolled students are female, you'll hear a hint of desperation in the voices of admissions officers.</p>

<p>Beyond the availability of dance partners for the winter formal, gender balance matters in ways both large and small on a residential college campus. Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive.</p>

<p>What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options? And what messages are we sending young women that they must, nearly 25 years after the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, be even more accomplished than men to gain admission to the nation's top colleges? These are questions that admissions officers like me grapple with.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I'm sending out waitlist and rejection letters for nearly 3,000 students. Unfortunately, a majority of them will be female, young women just like my daughter. I will linger over letters, remembering individual students I've met, essays I loved, accomplishments I've admired. I know all too well that parents will ache when their talented daughters read the letters and will feel a bolt of anger at the college admissions officers who didn't recognize how special their daughters are. </p>

<p>Yes, of course, these talented young women will all find fine places to attend college — Maddie has four acceptance letters in hand — but it doesn't dilute the disappointment they will feel when they receive a rejection or waitlist offer.</p>

<p>I admire the brilliant successes of our daughters. To parents and the students getting thin envelopes, I apologize for the demographic realities. </p>

<p>Jennifer Delahunty Britz is the dean of admissions and financial aid at Kenyon College.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting this op-ed</p>

<p>Why try to keep college enrollment at an artificial 50:50 Male to Female ratio? If there are more women applicants, there should be more women college students. If men don't want to go to college, they shouldn't have to. ;)</p>

<p>I also admire the success of our daughters. I don't think that one rejection or waitlist is anything to "ache" over or feel angry about, however, especially if the student has four acceptances in hand.
This admissions dean is from a small midwestern LAC. Why aren't more young men applying? There certainly is no shortage of talented males applying to HYPS, MIT or Cal Tech.<br>
I am all for gender balance. It was important when the schools were primarily men, and it's important if the schools become primarily women. Remembering that our boys are often late bloomers (mothers of sons will attest to this fact) who often supass the women once they get to college might help admissions officers give a qualified young man a tip over a similarly qualified young woman with a slightly higher gpa or an endless list of ECs.
I would think at an LAC, a slight tip to the males would be as important as a slight tip to females might be at a Cal Tech or Harvey Mudd - which also happens. For the students who are admitted, a healthy gender balance makes life more interesting for everyone.<br>
But another point, isn't it wonderful that our problem is too many talented kids, of either sex? This fact gives me great hope for our future.</p>

<p>About half way thru the article, I decided that the author of the article was a woman. Sorry. </p>

<p>The article starts with the idea that it is about waitlisting. I expected it to discuss why colleges often waitlist more people than they accept. Then it changes direction and goes into why it is so much more terribly difficult for woman to be admitted to college because the ratio is 55% to 45%. Certainly, being male is probably a tip factor at some colleges now, but the article seems to go over the edge.</p>

<p>This is a societal issue. It has more to do with the fact that men have more options available to them than women if the men chose not to go to college. Some men see four years of college at outrageous prices to not be as good an option as being a construction worker or plumber. Lets have an article on that.</p>

<p>The dean of Kenyon is probably not against affirmative action, but the entire article could be easily switched from gender to race. Instead of saying that we may be encouraging men applicants to work less, it could say that we may be encouraging black applicants to work less. </p>

<p>Lets have an article on how the admissions process to the highly selective colleges has become totally insane due to brand-name consciousness. This article seems to imply that everything is fine, except that being a man is a tip factor in admissions.</p>

<p>These another discussion on this topic in Parents Forum.</p>

<p>Unless colleges are historically female (like Sarah Lawrence) or historically male (like MIT), they SHOULD try to maintain a 48/52 male to female ratio. It's like that in the real world. Why not make it so in the college world. Keeps the social life healthy.</p>

<p>i guess but i feel like if its 55-45, you really wouldnt notice a difference</p>

<p>I strongly disagree. So one year's 4.0, 2400 SAT flood of women applicants to say, NYU, equals rejection while the next year if a flood of men applied, women with 3.0's and 1800s get in?</p>

<p>How is that fair at all? There are reasons we have AA that are different from gender. </p>

<p>Gender should not matter and colleges should not try to keep a 50/50 ratio. Colleges should accept applicants based on THEIR standards and THEIR selectivity instead of bowing to a 50/50 ratio.</p>

<p>If you are qualified, you get in. If not, you're rejected. </p>

<p>DEAL WITH IT.</p>

<p>This is not to mention that there are a lot more top schools with more men than women so if anything the men are getting shafted here. (Look at MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and other top tech schools).</p>

<p>It's simply in a college's own interests. Most people don't want to go to a school that's overwhelmingly male or female just as most people don't want to go to a school that is lily-white and 100% preppy.</p>

<p>Every college dean wants a balanced male/female ratio but if they have to stoop to accepting unqualified people they will not do it.</p>

<p>Fixing the ratio and addressing it should come last in deciding whether to accept/reject an applicant (which is not what the op is suggesting with her rant). </p>

<p>MIT and CMU know that they will take women and encourage qualified women to apply but if they are not qualified, they will not take a blow to the quality of the student body in order to get a few women in.</p>

<p>There is a pretty strong trend in higher education where a lower percentage of men than women are chosing to go to college. It has been in the papers, but I'm not sure how much people are really aware of it. It is not a one-year fluctuation. </p>

<p>Whether you compare this to AA or not depends on how you feel about AA. Is AA there to make reparations to the descendants of slaves and victims of discrimination, or it is there to make the colleges a model of actual society. If it is to make reparations, then perhaps they should stop counting black immigrants. Last year, the Harvard Black Alumni Club made the (not too startling) discovery that around half of the blacks accepted from Harvard were either foreign immigrants or biracial. Whites from the US are very likely to have ancestors who were slaves or victims of discrimination while black immigrants are not. (Actually, somebody did a DNA analysis on this.) If the purpose of AA is just to keep the colleges in touch with the reality of society, then I don't see a difference between gender and race in that regard.</p>

<p>I am pretty sure that I can't say:
[quote]
Every college dean wants a balanced male/female ratio but if they have to stoop to accepting unqualified people they will not do it.

[/quote]
if I substitute "black/white" for "male/female". :)</p>

<p>Hmm...can't we relate this to race-baced affirmative action? You know...boosting diversity just to look goo?</p>

<p>" if I substitute "black/white" for "male/female". "</p>

<p>like I said, AA is different. You can read one of the many heated discussions on CC to find out why (social-economic factors, etc.)</p>

<p>Unless you can prove that all women were harassed or poor or not allowed the equal opportunities as men in education (which I doubt you can or to the extent of the reasonings behind AA).</p>

<p>I already said that it depends on why we have AA. It is obviously not because of social-economic factors because that could be easily handled without reference to race. It may be intended to make "reparations" for slavery or current discrimination, but if it is, it is flawed. I personally think it is just to make the college campuses a mirror of society. In this respect, there would be no difference between AA and a system based on gender.</p>

<p>I see your point but I don't think we have AA just because we want to see multi-colors when we visit a college.</p>

<p>There are many political reasons behind AA (African Americans are a very strong and focused political group and have great lobbying power). Many politicians were put into office because of African American voters and other voters who sympathized with them.</p>

<p>We have AA because of a mix of factors including wealth, racism, past history, etc (as explained by society). The actual reasons are because of a mix of guilt, discrepancy in wealth, and political factors.</p>

<p>Socio-economic status IS a main reason behind AA (which is why many people including myself support socio-economic AA instead of our current AA). </p>

<p>However none of this matters. I am basically disagreeing with the op and anyone else who want colleges to make gender part of the application. Let the Deans do what they think is best for the college instead of trying to make all colleges support a 50/50 male/female ratio; that's all I'm saying.</p>

<p>Like me. I support socio-economic status versus our current AA. Just because you're black doesn't necessary mean that you're disadvantaged.</p>

<p>im wondering how different aa is. people justify aa by saying it is necessary to have many different perspectives or by saying the real world isnt all white or whatever. thats fine, but i feel like this is the same thing, men and women have very different opinions on many issues, so i think it is important to have a good balance of both. then again, i think if you have 55% female or something like that, its not like you're shutting out the male voice</p>

<p>I'd leave it up to the college. It depends what kind of environment they want. Do they want mostly men? Mostly women? A natural blanace? An equal balance? Whatever floats their boat...</p>