<p>Why do schools admit so many more females to males, essentially creating an undesirable ratio for both genders? I don't want to attend a school where the men are vastly outnumbered for a variety of reasons, but this seems to not bother a lot of schools including UNC and College of Charleston....</p>
<p>More females overall go to and graduate from college than males.
<a href=“Fast Facts: Degrees conferred by race/ethnicity and sex (72)”>Fast Facts: Degrees conferred by race/ethnicity and sex (72);
<p>Note that some majors show even more skewed gender ratios.
<a href=“http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-gender-equality/”>http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-gender-equality/</a></p>
<p>Would you rather those schools admitted students with lower test scores and qualifications to even out the ratio? You may honestly prefer that, and some schools do it. </p>
<p>Well, they do that to even out other ratios, so why not gender inequality? I think universities are at their best when their demographics mirror society as much as possible.</p>
<p>More women WANT to go to college. Did you want to put the extras on an island somewhere?</p>
<p>Or go to a tech college. Pretty much all of them have more male than female students. MIT, Rose-Hulman, Michigan Tech, etc. Even Harvey Mudd, which does a pretty good job of balancing, still has slightly more male students.</p>
<p>I don’t want to put the extras on an island – I just wonder if it’s good for schools in the long run to let their male-female ratio get way out of the 50-50 breakdown. I have heard kids say they don’t want to go to some schools because there are too many girls and not enough guys.</p>
<p>Are these male or female students? Plenty of male students like the ratio. And honestly… a lot of the female students i know don’t care so much. They are there for an education these days, not an Mrs.</p>
<p>Well then they can pick different schools. There are many schools out there, some with more guys than girls. In a society where women were not allowed to go to college a few decades ago, I’d consider it a good thing, no? At most of the colleges you mentioned, such as the College of Charleston, the admissions crew honestly WANT to recruit more guys, but you will find that many more girls apply and therefore it is more competitive for them to get in. At my current school, for instance, the girls do outnumber the guys, but they do have higher stats. If they admitted more guys in order to achieve gender equality, whilst keeping the same acceptance ratio, then the guys admitted may not be as academically qualified as the girls that got turned away just because they were “too many.” These are all decisions college admissions committees have to make.</p>
<p>sad part is their is more emphasis on getting tech schools to fix their ratios than to fix the tremendous overall education lag of men’s education (which rarely ever gets mention). Society will not allow for men to have advantages like women enjoy at tech schools or URM’s do, it’s not acceptable. maybe it’s no surprise male suicide rates are 2x as high as women’s. </p>
<p>Lol… pretty sure that has NOTHING to do with balancing gender at colleges. I know we can’t use that magic word any more, but this poster has started threads on gender acceptance and learning disabilities today that are… ahem… controversial. </p>
<p>I don’t think this forum is only for people who want to list their awesome credentials and then ask Will I get in? This forum should also be asking hard questions about college in general. Why does it cost so much? Why do we have LD accommodations skyrocketing, and is that fair to other students? Should public universities funded by taxpayers be giving legacy students an easier acceptance path? Should we look at the reasons we are losing so many young men to the college process? I would be willing to wager that many of these young men are undiagnosed with actual learning disabilities, but not the kind that get you into Princeton.</p>
<p>Okay… no LD ever got a kid into Princeton. Extra time on a standardized test doesn’t give a kid the outstanding grades, knock it out of the park ECs, stellar recommendations, and great essays that are also required to get into HYPS schools. You sound like a sour grapes guy to me… somehow you have lost out on admissions and want to find someone else to blame for it. </p>
<p>I’m going to say the obvious because women are smarter, no ?</p>
<p>I actually personally know two students currently at Princeton who both got extra time on the SAT and also get extra time at Princeton. Here is a link to another student who gets 100% extra time at Princeton thanks to her lawsuit.
<a href=“http://www.ivygateblog.com/2009/11/princeton-student-sues-university-for-hating-on-the-disabled/”>http://www.ivygateblog.com/2009/11/princeton-student-sues-university-for-hating-on-the-disabled/</a></p>
<p>@DrGoogle
I think IQ tests are the same for both genders (maybe a point higher for women). Not enough to explain the difference. I have 2 main reasons which might explain it. 1 is society’s portrayal of “cool” guys as guys who do no schoolwork and just play sports, party. Another is that women are really better suited for the 21st century (just as men were more suited for farming during the neoltithic revolution), they are more organized, less impulsive, hotheaded etc. and those are qualities which lead to success in the 21st century as physical strength really doesn’t matter much in the developed world anymore. </p>
<p>I was sort of half kidding. Common don’t take it too seriously.</p>
<p>well i do think women are better adapted (you can call it smarter) for the modern world. it won’t be long before we have a matriarchy in place of the patriarchy, it’s what will be natural when women outcompete men to such a high extent. </p>
<p>Some countries already have matriarchy like the Borneo, IIRC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WasatchWriter asks a plain question: what do you do with the extra women of HS age who are applying to college? Certainly not every college can then drill down and make 50-50 be their ultimate goal. As far as what’s “good for schools in the long run”, I think gender ratios would be examined if only serious detriments to historical self-defined measures of success get attrited. It’s a cost-benefit ratio analysis. Rose-Hulman isn’t sweeping midwestern high schools for great female applicants. They’re aren’t terribly troubled at their 80% male population. They know some people don’t like that ratio. They also don’t feel they need to cater to those who would reject them based on that criteria either.</p>