Male-Female Acceptance Rates

Applying to College
21

<p>@‌CesarC -
“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.”</p>

<p>The last time I saw someone this stressed out about “the ratio” it was during when we were planning “Margarita Monday” at my fraternity.</p>

<p>@WasatchWriter‌
“More women WANT to go to college. Did you want to put the extras on an island somewhere?”</p>

<p>I love it! The movie practically writes itself: </p>

<p>Tonight’s Cinemax “Midnight Movie” – “Coed Island”</p>

<p>Story: CesarC is the dean of admissions who, obsessed with “mirroring society,” banishes all “surplus” female students to an island. </p>

22

<p>Haha! The New York Times wrote about the issue in 2010 and pointed out that the Ivy Leagues manage to round up enough fellas to keep things even. Yet they still saw the problems in the issue, which has only gotten worse.</p>

<p><a href=“On College Campuses, a Shortage of Men - The New York Times”>On College Campuses, a Shortage of Men - The New York Times;

23

<p>But how would you propose to solve it? All constructive and/or “hot” suggestions are welcome, lol. </p>

24

<p>Well, they could use the same methods they are using to try and increase the Hispanic community’s college attendance? Currently, “Are you Hispanic, even if you are from Spain?” is an actual question on college apps. I wonder why they don’t ask if you “…are French, even if you are from France?” since those countries are neighbors.</p>

25

<p>Because no American uni has any innate need to attract descendants from France whereas Hispanics who have traditionally been left out of the rungs of higher education, are coveted. </p>

<p>But reading through this thread, I’m not sure what your point is or even what you’re arguing for. Are you against top colleges admitting more men in order to keep a better 50-50 ratio? Or are you for it? Certainly top colleges have no issue with attracting enough qualified male applicants – it makes it statistically tougher for women. That’s a given.</p>

<p>But what’s your point?</p>

26

<p>The point is to stir the pot…</p>

27

<p>right-o, @intparent. I just looked at Cesar’s posting history. A real “contributor” to the site…</p>

28

<p>@T26E4 I appreciate your sarcasm. It’s revealing. You get to be rude, but people who have questions about controversial college issues are not wanted on a college site. Should there be 100,000 posts about “Will I get in?” and none about the arcane social engineering that also goes into getting in? </p>

29

<p>Latin Americans of indigenous descent have been kept out of college demographics, no doubt. But people from Spain, not so much. Yet, I have seen college applications that ask “Are you Hispanic, even if you are from Spain?” so that’s what I’m talking about.</p>

30

<p>So… your positions are confusing. On one hand you seem to advocate for admitting students based on gender regardless of their academic qualifications (essentially granting an entire gender an easier path into college if your suggestions were followed). Yet on the other, you are vehemently opposed to students with documented disabilities getting a chance at proving they can succeed with some minor accommodations. It seems to me these are contradictory positions.</p>

31

<p>I don’t have fully formed opinions. I’m actually reading everyone’s posts to try and understand how this system, packed with subjectivity, can possibly be fair to the average student. Right now, we give preferences for athleticism, ethnicity, intelligence, legacy, and of course very wealthy people have an advantage, and also any form of learning difficulty (combined with a proactive parent) can give a student extra time, all variables that most of us are born into. The system seems somewhat arbitrary and unfair, especially at the schools with the most difficult admissions rates, who seem to pride themselves on being fair when they are essentially making up the rules as they go along. </p>

32

<p>CesarC: I think it’s incorrect to say that colleges w/small admit rates “pride themselves on being fair” if that equates with full meritocracy. The fact is it’s their ball and they get to say who plays with it. I’ve never heard a top private college rep intimate even closely, that their system is supposed to meet outsiders’ views of “fairness”</p>

<p>My standard line is that one can’t have cake and eat it too. If we, the public, are so repulsed by this arbitrariness and unfairness, we have thousand of other choices to make. But the so-called “elite” colleges have no problem seeing their apps double over the last ten years – the very colleges that have seeming arbitrary and unfair systems. They would counter that one of the actual factors that is making their cachet increase is directly related to HOW and WHOM they admit. They purposefully don’t take all the applicants and throw them onto a spreadsheet and take the top 2000. And they’re proud of it. Now we can’t demand an admissions letter and then also say: you gotta change what you’ve been doing! They’ll tell you it’s definitely not science but an art. The alternative redefines their very identity – and you’re asking them to remove a component that they (and I) posit is at the core of what makes them attractive.</p>

<p>For the “average” student, these top 20,000 freshman slots are distant fantasyworld – the background to movies and television shows. The national ACT composite avg is 21. The avg ACT at HYP is about 33+. It’s akin to my ruminating about the fairness and reliability of NBA pre-draft combines and scouting sessions. Did player X get a fair deal? Why did team Y do this to raise their stock and diminish team Z’s draft choices? I’m 5’4". It’s all academic to me and to most humans on the planet. Most “average” Americans aren’t applying nor care to apply to these schools</p>

33

<p>^Excellent post, T26E4. “Fairness” is impossible to judge, anyway. UT-Austin is trying to be “fair” by automatically admitting the top 7 or 8 percent of each high school in Texas. But then the kid who is in the top 10% at Super Duper High is discriminated against when he doesn’t get in. That actually happened to my nephew, who was born with burnt orange blood and is now going to school in Indiana - he is still bitter about his rejection. People are ALWAYS going to be unhappy with the ways colleges decide to admit students.</p>

34

<p>Being “fair” in college admissions means being “fair enough” to enough potential applicants that the college will not lose too many desired applicants who stop applying because they think they won’t get in because the game is stacked too heavily against them. Public schools also need to keep political constituencies from complaining too much. Not offending donors is also a consideration, but that can pressure the college to become more “unfair” in favor of legacies and developmental admits.</p>

35

<p>Well seeing how the federal Government helps in part to fund elite schools, it could demand them to make changes. And this is a democracy.</p>

36

<p>Two thoughts on the imbalance of male/female…one frivolous…actually, both frivolous :)</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The sex ratio among newborns in China is 120 boys for every 100 girls, the highest in the world …and this imbalance has caused all sorts of issues…got it that a college campus is a different beast…but wanted to note this.</p></li>
<li><p>And now into the personal experience realm…my younger sister’s daughter is a junior at a highly-ranked tech college with a 67% male ratio…in high school, she was a smart girl with an anemic social life (which was cool…just noting it :slight_smile: but at her college, well, not only is she getting a a tremendous education but she’s surrounded by men/boys eager to win her attentions…and her confidence (both academically and socially) has soared…not sure that could have happened for her at a 65% women-heavy college). </p></li>
</ol>

37

<p>@CesarC
In response to:
“I don’t have fully formed opinions. I’m actually reading everyone’s posts to try and understand how this system, packed with subjectivity, can possibly be fair to the average student. Right now, we give preferences for athleticism, ethnicity, intelligence, legacy, and of course very wealthy people have an advantage, and also any form of learning difficulty (combined with a proactive parent) can give a student extra time, all variables that most of us are born into. The system seems somewhat arbitrary and unfair, especially at the schools with the most difficult admissions rates, who seem to pride themselves on being fair when they are essentially making up the rules as they go along.
The problem is that many of us differ on fairness on a number of issues. On issues where all of us, or at least most of us, may agree, there are other root causes of the problem.”</p>

<p>Athleticism – You’d have to reform school sports (which is not a bad idea at all). You actually gave me a good idea for a thread I could start on that. On that one, I don’t have a fully-formed opinion as well, but I have a leaning.</p>

<p>Ethnicity - I think this is where people are legitimately confused, it seems inconsistent to favor gender preferences, but be against preferences based on ethnicity. Usually someone is for one or against both (unless it happens to benefit them personally, and I’m not saying that that is the reason).</p>

<p>Intelligence - Well, maybe someone will disagree, but I think most of us would say that they should give preferences based on this one.</p>

<p>Involved parents – As someone with involved parents and who has worked with many students and parents, I can tell you that education will always favor involved parents. </p>

<p>Legacy - I’m not saying legacy policies are fair, but I’m guessing as @ucbalumnus said, they have alumni associations that they depend on for contributions. </p>

<p>Very wealthy people – I am not wealthy, and I do not come from a very wealthy family, but as long as there is money, there are ways people with money can find advantages. In my opinion reforms or changes that are meant to make things more “fair” actually can create less upward mobility or fail to improve the socio-economic diversity (in my opinion, test optional policies) of college campuses.</p>