<p>Love this thread, but to bring it back to the OP's original intention, I found some interesting stats from the Swarthmore Common Data Set for 2004-2005.<br>
Total male applicants: 1564
Total female applicants: 2116</p>
<p>Total males accepted: 452
Total females accepted: 481</p>
<p>Total males enrolled: 177
Total females enrolled: 189.</p>
<p>Swarthmore is one of the schools that is perceived as "feminine" to use Carolyn's terms, so I'm not surprised that way more women applied than men. As for less lopsided acceptance rates, I don't know how to explain them.</p>
<p>marite, I am sure you are right about that, in several ways. One of my D's least favorite questions about Swarthmore when she was in college was "Is that a girl's school?"</p>
<p>We see most of the same things that have been reported on this thred for our S and D. But my question is this: where are the Dads when these problems need to be resolved? When my S is disorganized, I intervene through the established pecking order and "motivate" changed behavior. All homework is completed and turned in on time, or else "motivation" is instantly applied. At the beginning of Middle School we discovered that our S did not want this discipline to be applied by Mom, so I stepped up and did the job. In our home, each child receives any required "motivation" from the same-gender parent. This seems to work pretty well.</p>
<p>I also agree that I don't know how the boys stay focused in class given the current clothing styles the girls are wearing. Or perhaps I should say that I do know exactly what the boys are focused upon...</p>
<p>I will always remember the guy who threatened to cut one of my braids if I did not whisper to him what the Archimedes principle was about. My skirt was below knee level, my blouse was decorously buttoned all the way up, and my sleeves went below elbow level. So what was his excuse? He nearly got me thrown out of class.</p>
<p>Now I confess that I have wondered how some of the guys' pants stay up these days...
marite (mom of 2 guys)</p>
<p>reasonabledad- I have heard it said that boys/kids have become "desensitized" to the look they are exposed to everyday via current girl's fashion. Perhaps that is how they get through. </p>
<p>Of course, desensitized is just what I have worried about all along in terms of our culture's visual bombardment of violence, sexual innuendo, unethical role models. Not that I am a prude (heaven forfend), but when I
it all just becomes a ho-hum part of life, what is to make them pull up short when faced with a decision in their own lives?</p>
<p>Swarthmore eliminated its football team several years ago because (1) the school is run by women and effeminate men who don't value football, (2) the football team was not so good, and (3) the school foolishly did not wish to expand its enrollment to enable it to recruit better athletes, preferring instead to maintain academic excellence. The result is a school perceived by many as a near "women's college", a school with noticeably more women's applications than men's, and a school that was once number one in most rankings is now number three and falling.</p>
<p>I opposed Swarthmore''s decision to eliminate football, but you know, I have to say that it has not really hurt the school. The difference between #1 and #3 is really miniscule, and it fluctuates each year among the schools. I did not know the breakdown in M/F applicants and acceptees, but I have been told by many knowledgeable in the field of college admissions that this is not unusual. Many LACs are experiencing this imbalance which is the subject of this thread. </p>
<p>A little dark humor here: Someone I know who was discussing her son's chances at some colleges was saying, his grades are shaky, test scores borderline, no hook, no outstanding trait, but he's MALE, by golly, the only advantage he has!!!! For some reason, I don't begrudge him the advanatage a bit.</p>
<p>Williams CDS 1999-2000
Total male applicants: 2578
Total female applicants: 2429
Total male and female: 5007</p>
<p>Williams CDS 2004-2005
Total male applicants: 2786
Total female applicants: 2919
Total male and female: 5705</p>
<p>Percent increase 1999 to 2004 at Williams:
Overall: 13.94 percent
Male: 8.06 percent</p>
<p>Swarthmore CDS 1999-2000
Total male applicants: 1819
Total female applicants: 2344
Total male and female: 4163</p>
<p>Swarthmore CDS 2004-2005
Total male applicants: 1564
Total female applicants: 2116
Total male and female: 3680</p>
<p>Percent change 1999 to 2004 at Swarthmore:
Overall: -11.6 percent
Male: -14.01 percent</p>
<p>Williams (the Vin Diesel of LACs) is on a steady uptrend in applications. Swarthmore (the Alan Alda of LACs) is on a steady downtrend. Williams does not have to give preference to males to the same degree that Swarthmore does. This is despite Swarthmore having an Engineering Department, a more attactive campus (ok, some may disagree with this), being closer to civilization, and more moderate weather. What is happening at Swarthmore is inexcusable. I don't know what the problem is, but Swarthmore is a poorly managed school. Every thing about Swarthmore tells you it ought to be kicking Williams' rear end. Did the problems start with a stupid decision in 2000 to eliminate the football and wrestling teams? There is no way to tell for sure, but when you see jock heaven (Williams) doing well in a place where eskimos avoid, you really have to wonder.</p>
<p>It's often noted that men and women have the same average IQ, but that the standard deviation for men is higher, resulting in a higher proportion of men falling on both tails of the bell curve. </p>
<p>Much of the left tail of the bell curve doesn't get admitted to college, a fact that excludes more males than females in view of the fact noted above. </p>
<p>Males are also much more likely than females to go to prison. I don't know to what degree this is a related phenomenon, but suspect that it's some of the same characteristics that send more men than women to prison keep more men than women out of college.</p>
<p>Part of the downtrend at Swarthmore may be the signals sent by admissions officers. At the admission session we attended, the dean clearly sent out signals that weak applicants need not apply. Harvard,Yale and Brown did not send out such signals, although they still managed to convey the message that only the best got in. I could see a lot of intimidated faces in the crowd.</p>
<p>Marite, when comparing Williams versus Swarthmore, Williams is harder to get into these days, no ifs, ands and buts about it. What this Thinking guy says is probably true. But I am glad it is that way. My son would not have got in if it was not so. But now that he is there, he is getting a fantastic education and that is what matters. He couldn't be happier and I am too. The things he wants out of college, he gets there. And the departments in his areas of interest are very strong, so it worked out really well for us.</p>
<p>At the end of the ED round, both he and I were despairing and we're sure glad he applied to Swarthmore. If being a male got him in, then thank God for that!</p>
<p>Marite, my son is working on Tuesdays and Wednesdays calling alumni for donations for the college (getting paid for it). When some alumni pick up the phone, they don't donate and some of the concerns are about football being eliminated. So this Thinking guy's concerns are probably based on some truth.</p>
<p>What you and Thinkingoutloud say rings true. I know some Swarthmore grads who have been very exercised about the elimination of football. The Swarthmore students I have met since this happened have been a pretty impressive group. The RA who steered my S toward CTY was a Swarthmore student, as bright as they come.</p>
<p>Harvard gets a lot of applications "because it's Harvard." If Swarthmore gets an equally selective but smaller group of applicants, then all the better. That seemed to be the message the dean was trying to convey.</p>
<p>But What does a 60%-40%, girl-boy ratio really tell us??? This is a question I have pondered for several years. I have wondered whether if there is a 60/40 split, does this mean that this school does not give boys extra weight, while the school that is 50/50 is giving boys extra weight? I think it is clear that girls are more qualified as a general rule under the current admissions formulae at most schools, but which schools does a boy have a better chance at? I have sort of concluded that the 50/50 schools are the ones that are giving the clear breaks whereas the 60/40 are standing tough --unless that particular school is so swamped by female applicants that it is in danger of "crossing the 60/40 barrier" that I have heard is the point that many schools get very nervous. It is interesting that I have visited many schools and tried to pin down admissions folks about this very issue and--you guessed it--very little is given away on this subject (although one or two counselors have grudgingly acknowleged a very "slight" benefit to boys. I believe the comments offered by carolyn on the common data set are the only true way to get a clear reading on this issue. The big problem with the common data set is that many schools just do not let those statistics out. They are not just hard to find on the web sites --they are nonexistent and I do not believe the compiler releases them. It would also probably be important to have them over a period of years to observe trends. Additionally, they would need to be further refined by breaking the University down into its component schools. That is, it would be beneficial to look at the engineering school of a university separate from the liberal arts school and the business school (music school etc.) I believe almost everywhere males exceed females in engineering and business by a substantial margin. I know Vanderbilt is one of the few schools that you can put all of this together through their application and admissions statistics broken down by schools within the university and the published common data set for (I think) different years. It is a very interesting subject and could use some intense academic study. with respect to litigation over the issue, I don't think it would be much different than all the other factors that are so controversial. As long as the gender difference is used on a case-by-case basis along with the justification of creating a diverse environment it would be like all the other controversial factors.</p>
<p>Speculation on my part: It depends on how selective the school is. As greybeard noted, males tend to do both better and worst then females on standardized tests. It is likely that the same holds true for high school performance. So for colleges
that attract high-performing applicants, the ratio of male to female applicants should be roughly equal unless the school's reputation results in gender imbalances (eg, all-women's schools; engineering schools, schools with a reputation for being strong in the humanities).
Another factor: Low achieving males may not even bother to apply to colleges, so the gender profile of the pool of applicants may also be altered.</p>
<p>Though the stats for Swarthmore do show some winnowing, and I would expect that with the elimination of the football program, and a marked diminishment in giving any athletes much leeway. In schools the size of Swarthmore, to field a full contingent of sports teams is a relatively large proportion of the school population, unlike the Big 10 schools where the athletes are a miniscule percentage of the students just by the sheer size of the university. So by giving up athletic preference, there is no question that it would affect that significant part of the student population. However, what is amazing to me is that the academic quality is as good as ever, and it is still way up there. Number 3 is nothing to sniff at, considering the number of colleges in the country.</p>