<p>In our firm we hire a few college grads a year with math and other quantative backgrounds. The women we hire we seem to be better than the men at catching on to the rules and formats of the things, which would seem to be the things that would lead to better grade performance at school. The guys are a bit better at problem solving and in dealing with situations a little different than the norm, which are not necessarily things that can be found in many classes, and so do not necessarily translate into good grades but are still valuable skills.</p>
<p>It also seems to be that you often hear about successful men who were only so-so in college but that just about every successful woman had an exceptional college career.</p>
<p>us men are too damn lazy...people always wanna talk about inherent differences that occur naturally between the different sexes/races/nationalities etc., but its all just a matter of effort. but maybe its better that for some there is a limit to how hard they are gonna work, when we live in a country where our main focus is working diligently so we can make some money later on. i guess certain people choose to have fun during the prime of their life and not work instead of working hard in the prime of their life then having fun when they are over the hill and old with lots of money.</p>
<p>yeah, well, men can long distance pee -- while standing up.</p>
<p>Men also dont' volunteer. I've been in a volunteer leadership group all throughout high school. We started with about 3 guys, we now have absolutely none. These boys just have no interested in leadership or volunteerism, they dont even care that it looks good on their college applications!</p>
<p>Props to sjmom.</p>
<p>I've tried explaining that after comparing similar jobs and similar experience levels, women generally earn the same amount or even more than men, but so many people say that the .76 is often quoted by prominent feminists which must make it right...</p>
<p>marite's comment above make no sense. I agree with Roger Dooley that when over 50% of the total class is receiving some kind of honors designation at a college (as is being done at Harvard), then grade inflation is alive and well. </p>
<p>My guess is marite is a Harvard grad. </p>
<p>P.S. The statistics at <a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com%5B/url%5D">www.gradeinflation.com</a> indicate that the average Harvard GPA has gone up from 3.17 to 3.39 between 1985 and 2001--but also indicate that this kind of increase is common at colleges nationwide.
(It should be noted that Harvard uses a 15 point system and these are converted numbers).
Compare this to a school known for not having grade inflation--Purdue.
Purdue had average GPAs of 2.80 in 1976 and 2.83 in 2001.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm, doesn't this bother the diversity crowd?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nah, it doesn't seem to so much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe some men are slackers because they know that women STILL only make 70% of what men make?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You should further investigate into how misleading that statistic is (and I think it's supposed to be 76, not 70).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have to say that when I look at places like MIT where men are still 60% of the student population, and where starting salaries are enormous, and compare that with places like Vassar where women are 60% of the student population, I fail to see what the men are whining about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Choice has absolutely nothing to do with it? For instance, one of if not the best predictors of starting salary is major. Guess which majors tend to receive high starting salaries? Science and technical majors. MIT is filled with em (and also has a highly regarded business school). Vassar is altogether dominated by humanities and social science majors (and not the higher paying ones like economics, more like psychology, English, poli sci, art hsitory), and has no engineering or business majors.</p>
<p>About a primarily male congress, what about all the pro-women legislation? Were those not passed by more male houses than today? Was not legislation dealing with race passed in more white houses? Perhaps you think it was just a fluke or something instead of heavy feminist or liberal pressures that still persist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, there is a fair amount of AA going on for white males at the most selective schools - isn't that wild! And I thought that AA was ok because at least by D would benefit. There is a thread herein from the ?Kenyon? college dean of admissions about just this - it is worst at selective LACs. If a school gets to 60% women fewer girls and boys apply there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One Kenyon article claiming it happens at some LACs and another article or two means that specifically white males (although as far as I've read, the issue of race with regard to applicants has not been of much interest when looking at sex) receive "a fair amount" (so indefinite) of some affirmative action (unofficial) policy? I've read multiple claims on this board about frequency, but I haven't read anything substantiating these claims. </p>
<p>I think anotheroldguy's comments show something meaningful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Few women apply [to MIT] because they "might" get in - most of them are absolute superstars.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aries, why would an institution do something so stupid as to reject the 20% or more (if its most) of those female superstars and take in their place average males?</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Harvard, 55 percent of the women graduated with honors this spring, compared with barely half the men.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I might be wrong, but that sounds like a difference of a whooping 6% or so. Also, honors can be defined as anything a school wants. If it says the top half of the class gets honors, it doesn't matter what the average GPA is, the top half gets honors. While the Harvard honors situation does not necessarily mean grade inflation, what does mean grade inflation is the rising average GPA from year to year (thank you tautology). Id be willing to bet that half the university receiving honors is honors inflation, nationally speaking . . . but ironically enough, a bit under half of what Harvard had just a few years ago, meaning that 50% is Harvard honors deflation).</p>
<p>masha, leadership and volunteer work are not the only things that look good on college applications, and they are certainly not the only productive uses of time. I'm not saying that the boys at your particular school (who make up a tiny fraction of all the boys in the world, I suspect) use their time well on other tasks; but then again, the fact that few/none have participated in your particular group does not imply that none of them were using their time well, or that no male high schoolers at other high schools are productive.</p>
<p>Funny, I have been told by relatives that I need to socialize/"have fun" more and study less. Apparently they are wrong. I, like every other male in the world, am very lazy. In fact, I am in the midst of a crisis with the rest of them. After all, an individual star inside a galaxy cannot help but be affected by the other stars' gravitational pull. Likewise, the fact that a particular person happens to be male must imply that all free will is forfeit and he must fall in line with the slight majority of males.</p>
<p>Right.</p>
<p>Another thing which factors in here is that while men typically are lower achievers than women, the high achieving outlyers are typically men. this holds true be the field science, art, music, business, law or most other professions. I believe this is even true in tests such at the SAT 1 and general IQ testing.</p>
<p>I suspect it is due to some innate combination for risk taking and specialized cognitive functioning. Creative, outside the box thinking requires a measure of each.</p>
<p>My husband and I have been discussing this issue of "boy crisis" for some time and read the NYTimes article today incredulously. We are the parents of 3 sons, by the way, and of course want them to have every opportunity.</p>
<p>When they talk about percentages of women vs. men at schools, they're not saying that fewer men are attending college than before. They are saying more women are attending than before. Men have always been able to get jobs in the trades and higher paying jobs in business without college degrees than women. Does anyone remember getting a B.A. or B.S. degree, only to be interviewed for typing jobs?</p>
<p>The bottom line is that men have not been denied access to higher education, and that belies the "crisis." The fact that women REQUIRE college degrees in order to be competitive in the workforce, and according to the article, still earn LESS money on graduation than men, clearly indicates no discrimination against boys.</p>
<p>I just graduated. In June.</p>
<p>And boy. Are guys Lazy. High achieving girls seem to have a much harder time defining priorities that don't involve studying all the time.</p>
<p>Taking my classes into observation, the girls seemed more likely to do the homework, sacrifice playtime on weekends to study, and generally do homework all weekday nights instead of engaging in other activities. I think guys are lazier about schoolwork, with different priorities (but for some reason we still do better on the SAT).</p>
<p>Hey now,</p>
<p>We boys shouldnt be worried at all. Heck, more nice looking ladies to choose from :) at college.</p>
<p>I have a Ph.D, very ancient, from Harvard. </p>
<p>Grade inflation was needlessly introduced in this thread, which has to do with gender differences. My comments had nothing to do with Roger Dooley's. They were about the stats quoted to show that even at Harvard, men do less well than women. Maybe someone else can come up with a different interpretation of these figures.</p>
<p>Since I cannot reproduce in an appropriate format the stats posted in the Harvard Gazette, below is a list of different types of degrees, starting with non-honors to highest honors. </p>
<p>Bachelor of Arts/Cum laude in field of concentration/Cum laude in general studies/Magna cum laude in field of concentration/Magna cum laude with highest honors/Summa cum laude in field of concentration</p>
<p>Men 411 230 22 101 23 33
Women 365 262 20 98 32 33
Total 776 492 42 199 55 66</p>
<p>While a lot more men (411) graduated without honors than women (365), the figures are not so lopsided as they move up, and there are as many men earning summas as women. </p>
<p>Men: 411 230 22 101 23 33
Women 365 262 20 98 32 33</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think guys are lazier about schoolwork, with different priorities (but for some reason we still do better on the SAT).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fewer boys bother to take the SATs so the published SAT average reflects a truncated sample. The boys who don't show up to take the test are more likely to have been those who would have been in the bottom tail of the distribution. Thus, with this kind of systematic sample bias, it's not surprising that male reported SAT medians are slightly higher than female SAT medians.</p>
<p>According to the website below, 677,000 women took the test in 2000, scoring a median of 1001 in M+V.</p>
<p>In the same year, 583,000 men took the test, scoring a median of 1040 in M+V.</p>
<p>Men who would have been in the bottom tail of the distribution if they had taken the test are disproportionately more likely to drop out of high school, go to jail or otherwise be institutionalized, or just plain not plan to go to college and therefore see no point in taking the SAT.</p>
<p>If all 17-year males and all 17-year-old females took the SATs, one would expect to see a disproportionate number of males at both ends of the SAT bell-curve. One sees it at the top, but not at the bottom, because of the self-selection in who chooses to take the test.</p>
<p>"We boys shouldnt be worried at all. Heck, more nice looking ladies to choose from at college."</p>
<p>I would add nice looking + intelligent. And what is wrong in being Mr. Mom?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in an ironic juxtaposition, here's an article that appeared in another NY paper today (focusing on local women's teams but citing a national phenomenon)</p>
<p>"Hazing disregards gender lines
Colleges see rise in outlawed activity among female athletes"</p>
<p>Before we automatically assume that guys tend to be lazier or less prepared, maybe we should consider "thinking outside the box" and look for other explanations. Let me not that before I go through one definition that will be used here. When I refer to a "liberal arts major, " I am referring to all majors that involve strong writing skiills and usually involve a lot of papers in the courses suchs as Philosophy, English, History, Political Science, et. al.Here are some other factors that might hurt the academic GPA of many guys.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The handwriting of most guys isn't generally as legible or beautifully written as that of girls: I have found this to be generally true with some exceptions. You might ask, "why is this important?" The reason is that many tests are essay oriented. Professors can't help being influenced by clear, lovely handwriting.</p></li>
<li><p>Guys tend to be more math oriented: I have always maintained that it is harder to get a high GPa in math/engineering/science/accounting oriented courses than for most majors in liberal arts. Why?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>a. Liberal arts majors can somewhat "bull" their way through a test if they have strong writing skills. At the very least, they can usually get partial credit for their work.Mathematical majors have tests that are usually more objective. The answers are either right or wrong. There usually isn't enough partial credit given for correct thinking yet having some mathematical error.
b. Mathematical majors can lose points by either not knowing the material ( thus having the wroing answer) or by simply making a careless error. Making a careless error for liberal arts or writing oriented courses isn't as much of a problem.</p>
<p>My son is a good illustration of this problem. He is in a mathematical type of major. On one test, he had the right idea of how to solve the problem. He clearly knew the concepts involved but made a stupid multiplcation error. He was given 50% credit for the problem. This doesn't happen to liberal arts majors or majors that involved writing papers and essays that are more popular with females.</p>
<p>c. Liberal arts majors usually take one math course, if that, and one science course: In fact, some colleges don't even require a science course such as Cincinnati.
Mathematical majors have to usually take a lot more courses that they are weaker in. They usually have to take a year of English, history, and humanities etc. Liberal arts majors usually have to take a LOT less in subject that they are weaker in and usually can place out of math with higher math SATs in a much easier manner than placing out of English with the same verbal SATs. University of Maryland is a good example of this. Students can place out of any math requirement with a 650 in the math SATs. Students can not place out of English regardless of the SATs.</p>
<ol>
<li>Guys tend to have a lot more physical energy than girls in their teen years. This is why you see a lot moreguys playing sports and working out in the gym. This does take away from study time.</li>
</ol>
<p>As you can see, there are many factors to account for the lower GPA of guys besides laziness or poorer academic preparatioin from that of females .</p>
<p>Here is an Op-Ed piece from Kathleen Parker in the Orlando Sentinel this week. Her column also appears nationally in many papers</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Moreover, the declining status of boys -- or the ascent of girls, if you prefer -- is at least in part the product of political pressures that led to policy changes and cultural adjustments that have benefited girls. No one wishes to take away those accomplishments or to turn back the clock on girls.</p>
<p>That we might wish to exercise the same political clout in the interest of our sons and our nation's future fathers isn't a symptom of political one-upmanship, but a necessary search for balance.</p>
<p>No matter how much we tweak the data, one reliable truth is that successful women will always want to meet and mate with successful men. At this rate, they will be hard-pressed to find them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ah-oh</p>
<p>Now I am a mom with a postgrad degree, with a plaque on my desk that reads: "Don't tell your daughter to grow up and marry a doctor/lawyer, tell her to BE one." But as we began to visit colleges for the first time this year, it became clear that not a single one we visited had as, many girls as guys, and one was 70% girls 30% guys. I remember thinking that perhaps the climate would be more studious, and less "party all the time..." This was certainly a far cry from when I attended college in the 70's. And in my med school class, there were less than 20% women. So we have indeed come a long way.</p>
<p>But it did have me thinking that maybe there would be proportionately less college educated men out there in the years to come. Certainly one does not need a college degree to be successful in life. But this mom thniks will want her daughters bringing home college grads to meet the parents.....</p>
<p>Paraphrasing my earlier comments:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It's possible that women tend to get better grades because they follow class rules and formats better than they guys do. I think this could happen even comparing the genders within a certain major. </p></li>
<li><p>There also seems to be a stronger correlation between successful women and colege perfornamce in a lot of different fields than exists for men. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>My frim's new female hires are faster to pick up on the way we do things than the male hires. But the guys are generally better in thinking outside the box and in innovation. Those things just don't manifest themselves in higher grades, as a rule.</p>