NYT Editorial: "To All the Girls I've Rejected" by Dean of Admissions at Kenyon

Parents Forum
21

<p>Doolio...did you really write to suggest that Math isn't the reality? On CC? Welcome to Our CC Bubble? Where Math is THE Reality? Theme Song: "If you don't have the stats, pack your bags for Third Tier Trash!"</p>

<p>Hmmm. The Kenyon adcom says Math is the reality. Current sophomores, juniors and seniors at 60/40 schools have told me the imbalances have a math reality, my son included. </p>

<p>Also, I've observed a difference in the standard of mates of high-powered 30-something women, depending on the gender ratio of the coed school they attended. I do not notice this in women who attended single sex colleges, btw. Also, I attended architecture school with 25/75 gender imbalance, thus a potential cause for my inordinate and possibly misplaced ;) confidence and my four marriage offers, three of them perfectly doable.</p>

<p>Flip through "351 Best Colleges". 55/45 is the norm with 60/40 right behind that. 50/50 is a rarity-- in the top 10% of US colleges.</p>

<p>The reason the imbalance occurs is that </p>

<p>1) Girls are, by and large, far superior, brilliant primary and secondary high school students. I wasn't, but most are. Period. </p>

<p>2) Primary and secondary school-age boys are far less mature than their classmates. That immaturity weakens their scholarly aptitude.</p>

22

<p>newmassdad:</p>

<p>I have been reading lately that over the last decade and one half that there has been an emphasis on teaching our daughters who had been short-changed in the 50's ,60's and 70's in methods that acknowledged learning patterns that were uniquely female. Apparently girls and boys learn differently. Studies have shown in special project classrooms that when you teach boys and girls in school separately with methods shown to cater to the way boys learn and girls learn that the boys improved their learning curves. When they are in class together for some reason the girls excel.</p>

<p>My daughter is a junior in HS and takes all honors and AP courses. She told me recently that each class is 65 to 70% girls. Public schools need to recognize these learning differences and train teachers in the differences that the genders absorb data and acknowledge gender differences without considering the differences are pollitically incorrect.
Dana's Dad</p>

23

<p>The Simpsons made a nice little jab at the Seven Sisters colleges.</p>

<p>Lisa, tempted by George Plimpton's offer to "guarantee you a scholarship to the Seven Sisters college of your choice" (plus a George Plimpton - endorsed hot plate) if she takes a dive in the Spelllympics finals, dreams of meeting the colleges disguised as the Muses of Greek mythology.</p>

<p>BARNARD (wearing glasses): We are the Seven Sisters. And you can attend any one of us! Like Barnard, Columbia's "girl next door."</p>

<p>RADCLIFFE: Come to Radcliffe and meet Harvard men.</p>

<p>WELLESLEY: Or come to Wellesley and marry them.</p>

<p>MOUNT HOLYOKE (slurring, champagne glass in hand): No. Party with me! (Falls face first.)</p>

<p>VASSAR: Or nonconform with me! (Raises arms, reveals hairy armpits.)</p>

<p>LISA: Uh . . .</p>

<p>SMITH (muscular, carries lacrosse stick, husky voice): Play lacrosse with me!</p>

<p>BRYN MAWR: Or explore with me! (She and SMITH kiss with passion.)</p>

<p>LISA: No, I don't want to pay for college by throwing a spelling bee!</p>

<p>SISTERS (in unison): Give in, Lisa! Get a free ride!</p>

<p>PLIMPTON: And a hot plate!</p>

<p>SISTERS (holding hands and dancing in a circle around Lisa): Free ride! Free ride! Free ride!</p>

<p>PLIMPTON: And a hot plate!</p>

<p>(LISA wakes up screaming.)</p>

24

<p>If we really want to solve the education imbalance problem - for men, certainly, but perhaps also for those from less-advantaged backgrounds - we need to reform the college admissions system. If students were required to take a few years off before applying - so you would do high school, then do the Peace Corps or work or volunteer for two years - it would be easier to admit qualified men. Unfortunately, it takes men a few years to catch up to women, and those years are the ones spent in college applications. I know a TON of young men who say that they were slackers in high school until junior or senior year. Unfortunately, about 2/3 of the GPA that colleges see has been decided by then!</p>

<p>If these young men had a few more years to mature, they would make better college students - and better applicants. IMO, the problem with college is that 18 is old enough to leave high school but too young for college.</p>

25

<p>Ummm... I think the problem is how school is taught. I have also read stories about how certain styles of learning support girls more than it does boys. Of course, those hormonal aspects cannot be ignored, but girls go through that too (Granted, not as strongly, but I don't agree that the difference is that pronounced). I think that if school were more engaging for boys, the performance gap would essentially closed.</p>

<p>Interestingly enough, Newsweek did an article on how the new SAT would probably push girls' scores ahead of the boys. Might be interesting to see how adding a test score gap to the GPA one may force other schools to address this issue if that turns out.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
Well, my answer to the argument presented by the author: stop caring about your male/female balance. If the women present better applications, admit more women.

[/quote]

... so then one day America can blame the lack of well-educated fathers on the schools. brilliant. the anthitesis of the controversial statement that summers made and ultimately contributed to his resignation.
while we are at it why don't we create some more imbalances? how about all the 1600 get in first...?
this society needs men as well as women. even the most meritocratic school systems, which are nonexistent in America, maintain a fair balance. this would be the biggest segregation in history. well maybe second biggest...
No way.</p>

27

<p>As a mother of two boys who are the ONLY straight A male students at their high school I can say that it is because getting "good grades" and putting real effort into assignments has become a "girl thing". Being the star athlete is what is important to boys. </p>

<p>My older son gets embarrassed on "honors day" at the end of the school year when the principal calls up all the kids on the "Principal's Honor Roll (those who had straight A's all year). He is always the only boy. This year he will have company, his freshman brother.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
1) Girls are, by and large, far superior, brilliant primary and secondary high school students. I wasn't, but most are. Period.</p>

<p>2) Primary and secondary school-age boys are far less mature than their classmates. That immaturity weakens their scholarly aptitude.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Girls are superior, guys are immature. Profound.
I feel like I should found a movement called masculinism.
I will bring up summers again who said that boys are superior than girls in math and science. Things like that should simply never ever be claimed. I've had teachers that claimed that year after year they see boys succeed in their study lightly and effortlessly, while girls had to stay up till midnight diligently doing homework. I resen't both your pagan statemant and my teachers'. We are all the same. Just because of sampling error there is a small discrepancy in a given year, we should not make genralizations.</p>

29

<p>Newsmassdad "As a parent of a daughter, the demographic issues do scare me a bit, especially given the long established pattern of men marrying "down" in education and women marrying up."</p>

<p>I understand your concern. My highly educated African-American female friends lament that there aren't enough black men who are "equal" to them education-wise and that has kept them from marrying. If the current trend continues with white girls surpassing white males education-wise, we will see the same thing happen.</p>

30

<p>Fathers have to value their sons' academic achievements as much as they value their sons' athletic achievements. Many dads spend hours coaching their sons' teams but spend little time focused on their sons' academic lives.</p>

<p>Fathers have to insist that team practices do not "take over their sons' lives" to the point that homework and studying have to take a "back seat." Team sports are great, but for most people sports won't put food on the table when these kids are adults.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Many dads spend hours coaching their sons' teams but spend little time focused on their sons' academic lives.

[/quote]

Just as ridiculous as claiming that many moms foster going to the mall instead of doing homework...
I am not even going to begin with the things that I have learned from my dad academically...</p>

<p>Women once fought for equality. I sometimes think that some are now trying to tip the balance in their favor...</p>

32

<p>Clearly demographics play a huge role in that 60% of applicants will have xx chromosomes. But, I think it has more to do with the culture of the college, and in most cases, LACs. If you recall, last year, there was a thread started by Carolyn about xx vs xy colleges; if I recall, we kinda started calling them ying-yang schools. But, whatever you call them, there are many more LAcs that have xx personality, than have an xy style. And, where they do have an xy personality (sports, engineering, business schools, or whatever), those schools have plenty of male applicants (for example, Williams and Dartmouth receive more male apps than female).</p>

33

<p>I agree. So do Claremont and Harvey Mudd.</p>

34

<p>I don't have daughters, martin. I have two sons. I don't know what I would change to make boys better primary and secondary school students. Part of the problem is that the material that must be learned in those years.</p>

<p>Please don't misunderstand. Just because they are superior primary and secondray school students--on balance--does not make them (me) superior human beings. Nor is it a marker of future earnings, as most of the 'slacker' boys will out-earn their female counterparts.</p>

<p>Temporary superiority only matters when it tips top institutions out of gender balance--by such a wide margin.</p>

35

<p>More little girls can sit still in class than little boys. Our schools encourage this sort of behavior. I think more little boys are being medicated so they can operate in a classroom. Correct me if I am wrong. I also think there are more female teachers than male teachers in schools. This has to have an impact. Cultural practices have an impact as well: we have as many top male HS students as female in my school. (patriarchal society) We have just as many "slackers" who are both male and female in high school. In grade school, the little girls out number the boys in being more interested in doing class activities.</p>

36

<p>How I wish Caltech had this problem... :-P</p>

37

<p>"What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options?"</p>

<p>There's a nice unfounded generalization. Everyone who says "girls are _<strong><em>" or "boy are _</em></strong>" are making themsevles out to be uneducated fools. Local trends in your town are not indicative of what is happening in every city. Back off the assumptions, please. I don't understand how it's okay for people to say that boys are lazy and immature but it's not okay for people to claim that girls aren't as good as boys in math/science. Both are false statements, so why aren't both condemned? Does it make people feel better when they say "ha ha boys are dumb"? I must be missing something.</p>

38

<p>I can tell you where the gap is, someone mentioned it before, but I can elaborate. The most important factor in college admissions is cumulative gpa, 9th ,10th, and 11th, I can tell you for a fact that guys really don't reach that academic maturity until 11th grade and their cum. gpa is significantly hurt. On SAT's, males and females are on par because the SAT is taken during 11th and 12th and the gap has closed.</p>

<p>New Rule: 9th grade shouldn't count.</p>

39

<p>new spin on it all:</p>

<p>I begged my d to consider an all-girls school. we visited Wellesley and liked it but she wants to be where she can interact with boys. and so should she. I am sorry it this is offensive to anyone but maybe the time has come to not have all boys or all girls. friends of ours were concerned when their d got into a girls school because of the "preconceived" opinion of an all girls school. </p>

<p>as for confused's post, the whole process is messed up. you are told to be active, volunteer, get a job, do sports, get all A's and be a robot for hs. then the college process starts and you see kids that did much of nothing in school except study and make 4.5 GPAs and they can go anywhere. it is still and always was about the grades and scores. we are running our kids to death and if the numbers are not there, forget it.</p>

40

<p>The statement I found most interesting and arguable from Dean Delahunty Britz was "Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive."</p>

<p>Seems like it could be true, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. I'd love to know the real statistics. What do properly-sampled and statistically valid undergraduate surveys reveal? Better yet, since undergradusate notoriously don't always DO what they SAY, is there any evidence that moving beyond the "tipping point" (60% females) causes large declines in applications, enrollments, or transfers of men and/or women. I don't believe the oft-quoted Wellesley argument is applicable, since it's really a different situation with the school philosophy of women-only education. Show me some real life examples where SLACs have gotten into enrollment trouble that could specifically be pinned on gender imbalance?</p>