<p>Has anyone seen a demographic breakdown? How do male vs. female numbers stack up for URM's? In Chicago, for example, the predominately African American Chicago State University is 78% female. My guess is that there is a far greater gender difference in the minority community, which will bias the overall numbers as well. Perhaps, if the minority numbers are removed, one might find less of an overall difference (specific LAC's aside), and uncover a very real problem of the lack of doing a good job of educating minority boys. Of course, I could be wrong, this is only speculation based on experience, not data.</p>
<p>One of the things the article failed to mention is that one of Kenyon's freshman entry class either last year or the year before was 50/50 male to female. So obviously, Britz practices what she preaches. Another interesting fact regarding Kenyon College is that Asians are still desired applicants there. The percentage of Asians is low and a female Asian at Kenyon would most likely be given admission over a Caucasion male.</p>
<p>My Quote:
"Many dads spend hours coaching their sons' teams but spend little time focused on their sons' academic lives."</p>
<p>Martin's response: "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>Actually, talk to any high school teacher and he/she probably could point out which girls probably do spend too much time at the mall (after all, nobody said that all girls are A students!) At my sons' school, I could say that the girls that are the most materialistic and "mall-oriented" do have moms who are the same.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that there aren't ANY coaching dads who pay attention to their sons grades/studies, but I have seen enough coaching dads (or just sports oriented dads) who make a much bigger deal about their sons' touchdowns, baskets, runs, etc then they do about a good test grade.</p>
<p>My two sons have also learned a bunch from their genius dad -- but their dad has been willing to spend hours tuturing them, proof-reading their essays, and helping them study. My sons' friends' dads do NOT do this.</p>
<p>"Has anyone seen a demographic breakdown? How do male vs. female numbers stack up for URM's?"</p>
<p>IDad, despite not being a complete snapshot for the entire US, the College Bound Senior report by TCB is quite telling. See page 10, for the distribution among ethnic groups and sex. The same report also provides the details of the differences between test scores for the various groups. </p>
<p>"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>As the above CB senior report demonstrates, that is NOT true, and especially not in the higher ranges of scores, which happen to be the ones of interest for highly selective schools. The number of boys scoring above 700 in Math is roughly double the number of girls, and higher when using percentages. For Math scores of 750 and above, boys outnumber girls THREE to ONE.</p>
<p>This speculation about secondary education is all very nice, but I feel to large questions have remained unaddressed:
First - how much does this apply to schools at the very top of the heap - Harvard, Stanford, Yale and the like? Most of you are probably familiar statement that more men fall on both sides of the extreme - there are more male prisoners and more male genii. Could it be that this is not an issue for ADComs at these few top schools, schools which often still have more males by 1 or two percentage points.</p>
<p>Let me take some of my own experiences to segue to a second question:
As a Stanford student, I consistently notice that the male students are as a group, ON AVERAGE, more proactive, more likely to question and participate in discussion, more engaged in many (but not all) political or intellectual endeavours? </p>
<p>Is this simply an artifact of my attending a school like Stanford?
Or might it be, as some previous posters have suggested, that boys bloom later, and that when they do they tend to outshine, on average, women?</p>
<p>Finally - a note on Summers's provocative statements: his thought experiment and this data are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it is possible, albeit not necessarily the case, that women do on average outshine women, but that at the very brightest and intellectual ends of the spectrum, there remain more men than women?</p>
<p>Post Scriptum:
All these poor ladies looking for husbands are in for more trouble than you seem to recognise: after all, so many [massive generalization alert:] of us intellectual men are less than excited by the fairer sex... which combined with womens' general openness to bisexuality, makes for what right-wingers would call an 'epidemic'...</p>
<p>Thanks xiggi. Just glancing through it, it looks like many of the URM test takers are female by a margin of about 58 female vs. 42 male, with white test takes 53 female 47 male. Just glancing through it the numbers that jumped out at me, however, are that the gender difference narrows as the family income increases, with a 50 - 50 split at the $70,000 - $80,000 level, and 53 male vs. 43 female at the >$100,000 level. Another revealing number is that for families where the parents do not have a HS diploma the split is 39% boys, 61% girls. Perhaps there is more to this gender difference stuff than simply curriculum. </p>
<p>The data on simply boys vs. girls in terms of HS rank and GPA are also quite stunning.</p>
<p>lki now suggests that a higher proportion of academically able boys are GAY? xiggs, do the CB stats cover this variable?</p>
<p>In answer to your question, lki, given the recent discussions about an Ivy and a top 10 LAC, my guess is that very few top schools do not have a gender problem. HYP...because of the ranking....Stanford...because of the science....Cornell and Penn need so many students...Dartmouth and Brown are more like LACs....</p>
<p>Question: are you taking science classes? Which courses are dominated by men? </p>
<p>idad...take that stunning data and compare it to NMF stats, keeping in mind that the Verbal portion of the PSAT is weighted to 'allow' girls to achieve finalist status at a similar rate to boys.</p>
<p>I agree that something has gone wrong in our educational system that shortchanges our young men. The numbers don't lie. It should not be an issue of sexism, but rather of education. Unfortunately, that's not the focus.</p>
<p>Meanwhile...</p>
<p>I know of a highly regarded engineering, architecture, science school with a huge imbalance of male students which makes females, any females, in huge demand. In fact, if a suburban white female - overrepresented applicants at the other colleges mentioned above - applied, she would be first in line for a scholarship. </p>
<p>It is all relative.</p>
<p>daaaaad: </p>
<p>Yes, it does seem that the XXXX Techs (or those like them) do have an overabundance of males and do bend over backward to get more girls. However, those schools don't have the worry of declining enrollments that the girl heavy schools do. Perhaps the boys at "boy heavy" schools don't look at their schools as being potential "date markets".</p>
<p>BTW:</p>
<p>Xiggi: Do you pronounce your SN as "ziggy" (does the x have the x sound like xerox)? Or some other way? Just curious...... :)</p>
<p>I'd say Ziggi, but you can use whatever is eaxier. :)</p>
<p>Men tend to prefer larger universities. Almost all LACs have slightly higher female than male populations. I think my daughter - who goes to one of these LACs - would not agree that admissions should stop giving preference to men/allowing reduced standards. She explicitly did not want to go to a college with an out-of-balance male:female ratio. 50-50 sounds just right to her.</p>
<p>I agree with overseas. In elementary school you will see many more successful girls than boys. Our boys are increasingly medicated to sit through classes and prepare for the many standardized tests that are the essence of public school now. The reason many parents encourage sports may be to allow some kids an outlet for the energy they have that gets them in trouble in school. Elementary teachers reward passive learners and these are often girls.</p>
<p>Babar, many more girls are participating in sports these
days than a generation ago ! And, not all boys enjoy sports.
My 6'2" nephew is an example. These are very old generalizations.</p>
<p>"These are very old generalizations."</p>
<p>They're not old generalizations at all. Guys enjoy playing sports more.</p>
<p>yes, I agree - I am responding to the many posts commenting that dads who coach their boys are giving them messages that achieving in sports trumps academic achievements. I believe that dads who coach are often trying to help their kids (boys and girls) find success outside of the classroom. Very early on kids are tagged good in school or not. I am responding to the thread about what is valued - and the arguments about girls vs. boys. Please read the whole thread - I am not generalizing.</p>
<p>Hmmmmm...that's not why we encouraged our boys to play team sports. My generalization ;) is: Most males are happier when they are operating as a member of a pack. In order to find social happiness, boys must polish their 'pack' skills; ie how to play/work happlily and successfully within a group. Team sports are a fantastic place to learn those social 'pack' skills.</p>
<p>My DH read thousands of pages of chapter books to his two rapt boys. He had the patience of Job during who knows how many Math and Physics study sessions. He loves to take his boys to museums. He loves to travel with his boys. He loves to go to the theatre with his boys. He introduced them to countless music groups. He built massive log forts with them. Even now, when the youngest wants to learn a few wrestling moves, that 50 year old plays the willing partner--knowing how sore he will be in the morning. Though he unusually attentive, I know many fathers who pursue a wide variety of activites with their children--though it is true that the higher the socioeconomic strata, the wider the range of activites.</p>
<p>Hmmm, Do you know Soozievt? You seem to have a perfect family, too...but really, obviously boys who are succeeding in school are likely to have at least one parent who is encouraging in many ways (and socioeconomics definitely play into this). However, I am certain that girls as well as boys need to feel part of a pack.</p>
<p>I think one of the reasons fewer boys go on to college is that it's still easier for a male than a female to earn a decent living without a college degree. I come from a huge extended family and some of my most financially successful relatives and in-laws don't have college degrees. You can make a good living as an elevator repair person, a HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) system specialist, an audio-visual technician, a plumber, an auto mechanic, a chef, etc. (especially if you go into business for yourself, after gaining enough experience.) While non-skilled jobs are disappearing, people with these skills are in demand. Most of the people who have them are male.</p>