<p>"William and Mary, the country's oldest University...."</p>
<p>No, that would be Harvard. Even W&M's own website says they are second-oldest:</p>
<p>Scipio--W&M is the second oldest college, but some suggest it is the oldest University. </p>
<p>I think Marc Fisher's analysis in today's Washington Post is the best I've seen on this issue. Basically, the Board got what it should have expected. That said, Nichol could have consulted more effectively...and he admits that in his e-mail statement.</p>
<p>"W&M is the second oldest college, but some suggest it is the oldest University."</p>
<p>That's a distinction without a difference.</p>
<p>Defer to W&M, just indicating there's a basis for the statement. The distinction doesn't mean much now in the U.S. but back then, in historical context, there was one.</p>
<p>It is fascinating to note the number of "progressives" that laud President Nichol's efforts to increase diversity. And to a point, I support his efforts too. But lets be honest, given the massive achievement gaps in this country, any meaningful increase in diversity would have to come about from the practice of granting considerable preference based on race - in other words, engaging in racial discrimination, at a public university no less. What really would have been courageous is for Nichol to take a stand that W & M is going to rise above the insipid morass of racial identity politics, and state that we value contributions and achievements without any regard to race or national origin - whether it be admissions, faculty recruitment or the like.</p>
<p>Not about to soft-pedal discrimination. William and Mary has no problem discriminating based upon sex.</p>
<p>Danas - you are absolutely correct. Those of us that live in Northern Virginia find it disturbing just how much easier it is for a male - they have a shortage of those apparently - to get into W & M than with females. When you know a group of kids well, and can really discern the differences, it is striking.</p>
<p>^^^^^So true, so true to both danas and mam1959!</p>
<p>the acceptance statistics (beyond percentages) are not significantly different for males and females.</p>
<p>sorry, keep looking.</p>
<p>OIR</a> Home 2006-2007<br>
C. FIRST-TIME, FIRST-YEAR (FRESHMAN) ADMISSION </p>
<pre><code>Applications
</code></pre>
<p>C1 First-time, first-year, (freshmen) students: Provide the number of degree-seeking, first-time, first-year students who applied, were admitted, and enrolled (full- or part-time) in fall 2006. Include early decision, early action, and students who began studies during summer in this cohort. Applicants should include only those students who fulfilled the requirements for consideration for admission (i.e., who completed actionable applications) and who have been notified of one of the following actions: admission, nonadmission, placement on waiting list, or application withdrawn (by applicant or institution). Admitted applicants should include wait-listed students who were subsequently offered admission.<br>
C1 Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied 3812<br>
C1 Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied 6910 </p>
<p>C1 Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted 1671<br>
C1 Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted 1797 </p>
<p>C1 Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled 649
C1 Total part-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled 3 </p>
<p>C1 Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled 695
C1 Total part-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled 2</p>
<p>Well, if those women knew that W&M would be a campus with twice as many women as men, would they want to attend? I think many colleges are between a rock and a hard place on this issue. Yes, it's unfair to admit men with lower stats than women. But on the other hand, if they allowed the gender ratio to become skewed, over time the school's popularity would drop like a stone.</p>
<p>Reality says that there's a 58-42 ratio of women to men. Colleges routinely practice sexual discrimination. They SAY they'd like a balance, but they know that guys are more likely to drop out and girls are more likely to stay. Because a college's attrition rate must be kept to an absolute minimum, having more girls is a silent no-brainer.</p>
<p>Look at this quote from US News and World Report:</p>
<p>“Girls watch less television, spend less time playing sports, and are far less likely to find themselves in detention. They are more likely to participate in drama, art, and music classes – extracurriculars that are catnip for admissions officers. Across the board, girls study more, score better, and are less likely to be placed in special education classes.” </p>
<p>Colleges don't publish their quotas for sex, race, or wealthy zip codes. Bad form.</p>
<p>Can't we find some way to make this thread touch on Asians, drinking, and fraternities? Then it could hit all of the CC hot buttons.</p>
<p>I, too, am puzzled by some of the anger over male admissions. It seems obvious that it's in W&M's long-term interest to remain a co-educational college, and it also seems obvious that, with women applying at almost twice the rate as men, and sticking around much more once enrolled, W&M is running awfully close to a kind of tipping point at which its make applications would drop even further, and it would no longer be competitive for women who wanted to attend a college that had a meaningful number of men it in (which is to say, an awful lot of women). I can certainly understand the disappointment of a parent whose child was rejected by a college she liked, but it's really hard to imagine W&M doing anything radically different from what it is doing. Over time, the application numbers and statistical profiles of the men and women ought to converge.</p>
<p>soccer guy - let's face it - W & M is a very fine school, and they can and do keep their statistics for admission rather high. Good for them. </p>
<p>But the reality in Northern Virginia is that it is much harder for women to be admitted to the school. What W & M does when it comes to admissions - and it makes sense given their burdens under Title IX - where a surplus of females also means a surplus of compliance obligations in terms of numbers when to comes to athletics - is prefer athletic prowess above all else - and I am talking about make the team athletic prowess as opposed to All American type athletic prowess that leads to a full scholarship (although they do that too). This practice, particularly in Northern Virginia, where athletes come from reasonably well off families and are well prepared, fills their women's teams. So in practice a non-athlete female student finds that her statistics have to well out pace her male counterparts. It is just the reality. I don't mean this as a negative comment on athletics - I attended school on a Div. 1 scholarship myself - but the practice certainly doesn't enhance the school's reputation in Northern Virginia. And I have no axe to grind - although they are top students with statistics well in excess of W & M's average, neither of my kids were interested in the school - despite being very familiar with it through vacations in Williamsburg, athletic competitions and the like. I merely relate the reality as perceived.</p>
<p>mam1959,
I'm not disputing your point about the favoritism sometimes shown to athletes, but in the case of W&M, the numbers for the women admitted this way are pretty small. According to published NCAA data, for an entering class of approximately 700 women each year, only about 25 of them are women receiving athletics aid, or about 3.5% of the entering women. And that assumes that all of them weren't up to par academically. Surely, there are others not receiving aid who are advantaged in the admissions process, but the numbers aren't very large.</p>
<p>just because more women apply does not mean that the accepted males are not as qualified as the accepted females.</p>
<p>however, that is not what this thread is about... it appears the faulty impressions of the presidential situation have come to an end, for the time being.</p>
<p>hawkette - the issue is much deeper than who gets athletic aid. Many more are recruited and given an admissions advantage irrespective of athletic aid. Don't forget the burden that Title IX places on schools with a surplus of women - JMU is in the same boat - if the ratio of women to men is nearly 60/40, athletic participation has to reflect the same ratio, and with that ten ton elephant known as football the number of participants in women's sports will be much greater on a team by team basis than the men. The women's teams invite more and recruit more - without regard to athletic aid (although in fairness most non-scholarship athletes are fairly decent students). It simply has to be that way. This is why JMU doesn't have a mens track or cross country team any longer - but the women do. (Track and cross country in the CAA is real cheap - so its not about money - but about compliance). And when it comes to a relatively small school like W & M, this practice really starts to impact admissions in a concentrated environment like Northern Virginia, where W & M could likely fill most of its class if it ever chose to do so. </p>
<p>I agree that the male matriculants to W & M are qualified - but that doesn't detract from the reality in Northern Virginia that lesser qualifed males often receive admission when the women don't. </p>
<p>And I agree this is all in all a minor point - but issues like this grate when the school goes through a bit of turmoil, such as now with President Nichol.</p>
<p>The athlete ratio does not have to reflect the student ratio. If there is less interest they can have fewer women.</p>
<p>Many male sports teams are cut due to Title IX and the only way to get around this is to cancel football, which most schools won't do. It is outrageous to have to cut male cross country and track teams due to Title IX. Other schools have had to cut such healthy sports such as men's swimming due to Title IX. It is hard to believe that the courts intended their decision to impede men from doing certain sports, but this is what happened.</p>
<p>I think that schools with male football teams should start female football teams and be able to count these as slots, whether used or not, to be able to then bolster up the men's sports. It's just shamful to cut track and field sports. And football isn't going away at most schools, just at Swarthmore!</p>