<p>"Girls are better at test-taking. It does not mean they are smarter, it just means they are better at taking tests. "</p>
<p>Except perhaps for the SAT math?</p>
<p>whoa. I always thought that it was easier for girls to get into colleges but I guess its actually the other way around.</p>
<p>I believe those of you who are implying that women are smarter than men need a reality check, this depends solely on the student, and the student alone. The student who suffer most in these situations are the white and Asian students, the bar is simply set higher for them. Different schools have different criteria, some may be easier for women to get into, some easier for men. Some fields are women dominated, some male dominated. This is too subjective to simply claim "women have more difficulty being accepted to colleges than men."</p>
<p>Well for whatever reason women are more driven and motivated at a younger age than men to succeed. If they also didn't have the expectation of child-rearing, I would certainly expect there to be much greater percentages of women at the top ranks.</p>
<p>Nowhere is this more apparent than in African-American communities, most of which have an incredibly disproportionate number of scholarly women compared to men. When men are expected to be macho and tough, rarely is that synonymous with studying hard. It's a fact of culture, in other cultures, such as in China, "macho" pretty much means great at school, whereas the culture perpetrates a less ambitious female set, so you see the reverse.</p>
<p>2007Mom - Your anger is misplaced. The SAT Writing section isn't counted because it's extremely faulty. It's much harder to get a picture of a student's writing skill with one essay than it is for critical reading or math. I've known more than a few people who made up books to "prove" their point on the writing section and got 800's. At my HS it was practically a running joke, with kids asking each other what book they made up on it. That's why it isn't used. Not because the world wants to screw over women (Plenty of adcoms are women anyways).</p>
<p>As for sports, it's perfectly reasonable for more people to watch men's games because they're usually more physical, faster and more intense. Skill can vary greatly, but you can't deny men's sports are generally faster-paced and have more dynamic play (big hits in football, cross-overs windmill dunks, etc etc), which is half the reason people watch games. So please, try to keep the feminist crap out of this thread.</p>
<p>"The SAT Writing section isn't counted because it's extremely faulty. It's much harder to get a picture of a student's writing skill with one essay than it is for critical reading or math"</p>
<p>But aren't most of the points from the "multiple choice" and not the essay portion?</p>
<p>"HOW IS YOUR WRITING SCORE CALCULATED?<br>
The multiple choice writing section accounts for approximately 70% and the essay counts for approximately 30% of your total raw score, which is used to calculate your 200-to-800 score. "</p>
<p>Hasn't the writing portion been studied extensively as a predictor of college success by U of Cal when it was a subject test? Isn't that why College board started including it in the reasoning test? I believe many schools DO use it according to their common data set, at least many of the ones my D applied to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The SAT Writing section isn't counted because it's extremely faulty. It's much harder to get a picture of a student's writing skill with one essay than it is for critical reading or math
[/quote]
The reason it is not counted is that there are not enough years of data. In the next year or two schools will begin to count the writing section.</p>
<p>Isn't it also a question of proportion? Let's take this for example:</p>
<p>I have 1000 male applicants, 2000 female applicants and 1 intersexed applicant. </p>
<p>750 males are judged as meeting the admission standards while 950 females are judged as meeting the standards while the intersexed is admitted. </p>
<p>The admission rates becomes:</p>
<p>Males- 75%
Females- 47.5%
Intersexed- 100%</p>
<p>Clearly, at my institution, I give preference to intersexed people.</p>
<p>Guys, if more girls apply to your school then the acceptance rate will be lower. It's not a question of affirmative action, it's a question of hard statistics.</p>
<p>So what I want to really know is this: Due to the lack of male applicants, do schools "stoop" their standards and accept lower qualfied males in order to keep their ratio at an acceptable level? If so then male applicants are advantaged over female applicants.</p>
<p>To answer the last two questions,</p>
<p>It isn't particularly true that the number of applicants affects the admissions rate if you have a desired result. You could have a high number of unqualified candidates that apply as well. But I did hear that Vassar was lowering their standards for males in order to increase male enrollment. From a purely mathematical standpoint though, an increase in applications would the number of rejections which would have an effect on the admissions rate.</p>
<p>Yes, Justin, as I understand it, that's what they do. I believe the first post stated this, that the admission rates for boys is higher than for girls, because fewer boys are applying.</p>
<p>Here's a discussion about this on the parents form forum awhile ago.</p>
<p>"College: getting inPosted: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:59 AM by Barbara Raab</p>
<p>By Savannah Guthrie, NBC News correspondent</p>
<p>Should it be easier for boys than girls to get into college? The simple answer, of course, is no. But as we prepared the third installment of our series, "The Truth About Boys and Girls," we learned that nothing is simple when it comes to the college admissions process. </p>
<p>The story starts with some good news: girls are shining academically. Girls have done so well, in fact, they now represent the majority of the student body on many campuses nationwide. </p>
<p>But all that success has led to some unintended consequences. At certain schools - particularly, liberal arts colleges overloaded with female applicants - the only way admissions offices can keep a gender-balanced student body is to admit a greater percentage of boys and reject more girls. That means better qualified girls are sometimes turned away just to increase male enrollment. An admissions dean from Kenyon College caused a firestorm in the academic world for acknowledging as much in a New York Times op-ed entitled, "To All The Girls I've Rejected."</p>
<p>On the other hand, many schools point out that a diverse student body - whether it's by race, gender, or geography - is a legitimate goal for colleges. "</p>
<p>
[quote]
But isn't that like saying "I am deeply skeptical of anything that makes blanket statements about how girls throw baseballs compared to how boys throw baseballs." There ARE differences between boys and girls that CAN be explained with blanket statements.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In your example of baseball-throwing, it depends. Most trained boys will throw harder than most trained girls once puberty starts because most pubescent/post-pubescent boys are physically stronger than most pubescent/post-pubescent girls. This doesn't really apply before puberty. Untrained boys and girls are all over the map in terms of how they throw a baseball...it will depend on natural ability, strength, and coordination, amount of time they've spent throwing, whether they have older siblings who play ball with them, whether they watch baseball on TV and notice how the players throw, etc.</p>
<p>Certainly, when I was a kid, I was always irritated when boys made fun of other boys with the putdown of "You throw like a girl." After all, "I'm a girl, and I don't throw a ball that way."</p>
<p>My point being, people are individuals, and not automatons. And there tend to be huge overlaps between groups in distributions of a given characteristic. It is rarely as simple as blanket statements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think colleges shouldnt judge applicants on factors beyond our control like gender + race...they should judge ppl based on merit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What a nice thought. Too bad that:</p>
<ol>
<li>There's no objective, unflawed way to measure merit in the context of college admissions.</li>
<li>This is completely ignoring impact of the realities of social psych (stereotype activation & stereotype threat, unconscious bias, etc).</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
So what I want to really know is this: Due to the lack of male applicants, do schools "stoop" their standards and accept lower qualfied males in order to keep their ratio at an acceptable level? If so then male applicants are advantaged over female applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yes - kind of. Look LAC's are not going to go out of business if they can help it. They also are going to work hard to maintain a gender balance.
There are soooooo many qualified candidates though I don't think standards are being lowered or that they are going to admit unqualified males. It is just that the competition is steeper amongst the girls.
Definately this is a good time to be a "high quality" male applicant to a LAC.</p>
<p>jessiehl, even if colleges cant objectively judge ppl based on merit, they still should not rely as heavily on race + gender as they do now.</p>
<p>an example given in another thread was how a white person who was 1/16 Native American & has never experienced any obstacles related to NA status & does not know anything about NA culture other than the fact that he is one still has an advantage over a person with almost the exact same stats & is 100% white.</p>
<p>So by admitting more females we discriminate against males, but if we admit more males we discriminate against females, and keeping a balanced student bod racially, and gender-wise we discriminate against everyone. </p>
<p>There is no need to sit and argue the ins and outs of college admissions and who is targeted and who isn't. I think we need to cut the feminist crap and racist crap out already and realize that students are being admitted to schools based on many factors. Age, Gender, Sex etc plays a role in keeping a diverse student body, which is a very important part of higher education, so the colleges are justified by admitting less women to ensure an equal balance of men and women, blacks and whites, gays and puerto ricans, etc. etc..</p>
<p>I have a son in 4th grade, and in some ways, I have to agree with Justin1234. They won't let the boys play touch football at recess, for fear of them getting hurt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Age, Gender, Sex etc plays a role in keeping a diverse student body, which is a very important part of higher education, so the colleges are justified by admitting less women to ensure an equal balance of men and women, blacks and whites, gays and puerto ricans, etc. etc..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Why is a 'diverse' student body a very important part of higher education? Why is it, in this new age where people are supposed to be equal regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race, that the interests of molding the social environment to fit the likes of some people is more important than equal treatment for all? </p>
<p>Maybe the girls who got in would rather have the school be 50% male, but what about those girls who weren't as qualified as the girls who got in- yet are better qualified than some of the admitted males? Maybe some of them would rather have been admitted, even if that meant going to a school that was 60-70% female.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the College of William and Mary, which is considered one of the best schools in Virginia (some would say it rivals UVA), the acceptance rate for males is 45%, while for females it's a mere 25%!
[/quote]
??? then where are other 30% from? NeuturalSex applicants pool?</p>
<p>I believe that means 45/100 males who apply get in, 25 of 100 females get in.</p>
<p>I also have to agree with Justin1234.</p>
<p>In elementary school, I was part of this "special ed" group, but it was rightfully so, because I had a diagnosed disability earlier. However, this gave me perspective on what happens. There is a reason that many more boys are placed in special ed-- learning disabilities ADD and autistic spectrum disorders occur much more frequently in boys for genetic reasons. However, I have seen many boys also placed in special ed not because they had a learning or behavioral disability, but simply because they didn't behave "like the girls." As the article Justin posted mentioned, boys need a reason to care about what they are doing. They play because it is fun. They eat because they are hungry. They say please and thank you because it is the polite thing to do. They learn because................</p>
<p>Elementary school teachers give no reason. It isn't until middle school that many boys realize that their education actually has a purpose, and consequently their academic achievement begins to increase.</p>
<p>Let me put it this way. Memories of high school for me will be of hilarious and interesting teachers who not only taught us material, but discussed other topics with us or integrated them into the lesson. My memories of elementary school are filled with dreadful mornings, boredom, and work. We would simply be taught something and told to do work. Where's the hook? There was no laughter. There was no childrens' pop culture integration. Trust me, simply using this can improve participation among boys greatly. Simply taking the personalities of my high school teachers and putting them into elementary schools while "childrenizing" it would greatly improve the participation amongst boys. Now that I think about it, most of these great teachers were men.............</p>