Tufts Daily: Women Face Higher Admissions Standards

[proletariat2]

<p>The desirability of a college to both men and women drops significantlyif the ratio is more than 60:40 either way.</p>

<p>

And MOST strippers are broke. Good ‘gentlemans clubs’ = making good $$$. Jackson, Michigan strippers = meth addicts

</p>

<p>Jackson, Michigan anything = meth addicts</p>

<p>I live near Ann Arbor, just so you understand why I say that.</p>

[salpert]

<p>In my opinion, in my high school at least, it comes down to it being more socially acceptable for a girl to do well in school than a guy. For a girl, being smart is considered “cool and sexy” for a guy, it’s “nerdy”. Double-standard much?</p>

[TourGuide446]

<p>Desire for diversity=easier admissions for men. Suck it up, liberals…this is the insanity your policies have spawned.</p>

[DSC]

<p>Well if it wasn’t for those ‘liberal policies’ female education would never have increased in the first place. Women were brought in for equality and diversity, that was insanity then.</p>

<p>So I fail to see your point.</p>

[nyc]

<p>Why is easier admission for men a problem or something to be sucked up?</p>

[Mom_I_am]

<p>What do the high schoolers out there think? Academically challenging high schools require students to sit and concentrate six hours at school and then 4-6 or more hours at home on homework, day after day, year after year. Now throw in extra-curriculars! I think more girls can sustain this effort than boys. It’s particularly been a challenge for my super smart son with ADD.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

But women can fall back to working at, shall we say, ‘gentlemen’s clubs’, where they will, frankly, make a lot more money than the guys doing hard labor. And I mean a LOT more - often times by several times more.

</p>

<p>Ha, Sakky, I am glad you chimed in on this board. It’s infinitely more entertaining…</p>

<p>I don’t have a statistical survey to point to, but I would say that a random sampling of men yields a much higher percentage of men who could fall back on manual labor and do okay than a random sampling of women who are attractive enough to fall back on working at gentleman’s clubs…I think the better comparison would be waitressing.</p>

<p>

Well, the truth is, MOST AMERICANS are broke. Seriously. The average American doesn’t make that much money. The average American is living hand-to-mouth.

</p>

<p>Totally agree with this statement – but you just negated your original proposition that “women who work in the night” can do much better than male manual laborers.</p>

[Americanski]

<p>

Has anyone every seen any data that compares the SAT scores of men vs women at highly selective colleges or universities. If there is a real gender bias it should show up there. Differences in admit rates do not neccesarily imply a gender bias, since women may be applying in greater numbers. It woud also be an interesting way to quantify the magnitude of the bias, if there is one. Folks collect and publish this data on race and other issues, it would be surprising if there was no such data on gender.

</p>

<p>Right, as I said, SAT scores are never mentioned in these articles, and the omission is glaring. It’s either because of sloppy journalism and they’re simply not asking or because the scores for males are higher (which is likely, since the average for males is higher) and they don’t want to include strong evidence that their entire premise is flawed.</p>

[nyuwishabee]

<p>Do take into consideration the reputations of strippers versus manual laborers.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I don’t have a statistical survey to point to, but I would say that a random sampling of men yields a much higher percentage of men who could fall back on manual labor and do okay than a random sampling of women who are attractive enough to fall back on working at gentleman’s clubs…I think the better comparison would be waitressing.

</p>

<p>Uh, well, let’s say that you don’t exactly need to be all that attractive to successfully work at a gentlemen’s club. Let’s face it. Most men have instincts that are pretty base. The truth of the matter is, most men, especially if they’re drunk, will happily pay very good money to stare at most young naked woman, even if they aren’t exactly beauty queens. There are some, plain-looking woman out there doing quite well in these clubs. Frankly, as long as you’re young, you have to be truly unattractive to not make decent money as as stripper. Granted, you won’t make the kind of money that an investment banker makes. But you’ll make pretty good money. </p>

<p>If you really don’t believe me, I invite you to go to some of the average clubs in the smaller towns (i.e. not the star clubs in the major cities, but an average one in a small town), and you will see plenty of women working there that, frankly, you probably wouldn’t look at twice if you met her in a regular venue, but who are raking in the dough in these clubs. </p>

<p>Uh, not that I’m speaking from personal experience of course. This is all just what I’ve heard from my friends. ;-></p>

<p>

Totally agree with this statement – but you just negated your original proposition that “women who work in the night” can do much better than male manual laborers.
[/quote[</p>

<p>Actually, I don’t think I have. First off, I never agreed with the previous premise that most strippers are broke anyway. And even if that were true, it wouldn’t be relevant, as, like I said, most Americans are also broke. What somebody has to show is that the average strippers are just as likely or more likely as the average American to be broke. That has not been shown by anybody here on this thread. </p>

<p>[quote]
Do take into consideration the reputations of strippers versus manual laborers.

</p>

<p>But that’s not what I am talking about. I am simply pointing out that the option to strip exists for most young women (i.e. the ones who aren’t truly unattractive).</p>

<p>Now, is it a disreputable option? Of course! Is it an option that most women don’t want to choose? Again, of course. But that’s not the point. The point is, the option exists. Whether the option is reputable or not, or whether most women would actually want to choose it or not is not relevant to the question of whether the option is there. In other words, if a young woman really really wants to make a lot of money and yet really really doesn’t want to go to college, she does have this other option. That’s all I’m saying.</p>

[Vderon]

<p>Stripper versus manual labor=dumbest conversation ever. I feel like I am on the “Americas Next Most Smartest Model” forum.</p>

<p>Especially when you are “not talking from personal experience.” In that case, you are just talking.</p>

[BigAppleDaddy]

<p>My onw theory about why girls outperform guys: the big switch in most of the country in the past 30 years from junior high schools to middle schools. </p>

<p>It hurts because boys, in general, get their academic sea legs a bit later than girls do, mature slower, start to take their studies seriously a little later, etc. So by the time kids move to HS, more girls than boys will be on the fast academic track. If a guy gets his act together in 10th grade, while the girl did it in ninth, it is very difficult in many systems for the boy to move to the faster paced academic track. Not only did the guy start HS behind, but he will be left behind–as many parents who have tried to get their late-blooming boys into stronger classes will testify. Thirty years ago, however, HS began in the 10th grade more often, and guys had that extra year to get their s**t together. </p>

<p>Same principle holds true, I believe, in moving from elementary school at grade 5 to middle school vs moving from elementary school at grade 6 to JHS. Girls often read sooner and learn to “do school” a little faster, so that they enter MS already ahead of the slower-developing boys. </p>

<p>I’ve never seen any evidence to prove or disprove. Just my theory about why girls are doing so much better over the last 30 years or so. The time frame for switching educational levels favors those (more often girls) with advantages that keep getting compounded the longer they are in school</p>

[Schmidty147]

<p>most schools women find it easier to get in</p>

[alanofhuynh]

<p>What’s up with all this “Guys versus Girls” stuff? Stop trying to compare the two, you can’t. Sure there are some generalizations (stereotypes), but this thread should be answered with pure statistics and not personal opinions.</p>

[RootBeerCaesar]

<p>^ I agree. Girls are not ‘smarter’ than guys despite the idiotic cries of stupid feminists. It’s not a physiological solution, and those who advocate such a thing are sexists.</p>

[Americanski]

<p>

It hurts because boys, in general, get their academic sea legs a bit later than girls do, mature slower, start to take their studies seriously a little later, etc. So by the time kids move to HS, more girls than boys will be on the fast academic track.

</p>

<p>I think schools have moved away from tracking, and in some cases it seems like just about anyone can take AP classes. At least this was the trend in my district. In any event, this “outperformance” is never quantified, except in terms of sheer enrollment numbers, which don’t mean much of anything.</p>

[enomo67]

<p>This is true. And I don’t want to hear anything about how this is just a feminist stand. It’s so easy to get wrapped up in numbers and forget that we’re talking about real people here. People, who, like me, worked their asses off in high school and consequently saw less qualified males get accepted into schools they were rejected at. And then there’s the connections/financial leg up as well. And it just makes me seriously doubt what this country is really about. How many times in my life have I heard the word “meritocracy” applied to the United States? Many many times. And how many times have I believed that word was used correctly? Never. And even though I’m happy about the school I’m going to and happy I’m not going to the school I’m not going to—I think the injustice of it all stings. And that’s why it’s been hard for me to get over it. And, I think, when talking about this kind of topic, it’s important to remember that we aren’t stats. It’s just like with genocides or wars, it’s easy to blow a death toll off as a number. Because we can’t really wrap our heads around a number. We can wrap our heads around individual’s personal stories. And my speech is thus ended.</p>

[enomo67]

<p>RootBeerCaesar. I’m talking to you. Chauvinist.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>Based on a 2005 article, women have higher GPAs but average about 44 behind males on the SAT (M +V). If you include writing, the gap is about 34 points (writing was included the year after.)</p>

<p>[New</a> SAT Could Shrink Test’s Gender Gap](<a href=“http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2220]New”>http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2220)</p>

<p>Also, it’s worth noting that a lopsided gender distribution at the middle of the bell curve does not necessarily imply that there is a similar gender ratio at the top end. I really doubt the ivies, Stanford, or some slightly less selective universities such as UChicago, Duke, or Northwestern would need to have gender preferences.</p>

<p>My guess is that gender bias is limited to small liberal arts colleges, non-selective universities, and places that are trying to have a 50:50 gender ratio in each major.</p>

[TourGuide446]

<p>“RootBeerCaesar. I’m talking to you. Chauvinist.”</p>

<p>I am reminded of the line, “People call other people ‘insensitive’ when they are unable to call them ‘wrong.’”</p>