<p>
[quote]
So I suppose it's much easier for a boy to get into Brown than for a girl?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Based on the 2007-08 CDS, Brown accepted 16.2 % of male applicants and 12.5 % of female applicants. In absolute terms, that's not a huge difference -- it's obviously a low rate either way. </p>
<p>But it's also true that in relative terms, the male acceptance rate was 30 % higher than the female rate. So yes, men did have a significant statistical advantage. </p>
<p>Brown simply has to have different acceptance rates, if it wants to maintain a reasonably balanced enrollment. There were almost 50% more women than men in their applicant pool. If their enrollment went the same way, men would be just as much a minority at Brown as they are at former women's colleges like Vassar, Skidmore, or Connecticut College. </p>
<p>Most top schools now get more female applicants than male. But there are some schools where the disparity is especially pronounced. For whatever reason, Brown and Wesleyan are among them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's face it, women are just smarter than men.
[/quote]
[quote]
or the current secondary school system caters better to them...
[/quote]
But those explanations don't account for the fact that certain schools have much stronger male/female imbalances in their applicant pools than others. Because of this, such schools have lower acceptance rates for female applicants, while other peer schools do not. For example:</p>
<p>Yale is affected -- but Princeton is not.
Brown is affected -- but Dartmouth is not.
Wesleyan is affected -- but Trinity is not.
Middlebury is affected -- but Williams is not.</p>
<p>It isn't entirely clear why female applicants have such strong preferences for certain schools. They seem to be puzzling over this at Yale, based on the link posted above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...These numbers have left the admissions office wondering why a greater number of women than men aspire to attend Yale...“We’re not quite sure why this is happening, and we’d like to do some work to see what’s going on there”
<p>Alright I have a lot to say (what else is new):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The difference between the affected and unaffected schools seems pretty obvious and sensical to me -- Wesleyan, Brown, and Middlebury are all more artsy, "international" (foreign language majors, study abroad kids, learning about different cultures), and just seem sunnier in my mind. These are all things that in general appeal to girls more than boys. Princeton, Dartmouth, and Williams are (reportedly, at least) heavier on drinking, which girls do less of than boys (check the popularity of alcohol at a women's college, you'll see what I mean). I don't know, the differences make sense to me. Call me sexist, but Brown/Wes/Midd are all "girlier" schools. I mean that as a high compliment.</p></li>
<li><p>The reason why women appear "smarter" or "better suited for school" (oy) than men is because women are out to prove something -- just like any group that historically did not have certain privileges, once they get them, they run with it. I'm not saying this is the case for all women, but I think many girls are aware that they are not "traditionally" viewed as critical thinkers and intelligent debaters, and this motivates them (er, us) to fill these roles. This argument is constantly made for why female doctors are so much better than male doctors (which is why I have heard of it -- my mother is a doctor). </p></li>
<li><p>I hate this "better suited for school" ********. Here is a story, from my NC high school to you:
I was in my 1st period Honors American West class a few weeks ago, and semester grades had just come out. My teacher, a Southerner by blood (I don't know whether this is relevant or just color to the story, I'll let you decide), was telling us about how girls in his class always seemed to have a higher average grade than the boys. Instead of congratulating the girls for such success, he concludes that this is because girls are better at "following directions", while boys are more "free spirited" and don't like to be told what to do. Somehow, he made girls getting higher grades into a bad thing -- we're not as creative, free-spirited... We are just good at following directions.
(I retorted, "maybe it's because girls are just smarter". I don't believe it, of course, but I thought it was most obvious conclusion to draw from his classes' grades).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I dont want to hijack this thread, but I'll say this: you may hate the "better suited for school ********" but it's true. Feel free to disagree with me, but men and women have different ways of learning, paying attention, and expressing themselves. Sitting in a classroom, reading a book/textbook, and discussing it favors a female disposition. This doesn't apply for everyone, but for a larger % of women than men. (Disclaimer: I don't mind this sort of classroom situation.) Other historically disadvantaged groups, while having enjoyed opportunities afforded to white males, certainly aren't racing ahead of said white males in terms of SAT scores and college acceptances, so I don't think it's entirely a motivation factor. School has never been optimal for males... even before women were succeeding in higher education. It's just that now females are taking advantage of the favorable situation.</p>
<p>Women can also empathize better than men (again, on average) which could explain the better doctor hypothesis. </p>
<p>In truth, it may be a combination of reasons, but I believe my point has some merit. I don't mean to undermine your point with a biology lecture, but I think the science is important.</p>
<p>No, I definitely do agree that women and men have some legit and fundamental differences in things like learning style (and I get annoyed when people disagree with that purely on the basis of sexism -- it's scientific truth).
However, the statement that "women are better suited for school" is used by people who want to account for women's better performance in school without actually attributing it to something good. Why can't we say "women are better with structure, critical thinking, and creativity, which are all things that school requires" -- that statement sounds appropriately complimentary.
Sorry if that doesn't make sense...</p>
<p>I think they use that particular statement because it isn't meant to be complimentary. It's largely biology, which isn't something women are responsible for/achieved for themselves. It's inherent... you don't go around congratulating someone for having brown eyes. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this, I'm just stating a reason why people use that statement. Also, I don't think it's the structure, critical thinking, and creativity, but the environment where those things are used that is advantageous to the fairer sex. In a non-classroom setting, the difference may be reversed.</p>
<p>Well, then we can't compliment anyone for <em>anything</em> really. No more saying "you have such pretty hair!" or "you're so talented!" or "you always have such smart things to say" or "congrats for getting an A on that test!". Everything is genetic. People compliment each other on genetic things all the time. This isn't the reason people don't compliment women for being smart/creative/etc. </p>
<p>School is designed to test intelligence, how well one can express one's self, critical thinking skills, creativity, etc. If women do better in school, the logical conclusion is that women are better at these things. That seems so obvious to me, I can't believe I even have to point it out. Why are we so opposed to saying that women are better at these things? We have to make it into something not at all complimentary like "women are just designed for school". This <em>is</em> the same statement as "women are better at creativity, critical thinking, and expressing themselves clearly" (at least, in theory school should be testing those things), so why can't we just say it like that?</p>
<p>"I don't think it's the structure, critical thinking, and creativity, but the environment where those things are used that is advantageous to the fairer sex."
That's exactly the kind of annoying statement I was talking about (sorry). Isn't doing well in school a sign of how gifted we are in certain aspects? If not, maybe we should rethink the whole idea of getting into college based on grades. Funny how we start to criticize what school is really measuring just as men start to be the ones not "measuring up"...</p>
<p>And what is the "environment" exactly you claim women are good at? We're particularly adept at filling in bubbles under fluorescent lighting, is that what you mean? I really hope school is testing more than that.</p>
<p>I think if you wish to continue the conversation, we do so by private message, as I do not want to hijack this thread. However, creativity and critical thinking are not used just in a school setting. Take real-life scenarios, like an architect, a novelist, etc. and men do just as well as women (arguably better in many cases). Here's an anaolgy... take vision. Humans see well in light. Some dogs have excellent night vision. Both have great visual acuity, but see better in different situations. Men may be better able to express their creativity and critical thinking in a different setting than women. </p>
<p>The environment I refer to is one based on dictation from a lecturer of some sort, sedentary learning, and language/verbal/written modes of evaluation.</p>
<p>I'm not saying women are better designed for school; I'm saying the modes through which creativity and critical thinking are tested in school favor women. These modes are the same methods used in college, which is why school is a good indicator of college success. </p>
<p>Men and women have equal average intelligence, and if you want to get technical, the most and least intelligent people in a given class are both going to be male.</p>
<p>I teach Women's Studies and have done so since 1980. I am a very committed feminist.</p>
<p>That said, it is true that statistically the scores at the upper upper end and lower lower end of the IQ curve are predominantly male. </p>
<p>This says nothing about individuals, however. I always point out that if Janet Reno and Danny DeVito walked into my mixed gender class, she would most likely be the tallest and he the shortest.</p>
<p>As for different learning styles, I don't agree with that.</p>
<p>There are very limited areas in which males and females have consistently shown differing abilities.</p>
<p>Women consistently have greater verbal ability.
Women have more manual dexterity. (Dare I say surgeons and violinists?)</p>
<p>Men have superior spatial relations. Spatial relations are a sex linked trait. It boils down to this: 1/2 of males have strong spatial ability and only 1/4 of females do.</p>
<p>Therefore, again, a female could have the best spatial ability in a room, but statistically males will outperform females in spatial tasks (usually including visually three dimensional reality in two dimensional terms.)</p>
<p>However, this doesn't say anything about a class at an elite college. Only the upper end attends. Furthermore, as I pointed out before, statistical norms have little to do with individuals.</p>
<p>It is entirely possible that the most intelligent members of a class are female.</p>
<p>mythmom - I agree with 99% of what you just said. I only stated the first comment 20 posts ago to refute johnwesley's statement, which I believe he meant in an entirely different context (i.e. choosing Wesleyan is "smart"). This is all irrelevant to college admissions, and irelevant as to why Wesleyan has a higher female:male application ratio than, say, Williams. Hope we can get back on topic now...</p>
<p>Yeah, this got heated. I doubt that the male female ratio really matter to the issue. It doesn't address as to why a significant portion of either sex would be attracted to Wesleyan so strongly when a comparable school like Vassar(in ratios as well) only saw a 2.7% increase.</p>