"What Boy Crisis" op-ed column in New York Times

Parents Forum
21

<p>Women started from a place of real inequality; so efforts to improve change the mindset and girls access to education were successful. Boys do not start from a place of inequality. I still remember being told by a male classmate that by going for a Ph.D., I was going to deprive a breadwinner of a means of earning the wherewithal to support his family. I cannot imagine a man being told that. My husband worked for a company whose boss routinely paid women less on the grounds that they were not the primary breadwinner (no evidence that this was actually the case--just prejudice). I could go on. The women's movement made this kind of discrimination illegal. </p>

<p>The problem with boys is different. It has been claimed that k-12 education privileges girls' learning style. But what this claim amounts to is that the emphasis is on verbal skills. And that is what is supposed to be lacking among boys. </p>

<p>What can be done to improve boys verbal skills? I think a lot of it lies outside of the realm of education per se. Schools and the educational system cannot address all social and developmental issues. They cannot take away boys's fascination with video games, for example.</p>

22

<p>Women did start from a place of real inequality. I remember too. There is a difference between failing from within and failing due to dominance of another defined group.</p>

23

<p>Who knew? It's certainly not as discussed as the difference in undergraduate enrollment.</p>

<p><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_187.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_187.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

24

<p>DRab:
Thanks for posting this very informative link. </p>

<p>There are different ways of interpreting the statistics, of course. One obvious way is to say that boys are falling behind and that the system is failing them. </p>

<p>Another way is to say that boys have made great strides, but that women, starting from well behind, caught up with men and, under the same educational system, have moved ahead. </p>

<p>In 1969, just as the women's movement was being born, there were 590k men in college vs. 366k. Given that sex ratios are not that lopsided, this shows a definite bias against higher education for women; and indeed, I remember the jokes about women going to college to get an MRS degree. Another conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that college attendance was not as widespread among men and women as it is now. </p>

<p>Men and women achieved parity in 1983-1984 in terms of college attendance. And thereafter, women began outstripping men at a very rapid clip. By 1989, twenty years after the first data were compiled, there were 710k men vs. 811k women in college (vs. 590k men and 366k women in 1969).
By 1996, there were 759k men in college vs. 983k women.
By 2002, this was even more lopsided: 847k to 1,189k.</p>

<p>Much of the women's gains up to 1984 can be attributed to factors such as greater receptivity to women attending college, greater support for women in math and science so as to make them more competitive for admissions into college (algebra, rather than verbal skills being seen as the "gatekeeper"--see the history of Bob Moses' Algebra Project), and proactive recruitment policies by colleges. Note that at the top colleges, the male to female ratios continued to favor men. This may be due to historical factors (HYP being historically male colleges) as well as to the fact that, at the very top, males still outperform females on standardized tests. </p>

<p>So, more men than ever are in college in proportion to the population. But also, there are still more jobs available for men who do not wish to attend college (including the military) than there are for women. </p>

<p>Given the claim made in recent studies that the boys crisis is most acute among African-Americans and Hispanics, it would be interesting to find out what proportion of African-American males of school and college-going age is in jail (these are also the years that correspond to the highest risk) and what proportion of Hispanics are here illegally (are they included in the statistics? I wonder). Such factors are beyond the ability of the educational system to address. </p>

<p>One more comment: it's claimed that the emphasis on verbal skills favors women. Yet, for all the perceived emphasis on verbal skills in k-12 education, colleges have been lamenting for years about the lack of verbal skills of incoming students. That's why top colleges (where men and women are still represented in equal ratios) have instituted freshman writing seminars, and are constantly discussing the need for ways to institute "writing across the curriculum." The push for more emphasis on science has not diminished this concern a bit.</p>

25

<p>DRab:
The raw data in that link is interesting, but it doesn't go into enough detail. Not only would it be enlightening to see it broken down for ethnic group, it would be important to see it broken down for American/international students. Since the issue is the job being done by the American educational system, it skews things to throw into the mix X number of students in U.S. graduate programs who were educated abroad. More men are going to college, but is that because of a significant influx of men from foreign countries? </p>

<p>The data does seem to dovetail with the recent CA report.</p>

<p>"The gender gap is pronounced in professional degree programs at the University of California....Overall, females now outnumber males in enrollments in all disciplines except dentistry, where they are exactly equal. In degrees, women earn more professional degrees than men in all but medicine, where they are nearly equal." Both sides of the education equation, enrollments and percentage of degrees awarded to females, have seen large shifts between 1976, the first year for which they had data and 2004, the most recent year. </p>

<p>The decline in the percentages of males in professional degree programs between 1976 and 2004 is as follows: </p>

<p>Dentistry: from 81% to 50 % of enrollment and from 91 % to 38 % of degrees awarded. </p>

<p>Law: from 64 % to 44 % of enrollment and from 65 % to 43 % of degrees awarded.</p>

<p>Medicine: from 78 % to 47 % of enrollment and from 78 % to 51 % of degrees awarded.</p>

<p>Optometry: from 73 % to 31 % of enrollment and from 72 % to 27 % of degrees awarded.</p>

<p>Pharmacy: from 54 % to 27 % of enrollment and from 63% to 23 % of degrees awarded. </p>

<p>Veterinary Medicine: from 72 % to 23 % of enrollment and from 77 % to 18 % of degrees awarded. </p>

<pre><code>The gap is evident in undergraduate degree enrollment and attainment in CA colleges with the exception of bachelor's degrees in computer science, which remains majority male.

I don't post this to say that I think it's necessarily a bad thing that women have overtaken men in these professional schools, but I do think there is a "tipping point" at which it is not a good thing for our society for the attainment of college degrees to be seriously lopsided by gender. Some would look at these figures, and the educational gender gap overall, and see something ominous in the future for CA's society and economy. Large percentages of undereducated men mean large percentages of undereducated fathers, or absent fathers, or imprisoned fathers. Or a large and growing underclass. Others would look at the numbers and say, "so what?" I guess there are those who wouldn't care if the numbers continued to gap to where 70, 80 percent of those getting UG and professional degrees are women.

</code></pre>

<p>Personally, I think there's good reason to care and to want to do something about the gap, not throw a smokescreen over it or make unsubstantiated claims that the problem is entirely that of race and class, not gender. </p>

<p>The CA report harkens the problem back to CA K-12 public education, beginning with the fact that roughly three boys drop out of school for every two females who drop out. The report does not suggest remedies, but calls for more research to understand the gender gap and address it effectively.
The goal in addressing the problem of male achievement in k-12 education and post-secondary education is to help all students achieve up to their potential, not to reduce equity and access for females. </p>

<p>But it's hard to study a problem if you continue to question whether it even exists.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
This may be due to historical factors (HYP being historically male colleges) as well as to the fact that, at the very top, males still outperform females on standardized tests.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's just what researchers find, but apparently it's really offensive (think Larry Summer's indefinite and controversy starting comments). Is it also offensive that men occupy a much greater number on the lower end? That while the average scores on IQ and standardized tests is very similar between the sexes in America, the males are more distributed throughout and the women more congregated in the middle? And anyway, I'd like to point out thousands of girls who are at top colleges that men are not allowed to attend, the top all-womens schools. And there is by no means any real male equivalent. But I'd say two things, marite. 1) the system has changed over time so while maybe essentially being the same thing, it isn't, and 2) the women's movement seems to me to have begun before 1969, although it grew greatly then. Perhaps that is when it became a fully-fledged movement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If these statistics at UC and CSU were reversed by gender, would there not be a hue and cry and a demand for not only studies but change, and pronto? You bet.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think these are the people who say "so what." I think it's good that people's parents become more educated, even if it is just one of them. I've read that about a third of the children or so had in America are from single mothers, so for some kids, it's their only parent. But it'd be nice if people cared even a third as much about possible problems with men as much as they do towards women, especially if/when the same or similar arguments apply.</p>

27

<p>I don't think it's a question of the reasons for the gap being the same or not. It would not appear to be a matter of denying equal access to males as it once was for females. The problems for males would seem to be preparation (graduating from high school and getting admitted to college ) and persistence (the attainment of the degree.) The absence of overt discrimination does not negate the fact that the decline in achievement in education for men is not a positive development for American society, particularly among the populations most affected by it. </p>

<p>To ignore the issue, to deny that there's any gender component at all when the facts say otherwise, to put out biased incomplete studies instead of impartially researching the reasons behind the steadily growing gap is what I am arguing against.</p>

28

<p>Betty Friedan's The Femine Mystique came out in 1964.
Drab: How many all-women's colleges still exist? Do they really make a dent in the discrepancy of nearly 300,000 as of 2002? So I think this is a bit of a red herring. </p>

<p>My first child entered the k-12 system in the late 1980s, shortly after the balance began to tilt in favor of women in college. So I am somewhat familiar with the k-12 educational system since the 1980s.
My problem with the discussion of the boys crisis is that it assumes a priori that it is a problem with the schools. You have repeated the claim that men enter college with deficient verbal skills, yet others have faulted the k-12 system for overemphasizing these very skills, thus advantaging girls. We cannot have it both ways, having a k-12 system that emphasizes verbals skills yet produces male graduates with deficient verbal skills. </p>

<p>So we need to think about why fewer men apply to college. Is the drop out rate greater among boys? why? Is it because boys get into trouble? because they can still get jobs that do not require even a high school diploma? because the very emphasis on verbal skills bores some of them, so they drop out? </p>

<p>Personally, from what I've seen of college graduates, I want more rather than less emphasis on communication skills.</p>

<p>Edit: An interesting tidbit:

[quote]
By midyear 2002, America's jails held 1 in every 142 U.S. residents. Males were incarcerated at the rate of 1,309 inmates per 100,000 U.S. men, while the female incarceration rate was 113 per 100,000 women residents.

[/quote]

<a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aaprisonpop.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aaprisonpop.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

29

<p>
[quote]
And anyway, I'd like to point out thousands of girls who are at top colleges that men are not allowed to attend, the top all-womens schools. And there is by no means any real male equivalent.

[/quote]

Well, whose choice was that? There are a fair number of top schools that went coed... and became top schools. Girls want all-girls schools; boys don't seem to want all-boys schools. So you have the situation where all-boys schools either deal with declining enrollment, popularity, and prestige (as they can no longer attract the best students), so they either slide down the rankings or admit women. </p>

<p>Now, whose fault is that? IMO, only the fault of men - if the best men sought out all-male schools, there would be the male equivalent of Wellesley. As it stands now, the all-boys schools (Hampden Sydney and Wabash) are eclipsed by formerly single-sex LACs that started admitting women 20-30 years ago.</p>

30

<p>aries - I completely agree with your sentiments regarding little sympathy for boys (I am a male, by the way), particularly since the likely culprit behind any academic lagging for boys is a lack of effort, and not, as suggested, the focus on development of verbal skills in K-12 (which is a silly argument in any event because verbal skills are paramount in any field, including science and engineering). </p>

<p>I am always bothered in these discussions (and I am not being overly critical of this discussion because fine points have been made) as to why the elephant in the room does not get discussed. Any guesses as to why African American, Hispanic and poor white boys are lagging? I am no social scientist, but I suspect a very high correlation between out of wedlock births and these awful statistics. I understand many think it is "mean" to stigmatize these births and these choices, but how we arrived at a situation where men believe that they can father children and not be intimately involved in the lives of both the mother and the children, and women seem to often choose men who seem to have very little interest in supporting a family, I don't know. The 60's accomplished much in terms of civil rights - absolutely necessary for our country. But the overhang - the significant rise in out of wedlock births - with fathers largely absent thereafter, has just been disastrous. And there's little doubt that fathers generally help boys tow the line - including get their rear ends in a chair to do some studying.</p>

31

<p>mam1959, to a large extent, I agree with you. It's become OK for fathers to basically abandon their families, and the kids suffer because of it.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
I am no social scientist, but I suspect a very high correlation between out of wedlock births and these awful statistics.

[/quote]

I completely agree. I've often said that the statistics for the kids of divorced parents are pretty dismal - they don't do nearly as well as the kids in two-parent homes. I was one of only a handful of people at my alma mater with divorced parents, and, oddly, I think I was the only girl in the group. It's a struggle to think of anyone at my law school whose parents aren't married. </p>

<p>I think that some of this is because women know or think they know that they have to work harder than boys to get the same (or half!) the rewards. Men's work also pays more - construction v. housekeeping in a hotel. I think I heard that the latter has a higher rate of on-the-job injuries (because those women have to lift hundreds of beds a day to change the sheets) than construction, but pays a fraction of the salary. Many "pink collar" fields have been able, for decades, to pay below-market rates because any woman who wanted to work only had a few options, so the supply of workers was always high. (Totally off-topic, but I think this is the reason for the current dearth of teachers. Wonder how long it will take people to realise that teachers should be paid much better than they are now.) So women feel like they need an education to get anywhere - probably true - whereas men don't worry as much.</p>

33

<p>Yes, and those who bring it up often are labelled as conservative reactionaries and get treated dismissively. But it is not a liberal versus conservative issue. It is a moral issue - however - and in most situations (not all, obviously - there
are, by way of limited example, same sex couples that are mature and can do a great job of raising children), there is just no substitute for having two involved and caring parents. And it is a moral issue without room for relativism - if we don't look out for the kids first, we have lots of problems. </p>

<p>To me, it is the great demographic issue of the day. Whether the subject is academic performance (between and amongst racial groups, socio-economic classes, etc.), distribution of income, non-transitory incidents of poverty - and so on - one not need look to far to see the that out of wedlock births are a tremendously significant driver of these ills.</p>

34

<br>


<br>

<p>This is the crux of the issue IMHO, not being born in wedlock. You can be born in wedlock and your parents divorce and you're just as badly off as any kid born out of wedlock (possibly worse because of the upheaval and sense of disappointment). The question is whether you have two adults you can rely on 100% every single day of your life. Their gender, age, and whether they're your blood relatives all matter very little compared to whether you've got continuity and devotion from both of them. Most kids in America don't have that, and it's a factor that contributes to every single kind of bad outcome, whether it's going to jail or teen pregnancy or dropping out of high school.</p>

35

<p>There have been studies that suggest that one of the most important factors in college success--including admissions--is intact families. This would cover both out of wedlock children and children of broken homes. Interestingly, if we put together stats in divorce rates (not out-of wedlock children) and stats about college education rates, there seems to be a good correlation, both in terms of geography--red states vs. blue states--and subgroups (Asians have lower divorce rates)..</p>

<p>I am not going to comment on the morality or lack thereof issue. But it stands to reason that having to deal with the sturm um drang of parental conflict or the disruptions caused by having to shuttle between different households, and the loss of parental income (usually by the custodial parent) will have a major impact on children's education. And since the custodial parent is still usually the mother, boys suffer more than girls from the loss of a father and lack of role model. </p>

<p>All this suggests that solutions to the boys crisis probably lie outside the already overburdened educational system.</p>

36

<p>Although I used to rarely agree wtih David Brooks, a staunch conservative writer from the NYT, he has been writing on topics of family life, gender stereotypes and education quite a lot lately, and I am finding that much of what he writes resonates with me, a true blue liberal. These issues really are non-partisan, not about morality at all, but about common sense.</p>

<p>His last column was on "Human Bonding" . Here's a snip, and I agree with this wholly:</p>

<p>"Over the past few decades federal and state governments have spent billions of dollars trying to improve high schools. Much of the effort has gone into trying to improve individual math and reading scores. But the effects have been modest and up to 30 percent of students drop out — a social catastrophe.</p>

<p>The dropout rates are astronomical because humans are not machines into which you can input data. They require emotion to process information. You take kids who didn't benefit from stable, nurturing parental care and who have not learned how to form human attachments, and you stick them in a school that functions like a factory for information transmission, and the results are going to be horrible.</p>

<p>The Gates Foundation recently sponsored focus groups with dropouts. The former students knew how detrimental dropping out would be. Most were convinced they could have graduated if they wanted to. But their descriptions of school amounted to a portrait of emotional disengagement: teachers were burned out and boring; discipline was lacking; classes weren't challenging; there weren't enough tutors and wasn't anyone to talk to; parents were uninvolved.</p>

<p>If school is unsatisfying but having a child or joining a gang seems as if it would be emotionally satisfying, then many students, especially those with insecure attachments at home, are going to follow their powerful drive to go where the attachments seem to be."</p>

37

<p>I was going to mention that I have read somewhere that about a third of kids born in America are born to single mothers. Perhaps as some of you speculate this is affecting kids greatly.</p>

<p>I really don't think any single-sex members of the Ivy league had any trouble attracting top male students in the early 70s to when many converted. Much of the conversion was a result of heavy pressure from femminists who felt certain places must be open to women for potential equity. I don't think the Deep Springs suffers from a lack of quality students, but were the single-sex Ivy league schools not "Wellesley equivalents" until they were converted? </p>

<p>marite, about 66 or so still exist, at least 60, and I think what is significant is that they provide something very few males are able to access if they want to (there are four all-male institutions, but half are religious and one of the non-religious ones has about 40 students). Are the women at all female schools a huge portion of the college population? No, of course not. Places like the public school systems in Arizona, California, and Texas are obviously comprise much larger portions of college students. What is significant is thousands of students in "top schools" are only open to women, and I have yet to see anything that shows men do not benefit in similar ways from single-sex schools than women the supposed benefits provided to women, or some different ones.</p>

<p>The claim I mentioned is that men who enter colleges on average have deficient verbal skills far more often than women who enter colleges on average have deficient math or science skills according to the colleges. I think many men enter college with adequate verbal skills. I also don't understand why the two things are not compatible, that k-12 education emphasizes verbal skills (which from what I can tell I it does, and that is not to say it is something I'm against doing- students should be good with verbal skills, amongst other things), perhaps favoring girls on average (I would guess so, but I don't know- I'm not a huge proponent of the argument, but could believe it), and that men who do graduate and attending college often have poor preparation in verbal skills, far, far more often than the women. In addition, just because something was emphasized does not mean it was internalized. I know plenty of students who took years of classes in the same language and can barely say anything (and only in the present tense), many with great grades. They could say things during certain times, but remember little to nothing, and never were even at the level of proficient. Anyway, from what I've seen, a person going through a k-12 system could easily stop taking (or taking seriously) many classes that do not interest him or her during high school. You'll probably be required to take English or some English-type class for four years, and probably a few years of history or government and some language classes, but one can gravitate towards sciences or mathematics or shop or art or whatever fairly easily, although surely many students take things they don't want to (but try in them to do well in college admissions or to graduate).</p>

<p>
[quote]
All this suggests that solutions to the boys crisis probably lie outside the already overburdened educational system.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I very much agree that like many other problems (such as those facing African Americans) do lie outside of the education system. However, I think some of it is very probably within it.</p>

<p>Do any of you think that any issue, when it enters the poltical sphere, will not be partisan? I have little faith, but it would be nice. If, for instance, all the children of single-sex parents did amazingly well in life, I would imagine many Conservatives still deeming their relationships immoral, and if the children of single-sex parents did incredibly poorly in life, I would imagine many Democrats defending their right to be in relationships and raise kids anyway, even if they produced results that greatly hurt kids.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
In addition, just because something was emphasized does not mean it was internalized.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree, but it strikes me as a sort of horse and water argument. You can get the horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can emphasize verbal skills, but if the student zones out or plays truant (or happens to be in jail), he won't be absorbing these skills. That is why I am suggesting that the issue is not necessarily educational, in other words, curricular or pedagogical. </p>

<p>I was just reading today about the death of a 19-year old who'd been involved in drug running. He was gunned down last spring by another drug dealer. He left behind a girl-friend (probably another 19-year old) with a 2-year old daughter. Not such an unusual story, right? Except that that 19-year old attended the same k-8 school as my S, graduating one year earlier. Last year--the year that dead 19-year old should have graduated from high school (I believe he'd dropped out), five graduates of that school got admitted into Harvard, and several more into top colleges. </p>

<p>As for single sex colleges, yes, thank you for the statistics. I checked and was surprised that there were so many. Yet, I still think that they do not make for a large statistical difference, although I could be wrong. One would have to tote up the numbers, and I have not done so. I would agree with Ariesathena that if colleges so wished, they could restrict admissions to men only. Clearly, they have figured that the market does not exist for male-only colleges. As you know, a number of universities and colleges have begun to give an edge to male applicants in order to maintain, or in some cases, achieve, some sort of gender balance.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
That is why I am suggesting that the issue is not necessarily educational, in other words, curricular or pedagogical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps my last post was not clear enough on this. I meant to say that I agree with you in that it probably is primarily, largely or at least significantly not educational, but I think that part of the problem is probably educational. While it isn't necessary that it be educational, it probably is in part. According to the Gates Foundations groups cited by the author of the article on the last page, many aspects were part of the education system. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Not such an unusual story, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really don't know how unusual it is. The same is true of hannahs "It's become OK for fathers to basically abandon their families, and the kids suffer because of it." I read a chapter of the book by a former prominent CBS newsanchor talking about "dead-beat dad" stories. He said the media fodder, repeated often, becomes what is the norm, what people think is usual. Also, the "male boost." Perhaps all these things happen often. I try to reserve judgement on how often things happen without good reason to think it (and by saying that I'm not implying here that you don't do the same).</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
I completely agree. I've often said that the statistics for the kids of divorced parents are pretty dismal - they don't do nearly as well as the kids in two-parent homes. I was one of only a handful of people at my alma mater with divorced parents

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aries, is the problem the divorce, do you think, or the fact that this often leads to parents acting badly or not being involved with their kids? I think a kid with divorced parents who both act pretty maturely about it and stay involved in the kid's life (like me) is better off than a kid with married parents who are apathetic towards them or who have terrible fights all the time.</p>

<p>I think many kids of divorced parents, including myself, are sick of being treated like the poor victims of a horrible social evil. My family life has, on the whole, been so much better than it would have been if my parents had stayed married. Save the concern and excessive sympathy (this is a general statement, not directed at Aries) for the kids - whether their parents are divorced or married, whether they were born in or out of wedlock - whose family situations are such that they need and deserve it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is a moral issue - however - and in most situations (not all, obviously - there are, by way of limited example, same sex couples that are mature and can do a great job of raising children), there is just no substitute for having two involved and caring parents.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>mam1959, you seem to be suggesting that single sex couples don't constitute "two involved and caring parents". Am I reading you correctly?</p>