<p>Girls should stop being so organized, efficient and focused. They should form a union to jointly decide to lower their stats(GPA, SAT, ECs), which is what I believe the boys have done, and have a little bit more fun in high school. But unfortunately, girls are just more competitive with each other. I have 2 girls.</p>
<p>I, too, agree with bclintonk & Plainsman’s views above. There is no “absolute” definition for being “fair”. What is “fair” to one group is sure to be considered “unfair” to another, so it’s obvious that you can’t please everyone. Given that our great nation is made up of a diverse group of people, it’s “relatively” fair to have all groups represented.</p>
<p>Asians account for about 5% of the US population. Rice this year admitted 25% of Asians.</p>
<p>Having both here, in elementary school/middle school level, to compare both sexes, boys are favored by teachers overwhelmingly so. Perhaps it is the female teachers, not sure, as only having one or two male teachers along the way not enough to gauge true favoritism exists at the teacher level.
Having said that, my son has had way more boosts/benefit of the doubt along the way than my equally capable daughter. One teacher has even let my son retake an exam he did not do as well as he usually does. Unfair, you bet it was.</p>
<p>Barristerdad: You misunderstood my post#31. I think it is an ‘unfair’ system but I agree with those here who argue that colleges are free to employ their own criteria when building their communities. </p>
<p>My own daughter would not like to be in a college that has a very skewed gender ratio in one direction or another. So even though the ‘unfair’ system works against her, it will help make her college experience nicer. The same argument holds for racial preferences- she wants to attend a racially and ethnically diverse college even if it means relaxing admissions standards for blacks and hispanics.</p>
<p>I wish we could all just be open about it- yeah, it is unfair, but it works.</p>
<p>White and Asian girls are OVER represented, not under represented, at many schools. One of the first things my D and I look at in a college’s stats is the M/F ratio, because we think that if it is too far from 50/50 the dynamics of the school change, and not in a positive way. I’ve noticed this year that very few kids at D’s HS are having success with the top tier schools, whether male or female. And the top 4 kids in the class are male, FWIW. Maybe it’s not fair that, all other things being equal, it’s tougher for a white or Asian female to get into a particular school, but I do think it’s important to have balance, so I understand it. Now if only girls would become over represented in the high echelons of corporate America. . .</p>
<p>“I think it is an ‘unfair’ system but I agree with those here who argue that colleges are free to employ their own criteria when building their communities.”</p>
<p>^^ But why/how is that unfair? Who ever said that the students with the strongest numbers were entitled to admission?</p>
<p>There are some programs where asian and indian kids are majority, not minority. So, it depends where you go.</p>
<p>foolishpleasure: I never said that students with the strongest numbers are entitled to admission. They are not. The admissions process is holistic and that is fine with me.</p>
<p>The reason it is unfair is that for certain borderline applicants, if you sent in the exact same application to the exact same college but changed the “she” to “he” in all her transcripts, letters of recommendation, etc it would be an admissions boost if it were a “he” or an admissions drag if it were a “she” (depends how you want to look at it). </p>
<p>This is not just conjecture. Read the NYTimes article from the admissions dean of Kenyon college that was referenced above. </p>
<p>Girls get the (unfair) advantage at MIT, boys get the (unfair) advantage at Vassar.</p>
<p>Some kids have the unfair advantage that they were born the children of alumni, or were just born rich enough to be developmental admits.</p>
<p>It is unfair, but that is okay, really. No problem with me. </p>
<p>Life isn’t fair and we all need to comfortable with it.</p>
<p>^^ I know it’s not just conjecture - - I have a D and I read the Kenyon article last year (year before?), but I don’t really see the unfairness because at the top tier school, even applicants with hooks are fully qualified. Other than the girls being disappointed, what’s the harm in admitting the male applicant with a slightly weaker profile over the stronger female candidate? </p>
<p>And if the admissions process IS holistic, what’s wrong with considering (and “giving point” for) gender, geog, athletics, race, class, first-gen status and any other factors the school considers important in building its community? What other or different non-numerical data would you have the school consider in its holistic admissions process?</p>
<p>Other than for sports teams why is gender included on a college application? When my mother first entered the job force the ads were for “male accountant” or “male office manager” but today we would be appalled by that. Is it the duty of a college to provide equal opportunity for social hooking up or is it their primary duty to educate those who have best prepared for higher education? The gender balancing act seems to reduce college to a high school with harder classes.</p>
<p>caligali: Actually, I thought college was easier than high school. I though Law School was easier than high school, LOL, but that’s me. I was a C student in high school and an A- to B+ student after that. Go figure. </p>
<p>I think a college should provide equal opportunity. Period. For qualified applicants. Hooking up has nothing to do with it. But if you want to take the holistic perspective out of admission decisions which are made by human beings, then we might as well turn admission decisions over to computers. Personally, I don’t want computers making decisions that should be made by human beings.</p>
<p>“…even if it means relaxing admissions standards for blacks and hispanics.” -Vicariousparent</p>
<p>Uh…or NOT. That comment sounds very much like a stereotype. How do you know at any given school if any blacks or Hispanics are beneficiaries of “relaxed standards?” How do you know which schools take URM status into account in the admissions process? Or do you assume they all do? I suppose President Obama in his retirement years should take his Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law and hope some school somewhere will relax their standards to admit him into their vaunted PhD program? Maybe Arizona State?</p>
<p>^^^ I said <strong><em>IF</em></strong> it means…</p>
<p>I don’t know, in some colleges it may be necessary to relax admissions standards in order to get better representation from Asians or whites…that is okay with me. I just want to see diversity on campus.</p>
<p>mdoc #46
What data do you have to support that white and Asian females are OVERREPRESENTED? Actually,I am pleasantly surprised and a little thrilled that my OP has generated such hearty discussion. Thanks to everyone for their input and for not being nasty! I wonder what all the AdComs that peek (but don’t comment, of course!) here would say about all the wonders and conjectures posited on this thread!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, two things the girls are doing is being more sociable with the teachers and administrators and following directions better. These behaviors, more common among girls than boys, start favoring the girls by middle school at the latest.</p>
<p>In our non-weighted, non-ranked HS, there are always more girls than boys in the “top ten” and many of those girls have not taken the most rigorous courseload. But they have been “pleasers” in whatever classes they took.</p>
<p>
Demographics.</p>
<p>Most top colleges have slightly more women than men, but there are slightly more men at that age in the general population.</p>
<p>Asians make up ~5% of the population but 20%+ of top colleges.</p>
<p>Consolation-Our H.S. top ten also includes more girls than boys. One of them is my D who has taken a challenging schedule and has gotten top grades by working hard, not by being a “pleaser”.
I wonder what role parents play in this. It seems to me that at least a certain group of parents push their sons to be athletes at the expense of academics. This doesn’t seem to be the case with girls.</p>
<p>Re post #55: Google is your friend.</p>
<p><a href=“February%202007”>quote</a> Since 1991, the proportion of young women enrolled in college has exceeded the enrollment rate for young men, and the gap has widened over time.1 In 2005, about 43 percent of women ages 18 to 24 were enrolled in college, compared with 35 percent of young men. This represents a major shift in the gender balance at U.S. colleges and universities. Between 1970 and 2005, the gender composition has shifted to the extent that women now make up the majority—54 percent—of the 10.8 million young adults enrolled in college.
[/quote]
[The</a> Crossover in Female-Male College Enrollment Rates - Population Reference Bureau](<a href=“http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/CrossoverinFemaleMaleCollegeEnrollmentRates.aspx]The”>http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/CrossoverinFemaleMaleCollegeEnrollmentRates.aspx)</p>
<p>As others have said, being a female makes you the opposite of URM unless said female is applying to engineering schools.</p>
<p>Sorry, Greta, I respectfully disagree with the (false) premise that higher NUMBERS of females excludes them from valid consideration as an UNDER represented minority, if often the MAJORITY of excluded females (from college acceptance pools) are left on the sidelines by rank subjective decision-makers…filling the classes with athletes, legacies, developmental admits, etc. </p>
<p>If we collectively choose a recurring theme on this post, we must now conclude that white and Asian females are discriminated against—at least some of the time----because of their numbers and because of their high achievement.</p>