<p>public universities? </p>
<p>The female to male ratios are:</p>
<p>UW & WSU - have a 52/48 </p>
<p>WWU - 55/45</p>
<p>EW - 56/44</p>
<p>I decided to look up a couple private:</p>
<p>Gonazaga - 54/46</p>
<p>PLU - 63/37 - I had to really search on their site to find it. </p>
<p>Does anyone know what the acceptance rates are for the different genders? Not enrollment rate.</p>
<p>I don’t want this to become a heated thread. I have 2 boys and 2 girls so either way we are affected.</p>
<p>Interesting you brought that up; I don’t think you should worry about it becoming a heated thread. A lot of news articles in the past few years have addressed this trend:</p>
<p>“Women have represented about 57 percent of enrollments at American colleges since at least 2000, according to a recent report by the American Council on Education. Researchers there cite several reasons: women tend to have higher grades; men tend to drop out in disproportionate numbers; and female enrollment skews higher among older students, low-income students, and black and Hispanic students.”</p>
<p>Some articles off a Google search -
[USATODAY.com</a> - College gender gap widens: 57% are women](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm]USATODAY.com”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm)
<a href=“On College Campuses, a Shortage of Men - The New York Times”>On College Campuses, a Shortage of Men - The New York Times;
<a href=“At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust - The New York Times”>At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust - The New York Times;
<p>Thanks for the links. Do you think that guys at UW are less concerned with grades? I’m guessing the UW student of either gender is pretty busy with academics.</p>
<p>We’ve studied this extensively for my major (Sociology). The rise in females in colleges is more due to the fact that more females are applying to universities then men. The main reason being is that there are currently more females in the United States then males. That coupled with the fact that over the past several decades it has been more acceptable for women to attend college then in the past.</p>
<p>Of those who enter college…men usually end up ahead in the workforce as they often choose a field of study in college that pays much higher then what women usually choose.
For example, of Engineering majors in the U.S., 84% are male. Computer Science 76%, and Math is 60%. </p>
<p>Women tend to dominate in fields that pay less post-college such as: education 78% and social sciences 60%.</p>
<p>Also, men have more job opportunities that don’t require college. Think construction, military, mechanic, etc.</p>
<p>Other than Medicine and Law, Education is the 3rd highest paying field in total compensation. The issue is it’s loaded in benefits with a proportionately small segment of pay in $$, comparatively. </p>
<p>But, I wonder if there’s a discrepancy in the graduation rates amongst the programs which would attract females v males. Is it that Sociology students graduate at an absolutely higher rate than engineers, or is it that more females than males sign up for sociology, which skews the results?</p>
<p>Good point, u.w. student: You’re referring to occupational sex segregation in which women and men are socially segregated. This is further measured via horizontal and vertical sex segregation. </p>
<p>Xavier: Education can pay more overall if you are teaching in higher education (arguably), esp. a research institution. Most females work in elementary/jr/high schools while there are more males teaching higher ed.</p>
<p>Yep!! You’re right. But also you have to keep in mind that these income statistics are based upon the costs associated with employment. For example:</p>
<p>A family of 4 has a wife who works at XYZ Elementary School in XYZ Washington. She has gold-plated healthcare benefits which cover every medical procedure under the sun, even those which she has no need or desire to use. As a result, her total compensation package (as in the case of the woman who famously debated NJ Gov. Chris Christie) is over $80,000 a year even though she doesn’t see a lot of that in her paycheck. Now, imagine that as a result of these great benefits and job security the husband takes a riskier job and say it pays off well for him. He was able to earn $150,000 a year. But then, one of the kids has a health issue which requires them to have ongoing treatment in the amount of $30,000 a year in expenditures. According to the way the labour statistics are kept, you now have a woman whose total compensation is $110,000 a year who is actually taking home $41,000 a year with $39,000 a year in (largely) unrealized benefits.</p>
<p>Such a system is how you can have politicians talking about how teachers are overpaid (in total compensation packages) and teachers saying they’re underpaid (in salary) and have both of them actually be right!! A Seattle Public School teacher cannot afford to purchase a home in her own district, but the school district is wayyy overpaying compared to benefit received. </p>
<p>Such a distortion is as a result of a problem with the tax code. Cochrane from U of Chicago wrote about it recently, I’ll try to find it. COULDN’T FIND THE SPECIFIC ARTICLE, HE HAS WRITTEN TONS ON THE SUBJECT. <a href=“http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/wsj_health.pdf[/url]”>http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/wsj_health.pdf</a></p>
<p>But that one makes a good point. He cites how unfair it is that big business gets tax breaks that normal people don’t.</p>
<p>My point is that, in this (non-fictional) scenario, elementary teacher XYZ and the school district would both be better served by having her covered by $30,000 less in insurance coverage and taking home $15,000 more in pay. Or, by taking pay in the amount of 80% of original cost and then being able to buy a personal policy, with tax reformed benefit, of $6,000 a year for her family and still have a taxed take-home of $58,000 a year. That would be a net-benefit of $17,000 a year to the teacher and $16,000 a year to the school district/taxpayers. The only ones who would hurt would be the $33,000 a year in lost payment to the insurance company to possibly offset the chance of that $30,000 healthcare issue from the child. It’s not certain such a health problem would happen, so the system’s distortion is to the benefit of the insurer and to the detriment of all others involved.</p>
<p>Below is an extreme example, but it speaks to the general malaise I describe, albeit with more prominent examples.</p>
<p>[Teachers</a> in cash-strapped US school district get free plastic surgery - Telegraph](<a href=“Teachers in cash-strapped US school district get free plastic surgery”>Teachers in cash-strapped US school district get free plastic surgery)</p>