<p>And who were the "common kid" role models in the past? Baseball players and movie stars.</p>
<p>It's not like today is any different.</p>
<p>Because they're in a visible position doesn't automatically make them role models. Just because Brad Pitt is getting dragged around destitute African countries by Angelina doesn't make him a role model. I think the truth is, a lot of guys aren't role models. At least, they don't set out to be. </p>
<p>Women from all walks of life and all kinds of careers try to be role models to young girls and it's accepted because we as a society feel like it's more important for a young girl to have character. The only men who try to be role models to young boys are businessmen with money and we accept it because we as a society feel like it's more important for a young boy to want to make a lot of money BUT get mad when he hasn't developed any character. </p>
<p>Boys don't have any male role models because, in my opinion, men are just as self-involved and money-hungry than some of the notorious female golddiggers. Most men these days only care about make their next buck and flossing and getting women who are waaaay too good-looking for them.</p>
<p>Girls do better in school?</p>
<p>devious_: GPA-wise, yes, especially at the high school level. Hence a higher percentage of women go to college than men. Boys start catching up, however, in college and typically perform equally well in grad school. </p>
<p>I'd be curious, actually, to see how boys and girls at elite public and private high schools match up in GPA-terms. I do know that the surplus of women/deficiet of men entering higher education is largely due to the higher success rate of females vs. males in poor schools. I'd expect that in elite high schools, the sexes would perform about the same. Targeting the problem, instead of just painting American education with the boy-crisis brush, might be helpful.</p>
<p>this is a big question right now-- NYTimes did an article on this phenom @ American a couple years ago, and they're publishing an article dealing w/ this in high school girls (sometime later this month-ish). Go read Alpha Girls, it's new and pretty interesting. The interesting aspect of this for me is why there are SO few girls in math & sci fields-- is it a biological thing, is it what society/the media teaches us, is it a question of how it is taught in schools? It makes me feel as if I should go be a scientist simply to break stereotypes a little. Though I don't condone his actions, Larry Summers, had he said things a little differently, could have begun a really intereting dialogue about this.</p>
<p>It's weird. The top 20-30% of students seem to be equally men and women, its not until when looking at average students does it appear that women dominate. Most of my non-ivy male friends are dropping out, a lot of my non-ivy female ones are contemplating a 5th year.</p>
<p>I might boldly add that men still seem to dominate at the very top (top 0.5-1%), but I could be thinking more about CEO's and the like then about current students.</p>
<p>To whoever said it, it does seem easier for men to get a good blue collar job. One can be a policeman or a construction worker all their life and be fine, being a waitress your whole life may be harder. One can be a secretary their whole life though, but that increasingly requires some education. Nurses don't fit into blue collar jobs, imo, because of education needed though payscale may be what tenured construction workers get.</p>
<p>Well, I can't say why for for sure, but these numbers might freak you out a bit. I'm the only boy in the Top 10 in my graduating class (2nd, yea!). Everyone else is girls, and the next boy isn't seen on the list until the late teens/early twenties. Personally, I think girls, in general, are harder workers than men.</p>
<p>EDIT: I'm still in high school.</p>
<p>It's because a social/academic setting works better for girls than guys. I don't think most boys really like school, and that's why don't do very well. And it's not that they don't like it because they have to do work. It's because (and I'm talking about high school here) it's more about a lot of this chatty/playing favorites/kissing up to the teacher/incessant socializing. </p>
<p>When I was in high school, for some reason, I thought I was just the type of person who liked to talk. I was gregarious. But when I got out I realized, geez, I actually don't like talking that much. I can converse, but just generally running my mouth? No. And that's what high school is. Eight hours of talking and laughing.</p>
<p>Girls do better because they major in things like marketing.</p>
<p>now figure out why guys make more money and are heads of state 99% of the time on a worldwide scale when there are more women</p>
<p>women should be dominating</p>
<p>girls are perceived to be smarter because they try harder than guys. well at least that's how it is at my school.</p>
<p>Girls do better because school appeals to their innate sensibilities. I'm trying to tell you guys that.</p>
<p>women are probably generally smarter, but most of the elite are men. lol just wat i think</p>
<p>In response to Tony Montana, I'd have to say that women's goals are very different than men's. Men seek power; women tend to seek the benefits of power.</p>
<p>That's...right and wrong, grim. Men do seek power, but I think it's socially acceptable women to latch on to that power, instead of creating it themselves. Then again, there are still segments of our society that thinks women shouldn't attain that much power. See: Clinton, Hillary.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is a joke.</p>
<p>Jason, that's what I was saying when I said "women seek the benefits of power." Hillary is scary. I think that she's probably the antichrist.</p>
<p>Men were made to do physical labor; women were made to do mental labor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's because a social/academic setting works better for girls than guys. I don't think most boys really like school, and that's why don't do very well. And it's not that they don't like it because they have to do work. It's because (and I'm talking about high school here) it's more about a lot of this chatty/playing favorites/kissing up to the teacher/incessant socializing.</p>
<p>When I was in high school, for some reason, I thought I was just the type of person who liked to talk. I was gregarious. But when I got out I realized, geez, I actually don't like talking that much. I can converse, but just generally running my mouth? No. And that's what high school is. Eight hours of talking and laughing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's weird, when I was in high school it was all about showing up on time in the morning, handing in homework, and taking notes and tests and quizzes. Sure people talked before and after class, in the hallways and during lunch, but I wasn't one of them and it didn't have any negative effect on me. The social aspect has nothing to do with how high your grades are. Out of the top students, they were about half boys and half girls. </p>
<p>I think part of the problem may be that girls mature faster than boys, so while they are in high school they have the perseverance to do things that they really don't enjoy doing (like homework), whereas the boys are more interested in doing "fun" things at this point and can't be bothered with school because it's not "fun".</p>
<p>
[quote]
The social aspect has nothing to do with how high your grades are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Patently untrue. It may not in college, but high school? The social aspect is about as influential on what kind of student you are as what kind of teachers you have.</p>
<p>And I think physically girls mature faster than boys, but I don't know about the other parts.</p>