November 21, 2004
AT LAST, A POPULAR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY:
A Growing Gender Gap Tests College Admissions (Peter Y. Hong, November 21, 2004, LA Times)
When admissions officers for Santa Clara University recruit new freshmen, they do their best to reach the kind of students they'd like to see more of on the Silicon Valley campus: boys."We make a special pitch to them to talk about the benefits of Santa Clara, as we do for other underrepresented groups," Charles Nolan, Santa Clara's vice provost for admissions, said of the school's efforts to boost male applicants.
It's a startling development to anyone who remembers that Santa Clara was all male until 1960. But the Jesuit-run school reflects an important transformation of American college life.
Among the 4,550 undergraduates at Santa Clara, 57% are female. That matches the percentage of U.S. bachelor's degrees now awarded to women, a demographic shift that has accelerated since women across the country began to attend college at a higher rate than men about a decade ago.
Today, many colleges, particularly selective residential schools, face a dilemma unthinkable a generation ago.
To place well in influential college rankings, those schools must enroll as many top high school students as they can — and most of those students are female. Administrators are watching closely for the "tipping point" at which schools become unappealing to both men and women. They fear that lopsided male-female ratios will hurt the social life and diverse classrooms they use as selling points.
Despite employing the same tactics used for years to lure ethnic minority students, few colleges say they give admissions preferences to boys. But high school counselors and admissions experts say they believe it is happening.
What ever happened to getting in to college the old-fashioned way, by having your grandfather donate a building. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2004 10:27 AM
A public school culture that puts down boys and exalts girls from age 5 onwards, and boys choose to drop out in futility while girls continue. Wow, what a surprise!
Posted by: Bart at November 21, 2004 11:26 AMI don't see how a lopsided male-female ratio is harmful to social life.
Posted by: Brandon at November 21, 2004 12:01 PMBrandon: It isn't if you are willing to accept as your dating pool bitter angry women who will start embracing the extreme feminist doctrine because the males are either scarce or wimpy sensitive types or, even worse, both. It's called the law of unintended consequences.
Posted by: Buttercup at November 21, 2004 1:09 PMWhat a crock, Bart. If boys are having trouble at school, the general abdication by men of their responsibility to take an interest in them and and act as role models is more to blame than any putative prejudice by the educational establishment. Are we going to whine our way back to equality?
Posted by: Peter B at November 21, 2004 1:32 PMWell, it does require that Gramps have a spare building or two lying around gathering dust and bums.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 21, 2004 1:51 PMPeter B -
The problem Bart alludes to is the arguable lack of attention boys are getting from teachers, not necause they are un-empathetic (mostly) females, but because politcal correctness made us all believe that only/primarily girs were being left behind. "The Bias Against Boys" gives builds on this story.
I do agree with you that no one should absolve male family members of their responsibility to mentor, etc. But the issue may be now in the realm of institutionalized bias.
Posted by: Moe from NC at November 21, 2004 2:07 PMThere is one way to make a dent in these numbers that could be reasonably non-controversial--in admitting students, give substantially more weight to having participated in sports than other extracurricular activities such as band. Even after a few decades of Title IX such a strategy would still tilt the field towards boys.
Posted by: brian at November 21, 2004 2:16 PMMuch if this recent male/female disparity in college enrollment has been explained by the overwhelming gender imbalance among African-American students. I think that it is also the manifestation of the growing marginalization of mid-level college education. If a boy is not going to a mid-level college for business or engineering, he may as well get a job and receive OJT. These days, I cannot imagine what a boy would find compelling about what is left of the Humanities curriculum at most colleges.
Posted by: giad at November 21, 2004 3:04 PMThe main beneficiaries of affirmative action have been affluent white women. Finding husbands for thm s just the newest service colleges have to provie to stay competitive.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 21, 2004 4:34 PMMy grandfather could have contributed a cow or two.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 21, 2004 7:10 PMThis also ignores the even greater imbalance at Military and Engineering schools. Many top males would rather go to a less expensive smaller school and receive an equally good education in engineering without being told by feminist professors that everything in the world is their fault.
In recent years, there are more female mathematics graduates than male ones, and more females in medical school than men, and twice as many females in vet school than men.
This is the result of the constant anti-male drumbeat by womyn in the educational apparat. There have always been dykes in school who hate boys but it has gotten completely out of hand in the last two decades. Preteen girls can regularly wear shirts to school which say 'Boys are icky.' and the like, but if a boy were to wear something similar, he'd be in the principal's office with notations being added to his permanent record, which follows him for the rest of his life, faster than you can say 'Gloria Steinem. '
Posted by: Bart at November 22, 2004 6:41 AM