(06-09-2017 03:31 PM)ken d Wrote: I don't think recruiting is the issue. Enough males are applying. The problem is that women on average outperform men in most of the selection criteria schools use. So, either they change the criteria or assign quotas based on gender. The second option is problematical on several grounds.
What criterion would that be? I can understand why that would be a tightly kept secret, because my google search in the other tab has articles about women being 1.5x more likely to drop from a STEM program after taking calculus and women's SAT score keeping them from attending "elite colleges", which casts a dubious cloud over said criterion...whatever they may be. There are certain (((folks))) who claim gender is a mere social construct, but maybe we aren't all equal after all.
(06-09-2017 05:41 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: That 57-43% F to M ratio means almost 1/3 more F in college.
For every 9 men that means their is 12 women. Nice guy to girl ratio these days.
When you realize that roughly 2/3s of women are clinically obese....the average American woman is creeping up towards a buck eighty on the scales, that's rather subjective.
My experience in college was anything but "nice" regarding scenery.
(06-10-2017 12:40 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: You guys are talking sports. But it doesn't matter much if 100 guys play football on a 30,000 student campus.
When you get a divergence between the genders in college attendance like that it points to bigger social problems underlying it. I think part of it has been the success of getting more girls to focus on study. But the flip side, we are boys and young men. We need a culture change in schools, and we need to make it a priority to have more boys advance to college.
We also have to look at the utility of degrees when you get so many girls compared to boys. In urban areas where incarceration of young men is high, a similar bad ratio exists. This has shown to lead to lower sexual behavior standards for women due to competition for men, and leads men to behave very poorly. We get a glimpse of this in college athlete behavior and the sexual assault frequency. When you have an excess of women you get social instability. CCU cheer is not unusual behavior these days. This is just one effect.
But I think a larger effect is the impact on success, or rather the failure in life, of so many more young men you don't make it to college. Point is we have a much bigger problem than athletics here.
Agreed. Roughly half of women doctors and lawyers never actually work full time in their fields because they decide that racking up six digits of debt wasn't quite as important as starting a family on the cusp of age 40 after all. On the flip side, garbage humanities degrees are easy money for schools. Where I went for my bachelors, they gladly tout junk feminist studies when the STEM program I was in gained rather rare ABET accreditation. No need to cater to a wasteful demographic.
One point to amend is that
too few women actually leads to instability. Whether it be a North Dakota oilfield camp, the middle east, or a local sausagefest bar, too few women leads to trouble. This wasn't quite a problem before smart bombs or advances in medicine, as the natural 1.05:1 M/F demo mother nature drops on us seems to unhincky itself over time. Now, not so much. If you dig 40+ women, then the USA is great for you. Those of us who want families? Not really.
http://jonathansoma.com/singles/
(06-12-2017 08:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote: Maybe OT but I had a discussion about this not long ago. I think the reason you are seeing less men go to college is because college is having less of an impact on employment.
True. I may have rethought this college idea if I had forseen a Bangladeshi chick who drives 30 in a 5 MPH parking lot get a promotion over me while getting us kicked of a project (that same day) a few weeks early.