Author: has written 5271 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

30 Responses

  1. Hugo
    Hugo March 24, 2006 at 3:01 pm |

    Well, I’ll need to think this out more, but Jill, this is an excellent introduction to the problem. And I’m in complete agreement that offering “affirmative action” for the most historically privileged group in the country is a monumental absurdity. But ignoring male underachievement isn’t an option either, and it’s clear that we need to be, as you say, devoting resources to promote academic success for young boys.

    But we’ve gotta do that without turning our backs on their sisters. Success can’t be a zero-sum game.

  2. Cathy
    Cathy March 24, 2006 at 3:58 pm |

    What about affirmative action from the view point of Asians/Asian Americans?

  3. Chet
    Chet March 24, 2006 at 4:03 pm |

    Success can’t be a zero-sum game.

    Isn’t it, though? I mean, name a resource, and it’s limited. Take more from a limited resource, and that means that someone else gets less.

    I appreciate the sentiment, but it doesn’t seem to correspond to reality. Maybe I’m just cynical today but I can’t really think of any resource that isn’t essentially zero-sum.

  4. Roni
    Roni March 24, 2006 at 4:06 pm |

    I don’t have all the stats at my fingers, but over the past 20 years, the total number of students enrolled at a given university has gone up. The students filling those seats have been mostly women. So the facat that the % of men has been going down isn’t that women are pushing me out, we’re just outnumbering them. That said, the state of funding for higher ed, esp state run/supported institutions is going DOWN. So in response, what does one do? Raise tuition and cut back on the # of students enrolled.

    I think part of the solution to this problem is to get the general population to understand that we need higher ed and we need to fund it just like we want to fund PK-12.

  5. Laurie
    Laurie March 24, 2006 at 4:13 pm |

    I think the question is: why are these young men underperforming? Is it a lack of preparation (prior to college)? Or a lack of effort once they get to college? Are they coasting because they have always been *able* to coast and get by, or are they actually lacking certain skills?

    Or is it in comparison to young women who have literally had to work harder to get the same level of recognition in the past, and now they are USED TO overachieving, such that it makes the young men look like they are underachieving in comparison?

    I haven’t read the studies, so I really don’t know what the stats are. I’m just throwing out possibilities here. I DO know that on certain types of exams, say essay tests, ones’ grade has as much to do with the prof you have as how much you know/how articulate you are does. If certain young women have an advantage due to higher language skills, they can also get nailed by profs who want answers parroted back as opposed to paraphrased and elaborated on. (And frankly, given the language skills of men in the past, I am puzzled as to why many young men seem to have trouble grasping their native language and being able to express themselves coherently in it. Something is broken somewhere in the system, but I don’t know enough about it to suggest a fix. Just that there needs to be one before we all drown in incoherence.)

    I think we need to promote academic success in *kids*, ALL kids, regardless of race or gender or economic factors. I’m just not sure how to do it.

  6. zuzu
    zuzu March 24, 2006 at 4:23 pm | *

    Are equivalent numbers of men and women applying, or is the greater number of women in colleges and universities a reflection of a disparity in applications?

    IOW, are the colleges trying to achieve gender parity from unequal applicant pools, or are the applicant pools equal but the quality different?

  7. wolfa
    wolfa March 24, 2006 at 5:22 pm |

    zuzu:

    Though Kenyon was a men’s college until 1969, more than 55 percent of our applicants are female, a proportion that is steadily increasing.

    and

    Today, two-thirds of colleges and universities report that they get more female than male applicants

    But it’s unclear whether they’re trying to replicate the percentage of applicants (so if 55% of applicants are women, 55% of the people they accept are women) or just keep the %age of women at somewhere below 60%.

  8. Anh
    Anh March 24, 2006 at 5:35 pm |

    Cathy,
    What are you trying to say?

  9. Shannon W.
    Shannon W. March 24, 2006 at 5:43 pm |

    Well, there have been attempts to put wedges between Asian American communities and other minority communities over AA. Basically, it’s the model minority myth, university version.

  10. anonymous
    anonymous March 24, 2006 at 11:39 pm |

    There are Asian American quotas where there are twice as many qualified applicants for each of their “spots” as there are for other races for their “spots”.

  11. Deep Thought
    Deep Thought March 25, 2006 at 3:05 am |

    Perhaps as the father of four sons (full disclosure – we homeschool) I have an interesting perspective. Boys are being let down by the system.
    I saw it when I went to school and when I went to college as a non-traditional, it was worse. I remember seeing a Women’s Leadership Develpment Group office accross from the group offices containing groups to promote women in science, law, engineering, math, and the arts. All funded by the school and by outside moneies.
    Not a problem, until I realized how darn lost dome of the young men were. The college had not just standard academic advisors, but coaches and mentors – for young women. When I issued a proposal to start a mentoring program for men, you would have thought I was calling for a return to the Patriarchy ™! As an aside, the death threats from the computers in the Women’s Studies Computing Center were the best.
    Face it, there are teachers in the public school system who see boys as toxic. All the discussions about ‘inherent privilege’ ignores the individual boys who aren’t just “behind” the girls, but aren’t being taught the basic skills of education. The number of young men who are illiterate is growing every year – that isn’t a mark of privilege.

  12. Shannon
    Shannon March 25, 2006 at 10:20 am |

    When I was in college (’92-’96), a friend of mine had a work study job in the admissions office and a really good relationship with her immediate supervisor. One day the supervisor admitted to her that if they actually held to the standards the school had set for admission, each incoming class would be over 2/3 female!

    In the 80s, we’d gotten a party school reputation, so they set some standards for admission — standards that were pretty low, actually, but high for a state school. This begs the question — if the male applicants weren’t even able to meet these minimal standards, what the heck were they doing there anyway?

    I’m sorry, Deep Thought, but I can’t blame public school teachers for their opinions about some male students. Personally, I think a lot of the blame rests on parents. If you can’t teach your child that school is a time for learning — not goofing off, not being disruptive, not agitating the teachers just for the fun of it — well, you’re not doing your job. It has an impact on not only the teachers who are trying to pound some knowledge into the kids’ heads, but on their fellow students, too.

    I begged and pleaded with my parents to send me to an all-girls’ school when I was in 10th grade. (They didn’t, we couldn’t afford it). I hated being in classes where the male students held the rest of us back, annoying the teachers with their poor behavior, being distracting, etc.

    Laurie, I’m absolutely for promoting academic achievement in both genders. Personally, I think same-sex education or homeschooling is the way to go, since boys and girls do learn differently (you note the female verbal advantage — it’s true). And I think that admissions, at least to state schools, should be absolutely merit-based. Letting in inferior candidates of any gender, for any reason, is unproductive at best.

  13. Deep THought
    Deep THought March 25, 2006 at 10:35 am |

    Jill,
    Please, we didn’t fall off the turnip truck this morning. Yes, numerical quotas are illegal, as are allocating specific percentages. But the addition of “points for diversity” in a points-based admissions system is perfectly fine.
    College administrators and admissions boards have a very good idea of exactly how many students will apply, how many will pass their initial screen (the “no, not them” questions), etc. By simply controlling how many ‘points’ are allocated on the basis of race, gender, etc. they are capable of reaching results *just like* having a numerical or percentage quota.
    Don’t believe it? Well, just look at the number of statements along the lines of “we are dedicated to increasing African-American enrollment at least 5% over the next two years” followed by an increase of 5% within two years.
    After all, if allocating points based upon race, gender, etc. did not have a measurable, controllable, predicitable effect – it would be worthless as a tool of affirmative action, wouldn’t it?

  14. Shannon W.
    Shannon W. March 25, 2006 at 10:44 am |

    No, they’ve removed points, they’ve removed school scholarships, basically,we’re down to the good will of a bunch of white people to get any matter of redress. You’ve won- many black and Latino students are locked out of higher ed- what more do you want- for us to renounce reading books?
    Oh yea, it removes the amount of books for good white people!

    And Asian folk, don’t beleive in getting the crumbs of white supremacy, be in solidarity with us, so we can all get the full respect we need.

  15. Marian
    Marian March 25, 2006 at 10:59 am |

    I believe that until recently, Michigan State (University of Michigan?) had a point system. You received 20 extra points for being black or Hispanic. Has that program been nixed by now?

  16. Deep THought
    Deep THought March 25, 2006 at 11:12 am |

    The UofM undergrad points system was struck down, but hte UofM law school was able to keep its system in place. Essentially, as long as there is no “formal” quota system, its OK.
    Don’t get me wrong, admissions are complicated, but it is disingenuous to claim that there are no quotas.

  17. zuzu
    zuzu March 25, 2006 at 4:19 pm | *

    I went to UM Law. Back when Bollinger was the law school president (he went to Columbia after my first year, so you can see how long those cases were working their way through the system).

    Being a Michigander was given more weight (because of state funding formulas) than race or sex. As was your LSAT score. And your undergraduate school. And your GPA. And your legacy status.

    The fact that you were from an underrepresented group might be a deciding factor when looking at roughly equal candidates, or it might not. I was told, when I asked, that one of the things that helped push me over the threshold was that I was a woman — but what really caught their eye in the first place was my placement essay, in which I wrote about raccoons. Specifically, about a news story I wrote while employed before law school (that helped, too) about a trapped raccoon, an abandoned house, and a five-year-old child welfare scandal that had occurred at the abandoned house. Had I written something more prosaic, I might never have gotten in, despite my very high LSAT score (and because of my middling undergraduate grades from a middling state university).

    Another guy got in because he wrote about spending a year living off his gambling earnings. For other people, it was work experience or life experience.

  18. Deep THought
    Deep THought March 25, 2006 at 8:58 pm |

    Hey, I’m a wolverine, myself. Love the school.
    SInce I am being unclear, the point I am trying to make is – we keep looking at affirmative action in the court system and virtually every time, its being struck down as a form of quota system.

    Shannon, my wife went to all-girls schools k-12 and then went to Smith. I am all for separated learning; of course, there are virtually no all-male schools left! Men and women learn differently, especially at a young age. Current public education is geared toward females. Is this less of a problem than when it was geared toward males? I don’t think so. Indeed, I am troubled by the number of times I have heard (not here – in person) that the problem is boys, not how the education system works. Indeed, Shannon points to males as disruptive and having poor behavior and stating educators are justified in having a poor opinion of males.
    If we were to go back to 1920 when educators viewed females as ‘shrinking, non-assertive and, thus, incapable of higher learning” would that be a problem with women, or with the attitudes of the educators? How is having a bad opinion of a person or group of persons based on gender *ever* acceptable?
    Based on the arguments I’ve had with public educators, its acceptable when you are a White Male.
    No, I don’t think this is the default of public schools. But it can feel like it some days. Look, if Asians were performing as men are, how many plans to help them would exist? Women are currently the majority of inbound college students, a majority of graduates, a majority of grad students, a majority of grad degree recipients, etc., etc., etc. and there are still no less than 12 programs to increase the representation and performance of women at the major college nearest my home. Indeed, the fact that men are still a majority of engineers is seen as a *problem* that needs to be corrected by increasing the representation of women in the field! Where are the programs to increase the presence of men in Literature or History departments? There is a severe “gender imbalance” in those fields; why isn’t it being corrected?

  19. Dianne
    Dianne March 26, 2006 at 9:23 am |

    White men get coddled and treated as superior from friggin birth on. They get better treatment from teachers starting in nursery school and continuing throughout life. If white boys can’t make the grades or standardized test scores to get into college, it’s because they’re STUPID and shouldn’t be admitted. Asking for affirmative action when you’ve benefited from that much prejudice for 18 years already just adds whiny to stupid.

  20. Lauren
    Lauren March 26, 2006 at 9:39 am |

    Current public education is geared toward females.

    How?

  21. james
    james March 26, 2006 at 10:51 am |

    I don’t see more women than men getting into higher education as much of a problem. In the UK I’ve see it predicted that a girl born in 2000 will have 50% more chance of getting into university than a boy, so these going to be very big differences in life chances quite soon (with no prospect of “positive discrimination” being used, as it is basically illegal here). But I can’t see how it is morally justifiable to try to balance things out.

    I also want to flag the very dubious grounds being used to reject girls brought up in the article. There’s the preservation of social life on campus (people being able to find “dance partners for the winter formal”) and the fear that men and women applicants will be both put off going to the college if there are too many women. That seems really thin grounds for discrimination, it’s essentially that students exist to serve the university and not the other way around.

  22. palamedes
    palamedes March 26, 2006 at 1:22 pm |

    Lauren Says:
    March 26th, 2006 at 9:39 am
    Current public education is geared toward females.

    How?

    (The following is based on personal experience and somewhat off the cuff, and thus colored accordingly. Given that we’re all individuals with our own life experiences, your mileage may vary. My skill set doesn’t include pedagogy, so this comes from my private set of experiences and opinions, so take what follows for what its worth.)

    One arena that gets discussed in my locale regarding differences in learning capabilities for boys versus girls, at least at a young age, is, for lack of a better word, fidgetiness on the part of boys.

    Young boys allegedly have a stronger need than girls for large body movement, or so I got told a lot at the public school district where my daughter went from kindergarten through sixth grade. So, at her elementary school, they had (and still have) not only lunch recess, but a couple of extra mini-recess periods of about 10-20 minutes each, for blowing off steam. And the explanation I usually received, from both teachers and volunteer parents, was that it seemed to help the boys focus more in class.

    The problem is that this kind of attitude seems to me to be more of an exception than the rule.

    My personal experiences, and from watching my daughter’s cohort travel together from Kindergarten through sixth grade, lead to my opinions…

    Interpretation versus reaction really, really matters. I think girls and young women are doing better in school these days because, in large part, a majority of people aren’t saying anymore, “Oh, well, that’s how it is,” where women and achievement are concerned. They figured out what to do about it and sometimes stumbled, sometimes strode their way into converting the average female’s core personality traits into advantages that could be translated into achievements.

    I think we truly fail at two distinct levels when it comes to men and achievement. The first is that we don’t want to accurately interpret how men are, both because it means we have to deal with the typically more physically aggressive nature of males, and because we can’t separate males as individuals from the worst males in our society.

    For reasons I don’t completely understand (having only been blessed with a daughter), we tend to give a lot of young males a pass when it comes to responsibility.

    Women are typically looked upon to provide comfort, and men are typically looked upon to provide discipline, in a family.

    My personal experience is that many men don’t often understand what “discipline” means. They think it means swatting a butt (or worse) when their kid does wrong, but it also means teaching self-discipline, and where this is most important for males is where anger and violence is concerned. I tend to believe that fathers and related men (uncles, grandfathers, what have you…) are most important for young males in that they teach that, yes, you have a violent nature; yes, it can be very powerful; no, it is not all that makes you you; here is what is acceptable and how you can control it.

    It’s not that women can’t be violent, but that, for better or worse, they cannot accept the violence at the core of most men, fear it, or simply aren’t acceptable teachers to young men regarding this core feature of their nature. And, to be frank, nurturing is more pleasant than discipline. I hate having to ban my daughter from stuff she likes to do when she does wrong – it’s much more fun to walk a trail, watch a movie or go out to lunch together on a weekend day and talk father-daughter stuff.

    So we let a lot of young men slide. Those that make it well in life either stumble their way into self-discipline of a sort, or have been given a sense of it through people they respect. Some mothers can install that sense of self-discipline, but my personal experience is that, as a single parent with a largely absent ex-wife in the situation, I work very hard to make sure adult female role models that I trust, especially now, as my daughter becomes a teenager, are a regular part of her life. It’s not that I can’t be a good father or a good parent, but for better or worse, there are differences between males and females and our young ones get told it by society, know it, and want to know those differences so they can both fit in and be distinctly what their gender says they are, even if only at a marginal level, supplanted by their individual personality. Even teens that know they are dramatically outside the mainstream hunger for those mentors that can provide what they need – acceptance (of which I consider nurturing a means toward that end) and self-discipline.

    The second major problem is that we accept the idea all too readily that “all men are pigs,” and that the men that act the most like this represent all men. The more we accept this idea, the more we let males in general off the hook. The more we don’t expect men to meet certain standards of self-discipline in their lives, the more we give them license to be unable to catch up to women, both in terms of achievements and in terms of responsibility/maturity, and for many to blame women for their problems and act accordingly.

    Now, that doesn’t mean we should pretend that males don’t have an aggressive nature. That, I think, is at core where we fail men in this society. It’s too easy to pretend that it doesn’t exist, and instead of teaching the means to redirect it into acceptable ends, we demand that it never be on display.

    And thus, we get males that take the usual hard knocks we all, regardless of gender, must suffer – the goals we couldn’t achieve, the disappointments in potential relationships, the possibilities we have to let go by, possibly forever – and thus have rage that they’re not allowed to acknowledge, let alone channel into something useful instead of destructive.

    Add to this the nature of men to believe that their masculinity is something that can be taken from them, regardless of their possessing a penis, and you have rage that gets channeled into, typically, physical violence, often against women, which aggravates the fear of it, which recycles the whole process again.

    And while social liberals tend to want to ignore a male’s aggressive nature, social conservatives take things a step further and seem to believe that such a nature confirms male superiority over women, which in it’s own way also gives men a free pass, but with even worse consequences for society in general and women in particular.

    Do I have answers to all of this? A few, but hardly a full solution. The obvious answers are to commit to discerning what works best to help males achieve and provide them with the support structure they need, and to ensure that they receive a valid sense of self-discipline in their lives –if not through their families, than by other means.

    Beyond that, though, I’m open to ideas.

  23. Marian
    Marian March 27, 2006 at 2:40 pm |

    Sorry, wrong again. The UofM case (Gratz v. Bollinger) struck down the points system as unconstitutional because it was too close to a quota system. The race-conscious admissions policy at the law school (evaluated in Grutter v. Bollinger), which simply looks at race as one factor among many others that the admissions committee evaluates and did not use a points system, was upheld.

    Look, I’m not saying that these systems are without fault. I’m not saying that race isn’t taken into account — of course it is. But if we’re going to argue, let’s at least get the facts straight.

    Good to know about Michigan. Admittedly my sources were biased–conservative groups who call it “Affirmative Action University.” I had no idea it had been struck down!! Learn something new every day.

  24. Darin
    Darin March 27, 2006 at 9:30 pm |

    Jill,

    Your arguments sound eerily similar to those used by “angry white males” lamenting how much “better” they have to be to get jobs over less qualified minorities.

    Funny how you don’t recognize the hypocrisy. But typical.

  25. Darin
    Darin March 27, 2006 at 11:39 pm |

    You know, instead of going on about how unfair it is to hold female applicants to higher standards, why don’t you stop and think about what’s really going on?

    The data show that the gender disparity in college enrollment is clearly linked to economic class. (In other words, if a male comes from a lower economic level, he is less likely to attend college, while at middle- to upper-level incomes, the gender ratio is almost 50/50.)

    This shows that the issue is more about the interaction between gender and economics then about gender alone. Of course, you like to see it through the prism of gender alone.

    Basically, the market for higher education is becoming saturated, and among lower-income families, the girls are more likely to see the advantages of college than the boys, who don’t see that it’s in their interest and don’t see why they should care. This is what is accounting for the gender gap.

  26. tiffany
    tiffany March 28, 2006 at 9:59 am |

    a nitpicky thing:

    Wealthier, whiter neighborhoods tend to have better schools because property taxes there are higher and so their schools are better funded.

    Property tax rates are actually lower in those districts, but because the property is worth so much more, those districts are able to raise more money with a lower rate. And the lower rates make those districts even more attractive.

    Darin your argument is smoke and mirrors, dude. The issue here is applicants: who gets chosen and why.

    Lower-class men don’t go to college because they. do. not. apply. to. college. Men can earn a decent-enough living with a high school diploma, and in poorer families, they feel the pressure to earn now rather than go to college.

  27. zuzu
    zuzu March 28, 2006 at 10:13 am | *

    Property tax rates are actually lower in those districts, but because the property is worth so much more, those districts are able to raise more money with a lower rate. And the lower rates make those districts even more attractive.

    Augh! The mil rate!

    Sorry. Had a flashback there to working as a local-news reporter. We had to do math twice a year — once at election time, and once when the Grand List came out and we had to figure out the tax rates and the mil rate. If you’ve ever seen a group of reporters trying to split a lunch check, you’ll have an idea of how traumatizing this was for us.

    Lower-class men don’t go to college because they. do. not. apply. to. college. Men can earn a decent-enough living with a high school diploma, and in poorer families, they feel the pressure to earn now rather than go to college.

    My ex-BIL, a working-class guy from Queens, caught hell from his father, an HVAC guy, for applying to college. He joined the Navy in part to get away from his father’s digs about “lazy school.”

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.