9 ms·

Seeking gender balance, selective schools giving men a leg up in admission

22 points by agomez314 3y ago

lucasyvas 3y ago
Male enrollment numbers are a huge issue and it's disappointing reading some of the quotes in the article. Double standards go both ways - if men are demonstrably struggling I don't think it's unreasonable to give them a bit of a push. I would expect the same consideration for women. Ultimately, let the person choose whether or not they want to apply or go into a profession that doesn't require post secondary education and apply supports where needed.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - lucasyvas 3y ago
    We are ultimately talking about wanting the best outcome for all young people and sons and daughters. If you have an axe to grind take it elsewhere. It might be hard to accept, but some people really want to see everyone succeed. We should always go to data but the education system should strive to give people a chance. Maybe the problem is way earlier in this case but it's worth trying.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - sodumrmf 3y ago
      Classic tactic you got there. "This area is only for the righteous, if you have any criticism in our methods, please leave."
      - lucasyvas 3y ago
        The reply was condescending and the poster can get lost. I won't apologize for a thing. They can post a top level comment if they want to kick up sand.
  - jadamson 3y ago
    Bit of incel energy from you here. Girls have been outperforming boys in education for a good 30 years, longer than a decent portion of us have been alive.
    - linuxftw 3y ago
      If this were true, SAT math scores for girls would be higher than boys. Math is the only portion of the test that can be scored objectively. The reality is, there are systemic biases in every component of education today that favor girls.
      - lucasyvas 3y ago
        Are you saying that SAT scores in math are about equal but scores for other sections heavily diverge? Having never written them I genuinely have no frame of reference but would be interested to find data to back this up since it's quite the lofty assertion. I would more likely have guessed that aptitude in these areas was not as strong for some other reason.
        linuxftw 3y ago
        Math scores for boys are higher than girls. So the statement that girls exceed boys in education is objectively false.
      - jadamson 3y ago
        In the UK, girls overtook boys in maths results in 2021 (at least, when looking at top grades). This was the first time girls had got more top grades in maths, and just so happened to be a year when exams were cancelled due to COVID and grades were "estimated" by teachers instead. When exams resumed the next year: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/a-level-grades-gender-gap-halved-return-exams/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/a-level-grades-g... > Boys also retook the lead over girls at the top grade for maths in 2022 after girls out-performed boys at the A* grade for the first time in 2021. Last year, 29.1 per cent of girls were awarded A*, compared with 28.5 per cent of boys.
  - doylio 3y ago
    He literally said "I would expect the same consideration for women" I think it's wise to avoid looking for misogynists in every conversation about gender. It makes life more pleasant! :)
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jadamson 3y ago
        Saying the same thing, unlike the people quoted in the article who flip-flop as it suits them. Does that clear up your confusion, Joe? If you're concerned about consistency, there's a pretty obvious place to start and it isn't random HN commenters you know nothing about.
- miked85 3y ago
  Nobody should get a "bit of a push". Affirmative action is a negative thing no matter who is the beneficiary.
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    A pure "meritocracy" has problems, but it's the only morally pure starting move. Anything else is injustice with varying alibis (whether they're racism or social engineering experiments).
slashdev 3y ago
I don’t support affirmative action of any variety. Why should balance be a desired end in itself? Men are more likely to go into the trades, and we need people to do that. The average age of people in the trades is very high. Who are you going to call when they retire? Let the market sort it out, distorting markets often produces a worse outcome.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > Why should balance be a desired end in itself? Dating, for one thing. When my daughters apply to college, I imagine they won't want to go to a school that's 65/35, since that would create a very skewed dating dynamic (to the benefit of boys and the detriment of girls).
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    You want to limit access to education because of dating? In the 21st century where you can meet people from thousands of miles away within minutes? I heavily doubt this is a justified incentive to prescribe quotas. If university was for dating, I probably wouldn't have picked computer science and electrical engineering. Even if it may feel different some times, universities aren't a breeding ground where dads can put their daughters to get engaged.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      I didn't say I want to limit access to education because of dating. I said that it's one possible consideration. > If university was for dating, I probably wouldn't have picked computer science and electrical engineering. I also never suggested people choose a major in order to date (that would seem extreme — though I definitely knew people who signed up for specific classes for this purpose!). And I also didn't suggest that I would send my daughters to university to get engaged — that's a straw man. Instead, I pointed out that my daughters themselves probably wouldn't want to go to a school where the dating prospects are dismal. My guess is that most people would feel the same way! Most importantly, I was not in any way indicating that this should be required (which would "limit access to education," as you refer to it). I'm just pointing out that schools could have rational reasons for not admitting students on a sex-blind basis, and that perhaps it shouldn't be knee-jerkingly rejected. > In the 21st century where you can meet people from thousands of miles away within minutes? This is not how college students want to date, FYI. I say this as someone who has been in multiple long-distance relationships, and eventually a long-distance marriage (but met these girlfriends locally, like most people do).
gnicholas 3y ago
(2021)
gnicholas 3y ago
> Title IX legislation, passed in 1972, says that no one should be excluded on the basis of gender from participation in any education program receiving federal financial assistance. But private institutions have an exemption that allows them to use gender as a factor in admissions. I was interested to see this legal explanation because I had read in a prior HN thread that schools could choose to be single-sex, but once they decided to admit both sexes they were forbidden from discriminating. The HN comment linked to an authoritative-looking website (Dept of Education?), but this seems to pretty clearly indicate that private schools are exempt. EDIT: Here's a link to a page on the Dept of Education's Office of Civil Rights website, which gives the impression that schools that receive federal funding (which is basically all of them) cannot discriminate on the basis of sex or gender in admissions. It mentions no exception for private institutions. [1] But this other page on the same website shows the exemption for private institutions. Very strange that the first page, which has a section on the "scope of Title IX" would not mention that this rule does not apply to the thousands of private universities and colleges. [2] 1: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html 2: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-exempt/index.html https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-exemp...
gnicholas 3y ago
IIRC girls have higher GPA than boys, on average, and boys have higher SATs than girls, on average. It will be interesting to see how the trend to do away with standardized test considerations in admissions will play out. Public institutions (which cannot legally discriminate on sex because of Title IX), and institutions in states where sex-based discrimination is disallowed, may see their student body shift even more female if they no longer consider standardized test scores.
tzs 3y ago
That's one way to affect the gender ratio of your student body. There's also a way to do it that doesn't involve giving one gender a boost in admission. Instead (1) try to get more people of the desired gender who are qualified to make it without a boost to apply, and (2) try to get more people of the desired gender that are accepted by multiple schools to decide to go to yours. That's the approach Caltech took. When I was there in the '80s it was 85% male (it is 54% male nowadays). That was annoying and distracting for everybody. They made it a priority to get more balanced, and the approach was to work on the pipeline. When I, a pretty average for Caltech male, was offered admission they sent me a letter and told me the deadline to accept and how to do so, and that was pretty much it. If I had picked another school Caltech wouldn't have tried to get me to change my mind. It would have just been "tzs didn't accept...offer that spot to the next kid on the waitlist". If I had been a female, they probably would have sent a faculty member to visit me and my parents at home and try to convince us that Caltech was the place to be. Same on the pre-application side of things. They'd send people out to meet top female high school STEM students and try and convince them to apply. For males you had to be really special to get that kind of recruitment.

22 points by agomez314 3y ago

Male enrollment numbers are a huge issue and it's disappointing reading some of the quotes in the article. Double standards go both ways - if men are demonstrably struggling I don't think it's unreasonable to give them a bit of a push. I would expect the same consideration for women. Ultimately, let the person choose whether or not they want to apply or go into a profession that doesn't require post secondary education and apply supports where needed.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
[flagged]
- lucasyvas 3y ago
  We are ultimately talking about wanting the best outcome for all young people and sons and daughters. If you have an axe to grind take it elsewhere. It might be hard to accept, but some people really want to see everyone succeed. We should always go to data but the education system should strive to give people a chance. Maybe the problem is way earlier in this case but it's worth trying.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - sodumrmf 3y ago
    Classic tactic you got there. "This area is only for the righteous, if you have any criticism in our methods, please leave."
    - lucasyvas 3y ago
      The reply was condescending and the poster can get lost. I won't apologize for a thing. They can post a top level comment if they want to kick up sand.
- jadamson 3y ago
  Bit of incel energy from you here. Girls have been outperforming boys in education for a good 30 years, longer than a decent portion of us have been alive.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    If this were true, SAT math scores for girls would be higher than boys. Math is the only portion of the test that can be scored objectively. The reality is, there are systemic biases in every component of education today that favor girls.
    - lucasyvas 3y ago
      Are you saying that SAT scores in math are about equal but scores for other sections heavily diverge? Having never written them I genuinely have no frame of reference but would be interested to find data to back this up since it's quite the lofty assertion. I would more likely have guessed that aptitude in these areas was not as strong for some other reason.
      - linuxftw 3y ago
        Math scores for boys are higher than girls. So the statement that girls exceed boys in education is objectively false.
    - jadamson 3y ago
      In the UK, girls overtook boys in maths results in 2021 (at least, when looking at top grades). This was the first time girls had got more top grades in maths, and just so happened to be a year when exams were cancelled due to COVID and grades were "estimated" by teachers instead. When exams resumed the next year: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/a-level-grades-gender-gap-halved-return-exams/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/a-level-grades-g... > Boys also retook the lead over girls at the top grade for maths in 2022 after girls out-performed boys at the A* grade for the first time in 2021. Last year, 29.1 per cent of girls were awarded A*, compared with 28.5 per cent of boys.
- doylio 3y ago
  He literally said "I would expect the same consideration for women" I think it's wise to avoid looking for misogynists in every conversation about gender. It makes life more pleasant! :)
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jadamson 3y ago
      Saying the same thing, unlike the people quoted in the article who flip-flop as it suits them. Does that clear up your confusion, Joe? If you're concerned about consistency, there's a pretty obvious place to start and it isn't random HN commenters you know nothing about.
miked85 3y ago
Nobody should get a "bit of a push". Affirmative action is a negative thing no matter who is the beneficiary.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  A pure "meritocracy" has problems, but it's the only morally pure starting move. Anything else is injustice with varying alibis (whether they're racism or social engineering experiments).

slashdev 3y ago

I don’t support affirmative action of any variety. Why should balance be a desired end in itself? Men are more likely to go into the trades, and we need people to do that. The average age of people in the trades is very high. Who are you going to call when they retire? Let the market sort it out, distorting markets often produces a worse outcome.

gnicholas 3y ago
> Why should balance be a desired end in itself? Dating, for one thing. When my daughters apply to college, I imagine they won't want to go to a school that's 65/35, since that would create a very skewed dating dynamic (to the benefit of boys and the detriment of girls).
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  You want to limit access to education because of dating? In the 21st century where you can meet people from thousands of miles away within minutes? I heavily doubt this is a justified incentive to prescribe quotas. If university was for dating, I probably wouldn't have picked computer science and electrical engineering. Even if it may feel different some times, universities aren't a breeding ground where dads can put their daughters to get engaged.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    I didn't say I want to limit access to education because of dating. I said that it's one possible consideration. > If university was for dating, I probably wouldn't have picked computer science and electrical engineering. I also never suggested people choose a major in order to date (that would seem extreme — though I definitely knew people who signed up for specific classes for this purpose!). And I also didn't suggest that I would send my daughters to university to get engaged — that's a straw man. Instead, I pointed out that my daughters themselves probably wouldn't want to go to a school where the dating prospects are dismal. My guess is that most people would feel the same way! Most importantly, I was not in any way indicating that this should be required (which would "limit access to education," as you refer to it). I'm just pointing out that schools could have rational reasons for not admitting students on a sex-blind basis, and that perhaps it shouldn't be knee-jerkingly rejected. > In the 21st century where you can meet people from thousands of miles away within minutes? This is not how college students want to date, FYI. I say this as someone who has been in multiple long-distance relationships, and eventually a long-distance marriage (but met these girlfriends locally, like most people do).

gnicholas 3y ago

(2021)

gnicholas 3y ago

> Title IX legislation, passed in 1972, says that no one should be excluded on the basis of gender from participation in any education program receiving federal financial assistance. But private institutions have an exemption that allows them to use gender as a factor in admissions. I was interested to see this legal explanation because I had read in a prior HN thread that schools could choose to be single-sex, but once they decided to admit both sexes they were forbidden from discriminating. The HN comment linked to an authoritative-looking website (Dept of Education?), but this seems to pretty clearly indicate that private schools are exempt. EDIT: Here's a link to a page on the Dept of Education's Office of Civil Rights website, which gives the impression that schools that receive federal funding (which is basically all of them) cannot discriminate on the basis of sex or gender in admissions. It mentions no exception for private institutions. [1] But this other page on the same website shows the exemption for private institutions. Very strange that the first page, which has a section on the "scope of Title IX" would not mention that this rule does not apply to the thousands of private universities and colleges. [2] 1: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html 2: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-exempt/index.html https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-rel-exemp...

gnicholas 3y ago

IIRC girls have higher GPA than boys, on average, and boys have higher SATs than girls, on average. It will be interesting to see how the trend to do away with standardized test considerations in admissions will play out. Public institutions (which cannot legally discriminate on sex because of Title IX), and institutions in states where sex-based discrimination is disallowed, may see their student body shift even more female if they no longer consider standardized test scores.

tzs 3y ago

That's one way to affect the gender ratio of your student body. There's also a way to do it that doesn't involve giving one gender a boost in admission. Instead (1) try to get more people of the desired gender who are qualified to make it without a boost to apply, and (2) try to get more people of the desired gender that are accepted by multiple schools to decide to go to yours. That's the approach Caltech took. When I was there in the '80s it was 85% male (it is 54% male nowadays). That was annoying and distracting for everybody. They made it a priority to get more balanced, and the approach was to work on the pipeline. When I, a pretty average for Caltech male, was offered admission they sent me a letter and told me the deadline to accept and how to do so, and that was pretty much it. If I had picked another school Caltech wouldn't have tried to get me to change my mind. It would have just been "tzs didn't accept...offer that spot to the next kid on the waitlist". If I had been a female, they probably would have sent a faculty member to visit me and my parents at home and try to convince us that Caltech was the place to be. Same on the pre-application side of things. They'd send people out to meet top female high school STEM students and try and convince them to apply. For males you had to be really special to get that kind of recruitment.