Oopsy: Affirmative Action Demands For "Diversity" Over Merit Now Hurting Women Applying For College
The problem with people being for shutting down speech and for discrimination (for "diversity's" sake) is that it tends to come back to bite those who've demanded it in service of shutting up views they don't like or getting special treatment for their favored group of people.
That's what's happened on campus.
Libby Nelson writes at Vox that -- yes -- "Discrimination against women is a real problem in college admissions":
Two generations ago, women were in the minority in higher education. Now they're dominating it.In 1960, women earned 35 percent of all bachelor's degrees. They crossed the 50 percent mark in the late 1970s and just kept going.
Women now make up 59 percent of all college students. In 2011, they earned 62 percent of all associate degrees, 57 percent of all bachelor's degrees, and 60 percent of all master's degrees. They now even earn the majority of doctorates -- the last bastion of male domination in higher education.
Not surprisingly, all these colleges that were called to discriminate in college admissions -- to let in women and "minorities" (not including Asians) -- are now turning on the female protected class.
Discrimination against women is an open secret at some private colleges
Evidence has mounted in recent years: at some colleges, although not all, men can get in with less impressive credentials. A push for gender balance on campus means accomplished young women end up competing with each other rather than crowding out less accomplished young men.About 25 percent of admissions directors surveyed by Inside Higher Ed in 2014 said colleges should admit men with lower grades and test scores than other applicants to create a gender balance.
A 2005 study of 13 liberal arts colleges found that when women made up a majority of the application pool, admissions officers went easier on men.
Love the "Mary and Mary" remark below:
It's rare, but some admissions directors or college presidents publicly admit that they're harder on women applicants because they want a gender balance. In 2007, Henry Broaddus, the dean of admissions at the College of William and Mary, said admitting men was important because it's "the College of William and Mary, not the College of Mary and Mary." The comment went viral, and although Broaddus says he regrets the phrasing, he stands by the underlying idea: colleges "that market themselves as coed, and believe that the pedagogical experiences they provide rely in part on a coed student body, have a legitimate interest in enrolling a class that is not disproportionately male or female," he wrote in the Washington Post.In 2006, Jennifer Delahunty Britz, then the dean of admissions and financial aid at Kenyon College, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times headlined "To All the Girls I've Rejected." In the opaque world of college admissions, Britz's op-ed laid out the situation candidly: talented female applicants at Kenyon were a dime a dozen, and highly qualified male applicants were rarer. It was simply harder to get in as a young woman than a young man.
"The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance," Britz wrote. "Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants?"
I've always been disgusted by colleges deciding whether to let people in based on what is effectively "population grooming" -- populating the place with a certain number of people from this group and that.
You work hard and get good grades and have 6,000 Important Admissions Officer Impressing Activities in high school? You should get admitted to college before the preferred class currently in vogue to give a boost to.
via @NinjaEconomics
To make matters worse they aren't actually helping the discriminated for group. Instead you let a bunch of less qualified people in and they have to compete against the more qualified. So that group gets worse grades and fails out of college more often. Not being stupid they can see that people like them usually get worse grades and come to the logical decision they are being discriminated against.
Like many good intentions it doesn't turn out well.
Ben at February 19, 2015 6:03 AM
In 1968, my sister was told by an admissions officer (coincidentally or not, at William and Mary) that her chances of admission were slim, but that if she were in-state or male, she would be a shoo-in. In the past 15 or 20 years, this has become the case at most of the more selective institutions, maybe without the blunt honesty, but it seems to have existed at W & M for many years. I do remember, in the past 10 years, a small college considering adding a football program to attract males.Their feeling was that it would increase male enrollment by at least 75 (a smallish roster for a college football team).
mike at February 19, 2015 6:21 AM
A friend, who is a PhD candidate in electrical engineering at the University of Texas, got a fellowship because he's a white male... because they're under-represented in that program. Fer reals.
ahw at February 19, 2015 7:42 AM
We all knew this day was coming, when the pendulum would swing from one extreme to the other. Now all these SJWs, who have been 'very concerned' about [fill in the blank] population not reflecting the general population, will be hoisted on their own petard and I will relish every moment of saying (with a straight face) "what about maintaining a diverse group" or some such stuff about how important diversity is. We all know they will react as shrilly and indignant as ever but it will sure be fun...
Doc Jensen at February 19, 2015 7:57 AM
As much as I'd like to say turnaround is fair play, I'm against discriminatory programs whether or not they benefit men. I think if we want more men in colleges we should find answers as to why they are performing below women in grade schools. The answers are not as cut and dry as saying that women are just smarter and/or work harder. In the meantime, a qualified woman shouldn't have to sacrifice her hard work and opportunities for the sake of fairness.
I love how the story tells that one of the biggest problem as far as women are concerned from fewer men in college is a lack of dating possibilities. Some people need to seriously get over themselves.
Steven at February 19, 2015 8:12 AM
This starts in elementary school, where boys who can't "sit still and pay attention" for hours on end, are made to feel un-scholarly.
I have a hard time believing that women got innately smarter or men got dumber. So it must be something else...
flbeachmom at February 19, 2015 9:30 AM
And yet, we're still constantly told how unfair most STEM programs are to women (or just how under-represented women are in them), and how we need to do all these outreach programs to get more women interested in engineering, IT, etc.
flbeachmom has a good point too. I used to get in trouble and if I were a decade or so younger, I bet they would've tried to force ritalin or another med on me. In the end, I can now multitask better than most people and am one of the best at my job in the company. Rather than turn it off, I learned to use it. I wonder how different my life would be had I been dulled via drugs starting at an early age.
For those that wonder, yes my mind can wander (losing time reading blogs and stuff is always an issue) but I've learned to help avoid it by having the TV or music on in the background. In fact, I can't work in silence, or with a constant din of conversations around as I'll keep automatically paying attention to said conversations. Being in a cube now SUCKS, so I use noise canceling headphones when at the office. Ironically, on days like today when I work from home, I tend to get more work done, due to less distractions, even with TV shows or movies playing in the background.
The flip side of being this way is that when I'm working on something really challenging and/or interesting, I can hit a point where I basically get too focused and go far too long without a break. I once needed to look into the feasibility of doing a custom OS install for a remote site and ended up spending the entire weekend digging into how the whole installation system was setup at work. I not only got the custom stuff going (in two days), but became one of the few people to understand said system completely. Because of several such instances over the years, I'm one of the most knowledgeable for much of our infrastructure and configuration management systems at the company now. So it has it's benefits.
miguelitosd at February 19, 2015 9:48 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/02/oopsy-affirmati.html#comment-5858590">comment from ahwA friend, who is a PhD candidate in electrical engineering at the University of Texas, got a fellowship because he's a white male... because they're under-represented in that program. Fer reals.
Hilarious. And actually, when I've visited an engineering prof friend at her university, her Anglo Saxon name is the only one on her hall. The rest are "Woo," "Yee," and "Singh."
Amy Alkon
at February 19, 2015 10:49 AM
I'm the same way Migelitosd. I can't think on just one thing. Every time I've tried I just fall asleep. But give me two things with differing time horizons and I work quite well.
Flbeachmom, you are right about schools poorly serving male students. It is kind of an open secret. Everyone knows it but doesn't want to talk about it. The truth is boys of all ages and other classifications(by race, by economics, ...) have lower grades on average than girls. Even in subject where boys score better on standardized tests they have lower grades.
Ben at February 19, 2015 10:51 AM
"The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance," Britz wrote. "Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants?"
Racist, oh wait, shes not asking that question on behalf of white men? I guess her bigotry is OK then.
I too look frward to the day when whitey isnt the highest demographic in america. On that glorious day racists will become the SJWs and the SJWs will become the racists.
/sarc
lujlp at February 19, 2015 12:19 PM
"A push for gender balance on campus means accomplished young women end up competing with each other rather than crowding out less accomplished young men."
Tough shit!
That's what "affirmative action" has done to white men for decades - and few people cried boo.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
charles at February 20, 2015 3:28 AM
"On that glorious day racists will become the SJWs and the SJWs will become the racists."
Good one, and immediately reminded me of this:
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
bkmale at February 20, 2015 7:20 AM
I've been saying for years that the whole gender equality ideal pushed by women was just an attempt to gain superiority in wealth and education over men - through force of laws and policies that discriminate against men.
Now that women have a big advantage, women aren't going to allow men to use the same laws in men's favor. Can you say hypocrisy? Women can't.
Ted at February 20, 2015 9:31 AM
Leave a comment