Missing: Males on College Campuses

ifeminist.com ^ | 6-15-2005 | Wendy McElroy,

[herst1240]

Some researchers call them the "Lost Boys." They are young males students you don't see on college campuses. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) tracks the enrollment in all degree-granting institutions by sex. From 1992 to 2000, the ratio of enrolled males to females fell from 82 to 78 boys for every 100 girls. The NCES projects that in 2007 the ratio will be 75 males for every 100 females; in 2012, 74 per 100. In short, your son is statistically more likely than your daughter to work a blue collar job.

Thomas Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, argues that leaving a generation of boys behind hurts women as well. In a Business Week cover story, Mortenson observed, "My belief is that until women decide that the education of boys is a serious issue, nothing is going to happen."

He believes some women feel threatened by even admitting the problem because "it will take away from the progress of women...What everyone needs to realize is that if boys continue to slide, women will lose too."

That realization still seems distant among educational experts, who continue to downplay the NCES statistic as well as other data that indicate schools are hurting boys.

Jacqueline King -- author of the influential study "Gender Equity in Higher Education: Are Male Students at a Disadvantage?" -- is an example. She found that 68 percent of college enrollees from low-income families were female; only 31 percent were male.

Yet King insists there is no "boy crisis" in education despite the fact that data from Upward Bound and Talent Search show a comparable gender gap. (These college-preparation programs operate in high schools and received $312.6 million $144.9 million in tax funding, respectively, in 2005.) Of the students who receive benefits from those college-preparation programs, approximately 61 percent are girls; 39 percent are boys.

King's quoted explanation of the gender gaps: "women make up a disproportionate share of low-income students" who go on to college. Since low-income families presumably give birth to boys in the same ratio as the general population-- worldwide the ratio is between 103 to 107 boys for every 100 girls -- why are so few boys applying for assistance? A higher drop-out rate might be partly responsible, or boys may have no interest in higher education.

King comments on the latter explanation: "male low-income students have some ability in this strong economy to make a decent living with just a high-school diploma." In particular, she points to the construction industry.

King may be correct. The fact that low-income boys gravitate toward manual labor may account for some of the educational gender disparity. What is striking, however, is her apparent dismissal of that disparity as important. She seems to accept the reality that far fewer men than women enroll in college and that poor boys enter "the trades" while poor girls become professionals.

Imagine the gender ratio being reversed, with 78 girls for every 100 boys entering college. Imagine a generation of poor girls being relegated to low social status labor while tax funding assists poor boys. It is difficult to believe King would be similarly unconcerned.

Nevertheless, merely by acknowledging the situation, King shows far more balance than prominent voices, like the American Association of University Women, which still maintains there is a "girl crisis."

Fortunately, researchers like Judith Kleinfeld of the University of Alaska see that boys are in distress.

Kleinfeld -- author of "The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls" -- states, "In my own college classes, I see a sea change in the behavior of young men. In the 1980s, the young men talked in my classes about the same as young women. I know because each semester I measured male and female talk. Now so many young men are disengaged that the more articulate, ambitious women dominate the classroom ....and my office hours."

Kleinfeld tried to trace the problem backward by interviewing high school students on plans for their future. She states, "The young women almost always have a clear, realistic plan---go to college, have a career, often directed toward an idealistic goals about improving the environment."

This clarity of vision and was generally absent in young men.

Among those who acknowledge the "boy crisis," explanations are vary and may all be true. Some point to the "feminization" of education over the last decade, which occurred largely in response to a perceived need to encourage girls. But, if boys and girls learn differently, then the changes may be placing boys at a disadvantage.

Others point to explicitly anti-male attitudes -- that is, political correctness -- within education. The website Illinois Loop lists "22 School Practices That May Harm Boys." One of them: "'Modern' textbooks and recommended literature often go to extremes to remove male role models as lead characters and examples."

Kleinfeld points speculatively to the impact of increased divorce and fatherless homes on the self-image of boys who lack a positive male role-model.

Approximately 40 percent of American children now live in homes without their own biological father.

Ultimately, explanations of and solutions to the "boy crisis" will come from exploring a combination of factors. My solution: privatize education and place it under the control of parents or adult students.

The first step to any solution, however, is to acknowledge there is a problem. We are not quite there yet.

[herst1240]

Evidently, the public school system not teaching to boys is such a big problem that even ifeminists are coving the issue. But, it still has received no national coverage? Where is all the “investigative reporters?” you know, the ones that are quick to expose every small blemish about the bush administration. But, could care less about how boys are being discriminated in public schools.

Honestly, how can we expect boys to succeed in school? From day one teachers tell the girls they are perfect in every way, teachers tell the boys they are inadequate and stupid (if they don’t say it, they certainly imply it). The teachers promote an extremely girl-friendly environment, and anti-boys. Your boys have to listen to “girl power” all-day, and teachers tell them “be more like the girls.” If you were a young active boy, this would make you more active or aggressive and want to rebel after knowing you are neglected by the school.

As a mom/wife/school admin, I was taught the true meaning of equality by my parents and there is none of that here. PS tell you and the boys that his “behavior issues” restrain him from being able to learn. My contention is teachers in public schools seek to transfer the inadequacies and behavior problems completely on the boy(s). Indirectly, by doing this the teachers and schools extinguish any responsibility of “the system who failed the boys.” Then, since its not the schools fault, no recognition will be put forth to changing the problem in schools. Because, essentially they are telling everyone, it is all the boys fault and they failed the system, the system didn’t fail them.. This whole issue makes my stomach turn, I think its so sad..

That’s just my opinion, let me know what ya’ll think.

[ken21]

the nyt last week had an article about "positive discrimination".

it's ok for women to discriminate against men because men have dominated many fields, was the jist of the argument.

[TGOGary]

They are all being lured to Neverland!

[Mylo]

I remember when there were SCREAMING headlines about the discrimination girls face in school (mostly that teachers call on boys in class more). The funny thing about it was that if, as a group, girls were being discriminated against...

1) It was mostly perpetuated by women teachers.

2) It was ineffective as far as that as a group girls had a higher GPA, and were more likely to go to college.

The only actual effect of this discrimination anyone could point to was that girls did less well than boys in mathematics and had less representation in the top %'s. However this seems to hold true whether or not there is any discrimination or even the presence of the opposite sex.

But did facts silence those pushing a liberal agenda? Have they ever?

So we were stuck with an impression that schools were shortchanging girls.

[ikka]

The reality is that many boys can still end up educated if they choose, regardless of the school system. But it will be the practical stuff ... and being a plumber pays $60K a year.

It is definitely the case that the boys who will not be feminized will be the outcasts... or put on Ritalin.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

My opinion is that more men are going to junior and technical colleges, and bypassing the traditional 4-year universities.

I know a friend of mine is going to a tech school after getting the run-around with the state university.

[chudogg]

"The young women almost always have a clear, realistic plan---go to college, have a career, often directed toward an idealistic goals about improving the environment."

This is the clincher right here that is missing from all these young women outperforming young men arguements. The country only has a certien amount of room for Bachelors Degrees in Psychology before many grads wind up bussing tables. At least most guys who go to College realize their going to get a job, probably a boring one, and look at the market place for what is needed.

[68skylark]

I wish I was college-age again.

[daviddennis]

Wendy McElroy is a Libertarian, not a feminist. Ifeminist.com is a site based on a libertarian/conservative vision of feminism. Not that I don't like her, you understand; I do.

But don't confuse this with politically correct feminists waking up and deciding this is a problem. That's not going to happen.

Blue collar work can pay well, but I don't know if it has much of a future with increasing immigration. On the other hand, at least you can't move construction work outside of the country, as white-collar jobs have been.

D

[Loyalist]

The earning power of a 22-year old man who's completed a trade apprenticeship will exceed that of a 22-year old woman with a liberal arts degree.

Young men are doing the cost-benefit analysis and university just isn't worth it for them.

Were I a university administrator, I would worry far more about the recurring phenomemon of careers and credentials declining in prestige and earning power as they become dominated by women.

The BA is becoming the modern equivalent of finishing school for young ladies. Yet university administrators don't see the problem there.

[IronJack]

your son is statistically more likely than your daughter to work a blue collar job.

That's a little misleading. The fact is, your daughter won't be likely to work in a white-collar job either since they will all have been offshored to Bangalore.

[Gunrunner2]

>>That’s just my opinion, let me know what ya’ll think.<<

I think you are right.

[IronJack]

"positive discrimination".

Is that like "affirmative action?" You know, the rhetorical euphemism that is neither affirmative nor active?

[gopwinsin04]

That's the thing, unless you are going to become a doctor, lawyer or engineer most men have decided that its just not worth the time and money.

[WOSG]

"My opinion is that more men are going to junior and technical colleges, and bypassing the traditional 4-year universities."

Your opinion is wrong, these stats are for all such education.

These numbers are a disaster for our society and just another example of how feminism is damaging the culture.

[WOSG]

Others point to explicitly anti-male attitudes -- that is, political correctness -- within education. The website Illinois Loop lists "22 School Practices That May Harm Boys." One of them: "'Modern' textbooks and recommended literature often go to extremes to remove male role models as lead characters and examples."

---

YUP.

[Tax-chick]

Kleinfeld tried to trace the problem backward by interviewing high school students on plans for their future. She states, "The young women almost always have a clear, realistic plan---go to college, have a career, often directed toward an idealistic goals about improving the environment."

Great. A bunch of girls will go to college (probably tax-payer funded) and then graduate and become nanny-state nags.

I'd rather my sons become carpenters and auto mechanics, and my daughters marry carpenters and auto mechanics!

[Ace's Dad]

Just off the top of my head: The guys who need higher education; engineers, doctors and the like, will go on to get that education. A good lot of the degrees granted today are not really "professional" (more pink-collar)and the women who take them will make far less than the above mentioned 60K plumber (actually 70K is no stretch.) Skilled trades has always been an acceptable, and profitable, way to make a living. My dad was, for many years, a tool and die forman. Never went past the eighth grade. 'Course in those days, eighth grade was about sophomore college level work. Another example: I'm a tech writer, been writing since age 19. I couldn't get a job without a degree, but really, I'm self-taught. Except for that piece of paper that nobody ever checks, I didn't need college. For many young men, college and even late high school is an expensive and boring hinderance. Why do you think illiterate illegals can make out so well; they don't need college to lay brick. Please excuse the long reply.

[WOSG]

"The earning power of a 22-year old man who's completed a trade apprenticeship will exceed that of a 22-year old woman with a liberal arts degree."

Nonsense. At 22 a tradesman can make more money, but they top out soon... while someone with a college degree has many more opportunities for advancement in many fields. Getting a College education still has signficant financial benefits, not just in direct earnings but in job mobility, etc.

http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/value.htm

"According to the Census Bureau, over an adult's working life, high school graduates earn an average of $1.2 million; associate's degree holders earn about $1.6 million; and bachelor's degree holders earn about $2.1 million (Day and Newburger, 2002)."

"Young men are doing the cost-benefit analysis and university just isn't worth it for them. "

No, what is happening is that feminist indoctrination and anti-male bias in schools is harming both the male and female choices, in two ways:
- male role models are being removed both from young men's lives and from the classroom.
- feminist indoctrination that tell boys that men are slime, enough of them will play the part.
- the pro-women bias in academia extends to admissions, and to hiring, so equally qualified candidates, the job will go to the woman.
- There are many programs to encourage women to eg go into engineering and careers. but programs for men are neglected, especially white males.

The reverse discrimination is now paying 'dividends' in harming the next generation.

[Polybius]

Honestly, how can we expect boys to succeed in school? From day one teachers tell the girls they are perfect in every way, teachers tell the boys they are inadequate and stupid (if they don’t say it, they certainly imply it). The teachers promote an extremely girl-friendly environment, and anti-boys. Your boys have to listen to “girl power” all-day, and teachers tell them “be more like the girls.” If you were a young active boy, this would make you more active or aggressive and want to rebel after knowing you are neglected by the school.

And once the boy gets to that point: