Posted on 06/25/2005 8:33:25 AM PDT by 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.
69% of low-income boys shouldnt think of bricklaying as their future. And to create a caste system where mostly women are educated is dangerous and destabilizing, to families and to society.
Undereducated males have higher rates of unemployment, low life satisfaction, and more likely to commit crimes, etc.
Here's the bottom line: The education system is failing boys, and the stats are starting to show it.
___________
Sounds like the old USSR...
Competent women and drunk men.
I always felt that an "affirmative action" was simply nodding your head.
Well, I wasn't arguing with you, that's for sure. I think you said it well when you said
"and *really* shows that *specific* skills and knowledge in education beats the generalized nonsense that passes for education these days. Some of that specific skills learning can happen outside traditional education, but a LOT of it (programming, engineering, math, sciences, doctor, lawyer, accountant, teacher, etc.) requires college."HOwever, I don't think you realize just how much these NON-COLLEGE educated, but skilled folks are making these days nor how the job market has huge demands for them versus the job market for most college-degreed folks.
You also said,
"I have a PhD and I still need to be learning new things every day to avoid becoming obsolete. If you are in a job that doesnt demand that of you, you can expect low-wage competition from any of: other unedereducated folks (immigrants), outsourcing, and/or automation."I agree with this for any level of education and/or skill. With the growth of technology exponentially for the past few decades, the learning curve also necessarily follows. In a nutshell, when one quits learning, one gets left behind no matter one's avocation.
To succeed in America, a white male has to be twice as capable as a member of any "historically disadvantaged group".
Fortunately, this is not difficult. ;)
Funny thing I barely graduated high school and by this chart I'm somewhere between a Doctoral and Masters degree. I guess my pipe wrench and welding torch is a little better than most college degrees. Even funnier my father didn't even make it through high school and he's got a cleaning business that makes a whole lot more than the average Professional degree. The moral of the story; go to vocational high school or a trade school. College is for people who can't use their hands. I see them all the time. They couldn't tell the difference of a lug nut from a lag bolt. Face it college grads better make lots of money because every time something breaks the guy who fixes the stuff is going to rob them blind.
More likely it means that a 4-year college is no longer going to be the path to a white collar job.
She bought that when all the programmers (for a living) in her grad java programming class were asking her (an art major) for help and she made the top grade. Oh, she was the only female in that class...so the numbers do change in grad school, I think.
On the other hand, the "whit collar" jobs women are qualifying for are dead end as far as income are concerned. Middle management at best.
You are correct. Follow the money.
I am an attorney myself, self employed. Many of my clients are business owners in the trades who started off as apprentices, etc. Most are doing just fine, and much much better than most of my friends with BA's.
The difference is that a person with a BA rarely has any valuable skill worth anything to an employer. Most I have met have poor writing skills and don't offer anything significant in the real world.
maybe that was then; this is now.
"Well, just because you get the sheepskin doesn't mean you know anything. I work with a lot of MBA's that are morons."
Yeah, but at least an education would help correct some of this egregiously bad lack of logic floating around.
Let see, you know some morons with a degree; therefore ... what? That is purely anecdotal evidence that means, what?
That all MBAs are morons? Nope. That most are? Nope.
That more MBAs are morons than a kid without any college degree? Nope.
All your anecdote tells us is that some (probably small fraction) of MBAs are morons. That doesnt 'prove' that a college degree doesn't mean anything, it merely shows that it is not a 100% proof of competence.
So your statement is a non sequitor. Try Logic 101, it might help you.
I'd rather have a degreed CPA doing my financial books than an average name out of a phonebook, but I'd still check out the quality of the CPA.
" With the way all education has been dumbed down there is no guarantee that a degree means much other than they payed the fee and attended class, especially from public universities."
Post #59 has this - a college degree is a path to higher average earnings ...
According to the census Bureau the breakdown is thus:
Average annual earnings by education level*
Professional Degree $109,600
Doctoral Degree $89,400
Master's Degree $62,300
Bachelor's Degree $52,200
Associate's Degree $38,200
Some college $36,800
High school graduate $30,400
* Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Surveys, March 1998, 1999, and 2000. Tabulations reflect the average annual earnings of full-time, year-round workers 25 to 64 years old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.