I would also venture to say that women get degrees in the "softer" disciplines...as opposed to math, engineering, etc.
And I also wanted to excerpt this, so it wouldn't be such a long read...but I couldn't find anything I wanted to cut.
Great example of how the drive-by media would rather report that boys are worse off as opposed to girls doing better.
To hear the college professors today, ALL college entrants fall far short in ALL areas, particularly in "thinking", both men and women. Years ago it was reported they couldn't fill out a college application properly, and it has gone down hill since then. So what else is new coming out of the public school system?
yes they are moslty softer programs, the real problem is participation in the harder programs is dropping by american males as well
Translation: The number of boys put on drugs by the NEA/Lesbian/Psychological Services mafia for acting like boys has grown beyond all reason.
LOL! That remark got Larry Summers of Harvard fame in HUGE trouble!! I agree with the comment!
Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation is a NGO who closely works with the CFR, and because of that, I don't trust anything they say or do. When I think about the NGOS getting together (at least once a year) to plan our future, it really makes me mad!!
The fact is that men, especially white men, are mercillessly abused by the left wing teachers and administrations of todays colleges Men are not welcomed on campus as they once were.
It seems to me we're raising a generation of ignorant, fat, effeminate, asthmatics who are sensitive to second hand smoke.
Another decade and it's bound to be "hell among the yearlings." Me, I'm working on my espanol.
Ms. Mead strikes me as the sort who ought to be paying a great deal of interest in experiments at Children's Hospital in Boston where a new penis was grown in the laboratory for a rabbit. See: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851192.htm
As a general rule, women tend to be more interested in liberal arts, whereas men are more interested in technical areas like math and science. I believe it has a lot to do with the nature of men and women. I remember hearing not long ago that on average, women talk something like 2-3 times as much as men do so it would make sense for many women to pursue areas that allow more social interaction and men to pursue areas with less interaction.
But as a woman with a Mechanical Engineering degree, I wouldn't necessarily say that liberal arts is any "softer" than engineering. It all depends on the person. I, for instance, can find the heat transfer caused by a computer heat sink easier than I can write a simple grammatically correct sentence. Unfortunately my job requires me to email/fax customers just about everyday, and because of my grammar, I'm pretty sure most believe that either English is not my first language, or that I am borderline retarded.
Btw, while we're on the subject, I attended a university that intentionally had a 1:1 male to female ratio. In making the ratio equal, the school's standards for men (based on SAT scores and average GPAs) were actually a bit more lax than for women because there were less male applicants to choose from. I don't believe judging one gender more lenient than the other is really a good way to solve this problem.
It is always good to hear from Christina Hoff Sommers.
Ms. Mead is probably a feminist, incapable of true empathy for males. She probably regards boys as dangerous proto-oppressors. To feminists, boys are inherently defective, so their failure is to be expected and even applauded.
Too many people prefer not to notice that males still outscore females slightly on verbal SATs and substantially on math SATs. In other words, current male academic problems result from the incompetence or unwillingness by teachers and parents to motivate and educate boys. The problem here is not with defective boys, but with defective teaching and parenting, both fostered by a defective feminist society.
No more hard to swallow than the idea that men might actually surpass women in some areas...
Not as much as formerly. In Computer Science, both the "hard" and "soft" versions, it's not true at all. The last woman my department hired was an Electronics Engineer, and we're a heavily software oriented bunch. One of the top technical gurus of the division that builds "spooky" stuff is a woman. My department head is a woman engineer, and the VP above her is also a woman, but her PhD is in a "semi soft" area, Industrial Psychology (ergonomics, training, etc). One of the rising technical stars of the Space Sciences Division is female as well. Although I can't recall her name (she does work in another division after all) , you've possibly seen her on the Discovery, History, or National Geographic channels, she's an astrophysicist.
I'm not sure if it was Sommers who said this (paraphrasing) but it has always stuck in my mind:
"If girls are falling behind academically, change the curriculum.
If boys are falling behind academically, change the boys."
If your primary goal is to remedy past discrimination, then everything becomes a zero-sum game.