A question for everybody

Started by lkanneg, Sep 13, 2005, 04:26 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

lkanneg

It only seems fair, as there are already two boards devoted to questions for me...

What do you think of affirmative action for males, either de jure, or de facto as in this article below?

Threats to college-diversity programs pose risks for boys

As the college counselor at Cincinnati Country Day School, a private co-ed high school, Joe Runge has noticed that more boys than girls are accepted to their first-choice colleges.

Adding the numbers over two years, Runge found that 70% of the school's boys were admitted early to favored schools, compared with 55% of girls. The differences aren't explained by boys' grades, activities or performance on admissions tests. Rather, what Runge came across is a new form of affirmative action quietly used by many colleges: admissions preferences awarded to boys to maintain balance at a time when more girls than boys attend college -- and have stronger academic qualifications.

The admissions preferences allow schools to maintain the diversity that enriches campuses where 56% of all students at four-year colleges are female. By using less-rigorous academic standards for male applicants, colleges keep freshman classes from swinging too far out of balance. They also provide needed recognition that grades and test scores provide an incomplete picture of what boys can contribute to a school.

In fact, colleges routinely manipulate their admissions criteria to attract the students they believe will create the best mix. That's why talented athletes often have lower average grades and test scores than their classmates, and why children of alumni and generous donors get favored treatment.

But affirmative action programs for boys raise legal questions. The preference programs that some colleges use to expand the number of minority students they admit are under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some lawyers say that if the high court bans the practices that colleges use to foster racial diversity, they will use the decision to challenge the legality of admissions preferences for gender balance. That would have important implications for colleges quietly committed to ensuring that males don't become increasingly scarce on college campuses.

Better odds for boys

According to USA TODAY research and interviews with both admissions directors and college consultants, private, four-year colleges routinely accept boys over girls who have better applications. The data colleges provide for surveys and guidebooks show male applicants' chances of being accepted are often three to 10 percentage points higher than girls'. At Pomona College in California, for example, 35% of male applicants are accepted, compared with 24% of female applicants, according to U.S. News & World Report data for the class of 2005. At Brown University in Rhode Island, 18% of male applicants get in vs. 15% of females.

Even some public colleges treat boys' applications differently. At Virginia's prestigious College of William & Mary, 42% of male applicants were accepted last year, compared with 32% of female applicants. Karen Cottrell, associate provost for enrollment, says boys' applications don't receive preferential treatment. Girls typically have better high school transcripts, which count most heavily in admissions decisions. But she says male applicants' average SAT scores are higher: 1,347, compared with 1,323 for women.

Most college admissions officers refuse to discuss the special preferences boys' applications receive. An exception is Robert Massa, director of admissions at Pennsylvania's Dickinson College. Massa readily admits tilting the admissions scale toward boys. At Dickinson, the male-female ratio is 45-55. Without preferences for male applicants, the percentage of men would drop as low as 38%, he says.

Another institution that concedes it isn't gender-blind is Hobart and William Smith in Geneva, N.Y. Though it looks like a traditional co-ed college, Hobart-Smith is two colleges: Hobart, which accepts men, and William Smith, which accepts women. Combined, their male-female ratio is nearly 50-50. On average, though, men at Hobart ranked in the top quarter of their high school classes; women at William Smith ranked in the top fifth.

Admissions officers cite good reasons for stretching their standards to find more boys. At many colleges, gender-blind admissions would result in such a heavy concentration of female students that the character of the campuses would be fundamentally altered. "Diversity in any form -- racial, geographic, economic and, yes, gender -- contributes to the learning environment because it encourages different perspectives and forces confrontation, which enhances learning," Dickinson's Massa said.

Useful tool faces challenges

If that argument sounds familiar, it should. Several universities use it to defend the practice of awarding minority students admissions priority. This summer, the Supreme Court is expected to decide the constitutionality of racial preferences used at the University of Michigan. The university contends its affirmative action programs are both legal and valuable tools for fostering campus diversity. But opponents, including the Bush administration, argue that the plans amount to a quota system that illegally discriminates against whites.

Both sides expect the high court's decision will clarify the role that diversity can play in decisions made by colleges and broader society. But it could complicate colleges' efforts to attract more boys.

When courts strike down minority-preference programs, they deny colleges an effective way to ensure that their students reflect the diversity of the taxpayers who fund the schools. They also send the troubling message that only objective measures, such as grades and standardized test scores, are legally acceptable admissions criteria.

Strict admissions formulas present problems for many minority applicants -- and boys. African-Americans typically score lower on standardized college admissions tests than their white counterparts, regardless of income. Increasingly, even the most academically talented boys never catch up to girls in high school grade point averages. College admissions officers say the problem begins when they enter high school, a time when many boys struggle.

If colleges lose the flexibility to consider those factors, they would face an awkward dilemma. They would be free to continue adjusting their admissions standards to accept star athletes, gifted musicians and children of alumni or generous donors. But they would lose the latitude to make admissions decisions that guarantee a rich mixture of students that improves the education process, enhances campus life and better prepares students for today's diverse society.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/edu/2003/pd052303d.html
quot;Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
--Eleanor Roosevelt

"Something which we think is impossible now is not impossible in another decade."
-- Constance Baker Motley

"Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got."
--Janis Joplin

TestSubject

Bleh, I don't want counter-pampered.

Factory

So, in light of the thousands upon thousands of above board hiring/acceptance practices, one example of college level schools accepting more boys based on lower standards because of systemic discrimination and bias at the high school level causing boys to have lower marks, we are faced with this dilemma....(gasp for air from a run-on).

I say get rid of it...get rid of it alll........ALL OF IT.

This is simply a response to existing conditions naturally turning out fewer boys with abilities they NEED in society to succeed, and the effect (if not the intent) is to cover up a systemic problem.

56% of college enrollment is female...and that's WITH special consideration to keep at least the semblance of a balance of the sexes.

Makes a hell of a case to reform Primary and Secondary schools in my books.  But then, we wouldn't want that would we?

"Affirmative action" has been in place for my entire lifetime.  I don't even apply for jobs with certain companies, and DEFINITELY not for any job remotely connected with government anymore...not because I don't want the higher pay (it's Canada after all), or the job security, or the pensions that private companies here never offer anymore.  No, it's because I've actually been told...REPEATEDLY....that the fact that I am a white male means that I cannot be hired AS A MATTER OF POLICY, unless there are absolutely no representative members of federally defined "disadvantaged groups" applying for the job.

My ENTIRE LIFE.  I'm 35 by the way.

Affirmative action doesn't work.  Period.

If it did, it would have no reason to exist today.

As to the subject at hand, while it's tempting to say "hey...finally one for the guys", really all it does is cover up a MUCH more serious problem.

So no, I'm not "for" this sort of thing.  Ever.

PaulGuelph

1, I am skeptical that there exists a preference for young men. Yeh right!

2, I have read that universities (in Canada) at least are now roughly 2/3 females.

3, I don't like affirmative action, however, the main idea should be to treat men and women equally. So it is wrong to remove affirmative action at the first sign that men might benefit. That is not equality.

4, Boys do less well in school because our anti-male culture does not inspire boys to achieve scholastically, does not provide positive male role models, and seems designed to take away male pride and ambition.

I remember when women said that it was absolutley critical that women on TV be portrayed in a positive way and as confident career oriented achievers, so that girls will see them as role models. But we are told that men can be portrayed extremely negatively and that will not impact boys at all. Rubbish.
Men's Movie Guide:  http://www.mensmovieguide.com   The Healing Tomb: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B081N1X145

Russ2d

In all my life I have NEVER experienced or seen or heard of affirmative action for males, whereas I have experienced an unbelievably amount of preferential treatment for women...

I think this article is bullshit... I would love to see this article scrutinized for flaws and distortions...  BUT

to answer the question, if it were true then I would say I am against it

Affirmative action is wrong no matter who benefits from it... you either earn what you get or you don't get it is my motto

Merit not handouts...

Mr. Nickle

I am against affirmative action.

Merit should be what matters not which opressed group you belong to.
Don't mention the war! - Basil Fawlty

The Biscuit Queen

I think it is putting the cart before the horse. Helping boys get into college is not helping them be prepared for college, nor is it making them more sucessful once there.

The biases should be addressed first and foremost

Boys should not be behind in school to begin with, they should be par with girls by highschool, or if they are ahead in one thing that there is a balance.  Basically, it should be obvious to any onlooker that neither sex is disadvantaged.  Material must be 50% boy friendly. Schools must allow for more exercise each day, and more movement in the classroom.  Teachers should have to face accountablility, dispite tenure. I would like to see tenure chucked out the friggin window, personally.

Second, colleges must become more male friendly. This means any services for women must have an equitable service for men. Any women's studies divisions must have an equal amount of money spent on men's studies. Classes must be kept free of the personal agendas of teachers.  

Take back the night campaigns and the such must not discriminate against men- men are more likely to be attacked on campus than women, it is only rape which is higher for women. Women should be taught to modify their behavior as well as men do -don't go out to a party and get plowed wearing next to nothing if date rape is a concern-personal accountability should be taught as well as self control to both sexes

I think if the scales were balanced in early education and on campuses, then we would not need to be discussing this. I am against affirmative action  beause it breeds contempt and  it masks the problems.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

CaptDMO

[strike]EOE/AA[/strike]
The grand experiment has gone horribly wrong!

FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR

Im opposed to so-called "affirmative action" on all levels as it currently stands. After being a failed, discriminatory, marxist experiment for over 30 years, it now needs to be repealed.
What good fortune for government that people do not think."
                         Adolph Hitler

"Where madness rules the absurd is not far away."

We must not make the mistake of thinking that all those who eat the bread of dictatorship are evil from the first; but they must necessarily become evil....The curse of a system of terror is that there is no turning back; neither in the large realm of policies nor the 'smaller' realm of everyday human relationships is it possible for men to retrace their steps."
- Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius
(1904-1974)

becksbolero

It really just further's the indoctrination process.

Don't you think?



"Hell in a handbasket", I tell's ya. "Hell in a handbasket".
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

neonsamurai

Okay:

Quote
Adding the numbers over two years, Runge found that 70% of the school's boys were admitted early to favored schools, compared with 55% of girls. The differences aren't explained by boys' grades, activities or performance on admissions tests. Rather, what Runge came across is a new form of affirmative action quietly used by many colleges: admissions preferences awarded to boys to maintain balance at a time when more girls than boys attend college -- and have stronger academic qualifications.


So this isn't actually a law, it's the colleges making their own choices, and if this article makes any sense then they must be BAD choices right? I mean, why would a college give boys who are DUMBER preferential treatment? That makes no sense.

Quote
In fact, colleges routinely manipulate their admissions criteria to attract the students they believe will create the best mix. That's why talented athletes often have lower average grades and test scores than their classmates, and why children of alumni and generous donors get favored treatment.


Isn't college football a big thing in the States? Could the impact of a college not having a men's team impact on their success/funding? It sounds to me that the colleges are already choosing who they want to come in based on other qualifications other than accademic prowess.

Quote
But affirmative action programs for boys raise legal questions. The preference programs that some colleges use to expand the number of minority students they admit are under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some lawyers say that if the high court bans the practices that colleges use to foster racial diversity, they will use the decision to challenge the legality of admissions preferences for gender balance. That would have important implications for colleges quietly committed to ensuring that males don't become increasingly scarce on college campuses.


Oops! Now the cat's out of the bag it sounds like the colleges might actually have to start taking on 'clever' students. What will this mean for college football? Also, it sounds to me that the U.S. Supreme Court might say that any 'affirmative action' for colleges is wrong and as a result even less boys will get a college education. They will also, by default, be less attractive to women with a college education (who will be on the increase) and have less earning ability. What will that mean for the ecconomy?

Quote
According to USA TODAY research and interviews with both admissions directors and college consultants, private, four-year colleges routinely accept boys over girls who have better applications. The data colleges provide for surveys and guidebooks show male applicants' chances of being accepted are often three to 10 percentage points higher than girls'. At Pomona College in California, for example, 35% of male applicants are accepted, compared with 24% of female applicants, according to U.S. News & World Report data for the class of 2005. At Brown University in Rhode Island, 18% of male applicants get in vs. 15% of females.


Ooh percentages! That'll tell the full story! Why not actually give the exact numbers of applicants? Like out of 100 boys who applied 35 were accepted and out of the 200 girls who applied 48 were accepted. I'm not saying that the figures are fabricated, just open to interpretation.

Quote
If colleges lose the flexibility to consider those factors, they would face an awkward dilemma. They would be free to continue adjusting their admissions standards to accept star athletes, gifted musicians and children of alumni or generous donors. But they would lose the latitude to make admissions decisions that guarantee a rich mixture of students that improves the education process, enhances campus life and better prepares students for today's diverse society.


To be honest, they're just making a rod for their own back. Like I said before, the less educated a man is, the less attractive he is to a woman, particularly if she's got a degree and is earning more. We can see the effect of this even now (especially in London, from my experience) with a lot of career women looking for a prince charming, and finding only a bunch of serfs. 'Marrying down' isn't what most women are brought up or told to do by the media. How can your dream man be the same one who'll need you to go out and earn money to support him? That just seems like an alien concept, even today.

Should the college system favour men or minorities? Of course not. Let there be more qualified women than men in the Western world.

Our Rome is definately starting to smoulder...
Dr. Kathleen Dixon, the Director of Women's Studies: "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!"

Wookie

Affirmative action or positive discrimination as it's called in the UK is nothing but government imposed discrimination and I will not support it no matter who is benifiting from it.

Yes, part of me does think 'About time' but the rational part of me dismisses that thought.

We need to get to the root of the problem, instead of this endless bean counting.

What does get up my nose, that the fact that when this information has come out your feminist friends all start attacking it and saying it's not right (wounder why that is, when they have supported Afirmative Action for all other groups)

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/07/12/covert-affirmative-action-for-men-in-college-admissions/#comments

Wookie
he Light That Burns Twice As Bright Burns Half As Long - Blade Runner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Wookie

Hopefully what this topic will show you lkanneg, is the clear double standards of Feminism.

You say feminism is about equality for all, if this was the case, as soon as the number of males entering uni dropped below the 50% mark feminists should have been demanding afirmative action for men! but they don't, infact they condem it, this to me shows how they are only concerned about women.

Take the sector that I work in (Charity and Community) 75% of the staff in this sector are female, where are the feminists calling for this to be changed as they do when anouther sector is male dominated?

Where are they?

Infact all the free training that I see are things like 'Women in management training etc' there has never been a drive to recruit more men or support them into the community sector (that insedently is now worth 16 billion pounds a year in the UK it's not a small sector)

When I bring this up in work (and due to the type of work I do, I am surrounded by lots of feminists) I get told, well men don't want to do this type of work! But I thought that was not a viable arguement, Sorry that if it's the other way round :evil:

Feminist double standard in action!!!

Wookie
he Light That Burns Twice As Bright Burns Half As Long - Blade Runner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

TheManOnTheStreet

Oh hogshit!  The percent of males blah blah....  Lets take the # and remove the other protected groups from it shall we?  Remove Black males, Hispanic males, Asian males, Native American males, etc, etc... then lets see....

What you will have left is a big ole ZIP when it comes to more "men" bettering from AA.  Now, if the artical stated that X% of WHITE MALES (read unprotected and a favorable target), then I would really be amazed.

It's all in how you manipulate (or should I say WOmanipulate) the numbers to float your boat.

BTW, I am 100% against AA and it's ilk.

Al
The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
_________________________________
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.

The Gonzman

Against AA.  Men don't need affirmative action.

We're perfectly capable of being successful without special rights and treatment.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Go Up