Search News


Browse Archives

News

Looking for Male Students

May 23, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When community college leaders gather these days, one topic that seems to come up all the time is what to do about declining male enrollments. Nationally, men make up 43 percent of college students, and there are plenty of community colleges where that proportion is smaller.

On Tuesday, the efforts of one such institution -- St. Petersburg College -- were described to a very engaged audience at the annual meeting of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, in Austin. With male enrollment down to 39.7 percent at the ethnically diverse (half white, half other groups) Florida college, Rod Davis has been moved from a position as academic advisor to coordinator of the Male Outreach Initiative, and he described the process of putting together such a program.

In part, he said that the college didn't want to re-invent the wheel, so it's been looking at what other institutions -- in and out of academe -- are doing. For example, in talking to those who enlist in the military, Davis said it was clear that the way the military is reaching students is getting involved in middle schools and high schools early, with military recruiters volunteering with sports teams and building relationships early -- without an explicit recruiting agenda. Davis said that if the military can succeed at this -- even at a time of war -- surely colleges can.

St. Petersburg has also been doing focus groups with male students to ask them what issues most challenge them at the college, and those discussions are leading to the creation of other programs. For example, many students at the college hold substantial work commitments -- and about one-third have jobs of at least 40 hours a week. Many of the students' employers have tuition reimbursement programs, but the college found that male students in particular didn't know about them, or how to get access to the money to which they are entitled. So the college has started bringing in human resources officials from major employers to talk about benefits such as tuition reimbursement.

Similarly, he said that many male students with jobs are unaware of flextime policies in place at their employers that would ease the balance of college and work.

Davis said that the tuition reimbursement example is typical of the issues faced by male students -- practical problems hinder their success and they don't know how to deal with them. "Men know where they want to go, but have no ideas about how to get there."

He said, for example, that when pressed, male students talked about not buying textbooks that are assigned, because of their cost, prompting the college to create a textbook-sharing program. With gas prices reaching record levels, Davis said male students in particular are raising questions about transportation, so the college is working with local transit authorities on bus passes.

A related problem is that male students are less likely to be communicative about what their issues are -- unless asked directly. Male students will end up having several meetings with an academic or financial aid counselor before revealing what is really on their mind, he said. The male students appear to be more willing to be open with male counselors, so the college is trying to make sure staffing is balanced on gender.

St. Petersburg College is also doing a lot of research on retention patterns and trying to share the results with academic counselors. For instance, Davis said that for male students on average, distance education isn't wise in their first year, as drop-out rates are high.

"A lot of this is about knowing your students," Davis said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Looking for Male Students

  • Many social reasons for Male Crisis beginning early in life
  • Posted by Ann Duckworth , Teacher at Not teaching on April 8, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • While both boys and girls begin life equal, they are then raised from birth to be different. The boys are treated not by accident to increasingly more aggressive styles to make them tough. They are not given as much mental, emotional, social support for fear of coddling them. Most importantly and not by accident but by intent, they are increasingly given love, honor, and respect, the essentials of self-worth, based on measures of achievement, power, status, etc. This makes boys and later men much more competitive (by design) for this makes them try much harder in order to achieve those feelings of self-worth from peers and society. Those boys or men who do not measure up in some way will not only receive less honor and respect but will receive more aggression from society. In the information age, all of those areas have led to a large decrease in academic learning and in turn ability to compete in the information age. Women are surging ahead.

     

    Since girls and later women are not supposed to be strong this allows for much mental, emotional, social support from an early age along with much love honor and respect simply for being girls. In the information age, this support not only allows girls to mature faster but to do better in academics. This support continues through adulthood and now is showing up in economic advantages for women.

    Today, the combined real effect of wives earning more; the media blitz against men in various ways (again, since Males are supposed to be strong that allows more types of aggression); and the very real problem with Males unable to compete and earn a living in the information age; is all working together to create some very hostile Males who are now losing big time, feelings of self-worth (love, honor, and respect) from society. Many Males may either lose the ability to escape to the local bar or get a quick drug fix. Also many hardworking, though industrial age Males who have not read the handwriting on the wall that the information age is becoming the more so the only game in town to earn a living are finding themselves helpless in supporting their families and now feel they are failures as men and deserving of more abuse from society. This then leads to more accumulated psychological suffering, lack of reflection time, and depleted feelings of self-worth. This is making many, even formerly good hearted Males susceptible to a catharsis of violence. Usually this will be taken out on those closest to them in their lives. My learning theory offers hope in this area. Thank goodness it shows a sociological solution and a permanent genetic problem. It will go to all on request. mayfieldga@bellsouth.net

     

    1. I fear the use of Male classrooms with more discipline and more time on task will only lead to more stern and even more harsh treatment and more stereotyping of Males to perform more physical or menial labor to match the growing caste system being portrayed in the media against Males today. These attempts to focus on genetics, learning differences, male role models, or cater to more activity or instruction are destined to failure. The problem is sociological from day one. It is differential treatment Males experience that is creating this problem. Please read Learning Theory and other related articles on this subject.

    Females are leaving the domestic role for information age skills and income. The nineteenth century belief Females should be protected has created much protection and support for Females from day one. Since Females are not required by society to be strong, it is considered proper to not only protect them but to also lavish much mental, emotional, social, academic, support, knowledge, and skills from day one. This creates lower average stress and lots of supported skills that enable girls to really do well in the information age. Girls are also given love, honor, respect, and support simply for being girls. This makes learning and development of skills and competing for jobs somewhat easier for they are given the essentials of self-worth simply for being girls. All of this makes girls "very well prepared" to compete in the information age. This support and protection continues even into adulthood. Today this allows not only much economic advantage but also maintains the same protected freedoms of expression to give verbal, silent abuse, and hollow kindness to Males when they have some advantage (look at how the media allows this).

    Males and also Females (who tend to reflect for some reason their protected world upon Males) really do not understand how differential treatment from day one is providing Females with such an advantage that is creating the Growing international Male Crisis.

    Males are given love, honor, support, respect, care, etc. only on the condition of sufficient achievement, money, power, etc. This is what makes Males very competitive; they are competing for feelings of self-worth as reflected upon them by society if they have sufficiency of those things. When they are doing anything they are being weighed and given only the amount of love, honor, respect, and support commensurate with those achievements. Those Males who do not have sufficiency are not only given less of those good things, they are given more aggression by society. This creates a lot more pressure on Males to either succeed in academics, which is good; and if they cannot, then they will search out a more protected and supported area in which they will have some feeling of love, honor, and respect from their peer group.

    Since our society is still following even in the information age, the belief Males should be strong, it still allows much aggression from an early age upon Males to make them tough. It also holds that Males should not be given mental/emotional/social/academic support, love, kindness, and care for fear of coddling the Male. This is so the Male can become a good little soldier to defend family and country. The problem with this idea is that it creates high average stress that impedes learning and creates along it more tension that leads more activity in Males and far less attention to mental/emotional development. This is why girls appear to mature faster, for Males are not given the same mental/emotional/social supports. This higher average stress and lack of supports accumulate to create a large deficit in learning for Males.

    Now in the information age, Males are competing with Females who have been well supported from day one and Males are beginning fall behind big time, especially from women in their 20's and early 30's. http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0334472920070803

  • Learning theory shows how we can help correct the problem
  • Posted by Ann Duckworth , Teacher on April 23, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Learning Theory - article shows how our individual environments greatly affect our lives and provides us with tools to continually change and improve learning, motivation, and mental/emotional health. It shows why Males are falling behind due to more harsh treatment from society and why Females are surging ahead due to overprotection and continuous support from society. It provides a way to better understand this problem and provides a way to help correct this problem.

     

    The Male Crisis I presented at the top was one application of my learning theory. The Theory shows how our individual environments greatly affect our ability to think, learn, have motivation for long-term learning and also how it affects our mental/emotional health. I feel this theory and its cognitive tools are the only long-term way to help correct the growing Male Crisis. The theory also has many other wonderful applications and will go to all on request. mayfieldga@bellsouth.net

  • Women are now making more
  • Posted by Ann Duckworth , Teacher at Not teaching on May 20, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Since our society is still following even in the information age, the belief Males should be strong, it still allows much aggression from an early age upon Males to make them tough. It also holds that Males should not be given mental/emotional/social/academic support, love, kindness, and care for fear of coddling the Male. This is so the Male can become a good little soldier to defend family and country. The problem with this idea is that it creates high average stress that impedes learning and creates along it more tension that leads more activity in Males and far less attention to mental/emotional development. This is why girls appear to mature faster, for Males are not given the same mental/emotional/social supports. This higher average stress and lack of supports accumulate to create a large deficit in learning for Males.

    Now in the information age, Males are competing with Females who have been well supported from day one and Males are beginning fall behind big time, especially from women in their 20's and early 30's.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0334472920070803

    Men are not only losing jobs, they are losing out on feelings of self-worth, namely love, honor, and respect from society. It is plainly spelled out in the media that when Males appear weak, it is okay to give them more verbal aggression, more abuse, and more neglect. Since Men have been brainwashed to believe they are better (perhaps deserving of more harsh treatment and neglect) they are now finding out that in real life such treatment is somehow helping women to succeed above them. Given the horrible myth of fixed intelligences taught in our society or simply working harder, many men are falsely believing they are less intelligent and/or not working hard enough. Given this false information, they may truly feel threatened by those women who are succeeding while they are not. Society itself and its media are now working against the Male to place Male's into perceived positions of being more suitable for menial labor and for Females to be placed into more white collar, management positions. The Male is now facing much more abuse on the job. Many low paid jobs are also riddled with much abuse, intimidation, and constant berating by managers over them. In more cases, women managers are the ones doing this. Yes, in society men who take jobs in lower more menial positions are given more abuse. It seems women working those jobs are somewhat more protected by society from this abuse. Many men are opting out of college and even the workforce to protect their mental/emotional health, which they feel is more important to them than a paycheck.

  • Posted by LM on May 23, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • It's interesting that there is an effort to address the gender gap when men are in the minority, but not examine the issue (historically) when women were in the minority. Flex hours, transportation, fiancial incentives? Imagine if similar tactics had been used for prospective female students 50 years ago. Instead, women had to fight for acceptance to and adapt to a male culture by becoming 'honourary men.' And college think that now there needs to be a change? I question the latent motivation behind these types of discussions.

  • Posted by b on May 23, 2007 at 12:45pm EDT
  • I think LM is a little off the mark. If only 50 years ago we had the internet, or cell phones, or any other modern idea or invention...What if? questions are worthless, anachronistic, and (unlike her approach) ahistorical. What about Title VI, among other legislative acts, to help women into college. Also, one college is not representative of all college. There were colleges that gave incentives to women in the past, just as there are and will be those that give incentives to women.

    Don't be such a crank.

  • Men's Studies needed
  • Posted by jrob on May 23, 2007 at 12:45pm EDT
  • The solution to this problem is simple: In addition to "women's studies" programs at our colleges and universities, it's time we added "men's studies" programs as well. The issue is equality, isn't it?

  • IM, You’re Right ... But Let’s Not Make Too Much Of It
  • Posted by RWH on May 23, 2007 at 1:35pm EDT
  • IM certainly has a point, but I hope s/he won’t push it too far.

    Let’s assume for the purpose of discussion that, over the populations of all Americans during the past century, the distributions of intelligence – whatever that means – have been fairly constant (I’m betting that’s not too far from the truth). Then it makes sense to believe that, all other things equal, education is a significant contributor to the marks we, as individuals, are capable of making on our world.

    The societal cost of not educating large numbers of women – as was the case in the not too distant past – is essentially an opportunity cost. There were all of those potentially significant female contributors who were denied the possibility of contributing up to their potential because they were “denied” access to education. It is my prejudice – right or wrong – that, in the absence of educational opportunities, most of those women made choices that, while not equal to their potential, were, nevertheless, quite positive.

    Again expressing one of my prejudices, I think the cost of our failure to engage young men in the educational process will, in addition to being a loss of significant potential, also have another very negative impact on society. The decisions and actions of these young men will not be the positive ones women historically made for themselves. If we cannot attract and retain young men in education at every level, we can certainly expect to spend an enormous portion of our resources policing and incarcerating a growing population of disengaged, disenfranchised, angry, and hostile young men.

    I know a few data points don’t substantiate an argument, but I challenge you to got to ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geOekVyooxI&mode=related&search=

    and don’t stop there. Keep on clicking. I can assure you that what you will witness is part and parcel of what we can expect many, many times over if we do not tie the education of young men to our social welfare.

    My point is not to argue that focusing attention of the education of men is more important than focusing attention on the education of women ... it’s just that they’re different. I appreciate IM’s perspective and I agree that s/he’s right. I just don’t want any part of educational or social policy (or initiatives) that is based on the concept of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

  • stereotypes
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on May 23, 2007 at 2:55pm EDT
  • Don't you just love stereotypes? Like the one portraying "men" as having a lock on all opportunities to education (back in the day)?

    Which "men?" - certainly none of those from my immigrant, agricultural worker ancestors. One female (grandmother) studied for 1 year to be certified to teach country school.

    Ooops, grandma broke the stereotype.

    Wasn't it Betty Friedan who said, "we can't allow women to have the option of being a housewife; feminists must force all women into the work force." Isn't that the crux of this current (laughable) matter?

    Women have generally had options: options to stay home and take care of aged parents, the option to marry, the option to work if necessary. Men - go to work.

    Ooops, there is that stereotype thingy again; I suppose some "men" did have the option to stay at home, live off the family investments, chew on cigars, read the paper, and think of new ways to oppress women.

    Oh yes, rich and poor "men" have also had the option to join the military, albeit only a small percentage were able to join the officers ranks.

    Those men who have always been expected to die in the trenches, mines, in burning structures (fire fighters), under farm implements & animals, ground up in industrial machines, on sinking ships, etc. to support women and children (and give up their seat in the life boats) generally did not have more than one option.

    . . . or am I guilty of grossly stereotyping the options of most "men" over the course of recorded history?

    Intelligent women have always known, long before femmunism reared its ugly, untruthful head, that the limosine can be directed from the back. The intelligent women run the show without climbing into the un-heated, un-air-conditioned, more dangerous "drivers seat" eh?

    written in memory of Nadezhda Allilueva

    one of the first victims of femmunist

    communism (Zhenotdel).

  • Why balance the sexes?
  • Posted by West Coast Prof on May 23, 2007 at 3:15pm EDT
  • The article doesn't explain why it's important that a college have "enough" men. Nationwide the selective privates and elite public campuses can arrange a 50/50 sex ratio, but the less selective colleges wind up with 60-70% female students. How will this affect education?

    Having "too few" men may starve certain major departments while benefitting others. Will the weakened departments adapt by recruiting more women to become, say, engineers and economists?

    Will the college experience change for all students when women are the clear majority, such as a lessened interest in sports? And if men achieve more affluent careers, will colleges suffer loss of alumni donations? Classrooms may be quiter if female students ask fewer questions and hesitate to argue, or the paucity of male voices could allow heretofore passive women to speak in class.

    Heterosexual dating and marriage selection will be affected by a campus ratio as high as "two girls for every guy," as the old Jan & Dean song said. Supply and demand would give men more relationship power with so many extra women to choose among. Even shy and plain guys will attract female attention. Will women feel they are competing with one another more than ever?

    I'm curious about what problems are highlighted by college administrators when they proclaim that more men must be recruited.

  • A Bigger Issue
  • Posted by Alexis , Master's Candidate: Student Affairs (PASA) at Univ. of Southern CA on May 23, 2007 at 4:20pm EDT
  • To me, the issue with the gender gap in college enrollment has more to do with how our males are being socialized. Why do they not know about the opportunities available to them through their full-time jobs? Why do they not know about public transportation schedules?? Because they haven't bothered to pur in the time to find out about them. But this is not necessarily their fault (entirely). Males continue to be babied by their mothers, sisters and girlfriends...and they take advantage of that. So how are they to be expected to break this habit? Instead adding all of these services just for men, we need to teach them how to do the work for themselves. Otherwise, even if they do go to and graduate from college, how much are they going to be able to offer out in the real world if they are still used to having eveything done for them. We need to start teaching our males to be as resourceful as our females.

  • Remember That Guy Who Sat In The Front Row?
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on May 23, 2007 at 5:00pm EDT
  • When I was a Ph.D. student in mathematics, many of my courses were taught by the (R.L.) Moore method where there was no textbook, the prof would unload a few definitions, lemmas, and maybe a theorem or two, and then throw out a question or challenge ... and it was up to us to do all the work and make the presentation.

    In several of my topology classes there was this guy I’ll call Forrest G. who often prepared the most trivial questions the night before the class meeting and when the prof asked, “Any questions?” he would pose one of his simple-minded queries. Of course the prof would ask, “Who wants to tackle that?” and since the answers were always so obvious, no one would volunteer. Then up would go Forrest’s hand, and he would scramble to the board and provide (almost always a less than sophisticated) solution to his own question ... and take my word for the fact that in mathematics optimality, cleverness, and “sophistication” are greatly valued. In any event, over the years Forrest established his reputation as a not-too-bright guy, and he moved on even short of being ABD.

    That said, here are some interesting stereotypes ...

    1. “Men have a lock on all opportunities to education.”

    2. “Betty Friedan [told us], “we can’t allow women to have the option of being a housewife; feminists must force all women into the work force.”

    3. Some men had an opportunity to “stay at home ... and think of new ways to oppress women.”

    4. Sad to say, while women were never expected to be in harms way, men – both rich and poor – had to serve in the military, “die in the trenches, mines, in burning structures (fire fighters), under farm implements & animals, ground up in industrial machines, on sinking ships, etc. to support women and children (and give up their seat in the life boats) generally did not have more than one option.”

    It’s not that anyone introduced those stereotypes into the discussion before Dr. F. Gump arrived on the scene, but not to worry, he will both stood them up and shot them down ... a la my fellow graduate student of yesteryear, Forrest G.

    Two concluding remarks: First, I seriously doubt that too many women are going to line up for Dr. Gump’s seminar on how a really clever woman can let a man think he is running the show while she uses her feminine whiles to direct the process from the back seat of the limousine.

    Second, I imagine there are more than a few women who would prefer death by suicide to a “comfortable” life with Joseph Stalin ... so Gump’s reference to Nadezhda Allilueva is very strange indeed. Perhaps she was less a “victim of feminism” than a victim of the realization that her husband was the cause of the deaths of millions of Ukranians, the banishment of untold numbers of his countrymen to slave camps in Siberia, and a first-class jackass on top of that.

    [Disclaimer: The author of this post may have accessed Wikipedia within the past 24 hours]

  • Why fewer men?
  • Posted by ferris factoid on May 24, 2007 at 4:30am EDT
  • Maybe it's simpler that women are smarter, and men are dumber. With equal opportunity, it's finally obvious.

  • Alternate explanation
  • Posted by firebrand on May 24, 2007 at 8:20am EDT
  • And it just might be that you're a misandrist bigot, ferris.

  • Posted by Elizabeth Bellas , Instructor on May 24, 2007 at 9:05am EDT
  • One factor that MAY affect boys' interest in school and hence their representation in college is the traditional methodology we tend to use to teach them. Many boys seem to respond better to fast-paced, hands-on lessons with lots of discovery learning and limited lecturing from the instructor. They like to move around and engage in activities that require short bursts of energy and then on to the next thing. The typical lecture-notetaking model used in college is torture for them. Another factor is problems associated with male social development in the early teen years. I have a 13 year old son who, despite being of average to above average intelligence, is in all Basic classes in Middle School and failing spectacularly -- and deliberately --in all of them. The problem is not lack of involvement from parents -- believe me when I say we have tried everything. The problem is that boys who do even moderately well in school are seen as GEEKS, the absolutely worst thing you can be if you are a young teenaged boy. They are also bullied mercilessly. In general, the priority for boys at that age is the relationship with peers and to be seen as COOL. This need to be "cool" seems to be less important to girls, perhaps because many of them bond with one or a few primary friends and get their peer valuation from them. This extreme value placed on peer opinion and conformity does not seem to diminish for boys until the late teen years. By that time, they lack the skills they need and the confidence necessary to succeed scholastically.

  • These studies are funny
  • Posted by BR on May 24, 2007 at 9:15am EDT
  • On average, women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. When that's no longer the case, then I'll fret about all the men who aren't going to college.

  • Posted by TFM on May 24, 2007 at 10:00am EDT
  • It seems to me that the real problem won't be solved by free textbooks and bus passes. The issue is a general lack of vision and personal responsibility. Many young people today seem either unwilling or unable to work to make their dreams come true. When I was a student, I worked full-time and completed my studies and still had time to maintain a limited social life and figure out basic things (on my own) such as public transportation. I was hellbent on getting my education, because I understood that it would allow me to live the life that I wanted. We spoon feed kids today to the point of making them incapable of standing on their own two feet. The question is why are more young women today doing what is necessary to position themselves to achieve their goals, while many young men seem stuck. I don't know if "men's studies" are the answer to the problem, but they might help people study the problem and allow somebody figure out what has happened to male drive.

  • Posted by NC on May 24, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • One factor that MAY affect boys’ interest in school and hence their representation in college is the traditional methodology we tend to use to teach them. Many boys seem to respond better to fast-paced, hands-on lessons with lots of discovery learning and limited lecturing from the instructor. They like to move around and engage in activities that require short bursts of energy and then on to the next thing. The typical lecture-notetaking model used in college is torture for them.

    I've heard this theory before, but I don't buy it. Classes today consist of more hands-on activities and less lecturing and note-taking than they did in the days when the college classroom was dominated by men. If this theory were correct, the general trend would be exactly the opposite of what we're seeing. (If anything, my experience suggests that male students -- on the average, and with many exceptions -- tend to be more comfortable with the lecture-centered, the-professor-is-the-authority style of teaching, while female students tend to be more invested in discussions and group activities.)

    Anyway, I think you're very much on target with your second suggestion; for one reason or another, many of our young men seem to have been socialized to regard academic success as uncool.

  • Posted by Jendo89@aol.com on May 24, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • Regarding the comment above about how boys aren't instructed correctly and need a different environment to learn. I really wonder about this claim. The *only* way to argue this is on the basis of nurture. That is, that boys nowadays are inherently different than boys of yesteryear (but girls aren't?).

    That is, education was sit down, shut up, be lecture to and perform on tests for CENTURIES of male domination! It seemed that it worked then? Or was it that we just expected that only a certain percentage of the population needed or more accurately perhaps nowadays *wanted* a job or career that involved thought over action.

    I think we'd be doing a big part of the population a huge service if we were offering job specific training for things that can't be outsourced -- plumbing, electrician, electric line maintenance, construction, etc. The beauty of community colleges is that they are there -- if after 10 years of working at a job like the above someone wants to branch out, learn to run his/her own business, learn to market a product they've developed? Well, at that point they'd be motivated learners who are able to speak up about what they want and need. Male or female.

  • Feminists-Give the Boys a Break
  • Posted by Eric on May 24, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Let me just say that the attitudes of some of the so-called "feminists" in this comments section are appalling to me. As our nation becomes more unequal, and wealth is increasingly concentrated in a smaller and smaller group, such a decline in interest in school--boys or girls--is a real problem. Make no mistake, the priveleged classes will not feel the brunt of this. This is not going to result in fewer men in the executive boardroom. It's just going to mean fewer men of color and fewer men of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. This is a real problem, and to see the reactions of women that seem to imply that these boys deserve the lot their given is sickening, and shows the limits of the old style of feminism. Men are human beings, and society is failing them, especially the poor and men of color. Women who see this as an opportunity are woefully misguided, and it makes THIS man question your intelligence.

  • Posted by Scott on May 24, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Look, for decades now women have been told that they are victims, opprssed and must fight for every opportunity to overcome their historical enslavement...and to do that we have all these programs to help you. Men in schools were told that they were the oppressors, and by virtue of having been born male had the world at their feet. No special programs to help YOU. It's as simple as that. Being told you have the world at your feet when you are a high school student working 30 hours a week and have no money for tuition may not be the best way to encourage boys to go to college. I certainly think a few less angy women teachers would have made high school and college a bit less stressful for most of my friends.

  • Mens participation in college
  • Posted by ST on May 24, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
  • The elephant in the room related to mens decline in college is associated with the increasing role sports plays in mens lives in high school. The days when sports was an extracurricular activity are gone. Sports is the center of boys lives in high school and they spend so much time at it that their academic interests and ability decline throughout high school declines. By the end of high school and increasing number of boys can shoot hoops and run a ball, but they lack the most basic academic skills, and are not ready for college. So they do not attend college, and when they do they do not finish, and when they finish they do not do as well as women. And if they manage to get through do not go on to graduate school.

    Then to ask why boys don't go to college? Well the entire high school system now is designed to entertain grown men with their young boys, with scant attention to academics. Why don't they go, we never taught them nor encouraged them (really) to do so. Why america celebrates the dumb guy I will never understand.

  • Why Men Are Behind
  • Posted by Eric Eagan on May 24, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Here are some extemporaneous thoughts about why boys and men are being left behind:

    1) A mass media that depicts boys and men as idiots.

    2) A culture we're imposing on children of "little adulthood"--highly sexualized, competitive, and plain mean. Boys have always been mean to other boys, but now girls are joining them. Used to be that girls were nice to the geeky boys. They aren't anymore. This new breed of American female is not compassionate, but sassy and mean. I suspect feminism has a role to play in that.

    3) The increased prominence of homosexuality in society and culture is causing a homophobic panic that effects even boys. Most men in this country are homophobic, and I suspect they are reacting to the increased exposure of homosexuality by supressing any "girly" tendency in their male children. Non-normative tendencies or interests that used to be tolerated are now suppressed. Boys are more limited in what shape their identities can take, and they feel trapped. Being studious is not only "not cool" for boys, more importantly it's "not masculine." Masculine and cool can hardly be separated anymore.

  • Stop Looking for Excuses
  • Posted by Gartrip , Dean of Students on May 24, 2007 at 12:35pm EDT
  • As the Dean of a small liberal arts college, I've known this problem for years. Young men (black and white) have been brought up to believe that academic success is not "manly." at most colleges the all-female gpa is at least .5 of a point higher than the all male average. At our institution, women are usually 85% of the Jr Marshall and Who's Who rosters. Women are also the most active outside the classroom as well. They dominate the Student Govt Assoc and control most of the clubs. Genrally, the men let them and spend their time playing video games and drinking games.

    No one wants to talk about this publically, but my peers at other institutions say that their male students are very much the same.

    I've stopped trying to motivate them. It's time that they learned some tough lessons about the real world. Those who want to succeed have to work hard. It's that simple.

  • Let boys do what they want to do
  • Posted by ferris factoid on May 24, 2007 at 2:20pm EDT
  • If Gartrip and others are right, boys would rather do sports and play games than be academic successes. So why not let them do what they want to do?

    Forcing boys to do things because you don't like having women in positions of knowledge is very weird. What could your motives be? I think it disparages both sexes to claim that women aren't fine as they are, doing what they've chosen to do.

    How about letting the kids alone? The best male students, in my experience, have been returning adult veterans.

  • Posted by Larry on May 24, 2007 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Mr. Gartrip, How do you know that girls just don’t take easier classes ?

    Mr. Eagan, Can you explain how feminism made girls act mean to geeky boy but not mean boys.

  • Posted by ace on May 24, 2007 at 4:50pm EDT
  • There are many valid points addressed here in the comments. However, I think that society at large has an interest in finding outlets for young boys and young male adults' energy and desire to be valued. Because we all know that all boys have a tremendous ability to act out and cause mayhem when neglected. I think pot and video games can only go so far...and can have serious consequences down the road. Further, the argument that lectures and rote memorization worked for the male-dominated academy for hundreds of years also forgets that very few boys actually went to college during that time, and were mostly drawn from the upper classes who had been painstakingly schooled in showing decorum. Boys who do not show aptitude for sitting down and concentrating on a book or math problem should be introduced to a vocational program as soon as possible. In my high school in the late 80s/early 90s, only the "stupid" kids went to the vocational school, an unwarranted prejudice that I regret sharing. I definitely could have benefited from a shop class or an auto service class.

  • Gartrip's follow-up
  • Posted by Gartrip , Dean of Students on May 24, 2007 at 5:55pm EDT
  • Well, we have studied the "gender-success" issue internally, and we have not found that women take easier classes. In fact, we have more women in the sciences now than men. (Men outnumber women in Business and Sports related fields and Poli Sci.) Ultimately, I think it comes down to maturity. I'm generalizing of course, but our female students seem to have a stronger focus with respect to academics. They also (as a group) demonstrate a greater appreciation for what a college education costs (in dollars) and for the role it plays in their future success. I have also found that women make better choices with respect to behavior. Our student body is 58% female, yet our disciplinary load is 70% male. Women are less likely to steal, cheat, vandalize, commit acts of violence, abuse drugs, etc... Our studies show a strong connection between disciplinary history and academic success. Of course, it goes without saying that these are trends. We do have female students who fail to achieve, and we have male students who do quite well. All in all however, the female students are out-performing their male counterparts. Will this trend continue? Who knows? What I can say is that these observations would not have been true 10 yrs ago.

  • Looking for male students
  • Posted by Betty H. White on May 24, 2007 at 8:50pm EDT
  • Perhaps back in the day, boys had a built-in confidence-builder in that they were seen as superior in all respects. Girls hung back, allowing the boys to "rule the school" to such an extent that even geeks, jocks, etc., felt powerful and destined to succeed. There is probably a great relief in seeing about half your competitors as inferior and incompetent. "I may not be so great, but at least I'm better than the women."

  • Organizations, Mentorships and Scholarships for Men
  • Posted by Jon S , Organizations, Mentorships and Scholarships for Men on May 25, 2007 at 4:40am EDT
  • Women and minorities have 'gotten on top' by creating targeted organizations, having scholarships targeted for them, and having mentorship programs created specifically, especially for them.

    I was appalled to learn that my Indian friend was given an NSF minority scholarship to learn mathematics. Come on! Indians are NOT underrepresented in the field!

    Men should have these programs for them, and the cultural misandry that exists on campuses should be stomped out. Perhaps an organization like FIRE for men.

    My $.02

    --Jon S, white grad math student

  • "Looking for Male Students"
  • Posted by Joe Franklin on May 25, 2007 at 4:40am EDT
  • One thing that's been overlooked is the society we live in today. A society that says that 'guys' don't go to college (unless it's a party school, or you're a jock) because it makes them somehow weak, less manly. I've seen it myself.

  • Posted by NT on May 25, 2007 at 4:40am EDT
  • One question has always bothered me about this assertion. How have the actual NUMBERS of men attending college changed over the years. Not the percentage of the student body, but the number, or at least the percentage of overall population. Obviously the number of women has increased dramatically, but the number of students applying to and attending college has increased too. So, are there really less boys going to college, or are there just so many more women who are being reached by recruiters that the guys are suddenly being overwhelmed? Basically, have we really failed the men, or are the same groups of men who always went to college still going to college? Do we need to work on recruiting more upper middle class to upper class men, or do we need to focus on better elementary, middle, and high school education for minorities to increase their representation? In short, are we really panicking about the right problem here?

  • Are they so dense?
  • Posted by ferris factoid on May 25, 2007 at 4:40am EDT
  • The original article and a lot of the postings seem to assume as a fact that young men are fairly dense. The portrait of them suggests a moronic group that can't manage to get on the bus, come to class, listen, read, or think.

    Is this really what posters think of young men? Who would want to breed with such creatures?

    Obviously the human race is on its last legs.

  • Posted by dave , Men and Education (the other side) on May 25, 2007 at 10:10am EDT
  • I am glad to see college trying to recruit males. Not every male was assumed to go to college. In the African American community it was traditional that the females go to college to become teachers. The boys were usually sent to the military, the educational opportunities for those young men were limited by discrimination. But the history of females going to college was established.

    Often young men are chastised as being nerds, geeks or just social rejects if they want to better their lives through education. We, as a country, have created the done much socially and politically to disassociate males from education. Perhaps the most harm was with the men of color.

    But the trump card has begun to be played. On college campuses, young women are fighting over the few available men. In many circles it is becoming accepted that an educated man will have his choice of multiple partners. It is not due to the fact that he is god’s gift to women but just a result of supply and demand.

    Women of a certain age must now be on guard. As the younger more attractive females are no longer able to find educated mates in their age group who do you think they are going to come after?

  • Women students don't fight over the men
  • Posted by Ferris Factoid on May 26, 2007 at 9:10pm EDT
  • I don't know what universe contains the posters who describe today's college women as fighting over the few available college men.

    The college women I know find their male classmates insufferably boorish and boring. The women may have sex with them (hookups), but they have higher standards for relationships. For those they choose older men, or other women, or being happily independent.

    Young men need to grow up and make themselves worthy of today's young women.

  • start frettin', BR
  • Posted by aitatxua on May 27, 2007 at 9:55pm EDT
  • ...because your figures are way out of date, BR. Of men and women entering the workforce since 1980, women make $1.08 for every $1 a man makes. The imbalance is worse when you discount the obscene salaries of certain CEOs (read: thieves). Frettin' yet?

  • Two Things ...
  • Posted by RWH on May 28, 2007 at 12:05pm EDT
  • First, one of the missing ingredients in this discussion – insofar as we respondents are concerned -- is the fact that Scott’s original article is about community college enrollments. When you control for age and minority status, the gender enrollment figures for “traditional” undergraduates are pretty much a wash (so don’t worry Swarthmore and Reed). But once you focus attention on the much broader range of students likely to attend community colleges -- e.g., students over 24 years old and minority students -- you’ll see the difference ... men are opting out rather significantly.

    Is it a problem? I happen to think so (see my first post), but whether it is or is not a problem is something we will not know until we turn some creative research scholars loose on the phenomena. For a fairly good article on the subject, see “Gender Equity in Higher Education: 2006” by Jacqueline E. King (Director of the American Council on Education's Center for Policy Analysis)

    http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume35_3/feature.cfm?section=2

    Second, there are soooo many relevant variables in the mix, it is close to silly to say “On average, women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes” (BR) or “Of men and women entering the workforce since 1980, women make $1.08 for every $1 a man makes” (aitatxua). It is especially silly to make such meaningless statements in the absence of supportive citations.

    To make my point, about the comparisons being variable-dependent, here’s just one of many possible quotations ...

    “College faculty generally suffered losses in the purchasing power of their salaries from 1972-73 to 1980-81, when average salaries fell 17 percent after adjustment for inflation. During the 1980s, average salaries were on the rise and have recouped most of the losses. Changes in 1990-91 and 1991-92 were relatively small. Average salaries for men in 1991-92 ($46,848) were considerably higher than the average for women ($37,534) and have increased at a faster rate since 1980-81.”

    http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Prog95/pt2stat.html

    Even so, the comparison above doesn’t take into account “discipline,” “tenure status,” “time in rank,” etc. Income comparison’s are always waaay more complex than individuals who casually toss numbers around would have you think.

    I’m certainly not citing the following article as proof of anything, but it is certainly more open-minded about salary differences between men and women than our discussion has been.

    http://blogs.payscale.com/ask_dr_salary/2007/04/men_vs_women_sa.html

  • Posted by anon on June 6, 2007 at 4:35am EDT
  • BR, check your 'facts'. That 'women make 77 cents to the men's dollar' nonsense hugely misrepresents the world. The statistic is a lie spread widely and effectively.

  • What is the real point here?
  • Posted by LL on June 7, 2007 at 4:06pm EDT
  • To those who gave thought to the issue in a sincere, thoughtful way, kudos!

    But....I am surprised that the discussion has not evolved more into "how can we adequately bring about representation of everyone in the culture," but rather devolved into an "us versus them" tenor, one that seeks to find blame on the perceived "other side" of the argument. I recently read Deborah Tannen's "Argument Culture" and found that the artificial binary (Black vs. White, Evil vs. Good) is alive and well and it simplifies the issue to the point where we can take pot-shots at each other without truly engaging in meaning-making and solutions. Bummer, since it's not so helpful and/or useful in the long run, is it?

    Best,

    ~LL

    FYI, here's a source for reading about the gender gap in pay.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm

  • Posted by anon on June 11, 2007 at 5:35am EDT
  • LL, I just don't think many have much heart for men. They have such an advantage, they have no need to worry about fair representation. Men have it made, right? They have all the privileges (and only receive privileges), and they have everything handed to them because of the patriarchy and that they happened to be born with certain body parts. Why worry about those that have it easy? They aren't the ones that need society's concern, right?

    Things are working themselves out just as many seem to want it to. Those that claimed to want everyone represented are now more fully letting their true colors show.