Search News


Browse Archives

News

Is There a Crisis in Education of Males?

May 21, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Statistics come out every year showing that greater proportions of college students are women. At some institutions, the gaps are so great that officials talk openly of affirmative action for male students.

But is there really a crisis for male students?

A report issued Tuesday by the American Association of University Women refers to a "so called" crisis and argues that there is no such thing with regard to male students as a whole. To the extent that there is a problem, the AAUW argues, it involves subsets of male students, such as inner city minority males who may attend poor high schools and be poorly prepared for college. The AAUW report was immediately challenged by others who have explored these issues, and who maintain that there really is a crisis -- and that it is irresponsible to ignore it.

The AAUW report, "Where the Girls Are: The Facts About Gender Equity in Education," reflects a growing concern from many advocates for female students that all of the data about male students is creating an "either/or" choice and discouraging efforts on behalf of women. "Educational achievement is not a zero-sum game, in which a gain for one group results in a corresponding loss for the other. If girls’ success comes at the expense of boys, one would expect to see boys’ scores decline as girls’ scores rise, but this has not been the case," the report says.

"Women are attending and graduating from high school and college at a higher rate than are their male peers, but these gains have not come at men’s expense. Indeed, the proportion of young men graduating from high school and earning college degrees today is at an all-time high," the report adds. "Women have made more rapid gains in earning college degrees, especially among older students, where women outnumber men by a ratio of almost 2-to-1. The gender gap in college attendance is almost absent among those entering college directly after graduating from high school, however, and both women and men are more likely to graduate from college today than ever before."

A major theme of the report is that what appears to be a gender issue (lagging male enrollments or graduation rates) is really a race and ethnicity issue (lagging rates for men from some groups).

Similarly, the AAUW cites test scores on the ACT and SAT to contest the idea of a crisis in the education of males. "Over all, test scores on the SAT and ACT exams challenge the notion of a boys’ crisis. Boys continue to hold an advantage, albeit small, on these undergraduate admissions tests. While the number of girls taking these exams has risen, so too has the number of boys."

Whenever the AAUW releases reports, there is a quick response from women's groups that question its assumptions. The Independent Women's Forum, for example, immediately questioned the analysis.

But so did some education experts.

Thomas Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, didn't question the specific numbers in the report or the idea that both male and female students can succeed at the same time. "Women have made huge progress in education over the last six decades," he said. "The success of women is a great story -- it shows what we can do when we set our minds to task."

But he said that in 1970, when he started his career in higher education policy analysis, there were 1.5 million more men than women in higher education and "I recall vividly that women complained that this was a crisis. Now there are 2.7 million more women than men in higher education and the feminists assert that this is not a crisis. What am I missing here?"

He noted the hugely disproportionate rates of suicide among men who are 25 to 34, and of incarceration, and asked how this could be anything but a crisis.

"The hypocrisy of the feminists -- AAUW being a major part of this -- astounds me," Mortenson said. "The fact is male lives are falling apart at the growing margins of male welfare, and the utter failure of the education system to address male needs on male terms is indeed a crisis. We have shown what the education system can do for women when we set our minds to it."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Is There a Crisis in Education of Males?

  • Fatally flawed
  • Posted by L.L. on May 21, 2008 at 7:40am EDT
  • A few facts:

    Report's authors -- all women.

    Authors' work affilation: AAUW.

    If AAUW was confident of its position -- it would hire third-party researchers. It didn't. So much for credibility.

  • Gender gap
  • Posted by Robert J. Massa , Vice President at Dickinson College on May 21, 2008 at 7:55am EDT
  • Clearly women outnumber men in higher education by a large margin, although the AAUW is right that the number of men enrolled in college has never been higher. In the nine years since I arrived at Dickinson College, male enrollment has increased from 35% of our enrollment to 45%. While this certainly makes Dickinson more appealing to all prospective students, it really does nothing to address the disparity in educational attainment between men and women. We have increased our share of male students who would attend college anyway.

    Data does show, however, that the disparity is particularly acute among black and latino males and lower income males -- much less so, if at all, among whites and asians and those students from the upper 25th percentile of the income distribution. And as Tom Mortenson correctly asserts, therein lies the crisis. What we do in elementary and secondary education -- to mentor these boys, to make edcuation appealing and exciting, and to demonstrate the benefit that will accrue to them -- will directly and positively impact our society and our economy.

  • But...
  • Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on May 21, 2008 at 7:55am EDT
  • In every K-12 American school I visit (and that is many) males in resource rooms and males in disciplinary situations vastly outnumber females, sometimes 10 to 1 or more. And every study I've seen recently suggests that males are less likely to apply to colleges/universities, and are more likely to drop out, and are less likely to return to post-secondary education if they have dropped out.

    All of that seems to add up to at least the asking of some very serious questions. Just as educational success for males in 1970 should not have precluded wondering why females were not doing better, so we might wonder who is being "left behind" in today's systems.

  • Bad analysis
  • Posted by justaguy on May 21, 2008 at 8:45am EDT
  • "Similarly, the AAUW cites test scores on the ACT and SAT to contest the idea of a crisis in the education of males. “Over all, test scores on the SAT and ACT exams challenge the notion of a boys’ crisis. Boys continue to hold an advantage, albeit small..."

    The problem seems to be mainly with boys that DO NOT take these standardized tests. For the senior class of 2007, 798,030 females took the SAT while only 690,500 males took the SAT.

  • The Movement has met its goals...
  • Posted by Edward Winslow , A "tired" refired Business Professor on May 21, 2008 at 9:00am EDT
  • It's time to offer congratulations to the feminists' movement of the sixties and their successors. They have successfully accomplished their original goal: reducing men and boys in the US to subservience.

    L.L. pointed that out above noting the all women authorship of the report.

    The plan is adequately described by Christine Hoff Sommers in "The War on Boys" (2000) and others. Combine this with the media presentations of men as fools (show me more than 10% of TV and media advertising that show men and fathers in a positive image) and the NEA's refusal to recognize changes sorely needed in America's educational system and you find the World's negative reaction to American global leadership. Where do young men find the appropriate male role model today? Bouncing a ball?

    It comes down to the old adage: "Be careful what you wish for!" You may get it...

    It appears we have.

  • why is this a controversy?
  • Posted by Jim on May 21, 2008 at 9:20am EDT
  • Are there a dispportionate number of males falling through the cracks of our educational system? Clearly. Should we help them at the expense of the females. Of course not. Why is it even a controversy that we should recognize students who are in trouble? Why can't we set a goal that provides the same opportunity and resources to be successful regardless of gender? This shouldn't be a males vs females issue.

  • What is the definition of a "crisis?"
  • Posted by Engineering Grad Student on May 21, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • When female teachers at the primary and secondary level outnumber male teachers many to one, this isn't a crisis. When those same teachers view male behavior as just cause for medication, this isn't a crisis. When 54% of SAT-takers are female, this isn't a crisis. When 57% of undergraduate students are female, this isn't a crisis. When there is a tremendous preponderance of females in education majors, as well as in disciplines such as nursing and the humanities manifests itself, that isn't a crisis, either. It's not even a crisis when females have risen from 5% of the vet-med enrollment to nearly 80% in the last 40 years. There's only a crisis when males have a niche -- such as they do in technical fields, like the sciences, engineering, and in math. Upon this realization, we require research into the disparity, and possibly statutes regulating what fraction of women have to be in these fields.

  • Don't Blame Feminism
  • Posted by Brian , PhD on May 21, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • The "boy crisis," as one commenter suggested, is inextricably raced as well as classed. We are not talking about every man here, we are talking about men at the racial and economic margins who are losing out here. If you look at enrollment numbers the most selective institutions the enrollment is rougly 50/50. When you break down race and class enrollments that is when we see the greatest disparities along sex lines.

    Also, don't blame feminism (Hoff Summers is a very poor example sir of good scholarship on the subject by the way) for the mess we men created. As several social scientists have dubbed it, the "masculine paradox" theory posits that the beloved tenets of revered masculinity (risk taking, emotional illeteracy, aversion to intimacy, and so on)are the very same conditions that make the individual man feel constantly inept, afraid of any behavior or thought coded feminine, and always striving to live the life of optimal masculinity. When many men, because of class, race, or sexual orientation cannot live that life, they are marginalized by the noramtivity of the masculine regime. Not only are men marginalized because of social identities, but because the conditions for masculinity are drawn so narrow by men/for men, then most men feel like perpetual failures. Thus, what brings men their collective social, economic, and political power are also the factors that create individual male pain and can influence issues like schooling, especially among groups of men who experience or have experienced a long history of marginalization.

  • Posted by Keith Edwards on May 21, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • The AAUW has a history of excellent work and analysis on this and many other issues. To dismiss their conclusions because A) they are women and B) it doesn't fit some men's pre-conceived notions is the absolute height of sexism. Not to mention that many other scholars have come to the same conclusion. This is actually not even news, just further confirmation of other scholarship that has made serious analysis, including the race and class factors, of what some want to lazily label the "boys crisis."

    We clearly have an issue with college men as they are enrolled less, involved less, study less, miss class more, perpetrate and are the victims of more violence (except sexual assault), and are more likely violators of campus policies than women. However, seriously analysis of these issues not only includes a race and class analysis as AAUW has done here, but also clearly illustrates that it is patriarchy itself that has not only privileged men but also resulted in many of these issues hurting both men and women. In my research with college men, they were very clear that society's expectations of them as men lead to many counter-productive behaviors. They concluded that they had been taught that in order to establish their masculinity as college men they were expected to: drink to excess, do drugs, have meaningless or competitive heterosexual sex with many women, not study or pretend not to study or care about academics, and breaking the rules. Now if that's what you have to do to prove yourself as a man there will be some pretty serious consequences for men AND women as a result. What these men needed was permission to be themselves and to stop being the men that they had been taught they had to be. As these college men themselves illustrate, the issue is not that feminism has gone too far, but that feminist critique of traditional expectations of men has not gone far enough to benefit and liberate men as well. For those who take the issues facing college men seriously, looking at the culture of expectations that we as men have created and how it is hurting us as well as hurting women would be a good start.

  • A distinction needs to be made
  • Posted by Laurie on May 21, 2008 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Women and members of racial minority groups were intentionally denied educational opportunities available to white males for eons. Remedies were put into place to allow equal opportunity to all. Recent trends towards greater participation and success in education by women are not the result of denying such opportunities to men but to fair competition based on merits. That we have men falling through the cracks in our educational system is indeed a problem that needs serious attention and thoughtful remedies. But the causes of disparity are vastly different than those that caused the lack of participation by women and minority groups in a prior era, and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that these differential participation rates will respond to the same remedies.

    Women were ready and prepared to attend college, but they were not allowed to. Men falling through the cracks are not prepared to attend college -- that is the problem that needs fixing.

  • Advocates debase social science
  • Posted by Rod Bell , Adjunct Professor at College of DuPage on May 21, 2008 at 2:05pm EDT
  • For scientists, findings from research sponsored by self-interested parties are virtually worthless. (Exceptions happen where the sponsor actually wants scientific validity in pursuit of his/her intersts, e.g., the sponsor seeks investors for a new venture and therefore takes every step to ensure methodological rigor and transparency.)

    It’s annoying, but no great matter in the scheme of things, when the AAUW tries to smuggle in the appearance of academic legitimacy to its otherwise perfectly legal right to advocate on behalf of whoever can be persuaded to pay for it (although to advocate for “women” in general, or even for college-educated women as a group, is taking a lot on yourself, imo. But if they can make a go of it, fine).

    But when people like Brian—a Ph.D., mind you!—chime in with claims about the “masculine paradox” on the authority of “several social scientists,” it’s necessary to point out that his remarks betray not a trace of social science validity. (Even as a piece of humanist reasoning, it’s none too insightful and hardly apposite.) And please, Brian, can you possibly ditch the “raced” and “classed” jargon? Real social scientists don’t talk that way.

    I don’t blame feminist interest groups for advocating from dubious premises, any more than I blamed the late Johnny Cochran for playing the race card to get O.J. off a murder rap. It’s hardly an edifying spectacle, but it’s allowed in an adversarial system. But science, including valid social science, depends upon norms and standards that are reputationally binding for the respective scientific communities; individuals who willfully or ignorantly fail to satisfy their discipline’s methodological standards are both informally and formally excluded. And individuals and groups that claim scientific authority for their claims, without assuming the responsibilities and rigor self-imposed on scientific communities, are identified as imposters.

  • aauw report
  • Posted by magdelyn on May 21, 2008 at 2:45pm EDT
  • Ah yes, the "boy crisis." The AAUW released another study attacking the "boy crisis," much like the Educational Sector's bankrupt report by Sara Mead, which concluded that there is not a boy crisis, and that the disproportionate performance of girls is not bad news about boys doing worse, but good news about girls doing better, and that boys are doing better than ever before. The Washington Post and other news media has passed along this garbage with no critical analysis.

    Of course, these arguments are ridiculous. To argue that boys are "doing better than ever before," both the Education Sector and AAUW base their arguments on absolute numbers. That is to say that more men go to college now, than say in 1950. The argument is bankrupt, easily destroyed by arguing the absurd. For instance, say that today 100,000 people are going to college, 60,000 girls, and 40,000 boys (60/40). All of a sudden, the next day, the college population doubles to 200,000 people, 150,000 girls, and 50,000 boys. The argument can be made, "Well, boys are doing better than ever. Now we have 10,000 more boys going to college." But in reality, whereas yesterday we had a distrubtion of 60% girls, and 40% boys, today, we have 75% girls and 25% boys. When exactly does it become a crisis? When 80% of college classes are are made up of women? 90%? Ever? With this argument, we can get rid of affirmative action because blacks are doing better than ever before. Silly.

    In 1992, when the AAUW came out with its polemic report that girls were being screwed in schools, the AAUW supressed evidence that girls had already surpased boys in almost all subjects and almost all measures. That trend has condinued. Today, with 57% of colleges made up of women, the disparity continues to grow.

    When women were the ones outnumbered at colleges, we blamed the schools and passed Title IX. When boys are getting screwed, we blame the boys and largely ignore the problem. Anybody who has studied the situation knows that both the Education Sector and the AAUW's recent reports are attempts to make lemonade out of lemons, by putting a gloss over that which has become abundantly clear; boys are getting metaphorically raped by an education system.

    What has happened is that women's organizations, in an attempt to mitigate any call for the fair distrubtion of resources, have played the race card and said, "Oh, don't worry white middle America, your sons aren't doing that much worse that white girls, its only the blacks and Latinos who are woefully behind -- no problem here." The argument is racist and patently untrue on both the interpretation of the research and the actual facts. Boys -- ALL BOYS -- regardless of income or race fare worse than girls, a reversal of fortunes that has specifically been ignored by both the media and academics, because boys are not as sypathetic as girls. The race/class argument has not, to my knowledge been used when arguing comparative disadvantage of girls.

    Both the Orwellian language used in their arguments by opponents of helping boys, and the repeated attempts to disprove the obvious, betray the notion that girls progress has been not come at the expense of boys. This is a fight about resources. Thank God for the women who are mothers of boys.

    It is also rather scandelous that Title IX, a gender neutral statute, has been interpreted by the bureocratic establishment as not benefiting anyone but girls. The enforcement has been corrupt.

  • elementary multitasking
  • Posted by Judith Shapiro on May 21, 2008 at 3:55pm EDT
  • To use the commonly bowdlerized version of the late Lyndon Johnson's saltier observation: can we not chew gum and walk down the street at the same time? Can we not address issues facing boys while also addressing issues facing girls?

  • Multi-tasking in zero-sum
  • Posted by L.L. on May 21, 2008 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Yes, it would be nice to multi-task. Unfortunately, when the funding pie is perceived as a zero-sum game with no options, fierce fighting ensues (think musical chairs). Excellent teaching moment.

  • Follow the money
  • Posted by Befuddled on May 21, 2008 at 5:05pm EDT
  • If i was graduating from high school today with less than a 3.2 GPA I wouldn't be going to a 4-year college either. Why would I want $40,000 in student loan debt when I can get a half-way decent job out of technical school with little-to-no debt? How many scholarships are out there for the white male? Follow the money and you'll see why the ratio of admissions is 60/40. The measures meant to level the playing field have tipped the balance the other direction, but the AAUW and others aren't interested in advancing non-women.

  • Posted by Karen , small point on May 21, 2008 at 5:05pm EDT
  • The Independent Women's Forum cannot accurately be described as a "women's group," as that carries with it the implication that the group advocates for women.

    Also, while women outnumber men on campuses as a whole, is there a correlation between the ratio of women to men and the perceived quality of the school, and what does the ratio look like in various majors? Are women outnumbering men 2:1 in engineering? What does graduate school look like? Job placement?

  • It's a class issue
  • Posted by Befuddled on May 21, 2008 at 5:15pm EDT
  • "Among traditional-age students (under age
    24), the gender gap favoring women earning an undergraduate degree
    appears only among students from low- and middle-income families..."

    That must be a really small number -- statistically insignificant I'm sure.

  • Equity, equality, parity?
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on May 21, 2008 at 8:15pm EDT
  • As much as some men (Keith? Brian?) may have internalized femmunist criticism of men, the traditional women's groups (yes they ARE women's groups, but not womyn's groups)
    still appreciate males who protect and serve.

    Those veterans of military and other service used to be viewed as the only individuals who had truely earned their "priviliges" and the respect of their nation.

    Yes Brian & Keith, the victims of violence caused at least in part by the roles our world places them in, may act out their truamatic stress quite poorly (especially without quality V.A. therapy).

    As the political (femmunist) groups and the appeasing (Dems & Republicans) political groups continue to pander to the lowest common denominators in our population, Arlington National Cemetary will probably need to be 50% womyn before femmunists can finally rest in their struggle.

  • Agreement with befuddled
  • Posted by Matthew Carleton on May 22, 2008 at 5:10am EDT
  • I've got to Agree with Befuddled, follow the money. I was one of a handful of white males in my high school in South Florida. I was in the top 20% of my class upon graduation holding a 3.8 GPA. Inside that lovely scholarship book, the one that is 300 odd pages long, there were a grand total of 5 potential scholarships that I could apply for due to the fact that I am neither a minority or female. Though I might add that they could also apply for the same scholarships that I was allowed to apply for. That being said if a group came together to make a scholarship for white males, it would be deemed racist and never allowed. We do this for every other race and gender and its called affirmative action and allowed.

  • Posted by Diane on May 22, 2008 at 5:10am EDT
  • I went to college back in the 1970s, part of the era that is under consideration here. I was also in the first class at one Ivy League grad school where women (I'm female) outnumbered men, which sparked much comment from male professors; yet to this day, most of the top positions in that field are held by men.

    I am also highly skeptical of educational admission on anything except merit. My views on this were formed through experience: I entered CUNY in the first year of open admissions (I did so for financial reasons), which meant that I was in classes along with many obviously unprepared minority students and was allocated to a school (CCNY, which was one of the best) based on my grades.

    I was part of an 'experiment' to compensate for things I hadn't done, and it did greatly undermine the quality of the education I received. There's no getting around that. I had no financial choice, so I stayed and did the best I could. Likewise, my professors.

    But to this day, I would not call it a true education or a real introduction to the life of the mind, which had long been acquired by even the poorest students at CCNY; those things were left to those of us who wanted to use the library on our own time. I would call it, having accrued enough credits under tumultous circumstances and an often hostile racial environment to get a "degree" and get on with life.

    It may be that my memory is now failing, but I seem to recall tenured science professors having to cancel electives to reach remedial English; of having virtually every kind of class turned into politicized debates about virtually any statement made by professors, and so on. Vast amounts of time were spent on critiques of the "power structure," etc. I am nearly at the end of my career, and yet I still remember it with regret that I had no other choice.

    So in general, I am sympathetic to the male argument that "things have gone far enough" in favor of women. And yet.
    It seems to me that girls have long been "better students" than boys; yet despite the rise in female college enrollment, women still lag in reaching the top, either by rank or pay. Even the dramatic rise in the female 'surplus' has not ended these discrepancies. What this means to me is that if educational success defined life outcomes, women should long have been in more top positions (both pay and rank).

    I would ask if there isn't another, far less ominous explanation: since 1970, the U.S. has become a more entrepreneurial society. Greater access to technology and finance, especially in the past 10 years or so, has made it possible for more people to have a business. Many are not 'intellectual businesses' so they do not require academic credentials to start or run.

    Isn't it at least possible that many young men are finding that they can earn just as much by having their own businesses, without spending four increasingly expensive years in college (and perhaps seeing their white-collar jobs offshored), and doing just that? Whereas women may find that they still have to be more qualified than men to succeed in life, so they're still going to college.

    Even when it comes to providing finance, it seems to me that investors are more willing to take a chance on a 'male vision' while for women they demand a 'track record.' Not to get too far off-topic here, but we can even see this in the Democratic nomination.

    FWIW.

  • quick responses
  • Posted by b on May 22, 2008 at 5:10am EDT
  • @Laurie: "Remedies were put into place to allow equal opportunity to all."

    Acutally remedies were put in place to give women and minorities special opportunities and advantages.

    @Keith: "that it is patriarchy itself that has not only privileged men"

    Just not true. Men in this country live no great lives of privilege. Look around you man, it's the women who live the lives of privilege. These privileges are found in all spheres of life and are enshrined in many facets of the law and societal custom. I could go on at some length listing examples but if it isn't already obvious to you it would be a waste.

  • gender crisis in education
  • Posted by Yaakov Watkins on May 22, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • The fact that academics can be so blatantly political as to deny the issues with male education, raises in my mind the question of whether their professional research is honest. What else are they allowing their political motives to influence?

    I find this to be consistent with David Horowitz's well publicized complaints about political bias on campus. A recent study at CU showed that of the well over a thousand faculty members, only 32 were registered Republicans. The faculty is in denial about whether this is a problem.

    This is deeply troubling.

  • I agree
  • Posted by Befuddled on May 22, 2008 at 9:20am EDT
  • Karen is right. The ratios are all out of whack. Let’s give some more scholarships to females who go into Engineering. Sorry Matthew, you're too privileged to be an Engineer. Good luck with your student loan payments though.

  • gender problems
  • Posted by Yaakov Watkins on May 22, 2008 at 9:20am EDT
  • Please add this as the second to the last sentence of my previous submission.

    Most troubling of all intellectually, is that despite the fact that this debate should be conducted with percentages showing change and in relation to the population, rather than absolute numbers (as anyone passing an introductory course in statistics will tell you), the article refers to absolute numbers. Most of the intended audience should recognize the intellectual failing here. You people should know better.

  • This comes right on the heels...
  • Posted by Gabriel Hanna at Washington State University on May 22, 2008 at 2:30pm EDT
  • ...of Congressional hearings on whether to apply Title IX to science and engineering at universities.

    It doesn't matter that women numerically dominate the humanities and social sciences and biology, and that the dominance increases in graduate school. It doesn't matter that women numerically dominate universities, both at the undergraduate and graduate level.

    What matters is that math, physics, and engineering are still majority male.

    When engineering and physics and math are at gender parity, and the universities as a whole are 80% female, maybe then "gender equity" in higher education will finally have been achieved--but would AAUW admit it even then?

  • Posted by Brian , PhD on May 22, 2008 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Your mean spirited attack (which, with some research on past posts seems to be your usual "shoot from the hip" style) on my comments as intellectually inaccurate and weak do not reflect, nor consider, the wealth of scholarship undertaken by the likes of Margaret Mead, Harry Brod, Jim O'Neil, Michael Kimmel, Michael Messner, Chris Kilmartin, William Pollack, Raewyn Connell, and so on.

    Even if the reports methodology is not up to reputation edifying standards, I was simply suggesting that to blame women for the disparities in male enrollment and persistence is not fair and intellectually dishonest, and that work by Harper, Cuyjet, and Paulsen, has suggested that race and class, respectively, impact persistence along gendered lines, as others have suggested that hegemonic masculinity can be linked, at least theoretically, to the concerns we have discussed within.

    As an aside, I find your comments here, as well as others I have read, petty, cynical, intentionally confrontational, and outside what I would consider healthy intellectual discourse. I don't see how prefacing comments with character assassinations adds to the exchange. Much luck to you.

  • AAUW report is flawed
  • Posted by Befuddled on May 22, 2008 at 6:55pm EDT
  • Brian, your assertion that “If you look at enrollment numbers [at] the most selective institutions the enrollment is rougly 50/50.” is baseless as an argument. Karen’s question “Are women outnumbering men 2:1 in engineering?” similarly is absurd. Look at the trends nationwide and across all fields of study. The enrollment numbers are much, much closer to 60/40 than 50/50 (in favor of girls). This is a steadily increasing trend. And while the number of men and women in Engineering may not be making the same drastic swings other areas are, to hold that up as an example is biased in itself. That’s fitting the data to your hypothesis – which is what AAUW has done in this report.

    At what point do we start to really work on fair and equal education for both sexes? I won’t even honor the race and socio-economic aspects because that wasn’t the purpose of the AAUW’s report. The purpose was to discount the notion that males are the ones underserved now. Mentioning race and socio-economic data is nothing more than a way to try to downplay the overall trend and divert attention from the facts. However, to humor you and others I repeat my earlier quote taken directly from the AAUW report, “Among traditional-age students (under age 24), the gender gap favoring women earning an undergraduate degree appears only among students from low- and middle-income families....” They say “only” as if this is a significantly small minority of the population. Read it again because “low- and middle-income” is the majority of this country. Only the high-income buck the trend (which you pointed out with the comment I quoted above). Yes, we all know the elite do what they want, but then again the elite don’t need financial aid to get into college, nor does their overall academic performance greatly affect their future earnings.

    You want to debate the merits of the AAUW report, fine, but let’s debate the actual facts and merits of the report based on its premise “male education is not in crisis.” You don’t like Summers, well how about this early response by Judith Kleinfeld to the AAUW’s 1992 report: “The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls: Social Science in the Service of Deception” (http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html). Does it meet your criteria? I’m not trying to make it a boys versus girls affair or place blame on one sex or the other. Thank AAUW for adding the boys versus girls rhetoric and trying to make it an us or them issue.

    The AAUW report is grossly flawed. Some of the responders on here can't see the fundamental flaws inherent in the way it was conducted, the way it was interpreted and the way it was presented. I may not have a PHD, but I can reason for myself.

  • Some Numbers
  • Posted by Brian , PhD on May 22, 2008 at 10:00pm EDT
  • "Of the top colleges and universities in the nation, only Stanford sports a fifty-fifty gender balance. Harvard and Amherst enroll 56 percent men,Princeton and Chicago 54 percent men, Duke and Berkeley 52 percent, and Yale 51 percent. Cal Tech
    is 65 percent male and 35 percent female; MIT
    is 62 percent male, 38 percent female" (Kimmel, 2006).

    " It remains the case that far more
    working-class women—of all races—go to college than do working-class men. Part of this is a seemingly rational individual decision: a college-educated woman still earns about the same as a high-school educated man, $35,000 to $31,000. By race, the disparities are more starkly drawn. Among middle-class, white, high school graduates going to college this year, half
    are male and half are female. But only 37 percent of black college students and 45 percent of Hispanic students are male" (Kimmel, 2006).

  • Still not convinced
  • Posted by Befuddled on May 23, 2008 at 3:20pm EDT
  • You only furthered my point. “Of the top colleges and universities in the nation” is part of my argument. You can’t hold that up as a measure of the nation as a whole. With that logic every male in America must own a yacht because the top 1% does. I’m not going to debate what the wealthy and privileged do because they can afford to do whatever they want. They can buy discrimination and there is little anyone will ever be able to do about it. I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about your average state universities and private institutions.

    Your second paragraph only diverts attention away from the basic tenant that males are underserved in our education system today. That’s what the AAUW report tries to do, which is what I have a problem with in the first place. Earnings will change over time, but overcompensating for that will only further extend the rhetoric between extremists on both sides. Race, while important, is irrelevant to the base argument and only furthers my stance by showing an even larger gap between female and male college enrollment. Besides, the racial and socio-economical aspects are known to exist and people are already working to figure out solutions to those issues. No one is working to resolve the decline in male post-secondary education because groups like the AAUW downplay it.

    Your one point of interest is “Among middle-class, white, high school graduates going to college this year, half are male and half are female.” I find that claim highly suspect, but how can you reconcile that quote with this one from the AAUW “Among traditional-age students (under age 24), the gender gap favoring women earning an undergraduate degree appears only among students from low- and middle-income families...”? Or how about this “U.S. census figures released [Jan 10, 2008] show [women] continue to outnumber men in college classrooms and on commencement day” (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=705946). Something doesn’t add up and it’s the AAUW report’s conclusions.

  • Brian's rejoinder
  • Posted by Rod Bell , Adjunct Professor at College of DuPage on May 28, 2008 at 12:10pm EDT
  • Brian, I apologize for taking such a sharp verbal swing at you and the argument you presented. I was, as you accused me of being, “intentionally confrontational.”

    I don’t like your argument. It suggests that masculine values (which you rather caricature, do you not?) bring “men” their power, while at the same time making “most men” perpetual failures. But instead of objecting to a feminist project that tries to mobilize women against the power of men-in-general, as though men as a class were power-holders, you claim that “we men” created this mess—-the “mess” being, what? That power holders will erect norms of exclusion? Or is the suggestion that society on a modern scale (large enough to generate wealth beyond subsistence levels, for example) can exist without institutionalized power relations?

    Unfortunately, there is little prospect for a productive discussion and analysis of the issues, because so many participants refuse to investigate in good faith. They want to advocate, not investigate.

    You are right, however, to point out that my attitude may do more harm than good. By heaping disdain upon what has become a rather large segment of academic social science and humanistic studies, I only hurt some feelings and make some enemies. While I’m not sure I can agree that I indulged in “character assassination” against you (or anyone else), I did make you the butt of a rather snarky put-down. I have no basis at all for thinking you deserved that.

  • Posted by P Bridges on June 30, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • I can't believe the AAUW would make such an asanine statement such as there is no crisis. Are the leaders of this organization just furthering their own agendas, what numbers or statistics are they just looking at? As a matter of fact you need not to rely on statistics just walk outside your door to only realize there is a crisis. They've lost all respect with me.

  • Why the Male Crisis
  • Posted by rick lynn , Teacher at not at present on July 18, 2008 at 7:40pm EDT
  • Males are falling behind in greater numbers each year both academically and economically. Our society is still playing out the nineteenth century belief Males should be strong and Females should be protected. This belief allows much aggression toward Males to make them tough. Any sign of weakness or displaying work that is considered more feminine is a negative in the eyes of society that will only react with more aggression toward such Males. Only Males who have been taught from a young age to not value those physical areas sufficiently and who are valued more so for so-called feminine qualities such as patience, understanding, ease of nature, kindness, mildness, and goodness will be able to also develop other information age skills society still feels is feminine such as mental, emotional, social, and academic skills. You see, all of those skills require more patience, ease of nature, and "low average stress along with proper pace and intensity in approaching those mental areas". Since society's belief, Males should be strong allows much more aggression toward Males from day one, Males are operating with much higher average stress that makes learning information age skills much more difficult. Also Males are not given (positive attention) mental, emotional, social, and academic support, knowledge and skills (unless by accident). Society in its ignorance considers such attention and support as coddling the Male child. Society still holds that Males should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

    As a result, Males are not given the tools to develop vital mental, emotional, social, and academic areas. This greatly cuts down on their motivation to develop those skills. The combined effect of society only rewarding strength and power to face aggression; neglect in many social and academic areas; not rewarding but acting with more aggression toward Males who attempt to develop mildness, kindness, goodness, and care for others; not caring to reward and in some to many areas even showing more aggression toward Males who display mental, social, and academic knowledge and skills are hurting many Males. Over a period of years, this is leaving many Males grossly unable to compete in the information age. Instead, over those years many Males have sought out and developed over time those qualities that will provide them with a measure of love, honor, respect, and protection from society’s aggression. In this case, we have the power images, body building, and other imagery the Male is seeking to provide them with feelings of self-worth. You see, persons experience feelings of self-worth based on the love, honor, respect, and support they receive from society. Males having been led completely away from those more valuable information age assets from an early age are turning toward those areas society will encourage, reward, and respect in Males. Over a period of years, this leaves Males far behind Females mental, emotional, social, and academic knowledge and skills. Therefore, this is creating the ever growing international Male Crisis that will only get worse for Males and then get much worse for Females. Society will continual maintaining this treatment of Males until a critical point is reached.

    The truth is in today’s world, little boys need just as much coddling as the girls and just as much mental, emotional, social, and academic support as the girls. While neglect of Male children and boys may have proved useful in the more physical nineteenth century, it is working opposite of need in the information age where it requires much more accumulated mental, emotional, social and academic skills acquired over time. In these areas, Males are being seriously shortchanged.

    Yes, it is true girls mature faster than boys for the simple reason that mental, emotional, social, and academic support are seen as coddling the boys. Society has long believed in boys pulling themselves by their bootstraps in those areas. This is leaving many Males far behind girls in many social and academic areas. The increased aggression Males receive from day one, creates three bad things for Males academically, mentally, emotionally, and socially: 1. It creates higher average layers of mental frictions (redefined from higher average stress) which inhibit thinking, learning, and motivation in mental areas. 2. These higher layers of mental frictions also create improper pace and intensity in approaching mental work (apply too much effort when approaching new material) and higher tension that hurts motivation to learn. 3. It creates the Male ego or defensive cushion that the Male develops from an early age to protect them from the aggressions they receive from society. This Male ego or defensive cushion has the negative consequences of further alienating the Male from “any” various mental, emotional, social, and academic supports they “might just” receive from society. When Males hear firm or hard words from others like teachers or others their minds are thinking defense and not thinking about learning and enjoying the learning process.

    The combination of high layers of mental frictions and defensive cushion are working to create an impediment to learning that accumulates in harm over time for men. In society today, men are given love, honor, respect, and support or the essentials of their self-worth only on the “condition of sufficient” achievement, money, power, status or image. They must fight through the still present, nineteenth century confrontations allowed by society upon them from an early age to achieve those benefits and feelings of self-worth. Society has now created through prejudice and stereotyping, a form of Gender Cast System through mistreatment of Males and over support of Females early training for Males to perform more menial or physical tasks while women are being prepared for white collar positions.

    It is incorrect to view the Male Crisis on role models. The lack of role models is the result of the problem, not the cause. If you had a bag full of sand with a hole in the bottom, you would “not” say there is less sand in the bag; you would say there is a hole in the bottom of the bag. Indeed, we should fix the hole in the bag by providing Males with tools to develop long-term, mental/emotional stability so they can better compete mentally and emotionally in the information age. One professional was attempting to find more role models for Male children. He boasted that a Male child’s esteem goes up when they have one positive role model. What he was unknowingly saying was that Males have such little attention that when they do receive that attention, they are very grateful. This creates the large rise in esteem. The fight for attention could be creating misbehavior in Male children.

    This analysis of Free Aggression toward Males explains the African American Male crisis in which African American Males are falling behind African American Females academically and economically. This imbalance of high layers of mental frictions among African American Males is also affecting Caucasian, Hispanic, and other Males. However, since Free Aggression is amplified in lower socioeconomic environments and since more African American Males are in lower socioeconomic environments, Free Aggression is amplified for those persons, thus the so-called African-American Male Crisis. If Caucasian, Hispanic, and other Males were in the same position (this is the case in some areas) then the Male crisis would be just as great for those groups.

    Today, many men are becoming angry because they losing more than jobs and status, they are losing out on those things they are seeking most of all, love, honor, respect, support, the essentials of self-worth. The little bites they receive in the various media and the workplace accumulate over time and create much anger that touches on and erodes their feelings of self-worth. As a person loses feelings of self-worth they also lose regard for consequences. If men fall behind more collectively, they may begin to retaliate more collectively, thus ending the present shield of over-protection for women. This will mean much more abuse and crimes against women. It will do well for all parents, teachers, employers to those in various media to be more kind to others, including Males.

    For women, due to the nineteenth century belief women should be protected and still in effect today, this has created much overprotection and even indulgence for many women. It is creating very low layers of mental frictions collectively for women. This makes thinking, learning, and motivation mental areas much easier. This protection and continuous attention from day one create a high speed expressway that allows for much continuous, mental, emotional, social and academic support and advancement in many areas over time (years). These two continual supports from society over time create nearly everything a person needs today to succeed in the information age.

    For women, due to the nineteenth century belief women should be protected and still in effect today, this has created much overprotection and even indulgence for many women. It is creating very low layers of mental frictions collectively for women. This makes thinking, learning, and motivation mental areas much easier. This protection and continuous attention from day one create a high speed expressway that allows for much mental, emotional, social and academic advancement in many areas over time. These two continual supports from society over time create nearly everything a person needs today to succeed in the information age. Since women are given through overprotection, even indulgence, the benefits of love, honor, respect, and continual support, all of the benefits of self-worth from an early age without qualification (simply for being girls), they are working with much more continual support and interaction to accumulate more continual mental, emotional, social, and academic knowledge and skills that can be transformed easily into money, power, status, and image. Even after this, society’s protection, continued support and view toward beauty and charm continually helps them in the information age.

    Women are now surging ahead academically and economically due to this overprotection and men are puzzled as to why they are falling behind in those areas. If you remove the old money from older men, the girls are making more. The current beliefs held by both men and women today is that Males learn differently and/or men are simply lazy and do not try hard enough. These false beliefs only add to the growing Male Crisis. The men who believe this and who do not have information to the contrary may believe they are somehow mentally inferior or just not working hard enough. Somehow, humans, men included, tend to reflect the treatment they receive in their lives upon others and do not know or are not allowed by society to say how differential treatment is hurting them. This may lead Males to give up in developing various mental, emotional, social, and academic skills over time. They may limit their interest and desires to smaller windows of fulfillment within their social connections. They will continue to dress up for display, their Male defensive cushion to at least present a plausible image when dealing in areas where they are not as competent. Worse for these Males, they may advance their beliefs and feelings onto their sons from an early age, thus enabling the continuation of the harmful belief of inferiority in the information age.

    As for women, they having been told the same teaching that persons are naturally better in some areas or simply work harder. They may truly feel they are simply more intelligent or have worked harder to achieve what they have achieved. In our world, again women like men often reflect their environment and treatment upon others and so do not appreciate difference in treatment. Also, in our world of insecurities, it is no wonder when women achieve, to boost their insecurity, as affects everyone, they will believe this achievement is due to more intelligence or greater effort on their part and not due to any environmental variables.

    There is another growing phenomena, this involves the driving of Males from the work place. Part of the reason is there are fewer jobs left for Males in the industrial and other blue collar related areas and more job openings in more white collar areas. But even so, there are other reasons for this change in society. One reason is the nineteenth century belief Males should be strong has left many Males years behind in various mental, emotional, social, and academic areas of learning. This has created a large pool of Male employees who are not able to adapt to information age needs. Another reason is that as more Females enter positions of power and collective control, they are more apt to keep Female employees and lay off Male employees (there is no equal opportunity protection for Males). There is another more complex reason why Females are keeping their jobs and Males are losing their jobs. The nineteenth century belief Females should be protected works in the work place also. It places more constrictions on how jobs, intimidation, force for output, and general respect and care is given to Females. However, society’s allowed aggressions upon Male employees allows much more harsh treatment of Males in terms of verbal abuse, intimidation, job assignments, and lack of respect in general. This difference in treatment over time places the Male in a much more precarious position in deciding whether to continually put up with such mental/emotional abuse or quit or be fired for finally drawing a line at some point. Even when Females face similar treatment on the job, the over all treatment of respect and care usually support them so they are able to carry on and remain employed.

    I suspect these reasons are now being played out in society as Business Week said that in the last six months, “From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not.”
    complete theory to all on request by e-mail. mayfieldga@bellsouth.net