The Decline of Men in College: A disturbing trend.

[JLW]

“American colleges and universities now enroll roughly six women for every four men. This is the largest female-male gender gap in the history of higher education, and it’s getting wider. Last year, U.S. colleges enrolled 1.5 million fewer students than five years ago, The Wall Street Journal recently reported. Men accounted for more than 70 percent of the decline.….

The college gender gap is happening not just in the U.S. but in a range of upper- and middle-income countries, including France, Slovenia, Mexico, and Brazil. “In almost every rich country, women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees,” Claudia Goldin, a historian and economics professor at Harvard University, told me.”

Colleges Have a Guy Problem

A recent viral news story reported that a generation of young men is abandoning college. The pattern has deep roots.

www.theatlantic.com

*********************************
I find this trend very disturbing. In 1970, men accounted for 57% of college students. To redress the imbalance, Congress passed Title IX to address sex discrimination. Now there is an imbalance of women to men and that disparity is growing. It is getting so bad that “The Wall Street Journal reports that some colleges are putting their finger on the scale for male applicants, to avoid having their schools become 70 percent female.”

Maybe it is time to revisit some of these laws and policies that were used to correct the initial imbalance though It is interesting that it appears to be an international phenomenom.

It is time to take a close look at this trend. Though various reasons are given for this trend, we need to delve more deeply into the causes. Whatever it is, we need to address it.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

First off, I am a firm believer that if you do not NEED a degree to perform your chosen, future vocation e.g. teacher, lawyer, doctor, engineer, then why in the Hell are you in

college?

Second, if you are in college seeking a degree where the vocation is non existent, or in very short supply e.g. Library Sciences, Art, Sociology, Cultural Studies (pick one),

General Studies, Political Science....

Then you are wasting your time, and accruing needless debt.

Now, I think the most important thing of note is that of those 60% of women, how many are seeking degrees in STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) fields?

You know, degrees that directly (often) translate to real vocations?

I would venture to say, less that twenty percent of the female collegiate population.

That is the real problem. Women in college for bullshit degrees.

"Only 7% of women who graduated from college in 2016 earned a degree that could be classified as STEM.

STEM degrees are more popular with men, but still in the minority overall. About 15% of men who graduated in 2016 earned a STEM degree.

The breakdown of STEM graduates in 2016 was 37% female and 63% male."

Women vs. Men in STEM Degrees: Do we Have a Problem? — Inside College Factual

When you examine the data, it's clear that women aren't pursuing STEM degrees at the same rate as men, and when they do, they are often getting degrees in the lower-paid STEM fields. What we still don't know, is why.

inside.collegefactual.com

OH! Well there ya go. Split tails wasting mommy and daddy's money on bullshit degrees and accruing debt which they will then pass on to their male spouse.

That is the problem. Women, unless they are making babies will not contribute to the growth of a society. Even when they have the choice to select anything...they choose dumb shit.

I think we are learning, as with everything else, men are ahead of the curve in the logic department and are, in greater numbers refusing the scam that is college in exchange for

trades, or trade school.

 

[Pete7469]

As far as I see it, less people in general going into college just to go tens or hundreds of thousands in debt, just to be indoctrinated by leftwing moonbats is a good thing. We need tradesmen, we need people with a real education that many of our universities are no longer actually providing. People are better off taking entry level jobs, and working their way up ladders under the wings of people who actually are good engineers or other professionals than pay people who can't do those jobs in the real world.

 

[Circe]

I think it's a good sign for men and women are falling behind ---- no real point in getting into debt to be indoctrinated in wokeness! What's the point in that? Just a life deficit and waste of four years or more.
Instead they are getting out there and starting life and learning real things and earning money. Bravo, young men.

 

[TNHarley]

“American colleges and universities now enroll roughly six women for every four men. This is the largest female-male gender gap in the history of higher education, and it’s getting wider. Last year, U.S. colleges enrolled 1.5 million fewer students than five years ago, The Wall Street Journal recently reported. Men accounted for more than 70 percent of the decline.….

The college gender gap is happening not just in the U.S. but in a range of upper- and middle-income countries, including France, Slovenia, Mexico, and Brazil. “In almost every rich country, women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees,” Claudia Goldin, a historian and economics professor at Harvard University, told me.”

Colleges Have a Guy Problem

A recent viral news story reported that a generation of young men is abandoning college. The pattern has deep roots.

www.theatlantic.com

*********************************
I find this trend very disturbing. In 1970, men accounted for 57% of college students. To redress the imbalance, Congress passed Title IX to address sex discrimination. Now there is an imbalance of women to men and that disparity is growing. It is getting so bad that “The Wall Street Journal reports that some colleges are putting their finger on the scale for male applicants, to avoid having their schools become 70 percent female.”

Maybe it is time to revisit some of these laws and policies that were used to correct the initial imbalance and revise those as well. It is interesting though that it appears to be an international phenomenom.

It is time to take a close look at this trend. Though various reasons are given for this trend, we need to delve more deeply into the causes. Whatever it is, we need to address it.

Democrats hate women. They want little women to piss beside mentally ill grown men taking massive dumps 2 feet away from them. They want them to be dominated by males in their own sports. And apparently they want them stupid.
Fucking bigots

 

[Circe]

That is the problem. Women, unless they are making babies will not contribute to the growth of a society. Even when they have the choice to select anything...they choose dumb shit.

I think we are learning, as with everything else, men are ahead of the curve in the logic department and are, in greater numbers refusing the scam that is college in exchange for trades, or trade school.

I wish I didn't agree with you.

But there is something to this, I think.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

I wish I didn't agree with you.

But there is something to this, I think.

It's called working class logic my man.

When your first priority is your belly you have zero time for silly shit.

When someone else's first priority is your belly, well then you can hang out and play kid for years.

I never had that luxury, and lots of other men don't either.

 

[JLW]

Democrats hate women. They want little women to piss beside mentally ill grown men taking massive dumps 2 feet away from them. They want them to be dominated by males in their own sports. And apparently they want them stupid.
Fucking bigots

Do you even understand what this thread is about?

 

[TNHarley]

Do you even understand what this thread is about?

Know what else? How do you leftists hate women so much but jerk off to the thought of a male cutting his goober off and calling himself a woman?

 

[JLW]

Know what else? How do you leftists hate women so much but jerk off to the thought of a male cutting his goober off and calling himself a woman?

Listen, I will put this in simple terms for you. This thread is about the problem with men not going to college. Despite your inane rant, no where is it written that women should not go to college. Are you really that dense?

 

[Votto]

Why would it be "disturbing"? Are you a meat-gazer or something?

Personally, I like women, myself. But whatever floats your boat.

We can't have only women going to re-education centers of Left wing indoctrination, now can we?

 

[Votto]

Listen, I will put this in simple terms for you. This thread is about the problem with men not going to college. Despite your inane rant, no where is it written that women should not go to college. Are you really that dense?

The Left is consumed with women being discriminated against, so they don't care

And I'm sure those on the right are just laughing at you right now.

So where is your audiance?

 

[Dekster]

To add to this, more black women start their own business than white men. Black Women Are More Likely to Start a Business than White Men

I personally blame video games. I was talking to a guy who works at a local university that has added video gaming as a college sport. Seemed like a waste to me. He said it was their way to engage with too many students who otherwise sat around the dorms gaming all night. By at least creating a team with requirements, they could get the bums to go to class.

 

[DGS49]

From the first grade on, girls are "better" at school than boys. They are less disruptive, more conscientious, do their homework in a timely fashion, and generally take the whole thing seriouser than boys do.

So it's not surprising that girls are more keen to go to college, and once there, do pretty well at it.

For better or worse, though, they usually decline to take the rigorous courses that contribute economic value to the society. Even the ones who study medicine, engineering, math, etc., tend to go into sub-fields that are useful, but provide no real value. They want to be part-time pediatricians, human resource engineers, math teachers, and so on.

The pity of it all, as noted above, is that so many of them pursue bullshit majors that barely qualify one to be a Barrista or a Parochial school teacher. This leaves them with a small mountain of debt, with no one to pay it off except Joe Biden. And he already has their votes, so what does that accomplish?

A truly rational college male celebrates the fact that there are more women on campus than men. Enough said.

 

[fncceo]

This is a discussion for adults.

It wasn't started bay an adult.

 

[Votto]

Colleges and Universities have become a way to not only indoctrinate people towards Leftism, it also separates people economically as those who attain degrees typically make more money and become leaders in society that make the rules

That way they not only indoctrinate people, they make their opponents less able to financially challenge them, thus controlling elections that run on money and deprive them of leaders in positions of power within society. They have the added bonus of talking down to their opponents in a condescending manner cuz they are so much more educated, with the premise of being more intelligent and wise.

 

[wamose]

There are hundreds of thousands of kids that go to college but don't belong there. They're just not college material. So I say this trend of lower participation is a good thing. Maybe it will also encourage colleges to lower their costs to a reasonable level. Let's say a quarter of what they are right now.

 

[Votto]

There are hundreds of thousands of kids that go to college but don't belong there. They're just not college material. So I say this trend of lower participation is a good thing. Maybe it will also encourage colleges to lower their costs to a reasonable level. Let's say a quarter of what they are right now.

Hell no.

Academia and big government have an intimate relationship. Academia is funded by the government with never ending higher tuition rates, and academia churns out students who have become brainwashed by a Leftist cult who will continue to vote for people that will enrich universities all around the country.

See, everyone is happy. For example, as tuition rates rise, government takes over the loan industry as they lower interest rates on loans so students can afford higher and higher tuition rates.

Naturally, there is a bubble here, which is why they are talking about "free" college now.

Make no mistake, colleges won't take a pay cut at all, just higher taxes and inflation for us all.

 

[MisterBeale]

“American colleges and universities now enroll roughly six women for every four men. This is the largest female-male gender gap in the history of higher education, and it’s getting wider. Last year, U.S. colleges enrolled 1.5 million fewer students than five years ago, The Wall Street Journal recently reported. Men accounted for more than 70 percent of the decline.….

The college gender gap is happening not just in the U.S. but in a range of upper- and middle-income countries, including France, Slovenia, Mexico, and Brazil. “In almost every rich country, women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees,” Claudia Goldin, a historian and economics professor at Harvard University, told me.”

Colleges Have a Guy Problem

A recent viral news story reported that a generation of young men is abandoning college. The pattern has deep roots.

www.theatlantic.com

*********************************
I find this trend very disturbing. In 1970, men accounted for 57% of college students. To redress the imbalance, Congress passed Title IX to address sex discrimination. Now there is an imbalance of women to men and that disparity is growing. It is getting so bad that “The Wall Street Journal reports that some colleges are putting their finger on the scale for male applicants, to avoid having their schools become 70 percent female.”

Maybe it is time to revisit some of these laws and policies that were used to correct the initial imbalance though It is interesting that it appears to be an international phenomenom.

It is time to take a close look at this trend. Though various reasons are given for this trend, we need to delve more deeply into the causes. Whatever it is, we need to address it.

This was covered ages ago. . .

​

The War Against Boys​

This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex
May 2000 Issue
By Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys

This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex

www.theatlantic.com

". . . But are boys aggressive and violent because they are psychically separated from their mothers? Thirty years of research suggests that the absence of the male parent is more likely to be the problem. The boys who are most at risk for juvenile delinquency and violence are boys who are physically separated from their fathers. The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that in 1960 children living with their mother but not their father numbered 5.1 million; by 1996 the number was more than 16 million. As the phenomenon of fatherlessness has increased, so has violence. As far back as 1965 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called attention to the social dangers of raising boys without benefit of a paternal presence. He wrote in a 1965 study for the Labor Department, "A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future—that community asks for and gets chaos."

The sociologist David Blankenhorn, in Fatherless America (1995), wrote, "Despite the difficulty of proving causation in the social sciences, the weight of evidence increasingly supports the conclusion that fatherlessness is a primary generator of violence among young men." William Galston, a former domestic-policy adviser in the Clinton Administration who is now at the University of Maryland, and his colleague Elaine Kamarck, now at Harvard, concur. Commenting on the relationship between crime and one-parent families, they wrote in a 1990 institute report, "The relationship is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature."

Oblivious of all the factual evidence that paternal separation causes aberrant behavior in boys, Carol Gilligan calls for a fundamental change in child rearing that would keep boys in a more sensitive relationship with their feminine side. We need to free young men from a destructive culture of manhood that "impedes their capacity to feel their own and other people's hurt, to know their own and other's sadness," she writes. Since the pathology, as she has diagnosed it, is presumably universal, the cure must be radical. We must change the very nature of childhood: we must find ways to keep boys bonded to their mothers. We must undercut the system of socialization that is so "essential to the perpetuation of patriarchal societies."

Gilligan's views are attractive to many of those who believe that boys could profit by being more sensitive and empathetic. But anyone thinking to enlist in Gilligan's project of getting boys in touch with their inner nurturer would do well to note that her central thesis—that boys are being imprisoned by conventional ideas of masculinity—is not a scientific hypothesis. Nor, it seems, does Gilligan regard it in this light, for she presents no data to support it. It is, in fact, an extravagant piece of speculation of the kind that would not be taken seriously in most professional departments of psychology.

On a less academic plane Gilligan's proposed reformation seems to challenge common sense. It is obvious that a boy wants his father to help him become a young man, and belonging to the culture of manhood is important to almost every boy. To impugn his desire to become "one of the boys" is to deny that a boy's biology determines much of what he prefers and is attracted to. Unfortunately, by denying the nature of boys, education theorists can cause them much misery.. . . "

 

[Votto]

This was covered ages ago. . .

​

The War Against Boys​

This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex
May 2000 Issue
By Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys

This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex

www.theatlantic.com

". . . But are boys aggressive and violent because they are psychically separated from their mothers? Thirty years of research suggests that the absence of the male parent is more likely to be the problem. The boys who are most at risk for juvenile delinquency and violence are boys who are physically separated from their fathers. The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that in 1960 children living with their mother but not their father numbered 5.1 million; by 1996 the number was more than 16 million. As the phenomenon of fatherlessness has increased, so has violence. As far back as 1965 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called attention to the social dangers of raising boys without benefit of a paternal presence. He wrote in a 1965 study for the Labor Department, "A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future—that community asks for and gets chaos."

The sociologist David Blankenhorn, in Fatherless America (1995), wrote, "Despite the difficulty of proving causation in the social sciences, the weight of evidence increasingly supports the conclusion that fatherlessness is a primary generator of violence among young men." William Galston, a former domestic-policy adviser in the Clinton Administration who is now at the University of Maryland, and his colleague Elaine Kamarck, now at Harvard, concur. Commenting on the relationship between crime and one-parent families, they wrote in a 1990 institute report, "The relationship is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature."

Oblivious of all the factual evidence that paternal separation causes aberrant behavior in boys, Carol Gilligan calls for a fundamental change in child rearing that would keep boys in a more sensitive relationship with their feminine side. We need to free young men from a destructive culture of manhood that "impedes their capacity to feel their own and other people's hurt, to know their own and other's sadness," she writes. Since the pathology, as she has diagnosed it, is presumably universal, the cure must be radical. We must change the very nature of childhood: we must find ways to keep boys bonded to their mothers. We must undercut the system of socialization that is so "essential to the perpetuation of patriarchal societies."

Gilligan's views are attractive to many of those who believe that boys could profit by being more sensitive and empathetic. But anyone thinking to enlist in Gilligan's project of getting boys in touch with their inner nurturer would do well to note that her central thesis—that boys are being imprisoned by conventional ideas of masculinity—is not a scientific hypothesis. Nor, it seems, does Gilligan regard it in this light, for she presents no data to support it. It is, in fact, an extravagant piece of speculation of the kind that would not be taken seriously in most professional departments of psychology.

On a less academic plane Gilligan's proposed reformation seems to challenge common sense. It is obvious that a boy wants his father to help him become a young man, and belonging to the culture of manhood is important to almost every boy. To impugn his desire to become "one of the boys" is to deny that a boy's biology determines much of what he prefers and is attracted to. Unfortunately, by denying the nature of boys, education theorists can cause them much misery.. . . "

The term "Patriarchal" makes Leftists go about as bat shit crazy as the word "Trump".

The goal is to undermine fathers in the home

And as we see in the Black community, with about 70% of homes without fathers, the result will be massive poverty and crime. Why? Cuz you can't escape poverty in a one parent home, unless you are lucky. And your kids will find their father on the streets which leads to crime.

Then as the killing fields are created all around the country, as they are in the big inner cities controlled by democrats, carbon footprints will be decrease all across the country.

Yay.