1) That men are the beneficiaries of positive discrimination due to a higher admissions rate; male applicants may be more qualified at baseline by any objective standard for other reasons. (Perhaps the same reasons men are more likely to excel in STEM fields).
2) The current sex differential in admissions emerged from objective admissions criteria; it actually stems from decades of positive sex discrimination favoring females, as well as the proliferation of less rigorous degrees (to which women--especially those without the gumption to enter the workforce--gravitate at higher rates than men).
If K-12 schooling wasn't overtly anti-male, and universities were to employ objective standards of merit and scrap activist degrees, men would probably reclaim a majority in higher-ed.
I'm sure Yascha is aware that Johns Hopkins SAIS and related programs are full of barely literate students (of both sexes) who muddle through with masters degrees.
My understanding is that universities practice this "affirmative action for men" for the benefit of women. Most young women don't want to go to a single-gender or mostly single-gender university. To achieve a more co-ed institution, universities need to admit men. But men, on average, aren't as academically well-prepared as young women. So universities end up applying this male-centered affirmative action. If young women indicated that they wanted to go to colleges with, say, 80% women, admissions committee could quickly stop putting their thumbs on the scales for men in admissions.
Men consistently outperform women on tests and its entirely possible they (on average) have a marginal edge in general cognitive ability. If men are "underperforming" academically its probably due to the pervasive anti-male sentiment in K-12 ed and beyond, among other things.
Two massive assumptions underpin this argument:
1) That men are the beneficiaries of positive discrimination due to a higher admissions rate; male applicants may be more qualified at baseline by any objective standard for other reasons. (Perhaps the same reasons men are more likely to excel in STEM fields).
2) The current sex differential in admissions emerged from objective admissions criteria; it actually stems from decades of positive sex discrimination favoring females, as well as the proliferation of less rigorous degrees (to which women--especially those without the gumption to enter the workforce--gravitate at higher rates than men).
If K-12 schooling wasn't overtly anti-male, and universities were to employ objective standards of merit and scrap activist degrees, men would probably reclaim a majority in higher-ed.
I'm sure Yascha is aware that Johns Hopkins SAIS and related programs are full of barely literate students (of both sexes) who muddle through with masters degrees.
I have the impression that colleges specialized to STEM discriminate in favor of female applicants. Any data on that?
They do: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/diversity/sex-gender/2023/10/13/closing-stem-gender-gap-anti-male-discrimination
STEM has also been expanded to encompass social activism degrees, so the term is a bit dubious.
At MIT, female applicants are twice as likely as male applicants to be admitted. So the push for gender parity does not go in just one direction.
Also, male brains mature more slowly than female brains. Giving boys a leg up may be both rational and fair.
My understanding is that universities practice this "affirmative action for men" for the benefit of women. Most young women don't want to go to a single-gender or mostly single-gender university. To achieve a more co-ed institution, universities need to admit men. But men, on average, aren't as academically well-prepared as young women. So universities end up applying this male-centered affirmative action. If young women indicated that they wanted to go to colleges with, say, 80% women, admissions committee could quickly stop putting their thumbs on the scales for men in admissions.
Men consistently outperform women on tests and its entirely possible they (on average) have a marginal edge in general cognitive ability. If men are "underperforming" academically its probably due to the pervasive anti-male sentiment in K-12 ed and beyond, among other things.
This is just a historical rebalance of centuries of male domination. We boys are just going to have to deal with it as we always have 😎
There is not a single man under the age of thirty willing to abide discrimination foisted upon us by self-loathing boomers.