Worries Over a 2-to-1 Ratio: Where the Boys Aren't(insidehighered.com)
insidehighered.com
Worries Over a 2-to-1 Ratio: Where the Boys Aren't
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/24/charleston
3 comments
I believe the inquiry was to determine whether discrimination against female applicants was starting to happen as a way to redress the male/female imbalance.
That's the issue though - for decades there was discrimination for female applicants to 'redress the male/female imbalance'. It's still being done at a lot of places. But suddenly now that the scale has tipped in the opposite direction, the same mechanism triggers an inquiry?
There still is in STEM fields. One wonders why there is no inquiry into that.
Really? Where?
When men are in general an oppressed group, you can call me and I will be excited about questions like this.
Exactly. Most of the top ranked liberal arts college have gender parity. For example, my school, Amherst College, has a 50% male to female ratio. Likewise, Williams is 48% to 50%, Swarthmore is 47% to 53%, and Pomona is equal. This is also true for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Since each school is competing for the same 10% of high school students and has an acceptance rate of 10% it’s probable that males have an advantage. However, affirmative action contributes a fair amount to the overall success of these schools and their graduates. I suspect, and I hope, applicants agree.
It’s also worth mentioning that this has become more of a problem because of the Seven Sisters. Harvard’s acquiring of Radcliffe and Vassar becoming coeducational placed greater pressure on similarly ranked schools. Moreover, Amherst and Williams’ becoming coeducational might’ve contributed to this imbalance.
It’s also worth mentioning that this has become more of a problem because of the Seven Sisters. Harvard’s acquiring of Radcliffe and Vassar becoming coeducational placed greater pressure on similarly ranked schools. Moreover, Amherst and Williams’ becoming coeducational might’ve contributed to this imbalance.
> Gender gaps are nothing new, but they are problematic for colleges because they can be taken to suggest women are seeking higher education, while men are not. They can also cause awkward social environments on campuses and, if they get wide enough, may discourage men from applying.
Advertising the gap is probably a great way to increase the number of male applicants.
Advertising the gap is probably a great way to increase the number of male applicants.
I was about to say the same thing. Most young men are interested in sex, and a 2:1 gender ratio is likely to mean that unless they're deformed or have zero social skills, they'll get plenty.
Not everyone would agree with your conclusion.
>Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.
Source: http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/colleges-where...
>Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.
Source: http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/colleges-where...
Discard half your options out of the gate and you get the scarcity you deserve, IMO.
Some things never change. When my mom entered college in the early 60's, her school had four and a half men for every woman. The joke was "one's a momma's boy, one's jerk, one's a bore, one has a girlfriend back home, and who wants a half a man?
This is a very alien worldview to me. Being curious or "hormonally charged" seems normal, but people seriously looking to have sex in college seem to be in the minority. Otherwise, there would be an orgy every weekend, right? Anyway, advertising the sexuality of the women on campus to attract more men frankly makes me feel sick.
"Being curious or "hormonally charged" seems normal, but people seriously looking to have sex in college seem to be in the minority. Otherwise, there would be an orgy every weekend, right?"
If you replace "people" with "men," the answer is probably yes. Men on average tend to seek out far more sexual partners than women do; I remember one study that had attractive, opposite-sex college students approach other students and offer to sleep with them. 75% of males approached said yes; 0 females did. I think the study is discussed in Dan Ariely's _Predictably Irrational_. As Roy Baumeister points out in his book _What Are Men Good For_, famous men often sleep with many, many random young women, and appreciate it when young women offer them sex; famous women seldom do the same.
As for women, they are the sex that has to invest more in offspring; in virtually every species studied, the choosier sex is the one that has to invest more; see, for example, Robert Trivers' famous work, or Geoffrey Miller in _The Mating Mind_:
"As David Buss has emphasized, human sex differences are most apparent in short-term mating. Men are motivated to have short-term sexual flings with multiple partners than women are. Women are much choosier than men in the short term. Short-term mating is exciting and sexy, but it is not necessarily where sexual selection has the greatest effect" (95).
"Human males are generally not as choosy about short-term affairs as females. There is very little opportunity cost to short-term mating for men. It does not exclude other sexual options. But men get much choosier about medium- and long-term relationships, because their opportunity costs increase dramatically. If they are in a sexual relationship with one woman, it is very difficult to sustain a sexual relationship with another woman. They cannot give both their full attention. They must make choices—sexual choices" (95).
Note: this doesn't mean women aren't very sexual. They are. See, for example, Randy Thornhill's _The Evolution of Human Female Sexuality_. But they don't tend to seek out as many random encounters or as many concurrent, unknown partners as men do. Most sexually mature women are "seriously looking to have sex" because they like it as much or more as men do. But they aren't, on average, looking to have it as indiscriminately as men do.
The equilibrium isn't for "an orgy every weekend." There isn't a stable equilibrium if the number of males and females and fluctuating; for more on this and how small numbers of people influence mating/dating markets, see Tim Harford's _The Logic of Life_.
Note too that variations among individuals are greater than variations between groups, so those of you who are about to tell stories about your guy friend who is asexual and your female friend who hooks up with a new guy every weekend are not being inconsistent with the above, which has been established empirically through a variety of means discussed in the books referenced.
If you replace "people" with "men," the answer is probably yes. Men on average tend to seek out far more sexual partners than women do; I remember one study that had attractive, opposite-sex college students approach other students and offer to sleep with them. 75% of males approached said yes; 0 females did. I think the study is discussed in Dan Ariely's _Predictably Irrational_. As Roy Baumeister points out in his book _What Are Men Good For_, famous men often sleep with many, many random young women, and appreciate it when young women offer them sex; famous women seldom do the same.
As for women, they are the sex that has to invest more in offspring; in virtually every species studied, the choosier sex is the one that has to invest more; see, for example, Robert Trivers' famous work, or Geoffrey Miller in _The Mating Mind_:
"As David Buss has emphasized, human sex differences are most apparent in short-term mating. Men are motivated to have short-term sexual flings with multiple partners than women are. Women are much choosier than men in the short term. Short-term mating is exciting and sexy, but it is not necessarily where sexual selection has the greatest effect" (95).
"Human males are generally not as choosy about short-term affairs as females. There is very little opportunity cost to short-term mating for men. It does not exclude other sexual options. But men get much choosier about medium- and long-term relationships, because their opportunity costs increase dramatically. If they are in a sexual relationship with one woman, it is very difficult to sustain a sexual relationship with another woman. They cannot give both their full attention. They must make choices—sexual choices" (95).
Note: this doesn't mean women aren't very sexual. They are. See, for example, Randy Thornhill's _The Evolution of Human Female Sexuality_. But they don't tend to seek out as many random encounters or as many concurrent, unknown partners as men do. Most sexually mature women are "seriously looking to have sex" because they like it as much or more as men do. But they aren't, on average, looking to have it as indiscriminately as men do.
The equilibrium isn't for "an orgy every weekend." There isn't a stable equilibrium if the number of males and females and fluctuating; for more on this and how small numbers of people influence mating/dating markets, see Tim Harford's _The Logic of Life_.
Note too that variations among individuals are greater than variations between groups, so those of you who are about to tell stories about your guy friend who is asexual and your female friend who hooks up with a new guy every weekend are not being inconsistent with the above, which has been established empirically through a variety of means discussed in the books referenced.
> 75% of males approached said yes; 0 females did.
> Note too that variations among individuals are greater than variations between groups
This is actually my main problem with the idea. A few women will be on board with the campaign, but most women will feel like they're being "sold" to the men without really liking that idea. Secondarily, doubling the women/men ratio won't come close to doubling any particular guy's chances of having sex. So it's unfair and misleading to almost everyone.
> Note too that variations among individuals are greater than variations between groups
This is actually my main problem with the idea. A few women will be on board with the campaign, but most women will feel like they're being "sold" to the men without really liking that idea. Secondarily, doubling the women/men ratio won't come close to doubling any particular guy's chances of having sex. So it's unfair and misleading to almost everyone.
I agree that it would be degrading to market a college based on this, but I'd also imagine that in an environment with a severe gender imbalance there would be people of the over-represented gender (of either gender) who would welcome the idea of a greater pool of potential partners in that environment (perhaps not enough to be willing to be "sold", as you've said).
For one thing, a greater proportion of his interactions will be with women, increasing his chances by raw bayesian exposure, as well as by the greater socialization to women he will accrue. I do not reject the stereotype we all know, of guys who spend too much of their lives in environments with the opposite gender imbalance, as applicable in a large minority of cases; though I would be interested in hearing your experience and reasoning if you disagree.
As well, as rare in this environment, these men will be more individually valuable to women seeking male partners than they would otherwise be (for whatever benefits of a mating/partnership would apply to the people involved, and could be categorized as valuable). I don't think this concept of "value" would have as much of an effect on the difference in the situation as the 1st reason, but it would exist. The degree to which it would be multiplied from what it would be in a gender-neutral environment would still be dependent on each individual, and a clueless total loss would probably still not get laid or dated or tied-up and pooed on or whatever they're looking for, but it would absolutely make each more appealing to some degree. And (if you are willing to grant that confidence is sexy in many cases), any experience which increases a person's experience in and competence with sex and relationships feeds back on itself, and increases the likelihood of more experience.
So I think it would be pretty reasonable for most people to prefer a gender environment which is favourable to them. Of course, your expectation of the quality of an institution that would directly market itself based on this, and of the quality of the character of the people for whom this was not sufficiently distasteful to turn them away, might offset the benefits of the advertised gender environment. But having been an 18-year-old male and having known 18-year-old males, I do not think this is sufficient to nullify the appeal; and were this imbalance just known and not pimped, it would not be an entirely trivial factor in someone's choice of university.
> doubling the women/men ratio won't come close to doubling any particular guy's chances of having sex
For one thing, a greater proportion of his interactions will be with women, increasing his chances by raw bayesian exposure, as well as by the greater socialization to women he will accrue. I do not reject the stereotype we all know, of guys who spend too much of their lives in environments with the opposite gender imbalance, as applicable in a large minority of cases; though I would be interested in hearing your experience and reasoning if you disagree.
As well, as rare in this environment, these men will be more individually valuable to women seeking male partners than they would otherwise be (for whatever benefits of a mating/partnership would apply to the people involved, and could be categorized as valuable). I don't think this concept of "value" would have as much of an effect on the difference in the situation as the 1st reason, but it would exist. The degree to which it would be multiplied from what it would be in a gender-neutral environment would still be dependent on each individual, and a clueless total loss would probably still not get laid or dated or tied-up and pooed on or whatever they're looking for, but it would absolutely make each more appealing to some degree. And (if you are willing to grant that confidence is sexy in many cases), any experience which increases a person's experience in and competence with sex and relationships feeds back on itself, and increases the likelihood of more experience.
So I think it would be pretty reasonable for most people to prefer a gender environment which is favourable to them. Of course, your expectation of the quality of an institution that would directly market itself based on this, and of the quality of the character of the people for whom this was not sufficiently distasteful to turn them away, might offset the benefits of the advertised gender environment. But having been an 18-year-old male and having known 18-year-old males, I do not think this is sufficient to nullify the appeal; and were this imbalance just known and not pimped, it would not be an entirely trivial factor in someone's choice of university.
NB: Pronoun "his" used for readability's sake, though if you'd judge what I've described to be equally applicable to women who are attracted to men in the reciprocal environment, substitute the gender-neutral pronoun of your choice. I also initially included gay women with the men above, but I suppose the dynamic is totally different for them -- the people you're attracted to are also your potential competition. Holy shit. > people seriously looking to have sex in college seem to be in the minority
I would like to know more about what you would consider to be the mindset of a typical incoming 1st-year undergraduate, if you would share it.
Well I asked around and I guess you're right. So I guess I'm going to learn more from this "alien" encounter than you are :-)
Two different but related issues: me, and what I think (thought) of other people.
I'm not very social, myself. I've occasionally wished I were more social, but it's generic loneliness. I've never personally been in a situation where I seriously-in-real-life tried to get or have sex. I've got my fair share of fantasies (small ones and big ones) and wishful thinking etc. It's just that I planned not to have sex in college. It's entirely down to how I was raised - I have religious (Protestant) reasons for believing sex is a bigger deal than most people think. But that's literally my only reason for not wanting to have sex.
That said, I totally see where people are coming from with wanting to have sex! I saw and heard a lot of flirting in college. I guess I just assumed it was less common for all the social and personal issues to be resolved. Being unsocial, I guess I just wasn't paying attention. Time to go update my view of reality again. (I'm only 24, so I'm used to it :-)
Two different but related issues: me, and what I think (thought) of other people.
I'm not very social, myself. I've occasionally wished I were more social, but it's generic loneliness. I've never personally been in a situation where I seriously-in-real-life tried to get or have sex. I've got my fair share of fantasies (small ones and big ones) and wishful thinking etc. It's just that I planned not to have sex in college. It's entirely down to how I was raised - I have religious (Protestant) reasons for believing sex is a bigger deal than most people think. But that's literally my only reason for not wanting to have sex.
That said, I totally see where people are coming from with wanting to have sex! I saw and heard a lot of flirting in college. I guess I just assumed it was less common for all the social and personal issues to be resolved. Being unsocial, I guess I just wasn't paying attention. Time to go update my view of reality again. (I'm only 24, so I'm used to it :-)
I hesitate to dig something like this up, because a lot of people taking this road take it very wrong. I am not a student, but what fragments I've critically accepted have proven very interesting and widely applicable. In general it has been unfortunately framed, and there are competing and incompatible strains of thought and attitudes within it. Tease out the right stuff: it was made for you.
http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/ctoxh/new_to_sedd...
Read critically and act. Stay yourself and don't take it too far.
http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/ctoxh/new_to_sedd...
Read critically and act. Stay yourself and don't take it too far.
[deleted]
It would be interesting to know the male-to-female ratio in trade schools and apprenticeships. One of the reasons (white) males apply to college in lower numbers is that they have the easiest access to the good jobs that don't require a degree. You won't see many women working as oilfield roughnecks, plumbers, or truck drivers. Without a degree, women tend to be trapped in low-end service and clerical jobs.
So when there weren't enough women in college, it was because of discrimination against women. And when there's too many women in college, it's also because of discrimination against women.