Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Males falling behind in education

Michael Gurian


In the 1990s, I taught for six years at a small liberal arts college in Spokane, Wash. In my third year, I started noticing something that was happening right in front of me. There were more young women in my classes than young men, and on average, they were getting better grades than the guys. Many of the young men stared blankly at me as I lectured. They didn't take notes as well as the young women. They didn't seem to care as much about what I taught -- literature, writing and psychology. They were bright kids, but many of their faces said, "Sitting here, listening, staring at these words -- this is not really who I am."

...Colleges and universities across the country are grappling with the case of the mysteriously vanishing male. Where men once dominated, they now make up no more than 43 percent of students at American institutions of higher learning, according to 2003 statistics, and this downward trend shows every sign of continuing unabated. If we don't reverse it soon, we will gradually diminish the male identity, and thus the productivity and the mission, of the next generation of young men, and all the ones that follow.

The trend of females overtaking males in college was initially measured in 1978. Yet despite the well-documented disappearance of ever more young men from college campuses, we have yet to fully react to what has become a significant crisis.

(...)Of course, not every male has to go to college to succeed, to be a good husband, to be a good and productive man. But a dismal future lies ahead for large numbers of boys in this generation who will not go to college. Statistics show that a young man who doesn't finish school or go to college in 2005 will likely earn less than half what a college graduate earns. He'll be three times more likely to be unemployed and more likely to be homeless. He'll be more likely to get divorced, more likely to engage in violence against women and more likely to engage in crime. He'll be more likely to develop substance abuse problems and to be a greater burden on the economy, statistically, since men who don't attend college pay less in Social Security and other taxes, depend more on government welfare, are more likely to father children out of wedlock and are more likely not to pay child support.


As a college student myself, I can attest to what Gurian is saying. The consequences of such a shift in national consciousness could be far more drastic than initially apparent.

Comments

Rob
Rob
18056 comments
Send a private message

Troublesome, but I’m more worried about the fact that America is churning out very few scientists and engineers.  While all our kids are going to school to become teachers and lawyers (like this country needs any more lawyers) other nations in the world are churning out well-educated scientists and engineers.

America is falling behind the curve.  I’m not worried about the quantity of the graduates, I’m worried about the quality.  I’m nearly done with Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat, and this is a point he makes strongly.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on December 4, 2005 at 03:13 pm
Avatar for Brad S

....Statistics show that a young man who doesn’t finish school or go to college in 2005 will likely earn less than half what a college graduate earns....

I wonder if the good professor who wrote this is aware of how much plumbers, electricians, truck drivers, and coal miners (especially around Gillette, Wyo) make nowadays. These are all extremely male-dominated positions, and the truck driver pretty much has job security considering how much China goods have to be shipped out of the ports of LA/Long Beach.

I also wonder if the good professor ever considered interviewing Starbucks baristas on their level of education, and whether or not those college-degree holders are contributing as much know-how to the national economy as they should.

BTW, notice whenever these type of “Oh, No! No males in College!!” articles come out, the articles never discuss any breakdown of traditional/non-traditional students by gender?

Brad S on December 4, 2005 at 04:12 pm
Avatar for Daniel

Crazy.  I just graduated in May from a small, liberal arts college in Spokane, Washington.  I wonder if it was the same one?

Daniel on December 4, 2005 at 04:13 pm
Avatar for Carrick

Brad S:

I also wonder if the good professor ever considered interviewing Starbucks baristas on their level of education, and whether or not those college-degree holders are contributing as much know-how to the national economy as they should.

I think they’re talking about either the population mean or median here. Finding individual examples which are contrary to central tendency of the two populations, the doesn’t invalidate the statement as applied to the mean.

Practically, it means that as an individual you can earn equally as much money without a college degree (like owning your own plumbing service), however, there are many jobs that will be closed to you, if you lack the training needed for that field.  This means that you have fewer choices (not everybody looks forward a life of unclogging sewer pipes for example), and neglects the other very positive effects that a good college education has on an individual.

Carrick on December 4, 2005 at 05:12 pm
Avatar for WOOF

If we don’t reverse it soon, we will gradually diminish the male identity,

That worry is gonna make it hard to sleep.

WOOF on December 4, 2005 at 05:12 pm
Avatar for Dave

Brad S: Are you suggesting that the writer just made up the statistics he cited?

Yes, there are exceptions to the rules--that’s why it’s called an “average.”

Dave on December 4, 2005 at 05:13 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

This female/male ratio balance is a red herring thrown out since the ‘20s. After the Great War the number of females going on to higher education dramatically increased, for obvious reasons. In the mid-late ‘30s the male enrollment in higher education spiked, again, for obvious reasons. Then it dropped off again. These cycles were directly tied to military enlistment numbers, and casualty numbers. Through the mid’40s to the ‘60s the numbers were more in line with the old status quo. Then the babyboomers hit, and the entire dynamic was changed. As for the drop in numbers of students studying real subjects, such as engineering,bio-sciences, mathematics, and civil-engineering, popular media has shown repeatedly that college educated men are nasty,greedy,evil, and incompetent. How many times do you have to be hit in the head with a rotten fish, before you decide you don’t like fish?

2Hotel9 on December 4, 2005 at 06:13 pm
Avatar for LoadTheMule

Yes, there are exceptions to the rules–that’s why it’s called an “average.”

Wtf do exceptions to a rule have to do with whether or not a number is an ‘average’?  Is English not your native language, or are you simply as dense as you seem to be?

Regards…

LoadTheMule on December 4, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Avatar for robert108

As far as “losing the male identity” is concerned, militant feminism has been trying to do that for forty years.  Maybe they are succeeding.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 12:13 am
Avatar for Dave

There’s no rule that says all college graduates make more money than college drop-outs. However, when you average out the data you see that a majority do. It’s pretty confusing stuff, LTM.rolleyes

Dave on December 5, 2005 at 01:12 am
Avatar for LoadTheMule

Yes, and that’s why it’s called an ‘average’, you idiot.

Regards…

LoadTheMule on December 5, 2005 at 06:13 am
Avatar for Dave

LTM, do you even know what point you’re making, because no one else does.

Dave on December 5, 2005 at 07:13 am
Avatar for Don Myers

bob, some people worry that militant civil rights are causing them to “lose the white identity.” Are you one of them?

Don Myers on December 5, 2005 at 08:12 am
Avatar for robert108

Don: You are so silly, being a feminized man, that even your smear attempts are pathetic. There is not truth to what you said, but then, that is nothing new.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 08:12 am
Avatar for robert108

Don: You are getting silly again, but maybe that is because you grew up under militant feminism.  I said “the”, not “my”.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 08:13 am
Avatar for Don Myers

As far as “losing the male identity” is concerned, militant feminism has been trying to do that for forty years. Maybe they are succeeding.

If your “male identity” is that easy to undermine, it wasn’t that strong in the first place bob.

Don Myers on December 5, 2005 at 08:13 am
Avatar for WOOF

I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay
I sleep all night and I work all day
I cut down trees, I wear high heels

One never knows, do one?

WOOF on December 5, 2005 at 09:12 am
Avatar for Don Myers

I knew you didn’t have a strong “male identity,” bob---whatever that means. Are you gonna blame the feminists, the media, or your own weak nature?

Don Myers on December 5, 2005 at 09:12 am
Avatar for robert108

Woof: I’m sorry to hear that you are unsure about your sexuality.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 09:13 am
Avatar for robert108

I’m flattered by your attentions, Don, but I don’t need to show you anything.  Nice try, though.  I don’t go that way.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 09:13 am
Avatar for Don Myers

Tell ya what, bob---why don’t we just whip ‘em out, get a ruler, and settle this once and for all?

Don Myers on December 5, 2005 at 09:13 am
Avatar for robert108

Blame is your “area”, Don.  I was conjecturing that perhaps militant feminism has succeeded in its war on masculinity, and that the decline in men in higher education is some evidence of that.  I only “whip it out” for women, btw. I am not so unsure of myself as you apparently are.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 10:13 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

Don Myers spits, Tell ya what, bob—why don’t we just whip ‘em out, get a ruler, and settle this once and for all?

Awww...someone wasn’t hugged enough as a child. He now thinks that the way to settle arguments is by comparing dick size.

Hilarious and sad at the same time.

likwidshoe on December 5, 2005 at 10:13 am
Avatar for robert108

I always thought that “whipping it out” with another man was a male homosexual thing.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 11:12 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

I always thought that “whipping it out” with another man was a male homosexual thing.

Don is gay. He used to have a blog where he bragged in his “about me” section that he got paid to appear in two gay movies. I’m assuming that the rest of the gay movies he was a free extra.

likwidshoe on December 5, 2005 at 11:12 am
Avatar for Don Myers

Actually, I’m not gay---but my girlfriend is, and so is my boyfriend.

Don’t be so jealous, boys (and you ARE boys, after all). People are willing to pay me for sex, while you have to pay them for sex.

Don Myers on December 5, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Avatar for robert108

So, this thread has been hijacked by the “Don Myers self-appreciation show?”

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Avatar for robert108

Well, there you go.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Avatar for Don Myers

I still maintain that militant feminism, with its hatred of masculinity, has, in the last forty years, had an impact on the perception of masculinity in this country, and it is at least part of the reason for decreased presence of men in higher education.

Which is, of course, crazy. That’s why you don’t even try to back up your claims with anything but your own incoherent ramblings---on this or any other topic.

Don Myers on December 5, 2005 at 01:12 pm
Avatar for Don Myers

Well, perhaps you’re right bob. You and lik’s incoherent sniping got me mad enough to brag---which is vulgar. Mea Culpa, dude.

Don Myers on December 5, 2005 at 01:12 pm
Avatar for robert108

Don: So, addressing the original theme of this thread is sniping, so it’s our fault that you went off-topic?  I don’t think so. I still maintain that militant feminism, with its hatred of masculinity, has, in the last forty years, had an impact on the perception of masculinity in this country, and it is at least part of the reason for decreased presence of men in higher education.  You may not agree, but neither your sexuality or anyone else’s sexuality is irrelevant to this thread.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 01:12 pm
Avatar for robert108

I meant “relevant”, not “irrelevant”.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 01:13 pm
Avatar for Don Myers

Aurgument to counter WHAT exactly, bob? Since you militantly refuse to back up your blather with evidence, there is nothing to counter.

Lik has the same problem---he makes some ludicrous pronouncement, gets all pissy when he gets called on it, expects others to disprove his asinine theory instead of proving it himself, and cries like a little baby when he isn’t taken seriously.

When you come up with something lucid and back it up with evidence, then I’ll counter-argue. But we both know that’s never gonna happen.

Don Myers on December 5, 2005 at 02:12 pm
Avatar for robert108

So, “just crazy” is the best counter argument you can come up with?  I think my ramblings are very coherent; you just don’t agree with me, which is OK.  I can’t figure out why you can’t seem to come up with anything other than personal attack as a counter argument, though.  I’m sure you have reasons why you don’t think militant feminism isn’t a factor, or maybe it’s just a knee-jerk reaction to one of your sacred cows being harpooned.  You probably can’t give a cogent objection to this one, either; just more personal attack.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 02:13 pm
Avatar for Dave

I still maintain that militant feminism, with its hatred of masculinity, has, in the last forty years, had an impact on the perception of masculinity in this country, and it is at least part of the reason for decreased presence of men in higher education.

Can you demonstrate the causal connection between

A)Feminism and B)80% of urban high school drop-outs are male.

OR

A)Feminism and B)Nearly 3/5 of college students are female?

Thanks!

Otherwise, I’ll follow the advice of Christopher Hitchens: “That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”

Dave on December 5, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for robert108

Dave and Don:  This is what is known as a common-sense discussion.  I only asserted that forty years of anti-masculine hatred might have some effects on the culture, one of which might be decreased presence of men in higher education.  Attacking me personally only illustrates a lack of ideas, or a rigid orthodox ideology that admits no other thoughts. Since we are not in a court of law, evidence is not relevant.  It’s just an idea.  Can either of you state categorically or prove that there is no effect whatever?  As far as Dave’s points are concerned: A) yes, through the assault on maleness lowering the self-esteem of young boys(there has been an increase of young male suicide in this period as well), and B) The feminist assertion of “equality"(code for female superiority) as a political and social goal.  I hope we can still discuss ideas.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 07:12 pm
Avatar for Dave

Robert 108 wrote

I only asserted that forty years of anti-masculine hatred might have some effects on the culture, one of which might be decreased presence of men in higher education.

No, you actually said:

I still maintain that militant feminism, with its hatred of masculinity, has, in the last forty years, had an impact on the perception of masculinity in this country, and it is at least part of the reason for decreased presence of men in higher education.

Can either of you state categorically or prove that there is no effect whatever?

“That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”

I hope we can still discuss ideas.

Coming from one who has hijacked numerous threads insulting my views on completely unrelated issues (i.e., infanticide), I find that highly unlikely.
Dave on December 5, 2005 at 08:13 pm
Avatar for robert108

I’ll take your word for it.

robert108 on December 5, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Rob
Rob
18056 comments
Send a private message

Coming from one who has hijacked numerous threads insulting my views on completely unrelated issues (i.e., infanticide), I find that highly unlikely.

Says Mr. Eye-Roll himself.

Robert has always seemed pretty even-handed to me.  He doesn’t back down, but I haven’t seen him tossing off insults or getting nasty unless somebody aims the same at him first.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on December 6, 2005 at 04:12 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Dave, you are the person who interjects your personal non-morality into every discussion. How, exactly, is your non-morality Robert108’s fault? I can’t wait to hear this dissembling bullshit.

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 05:12 pm
Avatar for Dave

We are waiting.

We? Ah, delusions of grandeur…

No, as I said before, you’re going to have to wait.

Dave on December 6, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for John

calm down, 2hotel9.  you seem agitated.

John on December 6, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Come on. We are waiting with bated breath. Where is it?

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Come on, babykiller. We are waiting.

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Come on, davey boy. Where is it?

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for Dave

Just a touch…

Dave on December 6, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Davey,davey,davey,davey,davey,davey,davey,davey,davey,davey,davey,davey........

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Avatar for Dave

I can’t wait to hear this dissembling bullshit.

You will.

Dave on December 6, 2005 at 06:13 pm
Avatar for Dave

Keep waiting.

Dave on December 6, 2005 at 06:13 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Well? Where is it motherfucker?

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 06:13 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Naw! Just bored with davey boy’s bullshit. I don’t buy his babykilling line. Don’t think he has the balls to kill anything.

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 06:13 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Including airstrikes and artillery, and accepting the baseline for males in 3rd world countries as producing 10 offspring, around 1,100. Give or take 20.

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 07:12 pm
Avatar for Dave

That’s two conservatives in favor of infanticide. Can I get another?

Dave on December 6, 2005 at 07:12 pm
Avatar for Dave

Zero, so far. And you?

Dave on December 6, 2005 at 07:12 pm
Avatar for Dave

I don’t buy his babykilling line. Don’t think he has the balls to kill anything.

So… you find killing infants to be a sign of masculinity?

And I thought my views were out of the mainstream!

Dave on December 6, 2005 at 07:13 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Not quite, davey. I have never advocated abortion on demand. You do.

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 07:13 pm
Avatar for robert108

It’s definitely not a sign of masculinity; women, through abortion kill more children than any man, including Stalin, Mao and Hitler.  It is a sign of resolve, though, like walking the talk you talk, Dave.

robert108 on December 6, 2005 at 07:13 pm
Avatar for Dave

Bravo! You’ve killed more infants than I have!

Dave on December 6, 2005 at 07:13 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

So how many have you killed?

2Hotel9 on December 6, 2005 at 07:13 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.