Men 'out-performed at university'
Female students are ahead of men in almost every measure of UK university achievement, according to a report from higher education researchers.
A Higher Education Policy Institute report shows that women are more likely to get places in the top universities and go on to get better grades.
Women also outnumber men in high status subjects, such as law and medicine.
The institute's director, Bahram Bekhradnia, says the cause of this gender gap remains uncertain.
Women have been entering university in greater numbers than men in recent years - with the participation rate for young women standing at 49%, compared with 38% of young men.
'Good degrees'
The study disproves the notion that men dominate in the most highly-regarded subjects and institutions.
It found that women are taking more places at prestigious Russell Group universities and on the most sought-after courses.
The only exception is for Oxford and Cambridge, where men and women are now level.
There are also still some subject areas, such as courses related to maths, physics and technology, where men are in the majority.
But the overall picture shows a consistent trend in women substantially outnumbering men.
There are more women on part-time and full-time courses and women account for a higher proportion of younger and mature students.
In degree grades, women are more likely to gain "good degrees" - taking first class and upper seconds together - while men are more likely to gain lower seconds and thirds.
However male students still maintain a narrow lead in firsts - 13.9% to 13% of those who graduate.
According to the report, women's greater success in gaining university places and achieving better degrees extends across different social classes and ethnic groups.
Exam barrier
But finding the cause for this is less straightforward.
"We just don't know," said Mr Bekhradnia.
The introduction of GCSEs in the late 1980s coincided with the time that girls began to overtake boys in academic achievement.
However the report also shows that the greater success of women in education is a global pattern - suggesting it is more than the local circumstances of particular types of exam.
Another factor suggested in the gender gap is that boys' academic performance is weakening as much as girls' is improving.
A science test taken by 11 and 12-year-olds in the mid-1970s had been successfully passed by 54% of boys and 27% of girls.
When the same test was taken in 2003, the scores for both boys and girls had fallen to 17% - a much more rapid decline for boys.
While young women have been entering university in greater numbers and achieving academic success, too many young men have been underperforming, suggests the report.
And while there is still a "mindset that continues to see males as advantaged and females as disadvantaged... that is emphatically not the case in higher education".
In response to the report, a spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, said: "This government is committed to ensuring that everyone with talent and ability to succeed should be given the opportunity to do so whatever their background, gender or race.
"It is essential that we continue to tackle differences in aspirations, which is why outreach programmes such as Aimhigher seek to engage and inspire young boys to go to university through targeted activity around sport, science and music."
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8085011.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Our educational system is failing boys at an alarming rate. The results of lowering the social status of males to critical levels is now obvious.
And this is a men's only recession, too: 10% unemployment for men, only 8% unemployment for women.
When are men going to get sick of this and start acting in their collective interests, the way women have been doing for decades?
If only the problem were as simple as "misandry." Let us be frank with ourselves: for boys, it's generally not "cool" to study. Girls generally won't date guys who aren't "cool." Girls are looking for boys who have stereotypical "masculine" traits. What is comical is that feminists routinely insist that girls' problems historically are caused by their attempts to be acceptable to boys. The bigger problem right now probably is that boys mold their conduct -- and adopt all manner of "masculine" stereotypes (including a loathing for being considered a "bookworm") -- because that's what girls want.
The people who practice misandry don't recognize it has misandry, of course. But that's what it is.
For decades our society, our education system, our legal system, etc. have been kicking men in the face, and now men are falling behind. What will happen eventually? They'll turn to crime. That's what happens to men who aren't given the tools they need to succeed.
The tools that they have been deprived of include the right to fair and equal treatment by the legal system and the right to a strong family structure. These men who grow up in the ghettos without a father never had a chance, and now the system is profiting from them. These horrible people get paid whenever another man is locked up.
In college, my professors were tripping over each other to coddle, and nurture girls educations (while near neglecting the males).
I have heard it say that there are many incompetent doctors now that would have flunked med school, but they were women, and professors rarely flunk women, for fear of a accusation of sexism.
To say that the American educational system is sexist against women..is "Faulty and inflammatory agitation propaganda"!!
The education system is sexist against men. It's run by a bunch of liberals who don't believe there's any such thing as misandry.
I think we are missing the larger issue if we think that teaching at the university level coddles women, etc. From the time they enter school, boys are taught -- by other boys and girls -- that it's not "cool" to study. That's the heart of it. Most profs at our universities have no time to wallow in the feminist tar pit, and very few of them play favorites when it comes to gender. See my comment above -- I think that we are all overlooking a very obvious point.
"Boys are stupid; throw rocks at them."
Pierce, you have a great point, that modern society teaches young boys that if they want girls, they need to be bad boys. I will suggest the current social situation (dynamic) stems at least a little,from mens loss of social networks,in the 50's. The Elks club, moose clubs ect. ect. were broken by the feminist chant"Break the patriarchy".
I believe if you take away mens social networks ""Break The Patriarchy""..you manifest all kinds of anti-social perversions, and criminal behaviors. Welcome to the broken patriarchy.
My oldest and youngest children are 8 years apart.
The social changes between my older daughter and youngest son are breathtaking in scope.
In my daughter's 5th grade class, I remember the teacher lining up the 'smartest boys' in the front row, and for everyone else it was catch as catch can. Her 7th grade teacher recommend a book "Reviving Ophelia" to explain my daughter's disenchantment with school. Boys made top grades, and were the 'star' in athletics and class plays.
By the time my youngest son entered middle school, girls were top grade earners. My son was a 'smart' kid, but intentionally kept his grade lowered - he didn't want the negative attention. School plays featured girls, choir groups always featured girls - boys were uncooperative and given small roles.
My son was accepted into an 'Ivy league of the West' school, and utterly hates it. His grades are 'up there' and he's doing well, but he feels women's interests are promoted, and as a white male he is the source of all things that are wrong.
This turn about occurred in less than a decade.
I remember seeing a commercial on television that depicted a little girl standing on the sidewalk of a busy city. She was looking at street advertisements showing very slim women (fashion models) in various poses. The message of the commercial, that lasted about forty five seconds, was this: "Now, more than ever, girls are under inimagineable pressure to fit in". I have seen no commercial that addresses the ever growing pressures that have been,and still are being, exerted on men and boys.
I never have understood why so many people think women have been treated like this in the past. Things were simply different in the past - women have for the most part, not been 'kept from' going to school or getting a job. In fact my mom made a career out of computer programming (I am a baby boomer). Women have never been systematically kept from advancing.
(Maybe one of the reasons my mom got so far was she did not sit around whining how she had it so bad. The way I remember it, she didn't even like feminists."
The belief that women have had it rough in the past is mostly due to feminist re-writing and revision of history, combined with the ready willingness of many women to see themselves as 'victims' of something - It gives them something to unite over..."woe is us - we are oppressed."
My mom lived by the philosophy that, "The only barrier to you is YOU". Unfortunately all women have managed to do since the 60's is look in the most remote possible corners for any whiff of an external 'barrier'...then they can say, "see!" We have become a nation of victims.
okay, now I just read Sgt. Mom's entry. You, madam, have a totally wrong picture of things if you think this has been a 'pendulum swing'. The fact that boys were at the head of the class had nothing to do with coddling boys, or anti-girl education, or any of that nonsense.(as opposed to the situation today with girls).
It just seems that way to you because you can only see the surface appearance of things...your logic, if I am not mistaken, is,
"okay, we have made education girl-friendly, so now girls are doing better than boys. Therefore, I conclude that since boys were doing better than girls in the past, education in the past MUST have been boy-friendly (i.e. 'anti-girl')."
That is self-evidently piss-poor logic. Anyone who thinks it through can see this is so.
"When are men going to get sick of this and start acting in their collective interests, the way women have been doing for decades?"
Feminism does not act in the best interests of the average woman. It is an elitist movement into which many millions of common women have beed duped into supporting.
It seems as if feminists want to hang a plaque that reads "opressed" around the neck of every woman and girl and, carve the word " victim " on their foreheads.
"I never have understood why so many people think women have been treated like this in the past."
I agree, Norm. The division of labor by gender was by mutual consensus. Do they really think it was the MEN'S idea to risk their lives fighting the wild bull, fighting in every war through history and dying in dangerous mines and mills -- while the women stayed in the safety of the home with the children. Puh-lease!
And that leads me to the whole notion of "undeserved" privileged. "Undserved"? You're kidding me, right?
In the past, girls were being groomed to do the work that had to be done, and that included a lot of work in the home. This wasn't oppression but economic necessity.
But the only work that many boys are being prepared for today is a life of crime and incarceration.
As mentioned, housework was greatly preferable to fighting in wars, mining, farming, and the other dirty and dangerous jobs that men had to do.
I don't know why we aren't talking about how women have always had it better than men instead of the other way around.
I don't know why we aren't talking about how women have always had it better than men instead of the other way around.
Anon,
I've had this argument with many women before, and the one thing they always trot out, is that the laws were geared toward men, and that it prevented women from owning property (which is false). What they don't realize, is that those laws were geared toward WEALTHY men, not men in general, and that 98% of men weren't wealthy, and had to work in those dangerous jobs.
Women had the vote before a lot of men, they still don't have to register for the selective service (don't hear feminism fighting for that 'privilege'), 92% of workplace deaths are men (so much for equality), men die on average 7 years earlier, men are diagnosed and die from cancer in greater numbers than women, etc., ad naseum.
What the majority of women today, who have never been oppressed, are continuing, is the victim mantra started by feminism. And you can't be strong and empowered, and still be the victim. More and more people are waking up to this double dipping BS every day. That is why there has been such a concerted push for things like VAWA/IMBRA/Title IX etc. They are trying to hang on to the power that modern feminism has gained, and they are criminilizing men to do it, with the support of the idiots in power (Federal/State government), who know where the majority of their votes come from.
The one thing that men in this country, and other western countries, will have to do, is break down the barries and start working together in greater numbers. That is the only way to break the stranglehold that modern feminism has on our society.
is break down the barries and start working together in greater numbers.
should read:
is break down the barriers and start working together in greater numbers.
And then they point to the same idiots in power -- the ones who are giving us the shaft -- and hold them up as proof that society is choking their cherries. After all, most of them are men, right?
The sole reason politicians pander to women is that WOMEN IDENTIFY AS A GROUP BUT WHITE MEN DON'T. It's that crass -- they are buying votes. These politicians couldn't care less about chivalry or feminism or anything else. Only when men start to identify as a group will they pay attention to us.
Well. Not so fast there, guys.
You ever see the Charlie Brown cartoon where Sally,his little sister, declares she doesn't need to know math? She has "naturally curly hair" and plans on being a housewife, so why does she need math?
OF COURSE education was geared toward future bread winners.
I'm a math moron, but I am capable of writing.
My husband is a math whiz, but can't write or spell his way out of the 3rd grade.
He attended Loyola University, I went to Community College.
I wrote every assignment he ever turned in. He coached me in math.
He ALWAYS got an A+. One professor even called our home for him, asking me "What's he
REALLY like? He writes BEAUTIFULLY!"
Me? Sometimes I got A's, but mostly B's. No professor seemed particularly impressed.
It's just the way it was back then.
Women were encouraged to pursue higher education to keep up with their intelligent husbands - so as not to be 'left behind'.
This isn't a 'right or wrong' thing here. It was merely the times - promoted as much by women as men.
I'm 55 years old, and remember everyone snubbing another little girl "because her mother works".
Working mothers were declasse.
I remember my Dad's buddies discussing whether or not they would 'let' their wives work.
My father exhorted me to go to college so I wouldn't wind up "pregnant, barefooted and in the kitchen". "Don't be DEPENDANT!"
"Like your mother" was left unsaid.
There's no need to rewrite history.
We need men in general to identify as a group. Racial tensions are a part of what keeps us divided, to the benefit of female supremists.
Wouldn't it be something if oppression of men is what leads to the true end of racism?
About working women, the feminist revenge for this was the humiliate the women who did choose to stay at home and care for their families. By degrading these women they helped force women into the workplace, where they've been miserable ever since.
My Dad 'let' my mother go to work.
My husband 'let' me stay home during my kid's tender years.
THAT'S a pendulum swing, baby!
And you are right. Women who chose to stay home were treated as third class citizens.
My husband was a blue collar worker - it was rough on us both.
He once worked 10 months straight without a day off so I could be home with the kids. He's worked 25 years at a thankless job because it had good medical benefits.
I sewed my kids clothes - this was before all the textile mills moved to China, and homemade clothes were economical. I didn't have a car. No one else on the block stayed home, I was isolated and lonely. I didn't sit around watching Oprah with my labor saving devices. We bought old run down houses in good neighborhoods, and I learned to skim coat and sand walls, tile floors, replace toilets and sinks.
Even though I earned far more money by 'sweat equity' in our homes than I would at any job, I was chastised by my mother in law as a 'lady of leisure', and people often asked "Why don't you HELP your husband?"
I could have dumped my kids in daycare and not made a penny 'working' after paying daycare, clothes, cars, expenses, but I didn't.
I cut my own hair, quit wearing 39 cent nail polish, fell out of fashion and lost touch with society.
I have no retirement, or social security to speak of. I don't have years of experience at any job. If my husband left me or died, I would have been screwed.
All for what?
Three great kids, and a family that made it through these bad times.
That's what.
Wouldn't change a thing.
"My Dad 'let' my mother go to work.
"My husband 'let' me stay home during my kid's tender years."
What does that mean, the 'pendulum swung' in your family?
The notion of pendulum swings regarding gender issues is a figment of someone's imagination, just like the concept of a 'patriarchy'.
And, of course it makes sense to 'gear education to[ward] the bread winner' - thank you, I agree, that helps clarify my earlier post.
Another problem here is generalizing from personal experience. When you mix that with revising history, it's a recipe for gross misunderstanding and extremely faulty logic.
I could have pointed out above that my mom's dad would prefer women stay in the home, but for every case like that, there were, and still are, a thousand cases of 'men had better work'. And I didn't see my grandmother complain too much about being oppressed, when my grand-dad's railroad retirement enable her to play bridge, watch soap opera's, volunteer at the library, and still have time for a nap every day.
As Steve Moxon has said, women's motto these days is "We can do it!!" But Moxon asks, do they really WANT to? My message to women is "quit talkin' and start chalkin'" Walk the walk, or leave us men alone so we can 'run the world'.
That is why they call it "the woman racket" - White Western women are the only class of people in history who can live in someone else's castle and drink tea, while writing books about how they are oppressed.
I find it interesting that SgtMom thinks that men are always in control no matter how society changes and no matter how common divorce becomes. Husbands don't "let" their wives do anything any more. In fact, wives "let" their husbands remain free citizens by kindly refraining from making up false rape accusations against them. All of the power is now in the hands of the woman, who may or may not choose to abuse their power.
And there is absolutely nothing stopping a woman from leaving her husband and doing any old thing she pleases, so spare us the female helplessness myth.
Anonymous said...
I find it interesting that SgtMom thinks that men are always in control no matter how society changes and no matter how common divorce becomes.
I think it interesting that Anonymous puts word in my mouth because HE misread them.
I have never once said or implied that 'men are always in control'.
It's a HISTORICAL fact, however, that women working outside the home is a RECENT occurrence - 'recent' meaning in the last 40 years.
It's also a historical fact that men were resistant to the idea - they WANTED Grandma to stay home and play bridge. One income was generally enough to suffice.
I was around for that painful transition, and it was common to hear men say "I LET my wife go back to work".
It was UNUSUAL for women to work outside the home in my mother's era.
As a young mother, my husband sacrificed tremendously to 'let' me stay home.
It was UNUSUAL for a woman NOT to work outside the home in my era. Two incomes barely suffice.
THAT is a pendulum swing. Like it or not.
Anonymous says" As mentioned, housework was greatly preferable to fighting in wars, mining, farming, and the other dirty and dangerous jobs that men had to do.
If housework was so greatly preferable to 'dirty dangerous' jobs, men would be doing housework in droves.
And so would women.
For being touted as such a great job, it's strange so few want to do it.
I was a homemaker for 16 years.
I LOVED finally going back to 'work', just to get some REST!
My brother's wife is a Doctor, and he tried the Mr. Mom route for 7 years.
Once the kids were in school, he got a dirty dangerous low paying job.
Not because he HAD to, but because he WANTED to.
There's a very old saying "He who holds the purse holds the whip".
No matter how 'good' the wage earner is, this is always true.
'Resistance to change' does not equal 'oppression'. Feminists have coaxed us into believing they are the same.
Norm said...
'Resistance to change' does not equal 'oppression'. Feminists have coaxed us into believing they are the same.
Tell that to Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks.
"Resistance to change" does not equal "racism". Civil Rights advocates have coaxed us into believing they are the same.
Isn't the current feminist's "resistance to change" regarding false rape accusations oppressive to YOU, Norm?
I have a brilliant idea about an application I want to install on my Blackberry and my Iphone. I searched everywhere on line (figuratively) and cannot find a developer specifically for PDA application development. Do they exist, and where can I find them?
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]best forex software[/url] [url=http://technologysolutions.org/index.php?action=profile;u=102]unlock iphone[/url]
great forum, i wish i found it earlier...
[url=http://blackhattitude.blackhattitude.org]superrefman[/url]
bangladesh doesn't have any forex broker house. but i want to invest in forex. how can i do that.can i play that from malaysia as a student visa holder or business visa holder.
[url=http://ecpc10.ru/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=20434]best forex software[/url]
Hey!
I'm new at trading forex and looking for advice.
What strike me is how much $$$$ I have been able to make.
The last 4 days I have made more than 9000 euros using [url=http://www.forex-fx-forex.info]this easy tool[/url].
My question to you is:Will this trading success really last?
Any feeback are much appreciated.
Pls PM
Post a Comment