“The number of men enrolled at two- and four-year colleges has fallen behind women by record levels, in a widening education gap across the U.S.”
“A Generation of American Men Give Up on College: ‘I Just Feel Lost’”
More at The Wall Street Journal.
Two thoughts:
- This is a bad thing. Boys and young men have been ill-served by mainstream education, such that they are unmotivated and unprepared for life’s challenges — and they know it in their bones.
- This is a good thing. Rather than waste two or four more years of the same at colleges and universities that extend the mis-education, the young men will gropingly get into real life and actually find something engaging and valuable to do.
Choice:
Update: This sentence strikes me as especially important — “Women increased their lead over men in college applications for the 2021-22 school year—3,805,978 to 2,815,810” — as it suggests that the approximate 3:2 ratio of women-to-men is about what happens before college age. The college enrollment and completion rates are a downstream phenomenon.
Isn’t there a third thought worth having? Couldn’t it be that what Mill said in “The Subjection of Women” about the boys and men of nineteenth century Britain is also true of boys and men (of all socio-economic classes) in the 21st century United States? Namely: that they’re systematically irresponsible and lazy, and have internalized a sense of entitlement that’s incompatible with success in any domain–except those where they enjoy substantial advantages simply for being male. The article itself lends support to this thought.
The article notes, somewhat pathetically, that there’s a “thumb on the scale” for men in the college admissions process. The Wall Street Journal, famous for its criticisms of race-based affirmative action, seems not to have much of a problem with this. No one quoted in the article is willing to come out and condemn affirmative-action-for-boys in a wholehearted way. Evidently, the reporter couldn’t find anyone to do so. Too bad they don’t have my contact information. But affirmative-action-for-boys certainly doesn’t cohere with the thought that men are ill-served by higher education. It sounds more like they’re being catered to.
The “lost boys” phenomenon is not a “bad thing” in a sense that entails a criticism of how “ill served” they’ve been higher education. “Knowing in one’s bones” that one has been ill-served is in no better than “knowing in one’s blood,” the claim notoriously made by partisans of ethnic identity politics (including white nationalists and Zionists). None of that is knowledge. It sounds more like a bunch of gut-level rationalizations for defects of character. I’ve seen no credible evidence that males have been ill-served by higher education, just a lot of hand-waving and whining to that effect. (Which includes this article.)
Anyone will be “ill served” by higher education if what they’re expecting is to be served in the literal sense of that word. And in my experience in higher education–26 years’ worth–many, many college-aged men did expect (and do expect) just that. I still have pro bono academic advisees from my career as a college instructor. All of them are women. The difference between these women and the men described in the article is that they didn’t “give up” after a few weeks of college on the premise that because they didn’t understand the material, it must surely all be pointless. People do that when they upgrade their blank ignorance and turn it into knowledge, a common character defect among men.
Nor is the “lost boys” phenomenon a “good thing” that suggests that these same shiftless boys and men will profit from trade school. They won’t profit from any school unless they cultivate a desire to learn, something many of them lack. Eventually girls and women will find their way into these same male-dominated trade schools. I wonder if, at that point, we’ll begin to hear whining complaints about how these incoming women have overtaken men, leaving them “lost” as a result.
You’re apt to feel lost in life if your moral GPS is off. I was an academic advisor to countless students, male and female. I can’t even begin to recount the nonsense I heard from male college students about their aspirations for life and expectations of the future. When they were able to think past tomorrow’s sexual conquest or bong hit, their beliefs about the future descended into a series of materialistic fantasies that would somehow come to pass by magic.
The article talks about how men are “hobbled” but is itself hobbled by a blatant contradiction. On the one hand, it tells us that the malaise that affects men affects men of all socio-economic classes. On the other hand, it tells us that men are hobbled by the focus on “historically underrepresented students.” I find all of that frankly laughable, but even if it were true, it doesn’t explain why women in those groups outperform the men in them, as they do.
This article, unimportant in itself, is symptomatic of an amazing double standard in right-wing polemics. On the one hand, the political Right is fixated on the idea that merit has been undervalued, a fixation that becomes particularly intense when anti-meritocratic claims are made by underrepresented minorities. On the other hand, when the most privileged youngsters in the land start to fall on their faces for reasons of their own making, the Right is there to issue hand-wringing grievances on their behalf. These are all symptoms of a movement that, despite its high-toned moral talk, has essentially lost its moral bearings–a movement as lost as the boys it’s worried about.
I think you read a different article than I did, Irfan. The article’s implication is not about what happens in higher education so much as what happens prior to higher education. It notes that about three women apply to college for every two men, which suggests that the decisive shaping is before college. The lower college enrollment rates and lower graduation rates of males relative to females is then a symptom of much earlier causes. So: “What’s happening with children and adolescents?” not “What’s happening with in higher education?” is the question.
I’ve responded here:
https://irfankhawajaphilosopher.com/2021/10/10/the-lost-boys/
Four points … I will address only the male situation.
ONE
1. College education works best for the mature and focused, or the conformist and focused. At least some of these men will get a grip on themselves in the late 20’s and early 30’s and make a wise choice about getting a college education, that is, getting it with three conditions: … 1. At minimum cost for the outcome, or it’s free (as with many community colleges, or through an employer)… Some will attend community college, then transfer to a 4 year. And some will pick up an income producing skill at community college (a computer related certificate, for instance, 4 to 6 courses) and still make money while attending 4 yr college. I recommended this route for some men form relatively poor families. They picked up a certificate, worked full time for a year, then went to college while earning very good money PT and over the summer. Lol, the certificate route also worked for liberal arts grads for a 4 yr college. … 2. At college there are some things to study out of sheer interest, not economic gain … 3. At college there are some things to study that are for economic gain and hold at least some interest. … Left out is the social dimension of college. That’s a tricky thing to evaluate for the late college entrant. But if the person chooses a campus college or a local community college, the social might be satisfied by getting active in a school activity or two. or the person may already have a satisfactory social life. BTW, many men in college would benefit at lot more if they delayed college for 2-5 years. Or if parents refused to keep paying and made the kids take a job if the students did not apply themselves. as in the old days when this was common.
TWO
Perhaps a new type of college is needed as an option.: College Camp. A 2 or 4 year residential college with military like structure and physical drills and challenges. Auch a college might evn have a socialist or explicit left wing or right wing or moderate orientation. God knows left wingers need to learn survival skills if capitalism is truly to collapse. And being able to use some of the new construction methods and ownership models to build affordable housing for themselves and others. Lees intenet chatter, more competing with the right wing on useful skills. Not for everyone, but then the current standard college model is not for everyone and most of the alternative models seem to cater to the upper middle class.
THREE
The University of People (UofP) is an accredited free college online. Poking around at such a college, free, might enable some of the unfocused/unmotivated to discover something they that actually motivates them. I could see a small group of males enroll, take at least some courses together, and create their own little dorm (shared housing).
FOUR
If somewhat knowledgeable adults would sit and talk with these guys It would turn out that they just might be interested in one of these options (or other ones). Some, for instance, might decide to learn German so they could attend a German university free. The German govt actually helps with the acquisition of the German language. I am 80 and part of sparking my day is to follow a variety of creative people and young people on TikTok and the German guys are a lot of fun. Plus beautiful cities. Lol, i do not post. No need to bore people. Yet weirdly I have a lot of followers. I do occasionally comment.
As for the failure of lower education to engage guys:
1. In my grade school (all boys) we did vigorous exercises every 30-40 minutes, sometime sooner if attention waned. 10-15 minute bursts. Why was this done? According to the school you “could not expect boys to sit still for long periods of time.” … We had weekly “must learn goals” … When the smart kids learned by Tues or Wed they tutored the other students. Diagnostic quizzes were given to identify areas where more/better work needed to be done. The teachers lectured some, acted as coaches some for student learning actions. The nuns and brothers made great drill instructors. The “effeminate” boys enjoyed the exercises just much as the “hardy” boys. P.S. Bullying was not in the least tolerated.
2. In HS we often had to work as teams at a black board (on 3 walls in our school). The teacher stood in the middle, observing, sometimes coaching but more often directing one team to comment on what another team was doing.
3. When I taught I would project student writing on a wall (I could not stand screens) for editing – grammar, style, sentence structure, flow, etc. The students (male and female) loved it and could be as noisy as they wanted.
4. From my grade school I adapted Skip Drills. For instance, one student would read a sentence from a paragraph. The next had to reduce it to one word. The next had to construct a sentence with the same meaning as the original sentence. Done rapidly. This worked fine when I taught at an expensive Manhattan private school and a school for high school drop-outs (mostly from public projects, mixed race, male and female) in the Boston area.
5. I used other “active” learning methods. As a result in one class at the expensive private school where parents were able to sit in one some classes a mafia don offered me a big job running one of their “legitimate” business, not involvement with the “other stuff.” They would sent me to Columbia law school as prep. I had the test scores so they would have no problem getting me in. Not me, I seemed to prefer relataive poverty.
6. In my academically demanding HS the students in many classes were assigned certain classes to teach. Of course your friends would think up challenging questions to embarrass you. Great fun. In lit classes you could make up bizarre interpretations or serious ones. Your call. A lot of work but could be fun.
I enjoyed reading this comment, John. Thanks.
Perhaps this gets started in the high-chair. Males, by their very nature tend to score lower in emotional intelligence than females. Mother’s have abandoned the role of at home motherhood by choice or economic need, leaving little boys to be raised by daycare and sitters, very often with no father at all in the picture, or an absent father detached by his own pursuits, leaving little boys adrift into teendom largely influenced by social media, porn and video games. Living life behind the screen has stunted their emotional and psychological growth even further. These now young men find themselves awash with apathy, a sense of lingering de-motivation, made worse by the feelings of shame and disappointment. I think this down turn can be attributed to unintentional parenting of boys. No one nurtured them in their emotional and psychological growth! They never grew up or matured. They are stuck!
Many relevant comments about this development. My own experience is somewhat opposite to what is happening now, and so is my recommendation.
I skipped two grades/years and graduated from college as an engineer at age 20. Realized in senior year that I lacked maturity and decided to go out and get experience instead of following several recommendations to get a Phd. Best decision I ever made. Never got the Phd. because I took advantage of several engineering job opportunities resulting in living in Europe for five years and after some challenging times, maturing. Based on that experience went back to school to get an MBA. This time in school I was older than almost everyone but noticed that now
I was the more mature student. I spoke with a class mate who was 55 years old about her perspective on going to school as an older person.
We had both thought we would be struggling to keep up with the younger generation but that was not the case because of our life experience and resulting
maturity. We knew why were were in school. After the MBA I was a CPA, management accountant, project manager (working again in Europe for four years,
consultant, and finally teaching in a state university.
During my 14 years of teaching at graduate and undergraduate levels, I was very comfortable giving students career advice and got a lot of positive feedback.
I am now retired but have thought about this situation for many years. While I was never in the military (because of draft deferments due to critical skills needed to
work on government military contracts) over the years I spoke with many people who were in the military. While I felt the results for them were mixed, I
came to the conclusion that mandatory military service (two to four year draft) would be the best solution to a lot of the problems we have today in the USA, including
the decline of young men entering college. Don’t get me wrong, the military has lots of serious problems, some of which stem from the lack of education of people joining.
The military would have to modify its current approach in order to be able to help develop reasoning skills in the large number of people who as teens severely lack
discipline and basic education skills (reading, writing, math, science, oral presentations). They are the only institution that has the infrastructure and funding to do that in a reasonable time. We can lo longer rely on the schools to do this, not because of the teachers, but in my opinion because of the convoluted administration resulting from education and government officials who lack real world experience. It would take at least a generation to straighten things out. The same would be said of federal government who is for the most part mired in corruption and with leadership lacking basic business experience and focused on political gain
I speak a foreign language and have lived many years outside of the US and so have a different perspective than many.
I am concerned for my grandchildren about the path the US is taking. I wish everyone the best. They key is returning to the basics and using all of the
technological advancements with common sense, consistently applied.
Here’s a good piece on the earlier-in-the-education-pipeline problem: https://www.city-journal.org/where-the-boys-arent.
Kay Hymowitz: “Boys have lower grades than girls throughout their primary and secondary school years. They have more behavior problems. Boys are more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder; to wind up in special-education classes; and to be held back, be suspended, or drop out. Hence, they’re less likely to graduate from high school. In fact, the high school graduation gap between girls and boys is within a hair of the gap between poor and middle-class kids. Along with their subpar overall college graduation numbers, boys now constitute a minority of M.A.s and Ph.D.s and of medical and law students.”