I was taken aback by a Wall Street Journal article that popped up on my Facebook feed recently. First, because the article said that men make up only 40.5% of current college students, with trends suggesting that the percentage will get even lower. And, second, because something noteworthy actually showed up on my Facebook feed. (Must click on 20 Celebrities Who Were Bad People in Real Life).
According to the Journal (which I never read), women made up 59.5% of college students at the close of the last academic year. Six years after enrolling, 65% of those women earned their degrees, as opposed to 59% of men. Overall, US colleges lost 1.5M students over the last 5 years, with men accounting for 71% of that decline. A pretty dismal picture for those with the Y.
I am struggling to understand what is behind this trend. I can appreciate why the number of women getting degrees has increased. It wasn’t that long ago when career opportunities for women were limited, and while the glass ceiling still exists, at least now the doors to the atrium are open, and the ceiling itself has significant cracks. It makes sense that women are taking advantage of those opportunities.
We as a society have also encouraged women to fulfill their potential. Over the last 20 or so years there has been a push to let girls know that they can achieve and succeed in whatever field they choose. For example, the Journal cites the proliferation of support groups for women on campuses across the country, helping women thrive in college once they are there.
All of that was needed to rectify historic inequalities. But how does that explain boys’ failure to continue to take advantage of the opportunities they have? It isn’t as if increasing access for women means that men are now cut off from academia, or are being shut out of the job market once they graduate. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 89% of men 25 – 34 graduating from college are employed, as opposed to 83% of women, and the long-term earning potential of those with degrees continues to be significantly higher for those with a college degree. So, it isn’t as if college has become a waste of time for men.
Are boys put off by the increased competition? Are they so used to having the upper hand in the battle of the sexes (God, I hate that phrase) that they are not willing to even try now that the playing field is leveling? That seems too facile an explanation. I don’t see a generation throwing up its hands because others around them have the same ability to achieve their goals as well. If that’s the case, it would be pathetic.
Maybe the whole idea of setting goals at 18 is the problem. It is axiomatic that girls mature faster than boys (certainly seemed that way to me growing up). Perhaps boys are just not responding as well to a world where college is so expensive that going in with only a vague notion of where you want to be four years later is riskier, and girls are better equipped to handle that pressure. But that seems too simple. How many 18-year kids, either boy or girl, know what that want out of life, and when has that ever been an excuse for not pushing ahead anyway?
The Journal suggests that boys have more distractions now, with the prevalence of video games and on-line porn, and that may be having an impact. Statistics do show that boys are more likely than girls to be gamers, and the same is undoubtedly true for on-line porn. However, there have always been distractions. Before the internet and gaming there was TV. I know there’s a difference, but I find it hard to believe that gamers are that much more obsessed, though I must admit that I am not willing to totally dismiss the internet as irrelevant.
I do wonder whether we, as a society, are properly encouraging boys to succeed. We have focused on making sure that girls know that they have a wide field of achievement ahead of them, but are we doing the same for boys? The Journal article cites a counselor at the University of Vermont who proposed a men’s center for the campus similar to women’s centers, but he couldn’t get the funding because, he says, the boys were still considered the most privileged group on campus, and therefore not in need of such support. While that has been historically true, the numbers suggest that it still may not be the case.
Let’s face it, every kid needs a boost. Especially now. We cannot forget how difficult the teen years are. How self-doubt is an inevitable part of the landscape. How the future can seem a void. How the idea of matching the things that our parents have provides little incentive. That sense of hopelessness seems to have gotten worse, and unless we counteract it by positive reinforcement, it can be infectious. Women have done that over the last 20 years, so it is possible.
The other response to this trend may be, so what. After all, the balance was the other way, and much worse, for many years, and we didn’t seem to care. Why should we now? Is concern about women achieving academically more than men, just repressed misogyny?
I don’t know the answer to that question. I just know that as a man who has always loved learning, and the father of boys, I am concerned. I don’t think that we can afford to leave potential on the table, whether it’s from boys or girls. I also think that we are better off with a society where everyone is incentivized to rise to their potential. Maybe those are silly, utopian, notions, but they are mine.
I wonder if lowering the cost of school might help. I think college isn’t perceived as the road to golf as it once was and vocational and other opportunities are probably also needed. I also wonder if on average boys are less resilient than girls – especially at that age. It’s a conundrum
I have no doubt it would help. The perception of college has certainly changed. I do think those other opportunities are needed, but will people take advantage of them? I’m not sure.
We need plumbers and electricians and they make more per hour than bankers and lawyers!
I agree, and if boys were opting out of college to go into those professions, it would not be a problem. It’s just not what I see. It’s like boys are not going to college and settling for Amazon jobs instead. Hopefully, I’m wrong.
Totally agree with TR. Over the past many years vocational training has been defunded in our our public school systems. The focus of our current system pushes many into college-based tracks who would have been much better served for themselves, and our society as a whole, to become the plumbers, electricians, mechanics & builders we surely need.
Next, and most important to me, boys are not given the Rights of Passage to enter into the mature masculine. Mr UVA prof was right. This is a huge lack in our society & it shows. To feel boys can handle this on their own is dangerous in so many ways. There are hundreds of organizations out there which provide the opportunity but even these are considered a new agey fluff events.
I am a part of such an org. for boys 13-18. What we find is that there is just no education on how the Four Male Archetypes show up for these boys. Where does a boy even become aware of the archetype, never mind the way the shadow side of these show up.
To use ‘Warrior’ as an example., In a four part series on the archetypes of mature masculinity based on the book King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette. Moore. It argues that “The Hero’s loyalty…is really to himself–to impressing himself with himself and to impressing others.” The Warrior’s loyalties, on the other hand, “are to something beyond and other than himself and his own concerns.” The Warrior’s loyalty centers on “a cause, a god, a people, a task, a nation–larger than individuals.” The Hero is accessed by boys to become free of their mothers and to prove worth in their environment. But to hold this into adulthood is a shadow expression.
For example, since the social and cultural revolutions of the 60s and 70s, we’ve generally taught boys and men to avoid confrontation and conflict and to instead nurture their “feminine side.” The result is the Nice Guy; the man who will avoid confrontation and aggression even when confrontation and aggression are justified. Society pushes men to be sweet and sensitive, because they fear them becoming coldly stoic, abusive, and destructively angry. But society’s perception of the Warrior archetype is not based on the Warrior energy in its full, healthy manifestation, but on the archetype’s shadows. The problem is not Warrior energy itself, but Warrior energy that is not used in harmony with the other masculine archetypes and directed by empathy, contemplation, and order. Fighting itself is not bad, the question is simply: What is a man fighting for? The Warrior’s energy is needed not only in times of war, but on all the battlefields of life. The Warrior in his fullness is purposeful, mindful, adaptive, minimalist, decisive, skillful, loyal & disciplined.
I’m sure most boys are confused. Where are boys to go through this right of passage and get understanding ? As Mr UVA Prof experienced, the thought of even having programs to assist with these transitions is considered by many as a wussy or entitled event for I hear, “Just man up!” … and off to college they go.
Sorry I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Can I use “For example” just a few more times? 😂
Oh crap.. University of Vermont (UVM) Not University of Virginia (UVA)
I thought of you when I wrote this, and I agree with what you’re saying. The question is how to have that flow down through society
generally.
Take a deep breath…it’s happening. I agree, the awareness & pace is much too anemic. To your question? First, become aware. Read the book. See the Mature Male in yourself. Use that info to promote to others. Next? How about volunteering at https://thelaunchpadteencenter.org/ ?