The Other Kind of Gender Equity: Why Are Men Not Thriving at Universities?

The evidence is conclusive: At colleges and universities in the United States, fewer boys than girls are applying for admission, being accepted for admission, matriculating, or graduating. In all of those activities, girls form a clear and growing majority. Among the boys who do matriculate, average grades are lower.

This trend is increasing.

In 2021, Douglas Belkin wrote:

In the next few years, two women will earn a college degree for every man, if the trend continues, said Douglas Shapiro, executive director of the research center at the National Student Clearinghouse.

Belkin described the situation in that year:

No reversal is in sight. Women increased their lead over men in college applications for the 2021-22 school year — 3,805,978 to 2,815,810 — by nearly a percentage point compared with the previous academic year, according to Common Application, a nonprofit that transmits applications to more than 900 schools. Women make up 49% of the college-age population in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau.

Since then, the trend has indeed continued. In 2024, the gender gap is larger than it was in 2021.

The statistical skew cuts across all the usual demographic variables: religion, income level, race, ethnicity, etc. The gender gap exists in a wide range of institutions: community colleges, four-year colleges, large universities.

Already in 2021, the female enrollment majority was nearly two-thirds of the student body, as Belkin writes:

The gender enrollment disparity among nonprofit colleges is widest at private four-year schools, where the proportion of women during the 2020-21 school year grew to an average of 61%, a record high, Clearinghouse data show. Some of the schools extend offers to a higher percentage of male applicants, trying to get a closer balance of men and women.

Some universities have made intentional efforts to recruit more boys and to lower admission standards slightly for boys. Despite such initiatives, the gender gap continues to increase. In 2024, the skew had indeed crossed the two-thirds mark on some campuses.

What’s to be done?

The causes of this inequity are several, and so the repair will involve more than one action. Social and cultural attitudes about masculinity will need to change. Secondary educational institutions will need to change: high school.

Educational institutions are resistant to meaningful change, and quick to embrace superficial gestures which look like change. What is needed in American high schools in order to fix the gender gap?

• Rigor
• Physicality
• Competition
• Structure
• Discipline

Male students respond positively to rigor, as do female students. But in the absence of rigor, male students disengage quickly, while female students will stay engaged longer. Why? The reason isn’t important; the observable, measurable, and quantifiable outcomes are. Rigor is when students receive curricular content, and their learning is measured by their abilities to demonstrate skills (“know how”) and comprehension (“know that”).

All students benefit from engaging in physical exercise, but boys show a bigger statistical bump when they have regular movement. This can be as simple as taking a walk, a bicycle ride, or a swim most days. Outside the United States, some schools devote 15 or 30 minutes to calisthenics each morning before instruction starts. The prevalence of high school athletics in the United States blurs the concept a bit: For students who aren’t interested in team sports, they need to understand that physical fitness can be obtained by simple daily routines like walking, and needn’t involve teams, games, coaches, and officials; for students who are on a school team, they need to remain active in their off seasons, and their coaches need to ensure that practice times regularly include cardiovascular workouts and aren’t merely strategy sessions in the locker room.

Boys are more likely to invest time, energy, and attention to content area learning when there is an element of competition. Best practices include acknowledging top performers (often in an “honor roll”); celebrating valedictorians; and publishing “rank in class” statistics at the end of the school year.

Structure helps all students, but especially boys. A school which emphasizes organizational habits, promptness, and routines builds a predictable environment. There can be exceptions, but they need to be few in number, and clearly announced as such. Even the arrangement of chairs and tables and desks in a classroom can communicate order or disorder; the former inspires achievement, while the latter encourages sloth.

Boys seek a clear understanding of discipline. Rules should be few, clear, and consistently enforced. Most boys, upon hearing or reading an instruction or a rule, ask silently, “and what happens if I don’t?” They will test the boundary to see if there is a prompt consequence for violation.

The gender gap poses a serious threat to America and to the credibility of America’s educational institutions. The statistics which reveal this gap are more significant than racial and income-related gaps. If the gap is not reduced or eliminated, society and the economy will pay a bitter price.

What We Know, and What We Fail to Do with That Knowledge: Marijuana in Schools

In many areas across the United States, the possession and use of THC and related substances for recreational purposes has been decriminalized, meaning that it is still a violation of federal law, but not a violation of local law, and that local law enforcement will not act on it, and local prosecutors will not prosecute it.

In most — all? — such places, it is stipulated that marijuana and related products will be sold only to those over the age of 21.

While the imposition of this age limit is well-intentioned, it is largely ineffective. Any sufficiently motivated high school student can find a way to obtain THC products, and the use of such products by underage individuals has increased both in high schools and in other locations.

The availability of “gummies” and baked goods and other edible products containing THC has changed how THC might be detected. In the past, marijuana most frequently smoked, and detection was based on odor and the presence of smoke, as well as paper, matches, and the marijuana itself.

The switch to edibles means that detection must pivot to devices which are able to detect THC, and perhaps also to animals trained to detect marijuana-related products.

There is no doubt, however, that documentation is growing, via research reports from universities and medical institutions, about the damage done by THC to young people.

THC has a different effect on people aged 25 and younger than it has on older people. Brain formation is still taking place up to the age of 25 or 26 — individuals vary slightly — and the introduction of various marijuana products into the bloodstream and into the brain steer that development away from its optimal trajectory. Numerous studies have shown not only correlation, but also causation, for outcomes like psychosis when THC is consumed by young people.

All of this is well known. Yet significant measures among high-school age students has yet to be taken. Parents, schools, and local law enforcement should be empowered to do more and encouraged to take meaningful action to reduce marijuana consumption among teenagers.

Now is not the time for timidity.

Educational Reform: When Everyone Knows What to Do, but Nobody Does It – Remove Smartphones from Schools

Often, changing an educational system is a contentious process, filled with passionate debate. Often, such changes require the commissioning of mountains of new research to inform any decision.

But sometimes, it’s simple and obvious.

Phrases like “settled science” and “professional consensus” are often overused, misused, and abused. But sometimes those phrases are accurate. Sometimes there really is a universal agreement — or one so statistically near universal that it counts as such.

Such is the case with electronics and young people. We don’t need one more research report on this. It is clear that smartphones, social media, and electronic gaming are harmful to young people: to their mental and physical health, as well as to their academic achievement.

The consensus is amazing: liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians, North and South, men and women, rich and poor, Republicans and Democrats, old and young; all religions, all races; all cultures; all ethnic groups. Everyone knows this.

But nobody does anything about it.

It would be a simple act: require students to turn in their smartphones at the beginning of the school day. They would receive them back on their way home at the end of the school day.

Yes, there would be a very small number of parents who’d make a very large amount of noise, protesting this. But the law is clear, and a school system could fend off any number of lawsuits about the topic.

And more than a few schools around the United States have already done this — public schools, private schools, charter schools — and done it successfully. The benefits among the student body are measurable and observable.

Yet the vast majority of schools have not yet done this. Why?

There is no doubt that confiscating the smartphones is good for the students. At some point in the future, questions will be asked about schools who failed to quickly adopt this most obvious of policies.