In May, the Minnesota Office of Higher Education posted the inevitable culmination of a trend: Last year for the first time, women earned more than half the degrees granted statewide in every category, be it associate, bachelor, master, doctoral or professional.Nice lede, jackholes. And the rest of the story is just as appalling, with absolutely no reference to the fact that often men without a degree can make just as much or more money than women with a degree. Until women don’t need to rack of up four years of schooling and the associated debts just to find commensurate employment with men who only graduated high school, there’s no reason to get a case of the vapors over the fact that men aren’t earning as many degrees. The game is structured so that women have to have more education to be competitive, so all these calls for affirmative action for men in college placement programs is either overtly or unintentionally supporting the idea that men must be given special privileges so…they can continue to have special privileges, like making more money than their female cohorts with the same amount of education.
Cause for celebration - or for concern?
Meanwhile, if I were a dude, I would be furious with a statement like this:
For his part, author Gurian says one reason colleges may fail to attract more men is precisely because they are more geared to female learning styles and interests. Colleges that want to compete for the dwindling pool of men should emphasize male interests, such as sports, he says, and offer more male role models.Yeah, because guys can’t handle book-learnin’ without proximity to a ball and a field on which to fight other guys for it.
I’m sure you’ll be shocked to find out that Gurian “synthesizes science and religion, and applies them both to child care.” Not that you’d find that out from USAToday.
(Listen to Gurian’s bloviations, like how anorexia is a disease of loneliness, here.)