>the norm is for colleges to apply a lower admission standard for boys than they do for girls.
Where are you getting this from? The data and all incentives going female>either>male would suggest otherwise, if it would suggest anything at all.
Where are you getting this from? The data and all incentives going female>either>male would suggest otherwise, if it would suggest anything at all.
Highly selective colleges that strive for parity must accomplish that by rejecting a few girls who would have gotten in on merit alone, and admitting a few boys who should have been the first ones out.
What incentives are you thinking of? What's the source of your data?
I don't know how they do it legally, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1681
> in regard to admissions to educational institutions, this section shall apply only to institutions of vocational education, professional education, and graduate higher education, and to public institutions of undergraduate higher education
Their researchers apply for grants. That is considered "funding". Enrolling students who have taken out student loans is also considered to be "goverment funding" for the school rather than the student.
Do you have a source for this?
If you think the data suggest that colleges are overall giving admissions preferences to females in favor of males, you haven't looked at the data.
>girls don't want to attend all-girl schools, so you can get higher overall female admissions by admitting some unqualified boys
This implies either unqualified boys are better attractors, or there not being enough qualified boys. I doubt either of those being true given tournament selection being omnipresent.
>you haven't looked at the data
The data most available shows admission rates to be fairly equal, with far more scholarships for girls in areas they lack presence than the other way around. The data on standards is practically invisible, and I'd be very skeptical of colleges publically admitting to sexism in today's age, let alone sexism in favor of boys. Openly doing so and not trying to change this is asking for a massive boycott.
> The data most available shows admission rates to be fairly equal, with far more scholarships for girls in areas they lack presence than the other way around. The data on standards is practically invisible
So you're saying... you haven't looked at the data, and that's why you're comfortable interpreting what it says.
Solid intellectual effort there.
> If this is public, surely you have some actual sources to verify this?
Indeed! You can find them yourself too, just look for any coverage of the issue over the last 20 years. I can't be responsible for everyone who wants to contradict stuff that's been known for decades. Get your own house in order.