I hate to rain on John?s parade, but I have to strongly disagree with his column today. Having worked in higher education, it absolutely misses a key point. While there?s no lack of politically correct bizarreness at colleges and universities, at times schools do act like, well, businesses motivated by self-interest. And that’s the case with discriminating towards men.
Before becoming associate editor of CJ, I worked for two years in the institutional research department of an extremely well regarded liberal arts college. Working in IR, you gain an exceptional good understanding of the place: I was the guy that filled out the college?s federal and state surveys, did a fact booklet for use within the institution and was deeply involved in enrollment management issues.
Though we never sent out a press release stating as much, the dean of admissions most certain was under orders to aim for a 50/50 gender split in each incoming class. She succeeded. And despite our reputation, the incoming male students, though quite strong, still weren?t quite as strong as the females.
Now why the decision to take somewhat less-qualified females over males? John suggests that it?s a just another case of political correctness, the ultimate application of a quota mentality that views everything in terms of race, gender, and class.
Based upon my experience, and the conversations I had with people with the college at which I worked, all I can say is his analysis missing a key factor: alumni giving. Colleges and universities are non-profit businesses. Yes, businesses ? they actually do have budgets and things like that. And meeting that budget depends in part on alumni giving. And to let you in on a secret of the business, schools know that male alumni are more likely than there female counterparts to give and more likely to give more. Hence the desire the recruit males.
