[The Beast1]

I have just about been fed up with this myth that more women in college means that women are smarter than men.

In reality, the majority of those women are majoring in some BS liberal arts degree or worse getting a useless degree in communications.

I don't get why more people do not mention this. Any degree that does not fall under the STEM umbrella is a joke.In my experience, my learning officially stopped after freshmen year of college where I then became adept in bullshit management. Spewing out research papers asking the same tired questions and following the same formula to churn out a joke of an assignment that was graded at 94% or higher.

The "abstract" thinking these classes require is pathetically easy to not only master but apply the same formula to other classes where one regurgitates ideas to suggest another idea that was already obviously known. I stopped having those "a-ha" moment after my first year.

If i saw the headline, "More women enrolling in STEM majors" i'd be impressed.

But for real, my degree in communications (i was stupid) was a complete waste of time. I felt and i still believe i was way smarter than my classmates and blew through every discussion and assignment like a boss. I graduated with no future job prospects with the exception of IT.

But i think we need to uncloak this mask of women being smarter than men. Liberal arts degrees are useless and easily bullshitted once you figure out the tricks needed to bullshit them.

A real degree in engineering or the hard sciences is real proof of intelligence and coincidentally, more men enroll in these than women (derp derp). I wish i did comp sci. Hindsight is always 20/20 though.

[w00t]

Yeah same here, wrapping up my degree in sociology and its a big joke. 80% women in the seminars and they were all dumb as rocks, all they could do was recite word for word from the textbooks. If you ask them what it actually means they just said you get nothing but blank looks. Of course they all get good grades since the whole system is built on mindles studying and forgetting it all after the exams (bulimia learning). Wish I wouldnt have wasted my time on this crap and studied something usefull instead.

[kosko]

(05-13-2013 10:47 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

I have just about been fed up with this myth that more women in college means that women are smarter than men.

In reality, the majority of those women are majoring in some BS liberal arts degree or worse getting a useless degree in communications.

I don't get why more people do not mention this. Any degree that does not fall under the STEM umbrella is a joke.In my experience, my learning officially stopped after freshmen year of college where I then became adept in bullshit management. Spewing out research papers asking the same tired questions and following the same formula to churn out a joke of an assignment that was graded at 94% or higher.

The "abstract" thinking these classes require is pathetically easy to not only master but apply the same formula to other classes where one regurgitates ideas to suggest another idea that was already obviously known. I stopped having those "a-ha" moment after my first year.

If i saw the headline, "More women enrolling in STEM majors" i'd be impressed.

But for real, my degree in communications (i was stupid) was a complete waste of time. I felt and i still believe i was way smarter than my classmates and blew through every discussion and assignment like a boss. I graduated with no future job prospects with the exception of IT.

But i think we need to uncloak this mask of women being smarter than men. Liberal arts degrees are useless and easily bullshitted once you figure out the tricks needed to bullshit them.

A real degree in engineering or the hard sciences is real proof of intelligence and coincidentally, more men enroll in these than women (derp derp). I wish i did comp sci. Hindsight is always 20/20 though.

Well hold up now...

Don't toss all degrees that aren't STEM's under the bus.

Many professional degrees are useful and offer good interdisciplinary skills (that dabble in most or all of the STEM sections) that cross a lot of different areas. Not all professional degrees are created equal of course but generally you can get a good idea what is by looking at the market that it exists in. Or by just viewing what other places view as worthy, or of value. NAFTA clearly states what degrees it favours for special visa status for work, shit liberals are nowhere on the list. Far from a perfect list of course but if gives a very blunt picture of degrees that have real value present in them.


The abundance of women in school proves if anything that the economy is on the wrong path. You need technicians and professionals not English majors. These women are destined to serving coffee at Starbucks and not much else. The question needs to be asked where the Men are at though. I do think that the numbers of women would always be more in school in this modern day especially since the bulk of schools create large Art departments to shill for cash.

But has their been a steady decline in STEM students overall? Mostly of Men? Is that where the drop off has been mostly for men or is it across the board?

Those are questions I am more interested in.

[Blaster]

Humanities aren't totally useless: Well, the useless ones are...

The Last Psychiatrist on the issue of worthless degrees:

Quote:

... the problem with the debate: it’s missing the distinction between “intellectual pursuits” and “easy majors.” Articles like those in Inside Higher Ed are really focused on the value of rigorous humanities students (in good schools) i.e. the former; articles decrying grade inflation and the general unemployment among the liberal arts grads are talking about the latter.

But you’ll see that distinction rarely made. Which is why Inside Higher Ed is defending something that doesn’t need defending; while Guaranteed Student Loans create a demand that shouldn’t exist.

Until we have an easy way of distinguishing between these groups during the debate about “the humanities”, then most of the debate is pointless posturing; ironically, training in the humanities would correct that.

[Blaster]

(05-13-2013 11:24 AM)kosko Wrote:  

But has their been a steady decline in STEM students overall? Mostly of Men? Is that where the drop off has been mostly for men or is it across the board?

Those are questions I am more interested in.

I haven't looked into the issue myself but did see an article about a conference at Harvard where they were doing some serious hand-wringing about how students are abandoning Humanities in this brave new "utilitarian" world:

Quote:

Meanwhile, the number of American bachelor’s degrees in disciplines such as language, history, and the classics has been declining for decades — from 14 percent in 1966 to 7 percent in 2010. At Harvard College, the trend is the same, though less steep: 17 percent of students are humanities concentrators today, down from 21 percent about a decade ago.

Quote:

Collini encouraged a wider perspective. Worry over the humanities, he said, is a “placeholder for anxieties” about the fate of universities at large, whose traditional role — creating knowledge for the sake of knowledge — is increasingly under fire in a utilitarian world.

Source: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20...umanities/

Worth noting that those statistics probably concern actual study of language, history, and the classics as opposed to communications and ethnocultural studies.

[NY Digital]

90% of women should not go to college.

[Exactaking]

What I remember reading is its less that less men are going to college (male enrollment percentage wise is at an all time high), its that more lower class women than lower class men are going to college. Compare an ivy legaue school to Devry, the lower the status of the school, the more female dominated the enrollment is. Harvard and the ivies are 50/50, Devry is 67% women. It's bullshit, its less of a gender story and more of a socioeconomic story.

[NY Digital]

(05-13-2013 01:53 PM)Exactaking Wrote:  

What I remember reading is its less that less men are going to college (male enrollment percentage wise is at an all time high), its that more lower class women than lower class men are going to college. Compare an ivy legaue school to Devry, the lower the status of the school, the more female dominated the enrollment is. Harvard and the ivies are 50/50, Devry is 67% women. It's bullshit, its less of a gender story and more of a socioeconomic story.

No, it's not. Less and less men are going to college. More and more women are.

It's a gender gap. I don't even know how you can claim it's economics when the economic classes are divided 50/50 male female(besides 1% of course)

[Exactaking]

(05-13-2013 01:59 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 01:53 PM)Exactaking Wrote:  

What I remember reading is its less that less men are going to college (male enrollment percentage wise is at an all time high), its that more lower class women than lower class men are going to college. Compare an ivy legaue school to Devry, the lower the status of the school, the more female dominated the enrollment is. Harvard and the ivies are 50/50, Devry is 67% women. It's bullshit, its less of a gender story and more of a socioeconomic story.

No, it's not. Less and less men are going to college. More and more women are.

It's a gender gap. I don't even know how you can claim it's economics when the economic classes are divided 50/50 male female(besides 1% of course)

I'm not saying females aren't the supermajority on campuses, I'm saying the men who were going to college aren't stopping to go to college. I'm trying to rebuke the myth that middle class men are manchildren playing videogames while girls are taking over the world. Its economic because the rise in female enrollment is rooted in lower middle class and working class women being able to attend college via government loans.



Like I said, its more of a matter of female enrollments climbing high and male enrollment stagnating. If Country A's population grows 25% and Country B only grows 5%, does that mean country B is shrinking?

[GameTheory]

(05-13-2013 01:59 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 01:53 PM)Exactaking Wrote:  

What I remember reading is its less that less men are going to college (male enrollment percentage wise is at an all time high), its that more lower class women than lower class men are going to college. Compare an ivy legaue school to Devry, the lower the status of the school, the more female dominated the enrollment is. Harvard and the ivies are 50/50, Devry is 67% women. It's bullshit, its less of a gender story and more of a socioeconomic story.

No, it's not. Less and less men are going to college. More and more women are.

It's a gender gap. I don't even know how you can claim it's economics when the economic classes are divided 50/50 male female(besides 1% of course)

IMHO i suspect that a large %, if not a plurality, of these women are enrolled at diploma mills that are advertised on Jerry Springer

[NY Digital]

It's all for profit now.

Large hoards of women are going to college getting useless degrees and racking up large student loans that are eventually forgiven and paid for the by U.S. taxpayer. Couple that with a shortage of men going to college and learning useful degrees, and you're looking at the heavy decline of America.

[Exactaking]

(05-13-2013 04:10 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 01:59 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 01:53 PM)Exactaking Wrote:  

What I remember reading is its less that less men are going to college (male enrollment percentage wise is at an all time high), its that more lower class women than lower class men are going to college. Compare an ivy legaue school to Devry, the lower the status of the school, the more female dominated the enrollment is. Harvard and the ivies are 50/50, Devry is 67% women. It's bullshit, its less of a gender story and more of a socioeconomic story.

No, it's not. Less and less men are going to college. More and more women are.

It's a gender gap. I don't even know how you can claim it's economics when the economic classes are divided 50/50 male female(besides 1% of course)

IMHO i suspect that a large %, if not a plurality, of these women are enrolled at diploma mills that are advertised on Jerry Springer

Exactly. It's not Hanna Hamster going to Harvard and getting an MBA, its Shaniqua getting a medical technician degree from Devry. When I read Rosin's end of men article her sources were predominantely poor and black. But then again, the day of the provider beta is over so why do I care?

[soup]

Higher education in America is in many ways a $ making racket first and foremost.

Accept this before going into an argument about the value of getting a higher education.

[JimNortonFan]

They want rules.

The rules say go to college.

They do an then they are entitled to what they want because they followed the rules.

The idea that in order to be consumed it must be produced is alien to them. You can't blame them with guys buying them stuff all the time. Those guys should stop for the sake of our civilization.

[Kabal]

(05-13-2013 06:17 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  

They want rules.

The rules say go to college.

They do an then they are entitled to what they want because they followed the rules.

The idea that in order to be consumed it must be produced is alien to them. You can't blame them with guys buying them stuff all the time. Those guys should stop for the sake of our civilization.

Women are more submissive and higher in agreeableness.

Western zeitgeist says go to college, they'll go to college.

Women are higher in agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness, traits that allow them to stay in school and get better grades, adjusted for intelligence.

Male quantitative dominance remains at the right tail no matter how many sloots get shoe-horned into Communications degrees at Podunk University.

[j r]

You would expect to find more women from lower socioeconomic classes in college than men. There are jobs, like construction, that young men can work and make decent money without a degree. The jobs that women tend to work as that pay well mostly require some kind of degree or certification.

[kosko]

(05-13-2013 07:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

You would expect to find more women from lower socioeconomic classes in college than men. There are jobs, like construction, that young men can work and make decent money without a degree. The jobs that women tend to work as that pay well mostly require some kind of degree or certification.

Even construction is getting squeezed. After the housing crash in the States many firms got routed, similar things is happening here in Canada.

[lurker]

(05-13-2013 07:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

You would expect to find more women from lower socioeconomic classes in college than men. There are jobs, like construction, that young men can work and make decent money without a degree. The jobs that women tend to work as that pay well mostly require some kind of degree or certification.

That's why I almost got a bachelor's in escorting.

Wait. Actually, jokes aside, that strengthens your point. High-end escorts are expected to be culturally aware as well as smoking hot, and are undoubtedly represented by middle-plus class girls.

True working girls are, well, working girls.

[Kingsley Davis]

(05-13-2013 01:13 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

90% of women should not go to college.

What a fucked up misogynistic thread. Besides, women earning degrees and working is good for the economy as it also double the tax base which was solely the burden of men during the sexist patriarchal past.

[Quintus Flaminius]

[NY Digital]

(05-13-2013 09:57 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 01:13 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

90% of women should not go to college.

What a fucked up misogynistic thread. Besides, women earning degrees and working is good for the economy as it also double the tax base which was solely the burden of men during the sexist patriarchal past.

I really hope you're not.

If you are, please repeat what you said 3 times and tell me if it makes sense.

[Kabal]

(05-13-2013 09:57 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 01:13 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

90% of women should not go to college.

What a fucked up misogynistic thread. Besides, women earning degrees and working is good for the economy as it also double the tax base which was solely the burden of men during the sexist patriarchal past.

It's ridiculous that women should even have to pay taxes. Taxes should be levied only on men to make-up for their patriarchal sins.

Women are what drive the economy. Male engineers, statisticians, financiers, and businessmen would be nothing without women's intuition in the workplace, as Roosh has noted on Twitter.

[Atilla]

I've heard from a male feminist pussy that part of the reason women have higher enrollment in college is that roughly 2-3% of college women are older, divorced, and going back to school (after depending on their men due to the patriarchal family structure). I did notice a visible number of older women in community college, but not so many at the university level.

[Hannibal]

Women's lib freed men from their gender roles more than anything, although I doubt that all those women flooding the marketplace with their worthless majors is a good thing. Some folks claim that women's lib was all about increasing the pool of available workers so that labor costs could be brought down.

At this point, it's nice knowing that I'll probably never get married in the states. That's one less thing I have to think about. A lot of my friends are getting married to absolute whales and I know I'm that much better off if I don't bother with that shit.

There is one thing that worries me. Someone's going to pay for all the debts those english, journalism, women's studies, and history majors incurred and it better not be me. I've got my passport and I'll be applying for dual citizenship just in case this country goes belly up. I'm not going to pay for the economic sins of the generation before me.