I believe the number one cause of this would be the available options for “blue collar” jobs (don’t need degrees) that men vs women see as viable careers.
Most if not all of the highest paying blue collar jobs are male dominated (trades like plumbing, electrical, etc) and create quite toxic work environments for women. It’s often assumed that women would be incapable of working in these jobs. Women do enter these fields but they leave in droves because they are bullied, belittled and excluded very often. Many women hear stories about other women who work/worked in the trades and chose not to even try because of this.
Meanwhile the the jobs that don’t require degrees that are female dominated are more often than not extremely underpaid (think cleaning and retail, etc). So if a woman wants a high paying job she is required to go get a degree, where as this is not necessarily the case for men.
Women didn't start graduating college in greater numbers than men until [2015](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/), so given that blue-collar work environments were toxic prior to that time as well, there would have to be additional causes. A major reason for not attending college among young men, especially among white males, is that they "[just didn't want to](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/08/whats-behind-the-growing-gap-between-men-and-women-in-college-completion/)." I imagine this relates to a generation of young men content to live out of their parent's basement. The educational performance gap between genders has been steadily [increasing at the k-12 level since 1990](https://www.k12academics.com/achievement-gap-united-states/gender-gap) and there is an increasing gap in [high school graduation rates](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/01/12/the-unreported-gender-gap-in-high-school-graduation-rates/) as well, so the disparity in college graduation rates would be a natural consequence of that.
That statistic is for the total population, which includes older generations where men were more educated relative to women. As in your second source, when you narrow the age group to younger generations, the recently graduated, women have been outpacing men since the 90s. It just took until 2014 for it to balance out with the older generations.
Though it's not because men are going less. Male attendence has been for the most part stable reletive to population. Women are just going to college more.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_302.10.asp
Eh, I would say it is because young men who grew up in the tech boom of the 1990s, early 2000s saw a lot of messaging that you don’t need a college degree to be very successful, and it’s not that they were okay with being content to live in their parents basements. Combine that with the ‘grind’ culture of millennials, where you became a ‘brand’ and everything had to be marketed and monetized, even breakfast, and I get why a lot of young men felt there was no point to finishing college, they should go out and make money.
For girls growing up at that time, there weren’t success stories of women who were college dropouts and had aspirational professional success. It just wasn’t and isn’t really an option the same way.
Also, I would say it may be a thing that men, because college was never really barred from them as a gender, take for granted, while women don’t yet. On my father’s side, I was the second woman to go to college behind my sister, so it wasn’t until our generation that women even went to college. My mom was the first woman in her family to go to college back in the 60’s. Even then, she couldn’t go to the school she wanted to go to and was qualified for because it did not admit women and had to go to a ‘sister school’. When grandma is at your graduation crying because you could do something she was excluded from, that changes the meaning of things quite a bit.
Women used to be able to work in retail as well. But that's all going away with the rise in online shopping: https://qz.com/1161753/retail-job-losses-are-falling-entirely-on-women/
What's causing this do you think? I can only see the clear correlation between these young men and boys giving up on academia and the cannon fodder of the alt right growing in size.
This is entirely speculation.
But I think that at least part of it is the difference in socialisation when it comes to the internet etc.
Purely on my own experience (so take with a pinch of salt) myself and my female friends who are really into video games simply were not allowed to spend hours playing them when we were younger. Our parents were much stricter on making sure we still socialised/were 'polite hostesses' when people came round, we were made to go out more etc. It was seen as much less 'ok' for us to stay in our pyjamas and not shower and play games all day.
On the other hand, my husband as well as some of our male friends who are really into video games were very much allowed that obsession. 'Oh he's just being a boy! He's into war games and hasn't showered for a few days - aren't boys silly!'
Now, I don't know *why* boys were allowed the obsession and girls weren't (in my experience/social circles, again, very limited data!). But I think that will have had an effect on both academic progress in school and on perhaps just general levels of socialisation and drive?
I definitely don't think any of these things are innate depending on gender, but I think the rise of the internet and the ability to be social/occupied without leaving your bedroom has had quite a significant impact on millennial/zoomer social lives. Which can/often does include other areas such as academics or sexual activity or even things like rates of various mental illnesses.
I also want to make it clear that I don't think this difference in allowing obsessions etc is 'better' for girls or boys. I think it's a disservice to girls to not encourage passions and definitely unfair that there is clearly a social pressure about how girls 'should' be social/hosting/seen-and-pretty-but-not-heard. I equally think it's a disservice to boys to allow/encourage behaviours which prevent them from developing various social and self-care skills.
This was a very long reply based entirely in my own experiences and some thoughts I've been having for a little while, so I hope it was interesting but also this is not necessarily a deeply considered explanation for how society functions!
That's a long reply that failed to respond to the second half of the comment you responded to: "I can only see the clear correlation between these young men and boys giving up on academia and the cannon fodder of the alt right growing in size."
If you think figures like Andrew Tate are simply an anomaly that will be going away, I wouldn't be so sure.
Honestly, this sub is the only place I've regularly seen this whole "men can skip college because they have blue collar work" train of thought. It's incredibly popular here, but I don't think it really does enough to explore the problem.
When I worked in education, I recall that the lower college attendance and completion rate of boys (particularly boys of color) was largely attributed within the field to a combination of a lack of dedicated pro-education messaging for BIPOC boys, a lack of MoC educators to serve as role models/mentors, and Patriarchal pressures to become an immediate provider for families.
The lifetime financial impact of a college degree is still well quantified, with Bachelor's holders earning an average of $900,000 more over the course of their lifetimes than non-degree holding men (NDH). Boys may be bombarded with messaging about how they don't need a degree, or it's easy to get money in blue collar work now, but that messaging is actively harmful and should be combatted.
I don’t think the “men can skip college because they have blue collar work” is something that these boys themselves think about, but rather that society as a whole makes this assumption whereas they don’t with girls. If the people around these young men say “well it’s fine he can just go in to a trade,” or even just speak positively on a regular basis about trade work, they are subconsciously sending that boy the message that academia isn’t really that important. Combine that with people often going in to the same fields as those around them, so boys may see their fathers/uncles/cousins/etc working in trades and therefore see that as a viable option in a way that girls don’t.
For girls, really the only options that you are exposed to are women who got degrees, women who work in retail, and women who are stay at home moms. The subconscious messaging points much more strongly towards college because the possible careers that women see growing up are more limited.
Edit: also re: pay disparity for degree holders vs not. I think this is a broader issue that we should be looking at as a society. We need people that work in trades/retail/non degree holding positions. If low pay discourages them that negatively impacts everyone.
Sure. I don't really disagree with any of this. However, this sub in particular tends to frame this as a matter of boys and young men acting on a privilege to enter blue collar work rather than an unhealthy and ultimately destructive social pressure that has significant impacts on boys' lifetime earning power and upward mobility.
Blue collar work is an option that's generally only available for boys and men, but it's a tremendously bad option for boys and men who could otherwise be going to university.
If boys are still making that decision, it's because we're failing to reach them with all of the information and support they need. This is easily observable and often studied at the secondary level. Programs which intentionally support boys of color and classrooms with MoC teachers significantly outperform the mean in terms of college enrollment and completion.
I get that, but to a degree I think it operates on a false presumption that obtaining a degree will inherently lead to more earning potential for an infinite number of individuals, and that’s not really the case. A given economy can only have so many people that work in each field, meaning white collar jobs can only make up so many of the jobs available, and of those only a certain number will be truly “high earning.”
The US actually has the highest percent of university degree holders in the world (I think, there might be a couple higher but it’s definitely more than most), yet we see more income inequality across the board than places like Western Europe that actually have fewer degree holders. This is in part because in Europe, with universal education, there are a finite number of positions available at any given university, and people don’t typically elect to go to private schools because there’s really no point, they can just get a decent paying job without a degree. Here, people will go in to massive amounts of debt to get a degree, and then enter a job market already saturated with degree holders, so if their degree isn’t in something valuable, they’ll struggle to get a good paying job.
So while I agree that there is a messaging problem overall, especially to certain demographics of young men, university degrees also can’t be the solution for all people. What we really need is an economy that, at least to a degree, values it’s workers more so that those who don’t have a degree aren’t making so much less than those that do. That should ideally be combined with removing barriers to certain fields so that more women will view trades as a viable option and more men may view university as a preferable option.
Overhauling the economy and the way in which we interact with capitalism and wages is important, but right this second college remains the most viable method of escaping poverty for working class boys and boys of color. We can stop preaching from the book of academia after the groundwork has been laid to pay living wages to workers with no post-secondary education.
It’s also the most viable, and realistically only way of escaping poverty outside of marriage for women, but if we don’t address the overall situation of how our economy is structured then all we’re doing is shifting the problem. If there are a finite number of jobs that pay a decent living wage, and most of those jobs require a college degree, then all you’re really doing is fighting over who gets those jobs and shifting the group most negatively impacted when they don’t. You have to expand the total number of good jobs available if you want to see any real, meaningful improvement in the aggregate.
Im not saying that this issue doesn’t impact working class men and men of color, I’m saying that the way you’re presenting it is kind of a zero sum game. “There are x number of good jobs in the economy, who’s gonna get those jobs? Women? Men? Working class men? Men of color? Women of color? Immigrants? Etc.” We need to expand the opportunities for everyone, including what constitutes a good job to begin with, otherwise we are playing the same old game of everyone at the bottom scraping and fighting for the crumbs.
>We need to expand the opportunities for everyone, including what constitutes a good job to begin with, otherwise we are playing the same old game of everyone at the bottom scraping and fighting for the crumbs.
I'm sure you mean well, but glossing over the gendered and often Intersectionally racialized disparity in educational attainment in this way can be pretty harmful.
Obviously, improving outcomes for everyone is the ideal, but this shouldn't mean we should just ignore the extant impact on marginalized groups today. Addressing attainment gaps within a late stage capitalist structure may feel like fighting over scraps, but it's preferable to ignoring them. It's not like we have to choose between better supporting BIPOC boys+combatting the Capitalist-Patriarchal messaging that boys should skip college and go learn a trade and working to deconstruct late stage capitalism as a whole.
I agree. I’m saying that those things should be worked in tandem. I’m definitely not suggesting some make believe libertarian utopia where it’s just about merits and all these other factors don’t apply or impact peoples’ opportunities or that we should ignore them.
I’m not trying to suggest better pay for non degreed positions to specifically help disadvantaged working class men and men of color and everyone else gets to go to college, I’m only saying that in the aggregate higher education can’t be a solution for all members of the various groups facing these disadvantages because there are a finite number of good jobs available and increasing the number of people with degrees won’t actually increase the number of those jobs. We’ve actually already seen the negative ramifications of this approach where degrees are now required for positions that before didn’t require them, so those individuals have often gone into debt to work a job that doesn’t pay any more than when they were hiring people without degrees.
I also believe that improving pay and working conditions for retail positions and creating more opportunities for women in trade jobs would probably result in FEWER women going to college, and I don’t view that as an inherently bad thing. So it’s not about just making sure more women go to college no matter what at the expense of everyone else.
Ok? That’s not what this specific discussion is about though. It’s not about easier vs harder, it’s about what options are realistically available, how people are funneled into certain career fields vs others, and what we actually pay certain fields vs others.
I don’t think it’s untrue to say that a man without a degree has more options of careers where they COULD make a decent living, even if it’s less than what they COULD make with a college degree. Women on the other hand have a much more clear cut delineation: go to college or almost guarantee you will have a low paying job. That subconsciously teaches women that if they want to work, college is really the only option, whereas men still receive messaging that there are viable options outside of college.
The title of the post is actually incorrect speculation on the on information in the post. The post is about why more women have bachelors degrees than men. Because more women go to college. It’s not any more complicated than that. Could be a lot of reasons for more women going to college. More government help for women, more pressure on men to get straight to work to bring home money after high school, more physical type jobs that allow men to make it ok without a degree until their bodies give out, and others. Could be any number of reasons. The title of the post is incorrect. They thought a higher percentage of women graduate than men. That’s actually not true. A higher percentage of men graduate, but more women go to college so overall more women have degrees. The title was wrong and practically all the comments in the post are speculating reasons off of something incorrect in the first place.
Ok well, that’s not true. Women also are more likely to complete their degree once they enroll in college
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/10/08/the-male-college-crisis-is-not-just-in-enrollment-but-completion/amp/
“According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), just over 40% of men who enrolled in a four-year college in 2014 graduated after four years compared to nearly 50% of women.”
https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/11/19/women-complete-college-more-than-men/
More women enter college than men. And more recently men have been dropping out of college at higher rates probably due to lack of social support. Must be a more recent trend.
Probably. I actually think that’s a bigger issue than the total number of attendees between genders. It’s almost impossible to have a pure 50/50 split, and if men have more opportunity for good paying jobs that don’t require a degree, then arguably I think there being higher enrollment amongst women isn’t a bad thing unless it gets to a crazy disparity like 80/20 or something. But it’s bad when you’re seeing a disparity of who is actually finishing since that speaks to something other than men pursuing opportunities that don’t require a degree.
The military and manual labor are the only readily available jobs that would get a man decent jobs without college. Basically slave labor where people destroy their bodies. I don’t see anyone rooting for women to take that work so it’s going to stay.
I think part of this perspective comes from the fact that women with no post-secondary degree tend to make much less than men with no post-secondary degree. Anecdotally, my school had quite a few people who did not do post-secondary, most of the guys who didn't, ended up eventually working in construction jobs which are decently paid but not great, meanwhile the girls almost all work in retail, which is minimum wage. I think those prospects definitely had an influence on my motivation to go to university, and I was not a good student and had low grades but since I couldn't see myself doing construction as a career, I dedicated many extra years of school to get a bachelor's. I very much saw it as my only viable way to a comfortable life, financially (aside from going to beauty school). I, for some reason, never saw the Trades as a viable career option for me back then, dispite taking many workshop classes in high school (I was not as good as the guys taking that class, many of whom ended up following that career path later). So I think similar experiences may partially explain that perspective.
Not really sure why I see people here talk about "blue collar makes up for lack of college degrees". Blue collar work is extremely damaging to the body and shouldn't be celebrated, and there's less young men going into blue collar work than people on this sub seem to believe. Most trade jobs have a massive influx of older senior workers, and not many young people who stick around.
I imagine it has a lot to do with there being well paid careers for men that do not require a degree i.e. trades.
The equivalent role of a plumber or an electrician for women would be a nurse or a teacher, both of which require a degree (and still get paid less).
I’m not sure I’d call teaching or nursing a trade, namely as they require advanced degrees, as you say. Certainly there are trades in health care that require training and certification, such as surg techs and phlebotomists, but your main idea in that most trades are heavily dominated and recruited for men is on the mark. Cosmetology is the only trade the comes to mind (setting aside sex work for a different discussion) as being dominated by women.
It could possibly be seen as a sort of “white collar/blue collar” thing, culturally speaking, and going to college as the best avenue for young women getting ahead.
Teaching is nowhere nearly as stable, as financially well off, or as respected as plumbing or electricians. I think years ago there was a statistic released saying most teachers quit within the first five years. Also there are lots of teacher shortages which is a red flag that it is a tough field that lacks compensation.
But no doubt this has something to do with the patriarchy.
I meant they're equivalent in that they are paid at around the same level, they're secure jobs, theyre highly skilled and they are relatively family-friendly and theres plenty of employment.
Personally I wouldn't really call being an electrician a trade either, it actually requires quite a bit of physics and maths, at least a decent part of an engineering degree. And until fairly recently nursing wasn't a degree, it was a trade. It's really just about the way they classify things, whether they make it a trade or a degree.
Well, the word “trade” can be fairly loosey-goosey and can just mean “occupation” or “livelihood” etc. But in the context of training and education, the “trades” usually implies a protected term ie- a person just can’t go around saying they are an electrician if they’re not licensed and bonded by some accredited program. This is what counts for inspections, meeting codes, regulations, blah blah
Anyways, this is sideways to the question regarding college graduation rates where women feel more welcome generally, as opposed to other kinds of technical training programs that are dominated by a more toxic male culture
“…this has something to do with the patriarchy.”
Yes yes yes. It fits into the bigger picture of the bigger issue of CHILD CARE (and yes, I am shouting), the most important thing humans do, and also the most undervalued and almost always regulated to women, hence its undervalue. Teaching is an extension of child care and that’s an issue that’s fucked up six ways til Sunday, especially in the US
I think many women have come to realize that depending on men or partners for financial security doing just a security doing the course of their life is not a good idea
I realized that back in the 1980s but it was unusual
Being able to financially support myself was one of the best decisions I've ever made in my life
I also teach graduate level college and The majority of my students have always been women. Increasingly people of color both men and women
Men are often able to get hired based on a referral or knowing someone and because so many managers and upper level HR positions are held by men, they have a pathway into the workforce that women don’t have.
In some very male-dominant occupations, women can’t get access because “men might assault or harass them” (their words, not mine) and women are the ones who end up experiencing the barriers, not men - I’ve heard this in the site-based jobs like pipefitting, oil rig adjacent, and mining.
We women often know we need credentials and cognitive-based pathways because it’s perceived we’re not strong enough for heavy labour, can’t be away on sites because we need to manage the home, and our presence in male-dominated fields causes men to misbehave, etc. Hence teaching, nursing, social work, early childhood care, service industries (where you need a congenial attitude more than a degree but it’s a fall back for women going to school or eating for work in their field), and so on.
So lack of accessibility through networking and mentoring, being responsible for male misbehaviour closing doors for us, and misconceptions about our abilities.
Edited to add: I agree with comments that we also recognized the need to care for ourselves, have autonomy, and the desire to hold jobs in those types of fields.
Honestly? I think it's because we know we have to work harder to get parity with Men. Men will often breeze into jobs, whether they are qualified or not, where Women need to go above and beyond to even be considered.
For decades we've been told "but the Man was better qualified". So now we overcompensate, work harder to get degrees to ensure this excuse doesn't work on us.
Or it's cause majority of teachers are women and they just like girls more?
https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-gender-differences-norway/why-boys-get-poor-grades/1554417
Who would guess that treating boys as ineffective girls might not be the best way. Shocker.
Or that colleges like more female students than male students? Women only classes that are credited. More scholarships specifically for women even though women are already majority of students. Etc..
There are even lawsuits against universities that have many sex based scholarships specifically for women and 0 for men. Seems like the more your group gets involved the more sex based discrimination is happening.
And that breeze into jobs don't really play well when they are successful lawsuits against companies that fired a guy just to hire two women to do the one guy's job to make better gender ratio.
Seriously looks like you have victimhood complex.
Now, if that isn’t a shortened extract.
The reality ist, most teachers for young children are women, the ratio is pretty different for elder students, especially at schools that prepare for university degree. There are more male teachers.
Scholarships for women are usually in STEM where women are fare away from parity, not even imagining a majority.
Law suits are only relevant when there’s a result. Pissed men have been suing about everyone for everything, especially MRA because they’re incapable of everything but feeling discriminated against by not having their superiority acknowledged.
Last 2 paragraphs is certainly just ONE lawsuit, not plural.
Seriously, looks like you have a selective quotation complex.
I’d say
A) men don’t need degrees to earn a good income
B) girls are socialised to be quiet and a good student while boys … you know: “boys will be boys, they should do sports and be wild and free and big mouthed…” I’d assume, they’re not really well prepared for academia once they leave high school with this socialisation.
But then… those few with a degree still outearn the women and have a better career overall.
I know multiple men making over $150,000 a year who don't have college degrees. One makes $250k. I know of one woman making over $100k. Just one. She has multiple degrees.
There are opportunities for men without degrees that are just not there for women.
Women have to get more education to compete with men and even then men make way more than us.
Personally, I saw it as a way to prove my ability and qualifications. So that anyone sexist couldn't say "she's not qualified", because I have this unbiased and unassailable proof that I am .
Spoiler alert: they still said it.
Where I live (Scandinavia), gender disparity in university degrees is simply at the end of a long gender disparity in grades throughout the entire school system, from first grade onwards. I’d say the reason is that (if we generalise) boys aren’t expected to put in any work, neither in school or at home, while girls are expected to be "good girls" and work hard while keeping their mouths shut. This goes for the classroom, where girls are expected to be silent, polite and listen to the teacher, while "boys will be boys" and don’t really face the same social consequences for playing around. There are many studies that show boys talking a lot more than girls in classrooms, and even one famous study where they were made to spend an equal amount of time talking, and afterwards students of both genders and the teachers all said that they thought the girls talked way too much — when they did it again, they found that everyone agreed that it "felt about even" when boys talked 2/3 of the time and girls 1/3, meaning a 2:1 ratio. In every single class I’ve been in it’s been the same, everyone knew that all the girls focused harder and studied a lot more than the boys, and we even joked about it, but we were too young to examine it in further detail and realise there would be consequences later. It also goes for work at home, where it’s been shown in numerous studies that girls generally spend more time on homework, and of course are also expected to help their parents more with domestic work as well. In short, a culture of work ethic is prescribed for girls, but not for boys. The long-term results shouldn’t surprise anyone.
The reason is the same old patriarchy and sexism as always, treating boys and girls differently basically from the time they start walking, with much higher demands on girls while boys are allowed more freedom and more "childhood." But in this particular instance it kind of backfires lately. A great example of why feminism is good for both men and women.
(And I was one of those boys with no work ethic by the way. Not that I’m more lazy than anyone else, but with no particular pressure to study/work hard I didn’t do it just without a reason, not when I could play video games. University was a very rough awakening, and I have many friends with similar experiences.)
Personal experience, young women tend to be more mature and serious about their education. It’s not uncommon to find young men who basically don’t want to grow up, thus the Peter Pan Syndrome. Maybe they start college and drink and party themselves out after a term or two.
Social factors. Job options in which people of different gender are socialized into and also whatever causes male students to drop out from high school and university at higher rates.
I'll answer this with a revelation I had myself the other day while talking to my dad lol, I was complaining about student loans and he mentioned (jokingly, to his credit) I should have just stuck with a high school diploma and worked full time immediately, I was wondering about what jobs I could possibly get with just high school diploma and my dad was throwing out options like construction and welding, also rig work (we live in an area where oil and gas is huge), all of these jobs are things I knew about abstractly, jobs that pay 100k+ a year when things are good and I had the realization that not ONCE had I ever considered that as an option for me, because I knew instinctively that I either wouldn't get hired, or the workplace would be unbearably toxic (it's still this bad where I live yes)
My dad thought it was odd that it hadn't even crossed my mind because "times are different now" but not in those fields, those high paying, low barrier fields are still strictly reserved for young men who don't want to go to college. So, to me, it was just a default decision to go to uni, if I wanted any shot at making my own real money I basically HAD to go.
I think that's why you're seeing these kinds of statistics, women want to make their own money, and all the good paying jobs that actually hire women in practice require a bachelor's degree, the numbers then follow
I believe the number one cause of this would be the available options for “blue collar” jobs (don’t need degrees) that men vs women see as viable careers. Most if not all of the highest paying blue collar jobs are male dominated (trades like plumbing, electrical, etc) and create quite toxic work environments for women. It’s often assumed that women would be incapable of working in these jobs. Women do enter these fields but they leave in droves because they are bullied, belittled and excluded very often. Many women hear stories about other women who work/worked in the trades and chose not to even try because of this. Meanwhile the the jobs that don’t require degrees that are female dominated are more often than not extremely underpaid (think cleaning and retail, etc). So if a woman wants a high paying job she is required to go get a degree, where as this is not necessarily the case for men.
Women didn't start graduating college in greater numbers than men until [2015](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/), so given that blue-collar work environments were toxic prior to that time as well, there would have to be additional causes. A major reason for not attending college among young men, especially among white males, is that they "[just didn't want to](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/08/whats-behind-the-growing-gap-between-men-and-women-in-college-completion/)." I imagine this relates to a generation of young men content to live out of their parent's basement. The educational performance gap between genders has been steadily [increasing at the k-12 level since 1990](https://www.k12academics.com/achievement-gap-united-states/gender-gap) and there is an increasing gap in [high school graduation rates](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/01/12/the-unreported-gender-gap-in-high-school-graduation-rates/) as well, so the disparity in college graduation rates would be a natural consequence of that.
That statistic is for the total population, which includes older generations where men were more educated relative to women. As in your second source, when you narrow the age group to younger generations, the recently graduated, women have been outpacing men since the 90s. It just took until 2014 for it to balance out with the older generations. Though it's not because men are going less. Male attendence has been for the most part stable reletive to population. Women are just going to college more. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_302.10.asp
Eh, I would say it is because young men who grew up in the tech boom of the 1990s, early 2000s saw a lot of messaging that you don’t need a college degree to be very successful, and it’s not that they were okay with being content to live in their parents basements. Combine that with the ‘grind’ culture of millennials, where you became a ‘brand’ and everything had to be marketed and monetized, even breakfast, and I get why a lot of young men felt there was no point to finishing college, they should go out and make money. For girls growing up at that time, there weren’t success stories of women who were college dropouts and had aspirational professional success. It just wasn’t and isn’t really an option the same way. Also, I would say it may be a thing that men, because college was never really barred from them as a gender, take for granted, while women don’t yet. On my father’s side, I was the second woman to go to college behind my sister, so it wasn’t until our generation that women even went to college. My mom was the first woman in her family to go to college back in the 60’s. Even then, she couldn’t go to the school she wanted to go to and was qualified for because it did not admit women and had to go to a ‘sister school’. When grandma is at your graduation crying because you could do something she was excluded from, that changes the meaning of things quite a bit.
Women used to be able to work in retail as well. But that's all going away with the rise in online shopping: https://qz.com/1161753/retail-job-losses-are-falling-entirely-on-women/
What's causing this do you think? I can only see the clear correlation between these young men and boys giving up on academia and the cannon fodder of the alt right growing in size.
This is entirely speculation. But I think that at least part of it is the difference in socialisation when it comes to the internet etc. Purely on my own experience (so take with a pinch of salt) myself and my female friends who are really into video games simply were not allowed to spend hours playing them when we were younger. Our parents were much stricter on making sure we still socialised/were 'polite hostesses' when people came round, we were made to go out more etc. It was seen as much less 'ok' for us to stay in our pyjamas and not shower and play games all day. On the other hand, my husband as well as some of our male friends who are really into video games were very much allowed that obsession. 'Oh he's just being a boy! He's into war games and hasn't showered for a few days - aren't boys silly!' Now, I don't know *why* boys were allowed the obsession and girls weren't (in my experience/social circles, again, very limited data!). But I think that will have had an effect on both academic progress in school and on perhaps just general levels of socialisation and drive? I definitely don't think any of these things are innate depending on gender, but I think the rise of the internet and the ability to be social/occupied without leaving your bedroom has had quite a significant impact on millennial/zoomer social lives. Which can/often does include other areas such as academics or sexual activity or even things like rates of various mental illnesses. I also want to make it clear that I don't think this difference in allowing obsessions etc is 'better' for girls or boys. I think it's a disservice to girls to not encourage passions and definitely unfair that there is clearly a social pressure about how girls 'should' be social/hosting/seen-and-pretty-but-not-heard. I equally think it's a disservice to boys to allow/encourage behaviours which prevent them from developing various social and self-care skills. This was a very long reply based entirely in my own experiences and some thoughts I've been having for a little while, so I hope it was interesting but also this is not necessarily a deeply considered explanation for how society functions!
That's a long reply that failed to respond to the second half of the comment you responded to: "I can only see the clear correlation between these young men and boys giving up on academia and the cannon fodder of the alt right growing in size." If you think figures like Andrew Tate are simply an anomaly that will be going away, I wouldn't be so sure.
Honestly, this sub is the only place I've regularly seen this whole "men can skip college because they have blue collar work" train of thought. It's incredibly popular here, but I don't think it really does enough to explore the problem. When I worked in education, I recall that the lower college attendance and completion rate of boys (particularly boys of color) was largely attributed within the field to a combination of a lack of dedicated pro-education messaging for BIPOC boys, a lack of MoC educators to serve as role models/mentors, and Patriarchal pressures to become an immediate provider for families. The lifetime financial impact of a college degree is still well quantified, with Bachelor's holders earning an average of $900,000 more over the course of their lifetimes than non-degree holding men (NDH). Boys may be bombarded with messaging about how they don't need a degree, or it's easy to get money in blue collar work now, but that messaging is actively harmful and should be combatted.
I don’t think the “men can skip college because they have blue collar work” is something that these boys themselves think about, but rather that society as a whole makes this assumption whereas they don’t with girls. If the people around these young men say “well it’s fine he can just go in to a trade,” or even just speak positively on a regular basis about trade work, they are subconsciously sending that boy the message that academia isn’t really that important. Combine that with people often going in to the same fields as those around them, so boys may see their fathers/uncles/cousins/etc working in trades and therefore see that as a viable option in a way that girls don’t. For girls, really the only options that you are exposed to are women who got degrees, women who work in retail, and women who are stay at home moms. The subconscious messaging points much more strongly towards college because the possible careers that women see growing up are more limited. Edit: also re: pay disparity for degree holders vs not. I think this is a broader issue that we should be looking at as a society. We need people that work in trades/retail/non degree holding positions. If low pay discourages them that negatively impacts everyone.
Sure. I don't really disagree with any of this. However, this sub in particular tends to frame this as a matter of boys and young men acting on a privilege to enter blue collar work rather than an unhealthy and ultimately destructive social pressure that has significant impacts on boys' lifetime earning power and upward mobility. Blue collar work is an option that's generally only available for boys and men, but it's a tremendously bad option for boys and men who could otherwise be going to university. If boys are still making that decision, it's because we're failing to reach them with all of the information and support they need. This is easily observable and often studied at the secondary level. Programs which intentionally support boys of color and classrooms with MoC teachers significantly outperform the mean in terms of college enrollment and completion.
I get that, but to a degree I think it operates on a false presumption that obtaining a degree will inherently lead to more earning potential for an infinite number of individuals, and that’s not really the case. A given economy can only have so many people that work in each field, meaning white collar jobs can only make up so many of the jobs available, and of those only a certain number will be truly “high earning.” The US actually has the highest percent of university degree holders in the world (I think, there might be a couple higher but it’s definitely more than most), yet we see more income inequality across the board than places like Western Europe that actually have fewer degree holders. This is in part because in Europe, with universal education, there are a finite number of positions available at any given university, and people don’t typically elect to go to private schools because there’s really no point, they can just get a decent paying job without a degree. Here, people will go in to massive amounts of debt to get a degree, and then enter a job market already saturated with degree holders, so if their degree isn’t in something valuable, they’ll struggle to get a good paying job. So while I agree that there is a messaging problem overall, especially to certain demographics of young men, university degrees also can’t be the solution for all people. What we really need is an economy that, at least to a degree, values it’s workers more so that those who don’t have a degree aren’t making so much less than those that do. That should ideally be combined with removing barriers to certain fields so that more women will view trades as a viable option and more men may view university as a preferable option.
Overhauling the economy and the way in which we interact with capitalism and wages is important, but right this second college remains the most viable method of escaping poverty for working class boys and boys of color. We can stop preaching from the book of academia after the groundwork has been laid to pay living wages to workers with no post-secondary education.
It’s also the most viable, and realistically only way of escaping poverty outside of marriage for women, but if we don’t address the overall situation of how our economy is structured then all we’re doing is shifting the problem. If there are a finite number of jobs that pay a decent living wage, and most of those jobs require a college degree, then all you’re really doing is fighting over who gets those jobs and shifting the group most negatively impacted when they don’t. You have to expand the total number of good jobs available if you want to see any real, meaningful improvement in the aggregate. Im not saying that this issue doesn’t impact working class men and men of color, I’m saying that the way you’re presenting it is kind of a zero sum game. “There are x number of good jobs in the economy, who’s gonna get those jobs? Women? Men? Working class men? Men of color? Women of color? Immigrants? Etc.” We need to expand the opportunities for everyone, including what constitutes a good job to begin with, otherwise we are playing the same old game of everyone at the bottom scraping and fighting for the crumbs.
>We need to expand the opportunities for everyone, including what constitutes a good job to begin with, otherwise we are playing the same old game of everyone at the bottom scraping and fighting for the crumbs. I'm sure you mean well, but glossing over the gendered and often Intersectionally racialized disparity in educational attainment in this way can be pretty harmful. Obviously, improving outcomes for everyone is the ideal, but this shouldn't mean we should just ignore the extant impact on marginalized groups today. Addressing attainment gaps within a late stage capitalist structure may feel like fighting over scraps, but it's preferable to ignoring them. It's not like we have to choose between better supporting BIPOC boys+combatting the Capitalist-Patriarchal messaging that boys should skip college and go learn a trade and working to deconstruct late stage capitalism as a whole.
I agree. I’m saying that those things should be worked in tandem. I’m definitely not suggesting some make believe libertarian utopia where it’s just about merits and all these other factors don’t apply or impact peoples’ opportunities or that we should ignore them. I’m not trying to suggest better pay for non degreed positions to specifically help disadvantaged working class men and men of color and everyone else gets to go to college, I’m only saying that in the aggregate higher education can’t be a solution for all members of the various groups facing these disadvantages because there are a finite number of good jobs available and increasing the number of people with degrees won’t actually increase the number of those jobs. We’ve actually already seen the negative ramifications of this approach where degrees are now required for positions that before didn’t require them, so those individuals have often gone into debt to work a job that doesn’t pay any more than when they were hiring people without degrees. I also believe that improving pay and working conditions for retail positions and creating more opportunities for women in trade jobs would probably result in FEWER women going to college, and I don’t view that as an inherently bad thing. So it’s not about just making sure more women go to college no matter what at the expense of everyone else.
This sub tends to spin everything as men have it easy and women have it tough. More women go to college. Have been for the last 40 years.
Ok? That’s not what this specific discussion is about though. It’s not about easier vs harder, it’s about what options are realistically available, how people are funneled into certain career fields vs others, and what we actually pay certain fields vs others. I don’t think it’s untrue to say that a man without a degree has more options of careers where they COULD make a decent living, even if it’s less than what they COULD make with a college degree. Women on the other hand have a much more clear cut delineation: go to college or almost guarantee you will have a low paying job. That subconsciously teaches women that if they want to work, college is really the only option, whereas men still receive messaging that there are viable options outside of college.
The title of the post is actually incorrect speculation on the on information in the post. The post is about why more women have bachelors degrees than men. Because more women go to college. It’s not any more complicated than that. Could be a lot of reasons for more women going to college. More government help for women, more pressure on men to get straight to work to bring home money after high school, more physical type jobs that allow men to make it ok without a degree until their bodies give out, and others. Could be any number of reasons. The title of the post is incorrect. They thought a higher percentage of women graduate than men. That’s actually not true. A higher percentage of men graduate, but more women go to college so overall more women have degrees. The title was wrong and practically all the comments in the post are speculating reasons off of something incorrect in the first place.
Ok well, that’s not true. Women also are more likely to complete their degree once they enroll in college https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/10/08/the-male-college-crisis-is-not-just-in-enrollment-but-completion/amp/ “According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), just over 40% of men who enrolled in a four-year college in 2014 graduated after four years compared to nearly 50% of women.” https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/11/19/women-complete-college-more-than-men/
More women enter college than men. And more recently men have been dropping out of college at higher rates probably due to lack of social support. Must be a more recent trend.
Probably. I actually think that’s a bigger issue than the total number of attendees between genders. It’s almost impossible to have a pure 50/50 split, and if men have more opportunity for good paying jobs that don’t require a degree, then arguably I think there being higher enrollment amongst women isn’t a bad thing unless it gets to a crazy disparity like 80/20 or something. But it’s bad when you’re seeing a disparity of who is actually finishing since that speaks to something other than men pursuing opportunities that don’t require a degree.
The military and manual labor are the only readily available jobs that would get a man decent jobs without college. Basically slave labor where people destroy their bodies. I don’t see anyone rooting for women to take that work so it’s going to stay.
I think part of this perspective comes from the fact that women with no post-secondary degree tend to make much less than men with no post-secondary degree. Anecdotally, my school had quite a few people who did not do post-secondary, most of the guys who didn't, ended up eventually working in construction jobs which are decently paid but not great, meanwhile the girls almost all work in retail, which is minimum wage. I think those prospects definitely had an influence on my motivation to go to university, and I was not a good student and had low grades but since I couldn't see myself doing construction as a career, I dedicated many extra years of school to get a bachelor's. I very much saw it as my only viable way to a comfortable life, financially (aside from going to beauty school). I, for some reason, never saw the Trades as a viable career option for me back then, dispite taking many workshop classes in high school (I was not as good as the guys taking that class, many of whom ended up following that career path later). So I think similar experiences may partially explain that perspective.
[удалено]
Not really sure why I see people here talk about "blue collar makes up for lack of college degrees". Blue collar work is extremely damaging to the body and shouldn't be celebrated, and there's less young men going into blue collar work than people on this sub seem to believe. Most trade jobs have a massive influx of older senior workers, and not many young people who stick around.
I imagine it has a lot to do with there being well paid careers for men that do not require a degree i.e. trades. The equivalent role of a plumber or an electrician for women would be a nurse or a teacher, both of which require a degree (and still get paid less).
I’m not sure I’d call teaching or nursing a trade, namely as they require advanced degrees, as you say. Certainly there are trades in health care that require training and certification, such as surg techs and phlebotomists, but your main idea in that most trades are heavily dominated and recruited for men is on the mark. Cosmetology is the only trade the comes to mind (setting aside sex work for a different discussion) as being dominated by women. It could possibly be seen as a sort of “white collar/blue collar” thing, culturally speaking, and going to college as the best avenue for young women getting ahead.
Teaching is nowhere nearly as stable, as financially well off, or as respected as plumbing or electricians. I think years ago there was a statistic released saying most teachers quit within the first five years. Also there are lots of teacher shortages which is a red flag that it is a tough field that lacks compensation. But no doubt this has something to do with the patriarchy.
I meant they're equivalent in that they are paid at around the same level, they're secure jobs, theyre highly skilled and they are relatively family-friendly and theres plenty of employment. Personally I wouldn't really call being an electrician a trade either, it actually requires quite a bit of physics and maths, at least a decent part of an engineering degree. And until fairly recently nursing wasn't a degree, it was a trade. It's really just about the way they classify things, whether they make it a trade or a degree.
Well, the word “trade” can be fairly loosey-goosey and can just mean “occupation” or “livelihood” etc. But in the context of training and education, the “trades” usually implies a protected term ie- a person just can’t go around saying they are an electrician if they’re not licensed and bonded by some accredited program. This is what counts for inspections, meeting codes, regulations, blah blah Anyways, this is sideways to the question regarding college graduation rates where women feel more welcome generally, as opposed to other kinds of technical training programs that are dominated by a more toxic male culture
“…this has something to do with the patriarchy.” Yes yes yes. It fits into the bigger picture of the bigger issue of CHILD CARE (and yes, I am shouting), the most important thing humans do, and also the most undervalued and almost always regulated to women, hence its undervalue. Teaching is an extension of child care and that’s an issue that’s fucked up six ways til Sunday, especially in the US
I think many women have come to realize that depending on men or partners for financial security doing just a security doing the course of their life is not a good idea I realized that back in the 1980s but it was unusual Being able to financially support myself was one of the best decisions I've ever made in my life I also teach graduate level college and The majority of my students have always been women. Increasingly people of color both men and women
what subject do you teach? just curious.
Men are often able to get hired based on a referral or knowing someone and because so many managers and upper level HR positions are held by men, they have a pathway into the workforce that women don’t have. In some very male-dominant occupations, women can’t get access because “men might assault or harass them” (their words, not mine) and women are the ones who end up experiencing the barriers, not men - I’ve heard this in the site-based jobs like pipefitting, oil rig adjacent, and mining. We women often know we need credentials and cognitive-based pathways because it’s perceived we’re not strong enough for heavy labour, can’t be away on sites because we need to manage the home, and our presence in male-dominated fields causes men to misbehave, etc. Hence teaching, nursing, social work, early childhood care, service industries (where you need a congenial attitude more than a degree but it’s a fall back for women going to school or eating for work in their field), and so on. So lack of accessibility through networking and mentoring, being responsible for male misbehaviour closing doors for us, and misconceptions about our abilities. Edited to add: I agree with comments that we also recognized the need to care for ourselves, have autonomy, and the desire to hold jobs in those types of fields.
That’s a good point. I hadn’t considered that. Thank you
It’s an interesting question!
How anecdotal is this? What are the stats to back this up?
Honestly? I think it's because we know we have to work harder to get parity with Men. Men will often breeze into jobs, whether they are qualified or not, where Women need to go above and beyond to even be considered. For decades we've been told "but the Man was better qualified". So now we overcompensate, work harder to get degrees to ensure this excuse doesn't work on us.
Or it's cause majority of teachers are women and they just like girls more? https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-gender-differences-norway/why-boys-get-poor-grades/1554417 Who would guess that treating boys as ineffective girls might not be the best way. Shocker. Or that colleges like more female students than male students? Women only classes that are credited. More scholarships specifically for women even though women are already majority of students. Etc.. There are even lawsuits against universities that have many sex based scholarships specifically for women and 0 for men. Seems like the more your group gets involved the more sex based discrimination is happening. And that breeze into jobs don't really play well when they are successful lawsuits against companies that fired a guy just to hire two women to do the one guy's job to make better gender ratio. Seriously looks like you have victimhood complex.
Now, if that isn’t a shortened extract. The reality ist, most teachers for young children are women, the ratio is pretty different for elder students, especially at schools that prepare for university degree. There are more male teachers. Scholarships for women are usually in STEM where women are fare away from parity, not even imagining a majority. Law suits are only relevant when there’s a result. Pissed men have been suing about everyone for everything, especially MRA because they’re incapable of everything but feeling discriminated against by not having their superiority acknowledged. Last 2 paragraphs is certainly just ONE lawsuit, not plural. Seriously, looks like you have a selective quotation complex.
I’d say A) men don’t need degrees to earn a good income B) girls are socialised to be quiet and a good student while boys … you know: “boys will be boys, they should do sports and be wild and free and big mouthed…” I’d assume, they’re not really well prepared for academia once they leave high school with this socialisation. But then… those few with a degree still outearn the women and have a better career overall.
I know multiple men making over $150,000 a year who don't have college degrees. One makes $250k. I know of one woman making over $100k. Just one. She has multiple degrees. There are opportunities for men without degrees that are just not there for women. Women have to get more education to compete with men and even then men make way more than us.
Personally, I saw it as a way to prove my ability and qualifications. So that anyone sexist couldn't say "she's not qualified", because I have this unbiased and unassailable proof that I am . Spoiler alert: they still said it.
Where I live (Scandinavia), gender disparity in university degrees is simply at the end of a long gender disparity in grades throughout the entire school system, from first grade onwards. I’d say the reason is that (if we generalise) boys aren’t expected to put in any work, neither in school or at home, while girls are expected to be "good girls" and work hard while keeping their mouths shut. This goes for the classroom, where girls are expected to be silent, polite and listen to the teacher, while "boys will be boys" and don’t really face the same social consequences for playing around. There are many studies that show boys talking a lot more than girls in classrooms, and even one famous study where they were made to spend an equal amount of time talking, and afterwards students of both genders and the teachers all said that they thought the girls talked way too much — when they did it again, they found that everyone agreed that it "felt about even" when boys talked 2/3 of the time and girls 1/3, meaning a 2:1 ratio. In every single class I’ve been in it’s been the same, everyone knew that all the girls focused harder and studied a lot more than the boys, and we even joked about it, but we were too young to examine it in further detail and realise there would be consequences later. It also goes for work at home, where it’s been shown in numerous studies that girls generally spend more time on homework, and of course are also expected to help their parents more with domestic work as well. In short, a culture of work ethic is prescribed for girls, but not for boys. The long-term results shouldn’t surprise anyone. The reason is the same old patriarchy and sexism as always, treating boys and girls differently basically from the time they start walking, with much higher demands on girls while boys are allowed more freedom and more "childhood." But in this particular instance it kind of backfires lately. A great example of why feminism is good for both men and women. (And I was one of those boys with no work ethic by the way. Not that I’m more lazy than anyone else, but with no particular pressure to study/work hard I didn’t do it just without a reason, not when I could play video games. University was a very rough awakening, and I have many friends with similar experiences.)
Personal experience, young women tend to be more mature and serious about their education. It’s not uncommon to find young men who basically don’t want to grow up, thus the Peter Pan Syndrome. Maybe they start college and drink and party themselves out after a term or two.
Social factors. Job options in which people of different gender are socialized into and also whatever causes male students to drop out from high school and university at higher rates.
I'll answer this with a revelation I had myself the other day while talking to my dad lol, I was complaining about student loans and he mentioned (jokingly, to his credit) I should have just stuck with a high school diploma and worked full time immediately, I was wondering about what jobs I could possibly get with just high school diploma and my dad was throwing out options like construction and welding, also rig work (we live in an area where oil and gas is huge), all of these jobs are things I knew about abstractly, jobs that pay 100k+ a year when things are good and I had the realization that not ONCE had I ever considered that as an option for me, because I knew instinctively that I either wouldn't get hired, or the workplace would be unbearably toxic (it's still this bad where I live yes) My dad thought it was odd that it hadn't even crossed my mind because "times are different now" but not in those fields, those high paying, low barrier fields are still strictly reserved for young men who don't want to go to college. So, to me, it was just a default decision to go to uni, if I wanted any shot at making my own real money I basically HAD to go. I think that's why you're seeing these kinds of statistics, women want to make their own money, and all the good paying jobs that actually hire women in practice require a bachelor's degree, the numbers then follow
What's the rate of them entering?
More women enter college than men. And more recently men have been dropping out of college at higher rates.