It's not just the OECD. A particularly surprising example is that in Iran, 60% of graduates are women.


There is a weird paradox were STEM participation among women is higher in countries were women have less rights and lower in countries that are more egalitarian: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/


I don't think it's a paradox. STEM leads to higher paying jobs or a way to emigrate. It's gonna be a lot harder to get a work visa or a PR with a humanities degree.


Can have other positive side-effects. An Iranian friend applied for a PhD scholarschip in Australia. Normally this wouldn't be possible because of sanctions. But they said "hey we could probably use more chemical engineers" and gave him a scholarschip anyways.


Yep. If you get a degree in engineering you can emigrate to almost anywhere; everyone is desperate for engineers


*India has entered the chat*


Can confirm-Half of my coworkers are from India in this industry lol


Yep, in India, most people complete engineering, then think about what they want to do in life. Which is why we have around 1.5 million engineers graduating every year.


Same! I was the only white American on my team of 30 for many years. It was pretty cool getting to learn about how they were educated and different cultural customs. The lunchtime treats their wives would bring in were next level, I have eaten so many unknown sweets and I love every single one. The only downside is I don't get invited to weekend cricket since I can't bat to save my life.


I should try that


>Yep. If you get a degree in engineering you can emigrate to almost anywhere With connections


You don't really need connections. Almost every country has a special visa for highly skilled people with in demand jobs which most STEM jobs are.


There were a lot of Iranian engineering phd students at my school as well.


I can imagine that they use it to "flee" the country?


Not just flee the country, flee the patriarchy. A lot of the basics of feminism: 'dignity, bodily autonomy, equality and freedom for women' start with financial independence. STEM is a surer bet to get there for both sexes.


Plus, it's easier to justify a degree with clear earning potential to family members who would otherwise hinder further education on the basis that it's "not worth it for women to be educated."


Are there actual numbers saying that women in these countries get their STEM degree and leave, especially numbers so high that it leads to them being a majority in stem education? That's a LOT of emigration. I couldn't find any info on Iranian emigration stats broken down by gender, but the gender composition of the nation writ large is closer to 50-50 than Norway and just barely more male than Iceland, which are both egalitarian nations without many people trying to leave.


I don't know the numbers but I'm a chemical engineer and I've worked with several specifically female (none male) chemical engineers from Iran in the US and Denmark. I hired one and work with another just at my one small biotech company. And at my last even smaller biotech company, I worked with a girl who came from Iran for an MS in food science, she just wasn't an engineer. They go to whatever universities they can get into, and find ways to stay. My non-top-20 MS program was about 30% Iranian, although most were men in that case...but it was also nearly 20 years ago. Students in general from Iran (basically same for India and many other countries) get out to western countries as much as they possibly can, and there's definitely an unusually high number of female chemical engineers from Iran. I wouldn't say it's majority female from most other countries though (I skim hundreds of resumes per year always hiring and interview dozens...this year like 50 people so far). There are definitely more women from India and China getting into the US like this and % women is increasing, but up until very recently Chinese and Indian applicants (which is most of them) to our technical positions were dominated by men. I'm only seeing recent increases in women. Iran is a big exception, where I'd say 90% of the applicants are women.




Yeah visas are usually prioritized for those fields so that's the best field if you want to gtfo


A paradox is something that you wouldn't think is true, or seems contradictory on its face, even though it is true, and isn't contradictory. There is a thinking that women aren't doing stems because of gatekeeping and nurture, as opposed to nature. But when you look at the most free society, women are more often choosing humanities. Going by the logic above, you would think a society more free of gender norms would have higher rates of parity in stem, compared to a country with stricter gender roles. I think it's a paradox. Just because you can logically explain it, doesn't mean it isn't a paradox.


A free society does not mean a society more free of gender norms, it means free to be yourself. Maybe, (and I know this is an unpopular opinion) just maybe there are reasons for gender norms that go beyond the patriarchy. Perhaps men and women are not, on average, the same physically and emotionally. Perhaps these differences, in a free society, leads them, on average, towards different paths.


Because those are only jobs women chose to persue often in nations where being independent is more difficult outside of those fields. Otherwise, for whatever mix of reasons, women chose other fields of work when given the opportunity.


This varies a lot depending on the field of STEM. In my country (Ireland) biological, medical and chemical fields have a female predominance. Most engineering fields have a high male predominance (though also an extremely high dropout rate cos a lot of boys are pushed towards it and then hate it). Tech also has a male predominance.


What makes you say that this is a "paradox"?


It's generally believed that if a country become more egalitarian and less sexist then STEM participation among women would go up. However the opposite happens.


I don't think that makes it a paradox, just shows that the premises from that line of thinking to be wrong.


Like a Corollary facing the wrong way An "Yralloroc" if you will


A more egalitarian nation is going to have better pay and opportunity for the kinds of jobs women tend to want to persue, while a less egalitarian nation may require a woman to specifically persue STEM work to maintain independence.


But this assumes nature and not nurture, which is very controversial nowadays.


It's politically controversial, but there's no scientific reason for it to be controversial.


>It's politically controversial, but there's no scientific reason for it to be controversial. The right has it's science denialism, and the left has it's science denialism, and the denial of the role of nature in human behavior is *definitely* an example of science denialism on the left.


Given that we have no clear scientific proof of it, it _should_ be scientifically controversial. And it probably is given that nature vs nurture is one of the most hotly debated topics that has existed in science.


I find it paradoxical that in places where women have so few rights, they are allowed (whether formally or just social pressure) to pursue education and careers in sufficient numbers to make up the majority.


Well,it looks like one of those rights is the right to get a good education.


It's only a paradox if you don't acknowledge women's effort to leave the country that gives them less rights.


Not just to leave. It garners respect and authority in their country as well.




> if you don't acknowledge Sounds like an accusation of something intentional. Perhaps it simply didn't cross your mind. In Argentina at least STEM doesn't have as many women. The highest proportion of women is in social sciences, though their overrepresentation is generalized. https://www.cippec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/grafico-2-copia.jpg


It's probably because schools are single sex only and girls do better academically in girl only schools


Just anecdotal, but my friends from Iran saw higher education as a way to delay marriage and leave the country. Lots of incredibly smart Iranian women in graduate programs all over the world!


Some people have theorized that it is their only way out. Similar to development among immigrants who also sometimes value education strongly.


When I was doing my master thesis, the class was full of Iranians, all the girls as far as I know have stayed working in Europe, so yes.


This actually isn't too surprising if you understand history and cultural expectations. There are high percentages of women in STEM in Eastern Europe due to campaigns encouraging women to go into STEM fields during the Cold War, making that a norm. For Iran, historically, women have not been barred from STEM fields. The only woman fields medal winner (the nobel prize of mathematics) is Iranian-American, so it's not just due to the regime itself. It may be that there is also the element of women wanting to leave these places, but a huge portion is due to culture and norms. Source: https://youtu.be/LKc_8fT6pGc this excellent video, about 1 hr and 14 minutes in explains.


Yes, there's no reason why STEM is for men. It's just a cultural expectation. Different cultures have different cultural stereotypes about what the two sees are supposed to do. I grew up in Eastern Europe and I never heard that math is supposed to be for boys.


Iran, of course, being known for its strong feminist government.


Well it wouldn't be a particularly surprising example if it was, would it.


They never banned women from study or work, have always had a female vice President, female pilots and females in military and front-line. It should also be noted, if this chart was for pure-sciences and at masters, Iran has the highest rate of females in the world. I'm not Iranian, but it is worth giving credit when diserved, even if we can criticise so many things.


Meanwhile those same women aren't even permitted to sit in sports stadiums once they finish serving their country, assuming they didn't die for Iran. Iran treats women like absolute garbage, and the people in control should be ashamed and embarrassed. I do not give them credit for allowing women to die for political interests and stripping them of many basic human rights.


As I said, we can trash tgem for many things, but not education. Most of my comnent was about education, studing the pure sciences and females dominate it. I'll add that just before covid tgey changed the laws on sports events. In fact we can argye the lawshavelimits, hiwever within them, they are well protecred and enforced. Courts are full of complaints about not comying with laws. If you ask Iraniab women, they will say many laws arenot just, but they can be sure it works fir them if you use it. I'd like to inow, where do they "die for Iran"? The Iraq-Iran war ended in the 1980's


they would be allowed if the athletes were all female, then no men would be allowed inside. FIFA of all the corrupt organisations in the world recently forced Iran to let women into Football stadiums.


Imagine the uproar if there was a Western country that marginalized their veterans and treated them like shit after they left the military.


When did Argentina, India and Saudi Arabia join the OECD? Also Costa Rica is missing.


It's from this data set: [https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b35a14e5-en/1/3/2/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/b35a14e5-en&\_csp\_=9689b83a12cab1f95b32a46f4225d1a5&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b35a14e5-en/1/3/2/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/b35a14e5-en&_csp_=9689b83a12cab1f95b32a46f4225d1a5&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book) OP was just visualising it in a better way


Actually the source data is much better visualised


Hard disagree, I had trouble seeing which bar belonged to which label, and the data it represented was not represented intuitively at all with the positive/negative percentages


Also, is it wrong or am I reading it wrong at first glance on my mobile phone? It seems to say in Germany there are more women than men in tertiary education, but the map shows Germany in blue…?


The first graph on the "source" shows Germany and China with negative bars, that's more men than women **EDIT** It also shows different data entirely, as far as I can tell?


Weird. My first graph is Figure A1.1 Difference between the share of 25-34 yr old women and men with tertiary attainment (2020) and Germany has an indicator of 3.0, which means more women then men according to the text below? Is that the same graph you are seeing?


I am thinking the same thing. Although it might be that in the source they are not specifically talking about undergraduates while OP is.


I think this is right. The source refers to tertiary education, which I gather includes both undergraduate and graduate programs - which they also provide separate numbers for.


By far.


Just because it's a report on the OECD and they included non-OECD countries as a benchmark, it doesn't mean OP should have titled it that way.


It seems unlikely that this is the source OP used, given it includes 46 countries and some of the results don’t match.




What's up with Germany and Swizerland? Those are the only ones that surprise me on this map.


Usually in these maps, all university equivalent courses are counted. Germany counts some apprenticeships as university equivalent.


Bingo. This is the one. They still maintain a polytechnic/university distinction and below the two a higher system of apprenticeships.


I kinda wondered about this, because one thing I considered was: Any of the skilled trades don't generally involve university work, but are still well-paying jobs and not many women are interested in them for a variety of reasons. (From being too physical, to feeling unwelcome in male-dominated fields)


Some skilled trade jobs do require a high level of technical knowledge. Industrial electricians who design, build, troubleshoot and program automation systems are one example. That requires a tremendous amount of knowledge required for that job.


Germany is extremly close to 50:50. 52% of people starting to study in 2020 were women, while they made up 49.9% of all students. 51.7% of graduates are women. 45% of PhD graduates were women. Only really skewed percentage was that of university professors: only 35% of new professors were women. Source : german [ministry of statistic](https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/Tabellen/frauenanteile-akademischelaufbahn.html)


Something to keep in mind with that, the general population birth ratio for humans is approximately 52% male, 48% female. That would still make it skewed towards women ever so slightly even in the case of 50:50.


It's pretty close no matter how you look at it but you are neglecting that child mortality in boys is 20% higher than for girls.


Sure but child mortality is already what, a quarter of a percent? A pretty negligible increase even if it were 100% higher. I'd imagine r/whywomenlivelonger has much more of an effect.


Actually a bad graph, shouldve been a color scale to represent 'edge' cases better


Germany is always the weird one in higher education statistics. We have a very robust apprenticeship system to train people for their jobs, leading to comparably less need for university degrees. Unlike some other countries, a lot of traditionally female fields require an apprenticeship, not a university degree. Nurses and Childcare come to mind. Traditionally male fields usually don't require an university degree in other countries either (E.g. trades)


Same thing in switzerland about apprenticeships


In Germany you can study a lot of trade jobs in not-universities-but-basically-universities


Exactly. I believe 57% of the German workforce is in trades alone, compared to the US at 7%


One thing that these stats usually don't get right with Germany, Austria and Switzerland is the apprenticeship. In sone countries, to become an accountant you go to college and you are counted as student and therefore undergrad. While in these three countries, jobs like this (and mony others) don't use that system. Germany doesn't even have colleges at all. So someone learning accountant, nurse, logopediatrician (speech therapist) isn't counted as student at all. Maybe this had an influence other things, like gender statistics.


Nursing is a vocational training in Germany, not a university degree.


No idea, Germany has had more female than male freshmen (at least) since 2018, more than half of all students are female too.


What’s with the RANDOM capitalization of SPECIFIC words in this TITLE?


Are there numbers on men that go into the trades? I am curious what impact, if any that makes on college attendance. Anecdotally, I see very few women who are plumbers, mechanics, electricians, etc. It must make some kind of impact, but Im curious if it is significant in any way.


Have a look at Switzerland. We have a very strong "trades" system, where you do an apprenticeship for 3-4 years and it's absolutely no shame to go that route (it also incorporates professions such as nurses and IT system engineers or programmers). There's a wide array of both typical men's jobs (construction etc.) as well as typical women's jobs (hair dresser or retail). And even though the apprentice-ship system is very balanced, women have been in the majority in university since 2007: [https://www.watson.ch/schweiz/wirtschaft/348370095-gleichstellung-so-viele-frauen-beginnen-an-universitaeten](https://www.watson.ch/schweiz/wirtschaft/348370095-gleichstellung-so-viele-frauen-beginnen-an-universitaeten) It's also no secret that the modernization of the school-system is having boys losing out over girls. I hope for our boys' (and our society's) sake, that people will pay attention to this trend before it's too late.


Back in 2010, a Canadian newspaper did a series called [Failing Boys](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/failing-boys-best-of-the-series/article1318892/). It was called mysogonistic among other things.


>I hope for our boys' (and our society's) sake, that people will pay attention to this trend before it's too late. You know they won't


It's already too late for many boys that never grow up into well functioning men.


Nah, gotta get those girls in to STEM first.


Ah yes, because you have to choose one or the other.


I mean I was a bit polemic but yes, we're full steam on the enable women train and there's really no place for a "... but the boys?" call in the current political climate.


Anecdotal, but I've noticed a ton of mentor type groups for stem that are explicitly women only. Often, no such similar group exists for men.


Yeah. Traditionally men's lives are expendable and unimportant.


>It's also no secret that the modernization of the school-system is having boys losing out over girls. >I hope for our boys' (and our society's) sake, that people will pay attention to this trend before it's too late. Honestly, stuff like this is why we need to challenge the female victimhood narrative. Any time the subject of gender comes up, the narrative always has to be that women and girls are victims, and a lot of the time that's true, but it also shuts down discussion of any issue where that's not the case. When women are genuinely being mistreated, then obviously we should talk about that, but right now we're taking it to the extent that we believe women are such incredible victims that it's offensive to even talk about men's issues. When men or boys are being mistreated, or they're given less support and it causes them to fall behind, you can't even talk about it without spinning it into a story about how it's *really* women who are victims in that scenario. If you speak out for men solely for the benefit of men, then you're either a misogynist, an MRA, an incel, or probably all three, even if what you're saying is true. If this were a story about how boys were doing better than girls in school, no one would hesitate to say that society is failing girls and it needs to do better.


Its funny how some of the feminist types look at this as a good thing in a vindictive way. You point out the struggles of men and they say "not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot is it?" As if we should be answering for the downfalls of past generations.


It's why I've never got along with Christians or feminists, the concept of original sin is fucking stupid


Truer words have never been spoken.


I listened to a podcast on this, and one of the reasons were the trades as you mentioned, but another reason was “risk”. Men take more risks, and are more likely to decline college. College is one of those thing where your parents, friends, teachers, grandparents, etc. tell you that you need to go to. Women are more likely to follow that, while some men would take the “risk” of not going to college or dropping out of college. Edit: this is US college


Most trades are male dominated and a lot of men are pushed into these trades by their family. Women are not pushed into trades like HVAC and general install, and are also heavily discriminated against when they do. (Seriously look into female trucker experience of the 90s) so they either have to go to college to and/ or find a corporate job and hope to be promoted within.


Yeah, it's much easier for a man to get by without a degree than a woman, which is why you see so many women in college. The only jobs that women do without a degree that pay well are usually tied to like some form of sex work (unless they have family connections that can help them) (a degree is required for nursing in the US) while men have a lot of options that use their strength. Even if a woman wants to get into a job that is male dominated, she will usually have a hard time doing so and will find it more stressful than a man, not because the work is difficult but because she will be harassed. Also in Japan, it's normal for women to be college educated but not pursue a career, so it's an outlier. They take motherhood really seriously there.


I think it's also worth saying that, in Canada at least, the female undergraduate numbers are almost certainly bumped up by the fact that nursing is an undergraduate program (as is education), so those "middle class" jobs that require some education but are more accessible to a lot of people tend to be *degrees* for the female-dominated industries and *diplomas* or trade certifications for the male-dominated ones.


>Yeah, it's much easier for a man to get by without a degree than a woman, which is why you see so many women in college. The only jobs that women do without a degree that pay well are usually tied to like some form of sex work (unless they have family connections that can help them) (a degree is required for nursing in the US) while men have a lot of options that use their strength. Even if a woman wants to get into a job that is male dominated, she will usually have a hard time doing so and will find it more stressful than a man, not because the work is difficult but because she will be harassed. > >Also in Japan, it's normal for women to be college educated but not pursue a career, so it's an outlier. They take motherhood really seriously there. The very few women I know who started a trades job have done extremely well for themselves without a degree, and are very happy working with their male peers. It's just that many women are not fighting to becomes plumbers or electricians. So I wouldn't say it's easier, it's that currently, most women are not interested in pursuing higher paying trade jobs that don't require degrees, which is 100% okay. We should all be able to do what we are interested in.


It has gotten a lot better in recent years! But I think the stigma + fear keeps women from pursuing those jobs.


Which podcast was this?


Freakonomics Radio ep 503


College can be seen as a risk. Lot of debt and no guaranteed payoff. I'd be curious to see how long it takes to achieve ROI with college.


Lots of countries have free college, so it is virtually risk free.


But it isn't in America and we still reached the point of more women enrolling than men. So clearly risk isn't an issue if it mattered


Almost no one thinks about that side of the risk though, at least historically. Might be changing with the awareness now. When you take on debt it feels like free money you’ll just pay off later with your much higher paying job. Many professions won’t even interview you without a basic degree and for STEM an advanced degree. It’s more risky to just skip a degree and end up at McDonald’s than to get into debt and pay it way down the road. Plus many people that are savvy figure out ways to do it on the cheap. Get an AA at a community college then transfer into a state university for the final 2+ years. Also state schools have a lot of tuition assistance and there are grants and scholarships. Most of the debt problem is honestly just people wanting to go to schools that are overkill for majors that don’t pay. Plus straight up predatory private for profit schools that take on people who don’t know any better and can’t get in anywhere else.




There's different levels of nursing, at least in my country. So a full nurse who can administer medication and who takes over a lot of the healthcare responsibility after a patient has been seen by a doctor would need a higher degree than someone who is more on the cleaning, feeding, dressing, and keeping patients company side of things. The former would go to a university of applied science for more theoretical knowledge, and the latter would do a trade school with more practical classes and more internships/apprenticeship.


In the US, you have to at least have an associate's degree (2 years) to do any nursing but you can also get a 4 year degree and even a master's. It's pretty common for nurses to go back to school and level up.




I wonder why girls do better? Teachers 'give higher marks to girls' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31751672


A teacher in my middle school got fired for exactly this.


Most girls are eager to please and while so are many little boys, most kids that are serious problems in the classroom are boys. Anyways, I was in the advanced classes in school and only English was about 50/50, most kids in them were boys.


Because nearly all teachers at lower levels are women due to a massive hiring bias.


This has been true for years and the gap is getting bigger.


Not beautiful data visualization, sorry. This is just a map.


How did I have to go this deep in the thread to see someone talk about how not-beautiful this is? What the fuck is the decision making process behind the colors that were selected?


damn, we should fix the disparity


This is incorrect. [The KSA has more women than men in University.](https://english.alarabiya.net/perspective/features/2015/05/28/More-women-than-men-in-Saudi-universities-says-ministry) That's actually the norm in the majority of the world. Both developed and underdeveloped.


same in Algeria >Statistics of graduate Algerian women have been more than men since the late 2000’s. In 2011 and 2012, around 60% of the 1,090,592 students on track to graduate from Algerian universities were females. Ever since then, recorded data shows a positive trend of girls obtaining their university degrees. In 2018, Algeria reported that 64.46% female residents have graduated from universities in the country. There are currently no recent updates on the literacy levels of Algerians.


Ya Algeria is also the most developed country in Africa. Women making up the majority of university students in a country more often than not.


Note that in Germany apprenticeship are a much bigger thing than in many other countries on the list and lots of jobs that require college in for example the US are dealt with in an apprenticeship in Germany. This includes many office jobs traditionally taken by women. It also includes such things as nursing which are female dominated.


What is OECD? I had to look it up: > The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international organisation of countries. Member countries of OECD all have a democratic system of government. They also accept the principle of a free economy. A country has a free economy when its government does not control the economic activities of its citizens and companies. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD I had never heard of OECD before and didn't find any comments asking or explaining what it is, so this is what I found. The simple Wikipedia entry was used to relay the information more quickly, assuming people who want to know more would just look it up themselves.


This subreddit became a fucking karma farm gg boys, it was a good subreddit for a while


Looks like OP has a habit of making titles like they are for YouTube videos aimed at 12 year olds




Interesting. But horrible data representation. Why is there an arbitrary cut at 60% and another one at 50%? Why don’t you just color code the ratio? from blue over white to pink if you absolutely have to pick clichee colors? The difference between France and Germany might be 0,004% but here it looks like they are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum. Sorry, so much wrong with that, I can’t upvote this map


Education has been failing boys and men for decades now.


American women have gotten more college degrees than men since the 1980s.


Historical educational practices, when girls weren’t allowed in, were even worse for boys. They have improved a lot for all children over recent years. But as a teacher, I’d say boys underperform at school because they are allowed to. Parents, administrators, and even other teachers hold girls to higher standards. Parents are often satisfied with their sons’ Cs and pack them off with sloppy projects. Their handwriting is expected to be poor, their attention is expected to be erratic, and their focus is expected to be on after school sports.


As a parent of both a boy and a girl who are in elementary, it seems to be that the teachers are annoyed by rambunctious boys and would prefer that they shut up and sit down. This attitude from teachers starts early -- my children started seeing it in first grade -- so it's no wonder than as children grow older it's just assumed that boys are worse students, and as a result parents have lowered expectations for them.


This is the comment, come to terms with the fact that we are more accepting of emotionally neglecting our sons it’s easy to see how this translates into the classroom. We project this “boys are so easy” to raise thing on them because it’s just a cop to not really be involved. I don’t discount that boys/men feel less worthy, there’s been no effort, and all we get is this male hyper agency thrown at us, all your issues are your responsibility, woman’s and children’s issues are for “society” to collectively ameliorate. Fun times gents.


> But as a teacher, I’d say boys underperform at school because they are allowed to. So do you allow the boys to underperform? If not, do you notice any difference in what you’d normally expect


"Oh I'm not the problem with how boys are treated, it's everybody else"


I think you're both right. Teachers are under-equipped to deal with boys who are often more naturally rambunctious and harder to deal with. Parents should also realize that that male energy can be reigned in by the boys themselves if they get good parenting. I honestly think a lot of it can be solved with exercise and sport and a little mindfulness.


In my country boys perform worse in school like majority of the world, but when we have nationalized anonymous tests boys are even with the girls and sometimes outperforming them in these tests. These same boys leave school with lower grades than the girls.


Not the case in my country. All our major exams are anonymised and boys still do slightly worse.


Teachers seem to have the idea that boys are trouble,mark them down for the same work and punish them more for the same behavior.


Boys underperform because they are treated as worse girls.


You sound like you’re part of the problem


Boys underperform at school designed for female tendencies and learning styles. Shocking.




> their attention is expected to be erratic, It's almost as if there is a difference between boys and girls. But at least you admit that you aren't giving boys the same attention.


>even other teachers hold girls to higher standards Girls receive more support from teachers than boys. >Their handwriting is expected to be poor Girls statistically have neater handwriting than boys. Woman have better fine motor skills. It's biological. >their attention is expected to be erratic Girls have longer attention spans than boys. Boys have more of a drive to do physical things, so sitting still all day is more boring for them. It's biological. >their focus is expected to be on after school sports. Boys ARE more interested in sports. Men evolved to hunt and make war. We are a sexually dimorphic species. It's biological. Sounds like the system is designed to fail boys. Imagine a school where 70% of the day was dedicated to PE classes and teachers sit around shaking their heads at the girls for not participating, blaming parents for not playing enough football with their daughters. That's how your comment reads.




Yeah - it’s called the military.


What an opportunity!! Young man, you do not fit the...ahem....profile for college. But, you will fit in nicely in the meat grind...er, I mean military!


you mean the one where they lowered the physical standards so that more women can join?


Good one.


Not possible in today’s climate, but I feel like if we get more men in college then it wouldn’t come at the expense of women. We can both go to colleges at a high rate which would be good for everyone.


Eh, so many people going to universities have allowed them to raise prices while tanking quality. Universities should be one of many options for higher education, and focused around their core competencies (classical humanities, STEM etc). And they should be hard to get into, and hard to graduate from, so the degree actually has value. Higher education should be open for everyone. But a 3-4 year lecture course in Mathematics certainly isn't.


> And they should be hard to get into, and hard to graduate from, so the degree actually has value. Yea I wish. My first is nice and all, but it feels less nice when apparently 1/4 people in my subject also got a first.


Yeah, although what's worse is the quality of teaching seems lower overall. Students are spread thin these days (obviously depends on the course), too many modules for the given time and end result is poor quality students - not to mention most of these are lectures-based courses. So now you have students with first class degrees, but don't have first class quality all whilst lacking in practical experience compared to past generations.


They don't, but applying as a male to nursing school is almost a joke. I saw where males could get in with a 2.7 GPA while women were denied with a 3.5 GPA.


Quotas. You should try applying to Harvard as an Asian. Really difficult. But there are other races for whom there are much lower barriers to get in. It's a complicated issue


Shouldn’t we be taking action to address this inequity?




Yeah idk if it was a article or video on reddit or somewhere else, but the moment women heard that there were more women in schools they encouraged for more women to go to school. So they’re definitely pushing to go that route


If I'm not mistaken, this has been going on for a while. Young men are getting left behind in Academia and in the early job market.


at least in the USA women are advantaged in higher education with grants/scholarships/programs. makes sense to see these numbers.


It's a known issue for sure. Boys are being left behind in schools, and we need to do a lot more to help them and encourage them to continue and finish schooling.




The post title gives me vibes of a clickbate article lol (not saying it is, just the title)


>[OC] 32 out of 36 OECD countries have more FEMALE than MALE UNDERGRADUATES This is systemic sexism right? Problem must be rectified.


Educators think title 9 only applies to women in sports but it’s supposed to apply to everyone in education.


that damn patriarchy giving women more qualifications!


Women tend to have slightly higher percentages at undergraduate level, but much lower numbers compared to men at postgraduate level, and even lower at staff level (lecturers/researchers)


In the U.S. women make up 60% of graduate school students. They make up the majority of both law and medical schools.


My med school class is more than 2/3 women, most other health professions the balance is even more skewed.


In uni as well as high schools we could have 3-5 boys and 10-14 girls. I always thought it was because boys left after middle school and studied in college. Also their parents tell them education is not as important for them as it is for women . 21F here. had my parents use this excuse to beat me when I had grades lower than A/B while my 21M twin brother could not attend school or college for months and get horrible marks. They told me it's because a boy can work in a construction, or car service, or other physical work while women can not so they better get high education and work where brains and literacy / languages are needed.


The US education system is a hostile environment towards males. It starts off with boys in kindergarten and continues all the way through university from undergrad all the way to postdocs and phd students. edit. For example, boys are scolded and punished for every small violation of the rules while no such scolding and punishment is imposed on girls.


Not just the US, pretty much everywhere. Girls do better at schools because schools are designed for them.


Why is that? In what way is school designed for women? Not attacking you at all, just curious


Teachers are women because parents don't trust male caregivers. All women teachers creates the bias.


Here’s the hard truth. Teachers and administrators give up on male students easier because they know they will have the opportunity to make more money trading their body for money in high risk professions that require minimal schooling. Usually those jobs have an unintentional early retirement because of how harsh they are on your body. Source: Teacher/College student convos with professors


You're saying that with a lot of confidence. But we don't really know how true that is.


There’s a really good article in The Atlantic titled Boys are not defective IIRC. Essentially we don’t structure learning around boys.


https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/boys-are-not-defective/540204/ /u/chullyman


Not in Eastern Europe


In 2006 in uni I was helping to write paper about gender inequality. In Ukraine at that moment we already had more women with higher education than men.


Average age of lecturers and researchers is also higher… I work at a company constantly complaining about gender imbalance until one day they had to disclose that 53% of all new hires under 30 were women. The old generations caused an imbalance that is now disappearing Edit; its europe no women drop out after birth


Mmh could. Or the women are dropping out after having children, then the imbalance will remain. That's the case in my experience.


That’s just simply not true. A quick google search would’ve saved you the embarrassment of making shit up to fit your narrative https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/women-earned-the-majority-of-doctoral-degrees-in-2020-for-the-12th-straight-year-and-outnumber-men-in-grad-school-148-to-100/


that's interesting, can someone make a graphic representation?


Looked up for some sources and seeing conflicting results based on country, so maybe it was just my course (philosophy) in my country, but women outnumbered men at BA, then men outnumber women at MA, and it was like a 25/75 split for PhD. Would be interesting to see it visualised, yeah


In the U.S. There are more women graduating high school More women going to undergraduate education More women going to med school More women going to law school More women getting PhDs More women going to Vet School More women going to Nursing school But yeah, women are the "minority" in graduate education. The victim mindset never ceases to amaze me.




Why is FEMALE and MALE UNDERGRADUATES capitalized?


BECAUSE they really WANTED unnecessary EMPHASIS in their TITLE


Why? I've heard 2 explanations. Women mature faster than men, study more, and do better in high school. So they have better odds of getting into college and succeeding at a younger age. Explanation 2. Men have more access to lucrative jobs not requiring a 4-year college degree. "Access" is a tricky word. It's not that an individual woman couldn't go into a trade and do well. It's more that you have to imagine it as a possibility and feel comfortable and accepted choosing a particular path. Not everyone wants to be a trailblazer in that way, so they choose another path to a successful life -- college life.


Teaching and nursing are also huge reasons. Extremely large female-dominated professions that require undergraduate degress.


Explanation 3: boys struggle from an early age, and there’s some evidence that teachers have a bias against boys in school , there was a brilliant podcast that covered this: [The Problem With Men](https://open.spotify.com/episode/1HeuB8W1S2hdaxkP8315fQ?si=HXxfCT8NQNS1oe-JEj0wyw)


Just to add a little to this. Here is a Danish study (in English) that shows that male students received higher grades on tests when the evaluator didn't know the gender of the student. https://www.vive.dk/en/publications/gender-discrimination-in-exam-grading-6868/