Dear Commons Community,

The college decision is one of the most critical decisions that most young Americans make. Institutional reputation, internships, jobs, scholarships, and the party atmosphere all factor into that decision.    Forbes Magazine is citing US Department of Education data indicating that the  male-female ratio in higher education continues in favor of the females.  Ever since the 1970s, total enrollment figures show that females outnumbered their male counterparts and they have steadily increased their numerical advantage ever since (see chart above). The superiority first came in public universities, but soon private universities saw female enrollment surpass male enrollment.

The article provides the following additional data:

“On a national scale, public universities had the most even division between male and female students, with a male-female ratio of 43.6–56.4. While that difference is substantial, it still is smaller than private not-for-profit institutions (42.5-57.5) or all private schools (40.7-59.3). The nearly 40-60 ratio of private schools was most surprising, though perhaps this is partly due to the fact that most all-female schools are private. Nevertheless, the female domination of higher education prevails across all types of schools. It should also be noted that the national male-female ratio for 18-24 year olds is actually 51-49, meaning there are more (traditionally) college-aged males than females.”

I would offer that this trend relates directly to K-12 indicators such as high school drop-out rates where males outnumber females substantially especially among minority populations.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

I posted about Rick Santorum yesterday and his comment about President Barack Obama being a snob for suggesting that all young people consider a college education.  I did not think I would be posting about him again today but it appears he has a serious problem with President John F. Kennedy.  To quote the New York Times Frank Bruni: 

“He outdid himself over the weekend, for example, by … saying that when he long ago encountered John F. Kennedy’s words on the rightful separation of church and state, he felt like throwing up. I wonder not only about the degree of hyperbole in that memory, but also what Santorum ate just before he acquainted himself with Kennedy’s speech. I think he got a bad clam.”

For the record, Santorum has won three Republican primaries and is the projected leader in Michigan which has its primary today.

Dare I say:  God Saves Us!!!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

David Brooks does an analysis of the state of the Republican Party in his column today in the New York Times.   He essentially compares the way the Party between the ultra-right (i.e. Tea Party protesters) and the moderates (i.e. mainstream) .  Here are a couple of excerpts:

“The big difference is that the protesters don’t believe in governance. They have zero tolerance for the compromises needed to get legislation passed. They don’t believe in trimming and coalition building. For them, politics is more about earning respect and making a statement than it is about enacting legislation. It’s grievance politics, identity politics…”

“there are mainstream Republicans lamenting how the party has grown more and more insular, more and more rigid. This year, they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party’s reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum…. where have these party leaders been over the past five years, when all the forces that distort the G.O.P. were metastasizing? Where were they during the rise of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? Where were they when Arizona passed its beyond-the-fringe immigration law? Where were they in the summer of 2011 when the House Republicans rejected even the possibility of budget compromise? They were lying low, hoping the unpleasantness would pass.”

Brooks concludes with a rhino-opossum comparison:

“The wingers call their Republican opponents RINOs, or Republican In Name Only. But that’s an insult to the rhino, which is a tough, noble beast. If RINOs were like rhinos, they’d stand up to those who seek to destroy them. Actually, what the country needs is some real Rhino Republicans. But the professional Republicans never do that. They’re not rhinos. They’re Opossum Republicans. They tremble for a few seconds then slip into an involuntary coma every time they’re challenged aggressively from the right.”

Brooks has it RIGHT!

Tony