As court prepares affirmative-action decision, softer standards for men go unnoticed

... anyone but men are on the receiving end of aff. action largesse. Once that happens, well, damn, can't have that!

But the point abt feminist groups not complaining more abt this supposed leg-up for men when being considered for admissions to co-ed campuses: It's probably abt two things. First, feminists need enemies in order to be relevant, to define themselves against. These enemies are of course the male sex. If a campus has no men, they will have a hard time railing against them since they aren't there. Contrast the importance, or a better word perhaps is profile, of a given feminist student group on a given co-ed campus with one found (if you can find it) on a women's college campus. You'll see it'll have a much lower profile on the women's campus. That's because it has no one to rail against and undoubtedly the students will see it as redundant. After all, the whole campus is one giant women's club, right? Second, feminists know the truth abt where they stand among female college students. It goes like this: "Say what you like, rally, rail, etc., but guess what, sisters: we like to f*ck guys. If you get in the way of us getting laid, we'll get in the way of YOU." And so campus feminists know how far they can go.

But as time goes on, esp. as the price of college continues its insane climb and as college degrees continue to get less and less relevant to ppl's personal and professional ambitions, more and more men will either not pursue college or possibly will pursue a much more reasonably-priced version of college that doesn't include having to pay exhorbitant prices for on-campus living. I am of course referring to computer-based learning that is quickly gaining traction in colleges as a huge cost- and hassle-saver. But even so, the cost of the degrees will have to come down.

If not, college will become little more than a PC finishing school for girls from well-off families (arguably, it's already well on the way)-- or ones clueless enough to go into $100k of debt for a piece of paper that their daughter can add to the stack of papers on her desk. But I suppose she can always use the back of it to write down the names and numbers of temporary employment agencies or calculate how much money she'll have left, if any, after paying her monthly college loan installment-- assuming of course she doesn't have one or both of her parents doing it for her since she can't find a job that pays more than $8/hr.

I am so glad I'm not a college student today, or a recent graduate. As bad as it sucked late last century, wow, it REALLY sucks these days.

College is definitely becoming over-priced, when compared to the benefits. While I believe that education is worthwile, in its own right, education for education's sake is a luxury few can afford. When looked at on a purely financial basis, it often makes no sense at all. This is especially true when the student pursues the humanities, and other degrees which offer poor employment prospects. Even for those majors that can lead to well-paying jobs, such as technology or engineering, the outcome is mixed.

When we were sold the bill of goods in the 90's that globalism would make us all better off, we were told not to worry about the loss of manufacturing. We would simply be the bastion of the knowledge economy, and we'd be fine.

Know what happened? The internet made it possible for those with the "knowledge" to live in India or China, and American companies merrily invested billions in building technology departments in those countries.

Now, you can get an IT, Engineering, or even a Radiology degree, and accrue thousands of dollars in student loans, and your job can STILL be outsourced. You'll wind up the best-educated guy at the 7 Eleven, working right next to the English major.

So, while I believe that more must be done to ensure that men receive a proper education, I think that some are avoiding college for purely pragmatic reasons. I also think that many women will soon draw the same conclusion. For these people, we need to make sure that trade schools, apprenticeships, and other non-collegiate forms of education are available to them. In the end, they may end up far better off than those who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, pursuing the traditional college degree.

"Interestingly, none of these revelations prompted a wave of lawsuits, or even much outrage, from feminist organizations or other groups. It's even more surprising because the issue is probably more clear-cut, legally speaking, than race-based affirmative action."

I suspect that's because it would be filing a lawsuit against the very action they are trying to implement into STEM fields. Can't exactly cry foul about colleges doing something you have been doing in sports for decades, and what you are seeking to do in other areas, including STEM fields, as well as in buisness and politics (outside school)... you'd just be shooting yourself in the foot by forcing the creation of roadblocks to your own goals. Or did your only women matter perspective miss that point?

The issue in IT is that employers want both skills and experience-- unless a recent grad is placed high in his/her class w/ a high GPA in their major (Comp Sci., IT, EE, etc.), yes, even they face a challenge they wouldn't've a cpl decades ago. Experience today is critical. This places new entrants into even technical fields at a serious disadvantage, given that older workers are deferring or avoiding retirement entirely due to a lack of retirement funds or just plain not wanting to sit at home all day.

Still, I cannot stress enough that *if* a person plans to go to college, the importance of getting a degree in an in-demand applied field is huge-- assuming you're going to college at all. Good alternatives do include trade schools, industry certifications, and just plain initiative and chutzpah.

As for applied non-technical fields (e.g.: business, marketing), they still have value. But such ppl must rely more heavily on impressing prospective employers w/ their "soft skills" and make them believe they will be strong contributors to the bottom line, and w/ minimal training and direction-- and soon after their hire date.