Women outnumber men in both applications to college and degrees earned, so much so that gender affords some male applicants the extra boost they need to gain admission. Is this practice fair? And more importantly, why are fewer men applying to and graduating from college? The Los Angeles Times gives an interesting take on these questions in this editorial. An excerpt: 

A 2007 analysis by U.S. News & World Report, based on the data sent by colleges for the magazine's annual rankings, found that the admissions rate for women averaged 13 percentage points lower than that for men. But percentages don't tell the whole story. It could be that the men were stronger candidates, or they might have applied in areas of engineering and science where women's numbers are still lower. But such justifications, even if true, are unlikely to fully explain these numbers. At schools such as the University of California, where admissions rely overwhelmingly on statistical measures of academic achievement such as grades and test scores, the disparities don't appear. Far more women than men applied to UCLA—the UC's most selective campus—last year. The university accepted about the same percentage of each, with a slight edge to the women. As a result, the freshman class has close to 800 more women than men.

In recent years, several college leaders have admitted that their institutions give a boost to male applicants to maintain gender balance on campus. Most students of either sex, they point out, prefer such balance. If Vassar accepted equal percentages of each sex, women would outnumber men by more than 2 to 1.

The dean of admissions at Kenyon College in Ohio, a formerly all-male school, brought the matter to broad public attention in 2006 with an Op-Ed article for the New York Times describing the dilemma of her admissions office. "What messages are we sending young women that they must . . . be even more accomplished than men to gain admission to the nation's top colleges?" Jennifer Delahunty Britz wrote.

The Echo Chamber







Enthusiasts of wonky documentaries who turned out in droves to watch 2006's An Inconvenient Truth may have a new film to geek out on. Waiting for Superman, which premiered at Sundance late last week, is Truth director Davis Guggenheim's critical look at the public education system's prolonged faiure to educate the nation's neediest students.

Though Superman shows no overt political leanings, it has a clear villian—the powerful Democrat-backed teachers' unions. Guggenheim's criticism of teaching's perks (lifetime tenure, compensation based on seniority rather than performance) may not be a new idea, but the film takes a particularly tough stance against politicians like Bill and Hillary Clinton, whom Superman characterizes as beneficiares of the unions. And such criticism may garner the film some unlikely supporters—the same conservatives who loathed Truth

In fact, for all its focus on underprivileged, inner-city kids, sections of "Superman" feel like they could have been cut together by Bill O'Reilly. Slo-mo footage of union leader speeches opposing reform that could help problem schools. Hidden-cam video of a teacher reading a newspaper and checking his watch as his class goofs around. New York educators being paid millions to not teach. A major subject of the film, reform-minded DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, runs into a crippling teachers-union road block in her effort to shift pay structures to reward good teachers." Reuters

An Inconvenient Truth for the O'Reilly set? Now that I'd like to see.

Earlier this week, New Mexico senator Tom Udall, a freshman Democrat, introduced a resolution that, should it succeed, would set in motion a process that could lead to the elimination of the filibuster at the start of the 112th Congress next January. (If that sentence sounded unnecessarily clunky and complicated, well, welcome to the Senate.)

Udall's resolution seeks to reverse the long-held notion known as the "continuing body" theory, which posits that Senate rules transfer from one Congress to the next, and thus can only be changed by a two-thirds vote (or, more likely, an act of God). "Continuing body" sounds like a great name for a New Age healing ritual, but it's a really lousy way to run a government: as a result of the built-in impediments to reform, the Senate operates on a set of rules that only a handful of its members ever voted for. Instead, Udall contends that every Congress has the authority to set its own rules, under Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution. He's probably right.

In the days since the January 12 earthquake pummeled Haiti, aid has poured in from around the world through governments, the United Nations, and non-governmental organizations. And while the immediate relief work has been difficult and at times frustrating, workers on the ground there have made one thing clear: We should be thinking in terms of decades, not days, when it comes to assisting the tiny nation.

In a call with reporters on Thursday, staffers for a number of NGOs in the country emphasized the need for long-term support. The outpouring from private citizens has been substantial; InterAction, a coalition of U.S.-based NGOs focusing on global poverty, this week reported that Americans have given $350 million to support relief work. Much of that is helping meet immediate needs for food, water, medical supplies, and shelter. But with the devastation already retreating from the headlines, the needs for the next months, years, and possibly decades should not be forgotten, they said.

"We're not talking years as in 2, 3 or 5... but more of the long-term solutions for Haiti," said Amy Gaver, director of international response and programs at the Red Cross. "Haiti has needed a global solution for systemic problems for a very long time." The relief work, said Graver, should include planning for sustainability, with a focus on the long-term and a plan for organizations within the country to assume control of rebuilding.

Mario Flores, director of disaster response field ops at Habitat for Humanity International, said as many as 200,000 houses were severely damaged, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people face displacement. "Haiti had a lot of problems before the earthquake; the earthquake has only exacerbated those problems," said Flores. NGOs and governments working in the country, he said, should take the time "to really think through what the long-term recovery is going to look like."

The quake and resulting exodus from Port-au-Prince is also stressing other areas of the country as an estimated one million city dwellers return to the countryside. George Packer explains the country's long-term needs vividly in a piece in the New Yorker this week as well.

The country's extreme poverty and fraught politics, of course, have both intensified the impacts of the natural catastrophe. "The situation before earthquake was quite precarious," said Kathryn Bolles, director of emergency health and nutrition at Save the Children. Relief, then, must also seek to address the bigger challenges in the nation. And it's also compounded by concern that this recent quake may be a prelude to more extreme seismic catastrophes in the region, and the ever-present danger of severe tropical storms.

As the long-term challenges begin to become clear, the greatest need is still for monetary donations. Here's a list of some of the most effective NGOs to give to.













Update: Read about Demand Question Time, a campaign by a cross-partisan group of bloggers, techies and political consultants, including Mother Jones' David Corn, who are calling on the White House to make Q&A sessions between Obama and the GOP a regular event. The campaign's website is here.

That was must-see TV.

President Barack Obama spoke to an issues retreat held by House Republicans on Friday afternoon and demonstrated two things: 1. he's damn good, 2. this sort of face-off should happen all the time.

Obama opened by effectively delivering typically well-designed remarks. But what followed was historic: House Republican members asked him questions. It was the closest the United States has seen to the question time conducted in the British Parliament. The atmosphere wasn't as raucus. There was no shouting, no pounding on tables. Everyone was very polite. But the GOPers did try to press the president on tax cuts, health care reform, the budget, the stimulus, deficits, and their gripes about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Obama treated their queries with respect, answering them on substantive terms. He walked a fine line: talking about the need for bipartisan cooperation but also forcefully calling out the Republicans for their extreme rhetoric. At one point, he said that if the Republicans were going to describe his health care overhaul as a "Bolshevik plot," then there couldn't be much opportuntiy for collaboration. He explained that by demonizing the plan in such a fashion, the GOP was not allowing itself any room for compromise, for it would then face the wrath of its Tea Party wing.

