Posted on 11/20/2021 5:22:12 AM PST by karpov
Recent news about the significant shift of women outpacing men in attending college—now a 60/40 ratio—overlooks one of the highest-achieving groups of all: gay men. In addition, lesbian women's level of education is not accounted for in the new figures. A new study from a University of Notre Dame researcher reveals how, without including sexuality, broad statements about gender and education are incomplete and misleading.
"Across analyses, I reveal two demographic facts," said Joel Mittleman, assistant professor of sociology at Notre Dame, whose study is forthcoming from the American Sociological Review. "First, women's rising academic advantages are largely confined to straight women. Although lesbian women historically outpaced straight women, in contemporary cohorts, lesbian and bisexual women face significant academic disadvantages. Second, boys' well-documented underperformance obscures one group with remarkably high levels of school success: gay boys."
For many years, LGBTQ Americans have been mostly invisible in the data used by social scientists to study population-level patterns of educational achievement and attainment. Under the Obama administration, however, officials added a sexual orientation question to three of the federal government's largest household surveys: the National Health Interview Survey, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and the National Crime Victimization Survey. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Education added its first-ever sexual orientation question to the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009. Using all of these new data, Mittleman analyzed how sexuality shapes academic performance in unprecedented detail.
Mittleman found that gay men's academic success doesn't just subtly outshine straight men's. Roughly 52 percent of gay men in the U.S. have a bachelor's degree, while the overall national number for all adults in the U.S. is 36 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Most of the difference between college graduation rates of gay and straight men may be due to personality differences, as Steve Sailer has blogged. Colleges promote homosexuality, and gay guys may find college a fun place to be. At the same time, colleges are quick to demonize straight guys (especially if they are white -- see Duke Lacrosse scandal), and the processes to adjudicate date rape cases are biased against men, although Trump's Education Secretary Betsy DeVos did try to improve things.
That’s queer.
Well, the State Department has to recruit from somewhere.
When you consider that the majority of the Bachelor’s degrees are for liberal arts (theater, writing, political science) vs the hard sciences and that many gay men are unemployable (see Buttigieg for example) this isn’t surprising.
Also factor in straight men that... well.. procreate and have to feed a family vs take the time to study.
Universities aren’t the “centers of excellence” they proclaim to be anymore (if they ever were). Public education even less so. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
This level of success has been true for decades, certainly since WWII. So current social trends are not necessarily the explanation, since they did well under adverse conditions as well.
> “Study: Gay men earn undergraduate and graduate degrees at the highest rate in the US”
Likely due to the fact that real men choose working for a living as their primary driver.
Academia promotes and advances only one class the last few decades imho
Weasel Ballchinians.
( example fraudici )
Ymmv.
So the question then is:
Do mentally defective people go to college, or do colleges create mentally defective people?
The article says lesbian women face significant academic disadvantages.
Really? I thought they had a majority population of both teaching staff and students. I thought it was mostly an intellectual ghetto
It leads the anti-family effort so that the state can become the ultimate arbiter of what children and students are taught and how they are raised.They already have destroyed the 2nd amendment rights of most University Students. This effort is now manifest inside of High Schools with CRT. The goal is to destroy the American Family.
Its so swell of these commie Gays to put up with the rest of us.( Sarc.)
Gays across the country need to be removed from their political power base. Its one thing for them to be accorded equality, but another to allow them to define the American Family, which is FAR too drastic to be accepted by Americans, justifiably so.
Why should a collective of Queers define who we are as a Free People, no matter how well educated ( indoctrinated) they happen to be.
I am seeing a lot of them are in hard sciences... EE, Physics, and Math at the MSc/PhD level.
“Across analyses, I reveal two demographic facts,” ....
Uh.....ok.... mayhaps Associate Prof Mittleman has an underlying homosexual bias? Asking for a friend....
Actually, this is just a continuation of the work he did in his Doctoral Dissertation.....we all know that Sociology is an exact hard science so can’t argue with his ‘facts’ and analyses. He checked the boxes on sampling, controls and accounted for mischievous responders, etc. so it’s all good, right? You can gussy up academic science-pretender subjects all you want but in the end you’re still left with supposition.
Ok now all you liberal parents, you must immediately instruct your male children that their best interests at college are served by taking courses in traveling the Hershey Highway and knob polishing.
What does this say about the people handing out grades at American colleges and universities?
Girls at the peak of their beauty and fertility will never find husbands. Sayonara whitey!
They are the only men who can get in to most colleges.
On this tongue-in-cheek point, last year on a post on social sciences featured this brilliant give and take (it's really one for the ages) involving a Harvard faculty member critical of Charles Murray from the original article, that is worth reprinting - it is with regard to the "certainty of SCIENCE":
"so why should we let someone teach social science that we know to be wrong in our social science courses?"
Because it is possible that you are wrong.
Science is not mathematics. Newtonian physics was wrong. And social science is a further three rungs down in certainty from science.
Your level of certainty and arrogance about what can be said, and probably thought, smacks of religion, and not science. This is a political religion that permeates academia at the moment. And which I am fairly sure you will swear does not infect you, while the rest of us can see the symptoms quite plainly.
Only religions ban heretics from speaking because of the wrong-think they might cause. Real science loves a good heretic. In fact, honestly, the entire goal of science is to be a heretic. To have an idea that no other person ever had. Science is the pretty much the antithesis of your thought-police approach.
And most of academia used to be the antithesis of your thought police approach as well, until the religion of leftism took it over, with the direct help of people like you.
How do you know?
There’s a LOT of peer pressure to be “gay” now even if you don’t actually act on it.
The truth about the gay lifestyle:
“Studies in San Francisco and Vancouver have found nearly 100% of HIV+ homosexuals and 67% of HIV- homosexuals are infected with HPV of the rectum. This virus leads to anal warts and anal cancer.
In addition to HPV of the rectum, homosexuals are at high risk of acquiring: Anal Cancer, Chlamydia, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes, Cystoisospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, B & C, and Syphilis.
Some of these diseases are almost exclusively homosexual in nature, others such as Gonorrhea and Syphilis were traditionally heterosexual but are rapidly becoming epidemic in the homosexual subculture.
Many homosexuals falsely believe that sodomy is safe and with the advancement of new anti-retroviral therapy medications that there is no need to worry about AIDS anymore. While anti-AIDS medications are prolonging life dramatically, the truth is an average of 15,000 people still succumb to AIDS annually in North America, and the anti-retroviral regimen in and of its self is a source of suffering that can shorten lives of HIV + people.
Common side effects of anti-AIDS medications are: Nausea, vomiting, rashes, heart disease, liver problems, lipodystrophy, diabetes.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.