But then comes the part where I start rolling my eyes. This part always has to do with the ‘education gap’ between men and women. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that such a gap does not exist - I know it does and that gap is indeed a problem. But the reasons for it that are repeated over and over and over again on the right side of the blogosphere just smack of politicizing an issue that isn’t really political. It is like listening to conspiracy theories. “The feminists!!” “The Politically Correct!!” “The Echo Chamber!!” “The Lack of Academic Freedom!!” They exclaim.
“Fewer men are going to college because the fast track to education is reserved for the 'disadvantaged' sex - women. Men are thus squeezed to fit the new agenda, thereby themselves becoming a disadvantaged underclass: college graduation rates for men are fast approaching a lopsided 40% compared to women. Title IX is a clear example of gender-conscious social engineering.”
Isn’t that type of behavior supposed to be a ‘whiny liberal’ attitude? I thought conservatism meant standing up for yourself and not blaming others for setbacks. I thought conservatism was about doing it smarter and better than the other guy (or girl).
Many fellas I know who didn’t go or didn’t finish college have a higher earning income than I do. Right now, the guys I know who are in college are mostly going back to school or going to school for the first time years and years after graduating from high school. They all earn serious money, and many of them have families. They aren’t traditional students and they aren’t going to traditional schools. Unlike many high school grads, they actually appreciate the college education for its potential, and have a much better idea what they want their degree to be in. They have focus, they have drive, and the things that are more burdensome to them than the political philosophies of instructors are the redundant high school mentality of the ‘General Studies’ sections of their academic programs.
Maybe I’m just an idealist, but BIO 1101 + Lab seems a little more important than “oh, my instructor voted for Kerry.”
These men are working on their educations later because they had other priorities back in the day that had nothing to do with the political agendas of the academic class – they just didn’t have the cash or the inclination to take 4 years off from earning real money. I call this a ‘deferred reward’ that college promises, and I think it is a much bigger problem than feminism ever could be.
The idea is simple: I just got out of high school, my options are 1) go to college or 2) work for a living.
Option 1) College: I either lucked out significantly and Daddy can pay for me to have me go to a really expensive summer camp for four years, at the end of which I will still have my head up my ass, know nothing about the real world and have little self earned respect. OR: I can take out loans and indebt myself beyond 5 years of earning potential, meaning I’m going to be in the financial hole for at least 9 years, with no real guarantee that my major will be in an employable field. Either way, I will work at a restaurant and learn about real earning potential and work ethic, or I can work in a coffee shop and become part of the liberal echo chamber.
Option 2) Work for a living: I can use the contacts I’ve made and my competency in my high school job to work for a few years right now, live on my own, pay my own bills and have a great deal of self earned respect. I can party for a little while, maybe get into a community college (I do, after all, want to better myself someday) but I’m learning a trade and earning valuable experience right now. Then, when the time is right, I can move over to the nearest college town for two years, get a degree in something that interests me or directly helps me advance my career. Barring that, I can work while the wife goes to school to increase her earning potential and therefore the earning potential of my family.
Wow. What a bargain that first choice sounds like!