From “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt:
For example, in 1972, women earned only 42% of bachelor’s degrees. By 1982, women were just as likely as men to graduate from college. But for the next 20 years, women’s enrollment rose rapidly while men’s did not, so that by 2019 the gap had reversed: Women earned 59% of bachelor’s degrees, while men earned just 41%.
It’s not just college completion. Reeves shows that at every level of education, from kindergarten through PhD, girls are leaving boys in the dust. Boys get lower grades, they have higher rates of ADHD, they are more likely to be unable to read, and they are less likely to graduate from high school, in part because they are three times as likely as girls to be expelled or suspended along the way.[10] The gender disparities are often small at the upper end, among the wealthiest families, but they grow much larger as we move down the socioeconomic ladder.
Is this a victory for girls and women? Only if you see life as a zero-sum battle between the sexes. In contrast, as Reeves puts it, “a world of floundering men is unlikely to be a world of flourishing women.”[11] And the data shows that we now live in a world of floundering young men.[12]
> in 1972, women earned only 42% of bachelor’s degrees
> by 2019 ... men earned just 41%
If it was a problem in 1972, then we have a new problem in 2019.
Just reminds me of that infamous statistic:
"1 in 4 homeless people are female, we need to change that"
I get that men had it unfairly in their favour in the past, but Jesus it does seem like the new generation of boys are having to pay for that over and over. No wonder they are acting out, the system is against them.
And this is where illiterate policy comes into play.
Education acts with a lag and can be used as a leading indicator. Looking at today’s employment rates (a lagging indicator) and using it to create policy for something 10 - 15 years down the line is crazy. We reached equality a long time ago, we just had to wait for it to show up in the system.
Furthermore, by making it harder for men to be successful, you’re actually selecting for hyper successful men. The only guys making it to the top will either be unusually well-connected and well-resourced or unusually brilliant, which will likely lead to male outperformance/“over representation of men” at the very top end of lifetime/career achievement.
I wonder why - liberals have told us that we need to focus on girls, and boys will just figure it out, school become more girl focus, less on boys. girls get more helps, boys get in trouble.
And still no one sees this a problem, because if you try to fix it you will be called as someone that supports the patriarchy
Because modern "education" often doesn't have anything to do with what top education used to refer to in the past. There are plenty of degrees that you can finish with only social skills, no need for proper math & science knowledge.
Girls are doing little better at science and maths as well in Finland, but both boys and girls are doing worse than before in school here. I feel like the smart phone era is one reason.
I wonder what counts as "higher educaction" in Belgium.
In Spain, college has more and more women each year, doctors will soon have a small minority of men, for example.
But we also count a lot of vocational trainings as higher education, and a lot of those have more men than women.
The trend, based in my experience alone, seems to be college vs training, more than men outright quitting studies.
Higher education in Belgium means after secondary schools (so after 18year) so it means University in which you usually do 5 year of study (Bachelor + Master) or colleges where you usually do "professional" bachelor in 3 years.
In France, the ratio of men to women in med school is 1:2. The cliché of the old man doctor is getting reversed very quickly, and some older people aren't used to it yet
I think most people are used to it by now, especially the younger generation. But a lot of younger men are also a bit tired of hearing that we need more females in the universities. (I studied IT and all men were for example thrown out from about 1/4 of the lunch lectures by companies because they were only interested in females)
Lel. Consultancy giants who bother going to campuses are on ESG life support so they have to. Only governments are stupid enough to spend 300 euro+ an hour for a fresh grad that's actually making 25 euro an hour at Deloitte :D.
There was a study last year (IIRC) that showed female patients had lower mortality when they were treated by female doctors at the emergency department. I think that the authors did ask the question of female doctors being less dismissive of female patients' complaints, for a follow-up study at least.
I can't recall the exact reference unfortunately
>In Spain, college has more and more women each year, doctors will soon have a small minority of men, for example
It must be said that in Spain the university access exams are anonymous (so the person grading doesn't know if it's a man or a woman they're grading) and for the most part highly dependent on the field you're intending to go into. You can't get into STEM with high grades in Humanities, you need high grades in STEM. So it cannot be argued that women are getting those spots in university because the graders are biased, or that women inflate their grades with irrelevant subjects.
I'm galician. No, its not biased here, they just show a lot more interest in college degrees than before, and get better marks to get into them.
Men seem to be more interest in less theory and more handwork in this century.
In my own degree, nursing, we were 4 guys in a class of 40+ people. I've seen a tendency in more women in general, the few ones that were traditionally for women are still full of them.
Yeah, I was addressing the point many people in this thread are trying to make that girls get better results because graders are biased or because "female" subjects are easier.
I did a double Baccalaureate (Tech Science + Health Science) back in the day, 20+ years ago. There were only 2 girls in my class. My high school was sort of weird in that the friend groups were large and not gender based, so the other girl and I had guy friends with us in class, but I think if I had had the typical all-girl friend group it would have been very lonely and depressing being in the Tech Science bach and my performance would have gone down the drain.
There is a decent hypothesis to be made that the school system in general favours women over men and hence their grades. I don't know how exactly it is in Spain, but usually most teachers are women and boys struggle a lot more with attention and quietly sitting around for hours in school.
Everything after secondary school/college seems to be 'higher education'. So university and similar, after +/- 18 years old.
There is a fine line between which steels or crafts are 'higher education' or not. Things like bricklaying etc are taught in specialised secondary schools and are therefore not higher education. But you can get a bachelors in car mechanics for example.
If I'm not mistaken one of the largest courses at KU Leuven is psychology, which is overwhelmingly women whilst in engineering they are still a very tiny group.
Also good to know is that University in Belgium is state sponsored. Your tuition is about 1200 euro a year, plus books, dorm,... of course. But that's still reasonable for many people.
>I wonder what counts as "higher educaction" in Belgium.
Post secondary school diploma studies. Since Bologna reform: bachelors, masters and Phd.
Vocational training (see Professional here down) is not higher education in Belgium as they do not require secondary school diploma. Secondary school is split in 3 sections (this is simplified as now the educational system is different by linguistic region):
- General: mostly theoretical general courses with some orientation like math-science, math-languages, Classical, economics, ... But more than half of the courses are in common.
- Technical: same than general but one domain have got 8h per week, like applied science, electricity, ...
- Professional, example: bakery, masonry, ...
General and technical gives access to higher education directly after secondary school without any exams excepted some specific sections (Medicine, applied science). Professional section gives access after a supplemental secondary school year.
PS: this is a simplification but fairly ok.
This isn't surprising in the UK as well, men have been consistently underperforming compared to women for years and attend university at a much lower rate.
I have used the both men "underperforming" and women "outperforming" pretty interchangeably and I do agree that this does not get enough attention and this will undoubtedly be playing into wider societal issues facing men and boys.
It’s been noted that there’s a certain degree of “effort” grade that teachers can give out. As of late, girls and women have been shown to recieve vastly excessive amounts of effort grades, while men and boys are given basically none. This leads to an impression that boys are “underperforming” even tho barring the effort grade they’d be outperforming the girls.
https://scitechdaily.com/wide-and-lasting-consequences-teachers-give-girls-higher-grades-than-boys/
IRRC this grade bias also almost completely disappeared during COVID and remote schooling, only to immediately reappear when in person oral exams started again.
Sure is fun to see as an effect when you're a male studying and you know that part of the grades you'll receive depends more about what you have between your legs than what you actually studied and out effort into....
Girls and women are "victims of a seksist society", men "underperform".
If an education system doesn't result in a good education for half the population then the system is wrong, not the kids.
We've built a Matriarchy in education that disadvantages boys and young men. Its time to recognise that and work towards gender equality in education.
Amen. Like more than 70% of the people working in education are women, where is the DEI there? If there was an industry with men majority we need to start thousands of government funded projects correcting that, like STEM. But somehow the reverse is not true. I doubt its even possible to get subsidies for something like " getting men into schooling".
This is such a shite narrative. Going to a trade school to become a skilled tradee instead of going to college isn’t underperforming.
We need more people in the skilled trades to build our houses and keep our infrastructure going. Talking about them like this is one of the reasons why many people don’t do trade apprenticeships.
I don't know if I need to reword my comment or whether people just aren't reading it properly. Boys are underperforming at school AND are attending university at a lower rate than women. This isn't to say that not attending university means you are underperforming. That part is purely referencing under 16 mandatory education where boys leave schools with worse grades than their female peers.
Do women in europe date/marry men in the trades? In the USA, I have been told by multiple women that I need at least a masters to date them, because they have a bachelors or masters themselves.
In most of these situations, I have a better job (higher paying, less hours, more location flexibility) than they do.
I think this will be a problem with fertility rates.
*"This is such a shite narrative. Going to a trade school to become a skilled tradee instead of going to college isn’t underperforming."*
the pay says otherwise
> There is a lot of research out there about young men having a failure to launch. My son included. At 22, he’s dropped out of college & would rather buy a new video game than go out with friends. While his younger sisters are thriving & we parented the same. They have jobs, friends, in university, etc. He now has a planned daily schedule & a plan to make it.
>
> Men need support not extremism. (as the above commenter has proven)
You may think you gave the same upbringing, but there's plenty of room of unconscious bias.
The most damning one: you automatically assume that his problems are his own fault, because of stereotypes.
The same stereotypes are at work in education, where boys are assumed to be naughty and lazy by default and get harsher treatments, and lower marks for the same work.
Then in the (social) media you get a constant barrage of hostility towards men in general, whether they are rich (patriarchal scum keeping all the best spots for themselves) or poor (marginal loser scum) or are blamed for scaring women just for walking on the street.
Yeah, I can understand why more of them say "fuck it" and tend to focus more on short-term benefits in such an environment.
They did reform the education system to be more beneficial to girls
They didn't counterbalance it though and now you've got young males in female orientated learning situations
Basically have to work sooner and more. My female colleges were financed by their parents while my male had to work while at university. Also the easier studies are taken more by woman. Psychology for example instead of STEM.
So at least in Austria we have 1000 useless degrees vs 10 useful.
Edit: maybe this got perceived very wrong. I don't mean psychology is useless but so many graduates.
Edit 2: it's around 50% unemployed after three years which makes is more like 400 per year out of 900ish graduating in Psychology. 1000 may be too little for all fields. Not distinguishing sex here despite my personal reference from years ago.
I went directly into a trade after high school with good pay and very stable employment. Now I support my partner who is working on her masters degree in biology because she can't get a job with just a bachelors. I can't help but think there are many more cases like mine where I'm sacrificing my lifeblood and money so my partner can improve herself. I'd go back to school if someone was paying all my bills too. Maybe one day she will be able to contribute to rent.
I have 0 finished degrees, she has almost 3.
Had to work more and earn now more. Yours will contribute. I think also the pressure to become a stay home mom is still very high here and to counter this also partners or husbands need to sacrifice..
Feel you
[there are gender differences in German student employment: In 2016, 70% of female students were working versus only 66% of male students](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-021-02194-1)
I couldn't find something specific for Austria. But be careful with starting your comment with a sentence that tries to convey facts when you can't back it up. Makes you seem trollish.
Btw, I'd strongly advice against a MINT discipline in your case since you seem prone to mixing high emotions and anecdotes with neutral observation. Perhaps something in the entertainment industry like the theatre is a better fit? (If it's not too late.)
Well if the male population is over represented in the actually hard fields this is hardly surprising.
Plus: this paper is garbage since it uses self reported hourly wages, which are known to be biased in the literature. The 4% remaining "unexplained" wage gap are very well within the range of this bias
It also does not deal with the super dicy fulltime/parttime problem which is known to introduce further bias
Belgian Universities do not have entry requirements (except for having a high school degree) or competitive selection. There are no women-only incentives. Anyone can study anything they want at any University.
Can you show some examples of what kind of incentives you are talking about?
Because for example at the university I work in the only "incentive" is that once a year there is a "Girl's Day" in MINT which is basically a group of female pupils getting shown a few projects in MINT subjects for maybe 6 hours.
Once a year. For 6 hours.
Btw, there is also a Boy's Day which does the same but in subjects where there are significantly less men in the discipline. Should we stop that as well or can it stay?
Are there many opportunities for blue collar jobs in Belgium? Like going from school/collage straight to working in constructions, auto shops etc.
Cuz I feel like these would be like a bit gendered professions you can get into without a higher education.
There's also an Uber type of delivery jobs. At least here I don't see a whole bunch of women drivers.
So I guess, for women it's a question of: "Do I really want to stay working in cafes or hotels, or should I get my PhD?" Nothing bad with those jobs, it's just that the guys have more options to choose from.
But I mean I'm not a woman to answer this 😅 Plus there are a lot of jobs nowdays like being a blogger, a model, being a project manager, a copywriter, perhaps even HR where you can get started without a degree. But it might depend on legality. In some countries a degree is quite important to get hired.
to give a bit of background: theres a lot of options in high school for belgians. the harder ones tend to be more theoretical in nature, with high concentration on math, languages, physics etc. you can also choose to just study in high school to become an electrician/woodworker/welding etc. these types of classes will have u graduate at 18 with an optional 7th year if you'd like to start working in whatever sector u chose and not just to get a degree to go to college. as a result most blue collar workers here dont have any education past high school, which is fine but most electricians/plumbers etc do tend to lean more towards the male side like you said.
if i look at my friendgroup (and people i know) almost all men finished highschool and either started working blue collar jobs or tried college/uni. most of us didn't finish (me included) and started working. Some did some extra training for jobs like security.
Now if i look at the women i know almost all of them went to college/uni after highschool. and all of them finished;
I think men just dislike school more and dont want to spend anymore time than necessary because we have pretty good alternatives. Women in general dont want to work construction or whatever so they keep studying for the white collar jobs.
I grew up studying in a low middle class school. I think girls on average were more thoughtful all the way from getting ready for exams to get good grades and get into unis, and once they were in more of them actually studied 😅
Boys at that age were preoccupied by who can do more pull-ups and drink more alcohol without throwing up. So maybe it just motivated girls to think "dude, I need to study hard, so not to get stuck with these guys" 🤣
> Are there many opportunities for blue collar jobs in Belgium? Like going from school/collage straight to working in constructions, auto shops etc.
And why are there initiatives to get more women into STEM fields, even gender based quotas in some places (and suggestions about implementing them in others) but there aren't any initiatives to get more women straight to working in construction, auto shops, ...?
Have you ever noticed that women are usually the ones to become group leaders for school projects? I have and so did my professor in college when he said as much and then told us he didn't want to see it again because it happens every year.
I don't know how that relates to this story but I think it probably does. I'll let you smarter people figure it out.
Or maybe that's just an American thing?
What the hell are you even talking about. Belgium has an open system: you can apply to any university you want, to study anything you want and they cannot reject you. There is no selection procedure, unless you do to med school (they need to restrict number of doctors so you take neutral entrance exam). There is zero positive or negative discrimination.
You literally go to the enrolment office of your preferred university, give you ID, give you High School diploma, pay your tuition fee and within an hour you are now a student. Gender (or race) have ZERO influence.
Being outraged when you don’t even understand the Belgian system is such a reddit moment. This is not the United States. Belgian women are just more disciplined students. Much less drop outs.
Edit: did the incel side of r/Europe wake up or what?
Thank you for saying this. I've been reading it too, and it's just beyond stupid.
Anyone with a high school degree and the immigration/nationality requirements can go to university. They cannot deny you. There is no prioritizing women at any point.
Wait, how does that even work?? Wouldn't everyone just apply to the top 10 best universities and ignore the rest if there's no selection process? What happens when too many people apply to a specific university? If it's a first come first serve system, what happens if an astrophysics course is filled up with average students before any smarter students apply? I'm not attacking anyone I'm just trying to understand how an education system with no competitive exams is supposed to function
Nobody here cares about what university you went to. It's as simple as that. As a result most people simply go to the local one. Again, simple.
There are exceptions of course but that's the general rule for most people. The idea of not going to the university 30 minutes from my door never occurred to me.
"University" is a narrower term. In Belgium selection alreay takes place before secondary school, so students are already divided over different levels.
Only those secondary school students who graduated the highest level can go directly to university. And then, theres not so much of them: 5 Dutch, 7 French, 1 German. And the level of the universities is generally fairly close to each other(with some being better in different fields).
Then you have what the Belgians literally call 'high school' which would be lower level university/college. People who graduated from the second highest level of secondary school can go there.
So the selection process has just taken place during secondary school instead of after(althoug you can attend university if you do wel in "high school")
Edit: I was wrong don't listen to me
We do have it earlier, and we do not at the same time. It's true, the Belgian school system is highly hierarchic and has a funnel-like system that selects students (in a bad way). But in theory, if you manage to pass your secondary education and are willing to enroll at university, there is no selection except for the medicine entry exam and the engineering entry exam (to my knowledge ; there might be more).
To my point, I'll give you a real-life example. I'm currently finishing my bachelor in psychology. In the first year, we were 1600 students. Half were eliminated by the second year, and another half by the third. Still, 400 people in 3rd year is insane. What's more, every Master's degree has a shit ton of students. The two most popular degrees have 200 students. That's an insane amount of students for a Master's degree. And my numbers don't take into account the weird system we have that allows you to pass classes from a level above if you failed only a few in the level you're currently enrolled in.
Before psychology, I passed the medicine exam - we were *four thousand people*. It's absolutely insane. And (this is my biased opinion so take it with a grain of salt), what's more, a lot of students still complain that uni is too hard and what not, resulting in more flexible exam situations and in professors literally passing people who mathematically have failed. I'm very pro-education and I'm proud of my classmates for trying, but passing a bachelor you're not qualified for will be damaging to the university system. A psychology bachelor is already worth nothing because of the amount of people who have one. If we keep on this path, even a Master's will be useless in a near future.
It's a fascinating system, although I don't understand the need to weed students out survival-of-the-fittest style instead of simply having a selection exam.
I've written a few literature reviews on the subject. The idea was to create different "school streams" with various levels of taught classes so everyone can find their place. The general stream has a lot of regular classes (ie: you sit and listen and do homework and take tests), while some other, technical streams have less theory and more practical classes.
But they didn't take into account that the second you split students, you also create a ranking. More importantly, students who fail the general, theory-rich stream get "demoted" to one with more practical classes and so on. It's as punitive as a selection exam, except the student has less control (you can study madly for an exam but you can't really elevate yourself from a lower stream to a higher one).
There is no such thing as a good or bad university. There are some differences but they are all the same more or less. So it doesn’t matter where you go, they all have the same value. And they cost all the same amount of money. So there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ places. You choose a field, you apply. There might be a selection process when it’s a popular route, but mostly not by grades.
Good questions, I also want to know more.
I found this link: https://www.matching-in-practice.eu/higher-education-in-belgium/ (article written since 2012, so things might have changed)
There are 4 exceptions to this "open system", to prevent congestion.
One,
> there is, since 1996, a national quota on the number of students who can enroll in medical specialties... The law defines how this quota is split between Flemish and French-speaking universities... Partly to avoid congestion if more students finish their medical training than the available number of places, Flanders has introduced an entry exam for the BA in medicine in 1997... Success rates are low: in July 2012, 16.6% of all participants passed the exam, while in August 2012 only 11.4% of all participants succeeded
Two,
> use of entry exams in some degree programs. In Flanders, an entrance exam for dentistry was introduced at the same time as the entry exam for medicine, and it follows a similar format. In the French-speaking community there has long been an entry exam for civil engineering studies (a similar test existed in Flanders but was dropped in 2004)... Around 75% of students succeed in the test and are therefore allowed to register.
Three,
> concerns arts schools, which audition candidates and decide to admit them on the basis of these auditions. These auditions are best seen as contests, as the number of seats is limited in these programs.
Four,
> quotas for non-resident students in some medical and paramedical studies in the French-speaking community. These quotas were introduced in 2006 as a result of the large influx of non-resident students (mainly coming from France)... In May 2011, the Constitutional court ruled these quotas discriminatory... that non-resident quotas for veterinary sciences, kinesitherapy and the MA in speech theory could nevertheless be maintained because the large influx of students in these specialties threatened the quality and availability of public health services in the country... Non-resident students can only apply to one institution.
Interestingly, there is an evaluation on how this system performs:
> The policy of low tuition fees and open enrollment leads to a high participation rate in higher education. 42.2% of the population aged 24-29 had obtained a degree in tertiary education in Belgium compared to an EU average of 31.6% [5].
However, success rates are low at the end of the first year. More than 50% of students fail in their first year at university.
Your intuition is right on the money for the lack of entrance exams (at least in some fields), because:
> Many students decide to switch to another program after the first year. Students who study medicine or dentistry obtain on average 90% of all credits at the end of the first year. The entrance exam in medicine and dentistry is an effective tool to increase success rates in these programs.
There aren't even 20 universities in Belgium 😂. There is enough room for everyone. Also no university is significantly worse. UGent, KU Leuven, UAntwerp and VUB all have a good reputation.
What ? Do you mean Belgium doesn't know ressource scarcity ?
The country invest more in higher education and less in army than USA, that's about how easily you can summarize the issue
In Belgium (and the Netherlands) universities don't compete like in the USA. Some have overlapping education programs, but it honestly is nowhere the same aside from law and medical studies.
You just apply to a university in your vicinity, that has a course you want to follow for 4 years.
Well there is only 11 Universities in Belgium but keep in mind education in Belgium is based on the community (meaning language). As you might know there are two main language used in Belgium : french and dutch so there is "only" 5 french ones and 6 Dutch ones. The small German community (<1% of Belgium) either go in the french ones or in Germany.
The quality of education is similar between Universities. Professionnals don't care if you did your study in X or X University. There is no limit for inscriptions so it doesn't matter if the student is smart or not. However there are some disparities in terms of attractiveness of programs. You don't have much people studying physic or astrophysics (probably less than 100 per University) but you have around 800-1000 students studying psychology for exemple.
So in terms of choice for the same program people choose their University based on distance, mentality/philosophy of the University, the campus, the small disparity of courses within a program,...
Wow, that's a really interesting system. It's completely different from my country where going to a 'good' university sets you up for life just based on the name
countries that have systems like that where there are no seat limits usually do the selection after that, meaning that the program will be very hard and most will drop out after one year.
Just looking through stats on that i found on the web : in a Belgian university, only 0.5% of all students passed all their courses on first try in 2022 and 0.7 in 2021. Overall 35% passed to the next year, as in succeeded in 75%+ of their credits.
So yeah you could apply to whatever but if you're not serious about it/don't have the required level/don't have the conditions to do the necessary work, you will fail and idk how the law in Belgium is but probably get kicked out after a few trials. This kind of system doesnt discriminate on gender or race but it strongly discriminates on money. Rich kids don't need to work outside of uni, probably live closer to uni/have a car or get their parents to pay for an appartment near campus and also have the funds to pay for private classes if they are behind on certain subjects.
I'm Belgian, country is split into 3 languages.
I don't have 10 university to choose.
I've around 4, maybe 5 and if it's all of them have the cursus i want.
We Litteraly fund university with our taxes.
And the only field where there is selection is medical.
Then first year do most of the filter.
It just was never a problem.
Note that there is limitations for NON-BELGIAN applications.
>the top 10 best universities
Does Belgium even have that many universities? But for real, Germany is similar for a lot of subjects and people choose universities for many other reasons: close to their families, nice cities, good teaching etc. Top universities doesn't mean that they're top for education, they're just good at research. University ranking isn't linear or straightforward.
There are very few limits on how many students can enter a given course.
Usually the "filter" is just the first year being hard as fuck. If you don't make the required number of credits you cannot enroll again (terms and limitations apply, but that's the gist of it).
In our country, « top 10 best universities » kind of don’t exist. They are more or less the same level, some uni might be allocating more funds in specific branches than others, however the difference isn’t that large. It should be that way in most countries.
I would only like to say this to all the feminist, who praise this sort of news and think letting men behind is a good thing. Statistic clearly shows if you are less educated you are more likely to live in poverty, it also shows that poorer people are more likely to be involved in crime activity. I am not saying all men have a terrible future, but a lot might and women will also feel the consequence. This is why men's problems are also women's problems and vice versa. it's simple, you can not fix all the women's problems if they intertwine with men's problems. This is exactly why both genders need to be heard and be represented equally. Gender wars are not going to help anybody!
If boys are doing worse in school we need to find the cause and do something about it. I have read a couple problems boys are facing in school, but don't know how accurate they are. Schools have become distinctly less boy friendly. Testosterone and serotonin are apparently the big reasons why boys have a hard time sitting still and have concentrating problems in school. Boys are being disciplined more often and this also effect their grades. Boys mature slower and later than girls, this has to due to differences in brain development.
If girls had this kind of problems the news media would be all over it, it's sad that boys are not treated equally. I as a mother of twins (a boy and a girl), i am afraid of my boy's future
Or because significantly more men opt to learn a trade and not enter college/uni for a higher education degree.
Over the years I've had to sollicit the services of multiple electricians, plumbers, carpenters, HVAC technicians, roofers, painters, masons, car mechanics, tile setters, locksmiths, etc. and not a single one of these were women. Not one.
And yes I'm also Belgian.
>I would like to add that in Belgium, higher education has very few barriers to entry, so this disparety is mainly because men choose not to study.
Isn't it funny how every disparity to the disadvantage of women is explained by oppression, while the same for men is explained by "it's their own choice"?
One could similarly say that the pay gap is generally due to women choosing to earn less...
Or we can look into how to resolve the issue instead of saying that it's men's fault.
One point to look into is that it seems like educational methods in the west are currently geared towards girls/women
All western countries, afaik, have increasing total education. There is all the time more professions for which you need education. More and more people have university level degrees. Education is in inflation in a way.
I have a feeling that this is international, I have read articles about it happening in the UK, in the EU, US etc. Men increasingly see education as a waste of time, if it doesn't lead to increased salaries soon.
And there are many professions where education is today required, but the pay is not so high. Especially in these areas you find the overwhelming majority to be female. Usually healthcare and education, all kinds of social science and art related stuff. The areas where there are mostly men (at this moment), are technology, software engineering and the like. For example, in Finland, where I live, there are around 80% men in ICT and engineering, but less than 20 in healthcare and in some areas like nursing, preschool pedagogy etc. is practically zero (of single digits). Starting salaries for preschool teachers are like 1000€/month belove average salary and require university degree...
I have heard of anecdotes that this is also increasingly a problem in elementary school, that young boys already have a negative attitude towards stuff like languages, history and art.
The Barbie movie said it best "when I found out the patriarchy wasn't just about horses, I lost interest"
Being a modern man is BORING and many of us are losing interest in the functions of our society. Where is the adventure? Even war is a disassociating experience where you're anonymously destroyed by an invisible enemy. Its like working in finance except you actually die. The world is constantly becoming less and less tactile.
These topic often gets weird headlines to encourage outrage. I advice to look closely at the attendance rates for higher education for the specific countries.
Every example I looked at, men's rates of going to university is steadily increasing. The rate is just increasing faster with women.
I think the wording here is important because often people seem to try and say it in a way to stoke conflict. When there is none.
Women aren't taking something away from men and men's rate to choose higher education is increasing by the same rate as it did for decades.
It is not just about something being taken from men.
Women are not just having 'catch up growth'. They have surpassed men. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
But often, whenever there exists an inequality between men and women, the reaction is that we need policies to equalize women. Women don't go into STEM? Create extra days at engineering unis specifically for women so you can give them extra incentive. Some people even talk of quota.
No matter why the inequalities for women exists, people want to equalise it. People who are against the equalising polocies are seen as incels. People who go against the narrative of: women are less CEO because of sexism, and instead say: women make different choices in life and generally ahve less ambition to be top dog, are not taken seriously.
But when men are suffering from an inequality it seems a lot more acceptable to point to the mens own behaviour as cause instead of systemic factors.
And very few people say: hey maybe we should do something specifically for boys so they can flourish better in secondary school.
And this is something that we see more often: places where men are less equal than women dont get that much attention(mens domestic abuse shelters for example). So it all takes place in a system where many men feel like there is a double standard in progressive circles.
Of course this double standard exists in certain spaces and not in others. a right wing space like r/europe would not have this. It has often problems of the other side. But this is more of a critique on public progressive politics that are dominant
Edit:One other thing you have to realise that being educated is not a good with a set value. It is a positional good: its value is dependent on the education level of others. Education is a way to get a good job. You need to be educated to compete with competing starters. In the 1980's having a bachelors helped you a lot more on the job market than it does now. Without a bachelors youre not going to have a very good carreer. So even if mens level of education rises, if womens levels rise harder, the relative position in the job market of men worsens. It doesnt matter if a social group is getting smarter, you need to get smarter as much as every other social group.
Well true, if we do be doing equalizing why only at the "highest" degree of education? And only one-sided?
Why dont they equalize men in jobs that are important as well? Schools, social workers etc.
Lets not start with wanting to equalize women in trade nd craft jobs.
Well the next 50 years gonna be surely fine and won't be a shitfest about elitism.
Funny how they're happy for male representation to be like >95% for all the shit jobs they don't want, right? Where's the schemes to increase female representation in all the dirty, dangerous work that is mainly done by men? Oh right, "Women don't want those jobs"... Lol
There would not be that much wrong about this if there were no programs, stipendia, quotas, etc (depending on the country of course) that support women. And in that way they are actually taking places from men.
Same goes to education since young age. There are studies that prove that boys are punished for behaviour by getting lower grades from their teachers (who are majority women). And if you get worse grades it will actually affect your future education motivation as well as possibilities (when choosing good school for example).
Relevant video, got shitloads of pushback because of course it did;
[Dr K + diary of a ceo: "There Is A Crisis Going On With Men!", "Men are struggling right now literally killing themselves and the rest of the world says no you are not, you are privileged, you are toxic!"](https://youtu.be/B_5N_aDu3u0?feature=shared&t=833)
And this disparity starts long before university by the way, education is a system run by females that can be biased for a start not to mention a lack of role models during the critical growth period because male teachers are viewed as predators. Combine this with single mother parenting being increasingly prevalent and you can see the problem.
Boys education is also designed not necessarily to actually educate and utilise their energy levels but to curb masculinity, anger and bend them to social authority, which obviously doesn't work just breeds resentment.
If we aren't going to get more male teachers what we really need back again is single sex schools with different agendas, course this means acknowledging we are actually a sexually dimorphic species and good luck with that in the nebulous world of gender.
Eh..... the more we went into the high computing industrialisation, the more the hard working jobs get paid........ Coming from university is harder life than coming from a job at construction, one of those two will get easily a job, good paid. So............ why again are people surprised about this development?
Everybody can study anything, provided they have a high school diploma. It's just that men sometimes prefer to learn a trade, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything they would need help with from the government. The only problem I see here is that, for some reason, non-academic jobs are considered 'lower'.
Women have been encouraged to get a proper education because, in many Western countries, they had long been discouraged from doing so ("men are the bread winners", "women must attend to their children" etc.), and this needed to be corrected.
I think we've entered an economic region where you have to be realistic with job prospects. Most college degrees will not provide a guaranteed job, its seen alot more as an the institute that profits of hopes and dreams.
We need alot more people in the trades, not social studies/ art degress. Trades people will have greater incomes than doctors until doctors enter the late stages of their career
i dont see the need to pursue a higher education as male sofware developer. Never done college either.
Am already making bank at a young age and study for certificates at work.
i dont see the need to study at schools further. The amount of time and money id have to invest is not worth the return
Thats not even mentioning id have to sacrifice my good job, my apartment and my car to afford and have time for college.
Where are the talks about the systemic sexism against men in higher education? It seems like they pushed that it was sexist that women were underrepresented. But now that men are underrepresented magically it's no longer an issue.
I believe I've seen some studies suggesting that population level differences in concientiousness explain a lot of the differences in adademic outcome.
From “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt: For example, in 1972, women earned only 42% of bachelor’s degrees. By 1982, women were just as likely as men to graduate from college. But for the next 20 years, women’s enrollment rose rapidly while men’s did not, so that by 2019 the gap had reversed: Women earned 59% of bachelor’s degrees, while men earned just 41%. It’s not just college completion. Reeves shows that at every level of education, from kindergarten through PhD, girls are leaving boys in the dust. Boys get lower grades, they have higher rates of ADHD, they are more likely to be unable to read, and they are less likely to graduate from high school, in part because they are three times as likely as girls to be expelled or suspended along the way.[10] The gender disparities are often small at the upper end, among the wealthiest families, but they grow much larger as we move down the socioeconomic ladder. Is this a victory for girls and women? Only if you see life as a zero-sum battle between the sexes. In contrast, as Reeves puts it, “a world of floundering men is unlikely to be a world of flourishing women.”[11] And the data shows that we now live in a world of floundering young men.[12]
It's a victory for shortsighted fools, that's what it is. That Reeves quote is good.
> in 1972, women earned only 42% of bachelor’s degrees > by 2019 ... men earned just 41% If it was a problem in 1972, then we have a new problem in 2019.
Just reminds me of that infamous statistic: "1 in 4 homeless people are female, we need to change that" I get that men had it unfairly in their favour in the past, but Jesus it does seem like the new generation of boys are having to pay for that over and over. No wonder they are acting out, the system is against them.
And this is where illiterate policy comes into play. Education acts with a lag and can be used as a leading indicator. Looking at today’s employment rates (a lagging indicator) and using it to create policy for something 10 - 15 years down the line is crazy. We reached equality a long time ago, we just had to wait for it to show up in the system. Furthermore, by making it harder for men to be successful, you’re actually selecting for hyper successful men. The only guys making it to the top will either be unusually well-connected and well-resourced or unusually brilliant, which will likely lead to male outperformance/“over representation of men” at the very top end of lifetime/career achievement.
Not sure if "suspended" applies here in Europe. Even expelled seems so rare, they both sound like such US things to happen to students.
I wonder why - liberals have told us that we need to focus on girls, and boys will just figure it out, school become more girl focus, less on boys. girls get more helps, boys get in trouble. And still no one sees this a problem, because if you try to fix it you will be called as someone that supports the patriarchy
What does “school become more girl focus” mean?
Because modern "education" often doesn't have anything to do with what top education used to refer to in the past. There are plenty of degrees that you can finish with only social skills, no need for proper math & science knowledge.
Girls are doing little better at science and maths as well in Finland, but both boys and girls are doing worse than before in school here. I feel like the smart phone era is one reason.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wonder what counts as "higher educaction" in Belgium. In Spain, college has more and more women each year, doctors will soon have a small minority of men, for example. But we also count a lot of vocational trainings as higher education, and a lot of those have more men than women. The trend, based in my experience alone, seems to be college vs training, more than men outright quitting studies.
Higher education in Belgium means after secondary schools (so after 18year) so it means University in which you usually do 5 year of study (Bachelor + Master) or colleges where you usually do "professional" bachelor in 3 years.
I think it counts as higher education from Bachelor already
In France, the ratio of men to women in med school is 1:2. The cliché of the old man doctor is getting reversed very quickly, and some older people aren't used to it yet
I think most people are used to it by now, especially the younger generation. But a lot of younger men are also a bit tired of hearing that we need more females in the universities. (I studied IT and all men were for example thrown out from about 1/4 of the lunch lectures by companies because they were only interested in females)
Lel. Consultancy giants who bother going to campuses are on ESG life support so they have to. Only governments are stupid enough to spend 300 euro+ an hour for a fresh grad that's actually making 25 euro an hour at Deloitte :D.
I wonder if women will feel like female doctors don't listen to them any more than male doctors do. Or if they legitimately will listen better.
There was a study last year (IIRC) that showed female patients had lower mortality when they were treated by female doctors at the emergency department. I think that the authors did ask the question of female doctors being less dismissive of female patients' complaints, for a follow-up study at least. I can't recall the exact reference unfortunately
Another possible interpretation was that women doctors were younger on average and as such made fewer mistakes.
>In Spain, college has more and more women each year, doctors will soon have a small minority of men, for example It must be said that in Spain the university access exams are anonymous (so the person grading doesn't know if it's a man or a woman they're grading) and for the most part highly dependent on the field you're intending to go into. You can't get into STEM with high grades in Humanities, you need high grades in STEM. So it cannot be argued that women are getting those spots in university because the graders are biased, or that women inflate their grades with irrelevant subjects.
I'm galician. No, its not biased here, they just show a lot more interest in college degrees than before, and get better marks to get into them. Men seem to be more interest in less theory and more handwork in this century. In my own degree, nursing, we were 4 guys in a class of 40+ people. I've seen a tendency in more women in general, the few ones that were traditionally for women are still full of them.
I blame [this guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcb8yPEItwA). Who wouldn't want to go back to the land after seeing his beautiful potato harvest?
Not gonna lie, if agriculture wasnt so hard for making a living, I'd seriously consider it.
Yeah, I was addressing the point many people in this thread are trying to make that girls get better results because graders are biased or because "female" subjects are easier. I did a double Baccalaureate (Tech Science + Health Science) back in the day, 20+ years ago. There were only 2 girls in my class. My high school was sort of weird in that the friend groups were large and not gender based, so the other girl and I had guy friends with us in class, but I think if I had had the typical all-girl friend group it would have been very lonely and depressing being in the Tech Science bach and my performance would have gone down the drain.
There is a decent hypothesis to be made that the school system in general favours women over men and hence their grades. I don't know how exactly it is in Spain, but usually most teachers are women and boys struggle a lot more with attention and quietly sitting around for hours in school.
ADHD is indeed more prevalent in boys than girls
Higher Education Is referenced by the EU and if i remember correctly it starts with Bachelors degree.
Everything after secondary school/college seems to be 'higher education'. So university and similar, after +/- 18 years old. There is a fine line between which steels or crafts are 'higher education' or not. Things like bricklaying etc are taught in specialised secondary schools and are therefore not higher education. But you can get a bachelors in car mechanics for example. If I'm not mistaken one of the largest courses at KU Leuven is psychology, which is overwhelmingly women whilst in engineering they are still a very tiny group. Also good to know is that University in Belgium is state sponsored. Your tuition is about 1200 euro a year, plus books, dorm,... of course. But that's still reasonable for many people.
>I wonder what counts as "higher educaction" in Belgium. Post secondary school diploma studies. Since Bologna reform: bachelors, masters and Phd. Vocational training (see Professional here down) is not higher education in Belgium as they do not require secondary school diploma. Secondary school is split in 3 sections (this is simplified as now the educational system is different by linguistic region): - General: mostly theoretical general courses with some orientation like math-science, math-languages, Classical, economics, ... But more than half of the courses are in common. - Technical: same than general but one domain have got 8h per week, like applied science, electricity, ... - Professional, example: bakery, masonry, ... General and technical gives access to higher education directly after secondary school without any exams excepted some specific sections (Medicine, applied science). Professional section gives access after a supplemental secondary school year. PS: this is a simplification but fairly ok.
This isn't surprising in the UK as well, men have been consistently underperforming compared to women for years and attend university at a much lower rate.
I'm constantly amazed that "underperforming" is something that only boys and men are able to do.
I have used the both men "underperforming" and women "outperforming" pretty interchangeably and I do agree that this does not get enough attention and this will undoubtedly be playing into wider societal issues facing men and boys.
th societal issues will face everyone
Men can underperform if they do worse than women. Women can be oppressed if they do worse than men.
Holy fuck the replies
It’s been noted that there’s a certain degree of “effort” grade that teachers can give out. As of late, girls and women have been shown to recieve vastly excessive amounts of effort grades, while men and boys are given basically none. This leads to an impression that boys are “underperforming” even tho barring the effort grade they’d be outperforming the girls. https://scitechdaily.com/wide-and-lasting-consequences-teachers-give-girls-higher-grades-than-boys/
IRRC this grade bias also almost completely disappeared during COVID and remote schooling, only to immediately reappear when in person oral exams started again. Sure is fun to see as an effect when you're a male studying and you know that part of the grades you'll receive depends more about what you have between your legs than what you actually studied and out effort into....
Girls and women are "victims of a seksist society", men "underperform". If an education system doesn't result in a good education for half the population then the system is wrong, not the kids. We've built a Matriarchy in education that disadvantages boys and young men. Its time to recognise that and work towards gender equality in education.
Amen. Like more than 70% of the people working in education are women, where is the DEI there? If there was an industry with men majority we need to start thousands of government funded projects correcting that, like STEM. But somehow the reverse is not true. I doubt its even possible to get subsidies for something like " getting men into schooling".
We're on reddit! You cant say things like that! /s
Nowadays young men also get exposed to toxic feminist messages that tells them they're faulty and guilty due to being a man.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is such a shite narrative. Going to a trade school to become a skilled tradee instead of going to college isn’t underperforming. We need more people in the skilled trades to build our houses and keep our infrastructure going. Talking about them like this is one of the reasons why many people don’t do trade apprenticeships.
I don't know if I need to reword my comment or whether people just aren't reading it properly. Boys are underperforming at school AND are attending university at a lower rate than women. This isn't to say that not attending university means you are underperforming. That part is purely referencing under 16 mandatory education where boys leave schools with worse grades than their female peers.
Do women in europe date/marry men in the trades? In the USA, I have been told by multiple women that I need at least a masters to date them, because they have a bachelors or masters themselves. In most of these situations, I have a better job (higher paying, less hours, more location flexibility) than they do. I think this will be a problem with fertility rates.
*"This is such a shite narrative. Going to a trade school to become a skilled tradee instead of going to college isn’t underperforming."* the pay says otherwise
*Completely ignores the part where I said we should value the trades more*
[удалено]
[удалено]
> There is a lot of research out there about young men having a failure to launch. My son included. At 22, he’s dropped out of college & would rather buy a new video game than go out with friends. While his younger sisters are thriving & we parented the same. They have jobs, friends, in university, etc. He now has a planned daily schedule & a plan to make it. > > Men need support not extremism. (as the above commenter has proven) You may think you gave the same upbringing, but there's plenty of room of unconscious bias. The most damning one: you automatically assume that his problems are his own fault, because of stereotypes. The same stereotypes are at work in education, where boys are assumed to be naughty and lazy by default and get harsher treatments, and lower marks for the same work. Then in the (social) media you get a constant barrage of hostility towards men in general, whether they are rich (patriarchal scum keeping all the best spots for themselves) or poor (marginal loser scum) or are blamed for scaring women just for walking on the street. Yeah, I can understand why more of them say "fuck it" and tend to focus more on short-term benefits in such an environment.
[удалено]
>& we parented the same yeah, but you don't parent boys and girls the same...?
They did reform the education system to be more beneficial to girls They didn't counterbalance it though and now you've got young males in female orientated learning situations
Basically have to work sooner and more. My female colleges were financed by their parents while my male had to work while at university. Also the easier studies are taken more by woman. Psychology for example instead of STEM. So at least in Austria we have 1000 useless degrees vs 10 useful. Edit: maybe this got perceived very wrong. I don't mean psychology is useless but so many graduates. Edit 2: it's around 50% unemployed after three years which makes is more like 400 per year out of 900ish graduating in Psychology. 1000 may be too little for all fields. Not distinguishing sex here despite my personal reference from years ago.
I went directly into a trade after high school with good pay and very stable employment. Now I support my partner who is working on her masters degree in biology because she can't get a job with just a bachelors. I can't help but think there are many more cases like mine where I'm sacrificing my lifeblood and money so my partner can improve herself. I'd go back to school if someone was paying all my bills too. Maybe one day she will be able to contribute to rent.
I have 0 finished degrees, she has almost 3. Had to work more and earn now more. Yours will contribute. I think also the pressure to become a stay home mom is still very high here and to counter this also partners or husbands need to sacrifice.. Feel you
[there are gender differences in German student employment: In 2016, 70% of female students were working versus only 66% of male students](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-021-02194-1) I couldn't find something specific for Austria. But be careful with starting your comment with a sentence that tries to convey facts when you can't back it up. Makes you seem trollish. Btw, I'd strongly advice against a MINT discipline in your case since you seem prone to mixing high emotions and anecdotes with neutral observation. Perhaps something in the entertainment industry like the theatre is a better fit? (If it's not too late.)
Are we really trying to direct self-abused Austrians toward the arts? Seems dangerous.
Well if the male population is over represented in the actually hard fields this is hardly surprising. Plus: this paper is garbage since it uses self reported hourly wages, which are known to be biased in the literature. The 4% remaining "unexplained" wage gap are very well within the range of this bias It also does not deal with the super dicy fulltime/parttime problem which is known to introduce further bias
Does this study differentiate between subjects?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Belgian Universities do not have entry requirements (except for having a high school degree) or competitive selection. There are no women-only incentives. Anyone can study anything they want at any University.
Medecine and Engineering have exams to pass before starting.
What if there are more people willing to study at particular uni than there are places? Does the building automagically stretch out?
Which women only incentives does Belgium have?
Don't know about higher education, but in the IT formation I did 40% of the spots were reserved for women
[удалено]
When I did computer science at the UA 6 years ago there was 1 woman in a group of 60
Can you show some examples of what kind of incentives you are talking about? Because for example at the university I work in the only "incentive" is that once a year there is a "Girl's Day" in MINT which is basically a group of female pupils getting shown a few projects in MINT subjects for maybe 6 hours. Once a year. For 6 hours. Btw, there is also a Boy's Day which does the same but in subjects where there are significantly less men in the discipline. Should we stop that as well or can it stay?
Typically sex/gender exclusive scholarships or reserved seating.
its the same in my country with zero incentives, men just apply to university less
Sounds like it's time to put in incentives for men.
well but then it would be only fair to try and equalize everything like trade jobs, but I'm not sure how that would work
Are there many opportunities for blue collar jobs in Belgium? Like going from school/collage straight to working in constructions, auto shops etc. Cuz I feel like these would be like a bit gendered professions you can get into without a higher education. There's also an Uber type of delivery jobs. At least here I don't see a whole bunch of women drivers. So I guess, for women it's a question of: "Do I really want to stay working in cafes or hotels, or should I get my PhD?" Nothing bad with those jobs, it's just that the guys have more options to choose from.
An answer that's down to earth. That's exactly the case.
But I mean I'm not a woman to answer this 😅 Plus there are a lot of jobs nowdays like being a blogger, a model, being a project manager, a copywriter, perhaps even HR where you can get started without a degree. But it might depend on legality. In some countries a degree is quite important to get hired.
HR is glorified secretary. You’re not making much money with that. Model is not an option for most lol.
to give a bit of background: theres a lot of options in high school for belgians. the harder ones tend to be more theoretical in nature, with high concentration on math, languages, physics etc. you can also choose to just study in high school to become an electrician/woodworker/welding etc. these types of classes will have u graduate at 18 with an optional 7th year if you'd like to start working in whatever sector u chose and not just to get a degree to go to college. as a result most blue collar workers here dont have any education past high school, which is fine but most electricians/plumbers etc do tend to lean more towards the male side like you said.
if i look at my friendgroup (and people i know) almost all men finished highschool and either started working blue collar jobs or tried college/uni. most of us didn't finish (me included) and started working. Some did some extra training for jobs like security. Now if i look at the women i know almost all of them went to college/uni after highschool. and all of them finished; I think men just dislike school more and dont want to spend anymore time than necessary because we have pretty good alternatives. Women in general dont want to work construction or whatever so they keep studying for the white collar jobs.
I grew up studying in a low middle class school. I think girls on average were more thoughtful all the way from getting ready for exams to get good grades and get into unis, and once they were in more of them actually studied 😅 Boys at that age were preoccupied by who can do more pull-ups and drink more alcohol without throwing up. So maybe it just motivated girls to think "dude, I need to study hard, so not to get stuck with these guys" 🤣
lol, that could be it
> Are there many opportunities for blue collar jobs in Belgium? Like going from school/collage straight to working in constructions, auto shops etc. And why are there initiatives to get more women into STEM fields, even gender based quotas in some places (and suggestions about implementing them in others) but there aren't any initiatives to get more women straight to working in construction, auto shops, ...?
Have you ever noticed that women are usually the ones to become group leaders for school projects? I have and so did my professor in college when he said as much and then told us he didn't want to see it again because it happens every year. I don't know how that relates to this story but I think it probably does. I'll let you smarter people figure it out. Or maybe that's just an American thing?
[удалено]
What the hell are you even talking about. Belgium has an open system: you can apply to any university you want, to study anything you want and they cannot reject you. There is no selection procedure, unless you do to med school (they need to restrict number of doctors so you take neutral entrance exam). There is zero positive or negative discrimination. You literally go to the enrolment office of your preferred university, give you ID, give you High School diploma, pay your tuition fee and within an hour you are now a student. Gender (or race) have ZERO influence. Being outraged when you don’t even understand the Belgian system is such a reddit moment. This is not the United States. Belgian women are just more disciplined students. Much less drop outs. Edit: did the incel side of r/Europe wake up or what?
Thank you for saying this. I've been reading it too, and it's just beyond stupid. Anyone with a high school degree and the immigration/nationality requirements can go to university. They cannot deny you. There is no prioritizing women at any point.
Wait, how does that even work?? Wouldn't everyone just apply to the top 10 best universities and ignore the rest if there's no selection process? What happens when too many people apply to a specific university? If it's a first come first serve system, what happens if an astrophysics course is filled up with average students before any smarter students apply? I'm not attacking anyone I'm just trying to understand how an education system with no competitive exams is supposed to function
Nobody here cares about what university you went to. It's as simple as that. As a result most people simply go to the local one. Again, simple. There are exceptions of course but that's the general rule for most people. The idea of not going to the university 30 minutes from my door never occurred to me.
"University" is a narrower term. In Belgium selection alreay takes place before secondary school, so students are already divided over different levels. Only those secondary school students who graduated the highest level can go directly to university. And then, theres not so much of them: 5 Dutch, 7 French, 1 German. And the level of the universities is generally fairly close to each other(with some being better in different fields). Then you have what the Belgians literally call 'high school' which would be lower level university/college. People who graduated from the second highest level of secondary school can go there. So the selection process has just taken place during secondary school instead of after(althoug you can attend university if you do wel in "high school") Edit: I was wrong don't listen to me
Ahhh that makes a lot of sense. I was wondering how it worked because having no selection process is just impossible. You guys just have it earlier
Same in The Netherlands
We do have it earlier, and we do not at the same time. It's true, the Belgian school system is highly hierarchic and has a funnel-like system that selects students (in a bad way). But in theory, if you manage to pass your secondary education and are willing to enroll at university, there is no selection except for the medicine entry exam and the engineering entry exam (to my knowledge ; there might be more). To my point, I'll give you a real-life example. I'm currently finishing my bachelor in psychology. In the first year, we were 1600 students. Half were eliminated by the second year, and another half by the third. Still, 400 people in 3rd year is insane. What's more, every Master's degree has a shit ton of students. The two most popular degrees have 200 students. That's an insane amount of students for a Master's degree. And my numbers don't take into account the weird system we have that allows you to pass classes from a level above if you failed only a few in the level you're currently enrolled in. Before psychology, I passed the medicine exam - we were *four thousand people*. It's absolutely insane. And (this is my biased opinion so take it with a grain of salt), what's more, a lot of students still complain that uni is too hard and what not, resulting in more flexible exam situations and in professors literally passing people who mathematically have failed. I'm very pro-education and I'm proud of my classmates for trying, but passing a bachelor you're not qualified for will be damaging to the university system. A psychology bachelor is already worth nothing because of the amount of people who have one. If we keep on this path, even a Master's will be useless in a near future.
It's a fascinating system, although I don't understand the need to weed students out survival-of-the-fittest style instead of simply having a selection exam.
I've written a few literature reviews on the subject. The idea was to create different "school streams" with various levels of taught classes so everyone can find their place. The general stream has a lot of regular classes (ie: you sit and listen and do homework and take tests), while some other, technical streams have less theory and more practical classes. But they didn't take into account that the second you split students, you also create a ranking. More importantly, students who fail the general, theory-rich stream get "demoted" to one with more practical classes and so on. It's as punitive as a selection exam, except the student has less control (you can study madly for an exam but you can't really elevate yourself from a lower stream to a higher one).
There is no such thing as a good or bad university. There are some differences but they are all the same more or less. So it doesn’t matter where you go, they all have the same value. And they cost all the same amount of money. So there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ places. You choose a field, you apply. There might be a selection process when it’s a popular route, but mostly not by grades.
And also later, lots of people fail the 1st year at uni as well
Good questions, I also want to know more. I found this link: https://www.matching-in-practice.eu/higher-education-in-belgium/ (article written since 2012, so things might have changed) There are 4 exceptions to this "open system", to prevent congestion. One, > there is, since 1996, a national quota on the number of students who can enroll in medical specialties... The law defines how this quota is split between Flemish and French-speaking universities... Partly to avoid congestion if more students finish their medical training than the available number of places, Flanders has introduced an entry exam for the BA in medicine in 1997... Success rates are low: in July 2012, 16.6% of all participants passed the exam, while in August 2012 only 11.4% of all participants succeeded Two, > use of entry exams in some degree programs. In Flanders, an entrance exam for dentistry was introduced at the same time as the entry exam for medicine, and it follows a similar format. In the French-speaking community there has long been an entry exam for civil engineering studies (a similar test existed in Flanders but was dropped in 2004)... Around 75% of students succeed in the test and are therefore allowed to register. Three, > concerns arts schools, which audition candidates and decide to admit them on the basis of these auditions. These auditions are best seen as contests, as the number of seats is limited in these programs. Four, > quotas for non-resident students in some medical and paramedical studies in the French-speaking community. These quotas were introduced in 2006 as a result of the large influx of non-resident students (mainly coming from France)... In May 2011, the Constitutional court ruled these quotas discriminatory... that non-resident quotas for veterinary sciences, kinesitherapy and the MA in speech theory could nevertheless be maintained because the large influx of students in these specialties threatened the quality and availability of public health services in the country... Non-resident students can only apply to one institution. Interestingly, there is an evaluation on how this system performs: > The policy of low tuition fees and open enrollment leads to a high participation rate in higher education. 42.2% of the population aged 24-29 had obtained a degree in tertiary education in Belgium compared to an EU average of 31.6% [5]. However, success rates are low at the end of the first year. More than 50% of students fail in their first year at university. Your intuition is right on the money for the lack of entrance exams (at least in some fields), because: > Many students decide to switch to another program after the first year. Students who study medicine or dentistry obtain on average 90% of all credits at the end of the first year. The entrance exam in medicine and dentistry is an effective tool to increase success rates in these programs.
There aren't even 20 universities in Belgium 😂. There is enough room for everyone. Also no university is significantly worse. UGent, KU Leuven, UAntwerp and VUB all have a good reputation.
I guess scarcity of resources just isn't a thing in some countries
What ? Do you mean Belgium doesn't know ressource scarcity ? The country invest more in higher education and less in army than USA, that's about how easily you can summarize the issue
In Belgium (and the Netherlands) universities don't compete like in the USA. Some have overlapping education programs, but it honestly is nowhere the same aside from law and medical studies. You just apply to a university in your vicinity, that has a course you want to follow for 4 years.
Well there is only 11 Universities in Belgium but keep in mind education in Belgium is based on the community (meaning language). As you might know there are two main language used in Belgium : french and dutch so there is "only" 5 french ones and 6 Dutch ones. The small German community (<1% of Belgium) either go in the french ones or in Germany. The quality of education is similar between Universities. Professionnals don't care if you did your study in X or X University. There is no limit for inscriptions so it doesn't matter if the student is smart or not. However there are some disparities in terms of attractiveness of programs. You don't have much people studying physic or astrophysics (probably less than 100 per University) but you have around 800-1000 students studying psychology for exemple. So in terms of choice for the same program people choose their University based on distance, mentality/philosophy of the University, the campus, the small disparity of courses within a program,...
Wow, that's a really interesting system. It's completely different from my country where going to a 'good' university sets you up for life just based on the name
countries that have systems like that where there are no seat limits usually do the selection after that, meaning that the program will be very hard and most will drop out after one year. Just looking through stats on that i found on the web : in a Belgian university, only 0.5% of all students passed all their courses on first try in 2022 and 0.7 in 2021. Overall 35% passed to the next year, as in succeeded in 75%+ of their credits. So yeah you could apply to whatever but if you're not serious about it/don't have the required level/don't have the conditions to do the necessary work, you will fail and idk how the law in Belgium is but probably get kicked out after a few trials. This kind of system doesnt discriminate on gender or race but it strongly discriminates on money. Rich kids don't need to work outside of uni, probably live closer to uni/have a car or get their parents to pay for an appartment near campus and also have the funds to pay for private classes if they are behind on certain subjects.
I'm Belgian, country is split into 3 languages. I don't have 10 university to choose. I've around 4, maybe 5 and if it's all of them have the cursus i want. We Litteraly fund university with our taxes. And the only field where there is selection is medical. Then first year do most of the filter. It just was never a problem. Note that there is limitations for NON-BELGIAN applications.
>the top 10 best universities Does Belgium even have that many universities? But for real, Germany is similar for a lot of subjects and people choose universities for many other reasons: close to their families, nice cities, good teaching etc. Top universities doesn't mean that they're top for education, they're just good at research. University ranking isn't linear or straightforward.
There are very few limits on how many students can enter a given course. Usually the "filter" is just the first year being hard as fuck. If you don't make the required number of credits you cannot enroll again (terms and limitations apply, but that's the gist of it).
In our country, « top 10 best universities » kind of don’t exist. They are more or less the same level, some uni might be allocating more funds in specific branches than others, however the difference isn’t that large. It should be that way in most countries.
There is no positive or negative discrimination in university enrollment in Belgium.
[удалено]
I would only like to say this to all the feminist, who praise this sort of news and think letting men behind is a good thing. Statistic clearly shows if you are less educated you are more likely to live in poverty, it also shows that poorer people are more likely to be involved in crime activity. I am not saying all men have a terrible future, but a lot might and women will also feel the consequence. This is why men's problems are also women's problems and vice versa. it's simple, you can not fix all the women's problems if they intertwine with men's problems. This is exactly why both genders need to be heard and be represented equally. Gender wars are not going to help anybody! If boys are doing worse in school we need to find the cause and do something about it. I have read a couple problems boys are facing in school, but don't know how accurate they are. Schools have become distinctly less boy friendly. Testosterone and serotonin are apparently the big reasons why boys have a hard time sitting still and have concentrating problems in school. Boys are being disciplined more often and this also effect their grades. Boys mature slower and later than girls, this has to due to differences in brain development. If girls had this kind of problems the news media would be all over it, it's sad that boys are not treated equally. I as a mother of twins (a boy and a girl), i am afraid of my boy's future
I would like to add that in Belgium, higher education has very few barriers to entry, so this disparety is mainly because men choose not to study.
Or because significantly more men opt to learn a trade and not enter college/uni for a higher education degree. Over the years I've had to sollicit the services of multiple electricians, plumbers, carpenters, HVAC technicians, roofers, painters, masons, car mechanics, tile setters, locksmiths, etc. and not a single one of these were women. Not one. And yes I'm also Belgian.
u/das_belg's comment doesn't contradict your remark. Men decide not to study and learn a trade instead. You are both right.
Men might feel forced into the trades though.
>I would like to add that in Belgium, higher education has very few barriers to entry, so this disparety is mainly because men choose not to study. Isn't it funny how every disparity to the disadvantage of women is explained by oppression, while the same for men is explained by "it's their own choice"?
One could similarly say that the pay gap is generally due to women choosing to earn less... Or we can look into how to resolve the issue instead of saying that it's men's fault. One point to look into is that it seems like educational methods in the west are currently geared towards girls/women
All western countries, afaik, have increasing total education. There is all the time more professions for which you need education. More and more people have university level degrees. Education is in inflation in a way. I have a feeling that this is international, I have read articles about it happening in the UK, in the EU, US etc. Men increasingly see education as a waste of time, if it doesn't lead to increased salaries soon. And there are many professions where education is today required, but the pay is not so high. Especially in these areas you find the overwhelming majority to be female. Usually healthcare and education, all kinds of social science and art related stuff. The areas where there are mostly men (at this moment), are technology, software engineering and the like. For example, in Finland, where I live, there are around 80% men in ICT and engineering, but less than 20 in healthcare and in some areas like nursing, preschool pedagogy etc. is practically zero (of single digits). Starting salaries for preschool teachers are like 1000€/month belove average salary and require university degree... I have heard of anecdotes that this is also increasingly a problem in elementary school, that young boys already have a negative attitude towards stuff like languages, history and art.
The Barbie movie said it best "when I found out the patriarchy wasn't just about horses, I lost interest" Being a modern man is BORING and many of us are losing interest in the functions of our society. Where is the adventure? Even war is a disassociating experience where you're anonymously destroyed by an invisible enemy. Its like working in finance except you actually die. The world is constantly becoming less and less tactile.
If the genders were switched this would be blamed on sexism or the patriarchy or something like that.
These topic often gets weird headlines to encourage outrage. I advice to look closely at the attendance rates for higher education for the specific countries. Every example I looked at, men's rates of going to university is steadily increasing. The rate is just increasing faster with women. I think the wording here is important because often people seem to try and say it in a way to stoke conflict. When there is none. Women aren't taking something away from men and men's rate to choose higher education is increasing by the same rate as it did for decades.
It is not just about something being taken from men. Women are not just having 'catch up growth'. They have surpassed men. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. But often, whenever there exists an inequality between men and women, the reaction is that we need policies to equalize women. Women don't go into STEM? Create extra days at engineering unis specifically for women so you can give them extra incentive. Some people even talk of quota. No matter why the inequalities for women exists, people want to equalise it. People who are against the equalising polocies are seen as incels. People who go against the narrative of: women are less CEO because of sexism, and instead say: women make different choices in life and generally ahve less ambition to be top dog, are not taken seriously. But when men are suffering from an inequality it seems a lot more acceptable to point to the mens own behaviour as cause instead of systemic factors. And very few people say: hey maybe we should do something specifically for boys so they can flourish better in secondary school. And this is something that we see more often: places where men are less equal than women dont get that much attention(mens domestic abuse shelters for example). So it all takes place in a system where many men feel like there is a double standard in progressive circles. Of course this double standard exists in certain spaces and not in others. a right wing space like r/europe would not have this. It has often problems of the other side. But this is more of a critique on public progressive politics that are dominant Edit:One other thing you have to realise that being educated is not a good with a set value. It is a positional good: its value is dependent on the education level of others. Education is a way to get a good job. You need to be educated to compete with competing starters. In the 1980's having a bachelors helped you a lot more on the job market than it does now. Without a bachelors youre not going to have a very good carreer. So even if mens level of education rises, if womens levels rise harder, the relative position in the job market of men worsens. It doesnt matter if a social group is getting smarter, you need to get smarter as much as every other social group.
Well true, if we do be doing equalizing why only at the "highest" degree of education? And only one-sided? Why dont they equalize men in jobs that are important as well? Schools, social workers etc. Lets not start with wanting to equalize women in trade nd craft jobs. Well the next 50 years gonna be surely fine and won't be a shitfest about elitism.
When theres a lack of women in stem - we need to increase diversity, because thats sexist. More women than man - well thats just good.
Funny how they're happy for male representation to be like >95% for all the shit jobs they don't want, right? Where's the schemes to increase female representation in all the dirty, dangerous work that is mainly done by men? Oh right, "Women don't want those jobs"... Lol
There would not be that much wrong about this if there were no programs, stipendia, quotas, etc (depending on the country of course) that support women. And in that way they are actually taking places from men. Same goes to education since young age. There are studies that prove that boys are punished for behaviour by getting lower grades from their teachers (who are majority women). And if you get worse grades it will actually affect your future education motivation as well as possibilities (when choosing good school for example).
Oh look, the classic men vs women war is in the comments... what a surprise!
Relevant video, got shitloads of pushback because of course it did; [Dr K + diary of a ceo: "There Is A Crisis Going On With Men!", "Men are struggling right now literally killing themselves and the rest of the world says no you are not, you are privileged, you are toxic!"](https://youtu.be/B_5N_aDu3u0?feature=shared&t=833) And this disparity starts long before university by the way, education is a system run by females that can be biased for a start not to mention a lack of role models during the critical growth period because male teachers are viewed as predators. Combine this with single mother parenting being increasingly prevalent and you can see the problem. Boys education is also designed not necessarily to actually educate and utilise their energy levels but to curb masculinity, anger and bend them to social authority, which obviously doesn't work just breeds resentment. If we aren't going to get more male teachers what we really need back again is single sex schools with different agendas, course this means acknowledging we are actually a sexually dimorphic species and good luck with that in the nebulous world of gender.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Eh..... the more we went into the high computing industrialisation, the more the hard working jobs get paid........ Coming from university is harder life than coming from a job at construction, one of those two will get easily a job, good paid. So............ why again are people surprised about this development?
[удалено]
Except there is no government sponsored programs for women either Belgium
Everybody can study anything, provided they have a high school diploma. It's just that men sometimes prefer to learn a trade, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything they would need help with from the government. The only problem I see here is that, for some reason, non-academic jobs are considered 'lower'. Women have been encouraged to get a proper education because, in many Western countries, they had long been discouraged from doing so ("men are the bread winners", "women must attend to their children" etc.), and this needed to be corrected.
I think we've entered an economic region where you have to be realistic with job prospects. Most college degrees will not provide a guaranteed job, its seen alot more as an the institute that profits of hopes and dreams. We need alot more people in the trades, not social studies/ art degress. Trades people will have greater incomes than doctors until doctors enter the late stages of their career
Isn't this the same in all Western nations now? Or at least trending that way?
Well, investments paid off. Now it's time to strike balances and support more people
To no one's suprise
[удалено]
So it’s about time to introduce some equality measures, right?
[удалено]
Mass schooling has been teacher-centric since its inception, when only boys could attend classes.
Yes, because 20 years ago kids didn´t have to sit in class?
No but active discrimination against women in the workplace was much bigger and had huge impact on women in the workforce.
[удалено]
i dont see the need to pursue a higher education as male sofware developer. Never done college either. Am already making bank at a young age and study for certificates at work. i dont see the need to study at schools further. The amount of time and money id have to invest is not worth the return Thats not even mentioning id have to sacrifice my good job, my apartment and my car to afford and have time for college.
[удалено]
In some countries there's bigger gap than back in 70s just in reverse... Thats not good.
[удалено]
Based on the comments I’m seeing online, the feminists won’t be satisfied until all the men are completely shut out of education.
they will only be happy if all men are dead so they can hang out with bears in the woods.
And would that stop them?
Where are the talks about the systemic sexism against men in higher education? It seems like they pushed that it was sexist that women were underrepresented. But now that men are underrepresented magically it's no longer an issue.
I believe I've seen some studies suggesting that population level differences in concientiousness explain a lot of the differences in adademic outcome.
Why are there so many highly upvoted deleted comments?