The hypocrisy of this anti-male government knows no bounds as can be seen on their silence on one issue and their campaigning on another - all on the same day. Sexism by omission in its purest form.
This week more evidence was shown about the lack of boys going into university and that the trebling of tuition fees was putting them off from going to university. This feeds through to even fewer men going into professions and the decline of men continues into a downward spiral.
The Independent Commission for Fees' report set out this week stated:
The gap between working class boys and girls going to university widened in the first year of the new tuition fees regime, a new analysis of UCAS data by the Independent Commission on Fees shows today.
And while the fall in acceptances did not have any disproportionate impact on less privileged areas of England overall, young male acceptances from these areas declined over two years while young female acceptances increased.
Women are now a third more likely to enter higher education than men and the gender gap seems to have widened since 2010.
Among UK residents, 134,097 women aged 19 and under were accepted to English universities in 2012 compared with 110,630 young men. This represents a decline since 2010 of 2.6% for girls and 4.0% for boys, and a 5.9% decline for girls and a 7.5% decline for boys since 2011.
Yet on the same day, Business Secretary Vince Cable issues another edict to demand that equality goes out of the window and that companies must put more women on boards, no matter if they are not the best people for the job. Discrimination against men if they are the better candidates does not count - gender is everything. Aided and abetted by organisations such as the Cranfield School of Management, an organisation that is happy to do the government's bidding for some free publicity.
If Cable, Cranfield and the government really believed in equality, they would be raising the concerns about the lack of boys going to university as much as the board issue. But because the university issue is about boys they are not interested.
Surely the Cranfield School of Management should be concerned about the lack of numbers of boys going to into management and the professions at a a graduate age. They are not - again - because they dance to the government's tune but are also blinkered by political correctness not to be bothered.
Posted by Skimmignton
Ps - here is a great post from Groan earlier on this week:
This is an interesting report. Once again showing males losing out in education. I can’t find the reference but there was some research done early in the life of student loans here in the UK . One basic point was that young men took more seriously the weight of the debt. Because they expected to be solely responsible for repayment in future.
Whereas females expected more help from family and future partners in paying for the loans. In
other words the females generally expected to be able to share their responsibilities either presently or in the future. This is of course a likely scenario and a realistic expectation generally in a society still organised generally on a “one and a half” pay contribution to couple’s finances.
This reminded me then of the much more extensive debates and research in the USA. There it is quite clear a number of gendered issues assist female access to HE and FE.
1. Greater financial support for females from families.
2. More likely to have financial support and gifts from partners (cars being common).
3. Deliberate behaviour to partner with “successful” males able to support them. There is extensive
research on US universities as a site for females seeking good prospects for
partnership and marriage.
4. Expectations of future earnings of husbands and their responsibility for funding their
I suspect the more extensive research in the US reflects their more open discussion of money.