There remains a significant, inherent flaw in Ms. Juby Kuriakose's article from Sept. 23 ("Gender rules: women at UB find the glass ceiling still exists"), aside from the obvious lack of research and truth. A simple proofing of this article would catch what even a freshman journalism course would demand of you: if you're going to use statistics, use them in a meaningful way and, more importantly, the proper way.
The statistics cited by the author stipulate that there are 1,452 more male undergraduates than female undergraduates at the University. At the same time, the article quotes the difference in student body as a percentage being 51-48 percent (never mind that this statistic in and of itself suggests the student body has one percent neither male nor female). If both statistics were to hold, the additional 1,452 male student population, corresponding to a total difference of only three percent of the overall population (51-48), would be equivalent to having a student body of around 48,000.
For an undergraduate population of around 18,000 the difference in percentages would have to be roughly 5.5 percent, give or take however many undergraduates there are, currently, above or below 18,000. That means that one of the two reports is incorrect and if I had an initial guess it would be the 1,452 more male student statistic that she presents.
More pertinent than this minutia is the glaringly bad reporting that makes no mention of the Department of Education's 2001 reports. The reports not only show that matriculation, for women, in four-year colleges has been higher than that of men since 1986 but that the gap has been widening ever since, in favor of females.
In fact, the annual growth rate, per year, of matriculation for females from 1993 to 1999 was 0.9 percent and only 0.2 percent for males. Additionally, for every 100 males that currently graduate with a Bachelor's Degree, 135 degrees are conferred upon females (as was presented in an Editorial in USA Today Sept. 22, 2005). The question is not "how do we get more females enrolled in college," in general-because there already are. Your article perpetuates a biased myth and is inflammatory. Your question should have been: how do you attract the already larger population of females in higher institutions of learning to attend Buffalo?
Your article is flawed with an obvious gender bias that flies in the face of public record. This diatribe should be confined to the editorial page, as its inherent journalistic value is more than limited by hiding behind a facade of fundamentally flawed statistics and opinion.
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Photo: Courtesy of Matthew Messina, from the RMBERS' Instagram page
