Fifty years ago I was riding in the elevator of building 7 at MIT. A world-renowned Bio researcher and professor told us (students) that although we thought we were pretty smart, the truly smart didn't waste their time in college. They get out into the world and make things happen. Since I was only half-smart I needed to go to a good school to have a chance at success. Most boys probably recognize that because women have found that "education is the route to success", that it probably isn't anymore. So they are not going to waste their time there, hanging around with a bunch of snarky women who will end up as bureaucratic paper shufflers.

If societies game plan is to teach people to sit quietly on their ass while being bored to death, then it's time to change society. The most wonderful thing about real life is the law of inintended consequences. The feminists got their wish, and now wonder why the boys just didn't role over and go go along with it. Boys are not "imperfect girls". The education system has been diligently trying to perfect boys into girls for several decades. It will not work, as is patently obvious at this point. Of course now that we can use drugs, at least some of the boys will be more pliable. Most women might not really want more pliable men either. Female elephants, in what is a very matriarchal society, are most attracted to male elephants who are in "must". That is a codition of extreme horniness where the male is essentilly on a wild and crazy rampage.

To psychprof: Ever since the 19th century PhD's were pretty much required for doing research in any field. I don't have a PhD, since going to school, even MIT, didn't thrill me too much. But I am an inventor, and I am being forced to go back to work for a while to transfer my technology to a company that will commercialize it. It will also make me a tad richer. I'd rather be sailing one of my sailboats. Most PhD's don't indicate originality or inventiveness, but the ability to suck up to some prof and keep your nose to the grindstone while making peanuts. Other posters have made the point that boys will not compete with girls. The purpose of success for males is to get lots of pussy, not for some abstract socially redeeming purpose. My wife has an advanced degree from Harvard, and all I have is a pathetic bachelors degree, but I don't mind. She's in her 60's and still a hot beautiful woman, which is much more important to me than her advanced degree. The bell-shaped curve for "intelligence" in men is much broader than in women. So there are a lot more dumb men than dumb women, but there are also lot more smart men than smart women. So that says that there are more average women than average men, and that's the majority of who goes to college. So men will still rule the roost where real brights are needed, but the educated middle range will still be there to do the middle range jobs that don't require real creativity. There will just be more women than men doing them.

I kind of like my thesis that the reason that there are more women in college than men is that there are lots more men with IQ's below 100 than there are women. Now we have "true equality" of opportunity and women can go to college just as easily as men-not true a couple of generations ago. Assuming that just as many qualified women go to college as men, there are just more qualified women. It doesn't matter whether the cutoff for college is 100 or 115 IQ, there are more women above that IQ than men. Of course this whole thesis is based on the supposition that the male bell-shaped curve is actually much wider than the womens. The other end of the curve, where we're talking IQ's of 140-150 and above, has far more men than women. Since we'll assume that they all go to college, even though the smartest don't really need to, it is no surprise that there are more women than men in college. I think that psycprof has a wonderful job for one of his PhD candidates to examine this hypothesis and write a brilliant paper on it.

I'm sort of glad the airlines are upping their fares and reducing the amenities. I might have a little extra cash in a few months and I think I'll buy another airplane. I used to own a Mooney M20E that cruised at 150 knots, burning 8-9 GPH. My wife and I do the same 500 mile road trip every six weeks or so. Takes 7-8 hours of 80 MPH driving. I can do the same trip in a light plane in two hours (air miles are a lot less than road miles). So I'll burn a little less fuel, and with the autopilot on I'll have a lot lower work load. A nice older Mooney will cost about $50,000 and since I'll own it with another pilot it will only cost me $25K. I'm not sure what I detest more, the ridiculous congestion and costs at major airports, or the cattle car conditions on the planes. Landing your own plane at a nearby lightly used local airport sure beats suffering the indignities of the airline fields. Since very light jets (VLJ's) will be taking away the high paying business travelers from the airlines in a few years, coach fares will rise a lot, making flying my own plane even more atractive. Every seat in a light plane is a window and an aisle seat. Try it, you'll like it.