What would be interesting to look at is data comparing male/female ratios in college in this country, and in others that have basic gender equality.

We have a real anti-intellectual bias at work in this country and education is perceived as the bastion for "liberal" elites. And not only that - there is another bias at work - this country seems to think that "real" men don't need no stinkin college.

Perhaps we have a snowballin effect in action here. The more education is seen as not manly, the less men pursue it. The less men pursue it, the more women take seats. The more women take seats, the more men look at higher education as a "girl thing".

What are the stats in Canada? Europe?

But we should know, too, that the price of male flight from higher education is one that we will all pay for in ways more meaningful than a diminished pool of eligible partners.

What are all the men doing who choose not to go to college? And one must assume that some percentage of those men are making that choice rather than being denied admittance because of poor test scores or high school transcripts.

Without a doubt, a Bachelor's Degree has become the minimum standard for admittance to many of the more traditionally lucrative areas of the American workforce, and for some nothing short of a Master's Degree is required. So, how is it that these men expect to make a living and support a family without a college education? It seems to me that either there are a whole lot of men out there living with their parents and working part-time jobs with no hopes of settling down, or there are some significant holes in the research statistics.

I think at least part of this is a certain prejudice Americans have developed against non-college educated people. As I mentioned above, college has become the default path for nearly everyone exiting high school. But if that is, in fact, NOT the route taken by a large number of men, that doesn't mean they aren't learning or developing skills in another way that will eventually contribute to society and make them a comfortable, sustainable living. We will always need carpenters, electricians, plumbers, machinists, (dare I say soldiers) and many other forms of traditional "blue collar" labor, and I see the elitism inherent in a college-focused society as a worrisome trend.

I agree that there is a near-feverish anti-intellectual strain running through American society at the moment, as another commenter pointed out. I agree that intellectuals are often portrayed as fey and out of touch with the "real" America, but I don't know if that alone could account for men choosing a non-college path in life. As many witnessed in the late 90s and early 00s with the rapid rise and rapid fall of the dotcoms, for example, a white collared, cubicle-bound existence may not be worth the price one pays in terms of personal dignity, relentless office politics or long hours. As our economy becomes less hands-on, it does not at all surprise me that some men might be reconsidering the role they want to play in it. (I think there's a reason why the movie "Office Space" is so popular with men that goes beyond the fact that it's funny--it strikes a nerve. We're afraid of being left to die in a grey, characterless office park doing nothing meaningful and leaving no legacy behind that says, "He was here.")

And let's not forget the economic side to this equation. A college education is becoming outrageously expensive and may well be in the "unaffordable" category for many who can't get scholarships or financial aid (or have parents who have been living beyond the family's means and therefore have not saved adequately for their children's education). Does the research take into account enrollments in small community colleges, technical/vocational schools or other, perhaps more affordable means of obtaining a higher education and marketable skills?

Again, I think we're not being presented with a complete picture here.

I really appreciate Ms. Berry bringing attention to this issue. As a male who did well with public school, I was nonetheless judged by a (thankfully) few teachers to be a problem. Case in point: my second grade teacher told my parents that I was "hyperactive". My parents immediately questioned her about the subjects covered in class and how I was doing. It turns out that I was bored -- as a boy, boredrom often exhibits itself with a need for physical activity. In general, little boys can do very well in school, but they require a different set of stimuli. Unfortunately, many schools are cutting out recesses and making P.E. or gym about "sports" that do not have a winner and loser. This continues on into Jr. High and High school where if a boy is a jock, he must be missing something upstairs. My wife taught 8th grade English and now teaches 11th grade A.P. English; she has noticed that most of the books chosen are geared toward girls. The 8th grade boys were bored, until they read "The Hobbit" and "Call of the Wild". In high school, many of the modern books offered do not appeal to boys. If they would offer John Irving or Kurt Vonnegut, I think boys would eat it up.

The other part of the problem that I see is that if men try to stand up and take ownership of their own destiny, they are often labelled "misogynist". Promise Keepers may have had fundamentalist beginnings, but what is wrong with men wanting to be better fathers and husbands? What is wrong with "male bonding"? Why can't there be excusively male activities? Though I think that girls and women can and should take part in competitive sports, why must all sports be open to all comers, as some would have it? In short, women have been able to rightfully carve out a domain for themselves -- a sisterhood to build each other up. When men attempt this same sort of thing, a call of sexism rings forth faster than two boys running a 40.