with many of these pharm schools having more than 60%+ female students, does this give men a bit of leeway when applying to pharm school?

how do you figure? girls, on average, make up 60% of the seats available.. that leaves 40% for guys... it all depends on how many guys/girls are applying in the end. but if it's an equal amount of guys/girls then it's more difficult for guys to get in because we have less seats available!

A lot of pharmacy school have 80% females but I highly doubt the admissions is easier for guys. We're on the same ground.

According to the AACP data (and several deans), women make up a greater percentage of candidates, so the admissions process and results are essentially even. Women make up a larger size versus men, because more women apply then men.

According to the AACP data (and several deans), women make up a greater percentage of candidates, so the admissions process and results are essentially even. Women make up a larger size versus men, because more women apply then men.

and women are just better...sorry we are.

just kidding...sort of... :D

and women are just better...sorry we are.

just kidding...sort of... :D

Better at cooking, cleaning and pestering, sure. :D Speaking of which who let you out of the kitchen!?!? :mad: :laugh:

Better at cooking, cleaning and pestering, sure. :D Speaking of which who let you out of the kitchen!?!? :mad: :laugh:

if guys have it easier to get into pharmacy just b/c they are guys, and there is evidence that the admissions committee does this, i smell a discrimination lawsuit coming on.

if guys have it easier to get into pharmacy just b/c they are guys, and there is evidence that the admissions committee does this, i smell a discrimination lawsuit coming on.

Not necessarily. If there's reason for it, through affirmative action, the federal courts will throw it out. As it stands, it doesn't appear that is the case.

Not necessarily. If there's reason for it, through affirmative action, the federal courts will throw it out. As it stands, it doesn't appear that is the case.

And discrimination is hard to prove - it would have to be very pervasive and systematic. Otherwise, you'd just be wasting your money.

affirmative action.....for men??? Last time I checked they weren't a minority. If more women apply, it makes sense that more women get in......no affirmative action is needed to ensure that all the greatly oppressed men of the world are able to succeed.

And discrimination is hard to prove - it would have to be very pervasive and systematic. Otherwise, you'd just be wasting your money.

You'd think, but some states (well some federal regions) say the burden is on companies to ensure discrimination doesn't occur and that it's their responsibility to track demographics that ensure they aren't "unconsciously" discriminating. It's bit the company I work for in the butt on two class actions lately.

In the end, the high % of women will probably be good for us guys. The more women in the field, the more part timers once/if they decide on starting a family. The result: Higher pharmacist demand and more hours for us guys. :p

Are there any statistics on how many of the ladies are married or single entering pharmacy school? This whole 3:1 ratio for women/male sounds like we'll have a perty good picking. -giggity

"giggity"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"giggity"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

i think if u were applying to a program at a public institution, you would have more grounds for a discrimination lawsuit b/c i went to a public undergrad and there was a similar lawsuit against admissions discrimination.

read an interesting article in the nytimes about how admissions into colleges is becoming harder for girls since there are more of them applying.

here's the link but you need times select.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60913F83D540C708EDDAA0894DE4044 82

My in state program last year accepted 76 women and only 14 men.

"giggity"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :thumbup:

read an interesting article in the nytimes about how admissions into colleges is becoming harder for girls since there are more of them applying.

here's the link but you need times select.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60913F83D540C708EDDAA0894DE4044 82

i read something similar in newsweek a couple months ago about how boys are falling behind in every grade starting from elementary all the way to grad school. women are just surpassing them in a lot of arenas and guys just dont seem to try very hard. i know that in my microbio class, there is ONE guy. with this said, why should guys be given lax conditions for their lazy, unambitious attitude? not fair. (this doesnt pertain to all guys, just the ones that dont try as hard).

with many of these pharm schools having more than 60%+ female students, does this give men a bit of leeway when applying to pharm school?

Only if they are hot. ;)

i read something similar in newsweek a couple months ago about how boys are falling behind in every grade starting from elementary all the way to grad school. women are just surpassing them in a lot of arenas and guys just dont seem to try very hard. i know that in my microbio class, there is ONE guy. with this said, why should guys be given lax conditions for their lazy, unambitious attitude? not fair. (this doesnt pertain to all guys, just the ones that dont try as hard).

Well, guys seem to be more hit or miss than women. If you get to the top of any field or industry 95% of it is composed of men. There are about 4 times as many male geniuses than there are women geniuses ... that said there are a lot more idiot men.

I guess what I'm saying is that the one guy in your micro class probably has the highest grade. LOL

Well, guys seem to be more hit or miss than women. If you get to the top of any field or industry 95% of it is composed of men. There are about 4 times as many male geniuses than there are women geniuses ... that said there are a lot more idiot men.

I guess what I'm saying is that the one guy in your micro class probably has the highest grade. LOL

Wow, where'd you read that? Everything I've read in the anthropology, sociology and psychology says statistically the 'genius' factor is either not skewed or skewed towards the fairer sex.

The problem is in many countries women are still second class citizens, so we lose their potential. It happens in this country still, being a dumb blonde = sex symbol; being a smart blonde = radical right wing nut job or unsexy.

kind of like how there are more men than women in engineering right?

women are just surpassing them in a lot of arenas and guys just dont seem to try very hard.
How hard do you have to try for an art or english degree? :p

with this said, why should guys be given lax conditions for their lazy, unambitious attitude? not fair.
Totally. I mean why should all those minorities and underprivileged people get lax conditions...they are just all lazy after all? right?!? That is obviously the reason they are underrepresented in colleges. :rolleyes:

I guess what I am getting at is that sweeping generalizations based on anecdotal evidence is pretty retarded.

[QUOTE=KUMoose]Wow, where'd you read that? Everything I've read in the anthropology, sociology and psychology says statistically the 'genius' factor is either not skewed or skewed towards the fairer sex.QUOTE]

Shoot, just google it and you'll see. Average IQs are equal, but the cream of the crop has always been men.

Yes, but genius needs to be recognized to be part of those statistics. For the tremendous majority of civilization women have had strict gender roles they had to fulfill that didnt allow for the accessability to education, intellectual peer groups and time to absorb themselves in their work that men have had. Im sure on more than one occation a female flash of insight has been either downplayed by her peers, stolen by a spouse, lover or parent or pushed aside because she had to suckle children and cook dinner.