Out of curiousity, is it easier for males to get accepted into OT school?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I recently talked to an OT that I used to work with and she gave an emphatic yes to that question. She said because there are so few in the field, as long as a guy has fairly good stats he'll get accepted to many programs. However, she graduated from OT school probably 15 years ago, and we all know it's gotten much more competitive since then. I don't know if her words are still true at all.
 
No disrespect but I don't see much credibility in response to your answer. I am a guy in OT school right now and I don't think it was any easier for me to get accepted than anyone else. My Cum gpa was only 3.4 but my science gpa was really good. Grades will only get you an interview in most instances, then you have to be able to build report with the faculty by communicating your experiences and desire to attend that specific school. The ratio of F/M is 28/4 at my school and there were over 500+ applicants.
 
I have heard rumors that there are quite a few schools who give preference to male applicants, however I believe you still need to be a competitive applicant to be considered. In my class of approximately 70-80 students, we only had four males in the class. So if you're a guy wanting to get into OT school, just don't rely on the fact you're a guy.
 
Of course, I definitely agree that you shouldn't rely on it. And like I said, I don't necessarily believe that what she said is the case (or even ever was) but I'm just passing along what I was told.
 
I'm not sure if males have an advantage of getting into OT school. However, I was told during one of my observations at a hospital, I would be put on the fast track to management as a male OT. Best of luck getting into school. I have my orientation tomorrow.
 
I am a male who is applying for the 2013-2013 cycle but I will admit I don't know specifically any better than than anyone else. But, a female PT who I spoke with a few weeks ago who graduated about 6 years ago said it will help to some degree to apply as a male. Also here are a few ideas to explain extreme differences between percentages of men and women in programs:

1. Many fewer males even send in applications but are just as competitive as group as females (then males would have a better chance of gaining acceptance in order to increase program diversity)

2. Many fewer men overall have competitive stats to get accepted into the programs than females do (it would not matter being a man or a woman what matters is the individual male's stats compared to average female's stats)

3. The percentages we see for F/M in programs could be retention/graduation percentages. For some programs that could mean that men are retained/graduated at a lower rate but not neccessarily accepted at a much lower rate.

I think the truth is it's not an exact science and only admissions committees know!
 
No single criteria is going to guarantee admission for anyone. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you'll get in because you have a high GPA, are the male gender, etc. You have to be well rounded. If you're a guy, that's a plus, because they are hard to come by in this field (6% of OTs were male in 2006).
 
The answer to op's query is actually a statistics question. Having an opinion is very engaging when you are sharing extemporaneous conversation in an informal setting. Having statistical evidence to support your opinion is truly interesting because you are going to be drilled for the entire length of your grad program with the mantra "evidence based practice."

If 12% of male applicants and 9% of female applicants are admitted to OT grad school I would at least give some credence to the position the males are more likely to be admitted to OT school than females. If statistical analysis for OT admission by gender is lacking, we could agree that we lack evidence to support our strongly held opinion. As my long ago Sociology Professor, CBE Peters, once remarked, your aunt Mary is not evidence, even if you believe her. So, boys and girls, let's do our best to provide evidence based on research for our strongly held opinions. That effort will pay dividends in grad school.


Soap box and solid evidence aside, I would have a hard time believing gender is factored into any grad school admission process in the year 2013. Correcting historic gender inequities by profession happens when the underrepresented gender begins choosing to enter that field in larger numbers. Law is an excellent example, as is medicine, where once the excluded group reached a critical mass, no preference was given or exclusivity retained. The fact that men have historically held privileged roles in society, breaking into fields previously held predominately by women has usually not been as arduous a task as the corollary. So guys, as much as it would feel like there was some number on the bottom line of the admission rubric that gives you a boost with admission, don't count on it.
 
Last edited:
A little research turns up some far higher percentages of men in the trades- carpentry, auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians and the like. With the advent of pneumatic tools and other devices that should ostensibly narrow the gender gap in these vocations, the ratio between males and females is still 95 to 5 or more. It is clear to me that there are many excellent paying professions which have have retained a more significant gender bias than occupational therapy.

The op's query was do men have a better chance of being admitted to OT school than women. The fact that 90% of OT's are women is only useful if we know what percentage of qualified women applied to OT school. If only 75% of qualified OT applicants were women but 90% of those enrolled in OT schools were women we would have a significant gender bias in favor of women in the acceptance rate at OT programs. Without the underlying gender break down of the qualified applicant pool, the gender distribution of licensed OT's does not help us answer the original question.
 
Sadly, if you were to do statistical analyses, it would have to be extensive. Not all admissions criteria are the same, and part of the admissions process is subjective. Analysis of a few programs would yield too much skew. Also consider the fact that there are multiple factors involved, so in case you did find significant differences, it would be hard to say that a certain percentage of people were matriculated specifically because of gender. You could never make a claim of causality in fact, because the nature of the situation would only allow quasi-experimental research methods.

Personally, I think the priority of the admissions committee is to develop highly competent, dedicated OT professionals. Gender would not be a predictor of competence. GPA, GRE, experience of OT, knowledge of OT, personality, and fit for the program, would all be strong predictors of competence. I think they might favor certain candidates in order to facilitate diversity (diversity is important for satisfying the needs of a diverse population). Since males are a minority, they might under certain circumstances, be given a small preference (e.g., +5 additional points for having a minority status).
 
Last edited:
BHSUStudent said:
Sadly, if you were to do statistical analyses, it would have to be extensive. Not all admissions criteria are the same, and part of the admissions process is subjective. Analysis of a few programs would yield too much skew. Also consider the fact that there are multiple factors involved, so in case you did find significant differences, it would be hard to say that a certain percentage of people were matriculated specifically because of gender. You could never make a claim of causality in fact, because the nature of the situation would only allow quasi-experimental research methods.

If there was applicant data that revealed that a significantly higher percentage of male applicants were admitted to OT school than female applicants, you would have a situation worthy of further study. If there ain't no smoke, however, there ain't no fire.

Personally, I think the priority of the admissions committee is to develop highly competent, dedicated OT professionals. Gender would not be a predictor of competence. GPA, GRE, experience of OT, knowledge of OT, personality, and fit for the program, would all be strong predictors of competence. I think they might favor certain candidates in order to
facilitate diversity (diversity is important for satisfying the needs of a diverse population). Since males are a minority, they might under certain circumstances, be given a small preference (e.g., +5 additional points for having a minority status).
Click to expand...

The 2003 SCOTUS decision authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, Bollinger v. Grutter was a fairly narrow decision which no where mentioned gender, only race, as a compelling factor that could guide higher education admission rubrics. The follow up decision this past July in Fisher v. UoTexas demanded a very high level of scrutiny if an institution uses race as a criteria in admission.

The fact you are reporting that some schools add points to "minority" applicants whose only claim to minority status is gender would not only put those schools on the wrong side of the Fisher, Grutter, and Bakke opinions, it would create a special class for men who believe their gender gives them minority status as OT applicants. This is a fairly ludicrous legal claim so I am very curious to know which OT schools are adding points, however few, to their male applicants admission scores. If it is simply a supposition on your part, that would be an important tidbit to include.

My supposition, which lacks evidence of any kind, is that men are not given preferential
treatment, not even one point, based on my reading of settled law. l concur with your closing bit that schools are interested in developing quality OT's. The thread asks the question "are males given preferential treatment in OT school admissions?"
 
Last edited:
I can tell you from experience that minority status guides admissions decisions into graduate programs. I asked admissions directors. Now, this was in the humanities for PhD programs, but they definitely encourage and factor in minority application. You can scan higher ed jobs, and websites, and see that mantra scrawled on most pages: minorities encouraged to apply. Many higher ed board meetings in the last 5 years (as long as I have had any access) have centered around finding minorities to fill positions and seats, mainly because of funding.

Now, keep in mind that I'm talking grad school. It's a very different machine than undergrad. There are actually more women graduating from undergrad programs than men right now.

Also keep this in mind: AOTA wants to see more men in the profession. How do you think that happens?
 
Again, you just have to do your best at what you can control, and let the rest be what it is. Get good grades, nail your GRE's, write an honest and compelling personal statement, find those who know your work and personality to recommend you, and let the chips fall where they may. If you pour your heart and sweat out into the process, then you shouldn't be ashamed of your acceptance into a program.
 
Last edited:
Gemut said:
The 2003 SCOTUS decision authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, Bollinger v. Grutter was a fairly narrow decision which no where mentioned gender, only race, as a compelling factor that could guide higher education admission rubrics. The follow up decision this past July in Fisher v. UoTexas demanded a very high level of scrutiny if an institution uses race as a criteria in admission.

The fact you are reporting that some schools add points to "minority" applicants whose only claim to minority status is gender would not only put those schools on the wrong side of the Fisher, Grutter, and Bakke opinions, it would create a special class for men who believe their gender gives them minority status as OT applicants. This is a fairly ludicrous legal claim so I am very curious to know which OT schools are adding points, however few, to their male applicants admission scores. If it is simply a supposition on your that would be an important tidbit to include.

My supposition, which lacks evidence of any kind, is that men are not given preferential
treatment, not even one point, based on my reading of settled law. l concur with your closing bit that schools are interested in developing quality OT's. The thread asks the question "are males given preferential treatment in OT school admissions?"
Click to expand...

People are given preferential status quite often in this society, for various reasons. In the government, veterans, people with disabilities, wives of active duty service members, etc, are given preference. Government employees are given noncompetitive status. Basically they can acquire a job without having to compete with anyone under various circumstances. Under a new law, recent graduates are given exceptive service status when they apply under the Recent Graduates program.

So preference exists within all levels of government, with the intended effect of having a higher representation of certain "minority" groups. How hard would it be to imagine that universities do the same, with the intention of having a higher representation of minorities?

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/case.html

The court ruled in favor of Bollinger, allowing the school to continue using race in the admissions process as it did not violate the Equal Protection clause. There is no subsequent clause as a result of the ruling that states race could be the only factor that could guide admissions processes. The admissions committee admitted to having "many possible bases for diversity admissions" with commitment to one type of diversity: race and ethnicity. It also stated that it does not define diversity solely by race and ethnicity.The logic that men are not given preferential treatment based on Bolinger vs Grutter is invalid.

So it would not be a surprise if schools allow males to have minority status on the basis of increasing the diversity of the student body, as a profession would benefit from having a diverse representation that reflects the diversity of the general population, which is what AOTA has (in other words) stated as it's logic to recruit and retain more men for the profession.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure where the people that are replying "no" are getting their info because 2 out of the 3 programs I applied to specifically told me I was getting a couple "bonus points" on the applicant competitiveness scale just for being a guy. There is a concerted effort in the OT field to be more inclusive both with gender and race, so yes it's happening in many (if not all) schools. Do I feel a little guilty about it? Yes. Am I going to accept it anyways? Yes.
 
Preference is indeed given for a variety of reasons. *The legal definition of protected class is a very important one to keep in mind when considering the difference between creating a "balanced" or "diverse" student body and actual preference in hiring or graduate admissions.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Historically under-represented groups that have not been part of the privileged sector of society have attained protected class status due to the hurdles or challenges that have prevented that protected class from attaining an equal footing in society. In the case of veterans, it is a reward for having enlisted in the armed forces, not unlike the G.I. Bill. *The fact that men have chosen to enter other professions is not a barrier to entering the occupational therapy field, it is a choice. *The historic gender imbalance in nursing, for example, is due to a self imposed stigmatization of the field and not an active policy that selects for women nurses.*

If a school awards points for male applicants, none which have been identified by name here on SDN, it would be edifying to know if that preferential treatment resulted in a higher percentage of minimally qualified male applicants being admitted than similarly qualified female applicants. Perhaps it is such a small bonus it does not actually move the admissions needle toward male applicants at all. As soon as a significant number of less qualified men are admitted to occupational therapy programs over more qualified women, a legal challenge could justifiably arise to challenge such policies. The trend at SCOTUS since Bakke has been to narrow the preferential treatment for non-academic factors, not expand them. It was hinted in the SCOTUS Fisher decision preferential treatment would vanish in the next decade or two. The fact a school may report it uses preference in it's admissions criteria *in a brief before the Supreme Court does not mean that strategy is resting on solid legal ground. With the court set to hear a challenge to a Michigan ban on affirmative action this year, conflating the hot button issue of racial minority preference in admissions rubrics with gender based preferences is of questionable merit.

So, if schools are reporting that they are granting preferential treatment by gender, let's share the names of those institutions. *Daylight has a way of clarifying that which is murky. Certainly state schools in California are not practicing gender based preference because they are banned from doing so by state law under Prop 209. There is a similar ban in Michigan due to Proposal 2, which is the law being challenged at SCOTUS this term.

http://www.mercurynews.com/educatio...ve-action-california-u-s-supreme-court-likely
 
Thank you Kidamnesiac...I agree. Bringing up laws in this case seems rather irrelevant. Laws are blanket provisions and oftentimes not really what affects specific actions or regulations. Plus, you really think that universities haven't made perfectly certain they are abiding by all the rules? Most have been at this for quite some time...
 
coolrunnins said:
Thank you Kidamnesiac...I agree. Bringing up laws in this case seems rather irrelevant. Laws are blanket provisions and oftentimes not really what affects specific actions or regulations. Plus, you really think that universities haven't made perfectly certain they are abiding by all the rules? Most have been at this for quite some time...
Click to expand...

Understanding state and federal law permits one to determine what admissions policies are allowed under the law.

There is a clear legal distinction between public and private institutions under the law which is why the end of quotas(Bakke v. UCD) or point systems in admissions rubrics (Gratz v. Bollinger) were law suits against state schools, not private ones. The June 2013 Fisher v. UoT held University of Texas had violated the strict scrutiny clause outlined in Grutter v. Bollinger. The all male VMI, a state school, was opened to women in 1996 based on a SCOTUS decision. Had VMI been a private institution, it would have been able to retain its all male admission policy.


Private schools have far more leeway in their admission policies than state schools. There is a state statute in California (Prop 209) that explicitly prohibits state schools from considering race or gender in admissions decisions. I am very interested to know which schools are adding points or setting aside slots for men. So far, although there are multiple reports in this thread that such practices exist, no one has identified the schools which add points or set aside slots for men. If they do exist, it is more than likely they are private institutions.

So @kidamnesiac, @coolrunnins, @Johann00, and @rcludo please name the schools that you have reason to believe are favoring men in OT admissions. The tremendous value that this forum provides is in the form of specific feedback. Your valuable input will assist other future OT students in wisely choosing where to apply based on your findings.
 
Hey guys, I discovered a website for a group called BrOT, created by male occupational therapy students, that is aiming to increase the diversity in the field. Thought some of you may be interested in checking it out! The "brOT OT Practice Magazine Article" under Resources explains why they started it and what they hope to acheive. 🙂 http://www.brotmovement.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
General Admissions & OTCAS will i get in to OTD school
Replies
4
Views
736
OToctopus
O
A
Other OT-Related Information Research Study for Gender Disparity!
Replies
0
Views
255
AJOTD
A
T
  • Locked
Coursework & Fieldwork OTA Student needs to question OTR or OT student for OTA 101
Replies
0
Views
546
TessOTA
T
S
Program-Specific Info / Q's Might not get into OT school as planned? Need help figuring out plan B
Replies
6
Views
3K
EmpowerOT
EmpowerOT
G
Other OT-Related Information Finances for OT
Replies
2
Views
2K
EmpowerOT
EmpowerOT
Top