As a Mother of grown children two boys and two girls I think your report is interesting but not my experience.  All children are learners it takes a person to reach their need of interest and let them open their minds.  As for college I found it is installed within the family as an interest and direction.  If college isn't a part of your family discussion a child can only hope he/she gets it at school.  My kids were lucky African Americans as they were born starting with the Civil Rights Bill. From there came Bill Clinton's policies of equal rights and I lived in California were education was number one and affordable.  Now as we see education is the last thing on the White House's mind and here in California Arnie is cutting education.  We will see it wont matter if your a boy or girl education will be cut and the US will be much lower in education compaired to the rest of the World. If I ever have grandchildren they will be educated by home schooling and then go to college in another country. I did notice that most countries know and teach more about American History then the US.  
As we have just noticed with the topic of Civil Rights on the Media.  Strange to see educated reporters don't know about what took place in the 60's even having a Black candidate who doesn't know much about the struggles and development of the Civil Rights Movement yet how do we expect the kids to know when the adults don't know.  
I made a copy of the test for immigrants to get to be US citizens and found most of the people I know failed the test.  That's all I needed to know, it makes it understandable with how low US education has gone. You can't teach what you don't know yourself or bother to read and find out.

Savannah Guthrie is the single best thing to happen to NBC News in a long time.  I tune in every night hoping that she will have a segment on - what insight and enthusiasm she brings to each piece.  Congrats to NBC on grabbing her, and I hope to be seeing a lot more of her on the air

Thank you Brian for doing a classy and outstanding job last night with the debate. Thank you also for asking Obama about the Muslim and Pledge email question. Keep doing what you're doing!!
PS I say NE VAH DA to!

Dear Savannah, I attended a womens college and I really liked the school. The college was not too large, yet it has greatly expanded since I graduated. It should not be easier for boys to be admitted to college than girls. If a female student is qualified to attend the college then she should be considered for admission. For me this womens college was wonderful and I enjoyed the classes and the activities. It depends on the girl and what she is interested in majoring and her goals. Co-ed colleges are great too. It all comes down to what someone is looking for in a college.  

Why is it an issue when boys get into college over girls, but affirmative action is not, and were woman not included in that? Makes no sense to me but than again Im just another man.
Thanks

Thank you for this illuminating story.  I find it amusing that some colleges are now so concerned with fixing a "gender gap" in which girls constitute a majority of the student body -- less than 30 years ago, many colleges still had at least 50% more men than women on their campuses.  Today's "problem" sounds suspiciously like the same issue disguised as a different one: whereas boys once had an advantage because there were hardly any girls applying to college, now they have an advantage because there are "too many" girls applying.  College applications should be evaluated with as little regard for a student's gender as for his or her race or ethnicity.   Otherwise, boys will retain an unfair advantage and be rewarded for underperformance in high school.  And that is simply sexism.

This report makes me wonder why this publicized issue is not considered affirmative action to help young men get ahead academically. We, as a society, seem to be concerned when white young middle class men are not able to keep their status within colleges. I wonder if there would be the same outcry if women or young people of color were lagging in Universities. I also wonder if the same justifications would be made for young women that are being made for men. Additionally, if schools are committed to creating diverse and equal communities for their students, should they not be enforcing affirmative action for race, ability, socioeconomic class, etc. as well as race?

I am currently a male high school student and am looking for colleges.  I think that there are huge double standards not just for women but for minorities. But it kinda goes the other way for minorities, a minority student with a GPA more than a full point lower than mine, has colleges begging him to go there, because they are required to have a certain percent of minorities, whereas I would struggle to get into that school.
I think that colleges should not even ask for race, religion, or gender on applications. but admit them on a basis of how well they have done in the past and how well they could do in the future.

so what coleges accept more boys? I have a very smart girl and would like to know the best schools where she has a chance to get accepted.  Does being a family menber of an alumni count?

Clark University was included in your story tonight about admitting more women over men.  It stated that Clark was "outside of Boston."  Boston is a seperate city more than 50 miles away. Clark University is actually in Worcester, the second largest city in the state.  Please have the record corrected.  thank you.

so what coleges accept more boys? I have a very smart girl and would like to know the best schools where she has a chance to get accepted.  Does being a family menber of an alumni count?

Brian Williams once again displays his bias in favor of women and minorities.  White males were once a majority in colleges and universities across this land.  Only by a concerted effort by government, women's groups and minority dissent was the playing field leveled and approximate equality finally achieved.  Now the reverse has occurred, that being more qualified women than men, and listen to the outcry againt assisting males to regain parity.  What a double standard and a "load of crap".  It is almost like " what...are you guys still hanging around here?"  Thank God, Brian, that you have no worthwhile competition on the other major television stations.  At what point in life did you surrender your manhood?  You are a disgrace to both your gender and the television station you purport to represent.  

This piece of news definitely worries me as I am a high school senior (and a female) in the college application process right now. I wonder if this gender discrimination applies only to the smaller liberal arts colleges or larger private universities that have a greater math/science focus. I am curious about this because I (luckily) am not interested in attending a liberal arts college. Also, notice that Jackie Rawlings' rant (see the first comment above) about degraded education in America contains about ten grammar mistakes and awkward wording. How ironic.

When 57% of college students are girls, I find it hard to believe that the admission system is unfair to girls.  I suspect that if you look at math, science and engineering programs in colleges, girls are MORE likely to be admitted than boys of equal or better academic standing.  I also suspect that outstanding girls (and boys, for that matter) who don't get admitted to their first or second choice school, still end up getting into very fine colleges.

This seems like a non-story to me - or, at least, an incomplete one.

As a mother of a bright daughter I find it disconcerting and depressing that admission standards are now unfair for one of the most absurd reasons I have ever heard.  But I also find it disturbing that some of the people interviewed for this piece referred to the college applicants as "girls" and "boys".  These are young women and men.

I am distressed at something Nightly News does quite frequently. During the "College: Getting In" story you neglected to put up the name and title of the Black gentleman from Clark University during his interview clips. However, you did place all names and positions of the White interviewees when they spoke. This is not the first segment where this has ocurred. The Black gentleman was, quite probably, the Provost, Dean, or President of the university and, I think it relevant to at least have known his name.  Especially when Savannah Guthrie spoke to him more. NBC news editors need to pay closer attention to segments and give equal recognition to those interviewed.

 As a product of a single sex education system I find this series to be very interesting.  I also find it interesting that in this segment the idea of men being out numbered on campus and the concept that different standards are being set to allow them in is seen as a bad thing.  The segment actually states that men and women are different.  Shouldn't they be evaluated differently to keep diversity on campus?  Isn't that what the Liberal Arts college experience is all about in the first place?  I know academic accomplishments should be taken into account, but the impact the student makes on the community through their character and life experience are also taken into consideration when considering admission to Liberal Arts colleges from my understanding.

Is it any wonder that girls are making up a higher percentage of the college entrants? Notice the numbers being used are from the past 10 years or so. Go back further and you see that men were in the majority on campus. The issue isn't that colleges are having to lower standards that have ALWAYS been the way they are now. No, they're having to change standards BACK so that they don't favor female applicants.
We've have 20 years of Colleges and Universities bending over backward to reverse the "gender gap" that existed in the 60's and 70s and the decades before then. Back then FAR more men were attending and finishing college than women.
We've had 20 years of standards shifting to favor females and 20 years of lower level classes being tailored to fit women better. 20 years of having boys ignored or marginalized when it comes to considering how classes should be taught...all in the interests of social engineering and "gender equality".
The truth is... none of this has been about equality. It's been about shifting focus away from tried and true methodologies that work for all students and focusing on teaching strategies to fit one sex better than the other. Changing the historic expectations to tailor fit girls, and leave boys on the outside because they were previously considered a privileged gender.
The author of this piece stated. "Should it be easier for boys than girls to get into college? The simple answer, of course, is no."

Well, imagine of that same attitude had been taken in regards to women in the 60's and 70's Ms. Guthrie when it came to admitting them into college. Imagine if affirmative action had met precisely that sort of mindset you're saying is the simple answer.

The real simple answer is to make the requirements and teaching strategies more gender neutral. To not use bias for race, gender, or creed in deciding who goes to college or how things are taught in class.

Let the brightest minds fill the seats... be they men or women, black, white, or any hue in between.

JUST ASK TOM BROKAW

Re: Gender Imbalance In America's Colleges and Universities (NBC Evening News, 16 Jan 08)

So the reason there are twice as many women now getting college educations in "equality" America is because girls "mature faster" and "learn better", etc., than boys?

And just how did this tremendous difference occur over the space of a single generation?  Because boys have suddenly grown less mature, more stupid, less able to learn?  Are we using the wrong drugs on them?  How sexist is it possible to GET?!

In military draft year 1970, there was almost a 52-48 percent imbalance on America's college campuses in favor of men, and women all across the country went on the war path, and not just over education.  While "affirmative action" was applied to almost every single "male-dominated" endeavor in America by women who demanded numerical balance, or at least open admission, wherever they wanted to go, it was not necessarily always the best course, because it inevitably required standards, in most cases physical and usually temporarily, to suddenly be lowered.  When it came to higher education, women more wisely took the correct route by attacking the problem in our pre-college school systems.  

They advanced the proposition that it was legally, morally and philosophically impossible to blame the victim - girls - for their failure to keep even with boys in education, and this proposition has become very widely accepted by our culture, and by our courts.  Women then went on to solidify in law the principle that mere significant numerical imbalance was prima face evidence of institutional discrimination.  There is now a whole library of law backing up such legal principles – based on thousands of individual and class action law suits bought by women all across the country, mostly during the 1960s-1980s.

Since students don't show up at the college gates and suddenly become too stupid to enter, women in the early 1970s rightly attacked the problem at its source - at our pre-college school systems.  They demanded, and got, significant changes in teaching methods and standards, even in course material and text book content, to ensure that girls ended up with graduation and college admission numbers that were better in balance with boys.

Now, 35 years later, because it is boys who are blatantly on the short end of the stick, and when the imbalance is extreme in the opposite direction compared to that in 1970, we are just supposed to throw all that intelligent thinking and legal finding out the window, and instead whine that we now must discriminate against girls through "affirmative action" for boys in order to keep campuses in numerical balance - because it is "more socially desirable"?

Just what kind of utter nonsense are we throwing around here?!  

How is it suddenly possible to blame the victims - the boys - for their failure to measure up?  Furthermore, if anyone is still capable of looking further ahead than next week, they will quickly recognize that such a tremendous imbalance on college campuses inevitably means that half of women college graduates today will be statistically unable to find equally educated mates, that women already are very rapidly become our society's principle breadwinners, that women will now bear the heaviest load of responsibility in our society.  Socially desirable?  What kind of childish nonsense is THAT?  We are talking about very significant changes in our entire societal make-up here.

The changes instituted to help girls in school in the early 1970s should have ended in the early 1980s, when balance was achieved, when girls first began moving ahead and the law was up for review.  They were not ended, largely because women's organizations such as the AAUW and NOW argued very forceably that there was still (questionable) justification for continuing to favor girls in pre-college schools.  Those changes have now been going on so long that no one knows there is anything unusual about our schools. The changes have become permanently institutionalized.  They are sexist!  Pure and simple.

Furthermore, women in 1972 demanded, and got, a prohibition against gender discrimination in schools written into federal law (education amendment to the Civil Rights Act).  That law applies to ANY educational program or activity receiving any federal funding.  Schools, for example, that have 10-1 or greater ratios favoring girls in high school "advanced placement programs" - which literally guarantee admission to college - are in direct violation of that law.  Yet such imbalances are now the norm all across the country.  Are we supposed to apply federal equality and civil rights law only to one gender?  Is this MORE nonsense?

Affirmative action at the college entrance is NOT the correct path, since the university is the last place that standards should be lowered.  But, unfortunately, it will have to suffice for now, since we have waited FAR too long to correct the underlying causes.  Unless responsible women, who now control such things, take the initiative to make some drastic changes in our pre-college schools fast, they inevitably will be faced with the same heated animosity faced by men in the 1960s-1970s - and be FORCED to make such changes in court whether they like it or not.  It is only a matter of time before such cases start appearing in court, especially when lawyers realize there is gold in that discrimination – institutional discrimination using taxpayer dollars – and a whole mountain of established law already backing them up.  In a democracy based on the principle of equality, one gender can NOT have it both ways, no matter how much it pretends not to know history or the definition of equality.

The standard should be the work, not race or gender in my opinion.

I was disappointed that Ms. Guthrie's report, as well as the online article titled "College applications: Avoiding the gender bias" fail to mention that there are colleges where bright young girls are truly rewarded for their academic achievement--WOMEN'S COLLEGES. Unfortunately, many of our nation's institutions of higher ed for women are becoming co-ed due to low-enrollment rates. Ms. Guthrie's report proves that women's colleges, seen as quaint, pre-sexual revolution throwbacks, are still relevant today, if not more so.

A list of women's colleges in the US and Canada: http://www.womenscolleges.org/colleges/bystate.htm

According to Alex Kingsbury of US News & World Report, this is the collegiate perspective on women: “Girls watch less television, spend less time playing sports, and are far less likely to find themselves in detention. They are more likely to participate in drama, art, and music classes – extracurriculars that are catnip for admissions officers. Across the board, girls study more, score better, and are less likely to be placed in special education classes.” In other words, babes rock and jocks slobber. But in a college’s quest for “balance,” hormonally imbalanced 18-year-old guys - aren’t they all? - will trip all over themselves to apply where the babes are, thereby tipping the balance toward parity. Cue the music of the 1960s rock ‘n roll group, the Beach Boys: “Two girls for ev-vry boy....”

I find it strange that the media attacked ex-President of Harvard, Larry Summers, for daring sugest that their may be a difference, between men and women in learning. The situation of alowing in less qualified applicants based on sex has been happening for years in non liberal arts institutions. Its called Afirmative Action. The only problem people have is that it is now being applied to men not women. Could this report and the report about how much boys improve in single sex ed, be an indicator of how anti male US schools and way of teaching have become.

It is a sad day when academic excellence is sacrificed to race and sex quotas in order to fulfill someone's subjective idea of what the Politically Correct powers have determined to be "fair" in order to meet "diversity" quotas.  This story highlights how colleges and universities are held hostage to such flawed thinking.  And they are educating our next generation of leaders!

Watching your report about more girls than boys being admitted to college prompted me to wonder if there are actually more girls graduating from high school today.  What are those statistics?

Re: Gender Imbalance In America's Colleges and Universities

To clarify my message of yesterday on this topic, the following is purposefully written in broad generalized terms to better facilitate quick understanding of key relevant factors.

As a man who studied both sociology (criminology) and psychology (child development) at excellent eastern universities before being drafted for service in Vietnam after commencement in the late 1960s, I know that it was firmly established fact before 1960 that boys and girls learned best, and not just in school, in different ways, that they naturally took different courses to arrive at the same conclusion.  In a nutshell: boys compete, girls cooperate.  There is absolutely nothing in this to imply any differences at all in innate gender mental abilities.

There is today some misunderstanding about "discrimination".  Women firmly established during the 1960s and 1970s that discrimination need not be overt, conscious or intended, that it just as well could be subliminal, accidental and fully unintended.  Much to the initial consternation of mostly honorable American men, the best of intentions were shown to be entirely irrelevant.  When it comes to discrimination, especially institutional discrimination, the only thing that counts is the result -- when the resultant gender imbalances (deviation from 50-50) are significant enough to clearly indicate some mechanism at work in the process to skew the expected, and desired, result.

In the 1960s women looked at college enrollment imbalances, and properly sought the reasons for those imbalances in the pre-college school system.  In the pre-college school system, they quickly zeroed in on the way classroom activities were conducted.  Up until about 1960, the critical role of men in our society was to provide for their families by competing in the arena outside the home as best they could.  While schools tried their best to accommodate both genders as much as possible, it was shown that, in fact, the school learning process favored boys.  Generally, boys were shown to be more boisterous, "disorderly", active and proactive, adventuresome, etc., in the classroom as they naturally competed among other students and for the teacher's attention.  Women determined that this behavior was intimidating to the more reserved, "orderly", and quiet girls -- and they labeled the boys' behavior as "aggression".  For girls to have a more conducive learning environment, "aggression" among boys had to be removed from the classroom learning process.

Schools listened to that argument and rather quickly accepted it.  The use of the word "aggression" was especially effective in carrying the day, and schools immediately recognized that it was considerably easier to teach to girls, that an "orderly" classroom was a "better" classroom.  It didn't take long at all for the women's argument to prevail in school systems all across the country.  Since I was still outside the country in the military, I never understood why schools went so heavily in one direction, why they didn't try to accommodate both genders in better ways equally.  But I do know that schools have been beating boys into submission ever since, any way they can, even through the over-use of enormously powerful mind-altering drugs.  

It didn't make any difference that drop-out, expulsion, suicide, auto accident, drug use, arrest, incarceration and many related rates all steadily rose among boys and still remain very significantly higher than those for girls.  In time, the inclination became to simply blame the boys for their failures, rather than to properly blame the schools for failing the boys – an argument that could, apparently, only be acceptable in the case of girls.

From about 1965 to 1985 all schools readily provided and trumpeted statistics on gender, statistics intended to show the desired progress of girls, and to justify further attention (money) for girl issues.  Around 1990, this practice began to decline.  Today you almost need a federal court order to pry gender statistics out of our schools, all across the country.  They religiously use gender-neutral words ("students", "children", etc.) to divert attention away from gender.  If women felt that girls were being shortchanged in those schools, such secrecy would never be tolerated, but when boys are having problems it is perfectly acceptable.  The most critical factor, of course, is that there is no federal money to be had for the schools in boys.  So any gender problems that exist today are allowed to go unnoticed, especially since boys have never had any interest group to champion their cause; boys never stood a chance against the might of very powerful organizations like NOW and AAUW.

The US is the only English-speaking country that has not been adult enough to recognize the severe problems now being faced by boys, to embrace those problems for national attention, and to devote significant government resources to their solution.  In the US there is still no money in boys.  Simply because the subject is allowed to be viewed in the US from only one gender does not change the underlying history or truth, nor does the overwhelming dominance of women in all fields relating to child development alter their responsibility to BOTH genders equally.  It seems to me that women journalists also have a similar responsibility when reporting such matters to the public.

P.S.   I am old enough to have directly witnessed as an educated adult such important events that happened in my society 30-40 years ago and also to have the requisite expertise to recognize their significance.  Today, to my knowledge, the only social scientist who has been able to get these matters to a (restricted) public audience over the past ten or fifteen years is Dr. Christina Hoff Summers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.  But her efforts have always run up against the immediate wrath of women's organizations.  Unfortunately, male scientists are always summarily dismissed when venturing into this area, so very few do, and then only with very considerable reservation and timidity.  (My intervening lifelong career in the Army obviously did not provide the requisite credentials for this civilian field today.)

As a boy who was diagnosed with ADD as a child, I felt ashamed and outcast. Now I am about to graduate from one of the most prestigious colleges in the country. I thought that Savannah Guthrie's piece on how tough it is for girls to get into top colleges was grossly misleading and skewed.

Her piece makes the point that colleges are admitting more under qualified boys into their student bodies in order to maintain a gender balance. One of her interviewees said that this was "rewarding boys underperformance". I find this kind of language sexist and skewed. Thirty to forty years ago, when women were first trying to break into education, 'experts' made the same kind of arguments about women. Did that prevent schools from breaking the gender barrier and admitting women, even if they were less qualified than men?

First it was unfair that women weren't being admitted because they were women, then it was unfair because they weren't 'qualified' enough, now it is unfair because they are too qualified? Comments like "women are on average more qualified to enter college then men" can't be taken for granted. If this is the case, then hasn't our education system failed to become gender-neutral in the spirit of those who fought for equal rights for women forty years ago? Forty years ago, male educators stood up alongside women activists to break the gender barrier. Why don't female educators stand up now and push for an education system that prepares men for college better?

The story suggests that this is a problem. Whose problem is it? Are many males complaing about the female>male ratio on their campuses.Would one not expect females applying to such campuses to eventually look to equivalent schools  with better social environments? The schools are attracting the best students. Perhaps we can not think of it as a problem and let nature take its course.

Re: Gender Imbalance In America's Colleges and Universities

(I mistakenly neglected to provide my city and state when I first sent the following very early on 17 January 2008.)

So the reason there are nearly twice as many women now getting college educations in "equality" America is because girls "mature faster" and "learn better", etc., than boys?

And just how did this truly tremendous reversal occur among American males over the space of a single generation?  Because boys have suddenly grown less mature, more stupid, less able to think, to study, to learn?  Are we using the wrong drugs on them?  

Just what kind of offensively arrogant person is making these judgments?  Such "thinking" is blatantly and entirely sexist and certainly never would be tolerated when the topic is girls and women.

In military draft year 1970, there was almost a 52-48 percent imbalance on America's college campuses in favor of men, and women all across the country were on the war path, and not just over education.  (I was there.)  While "affirmative action" was applied to almost every single "male-dominated" endeavor in America by women who demanded numerical balance, or at least open admission, wherever they wanted to go, it was not necessarily always the best course, because it inevitably required standards, in most cases physical and usually temporarily, to suddenly be lowered.  When it came to higher education, women more wisely took the correct route by attacking the problem in our pre-college school systems.  

They advanced the proposition that it was legally, morally and philosophically impossible to blame the victim - girls - for their failure to keep even with boys in education, and this proposition has become very widely accepted by our culture, and by our courts.  Women then went on to solidify in law the principle that mere significant numerical imbalance was prima face evidence of institutional discrimination.  There is now a whole library of law backing up such legal principles – based on thousands of individual and class action law suits bought by women all across the country, mostly during the 1960s-1980s.

Since students don't show up at the college gates and suddenly become too stupid to enter, women in the early 1970s rightly attacked the problem at its source - at our pre-college school systems.  They demanded, and got, significant changes in teaching methods and standards, even in course material and text book content, to ensure that girls ended up with graduation and college admission numbers that were better in balance with boys.

Now, 35 years later, because it is boys who are on the short end of the stick, and when the imbalance is extreme in the opposite direction compared to that in 1970, we are just supposed to throw all that intelligent thinking and legal precedent out the window, and instead whine that we now must discriminate against girls through "affirmative action" for boys in order to keep campuses in numerical balance - because it is "more socially desirable"?  This thinking is just utter nonsense.

How is it suddenly possible to blame the victims – now the boys - for their failure to measure up?  Furthermore, if anyone is still capable of looking further ahead than next week, they will quickly recognize that such a tremendous imbalance on college campuses inevitably means that half of women college graduates today will be statistically unable to find equally educated mates, that women already are very rapidly become our society's principle breadwinners, that women will now bear the heaviest load of responsibility in our society.  Considering balance on campus to be "socially desirable" for dating purposes is simply childish nonsense lacking any semblance of vision.  We are talking about very significant changes in our entire societal make-up here.

The changes instituted to help girls in school in the early 1970s should have ended in the early 1980s, when balance was achieved, when girls first began moving ahead and the law was up for review.  They were not ended, largely because women's organizations such as the AAUW and NOW argued very forcibly that there was still (questionable) justification for continuing to favor girls in pre-college schools.  Those changes have now been going on so long that no one seems to know there is anything unusual about our schools. The changes have become permanently institutionalized.  And they are sexist.

Furthermore, women in 1972 demanded, and got, a prohibition against gender discrimination in schools written into federal law (education amendment to the Civil Rights Act).  That law applies to ANY educational program or activity receiving any federal funding.  Schools, for example, that have 10-1 or greater ratios favoring girls in high school "advanced placement programs" - which literally guarantee admission to college - are in direct violation of that law.  Yet such imbalances are now the norm all across the country.  Are we supposed to apply federal equality and civil rights law only to one gender?  

Affirmative action at the college entrance is NOT the correct path, not then and not now, since the university is the last place where standards should be lowered.  But, unfortunately, it will have to suffice for now, since we have waited FAR too long to correct the underlying causes.  Unless responsible women who now control such things take the initiative to make some drastic changes in our pre-college schools fast, they inevitably will be faced with the same heated animosity faced by men in the 1960s-1970s - and be FORCED to make such changes in court whether they like it or not.  It is only a matter of time before such cases start appearing in court, especially when lawyers realize there is gold in that discrimination – institutional discrimination using taxpayer dollars – and a whole mountain of established law already backing them up.  In a democracy based on the principle of equality, one gender can NOT have it both ways, no matter how much it pretends not to know history or the full definition of equality.

(My follow-on clarifying comments were posted above.)

High Schools and colleges need to examine whether boys spend too much time in classes where they lack interest and aptitude.  High schools and colleges establish too many curriculum  requirements and squelch the passion for learning.  Excellent European universities, such as Trinity and Oxford, largely confine requirements to major selected.  The same is true at places such as Brown and Amherst.  Students at public universities here deserve the same right to choose courses.  Students will earn more degrees and earn them within four years.  Saddling public but not private  university students with requirements also raises equity issues.

Wow, the author of this article seems rather sexist herself.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):