Women outnumber men in higher learning institutions across the country. To combat historical gender inequality in higher education, Congress passed Title IX in 1972, which prohibited gender-based exclusion in educational programs that receive federal financial assistance. Through these efforts, female enrollment in universities surged, and in the late 1970s, women began to outnumber men. This trend has continued through 2025, when 57.3% of enrolled undergraduate students in the United States were female.
Despite this, Brown has worked to ensure that their gender enrollment remains equal. In the 2024–25 application cycle, over 10,000 more self-identified women than men applied to the university, and yet, 17 more men than women were accepted into the class of 2029. Based on each Ivy League’s 2024–25 common data set, Brown has the largest male-to-female acceptance rate gap of any Ivy, touting a 7% male acceptance rate in comparison to the female 4.4% — acknowledging that this binary perspective does not represent other gender identities. Why so many more women than men are interested in Brown warrants another column, but one thing is clear: Brown’s admissions process favors men, by a lot.
In his recent column, my colleague Tasawwar Rahman ’26 argued that this favoring of men over women in admissions at Brown is unmeritocratic and sexist. While he does acknowledge the existence of “social and societal reasons why an even sex ratio… improves the college experience,” he fails to consider this parity’s importance for American society as a whole, beyond the college experience.
While Brown no longer considers race in its admissions process since the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action was unconstitutional, the University still prioritizes some types of applicants over others. The Supreme Court ruled based on the legal standard that race is subject to the highest level of judicial review, “strict scrutiny.” But other forms of admissions preferences, such as gender and income, depend on classifications that are subject to weaker forms of legal scrutiny. Athletic recruits, who comprised roughly 14% of Brown’s student population in 2023, are already a discrete category in admissions. Legacy students also have an upper hand, and geography figures in, too: 9.9% of last year’s Brown applicants from Rhode Island were accepted, compared to the 5.4% acceptance overall. Though in essence discriminatory — as Rahman argues — admissions preferences are neither a unique nor illegal phenomenon. Plus, gender-based admissions preferences are pivotal in actively encouraging men to pursue higher education, a benefit both to men and society reap.
Men in their prime working years have been steadily dropping out of the workforce, with education proving a consistent predictor. This trend holds not only economic consequences, but it is also detrimental to mental health, an issue of utmost importance as men far outnumber women in the number of deaths by suicide in the United States. Furthermore, men who do not obtain a college degree exhibit reduced rates of marriage and parenthood, a measure of well-being. Our young male voters — who are increasingly susceptible to radicalism — are bringing these frustrations to the voting booths.
If we don’t encourage men into spaces that are female dominated — as we do with women for spaces that are male dominated — we risk perpetuating limiting historical stereotypes and boundaries. The Women in STEM movement actively encourages female students into STEM fields in an effort to narrow the gender gap within the field. Accordingly, MIT’s admissions policy specifically aims to uplift female applicants. Such a policy has had beneficial impacts, not only in female equality but also in the scientific and technological advancements that have resulted from women’s involvement in these fields. Brown is the mirror image. While men continue to outnumber women in STEM-focused and trade institutions, women outnumber men in humanities majors. It takes policies like these, and Brown’s, to work toward a more egalitarian American society in the future.
My primary argument against Rahman’s conclusion on gender-based preferential admissions is his oversight of the importance college gender balance has for our country as a whole. But the benefits to the college experience itself, which Rahman acknowledges exist, are also worth considering and weighing. One might assume that the benefits only pertain to the male population, which may be made a minority at most colleges if gender-based affirmative action was outlawed. However, these benefits traverse gender boundaries as female students may experience more fulfilling social and romantic lives on campuses with gender parity. On campuses with greater percentages of women than men, female students view men as “less trustworthy,” resulting in strained romantic heterosexual relationships. It is not a big leap to assume this pervades into platonic cross-gender relationships as well. Having more men on campus can make college more fulfilling for all.
Rahman argues that preferential admissions for men betray “the ideals of the American dream that if you work hard, you will reap the rewards.” But Brown admissions practices already betray this ideal of the American Dream: There are far more qualified candidates who apply than there are spots for acceptance. As long as Brown continues to be an elite institution, forced to exclude many capable applicants, it will never realize this hard-work-to-achievement pipeline imagined by the American Dream. But importantly, Brown fosters another deep-rooted aspect of the American spirit in their holistic and thoughtful admissions process: diversity.
Men have not endured the same historical disadvantages as other identities uplifted through preferential admission. It is, therefore, disconcerting to feel that women, who historically have been denied education worldwide and at Brown, must advocate for the University accepting more men when so many qualified women apply. However, in our current state of affairs, the benefits of men in institutions of higher learning are critical not only for men, but for the social wellbeing of our country. That said, enforcing preferential admissions for men is not the final answer.
I share Rahman’s concerns that institutions of higher education have been, and continue to be, shaped by bias, and that their preference-based admissions can reflect this prejudice. If we are serious about addressing gender disparities in higher education, the solution must be structural rather than reactive. Just as meaningful equality requires sustained investment in disadvantaged communities, so too does it require intentional investment in boys’ early educational development. For example, we should pursue systemic reform such as having boys start school a year later than their female counterparts so that boys can thrive academically in accordance with their maturation.
But in the meantime, we cannot afford the costs of an ever-decreasing educated male population.
Talia Berkwits ’29 can be reached at talia_berkwits@brown.edu. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
Talia Berkwits is a staff columnist. She is from Chicago, IL and undecided on her concentration. She loves cooking (but not cleaning up) and one of her goals is to visit all 50 states.
