Hicks
My first book of the summer is Richard Reeves’s “Of Boys and Men,” which is published by the Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank where the author is a senior fellow.
I mention this because the challenges facing boys and young men are familiar in conservative circles, but not so among the center-left and progressives.
This book might be called the first serious-yet-accessible work from the left of center. I believe that it will change the debate on a chronic problem that has been ignored by a large swathe of American researchers, educators and policy advocates.
The subject is familiar to academics, sociologists and economists in particular.
Reeves’s contribution lies in three areas.
First, he magnificently outlines the scale and scope of the problem, as I will summarize.
Second, he draws some common ground between the problems boys and young men have in education, and the continuing challenge women face in labor markets.
Finally, he makes clear there are policy options we can consider. This helps push us into a long-needed debate.
The matter begins with facts.
A half-century ago, women lagged behind men badly in education. By 1980, when I graduated from high school, boys and girls attended college at identical rates. Today there are roughly three women in college for every two men. The gap moderates slightly by graduation, and two-thirds of men major in STEM degrees, while only one-third of women do. Still, the gender gap in education is larger than any racial or ethnic gap.
About the only academic area in which boys outperform girls is in the SAT, but that’s likely because far fewer men take the test. The share of boys who fail to graduate high school is 50% higher than girls, and the effects are felt outside education. Men die younger, are incarcerated at many times the rate of women and are subject to far more violence. Boys die from suicide at almost five times the rate of girls.
Reeves is unsparing in his criticism of the policy discussion surrounding these issues. Many on the left, accustomed to rightly worrying about labor market outcomes for women, too easily blame boys for their plight. Toxic masculinity is frequently held liable for these differing outcomes. Reeves’ work makes clear that is an intellectually lazy, and empirically unsupportable position.
The problems of boys start long before puberty, before the social norms are inculcated, and before testosterone imposes its will upon the male body and mind.
One culprit that Reeves explains well is the lagged brain development in boys that accompanies the later onset of puberty.
He recommends starting boys in school later or redshirting them for a year of kindergarten.
However, the major factor in the challenges boys experience is not too much masculine exposure, but far too little.
The problems for boys begin in families and neighborhoods with fewer men around.
That is hardly a new observation, dating at least to the early 1970s.
Reeves points directly to the absence of men in education as a current problem.
The only occupation in America that is less gender-balanced today than in the 1970s is K-12 education.
As Reeves notes, the share of women fighter pilots is today higher than the share of men teaching in elementary schools.
Bias against boys in schools is real and pervasive. The nice suburban school my kids attended suspends boys at five times the rate of girls. This is common across Indiana, and if this is not a violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, nothing is.
Disparate treatment by gender should be of keen interest to school boards across the state, if only mitigation of legal risk.
Ironically, this issue alone illustrates the neglect of issues facing boys. One can locate hundreds of academic studies about racial differences in school suspensions, but not a single one addresses gender in an education journal.
It is taboo to worry about boys or men, and in addressing this is where I think Reeves does his greatest service to the issue.
Compared to men, women do enormously better in K-12 schooling, are far better prepared for college, face far less risk of death or violence and live longer.
But, in labor markets, they continue to lag in both wages and jobs of responsibility.
This is, of course, a nuanced issue.
Women who choose not to have children and pursue the same education as men, perform equally with childless men.
Once adults become parents, women suffer in labor markets and men see a clear benefit.
To be clear, this is a choice people make, but Reeves pulls together these two points marvelously in his policy recommendations.
He has a son who is a primary school teacher, and argues that we need to promote HEAL jobs — health, education, administration and literacy — as a more attractive option for boys.
It is no mystery to economists or readers of this column that demand for what Reeves calls HEAL jobs are growing, while demand for many traditionally man-dominated jobs in manufacturing and construction are in permanent decline.
This prescription will partially boost the economic prospects of boys.
But, Reeves makes clear that addressing labor markets for women is also critical.
For women, the wage gap is caused by labor market conditions that push women and men into different occupations.
The issue is simply the availability of childcare and the flexibility of some careers to permit someone to take time off to stay with children. For most families, one parent needs a job that is flexible enough to permit time off for child-rearing.
That parent is most likely a woman, and those “flexible” jobs pay less well.
Reeves offers some much-needed symmetry in policy advice about ways to improve educational outcomes for boys, while improving labor market equality for women.
Not all of his policy prescriptions are perfect. Reeves counts too much on vocational education and opportunities for boys, but that is the correct discussion to have.
“Of Boys and Men” is an accessible, thoughtful and thought-provoking book about challenges to human flourishing in contemporary America. I recommend that every parent, every policymaker, and every teacher and professor read this book.
Michael J. Hicks is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball Distinguished Professor of Economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. Send comments to [email protected].
