The point of the article however was to identify that Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Dartmouth are still very much old boy networks. That the culture at those schools is much harder on women. That women leave those schools after 4 years feeling LESS confident than when they started. I was stunned that those women are spending huge amounts of money to be short changed in this way. I was stunned that these schools that are considered to be such beacons of higher education could be so incredibly misogynistic.
The leadership gap in college is not "a fact of life":
I attended one of those schools. I'm male but had no family connections to the school, and I did not feel disadvantaged by any "old boy network". I fail to see any actionable examples of discrimination in the original article. It starts as follows:
"When Catherine Ettman, class of '13, ran for vice-president of the undergraduate student government, her father advised her not to�because it might distract from her studies�and her mother worried about her safety knocking on doors. She won, defeating three boys."
If women want leadership positions, they should work for them, just like men do.