Rarely Is The Question Asked: Is The Boys Learning?
	found on BusinessWeek written by ms_sue_collins, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 25 May 5:13am
		It's not just that boys are falling behind girls.... It's that boys themselves are falling behind their own functioning and doing worse than they did before. — William S. Pollock, author of 'Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood' and a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School "One hundred years ago, Harvard University president Charles Eliot refused admission to women, doubting their 'natural mental capacities.' Today, although men continue to dominate in the highest-paying jobs and build the most wealth, it is the boys who are fast becoming the second sex, writes Michelle Conlin in BusinessWeek Online," ms_sue_collins informs us. "According to Thomas Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, a stunning gender reversal is taking place: 'Girls are on a tear through the educational system.... In the past 30 years, nearly every inch of educational progress has gone to them.' The women's movement, Title IX and a host of gender equity programs all helped to keep the spotlight on girls' education: 'All the focus was on girls, all the grant monies, all the university programs — to get girls interested in science and math.... There wasn't a similar thing for reading and writing for boys,' notes one high school principal. Some in the field even go so far as to claim that schools have become anti-boy. Christina Sommers, author of The War Against Boys, thinks that schools have become overly feminized 'boy-bashing laboratories' in which boys' natural behavior has been pathologized.

	"Statistics do seem to support the idea that boys are increasingly lagging behind girls. The 'earliness' push in education, in which schools try to have all students achieve the same standards by the same age, is more damaging to boys, who tend to be developmentally behind girls in reading and writing. Pollack argues that schools should be more conscious of the differences between the sexes and how they learn and that failure to adequately deal with such developmental differences may account for the increase in diagnoses of attention-deficit disorder or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The use of Ritalin in the U.S. has increased 500 percent in the last decade, most of it by boys, and according to Paul Wolpe, psychiatry professor at the University of Pennsylvania, there are school districts in which 20 percent to 25 percent of the boys are on the drug: 'Ritalin is a response to an artificial social context that we've created for our children.' "Later on, in high school, boys are 30 percent more likely to drop out and 85 percent more likely to commit murder. Suicide rates are also higher and have tripled since 1970. In college now, women earn an average of 57 percent of all BAs and 58 percent of all master's degrees. By 2020, if the trend continues, there will be 156 women per 100 men earning degrees. Beyond college, the lagging boy threatens to become the less independent, less productive, and less socially desirable man, creating an imbalance with far-reaching consequences. "James Garbarino, professor of human development at Cornell University and author of Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, contends, howver, that by attaining such a decisive educational edge, females may finally gain an equal hand: 'Once you stop oppressing girls, it stands to reason they will thrive up to their potential.' If they glide into first place, he posits, it's because 'Girls are better able to deliver in terms of what modern society requires of people -- paying attention, abiding by rules, being verbally competent, and dealing with interpersonal relationships in offices.'"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 102 commentsbest: 14 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  A few points   by rough ashler       at Sun 25 May 6:58am score of 0.5 irrelevant     The headling is right — Rarely Is The Question Asked: Is The Boys Learning? A more common question would be Is the boy learning or Are the boys learning? To blame school funding suggests then 'if we just throw money at the problem it will fix the problem'. But the data could reflect something else. From the businessweek.com link you have: Black women are really the canaries in the coalmine on this. Put simply, I believe white women are headed to where black women are today. And from an article about Cal Professor John Ogbu you have: Ogbu concluded that the average black student in Shaker Heights put little effort into schoolwork and was part of a peer culture that looked down on academic success as "acting white." No where in this article does it state where the raw data was collected. Depending on where the data was collected, you could draw a far different conclusion — like Professor Ogbu did. Depending on your agenda you could blame Hydrogenated Fats, Pesticides, or even popular culture like rap/hip hop music. (You get extra points if you mention that the USA is like the Roman Empire and tie the eating with lead VS the food USA now eats, BTW)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: A few points   by cortez       at Sun 25 May 7:18am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 1     I guess you didn't pick up on the play on a Bushism: "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" Don't know WTF you want to do with your engineering degree? Ask me about UNH's MS Management of Technology program!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: He are educated   by gordon shumway       at Sun 25 May 9:38pm score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 2     It has been argued that what Bush actually said was "Is...are children learning", i.e. he didn't make a grammatical error, but instead simply changed his mind after starting to speak. But this too is mistaken. Bush was surely exposed to classical rhetoric during his education, and it's safe to assume he was using the figure of speech known as enallage, or the substitution of an incorrect form of grammar for effect.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: He are educated   by natophonic       at Sun 25 May 10:19pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 31     so you're saying that he knows that we know that he's a poor public speaker, so he's assuming that we know that he knows that we know this, and is deliberately applying his study of shakespearean literary riffs to make a self-effacing joke? um, sure! and the tax cuts are all about stimulating the economy, not helping the rich. best laugh i've had all weekend! What we do is never understood but merely praised or blamed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: He are educated   by gordon shumway       at Sun 25 May 10:39pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 32     He's not making a self effacing joke, he is using figures of speech to turn a memorable phrase. Another figure Bush likes to use is tmesis (inserting a word in the middle of another), which is what he is using when he pronounces nuclear as nuke-you-ler (although there is some categorical overlap here with the form of metaplasmus known as epenthis). The insertion of 'you' in nuclear serves to heighten and personalize the threat of nuclear weapons to Bush's listening audience.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: He are educated   by natophonic       at Sun 25 May 10:56pm score of 1 funny   in reply to comment 35     ah, i see! so when i was 11 years old, and my father patiently corrected my pronunciation of 'nuke-you-ler war,' he was clumsily missing my nuanced protestations against the cold war, which impacted not only russians thousands of miles away, but ultimately my father and i as well. i'm so very glad you're here to help us find the oceans of depth in rain puddles! What we do is never understood but merely praised or blamed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: He are educated   by MrTripps       at Mon 26 May 11:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Of course! That must be it. The more simple explanation, that Bush is a horrible public speaker when he has to think and talk at the same time, couldn't be true. It would mean he is flawed in some way and by extention the US is flawed. Only pinko commie fags suggest that God's Nation isn't perfect in every way. "It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Marriage??   by Quufer       at Sun 25 May 7:29am score of 1.5 interesting     I'm a bit disturbed that the end focus of the stories — the part that tells the authors that we need to do something about this problem — is that women won't have anyone to marry if this continues. Surely in the course of the "girl project" of the last 30+ years, its proponents have focused on the benefits for the girls themselves, not on the impact on the marriage market. Likewise, the statistics here on boys' higher rates of murder and suicide, as well as lower income, are just mentioned and forgotten, but the impact on women (through marriage) are analyzed. Feminists have for a long time (and correctly) argued that women don't inherently need a man. The article essentially refutes that completely, saying that not only do women need a man, but they need a man who is at least as educated as they are. I don't agree with the article's point-of-view, and resent the twin implications — that all women need a man, and that men exist only as husbands. "All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That's his." - Oscar Wilde   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: Marriage??   by bigeyes       at Sun 25 May 8:54am score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 3     I'm with you there. It's screwy to tell any child that the most important thing they can do with their life is become a husband or wife. I suppose all the good Mother Theresa did just doesn't count? I'm still watching for the trends in the school system, we haven't been it for that long (kid's 6) but I have noticed that the you'll never get a man acting that way attitude toward women has not changed very dramatically, despite all the progress feminism has supposedly made.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Marriage??   by Screename2000       at Sun 25 May 12:50pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 5     I completely agree that marriage should not be the end all, be all for a young girl, as it is still often portrayed to them. The reverse, however, that a woman doesn't "inherently need a man" may lead women down a path of sexual nonfulfillment or emotional nonfulfillment. I think we should still acknowledge a need for humans to have a life partner. However, we should definitely deemphasize this fact for girls and reemphasize it for boys and also not perpetuate the myth that the real benefits of a marriage are worth a woman significantly sacrificing other aspects of her life (education, career, independence, self-will). As bigeyes said, it's not the "most important" thing a woman can do. Having an emotional/sexual relationship with a man, a family, children is also something we can't deny (unfortunately for us feminists who'd rather pursue a "femicentrism" much akin to our "ethnocentrism" for racial minorities) hetereosexual women.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Just in time for the Republicans' endless war   by advancedatheist       at Sun 25 May 8:36am score of 0.5 intriguing     'Once you stop oppressing girls, it stands to reason they will thrive up to their potential.' If they glide into first place, he posits, it's because 'Girls are better able to deliver in terms of what modern society requires of people — paying attention, abiding by rules, being verbally competent, and dealing with interpersonal relationships in offices. I find this remarkably convenient for our new rulers. At home they have a docile workforce of educated women, while the restless young men become available to serve in the military in the wars against the oil-rich countries during the era of declining fossil-fuels production. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Okay, for the record.   by MAYORBOB       at Sun 25 May 8:58am score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 4     It only took four posts to get to the obligatory Bush bashing. The story here is a social change that has been occurring in this country over the past few decades and not some evil plot hatched by the Bush administration over the past three years. For whatever reason, people of the male gender are beginning to show signs of lagging behind people of the female gender by most measureable criteria. Might we please get back to discussing the phenomenon rather than turning it into yet another opportunity to go for the cheap political bitch slap? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Okay, for the record.   by beelers       at Sun 25 May 9:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Keep them in line MayorBob! The newspaper I write for recently published its graduation special section profiling the top ten grads in the county's three high schools. Of the 30 students, less than 10 were male. I'm not trying to be a sexual supremecist, but something is out of whack when so many women and so few men make it to the top. Visit www.beelers.org. Check out the Occasional Rant.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Okay, for the record.   by Mike1024       at Sun 25 May 2:00pm score of 2.5 witty   in reply to comment 6     It only took four posts to get to the obligatory Bush bashing. If Bush wasn't in the whitehouse, there would be no need for Bush-bashing. We never had these problems when Clinton was president. TWAJS. Michael Whipped that shit out, and aint no doubt about it; It hit the ground and caused an earthquake and power outage.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Okay, for the record.   by Linux Ate My Dog!       at Sun 25 May 5:24pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 10     but something is out of whack when so many women and so few men make it to the top. Ironic, isn't it, that the reverse of this statement was a very novel and totally revolutuionary idea only 50 years ago.There's always the question whether it feels out of whack to us because we are used to seeing men on top, or because we really believe it should be 50/50 all the time. Taking a long view and tallying up the top grads over the last thirty years, the men would still be out up there. How much of a trend is there? "He's old school." -- byrne   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Okay, for the record.   by dolohov       at Mon 26 May 7:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     It is generally accepted today that men and women are of roughly equal mental ability — the smartest men are no smarter than the smartest women, nor are the dumbest dumber. Working from that hypothesis, it follows that any sample of sufficient size will have a roughly 50/50 split following from the roughly 50/50 population split. Even if the playing field were totally equal, we would still occasionally see a year with a balance that uneven among the top students. I'm interested, though, in what it means if the playing field has been shifted in girls' favor. Assuming that this was a gradual change, that means that there probably was some year in the past where the playing field actually was pretty even, if only in passing. I would be very interested to see how the students from that year are doing right now, and what their attitudes are. Assuming that this was in the last five years, I wonder if that has anything to do with the rising conservatism on college campuses, or the gender distributions in certain majors. "Carthago delenda est" -- Cato (in the world's first .sig)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Okay, for the record.   by BigWidget       at Mon 26 May 11:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 44     Actually it depends on what you mean by "equal." It is well documented that although men's and women's mean IQ's are about the same, female IQ's cluster around the mean more heavily, while male IQ's show a wider distribution (here and here for sources that mention this phenomenon in passing, sorry I didn't have the time to find a primary source. Also, I realize that the implications of an IQ score are debatable, but it is hard to deny at least some correlation with cognitive ability). In other words, there are more male geniuses and retards than women. As high school is typically geared for the middle, for obvious reasons, it makes sense that girls would excel over boys. Of course their advanced emotional development helps too. As success in high school is usually followed by college enrollment, it also makes sense that more women are getting degrees. I bet, however, that since colleges can select for intelligence, the differences in performance between men and women is reduced, eliminated or even reversed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: Okay, for the record.   by renny0       at Mon 26 May 3:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     but something is out of whack when so many women and so few men make it to the top. There is obviously sexism going on, and we need to include males in affirmative action programs. From now on, I suggest that all males get the same points as minorities in their application, to correct the unfairness that must exist in the system.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Black males are the answer.   by MAYORBOB       at Sun 25 May 9:14am score of 1.5 interesting     I wonder, in reading through stuff like this, if the presence of African-American males might not skew the way the stats come out. Is it not the case that black males are more likely not to complete a high school education than males of other ethnic background? I believe the current stats show that a rather depressingly large percentage of the African-American male population between the ages of 15 and 30 are currently living in one form or another of a penal institution. One assumes that most of these are in prison or jail as a consequence of a drug-related crime or in an attempt to get the income to maintain a drug habit. Perhaps looking at this social trend as being solely gender related, you need to narrow the focus of attention a bit to the racial or ethnic dimension within the gender picture. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: Black males are the answer.   by Nephthys       at Sun 25 May 10:02am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 9     A friend of mine recently gave a lecture on "Internal Racism". His organization is trying to change the perception in the African American Community that finishing school and working is not "acting white". Between poverty, the deplorable state of many urban school districts, the thinking that doing well in school is "uncool", and cultural pressures, the longterm victims are the African Americans and inner city population, perpetuating the cycle of poverty. The strain on the prison and welfare system will only increase. It is imperative that root cause analysis be done, and changes be made. Unfortunately, school funding is being cut around the country, only exacerbating an already tragic problem. Cake or Death? Cake, please.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: Black males are the answer.   by waldeaux       at Tue 27 May 8:06am score of 1.5 novel   in reply to comment 13     I know of a teacher who would mark up kids papers to give them lower grades (usually D's) while recording their "real" grades (A's and B's) so they wouldn't be socially stigmatized for "acting white". The student was told about his/her real grade and given the encouragement to keep doing well. It's a twisted solution (well, attempt at a solution), but it worked some of the time. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Paying for a degree, not an education   by vincebuffer       at Sun 25 May 12:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     It would be incredibly unlikely that these studies would not have controls for race/ethnicity. It's absolutely bare-minimum standard for quantitative sociology like this; even undergrad students know to do this.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Black males are the answer.   by rough ashler       at Sun 25 May 9:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     I wonder, in reading through stuff like this, if the presence of African-American males might not skew the way the stats come out. Look at the 'graphic' Girls Trounce Boys in Reading 222 212 This is "National Reading scores 4th-graders, 2000" National would indicate the presence of African-American males. From: Disproportionate Minority Overrepresentation in the Juvenile Justice System "Hsia and Hamparin (1997) found that although minorities represented only 32% of the youthful population they represented more than 68% of the juvenile population held in detention facilities and 68% of those in secure institutions such as training schools. Moreover, the Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research reported that between the years of 1989 to 1995 more than five times as many minority juveniles were transferred to criminal court compared to the rest of the general population " Young black males failing would 'pull down the average'.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Boys go to Jupiter to get more Stupider   by ilsa       at Sun 25 May 9:52am score of 3 intriguing     Strangely enough, not that many years ago books like this posited the notion that even in the last decade or two, boys were the rulers of the high school and junior high school roost. They got better scores in everything and less discipline to boot. My theory regarding this phenomenon was much less benign than the idea of rampant sexism (on the part of a largely female teaching force). I felt the differences in test scores could largely be explained by the fact that the teaching methods used today come down to us largely from a time when only boys were educated. It wasn't intentional sexism, just a practical result of dealing with a limited experimental pool. It was like testing estrogen based birth control pills on men; it didn't work on them so why would it work on women? As to the idea of an "earliness push" being bad for boys, I find that to be nonsense. My own anecdotal data (that means "not scientific") suggests that the only barriers to young kids learning are parental encouragement and teaching methods. If insanity is "doing the same thing and expecting a different result," then I have seen insane teachers, using the same failing methods and wondering why it doesn't work year after year.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Re: Boys go to Jupiter to get more Stupider   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 25 May 12:47pm score of 0.5 helpful   in reply to comment 12     FYI: I'm too damn lazy to click on a link to see what the hell you are talking about, if you are too lazy to put in your comment what you are linking too. This is just as bad as people who do the same thing to IMDB web pages. By default the web pages at IMDB and amazon do not show the title of the page in the URL, so you have to open the link in a new window to see what the author of the post is talking about. It's not clever, it's annoying. I'm too lazy to click it and I bet a good portion of other plasticians are also. You can try to be slick, but all your doing is reducing your potential readership. Please put the book or movie title in the link.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: Boys go to Jupiter to get more Stupider   by OSULugan       at Tue 27 May 9:50am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 12     It was like testing estrogen based birth control pills on men; it didn't work on them so why would it work on women? What do you mean? Not a single man, who took those pills, got pregnant. And God says, "No, that's not right." Yeah. Well. Whatever. You can't teach God anything.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  I've Thought Before   by uncarved block       at Sun 25 May 11:21am score of 2.5 astute     about how much success always seems to follow effort, especially in the sphere of education. Why do charter schools, magnet schools, private schools, have better students? Because, being either voluntary or at least fresh, attract motivated parents and teachers. It's hardly surprising that a 30 year push to increase educational progress for girls should have notable results.       "Trouncing" is hardly a word I would have used looking at those Businessweek statistics, however. Variation around the 1% range is hardly a sign of impending doom and enslavement of men by intellectual superwomen . . .       Thinking about the statistics, I also have these questions and observations: how have the tests changed in the last thirty years? The racial angle has gotten most of the attention, but it seem to me that any shift away from a bias toward middle and upper class white boys can only benefit girls. What about the teachers preparing those students? The changes of the 60's have been in place so long that many teachers no longer remember the fight for equal rights, but take it for granted. Encouraging the girls on the softball team is no longer has any 'political' overtones, for example.       A thought about the "war on boys". Is this a part of a larger class war. From the founding of the colonies, there's always been an upper class who wanted everybody to be polite and well behaved, out of an inherent dislike for conflict. When you think about the right side vs the wrong side of the tracks, how much of the contrast has to do with physicality? Dancing, sex, boozing, all bodily pleasures frowned upon and restrained in 'polite company'. "Boisterous" is a good word to view the split-- and is the Ritalin aimed at boys or boisterousness? I favor the latter, and boys suffer more as an unintended consequence. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Trends   by Ozymandias       at Sun 25 May 12:31pm score of 3.5 brilliant     By 2020, if the trend continues, there will be 156 women per 100 men earning degrees. It was 56 degrees out when I got up this morning at 8am. But it was already 73 degrees by noon. If this trend continues it will be hot enough to melt lead out by next week. This is obviously a much more serious trend, than gender discrepancies in college graduation rates.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

83.  Re: Trends   by waldeaux       at Tue 27 May 8:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Sarcasm aside, it would've been nice for you to at least address the topic at hand. While any predictive numbers "By 2020..." are ludicrous, the IS a trend in a number of factors comparing scholastic achievement by girls compared to boys. If it were just that girls were responding to the increased attention paid to them over the last 20 years or so and the performance were equalizing, that would be one thing. Actually, even if they were surpassing boys that would be OK, if the boys' performance had stayed about the same over that period of time. But what is happening is that boys have been progressively performing worse, indicating that in addressing one problem, we've created another one. What is important is to see how or if this new problem will be addressed. Will there be a course-correction to make an attempt to improve performance overall? Or, will the boys be left behind because it's politically incorrect to point out the problem and suggest it needs to be addressed? What happens when sexism is on the other foot? Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  So what is the answer?   by StofCircumstance       at Sun 25 May 1:21pm score of 1.5     If the whole "earliness push" deleteriously affects males, do we relegate our teaching methods to gender lines; do we segregate boys and girls, and teach them at different rates? "That's absurd," most would say, and I tend to agree with them. But, upon thinking it over, what is so absurd about it, really? If we accept that girls mental maturation (at least in terms of scholastics) occurs (or begins to occur) earlier than their male counterparts, maybe putting all the girls in one class and teaching to their strengths might be worthwhile. If we accept that boys tend to be less inclined to studiousness at an early age, perhaps we ought to put them in their own class, and instruct them more slowly. Right? After all, it only sounds draconian and odd because our current mindset on the subject tends to deem it so. IMHO, such a paradigm shift as above is a poor answer to the problem, in a multitude of ways. Perhaps most importantly, it's probably not going to solve any problems, and will likely cause an even more serious one. During the formative years, it would be likely quite embarrassing for the boys who are effectively "left back" as their female classmates learn more, and learn it more quickly. Gender segregation also fails to address the precocious child of either sex. Certainly there are just as many "intellectually advanced" boys as girls. As a corollary, there are probably just as many "intellectually challenged" girls as there are boys. Hence, the reasoning behind most districts adoption of "accelerated" programs for the "smarter" kids, regardless of gender. Or maybe, just maybe, these studies fail to capture the painfully obvious: boys tend to be physically inclined early on, and later discover the value of using their minds, whereas girls seem to learn that all important lesson at an earlier age. Perhaps this is a gender-identification issue, promulgated by existing, unconscious stereotypes? I have no idea; I'm not a psychologist. Or, MAYORBOB might be on to something, asking where, and from what demographics, these numbers arise from. Then again, maybe the whole thing is the fault of teachers, or the schoolboard, in promulgating uninteresting material? Better still, let's blame TV, the movies, the Internet, and the rest of the media sources out there: perhaps the frenetic pace of information absorption has created in our young the need have material delivered in a staccato manner? Or maybe, just maybe, by a freak coincidence, all the boys used in the study were imbeciles... Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  Re: So what is the answer?   by Aheno       at Mon 26 May 11:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Gender segregation also fails to address the precocious child of either sex. Certainly there are just as many "intellectually advanced" boys as girls. As a corollary, there are probably just as many "intellectually challenged" girls as there are boys. Hence, the reasoning behind most districts adoption of "accelerated" programs for the "smarter" kids, regardless of gender. Your assumption that there are just as many girls as boys who are advanced and behind is wrong. It is known that boys have a higher variance in their intellect compared to girls. Thus there are more boys who are intellectually slow and more who are strong intellectuals. This is perhaps the basis of the misunderstanding. When we look at test scores, men dominate both verbal and math portions, on the PSAT for example. This is due to the wider variance. It hides all the men/boys who are left behind, and never encouraged to continue with school. Christina Hoff Summers had an excellent article about this in the Atlantic Monthly a few years back.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Gender Dynamics   by Clandestino       at Sun 25 May 6:44pm score of 2.5 astute     Since I saw the article in the SubQ, I've been thinking of what the gender dynamics are in educational institutions. I have no raw data, just anecdotal evidence, but I think that it's good enough. Basically, I think one of the reasons why boys in American society may be lagging is that we went halfway on the gains of women's liberation. We decided that girls should be afforded empowerment, but we did little to encourage boys' preparation for an egalitarian society. Hence, looking back on my own education, I can say that up until the sixth grade, my teachers were exclusively female. What I speculate is that on a society-wide scale, this trend means that at a very early age, we're telling boys that education is not for them. This, plus the number of boys without fathers or male role models, means that we're leaving them to find answers elsewhere. Now, I don't think that the answer is necessarily that of legislating the two-parent, heterosexual couple. But I think it would be nice if there were a better assortment of role models for boys to latch onto in their early years. As is, we really only give them athletic coaches, which sends a real horrible message to some boys out there: unless you're a jock, you're nothing. What we should be doing is taking stigma off boys who don't fit that mold; what's the problem with a boy who dances, or sings, or draws, or acts? Of course, here in the United States we have a certain "faggot" factor — don't act, sing, dance, draw but do play football, baseball, or soccer (if you have to). If you aren't a jock, your socially acceptable options are limited to being the "cool guy" — be willing to break rules, be good with the ladies, and do so at the cost of those socially under you. Other than that, you don't have many socially acceptable options. Being a nerd or geek — that's not going to get you anywhere. I think that's at the crux of the problem; American culture has made any form of achievement not only harder for young people in general, but also less desirable for boys. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by doormat       at Sun 25 May 11:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Being a nerd or geek — that's not going to get you anywhere. I think that's at the crux of the problem; American culture has made any form of achievement not only harder for young people in general, but also less desirable for boys Where I went to school, the few "cool" guys were actually pretty smart. Not valedictorian, but in the top 20% or so of the class. Granted, my school really didnt have sports, so we didnt have that to rally around. Maybe if we get rid of sports.. (sadly, some school districts are looking to cut some sports programs in the budget crunch). But really, where I went to school, the top 35% to 10% of smart kids were typically cool. The top 10% of course weren't cool (most of them also had problems socially.. that is they suck talking to people). The rest were in between or towards the bottom. I didnt know anyone who was in the bottom 25% who was at the top of the social food chain. Am I atypical?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by tylerh       at Mon 26 May 8:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     A few snippets from doormat: Where I went to school, the few "cool" guys were actually pretty smart....my school really didnt have sports....I didn.t know anyone who was in the bottom 25% who was at the top of the social food chain.... Am I atypical? Does the phrase "3 sigma" ring any bells? Let me give you another data point. My eighteen hundred person high school had a budget $1.6 million... for the football team. While I was in high school, the rules for eligibility were tightened: to 4 C's out of 6 classes. An outcry rose up because many of the popular kids/ athletic stars had trouble meeting these "stringent" academic requirements even though "athletics," also known as football practice, counted as one of those classes. So was my high school a "3 sigma" football school? Hardly. Ours was among the most "academic" in our league. But then, I grew up in Texas. Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by waldeaux       at Tue 27 May 9:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 49     $1,600,000.00 PER YEAR That could fund an entire academic department. That could almost give every student a new computer EVERY YEAR. That could take care of music, art, and the library combined. But — no — it was spent on a fucking GAME — one that the entire student body can't actively participate in. (How much does intramural football cost in comparison? At least with intramurals, everyone can opt-in, and all of the benefits apply: exercise, group activity, rivalries between homerooms, etc.) I love our educational priorities. Remember in the US it is easier to build an entirely new state-of-the-art athletic facility than it is to upgrade an existing science lab or library. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by skeletor       at Tue 27 May 5:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 89     Tell me about it. The high school I attended has suffered severe budget cuts — it's in Oregon, where edumucation is apparently worthless. So severe, in fact, that they've shortened the school year by a week. This does not stop them from investing more and more money each year in football. The world, at this point, needs a straightforward tune and a good backbeat.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by astrogirl       at Mon 26 May 8:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     We decided that girls should be afforded empowerment, but we did little to encourage boys' preparation for an egalitarian society. This is a really fascinating idea, but I'd go farther and say that we went too far in the opposite direction. Females have opportunities for single-sex education, while for males, they have been virtually stamped out in the U.S. This does not exactly spread a message of equality. That tilting the field in favor of girls has had the effect of tilting it away from boys should not be shocking. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by Clandestino       at Mon 26 May 2:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     This is a really fascinating idea, but I'd go farther and say that we went too far in the opposite direction. Females have opportunities for single-sex education, while for males, they have been virtually stamped out in the U.S. They haven't been stamped out. I went to one. The problem with most of the single-sex boys schools is that they're bastions of privilege, whereas all-girls schools are about deconstructing that privilege. I think that's all right. If one were to perhaps have an all boys school that wasn't disproportionately funded, that managed to have respectful ties to all-girls schools, I could agree with that. But my experience in an all-boys Catholic school system was that it created an misogynist atmosphere within which hearing a guy joke about beating up his girlfriend was accepted. Funny, because P. Diddy went to my school and he's exalted as a role model for African-American males these days. Makes me wonder what his experience was like. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by astrogirl       at Mon 26 May 6:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 67     I was thinking of colleges, actually. I should have been more clear. An all-male institution is not allowed to exist on any public funds (see the VMI case) , but private female colleges do receive funds from governmental institutions. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by profpeach       at Tue 27 May 10:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 77     What private female colleges exclude males? AFAIK, they accept male applicants, though the proportion may be small, like historically black institutions. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by astrogirl       at Tue 27 May 11:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 91     Based on what I've seen, and I can't check every college (or get a straight answer on their websites for that matter), men can take classes at women's colleges but they can't live on campus. I did not live on campus during college, and I did have a very different experience from people who did. VMI and the Citadel were required to accommodate females on campus. As far as I can tell, women's colleges have zero opportunities for athletics for men, though again, it's not like their websites come out and say "and we don't have any men's sports teams". I could be wrong about this as I do not claim to be an expert in gender dynamics, but I think Title IX only demands that women have representation in athletics. If you can find any place it was used to force a men's team into existence, please let me know. It would certainly go a long way towards convincing me that things are more equitable than I think they are. As a woman, I never wanted to go to an all-female college as I think it is something apart from reality and not necessarily good preparation for the real world. YMMV, of course. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by profpeach       at Tue 27 May 12:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 93     I only researched Smith College, more out of a fond memory of their greenhouses than anything else. Apparently they admit men as graduate students and have exchange programs with other colleges for undergraduates where men attend for a year or so at a time. There's also a program for foreign men. Howevere, ALL students, female or male, live on campus. I got this information from giving them a call, not from the website.   The website does have a a non-discrimination statement, that I assume they are serious about.   Although I wasn't able to find a men's team forced on a campus, but I did find some evidence that the damage to men's sport as a consequence of Title IX are exaggerated, if not completely made up of whole cloth.   As a side note, I believe that private women's colleges "get away" with this because they are not recipients of federal cash. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by litech       at Tue 27 May 12:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 96     I doubt that "they are not recipients of federal cash. " I bet they get plenty, in the forms of grants, tax breaks, etc. And as another poster noted, it is not acceptable to give money to an all male college, however it is OK for an all Female college   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by profpeach       at Tue 27 May 1:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 99     Prove it.   I mean it. You find me the fed cash that an all female college gets and then explain why they've not been the focus of a lawsuit.   And don't try student loans, that money goes to the student, not the university. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by Kevin T.       at Tue 27 May 11:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Looking back on my own education, I can say that up until the sixth grade, my teachers were exclusively female. What I speculate is that on a society-wide scale, this trend means that at a very early age, we're telling boys that education is not for them. Your speculation is illogical. At every school I went to K-12, the school nurse was a woman. I never knew any boys who thought this meant that medical care wasn't for them. I would, however, agree that most children are given the impression that a _career in_ elementary education is a "woman's job."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: Gender Dynamics   by snarkism       at Tue 27 May 4:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 92     Your speculation is illogical. At every school I went to K-12, the school nurse was a woman. No, yours sounds more illogical. A nurse is not a mentor and role model like a teacher is. Kids don't spend hours of every day at the nurse's office. They go when they get hurt. Also, it's not just the job of teaching being discouraged. It's actual education and participation in school — no matter what boys want as a career. Boys are supposed to be athletes. All this education and reading is girl's stuff. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

47.  Numbers and Test-Taking Styles   by Radioactive Man       at Mon 26 May 8:43am score of 1     At our school, girls tend to score higher than boys do on standardized testing. However, the difference is not that large enough to take precaution. It seems to me that it isn't that boys are learning, rather less boys are learning than girls. When you take their averages, the results of the boys tends to be lower than those of the girls. Another possible situation is that boys today don't test as well as girls. Boys may have different test-taking styles, which also leads to the point of attention deficit disorder mentioned in the story. My freshman year, I took the PSAT and did not go over my answers and I freaked out. This year, I went back over them, calmed down, and my scored had risen about 200 points. There are numerous explanations of how boys score lower than girls, but the gap in test scores isn't that big. The only thing that we can offer is assistance for those who don't score well on these tests and their grades in general as well. Never mind. I didn't read that part.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Boys are themselves to Blame   by wowmo       at Mon 26 May 9:01am score of 3 brilliant     If anyone saw 60 Minutes last night, they repeated a similar story with the author of a book by the name of "The Emotional Life of Boys" in the title or sur-title. The woman who tried to tie this discrepancy as an effect of the feminist movement came off as a crazed, angry lunatic. To me, this is as poor an excuse as when an out of work white person blames "all those minorities" for getting the jobs. Isn't it obvious why boys are slipping? There has been no thought to the messages sent to boys about masculinity and education, as the author of the 60 Minute piece so well articulated. What feminist, as a male, I ask you, would want uneducated boys? This is exactly the barrier they've been up against, not the other way around. It's time for men to step up to the plate to provide new models for what it means to be male, because all that is sold to them through media and their peers is sex, athletics, and "Jackass". As a twenty-two year old male I can say I've rapidly seen the degradation of this model since I was in early high-school, I seriously worry about the generation of males beneath me for their lack of education in social responsibility which I had. I believe this is tied to many things — the wave of conservatism in this country, vs. the early nineties tide of a more compassionate political ideology, linked to the serious recession in this country, the AIDS crisis, and the reaction to the poor values of the 80s. The reactionary tide of anti-political correctness, call it, is the foundation of which much of the younger males just below me, are encouraged to think with. We are entering dangerously fundamentalist times here, even in this country, where we are teaching our children not to see other people's points of views. The AIDS scare, though not the disease, has died down. The recession is long gone though the economy is now again ebbing. I remember in the early 90s the real problem with crime here in New York — it was a bad problem we had to solve. Now we teach males that a life of crime is cool, that violence is cool. Just look at the popularity of hip-hop throughout the country. Not all, but much of this message directed towards males is encoded with this — and Eminem is the model many boys look after to emulate. It is exactly the backlash to the expansive models of what it is to be male (called "feminization") that we are having these problems. Is it feminine to think with your head rather then to lash out then we will have boys who can't think. Women can now fluidly take both archetypes of male and female but we are social limiting boys to not realize their full potential. Why are boys slipping in education? Because we are not teaching them the value of thought, and compassion, but rather to be aggressive and a more archatypical approach rather then thinking with their head. If anything, the feminist movement would appreciate an educated male and it's time the country did something about it. But don't ever forget — it's the responsibility of males first to act as models to the younger generations.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Re: Boys are themselves to Blame   by keta       at Mon 26 May 9:33am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 50     But don't ever forget — it's the responsibility of males first to act as models to the younger generations. I appreciate the earnestness. But your philosophy smacks of summer-camp bullshit. Drop the book. Think for yourself. You sound like someone intelligent enough to at least do that much. own your words...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Boys are themselves to Blame   by scottfeldstein       at Mon 26 May 11:03am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 50     Blaming men alone for the plight of boys is wrong-headed. It is women who, for the most part, teach them in school, recommending that natural male behavior is a pathology best handled by sedatives. It is women who, for the most part, nurture them in early childhood, who touch male babies less than female ones, and who tell little boys not to cry. It is young women who, for the most part, shape the behaviors of young adolescent boys when they give themselves to emotionless brutes instead of smart sensitive young men. There is in fact a void where there should be more positive male role models. But this doesn't excuse women and feminism from participation in the problem and also the solution. scott d. feldstein - on the web at scottfeldstein.net, AIM: TheBeeWolf   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: Boys are themselves to Blame   by snarkism       at Tue 27 May 5:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 55     It is women who, for the most part, nurture them in early childhood, who touch male babies less than female ones, and who tell little boys not to cry. Thank god for my wonderful mother! What a woman. She let me grow into who I wanted to be and supported me — never trying to impose any particular role or gender interaction on me. She is also a teacher of young children, and the education system had better be grateful they have such a committed teacher who cares about her students. Love ya, Mum! snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: Boys are themselves to Blame   by Thunder Bumper       at Mon 26 May 11:56am score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 50     I really believe you're overreacting. Males have undoubtedly become less "responsible." The fact is, however, that they were previously hyper-responsible and this decline in responsibility is a good thing. Cite all the pop culture you want, but males are no more aggressive and boneheaded than they ever were and certainly not any more so than females. Look no further than the female sportscaster, it's great that a female can do that job now (even though it may be a sex-object ratings ploy), but why the Hell would any woman ever want to ascend (descend?) to the penultimate throne of boneheadedness anyway?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Boys are themselves to Blame   by keta       at Mon 26 May 1:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     ...why the Hell would any woman ever want to ascend (descend?) to the penultimate throne of boneheadedness anyway? Yeah, those stupid sportscasters. Never catch them using words like "penultimate" without knowing what it means. own your words...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Boys are themselves to Blame   by shadarr       at Mon 26 May 2:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     If you really think sportscasters are the "penultimate throne of boneheadedness", you're watching too much John Madden and not enough Ron MacLean.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Penultimate   by monkihed       at Mon 26 May 3:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 64     I misused that word once upon a time, in a meeting, and was immediately mocked for it. And I'm female. I think this is just one more example of just how equal the sexes really are... I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

59.  Duh!?   by Thunder Bumper       at Mon 26 May 11:46am score of 1.5 intriguing     First of all, fantastic discussion topic. Although I'm from the east coast of Canada and this topic seems to revolve around American research I still think a lot of my experiences are applicable. As a young male (25) who began 16 consecutive years of schooling in 1983 I can say without a doubt that on average, my smartest (ie. highest marks) classmates were girls. Girls were also my most hard-working, focused and determined classmates, from the first day of grade one to the my last Organic Chemistry lab in my fourth year of university. I was no slouch myself, as were most of my male friends, but it was always plain to see that the girls "got it" and that either they best fit the school system or the school system best fit them (a little bit of both no doubt). In elementary school our principal would sometimes keep only the boys indoors at lunch. He would take us into the gym and lecture us on a snowball throwing incident which had occurred the day before. This, unfortunately, was just the tip of the iceberg. The trouble-makers, the "restless" students, not to mention the too-smart-for-their-own-good shit disturbers were always boys--no questions asked. While this pro-female school system led to girls becoming more involved in math and science, sports, student politics and just about everything else imaginable, it also led to their complacency. It seems that with previously unavailable opportunities at their fingertips, they (and their parents) were bound and determined to take advantage of each and every one of them and be as "successful" as possible. This breeding program for feminine success, if you will, however, resulted in less original thinking and less unconventional life choices among my female contemporaries. Of my various classes throughout my school career, more females than males have gone on to become health professionals, lawyers, accountants and paper-pushers slogging their way up the corporate ladder. In high school it was the females who barely had time to eat supper because of their ridiculous extra-curricular schedules. In university it was the females stressing over Med school applications and final exam marks. The number of my female contemporaries who a)didn't attend post-secondary school, b)took a liberal arts program in secondary school, c)went to grad school for liberal arts or d)took anything other than the most demanding, success-oriented path is too small to consider. I'm a musician, a lot of my male friends are writers, artists, poets, successful entrepreneurs with no post-secondary education or manual labourers. The number of females that I know doing anything remotely similar to this can be counted on one hand. So I guess in the end I wonder if the "War on Boys" is all that bad for the boys. While all the girls I know, as friends, acquaintances or simply pictures in a yearbook, have more money and more letters after their names than I, I am sure in saying that none of them have the upper hand in the happiness department.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

61.  Where your treasure is...   by Hiro Agonistes       at Mon 26 May 12:12pm score of 1.5 interesting     I don't believe that this is the entire explanation, but I think it's there: Perhaps boys aren't doing as well in school because "we" (broadly and loosely construed) don't really value education. I think it's analogous to Mediterranean cultures where, officially, devout Catholicism is the ideal but not generally practiced by men (I've also seen the same sex-based piety split within the non-Orthodox Jewish community). That is to say, we pay a lot of lip-service to education but we really don't want it ("Don't get smart with me, young man,"), but vice pays tribute to virtue in the coin of women's time and work, which we don't consider to be as fundamentally important as what men's. Or: girls do what they're told, boys do what we want. Or else: trying to learn stuff is just too inherently faggy for real men to want.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

62.  What I noticed in school   by philipkd       at Mon 26 May 12:37pm score of 1.5 interesting     In middle and high school, I became acutely aware of gender biases in the classroom. In middle school and early high school, it seemed that the female teachers were biased in favor of other females. I felt that they had some sort of grudge against men and were letting it out by parading their prized victorious girl students. What prompted me to feel this way was that I felt a lot of the grading focused on a lot of aspects that were not relevant to a core educational grasp of the material. Kissing up to the teacher, being polite to wait your turn to speak up, or being courteous, all of these other x-factors were the main determinants of a successful grade. I was young back then, so maybe my objective assessment of what constituted an educational grasp was somewhat limited. Nonetheless, I left the early years of high school thinking that the key aspects of academic success were in presentation and in acting the way the teacher wanted you to act: supple and obedient. In the later years of High School, it seemed the other way around. The female teachers appeared to have a penchant for punishing females, especially ones that were eager to please. It almost seemed that they'd intentionally give the girls B's for effort, while as reserving the A's for the boys who would think outside the box. This I felt, was also unfair, because I still felt that on an educational merits perspective, the girls were performing at about the same level as the guys. One psychoanalytic perspective could be that maybe that cute young girls naturally attract favor from adults because of their natural flowery nature. The rough-housing boys who want nothing better to do that skateboard and shoot spitwads then get what they deserve. Later, as girls become more mature, the older female teachers could be getting jealous of these young girls who can easily get attention, and therefore want to keep them down. The men on the other hand, become the masculine heroes that everybody wants to ride their hopes on. Either way, I left the public education system feeling that a lot of success was based on politicking, currying favor, and other mind games. I also noticed that teachers were defensive about their intelligence and rigid in their understanding of the material. It seemed that their first goal was in keeping order by asserting authority, rather than genuinely helping out the students. I think the problem is in the quality of the teachers. For an A-student, it was extremely frustrating for me to be taught by adults who I knew got C's in high school, glided under the radar at a community college, and then had their teaching degree as an implicit consequence of putting in hours. In other words, I think we need higher wages for teachers to motivate better talent to the public education system. Now, one could counter that schooling should reflect the "real world" and teach them that a lot of life is dealing with biased people. This is fine and dandy, but I thought we created education to strengthen democracy. The real world would hit people later as they get older, but at least they could get a fair start as a child. Plus, if they get a sense of the way the real world should be at at early age, maybe they'll attempt to replicate that world as they get older. We can do all the speculating we want about the perfect education, one free from petty wars influenced by race and gender, but if we don't have enlightened teachers to implement it, then the kids will pay the price. - philipd Philosophistry   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

70.  Re: What I noticed in school   by shadarr       at Mon 26 May 2:35pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 62     Read this. I think most of your concerns will be explained. In short, it is all about politicking and doing what you're told, and that does reflect the real world, as the system wants it to be. What's being taught in school is not what's being taught in school.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   111.  Re: What I noticed in school   by snarkism       at Tue 27 May 5:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 62     Now, one could counter that schooling should reflect the "real world" and teach them that a lot of life is dealing with biased people. This is fine and dandy, Like you, I found it difficult to deal with the "style over substance" dynamic that exists so strongly in schools. It drove me nuts. only after I left school did I realize its value in the real world. However, I still can't forgive the system. I would have coped OK with it if I had been told what was going on. Instead, it's a totally unspoken thing. they should get this out in the open, and separate it from the academic content. The result of this system was that i did not learn many of the social lessons, because it was never discussed. Those who already knew how to manipulate such things benefited, but those that did not understand did not learn anything from it. The problem is that the system PRETENDS it is about academic education and not social indoctrination, when it is really the other way around. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

63.  More Help for Girls in Florida   by MonkeyBoy       at Mon 26 May 12:39pm score of 1     In Florida where passing the FCAT is required for high school graduation, there are many girls who are "good students" who can't handle some of the math on the test, and have been denied graduation. In response Jeb Bush is looking for some other way to help them graduate. So girls may get compensated for diligence at the expense of knowledge. The only analogue I can think of for boys is promoting star athletes who can't read but this is only unofficial policy as far as I know.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

76.  Subject   by bjvanslyke       at Mon 26 May 6:42pm score of 1.5 compelling     Thank you — I was getting quite bored. Time is not real; only timecards are. -- bjvanslyke   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

80.  Is the kids learning?   by paris       at Tue 27 May 2:03am score of 1.5 intriguing     My junior high geometry class (which happened some time in the early '90s) was held in a hallway most days, if we were lucky we could use the library. Rarely did we have chalkboard and our teacher had no specialized training in teaching math (she was a German teacher). This wasn't a class for the stupid boys while all the girls got the math teacher in classroom with cushy amenities like chairs and chalkboards. This was simply what public education often becomes in the America of the last 30 years that Ms. Conlin discusses. And I do suck at math. But I've gone on to avoid suicide, dropping out, and the various other risks I seem to have incurred as a boy because girls were getting equal funding for their softball team. Why? I had a number of other things going for me, including a comfortably middle-class family that was also educated, no institutionalized racial prejudice, and a surrounding community that also was privileged with these circumstances. The US census of 2000 suggests that other factors, such as race, may have a far greater impact than gender alone. I'll leave it to those who took statistics to figure out the statistical significance of these variants, but the gender break doesn't look anywhere near as significant as the racial canyon. Attributing a person's success to their gender is exactly the sort of thing that feminism wanted us to get away from. There are explanations other than gender as to why white women are earning BAs at double the rate that black men are. Have a look here for an oblique glance at how economics plays into the equation. I vote we work on fixing the big gaps before we freak out about something that looks a lot like educational parity (and sorry, doing well in school does not mean you won't murder someone or kill yourself).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

102.  All I Gotta Say Is...   by MrTripps       at Tue 27 May 1:31pm score of 1     ...bring on the Sugar Mommas. It will be cool when daytime TV changes from soap operas and Opera to Junk Yard Wars and The Man Show. "It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

114.  concern about boys = anti-feminist hate?   by hmmm       at Tue 27 May 7:18pm score of 1.5 clever     The "Status of Women" department of Canada has sponsored a study showing that the Internet threatens women by allowing uncontrolled discussion of school success by gender. While these developments are being carefully tracked, the study recommends that discussion be held with internet access providers "to suggest a conduct protocol." (rec. 6 under heading "on the Internet"). This study is strong evidence that terrorists have polluted world-wide water supplies with mind-narrowing, stupidity-inducing viruses.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]