<p>Re: politics introduced
Weenie wrote this as an example of the lines bluring between liberal & conservative. I’d point out that these actions are both conservative.</p>
<hr>
<p>
Again, nobody claims that all boys are better at math & science. Evidence does clearly show, however, that there are far more boys who have high math aptitude than girls.</p>
<p>4Giggles, I have two sisters with master’s degrees in Electrical Engineering. I’m pretty sure they can handle the math/science requirements. But I will also say that they were clearly in the minority in their majors (not unexpected, given that this was 20-30 years ago). H has a master’s degree in math, and would tell you that there were very few females in any of his classes. Again, not surprising due to the times. But older son is a science/math major at an elite college. And HE will tell you that there really aren’t that many girls in his upper division math/science courses. I can’t say why that is the case. I believe there are probably more girls interested in different fields. And, in any case, there aren’t really all that many math/science majors at ANY college. But given that this is the 21st century, I’d expect the gender imbalance to have worked itself out by now. Maybe if more girls went to all-girl HS there would be more female engineers and scientists.</p>
<p>
Well, you see, I don’t think it is going on precisely in this way. I think admissions folks are perhaps doing two things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>applying greater selective pressure on females than males in this very narrow sphere of influence, since greater selective pressure exists for males globally. It is a way to try to level things, though in truth it doesn’t even come close,</p></li>
<li><p>getting more females because women are very nice-- not to take anything from the guys, but whew, women are very nice indeed. A campus with so many guys is just boring. But you get a campus of men and women, all of whom have superior ability, and you have something special. Its just my opinion. Maybe a campus of all guys is special to someone else—not to me. When my kids sit around hacking through some problem, I want them subjected to that marvelous dynamic that only exists when competent men and women deal respectfully with one another. :)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>But for kids, single sex education is possibly very useful. I need more on it.</p>
<p>This is somewhat surprising considering the huge upward trend in women going into medicine and banking. Do you think these statistics change somewhat at the graduate level?</p>
<p>4giggles, you don’t really need a great deal of math aptitude to go into medicine. More important is love of science. And of course, much of a doc’s ability to diagnose an illness correctly is dependent on people skills and a knack for piecing together parts of a puzzle.</p>
<p>Alu: I don’t think discussion in previous threads were ever couched in such black-and-white terms as blaming the gender achievement gap in schools entirely on feminist teachers. It’s more subtle than that, as the more recent articles cited imply. I don’t think anyone, parents of boys or girls, wants to see the clock turned back to the time when girls were discouraged from feeling competent in math and science. But those of us who have observed ways in which the public schools have put boys at a disadvantage in the classroom would like to see some effort made by the education establishment to address these issues — not necessarily to alter public education to make it boy friendly at the expense of girls, but to address boys’ needs and learning strategies adequately.</p>
<p>And I am glad that so far this discussion has not degenerated into the side-taking that results in those who advocate for more effective strategies for boys being told we are “whining” about a problem that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>I certainly agree with you, jazzymom.</p>
<p>I also liked what LakeWash was quoted as saying, I think – an American focus on standards/standardization. This affects approaches (by teachers) & processes (for learners) more than people may realize. It unconsciously drives some of the teaching toward what will be most handily assessible. (Not a typo.) Ironically, that more narrow approach (often, yes, less experiential, and certainly less experimental) results in <em>less</em> mastery-to-the standard for boys (especially), and for several styles of learners. </p>
<p>System first, Learner second.</p>
<p>Some boys (and girls) are born students. This includes, to a large degree, being “teacher please-ers.” It doesn’t matter whether the teachers are holding court, leading kids in those boring everything-relates-to-me-teenage discussions, or playing ring-around-the rosy. On the other hand, the spirit of some kids is just killed by school as it is (and has been for quite sometime) designed. Some kids barely survive it. (I have next to zero fond memories of any of my school days.)</p>
<p>My first son, like me, can’t stand the confines of school, and is getting his degree simply to get out into the world; my second son is a born student (like his Dad), and is looking forward to more schooling. He will definitely go to graduate school.</p>
<p>I don’t see any of this as a gender issue at all.</p>
<p>Or, social experiments first, boy learners second.</p>
<p>Is there a balance? Is the classroom the proper place to redress evolutionary gender issues? If ti si a good place, is it the only place? Can theories of sociology overcome biology? Overcome evolution?</p>
<p>I’m a poster girl for feminism but did I get that way becuase of my experience in the classroom–or because I had a huge hit of tesosterone in the womb? Given my stifling primary and secondary school experiences, my extraordinary spatial abilities and my drive–I’d say it was the hormone hit.</p>
<p>Given that hit–my all-girl’s high school was a long slow slog. Barred from top math classes for disruptive behavior, I finsihed the mid-level math courses in a quarter of the time and read books to fill the gap. I read heaps of classics–along with lots of Victoria Holt. </p>
<p>The fact that architecture schools started admitting 25% females in 1975 was a huge blessing. Interestingly, architecture schools have been admitting 50% women for the last 20 years–do that many more girls now have my spatial ability? Uh…no. You can see those results in the profession–with a paltry number of women in top positions, a paltry number of female architecture students getting top prizes in school.</p>
<p>The gender issues are anything but black and white. We like to pretend that we can rationally apply social goals to the issue, easy peasy, but, in fact, evolution and biology are not easily swayed.</p>
<p>Sorry for off topic, but I can’t let this go (of course 
):</p>
<p>Post #81:
</p>
<p>Like so many things in the recent conservative movement, this is only true in theory of course. (Having spent the last 6 years being called unpatriotic at every juncture.)</p>
<p>OK, back to the discussion at hand…</p>
<p>Sorry.</p>
<p>20 years ago I would have been the first person to declare that the so-called differences between the sexes were a figment of our collective imaginations.</p>
<p>Then I gave birth to two boys.</p>
<p>I say, let’s celebrate girls and boys and the fact that they aren’t the same all the time! Let’s not remediate one sex at the expense of the other. (Guess what - boys need remediation in reading/writing just as much, or more, as girls need it in math/science.)</p>
<p>I hate to see boys marginalized by a female dominated educated system that is increasingly dependent on, I don’t know what, crowd control, mediocrity, robot production.</p>
<p>We can’t afford to lose our boys in the education system - and make no mistake we are. In very critical ways. And I’m not just talking about upper middle class white boys being outnumbered in college by girls. I’m talking about ALL high school boys - the majority of which are not white and college bound.</p>
<p>Don’t you remember Reviving Ophelia? Ten years ago we had a girl crisis and now we have a boy crisis? IMHO, it’s all just more grist for the educrat moneymaking mill. Boys are dropping out in greater numbers probably due to larger societal trends–not because of “learning styles” or any other recent pedagogical fads.</p>
<p>Well, Cheers, they’re not doing much social experimentation within the educational system in my state, anyway. However, they do seem to be experimenting, at the expense of children, at whether or not English should really even be the dominant language of education in the U.S. (Or, to put it another way, whether it’s even “necessary” to become English-fluent & English-literate.)</p>
<p>If they’re experimenting, perhaps they don’t know that they’re experimenting with college admissions, as well.</p>
<p>(Hmmm…)</p>
<p>I find myself in agreeement with you again, weenie. Esp. the part about the female-dominated education system and the crowd control comment. (P.S., when boys are given the freedom, and even when the quietest, most “still” boys are given some control/independence/respect for differences, the transformation is remarkable. There’s nothing to “control.”) I’ve never met a single quiet male student with similar psychological needs in the learning environment as the most physical, independent female. Different brains: egos, perceptions, priorities, preferences. There’s a point at which the differences cannot be rationalized, minimized, or politicized. That is not to say that I view either gender with stereotyped expectations or as uniform, more that the spectrum for boys differs from the spectrum for girls.</p>
<p>A learning style is not a “fad.” It’s merely a preferred individual approach, owned by all individuals, whether the individual is aware of it or not. It’s only important for the purpose of efficiency and effectiveness. Other than that, it has no value as a buzzword. To know it is to have a tool, that’s all.</p>
<p>Ten years ago they were saying that boys were rewarded in the classroom for being more outspoken, aggressive, and willing to take risks. What has changed since then.</p>
<p>Which boys? All boys? Some boys? Personally, I’ve never seen boys “rewarded” for being “aggressive.” I would hope teachers would encourage boys to be “outspoken,” as much as they should encourage girls to be. But I guarantee you that they won’t be outspoken unless the subject AND the style of presenting it is interesting to them.</p>
<p>I’m thinking of Gardner, who started the whole learning style fad, I think. There are many studies showing that Gardner’s multi-intelligence theory is extremely flawed, and in fact very poor science, if science at all. In fact, Gardner himself has stated that he had no intention that his “multi-intelligence” theory should be used as a basis for pedagogy in the classroom. (Would that educators would realize this, so we could stop with the art projects in every subject.) Look it up. :)</p>
<p>Since I know about Gardner, I don’t need you to instruct me to “Look it up.”</p>
<p>Personally, I have never used Gardner “as a basis for pedagogy” in the classroom. </p>
<p>We are going O/T here. Keeping boys engaged (subject of thread) does not fall into the “fad” category, unless one sees males as superfluous in education & society. </p>
<p>Happy boys (productive, interested) tend to become happy men, unless something else interferes, and I’m all for happy men. :)</p>
<p>All boys in the public school system.
Not physically aggressive, of course. Perhaps I meant “assertive.”
Now we’re saying students are rewarded for being passive so girls more successful? What has changed? I believe there were probably even more female teachers in the system 10-15 years go than there are now.</p>
<p>I meant look up his statement I referred to.</p>
<p>Right. It would be nice if all kids were engaged. An impossible goal.</p>
<p>
YES!!!</p>
<p>My first degree is in psychology, and for ten years I was completely on the nurture side of nature vs nurture. Then I had boys. They just didn’t fit my ideas of how ALL kids should be. I was (still am) strongly opposed to guns. I refused to allow weapons or war toys in the house when the boys were little. But I’ll bet every mom of boys has the same story of them building guns, tanks, cannons whatever out of legos. It was a little disheartening to have to throw my carefully cultivated ideas of shaping gender-neutral behavior out the window, but that’s the way it goes. And I don’t even have “jock” aggressive kids. I have the stereotypical chess playing, musician, readers in my house. But on the side of nature, that’s exactly how I’d describe my husband. So maybe there is a little modelling going on.</p>