Teaching boys and girls separately(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Teaching boys and girls separately
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?ex=1362027600&en=2c738e5956dd2eeb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
5 comments
Just please, please, don't make it a hard sort - offer different teaching/learning styles and let kids switch or sample. Some girls would benefit from being taught "like boys" and some boys would benefit from being taught "like girls." All kids could benefit from being taught better.
Another criticism of the article:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005422.h...
The Language Log tends to be a little scathing, but this is a bit more restrained.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005422.h...
The Language Log tends to be a little scathing, but this is a bit more restrained.
I agree! It's interesting but he doesn't seem to realize what his alternative in this thought experiment is. It's a co-ed locker room!
Can’t help it but here’s another thought. He thought experiment is upside down! The subject of discussion is whether it makes sense to try to figure out person’s traits or abilities based on his/her gender. He is talking about how hard it is to figure out person’s gender based on the height (or a trait). Totally opposite! The right question should be: can you estimate person’s height based on gender? The result would be much more positive.
"Of course, given that public schools often use the “one size fits all” criteria to sort educational experiences, perhaps gender sorting is a step up (and one that bureaucracies can understand)."
s/gender/sex/
s/gender/sex/
Interesting stuff. I wonder, though:
> 62. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax explains that "anomalous males" -- boys who like to read, who don't enjoy competitive sports or rough-and-tumble play, and who don't have a lot of close male friends -- should be firmly disciplined, should spend as much time as possible with "normal males," and should be made to play competitive sports.
Source: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/womensrights/20060801seldencomplain...
> 62. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax explains that "anomalous males" -- boys who like to read, who don't enjoy competitive sports or rough-and-tumble play, and who don't have a lot of close male friends -- should be firmly disciplined, should spend as much time as possible with "normal males," and should be made to play competitive sports.
Source: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/womensrights/20060801seldencomplain...
As an "anomalous male" according to that definition, I'm pretty sure that would have made me hate everything and go on a killing spree. Certainly wouldn't have helped me learn.
Like his critics say - his politics come first, and then the evidence follows.
Anyone who thinks averaging brain scans directly leads to information that can be used to set policy is fooling themselves.
Anyone who thinks averaging brain scans directly leads to information that can be used to set policy is fooling themselves.
While I'm sure it was not Sax's primary intent, segregating the sexes and shoehorning them into stereotypes is also the answer to "How can we make childhood even more awkward and confusing for homosexual children?".
The article uses the term "true believer", and he is - he's very much a zealot. Truth first, then find evidence to support it.
My high school created a separate CS class for girls (girls could be in the "boys" CS class, but not vice-versa). It was a flop by all accounts.
I have met men who where schooled in boys-only schools. Without exception (so far), their social skills are very low. Particularly with women, unsurprisingly.
One of the most charismatic persons I know was educated in a boys-only school. He's married now, but he definitely has no problems talking with women. Many boys from boy-only schools tend to hang out around girl-only schools so that actually ameliorate the effect.
I personally feel co-education is the way to go but just pointing out it's not a general rule.
I personally feel co-education is the way to go but just pointing out it's not a general rule.
What's next, age segregation?
http://reason.com/blog/show/125292.html
"Giedd suggests a thought experiment: Imagine trying to assign a population of students to the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms based solely on height. As boys tend to be taller than girls, one would assign the tallest 50 percent of the students to the boys’ locker room and the shortest 50 percent of the students to the girls’ locker room. What would happen? While you’d end up with a better-than-random sort, the results would be abysmal, with unacceptably large percentages of students in the wrong place. Giedd suggests the same is true when educators use gender alone to assign educational experiences for kids. Yes, you’ll get more students who favor cooperative learning in the girls’ room, and more students who enjoy competitive learning in the boys’, but you won’t do very well. Says Giedd, “There are just too many exceptions to the rule.”"
Of course, given that public schools often use the “one size fits all” criteria to sort educational experiences, perhaps gender sorting is a step up (and one that bureaucracies can understand).