Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/boys-are-not-defective/540204/
71 comments
There's some evidence that girls do academically better in single sex schools [0]. But there are a lot of factors involved so I don't think it's that straightforward.
It annoys me slightly that the narrative is that, when boys are doing better, it's because the girls are being held back somehow and when the boys are doing better it's because of an inherent failing in the boys. I have a funny feeling it's al la bit more nuanced than that.
[0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35419284
It annoys me slightly that the narrative is that, when boys are doing better, it's because the girls are being held back somehow and when the boys are doing better it's because of an inherent failing in the boys. I have a funny feeling it's al la bit more nuanced than that.
[0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35419284
Single Sex education was introduced in India by various Church run schools and from my own personal experience over couple of generations the model is totally frowned upon by most people.
Girls who work in that environment grow up without great interaction with boys and face a lot of trouble in future. However this is India where women can work etc. In Islamic oppressive countries however things might be different.
Girls who work in that environment grow up without great interaction with boys and face a lot of trouble in future. However this is India where women can work etc. In Islamic oppressive countries however things might be different.
> However this is India where women can work etc. In Islamic oppressive countries however things might be different.
Women work in Pakistan too, FYI. India and Pakistan have been separated for roughly 60 years, their cultures are very similar.
Women work in Pakistan too, FYI. India and Pakistan have been separated for roughly 60 years, their cultures are very similar.
Sure except nowhere close to the way they do in India. I remember how surprised a Pakistani journalist was to see Indian women riding two wheelers. I am not refering to mere get a job but also to step out of the house and compete in the open market for all sort of work.
>Girls who work in that environment grow up without great interaction with boys and face a lot of trouble in future.
assuming this is your personal opinion?
assuming this is your personal opinion?
I had already clarified it in my original comment.
The middle east is extremely (extremely) personal status focused. For boys status is essentially family bound, and has little to do with academic achievement. For girls, an important component of their status, the job they'll later have (if any), is determined by their grades.
That this results in large amounts of effort should not surprise anyone.
The article does point this out but it does not give it the central attention it deserves.
That this results in large amounts of effort should not surprise anyone.
The article does point this out but it does not give it the central attention it deserves.
girls seem out perform boys in usa, there is no sex segregation in usa , afaik.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades....
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades....
Have you found anything that speaks to single-sex education in western countries as better, or worse for girls, or boys?
Gender-segregated parochial schools in the US tend to have typical outcomes for boys and notably good outcomes for girls. (at least back when I was a student in the early 90s)
So single-sex education might be good for girls in America, but not for boys?
That was the case, at least for parochial schools in the 90s.
> in school, Jordanian girls are crushing their male peers
When males outperform females, everyone concludes the system is biased and we should remove the bias.
When females outperform males, they say things like "This is baffling on the most obvious levels."
Maybe the educational system is biased, favoring how girls learn and behave. Is it hard for people to imagine that systems can benefit girls at the expense of boys, or can they only see the opposite?
If there are biases favoring how girls learn, then they are disadvantaging boys and might consider removing the bias.
When males outperform females, everyone concludes the system is biased and we should remove the bias.
When females outperform males, they say things like "This is baffling on the most obvious levels."
Maybe the educational system is biased, favoring how girls learn and behave. Is it hard for people to imagine that systems can benefit girls at the expense of boys, or can they only see the opposite?
If there are biases favoring how girls learn, then they are disadvantaging boys and might consider removing the bias.
I think the difference here is that the sorts of things that article mentions that are thought to favor boys in other countries (role models, more men than women on boards etc.) are also evident in Jordan, but the girls are still doing better.
Another way of looking at it might be ‘why are Jordan’s girls able to do so well where girls in similar situations in other countries do not’.
Another way of looking at it might be ‘why are Jordan’s girls able to do so well where girls in similar situations in other countries do not’.
The article points out that there are effectively two school systems - it's entirely gender-segregated - and the boy's system is disadvantaging them.
[deleted]
> When males outperform females, everyone concludes the system is biased and we should remove the bias.
> When females outperform males, they say things like "This is baffling on the most obvious levels."
You point out hypocrisy, but follow it up with an equal but opposite?
> Maybe the educational system is biased, favoring how girls learn and behave. Is it hard for people to imagine that systems can benefit girls at the expense of boys, or can they only see the opposite?
> If there are biases favoring how girls learn, then they are disadvantaging boys and might consider removing the bias.
Are you saying that these schools unfairly favors girls, but not so when it's the other way around?
Can it not be that this instead proves that systems can be and are biased, in both directions?
> When females outperform males, they say things like "This is baffling on the most obvious levels."
You point out hypocrisy, but follow it up with an equal but opposite?
> Maybe the educational system is biased, favoring how girls learn and behave. Is it hard for people to imagine that systems can benefit girls at the expense of boys, or can they only see the opposite?
> If there are biases favoring how girls learn, then they are disadvantaging boys and might consider removing the bias.
Are you saying that these schools unfairly favors girls, but not so when it's the other way around?
Can it not be that this instead proves that systems can be and are biased, in both directions?
>Can it not be that this instead proves that systems can be and are biased, in both directions?
I believe that's the point GP was making. Where does it imply otherwise?
I believe that's the point GP was making. Where does it imply otherwise?
That's how I read this:
> When males outperform females, everyone concludes the system is biased and we should remove the bias.
It's phrased (in company with the other lines) in a way that suggests such a conclusion is somehow ridiculous.
If that is not what he/she meant I apologize.
> When males outperform females, everyone concludes the system is biased and we should remove the bias.
It's phrased (in company with the other lines) in a way that suggests such a conclusion is somehow ridiculous.
If that is not what he/she meant I apologize.
[deleted]
> Can it not be that this instead proves that systems can be and are biased, in both directions?
Thinking this proves one thing or another is likely incorrect.
There was a time not that long ago when most people would think these findings suggest:
a) There can be noticeable differences across cultures b) There can be noticeable differences across genders
Of course, any modern enlightened non-racist non-misogynst westerner would know both of these beliefs are obviously false.
Thinking this proves one thing or another is likely incorrect.
There was a time not that long ago when most people would think these findings suggest:
a) There can be noticeable differences across cultures b) There can be noticeable differences across genders
Of course, any modern enlightened non-racist non-misogynst westerner would know both of these beliefs are obviously false.
The answer seems to be "toxic masculinity".
(Since I had to clarify this last time: the term refers to expressions or expectations of masculinity and masculine behaviour that are toxic, not a claim that masculinity is toxic in and of itself.)
> For one thing, boys’ schools are more violent places, concluded the study
> Boys also reported worse relationships with their male teachers
> male teachers were three times as likely as female teachers to say they were dissatisfied with teaching
> "Most of the problems I face with male teachers is that they want to yell at kids, to humiliate them.”
> The separation of students, teachers, and administrators into single-sex public schools may serve cultural and religious purposes, but it seems to create an unintentional ghetto for boys
> “Boys don’t feel that school can necessarily help them reach manhood.”
> In order to avoid all-female cohorts of students, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman’s only public university, now has two sets of admission criteria: one lower bar for men and one higher bar for women.
(affirmitive action!)
While I've been quote-picking I've noticed that this article is really nicely structured. The first sentence of each paragraph makes a point, then the rest of the paragraph introduces supporting statements.
(Since I had to clarify this last time: the term refers to expressions or expectations of masculinity and masculine behaviour that are toxic, not a claim that masculinity is toxic in and of itself.)
> For one thing, boys’ schools are more violent places, concluded the study
> Boys also reported worse relationships with their male teachers
> male teachers were three times as likely as female teachers to say they were dissatisfied with teaching
> "Most of the problems I face with male teachers is that they want to yell at kids, to humiliate them.”
> The separation of students, teachers, and administrators into single-sex public schools may serve cultural and religious purposes, but it seems to create an unintentional ghetto for boys
> “Boys don’t feel that school can necessarily help them reach manhood.”
> In order to avoid all-female cohorts of students, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman’s only public university, now has two sets of admission criteria: one lower bar for men and one higher bar for women.
(affirmitive action!)
While I've been quote-picking I've noticed that this article is really nicely structured. The first sentence of each paragraph makes a point, then the rest of the paragraph introduces supporting statements.
> (Since I had to clarify this last time: the term refers to expressions or expectations of masculinity and masculine behaviour that are toxic, not a claim that masculinity is toxic in and of itself.)
I'd suggest that the term itself is toxic (and/or sexist). If you think otherwise, can you suggest examples of (stereotypically) masculine behaviours that aren't considered toxic, but positive by the mainstream public/media? Also, can you give any examples of "toxic femininity" behaviours?
If either of these is "no/none", then I'd prefer if you (and everybody else) avoided using this term.
I'd suggest that the term itself is toxic (and/or sexist). If you think otherwise, can you suggest examples of (stereotypically) masculine behaviours that aren't considered toxic, but positive by the mainstream public/media? Also, can you give any examples of "toxic femininity" behaviours?
If either of these is "no/none", then I'd prefer if you (and everybody else) avoided using this term.
> Can you suggest examples of (stereotypically) masculine behaviours that aren't considered toxic, but positive by the mainstream public/media?
Sports. Military Service. Working Fathers.
Sports. Military Service. Working Fathers.
I'm not the OP, but some examples of toxic femininity I've heard are:
- Being passive to a point of causing harm through inaction
- Gossiping/body shaming/putting others down with words
The positive masculine traits should be obvious, but I'll list a few:
- Bravery
- Competitiveness
- Independence
- Confidence
- Being passive to a point of causing harm through inaction
- Gossiping/body shaming/putting others down with words
The positive masculine traits should be obvious, but I'll list a few:
- Bravery
- Competitiveness
- Independence
- Confidence
Confidence and self-assertiveness, emotional stability, perseverance and drive. There is absolutely a positive form of masculinity that gets obscured by all the crap.
> Also, can you give any examples of "toxic femininity" behaviours?
The idea that women should be subservient and avoid conflict at all costs would be an example of "toxic femininity". It's a mirror image of behaviors that come under "toxic masculinity", though, so I'm not sure if the term has any utility.
The idea that women should be subservient and avoid conflict at all costs would be an example of "toxic femininity". It's a mirror image of behaviors that come under "toxic masculinity", though, so I'm not sure if the term has any utility.
Positive masculinity: Discipline, risk taking, steadfastness, strength, mortal courage.
"Toxic" femininity: Gossip, hysteria.
"Toxic" femininity: Gossip, hysteria.
You haven't thought about this much have you...
Hear hear, and I'd prefer people stop overusing "toxic." Not everything that's bad, or that you disagree with, is "toxic." The person who screws with your team dynamic is not "toxic."
"toxic" is not a bad word. It's a perfectly appropriate word to describe many things, including "toxic employees". Toxic means poisonous. It is quite possible for a person to be poisonous to a community (family, relationships, friendships, workplaces). They bring the group down, they disrupt the relationships between people ("poisoning" them). Often by their words: pointing out issues and exaggerating their significance, constant harping on specific topics and inability to move on. Sometimes by their actions: inability to meet expectations, inability to keep promises or obligations.
The term may get abused by some people who just want to call anything they dislike toxic, but we shouldn't throw out a perfectly good word (and associated phrases) just because you think "toxic" is toxic.
The term may get abused by some people who just want to call anything they dislike toxic, but we shouldn't throw out a perfectly good word (and associated phrases) just because you think "toxic" is toxic.
"Toxic" is vague and imprecise in a way that raises the likelihood that multiple participants in a conversation will have different interpretations without noticing they don't all agree on what it means.
This lack of clarity is unavoidable in all communication. We can't transplant thoughts directly from one brain to another. But I find that words like "toxic" convey an assessment, rather than description, in contexts where that level of abbreviation is not helpful.
If the more-precise descriptor of behavior was used in the first place, the toxicity of that behavior will likely be self-apparent. But if "toxic" alone is used, we either have to circle the conversation back to pick up the better descriptor, or just assume that the speaker is right.
Toxic is a bad word because it's become a go-to choice for poor articulation. Using it conveys an impression that an assessment of "toxicity" has been made off-screen, but is broad and amorphous enough that I can't trust it implies anything more specific than a snap judgment.
This lack of clarity is unavoidable in all communication. We can't transplant thoughts directly from one brain to another. But I find that words like "toxic" convey an assessment, rather than description, in contexts where that level of abbreviation is not helpful.
If the more-precise descriptor of behavior was used in the first place, the toxicity of that behavior will likely be self-apparent. But if "toxic" alone is used, we either have to circle the conversation back to pick up the better descriptor, or just assume that the speaker is right.
Toxic is a bad word because it's become a go-to choice for poor articulation. Using it conveys an impression that an assessment of "toxicity" has been made off-screen, but is broad and amorphous enough that I can't trust it implies anything more specific than a snap judgment.
Toxic strictly means any behavior in a conflict or disagreement which erodes the relationship or discussion. Hope this helps. So for example, toxic behavior within a team is behavior which erodes the team, it's toxic because it damages that relationship. If you don't care about that relationship, you might not care if its toxic, because you don't mind if it dies. That does not mean it's not toxic though.
>Toxic strictly means [...]. Hope this helps.
It doesn't. That's a gigantic category, and one degree removed by being an assessment of a behavior rather than a summary. -- Of course the assessment is important in it's own right, but it such a lossy description it's rarely a substitute for more concise descriptors.
It doesn't. That's a gigantic category, and one degree removed by being an assessment of a behavior rather than a summary. -- Of course the assessment is important in it's own right, but it such a lossy description it's rarely a substitute for more concise descriptors.
Telling people what words to use in a dialogue is toxic. :V
Second this. I'm from Turkey, we don't have gender separation in education, but your quotes hold. Also, being geeky at school is mostly a feminine thing, and not caring about school is way cooler. The result being girls usually do better in most circumstances.
I wonder if this has the effect of making males feel resentment toward females, and thus making the already great number of problems between males and females even greater.
Wrt Turkey we have many different cultures coexisting (even though we pretend otherwise) and teh answer depends on which one you pick. But for the more poor it has an indirect effect, where the general ignorance of common working class recent emigrant men provoke lots of tension in families, economical and not. But blanket statements in this regard wrt Turkey is like talking of Greece, Italy, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia as a single cultural entity.
a_puppy(1)
Would women's significantly superior graduation rates to men's in NCAA basketball qualify as 'toxic masculinity'? Or benign disinterest? Not that disinterest can't be toxic...
http://nebula.wsimg.com/63037e2d226dc6cdac787a498f2ddaf6?Acc...
http://nebula.wsimg.com/63037e2d226dc6cdac787a498f2ddaf6?Acc...
Wow... I found this article, particularly well written and enjoyable, not favoring the usual (UP WITH WOMEN, DOWN WITH MEN) rhetoric that seems fairly common in some circles on the internet.
The final paragraph is particularly poignant:
"It may be true, as developmental research suggests, that boys tend to be more active and take longer, on average, to learn to control their impulses. But those are challenges that well-trained teachers and informed parents should be able to handle. Boys are not defective; schools are. The fact that boys are struggling around the world means that too many schools are designed with a bias for girls. Too many teachers prefer compliance over competition, quiet diligence over risk-taking, and on average that leads to schools that are more comfortable for girls than for boys in every time zone. But given the world they are inheriting, just as boys need to learn to focus, girls need to learn to take risks.
And neither can thrive in a world where the other is diminished."
The final paragraph is particularly poignant:
"It may be true, as developmental research suggests, that boys tend to be more active and take longer, on average, to learn to control their impulses. But those are challenges that well-trained teachers and informed parents should be able to handle. Boys are not defective; schools are. The fact that boys are struggling around the world means that too many schools are designed with a bias for girls. Too many teachers prefer compliance over competition, quiet diligence over risk-taking, and on average that leads to schools that are more comfortable for girls than for boys in every time zone. But given the world they are inheriting, just as boys need to learn to focus, girls need to learn to take risks.
And neither can thrive in a world where the other is diminished."
> In order to avoid all-female cohorts of students, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman’s only public university, now has two sets of admission criteria: one lower bar for men and one higher bar for women. ... Osman disagrees with this quota system. “It helps to solve a temporary problem, but it has an impact in the long term on students’ confidence and on equality,” he says. “They should have found another way to boost the abilities of boys.”
How is this any different than the increasing discrimination experienced by Asians in Ivy League admissions? I would say that the administrators are just following what the top universities in the world are doing to keep demographics as they would like them.
How is this any different than the increasing discrimination experienced by Asians in Ivy League admissions? I would say that the administrators are just following what the top universities in the world are doing to keep demographics as they would like them.
An American friend of mine worked at a private school there. She said that boys are being raised to be pampered with the expectation in life that they will not need to provide for their family through work and that women are basically slaves.
This was a school of upper class kids and, to me, the attitude I would expect for children of tyrants.
This was a school of upper class kids and, to me, the attitude I would expect for children of tyrants.
I've heard similar reports, second-hand, from a teacher in the UAE: the current generation of young men anticipate a life of effortless luxury, and so don't see the point in working hard in school. They point out that this is also why there's a high level of childhood obesity:
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/news/uae-health/posh-lifestyle-...
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/news/uae-health/posh-lifestyle-...
[deleted]
I thought it was well known and shown in the west, splitting boys from girls in classes meant girls were better off and boys were worse off.
Can't find anything to cite(lazy) but have never seen anything that contradicted it.
I just took it as a simple obvious girls temper boys behaviour.
It is an interesting moral issue. Do you let girls be worse off for the common social good?
Can't find anything to cite(lazy) but have never seen anything that contradicted it.
I just took it as a simple obvious girls temper boys behaviour.
It is an interesting moral issue. Do you let girls be worse off for the common social good?
Seems to be the case with the exception of Israel where the stats are in line with other top developed nations, even more so when controled for demographics.
A better question should be is why men do so relatively poor compared in middle eastern nations.
A better question should be is why men do so relatively poor compared in middle eastern nations.
Same in India, at least the south.
Maybe it’s a good time to talk about the fact that school is largely a waste of time. And that it’s not about being smart but how well do you listen and follow orders. Like it’s insane what sort of garbage I had to waste time on and whenever I brought this up, it was brushed away with “get used to it” or “I don’t like it either but that’s how things are”.
Not to promote gender stereotypes and what not but I wonder if some of these results are due to the fact that’s women seem to be better at communicating and school is very much about communication. I personally would have just preferred being given the time and desk to read the textbook, I don’t need a person to chew it for me.
Education is important, the idea of school in the current format is outdated and retarded. However this is unlikely to change since students have very little power to change things.
Not to promote gender stereotypes and what not but I wonder if some of these results are due to the fact that’s women seem to be better at communicating and school is very much about communication. I personally would have just preferred being given the time and desk to read the textbook, I don’t need a person to chew it for me.
Education is important, the idea of school in the current format is outdated and retarded. However this is unlikely to change since students have very little power to change things.
>Maybe it’s a good time to talk about the fact that school is largely a waste of time.
I strongly disagree, but I'm willing to hear a viable alternative that covers millions of children/families (eg. no private tutoring or homeschooling). Let's not forget that school also helps children socialize and parents focus on their work.
I strongly disagree, but I'm willing to hear a viable alternative that covers millions of children/families (eg. no private tutoring or homeschooling). Let's not forget that school also helps children socialize and parents focus on their work.
Right, give them a desk and a book.
> Let's not forget that school also helps children socialize
Yeah don't force me to socialize pls.
Also how much time is really given in school for socialization?
> Let's not forget that school also helps children socialize
Yeah don't force me to socialize pls.
Also how much time is really given in school for socialization?
>Right, give them a desk and a book.
> Yeah don't force me to socialize pls.
Most people like socializing and benefit from it (which in turn benefits society), you can't possibly ask for a system that caters to the few who don't like it. The "desk and book" may work when you're in college but it definitely doesn't work for children. Even in college you have professors/lecturers to guide you (and check your progress).
I think you're just making general assumptions based on your own experience and abilities. Not everyone is like you (or me for that matter, I too prefer reading a book than being lectured). I personally know very few people who enjoy educating themselves (let alone children and teenagers)
The only serious alternatives through history are private tutoring and homeschooling. The former requires wealth, the later thoroughly educated parents with free time. They just don't scale to millions whichever way you look at it
> Yeah don't force me to socialize pls.
Most people like socializing and benefit from it (which in turn benefits society), you can't possibly ask for a system that caters to the few who don't like it. The "desk and book" may work when you're in college but it definitely doesn't work for children. Even in college you have professors/lecturers to guide you (and check your progress).
I think you're just making general assumptions based on your own experience and abilities. Not everyone is like you (or me for that matter, I too prefer reading a book than being lectured). I personally know very few people who enjoy educating themselves (let alone children and teenagers)
The only serious alternatives through history are private tutoring and homeschooling. The former requires wealth, the later thoroughly educated parents with free time. They just don't scale to millions whichever way you look at it
> Most people like socializing
Debatable at best.
> and benefit from it
Again, debatable.
> may work when you're in college
Yeah it doesn't. I still need to go to classes, do hw and what not which really cuts into my reading time.
> Not everyone is like you
Right, maybe let's setup a system that can cater to people according to their needs, how about that.
> I personally know very few people who enjoy educating themselves (let alone children and teenagers)
That's because their only experience with education is sitting in a classroom for 6 hours a day talking about dumb stuff someone once upon a time deemed to be worthwhile to be a part of education.
> They just don't scale to millions whichever way you look at it
Unless you've tried it, don't say it doesn't work.
Debatable at best.
> and benefit from it
Again, debatable.
> may work when you're in college
Yeah it doesn't. I still need to go to classes, do hw and what not which really cuts into my reading time.
> Not everyone is like you
Right, maybe let's setup a system that can cater to people according to their needs, how about that.
> I personally know very few people who enjoy educating themselves (let alone children and teenagers)
That's because their only experience with education is sitting in a classroom for 6 hours a day talking about dumb stuff someone once upon a time deemed to be worthwhile to be a part of education.
> They just don't scale to millions whichever way you look at it
Unless you've tried it, don't say it doesn't work.
> you can't possibly ask for a system that caters to the few who don't like it
But what if I do?
But what if I do?
> Right, give them a desk and a book.
How do you propose they learn to read the book?
How do you propose they learn to read the book?
> Education is important, the idea of school in the current format is outdated and retarded. However this is unlikely to change since students have very little power to change things.
What would you do differently?
What would you do differently?
The idea of a person chewing things for you is stupid. People should go at their pace. I’ve found that out of the six plus hours that you spend in school, only a small fraction is spent productively. So much is wasted on administrative matters.
I also found the switching between subjects to be really annoying. Like what if I want to spend half a day a week on the single subject as oppposed to an hour every day. Context switching overhead is real.
I want a desk and a textbook. I need a teacher only when I get stuck.
I also find that if you aren’t extroverted school is hell. It might be hell if you are extroverted too but it’s double hell if you aren’t.
I also found the switching between subjects to be really annoying. Like what if I want to spend half a day a week on the single subject as oppposed to an hour every day. Context switching overhead is real.
I want a desk and a textbook. I need a teacher only when I get stuck.
I also find that if you aren’t extroverted school is hell. It might be hell if you are extroverted too but it’s double hell if you aren’t.
> I want a desk and a textbook. I need a teacher only when I get stuck.
Kudos to you for being a self-starter, but that barely described me. I have the ability to learn on my own, but if I didn't have an instructor yammering at me, then I was much more likely to spend the time in an unproductive manner.
I didn't have Wolfram|Alpha when I was in high school. TI-8x was my cheatsheet iff I knew how to get it to tell me what I wanted. If W|A had been a thing alongside self-study, I don't think I would have retained any information. I was a knucklehead. I figured that if I was doing the bare minimum to get an 'A' or a 'B', then I was doing it right. College was a rude awakening in that regard.
I do think that the US education system needs a bit of an overhaul. I don't think we have the manpower nor the funding to do it though. Public schools don't let students run at their own pace, because that would require a higher administrative burden than what schools already have. Technology has come a long way though. Digital lessons, the Internet, communication tools, grading tools, etc. have positioned us such that it would be much, much easier to implement these types of curricula. But that's still an uphill battle.
Kudos to you for being a self-starter, but that barely described me. I have the ability to learn on my own, but if I didn't have an instructor yammering at me, then I was much more likely to spend the time in an unproductive manner.
I didn't have Wolfram|Alpha when I was in high school. TI-8x was my cheatsheet iff I knew how to get it to tell me what I wanted. If W|A had been a thing alongside self-study, I don't think I would have retained any information. I was a knucklehead. I figured that if I was doing the bare minimum to get an 'A' or a 'B', then I was doing it right. College was a rude awakening in that regard.
I do think that the US education system needs a bit of an overhaul. I don't think we have the manpower nor the funding to do it though. Public schools don't let students run at their own pace, because that would require a higher administrative burden than what schools already have. Technology has come a long way though. Digital lessons, the Internet, communication tools, grading tools, etc. have positioned us such that it would be much, much easier to implement these types of curricula. But that's still an uphill battle.
> Kudos to you for being a self-starter, but that barely described me. I have the ability to learn on my own, but if I didn't have an instructor yammering at me, then I was much more likely to spend the time in an unproductive manner.
You need to go deeper. You didn't care about the subjects because you just didn't care. Nothing to beat yourself up over. It's more of a problem with the school than you. Kids start out super curious, that energy needs to be amplified, not wasted. But it really does feel like school is more about obedience than learning.
> I do think that the US education system needs a bit of an overhaul.
It really does. For one thing, too much emphasis is placed on "education" and not enough is placed on "skill". E.g. US has no vocational schools that exist in Europe e.g. for nursing or even programming. There are high schools where students are getting prepared for a particular job since the age of 14. In the US, to be a nurse, you need a bachelor's degree and a nursing degree. In many European countries, you need the high school and an associates degree.
You need to go deeper. You didn't care about the subjects because you just didn't care. Nothing to beat yourself up over. It's more of a problem with the school than you. Kids start out super curious, that energy needs to be amplified, not wasted. But it really does feel like school is more about obedience than learning.
> I do think that the US education system needs a bit of an overhaul.
It really does. For one thing, too much emphasis is placed on "education" and not enough is placed on "skill". E.g. US has no vocational schools that exist in Europe e.g. for nursing or even programming. There are high schools where students are getting prepared for a particular job since the age of 14. In the US, to be a nurse, you need a bachelor's degree and a nursing degree. In many European countries, you need the high school and an associates degree.
In my experience, how I learned things depended on the subject. I needed the classroom environment in order to learn math and physics: The motivation to keep plugging away at it for 15+ years, and the interaction that teaches how to communicate ideas in those areas. Mathematicians and physicists seldom make things. We have to communicate and collaborate to get things done, when we're thrown into a typical commercial environment.
On the other hand, I easily learned electronics and programming on my own. In both subjects, a single introductory course got me started, then I was on my way.
I wonder if the appeal of HN to programmers is why there is a strong sentiment against traditional education, and in favor of self learning. Other than being easy, programming may simply lend itself to self learning for some reason.
Perhaps figuring out what makes programming easy to self-learn, would help us figure out how to teach other subjects better. Or we may realize that unless we want everybody to be a programmer, we may still need traditional education.
On the other hand, I easily learned electronics and programming on my own. In both subjects, a single introductory course got me started, then I was on my way.
I wonder if the appeal of HN to programmers is why there is a strong sentiment against traditional education, and in favor of self learning. Other than being easy, programming may simply lend itself to self learning for some reason.
Perhaps figuring out what makes programming easy to self-learn, would help us figure out how to teach other subjects better. Or we may realize that unless we want everybody to be a programmer, we may still need traditional education.
> Other than being easy, programming may simply lend itself to self learning for some reason.
If programming is easy, you definitely aren't challenging yourself.
> Perhaps figuring out what makes programming easy to self-learn, would help us figure out how to teach other subjects better.
It's the fact that you are having a conversation with computer and you can explore things and get somewhat immediate feedback. These things are currently somewhat lacking for math and physics.
If programming is easy, you definitely aren't challenging yourself.
> Perhaps figuring out what makes programming easy to self-learn, would help us figure out how to teach other subjects better.
It's the fact that you are having a conversation with computer and you can explore things and get somewhat immediate feedback. These things are currently somewhat lacking for math and physics.
I think in terms of the training, it was easy. I learned to program in 1981. My mom was teaching CS, so I had a view of what programmers were learning, and I endeavored to learn the same things. Today, I'm aware of what an entry level programmer brings to the table. I'd say that the subject matter required for reaching that level is easy -- at least no harder than math, physics, or electronics.
On the other hand, you're right about challenging oneself. Reaching a higher level of expertise is definitely harder, but that's true of any subject. Meanwhile, my career moved in a different direction, and I only use programming as a tool rather than for developing commercial software.
On the other hand, you're right about challenging oneself. Reaching a higher level of expertise is definitely harder, but that's true of any subject. Meanwhile, my career moved in a different direction, and I only use programming as a tool rather than for developing commercial software.
Very interesting point about the context switching. When I was a student I didn't consider such matters, but as an adult I recognise needless context switching as an enormous inefficiency. You're point about only needing a teacher when you get stuck is quite valid as well, especially in the age of high tech. Presentation of the information should be optimized and presented via recording. The duty of the teacher should be to facilitate learning by helping out where there are any problems. But with all the politics and tradition, the status-quo isn't about to change unfortunately. The upside is that there is room for huge improvement, hence opportunities exist.
> And that it’s not about being smart but how well do you listen and follow orders.
Do you realise that not all people are smart, and for those who aren't - this is the way to go.
Do you realise that not all people are smart, and for those who aren't - this is the way to go.
Is it tho? And even if it is, why is the system setup for them and not me? But I’m also not convinced that this is the way to go even for “not smart” people. But to some extent I also believe that he idea of being smart or not is given too much emphasis. Like if you go at your own pace, you’ll get there when you get there. A guide pushing you and telling you to go faster isn’t going to help you.
There are many more of "them" than you.
They need their bread and circuses, otherwise, they will come pillage your property.
They need their bread and circuses, otherwise, they will come pillage your property.
> There are many more of "them" than you.
> they will come pillage your property
Going by your reasoning, there are many more people without property than ones with, why bother protecting property rights at all?
That's "most people" fallacy you are showing all over the thread.
> they will come pillage your property
Going by your reasoning, there are many more people without property than ones with, why bother protecting property rights at all?
That's "most people" fallacy you are showing all over the thread.
I didn't say they didn't have any property, they just want yours, too.
Also, if there were a large group with nothing to lose, you would not need any protection of your property?
By that reasoning, society would have protections in place to prevent against theft and robbery.
Also, if there were a large group with nothing to lose, you would not need any protection of your property?
By that reasoning, society would have protections in place to prevent against theft and robbery.
So if we change school, "most people" would have nothing to lose and pillage my property?
You're actually making so little sense with your smart cynicist mask so that I'm giving up on you.
You're actually making so little sense with your smart cynicist mask so that I'm giving up on you.
I think single-sex education is the answer here because for girls, it allows them to flourish and grow without the male-dominated Middle Eastern oppression. Girls can grow and learn in an environment that is more free, and open for them. I would be curious to see if this is true in other parts of the world that allow for single-sex education.