Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?(theatlantic.com) |
Why Are Middle East Girls Better in School Than Boys?(theatlantic.com) |
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.
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.
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.
Women work in Pakistan too, FYI. India and Pakistan have been separated for roughly 60 years, their cultures are very similar.
assuming this is your personal opinion?
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.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/girls-grades....
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.
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’.
> 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?
I believe that's the point GP was making. Where does it imply otherwise?
(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.
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."
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.
This was a school of upper class kids and, to me, the attitude I would expect for children of tyrants.
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/news/uae-health/posh-lifestyle-...
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?
A better question should be is why men do so relatively poor compared in middle eastern nations.
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.
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.
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.
Sports. Military Service. Working Fathers.
- 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
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.
"Toxic" femininity: Gossip, hysteria.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/63037e2d226dc6cdac787a498f2ddaf6?Acc...
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.
> 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?
What would you do differently?
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.
Do you realise that not all people are smart, and for those who aren't - this is the way to go.
> 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.
> 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
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.
But what if I do?
How do you propose they learn to read the book?
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.
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.
They need their bread and circuses, otherwise, they will come pillage your property.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're actually making so little sense with your smart cynicist mask so that I'm giving up on you.