White males are recieve minority status at colleges.

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
13,156
1,775
1,340
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Eliminating feminist teacher bias erases boys' falling grades, study finds
First, what the fuck kind of website are you linking here? That's even worse than Springer.
Second, this article says nothing about university and since universities predominantly grade their students by written examinations, the discribed form of bias is certainly reduced.
Third, the professor cited is an economics professor. Let's be careful and say that education and didactics are not the primary expertise of economical sciences. It is a paper from a reputable source though. The website is not a good source on the overall paper. The original abstract of the paper says:
Boys who perform equally as well as girls on reading, math, and science tests are graded less favorably by their teachers, but this less favorable treatment essentially vanishes when noncognitive skills are taken into account. For some specifications there is evidence of a grade “bonus” for boys with test scores and behavior like their girl counterparts.
So in other words, if boys behave well they even get slightly better grades than equally well-behaving girls for the same performance, it is just that boys seem to misbehave more, which is then reflected in their grades. I think this is a supremely unexciting result. As long as behaviour in the class room is allowed or even desired to be taken into account, to some degree, in grading, such discrepancies are bound to happen. Since school (pre-university) is not just a skill test but also a space to form behaviour of students to a certain degree, changing this would be a paradigm shift for schools overall.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,862
6,112
335
First, what the fuck kind of website are you linking here? That's even worse than Springer.
Second, this article says nothing about university and since universities predominantly grade their students by written examinations, the discribed form of bias is certainly reduced.
Third, the professor cited is an economics professor. Let's be careful and say that education and didactics are not the primary expertise of economical sciences. It is a paper from a reputable source though. The website is not a good source on the overall paper. The original abstract of the paper says:

So in other words, if boys behave well they even get slightly better grades than equally well-behaving girls for the same performance, it is just that boys seem to misbehave more, which is then reflected in their grades. I think this is a supremely unexciting result. As long as behaviour in the class room is allowed or even desired to be taken into account, to some degree, in grading, such discrepancies are bound to happen. Since school (pre-university) is not just a skill test but also a space to form behaviour of students to a certain degree, changing this would be a paradigm shift for schools overall.
The connection to university is that this is happening even in Kindergarten which affects boys today over their whole life in education. IF you get bad grades you are getting demotivated and there is no motivation even go further. And it was a research study by the education department. The teacher in the end was another voice supporting this study. why should I behave in the end when I get suspended and negative response anyway my whole life? If you tell children they are bad since Kindergarten of course this will affect children.

And if you go after the site why not try and read the original research study?

And the study says that with more women in the education sector who have feminists ideologies boys ae getting stigmatized since feminism today sees boys/men as dangerous as sexual predators and an enemy to women/girls.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
13,156
1,775
1,340
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
And if you go after the site why not try and read the original research study?
If you quote a site of lunatics then I will attack the site, because everything they write must be seen under that context. Find proper sources for your claim. I tried reading the study, but coould only read the abstract, because the actual study is not freely available. Also, since it is your claim, it is your responsibility to find sources that are not immediately clearly biased.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,862
6,112
335
If you quote a site of lunatics then I will attack the site, because everything they write must be seen under that context. Find proper sources for your claim. I tried reading the study, but coould only read the abstract, because the actual study is not freely available. Also, since it is your claim, it is your responsibility to find sources that are not immediately clearly biased.
https://mitili.mit.edu/sites/default/files/project-documents/SEII-Discussion-Paper-2016.07-Terrier.pdf

https://quillette.com/2017/02/06/stereotypes-can-hold-boys-back-in-school-too/
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
998
915
225
In the near future, there will be very little to no males in education. It is very hostile against boys. Girls are pegged as the standard, therefore boys are seen as unruly girls, hence they oppress and suppress boys. This is just one of the litany of reasons why I greatly despise feminists.
 

hariseldon

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
2,503
3,480
285
There is indeed a boy problem in schools, and this is in large part a product of schools becoming an increasingly feminised environment (as mentioned by @Dunki and others). The politics of the staffroom, female-dominated as it is, make life VERY hard for male staff. Couple that with the general assumption that all males are there to rape kids (males must not be left alone with a student, females can do what they like) and you end up with a shortage of male role models in school (and at home in poor families) and education structured to suit girls, because there's nobody there to speak up for the boys.

I took over a primary class in Thailand where the previous teacher hated the boys in the class. In a short space of time I was able to massively boost their attainment simply by not hating them, and by tweaking my teaching methods to suit them. The girls did fine by the way, they were already doing well so I just carried on with what was working for them.

The modern focus on group-work for instance has many problems, not least allowing a struggler to coast along on the work of others, but also discriminating against boys who work better alone on deep problems vs girls who work better in groups on socially-oriented problems.

Looking at student behaviour, part of the issue is an almost HR-isation of process around naughtiness, though one could argue that HR-isation and feminisation are two edges of the same sword. With the obsessive measuring of everything, even behaviour becomes subject to formal reporting and HR-like procedures, conversations, which go on the record, which do nothing to help boys. I was lucky, having some difficulties at school myself, to have teachers who understood me, that a quiet word was the most effective approach, that the best punishmnent for me was not lines or maths but physical labour because I bloody hated it. But with such a prescriptive approach to education now these creative teachers become lost in the system.

Re ruler-swords - play is very important, and it's where we develop many of our social skills. By outlawing much of boys play we find they don't quite know what to do with themselves, they are in an environment where they can't be themselves. Is it any wonder they feel they don't belong? @share - it's not about coping skills for life, that can come later. School is about nurturing individuals to become the best they can, but if we don't let them express their true nature, how can we do that for them?

I focus here on school because this is where it all starts to go wrong for boys. Struggles in school see them not get places in the universities which could see them flourish. I myself had that problem, leaving the education system entirely for 2.5 years after victimisation by a female teacher who hated boys and had threatened to call social services on boys in her class on multiple occasions. It was a net win for me as I spent that time learning how to program computers, but not everyone is so lucky. Another kid in my class had a similar fate and I bumped into him years later - he did not get back into mainstream, while I did.

@嫩翼 correctly asserts that class is an issue, and this is an under-appreciated fact in modern leftism, much to my dismay. Children from poor families don't have access to the same support, often dealing with chaotic home lives (I had one kid who wasn't being fed - mum would give him money and he'd go and buy doughnuts, because that's what kids do - another poor girl was expected to do all the housework while her brother lazed around doing nothing - it broke my heart to see how bad a start they were getting in life).

@Dude Abides - I'd say that while the ability to sit quietly and absorb information is a part of modern jobs, it is not the only part. Still, boys often can do it, certainly the class I took over was capable, but they were not doing it before I fixed the class, due to a female teacher teaching in a style that did not suit them. I didn't do anything special, just basic good teaching practices.

@PKM - I don't necessarily buy the need to be outside for learning. It's a thing in Scottish education. My mother-in-law teaches primary up there and her head teacher insisted on an hour a day of outdoor lessons, even for classes where it was not appropriate. In Scotland, where it's fucking freezing. Needless to say it wasn't helpful. The time taken getting them ready to go out, drying them off if it was raining, calming them back down when they got in because they were hyper - if you've taught a class you'll see that this is no solution. I agree that you need to find room for boys to be boys, but that's not it.

@DunDunPachi makes a valid point that a commonly-made mistake is that schools exist solely to prepare children for the workforce. In many ways we should find this as abhorrent as we find the Spartans preparing their children solely for warfare. In reality, a rounded society must produce a rounded variety of individuals, be they manual labourers, professionals, scholars, artists, or whatever. All contribute in different ways to the enrichment of society. State schools in the UK are solely focused on GCSE scores, teaching to the test, under the misguided assumption that this will improve their employment prospects, failing to understand the value in working with students to help them know how to learn, how to select what to learn, and how to think critically about what they learn.

@Cybrwzrd is right that university should not be the be-all-and-end-all. Some kids just aren't suited to it, and that's ok. They are suited to doing lots of other useful things, so let them train as plumbers or electricians, teach them to run a business so they can start one, anything but forcing them down a university path which has become increasingly a simple task of purchasing a degree (my conversations with university lecturers over the years would leave you somewhat shocked - many degrees even up to MSc level are basically handed out free with a packet of cornflakes).

@Yoshi - I think you're missing the point a bit re sitting still. For starters the issue is at school. Generally by 18 boys are in better shape and university isn't necessarily a problem, the damage is done before they get to university, though I do think they might be better served going into higher education later in life. My 2nd and 3rd goes at uni (degree then MSc) were MUCH easier because I was older and could handle it better. The point re schools though is not that they can't sit still, they can, but they need outlets and for those outlets not to be shut down through the feminisation of schooling. As for your point about testosterone and discipline not working so well - I'm guessing the army being mostly male has escaped your notice (just seen that @Cybrwzrd made that point - apologies I'm typing this up as I read through the thread to avoid millions of posts).

@Dunki and @Yoshi - couldn't agree more about boys not getting a chance to prove themselves. I witnessed female staff basically bullying boys in the secondary school I worked at in the UK, abusing the power and authority granted to them to make life difficult for the boys, preventing them from doing things that they, being boys, would want to do. Gifted and Talented programs do a certain amount, but they do little to change the basic environment. @Yoshi - trust me that the regular curriculum does nothing good in the way of challenging students because it is so rigid, teaching methods so restrictively enforced (in the UK at least) that boys are basically fucked. @Dunki is correct that segregation based on gender is a shitty thing. @Yoshi, you are wrong - fighting discrimination with discrimination only leads to more discrimination, and systemically disadvantages an already disadvantaged group, especially when one considers that there is a bigger disadvantage to being from a poor family than being female. It's this bullshit that makes those of us on the left look like cunts.

@Yoshi - re Chernobyl and Fukushima - you're being disingenuous here. Men are sent to do dangerous jobs. Women are not. You don't see them queueing up to fix that bit of inequality. I can't think why. You're also being disingenous in failing to realise that the problems in schools carry through to university. Every bit of head-start you can get when you're young counts. My parents, despite being otherwise shitty, did put the work in before I was old enough to go to school, so I started with a head-start. By the age of 11 I was doing work about 3 years ahead of my peers. Without that head-start that wouldn't have happened.

@Dunki - Do not rape classes? Are you fucking kidding me? That link "Eliminating feminist teacher bias" is VERY relevant btw.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,673
3,274
1,090
Why is society obliged to cater school to people not biologically suited to it?
Psst. They already did that and created the imbalance by giving special rights and privileges to pet groups.

There are two options for correcting that imbalance - 1) remove the special rights and privileges from the pet groups or 2) give the groups negatively impacted by the original social engineering their own special rights and privileges.

This is a response to a issue specifically created and intended by policy and law. That's why these sorts of "ironic" responses:

This is just more diversity for diversities sake.
Maybe it’s biological. Equality of opportuniy, not outcome.
don't make sense - you can't create a system designed to give perks to one group, backed by government force, and then claim that is the societal norm. It's completely artificial and fake, just like any other form of enforced segregation or discrimination.
 
Last edited:

Dude Abides

Member
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
505
Psst. They already did that and created the imbalance by giving special rights and privileges to pet groups.

There are two options for correcting that imbalance - 1) remove the special rights and privileges from the pet groups or 2) give the groups negatively impacted by the original social engineering their own special rights and privileges.

This is a response to a issue specifically created and intended by policy and law. That's why these sorts of "ironic" responses:





Don't make sense - you can't create a system designed to give perks to one group, backed by government force, and then claim that is the societal norm. It's completely artificial and fake.
“Waaaah waaaah society isn’t fair.” The mantra of the mediocre. What happened to personal responsibility?
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,085
15,448
665
USA
dunpachi.com
There is indeed a boy problem in schools, and this is in large part a product of schools becoming an increasingly feminised environment (as mentioned by @Dunki and others). The politics of the staffroom, female-dominated as it is, make life VERY hard for male staff. Couple that with the general assumption that all males are there to rape kids (males must not be left alone with a student, females can do what they like) and you end up with a shortage of male role models in school (and at home in poor families) and education structured to suit girls, because there's nobody there to speak up for the boys.

I took over a primary class in Thailand where the previous teacher hated the boys in the class. In a short space of time I was able to massively boost their attainment simply by not hating them, and by tweaking my teaching methods to suit them. The girls did fine by the way, they were already doing well so I just carried on with what was working for them.

The modern focus on group-work for instance has many problems, not least allowing a struggler to coast along on the work of others, but also discriminating against boys who work better alone on deep problems vs girls who work better in groups on socially-oriented problems.

Looking at student behaviour, part of the issue is an almost HR-isation of process around naughtiness, though one could argue that HR-isation and feminisation are two edges of the same sword. With the obsessive measuring of everything, even behaviour becomes subject to formal reporting and HR-like procedures, conversations, which go on the record, which do nothing to help boys. I was lucky, having some difficulties at school myself, to have teachers who understood me, that a quiet word was the most effective approach, that the best punishmnent for me was not lines or maths but physical labour because I bloody hated it. But with such a prescriptive approach to education now these creative teachers become lost in the system.

Re ruler-swords - play is very important, and it's where we develop many of our social skills. By outlawing much of boys play we find they don't quite know what to do with themselves, they are in an environment where they can't be themselves. Is it any wonder they feel they don't belong? @share - it's not about coping skills for life, that can come later. School is about nurturing individuals to become the best they can, but if we don't let them express their true nature, how can we do that for them?

I focus here on school because this is where it all starts to go wrong for boys. Struggles in school see them not get places in the universities which could see them flourish. I myself had that problem, leaving the education system entirely for 2.5 years after victimisation by a female teacher who hated boys and had threatened to call social services on boys in her class on multiple occasions. It was a net win for me as I spent that time learning how to program computers, but not everyone is so lucky. Another kid in my class had a similar fate and I bumped into him years later - he did not get back into mainstream, while I did.

@嫩翼 correctly asserts that class is an issue, and this is an under-appreciated fact in modern leftism, much to my dismay. Children from poor families don't have access to the same support, often dealing with chaotic home lives (I had one kid who wasn't being fed - mum would give him money and he'd go and buy doughnuts, because that's what kids do - another poor girl was expected to do all the housework while her brother lazed around doing nothing - it broke my heart to see how bad a start they were getting in life).

@Dude Abides - I'd say that while the ability to sit quietly and absorb information is a part of modern jobs, it is not the only part. Still, boys often can do it, certainly the class I took over was capable, but they were not doing it before I fixed the class, due to a female teacher teaching in a style that did not suit them. I didn't do anything special, just basic good teaching practices.

@PKM - I don't necessarily buy the need to be outside for learning. It's a thing in Scottish education. My mother-in-law teaches primary up there and her head teacher insisted on an hour a day of outdoor lessons, even for classes where it was not appropriate. In Scotland, where it's fucking freezing. Needless to say it wasn't helpful. The time taken getting them ready to go out, drying them off if it was raining, calming them back down when they got in because they were hyper - if you've taught a class you'll see that this is no solution. I agree that you need to find room for boys to be boys, but that's not it.

@DunDunPachi makes a valid point that a commonly-made mistake is that schools exist solely to prepare children for the workforce. In many ways we should find this as abhorrent as we find the Spartans preparing their children solely for warfare. In reality, a rounded society must produce a rounded variety of individuals, be they manual labourers, professionals, scholars, artists, or whatever. All contribute in different ways to the enrichment of society. State schools in the UK are solely focused on GCSE scores, teaching to the test, under the misguided assumption that this will improve their employment prospects, failing to understand the value in working with students to help them know how to learn, how to select what to learn, and how to think critically about what they learn.

@Cybrwzrd is right that university should not be the be-all-and-end-all. Some kids just aren't suited to it, and that's ok. They are suited to doing lots of other useful things, so let them train as plumbers or electricians, teach them to run a business so they can start one, anything but forcing them down a university path which has become increasingly a simple task of purchasing a degree (my conversations with university lecturers over the years would leave you somewhat shocked - many degrees even up to MSc level are basically handed out free with a packet of cornflakes).

@Yoshi - I think you're missing the point a bit re sitting still. For starters the issue is at school. Generally by 18 boys are in better shape and university isn't necessarily a problem, the damage is done before they get to university, though I do think they might be better served going into higher education later in life. My 2nd and 3rd goes at uni (degree then MSc) were MUCH easier because I was older and could handle it better. The point re schools though is not that they can't sit still, they can, but they need outlets and for those outlets not to be shut down through the feminisation of schooling. As for your point about testosterone and discipline not working so well - I'm guessing the army being mostly male has escaped your notice (just seen that @Cybrwzrd made that point - apologies I'm typing this up as I read through the thread to avoid millions of posts).

@Dunki and @Yoshi - couldn't agree more about boys not getting a chance to prove themselves. I witnessed female staff basically bullying boys in the secondary school I worked at in the UK, abusing the power and authority granted to them to make life difficult for the boys, preventing them from doing things that they, being boys, would want to do. Gifted and Talented programs do a certain amount, but they do little to change the basic environment. @Yoshi - trust me that the regular curriculum does nothing good in the way of challenging students because it is so rigid, teaching methods so restrictively enforced (in the UK at least) that boys are basically fucked. @Dunki is correct that segregation based on gender is a shitty thing. @Yoshi, you are wrong - fighting discrimination with discrimination only leads to more discrimination, and systemically disadvantages an already disadvantaged group, especially when one considers that there is a bigger disadvantage to being from a poor family than being female. It's this bullshit that makes those of us on the left look like cunts.

@Yoshi - re Chernobyl and Fukushima - you're being disingenuous here. Men are sent to do dangerous jobs. Women are not. You don't see them queueing up to fix that bit of inequality. I can't think why. You're also being disingenous in failing to realise that the problems in schools carry through to university. Every bit of head-start you can get when you're young counts. My parents, despite being otherwise shitty, did put the work in before I was old enough to go to school, so I started with a head-start. By the age of 11 I was doing work about 3 years ahead of my peers. Without that head-start that wouldn't have happened.

@Dunki - Do not rape classes? Are you fucking kidding me? That link "Eliminating feminist teacher bias" is VERY relevant btw.
Epic post. Not much for me to say other than thanks for taking the time to share your insights on the matter.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,673
3,274
1,090
Just-so fables about oppression are just excuses for underachievement.
What fables? There are laws that give women special privileges in education, government programs giving them special resources, etc.

Also, personal responsibility ends where coercion begins. Accept women getting special privileges, or the government will sue/shoot you.
 
Last edited:

hariseldon

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
2,503
3,480
285
Just realised I cocked up the name tagging.. sorry @DunDunDunpachi - was mostly writing in notepad as I went and trying to avoid my boss seeing me typing all that out!
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,673
3,274
1,090
Just a few:

Title IX, up to creating kangaroo courts that benefit women

https://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/06/06232009.html

On the 37th anniversary of Title IX, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan joined White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett and an all-star line-up of women athletes and scientists for a roundtable discussion on the landmark legislation, and he announced the award of $2.4 million in grants to 13 groups to support projects that will help high school girls gain higher proficiency in math and science.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/iduesmsi/index.html

This program assists predominantly minority institutions in effecting long-range improvement in science and engineering education programs and increasing the flow of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women, into science and engineering careers.
Can't wait to see the goal posts moved to "Those aren't substantial enough!"
 
Last edited:

Dude Abides

Member
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
505
Just a few:

Title IX, up to creating kangaroo courts that benefit women

https://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/06/06232009.html



https://www2.ed.gov/programs/iduesmsi/index.html



Can't wait to see the goal posts moved to "Those aren't substantial enough!"
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex either way. It doesn’t privilege women. It also applies to higher eductation and has nothing to do with primary education.

Poor job, Poor effort.
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,673
3,274
1,090
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex either way. It doesn’t privilege women. It also applies to higher eductation and has nothing to do with primary education.

Poor job, Poor effort.
This topic is about education, not specifically primary.

Who are the majority of Title IX complaints for? Who are the ones getting suspended from universities for evidence-less claims under Title IX kangaroo courts?
 

share

Neo Member
Dec 17, 2018
4
2
75
play is very important, and it's where we develop many of our social skills. By outlawing much of boys play we find they don't quite know what to do with themselves [citation needed], they are in an environment where they can't be themselves. Is it any wonder they feel they don't belong? [citation needed]
First of all, I'd like to say that yes, from my minimal expertise and the studies I have read[1] it is quite clear that play is important. No one is trying to outlaw play. It is important for children to realize there is a time and a place for messing around[2]. Most* elementary schools in America implement recess. A time for the children to take a break from the rigidity of the classroom and play in an open environment. This has many physical and psychological benefits[3] however it is still important to recognize that having a structured, controlled classroom environment is still necessary and extremely beneficial[4]. It is important to note that there is a misconception that a 'structured environment' is an authoritarian absolutist environment, or an environment where students cannot discuss, debate, and open dialogue (an important portion of development as noted in previous citations). A structured environment is instead an environment where students are given clear boundries, clear project goals and understanding, clear and effective classroom learning (notice the emphasis on clear?) and have a mutual respect with the teacher (which comes as a result of the clarity)[5]. When students are given a structured and respectful learning environment not only are they more self regulated[5,4,2] but they also begin to develop the coping skills that I discussed earlier.

Those coping skills in this case are the sympathetic relationship between people. A mutual, social understanding and sympathy that allows them to construct mental social barriers between what they are entitled too, what they are not, what they can talk about, what they cannot, what they can do, and not, etc. In children who do not get that same environment, they often grow older lacking the knowledge and understanding of complex social intricasies. If you can goof around and play, disrespect the teachers authority and never require the need for those social barriers it can harm you long term, and irreversably[6,4,2,1]. These people tend to grow up being more aggressive, and less socially capable because they do not understand maze of social interaction[6,4,2]. This can lead to an external locust of control.

Really the point is, children are not required to play in school. In fact, they shouldn't (in my opinion). School is the place children go to learn. Recess is there in elementary school as a way to encourage phsyical activity in chilhood for the well researched benefits in the long term[7]. But as the children get older (middle school and highschool) they can play on their own time. If you give children the ability to play whenever they want, when they want, it is a well documented catalyst to further disobedience and all of the negative social downsides from all of my cited sources.

*Assuming most, I have no statistics, just my experience with American elementary schools.
it's not about coping skills for life, that can come later. School is about nurturing individuals to become the best they can, but if we don't let them express their true nature, how can we do that for them?
First of all, coping skills for life cannot "come later"[8]. They are an integral part of childhood development [2] and they are incredibly hard if not impossible to redesign to fit societies standards later in life (you can read more about it here). Second of all, while this is inherently subjective, school is not about "nuturing individuals to become the best they can" its a much more simple, and not as kind reason. America wants (and any country wants) a skilled workforce to contribute to the economy, reduce crime, and export goods and services[9]. That's why public education is free in the United States, because otherwise child labor would be rampant and we would have a much less skilled workforce (history). The second somewhat more 'genuine' reason for education is to teach people the basic skills and knowledge of things. Notice how broad that is? That's intentional. School teaches you many things you would never plan on using in real life (biology, higher level math and science, etc.) because America wants you to pursue STEM careers (for the reasons listed earlier) since competition among nations is now more than ever largely based around scientific advancement and finding the new technology to hold up your enemies before they do. Everyone is always in some kind of arms race behind the scenes, research on new weapons, computers, ships, planes, etc. etc. is always happening, and America needs as many engineers, computer scientists, nuclear engineers, etc. to contribute new ideas and research to the country.

Finally I personally think that the whole "true nature" portion of your statement is kind of redundant. There is no "true nature", we could claim that our species' "true nature" is from the days of the neanderthal, hitting things with wooden sticks and living off the land a day at a time until we inevitablly die, but by that same token their "true nature" could be from where they evolved from. A previous species, with no tools. And the true nature of THAT species from their ancestors, etc. etc. until we finally arrive back at the first few Prokaryotes who came to earth as little pathogens. Yes we have biological motivations that are derived from our genes, but the reason we are the most advanced species on the planet (ironically) is that we've replaced our poor, blunt biological drives with a social system and language that can communicate complex emotions.

Rant over, sorry.

[1]: The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development...
[2]: The Negative Effects of Instability on Child Development: A Research Synthesis
[3]: The Crucial Role of Recess in School
[4]: The Effect of Classroom Environment on Student Learning
[5]: Respecting Students
[6]: Aggression During Early Years
[7]: Physical activity from childhood to adulthood
[8]: Why a Child's Social-Emotional Skills are So Important
[9]: Education and Crime
 

hariseldon

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
2,503
3,480
285
@share thank you for taking the time to post your post, I'll put together a proper reply tomorrow as my phone is not suited to long form discussion.

I will however quickly clear up a lack of clarity in my post, which your post alerted me to. The play I referred to was indeed at recess, not in the classroom. It is here that rough play is policed vigorously, with boys penalised for being boys. I'm speaking from observation in schools rather than academic study btw.

Second, thank you for the references, I won't be doing that as doing it well takes more time than I have. I could take the approach many take of looking for sources that validate my views but that would be intellectually dishonest. The proper way is to seek multiple views and then check for people debunking them and examining the quality of the debunking or supporting, but this is rather more than I can justify for a forum post and I hope you can forgive my laziness in this regard.

Proper post coming tomorrow if I survive the long journey with my cats...
 

Dude Abides

Member
Apr 8, 2009
20,196
855
505
This topic is about education, not specifically primary.

Who are the majority of Title IX complaints for? Who are the ones getting suspended from universities for evidence-less claims under Title IX kangaroo courts?
The topic is actually about how boys are not achieving as highly in k-12 so they need affirmative action.

Telling that the only thing you can think of to support your victimhood narrative is Title IX, which has absolutley nothing to do with the topic.
 

hariseldon

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
2,503
3,480
285
The topic is actually about how boys are not achieving as highly in k-12 so they need affirmative action.

Telling that the only thing you can think of to support your victimhood narrative is Title IX, which has absolutley nothing to do with the topic.
All of education is relevant, as losses or gains in prior education affect outcomes in later education. Can't comment on Title IX as I know nothing about it, I assume it's an American thing?
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,456
317
1,025
I'm not sold on the narrative that some seem to be pushing that the education system has been deliberately structured to advantage girls over boys.
 

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
805
858
250
Looking back as we fought for civil rights for women and minorities, we hoped for them to one day get special treatment, correct? This end result surely must have been the goal.
 

hariseldon

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
2,503
3,480
285
Looking back as we fought for civil rights for women and minorities, we hoped for them to one day get special treatment, correct? This end result surely must have been the goal.
Nope, the goal was to ensure they had the same rights and treatment as the rest of us.

Ps will get round to a proper follow up on my other post but after 7 hours driving a car with 2 angry cats in it I'm absolutely knackered.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
1,926
578
245
Why is society obliged to cater school to people not biologically suited to it?
The billion dollar question. Not to mention the immense power given to psychiatry - indoctrinating and drugging children for what's fundamentally an institutional deficit.

School has a teaching disability.
 

Dontspeakforme

Neo Member
Jul 30, 2018
22
14
90
I have a BS in CS and dropped out halfway through my MS because I realized it wasn't going to make me any more money as I have both experience and an in-demand degree already.

So we're talking 5 years of being in college in a STEM field, and these are some of my observations.

  • In the semester I graduated, there were about 4-5 women that made it. The rest were all guys (100-120 guys give or take.)
  • There were a-lot more women during freshman/sophomore year. Most of them drop out or switch majors by the time junior year hits.
  • Junior year is when tests/quizzes stop being multiple choice - instead you are placed in-front of a terminal/IDE and are required to write/execute live code. If you can't do it, you pretty much have to drop out because if you didn't learn how to code in 2 years you are not going to magically learn it your first week of junior year.
  • This is a re-occurring pattern that the University is aware of, it's not just a casual subjective observation from me - these events have patterns. The CS program would always lose tons of women during their 3rd year. In fact, I even overheard professors discussing the problem and trying to figure out why. Some guys drop out too obviously, but I'm telling you the female population in CS practically disappears in Junior year.
  • In grad school there are no women in CS. Period. There's just no women. Literally.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,369
11,800
930
Australia
The topic is actually about how boys are not achieving as highly in k-12 so they need affirmative action.

Telling that the only thing you can think of to support your victimhood narrative is Title IX, which has absolutley nothing to do with the topic.
No, the point is that boys have been collateral damage from affirmative action for girls. But carry on being a condescending prick and misrepresenting everyone’s arguments as usual.
 
Dec 3, 2018
2,415
4,516
230
In the semester I graduated, there were about 4-5 women that made it. The rest were all guys (100-120 guys give or take.)
This was the case when I was in college twenty years ago as well. I don't think the percentages have changed at all.

Junior year is when tests/quizzes stop being multiple choice - instead you are placed in-front of a terminal/IDE and are required to write/execute live code. If you can't do it, you pretty much have to drop out because if you didn't learn how to code in 2 years you are not going to magically learn it your first week of junior year.
One of my college jobs was as a C grader for "C For Business Majors". The amount of cheating that went on in that class would blow your mind. Like, there would be several people who would turn in the exact same code. There was a couple in the class - I assume they were a couple, but a boy and girl who turned in the exact same code, but actually went through and changed all the variable and function names. I mean, it was the coding equivalent of copying from an encyclopedia but changing the sentence order.

Not sure this is related to the discussion, but I thought it was funny. Still do. It has always been my opinion that business majors are the most corrupt and amoral people on the planet. How many other majors have an ethics class taught by someone who was arrested for fraud? I guess those that can't do really do teach.

This is a re-occurring pattern that the University is aware of, it's not just a casual subjective observation from me - these events have patterns. The CS program would always lose tons of women during their 3rd year. In fact, I even overheard professors discussing the problem and trying to figure out why. Some guys drop out too obviously, but I'm telling you the female population in CS practically disappears in Junior year.
Can't say this was the case at my college, but it was the case for organic chemistry. Literally half the class would drop out and change majors halfway through the year (I'm told the teacher is one of the worst human being alive). My wife failed organic and changed her major from chemistry to computer science. So at least as far as women in STEM goes, computer science is slightly lower on the drop out list than organic chemistry at my old alma mater.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,456
317
1,025
No, the point is that boys have been collateral damage from affirmative action for girls. But carry on being a condescending prick and misrepresenting everyone’s arguments as usual.
Have they how so?
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,862
6,112
335
I have a BS in CS and dropped out halfway through my MS because I realized it wasn't going to make me any more money as I have both experience and an in-demand degree already.

So we're talking 5 years of being in college in a STEM field, and these are some of my observations.

  • In the semester I graduated, there were about 4-5 women that made it. The rest were all guys (100-120 guys give or take.)
  • There were a-lot more women during freshman/sophomore year. Most of them drop out or switch majors by the time junior year hits.
  • Junior year is when tests/quizzes stop being multiple choice - instead you are placed in-front of a terminal/IDE and are required to write/execute live code. If you can't do it, you pretty much have to drop out because if you didn't learn how to code in 2 years you are not going to magically learn it your first week of junior year.
  • This is a re-occurring pattern that the University is aware of, it's not just a casual subjective observation from me - these events have patterns. The CS program would always lose tons of women during their 3rd year. In fact, I even overheard professors discussing the problem and trying to figure out why. Some guys drop out too obviously, but I'm telling you the female population in CS practically disappears in Junior year.
  • In grad school there are no women in CS. Period. There's just no women. Literally.
maybe because they realized that this is not what they wanted but rather were pushed into it since grade school. Again in more equal countries less and less women go into STEM since they do not feel the urge to fight anymore for women rights. That is also the reason why in countries like Iran they are the majority in STEM
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,384
1,580
935
maybe because they realized that this is not what they wanted but rather were pushed into it since grade school. Again in more equal countries less and less women go into STEM since they do not feel the urge to fight anymore for women rights. That is also the reason why in countries like Iran they are the majority in STEM
In Tunisia and Jordan, all students take a national exam after high school regardless of socio-economic status, and depending on their scores, they are funneled into particular career tracks. “The majority of women didn’t choose their professions; it was the scores that chose for them,”. Top scorers are admitted to medical school, second-tier scorers are admitted to engineering schools, and third-tier are law students.
People in Iran aren't driven by passion as much as performance.

Considering that men and women have the same math capabilities, this shakes out. It works the same way in many middle Eastern and North African countries including Iran.

So it's not about womens rights.

The other aspect is cultural and the identity around pushing the equivalent of stem since the 50's.

By comparison the US has only gotten on the road after the 2000's when tech became more important. But we are all identity based.

Equality is defined in formal procedural terms - as equal opportunities to realize preferences, which are understood to be properties of individuals” and therefore sacrosanct. If a woman pursues a career as a teacher, she’s unlikely to see this choice as one of forced conformity to gender norms but rather think her aspirations reflect a unique mix of interest and ability. “This emotional buy-in is where gender segregation gets its staying power,”

Though this may sound like a bleak assessment, it’s actually a freeing realization: Say you’ve always thought you were destined—or designed—for a particular career. That’s a powerful narrative and one that’s reinforced by the media we consume and the people we talk to about their supposed career trajectories. But this narrative can also be powerfully constraining—especially if you experience failure or crises of confidence, which most of us will or already do. If we let go of the idea that our preferences, aspirations, and capabilities are completely self-determined, perhaps we’ll truly experience a freedom of choice that has so far eluded us.
Not saying that this is good or bad, but it checks out.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,862
6,112
335
People in Iran aren't driven by passion as much as performance.

Considering that men and women have the same math capabilities, this shakes out. It works the same way in many middle Eastern and North African countries including Iran.

So it's not about womens rights.

The other aspect is cultural and the identity around pushing the equivalent of stem since the 50's.

By comparison the US has only gotten on the road after the 2000's when tech became more important. But we are all identity based.



Not saying that this is good or bad, but it checks out.
In the end they do not stem because they want to but they are forced to. The fact that it is complete different than in these countries shows that women often are not interested in STEM. I know I posted this more than once already but this here explains a lot of questions why women in more equal countries are chosing more "traditional" jobs for example which involves more interactions with humans.


and women leaving STEM seem to understand that this is not the thing they wanted to do but rather pushed by it since grade school telling women STEM can also be fun over and over again.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,085
15,448
665
USA
dunpachi.com
In the end they do not stem because they want to but they are forced to. The fact that it is complete different than in these countries shows that women often are not interested in STEM. I know I posted this more than once already but this here explains a lot of questions why women in more equal countries are chosing more "traditional" jobs for example which involves more interactions with humans.


and women leaving STEM seem to understand that this is not the thing they wanted to do but rather pushed by it since grade school telling women STEM can also be fun over and over again.
The overall issue -- and this is a standpoint that acknowledges the issues faced by men and women -- is that corporations have a lot of say in what higher education trains our citizens for. More students in a field = more potential workers = lower wages. Pushing women into STEM is in their best interests first. As a side effect, possibly there will be some women who get into it and are satisfied but there are also women who get pushed into it and find it completely contrary to what they want out of life.

Why isn't there an equal push to get women into entrepreneurship? Why isn't there an equal push (anymore) to get women into positions of corporate leadership? That seemed to fizzle out entirely over the past decade. They want women workers but not women leaders. This is of course not universally true but I find that interesting.

Some women have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the modern Western "career woman" model, just like some men have been deeply dissatisfied with the "play nice with the group" structure of school. What this boils down to is we have corporate interests dictating what "should" be learned in order to maximize the potential of their own future workforce. Instead of an educational system that seeks to maximize the output, happiness, and fortitude of its students by offering paths that best suit the student, we have an educational system with a vested interest in creating cookie-cutter output for corporations.

We "teach to the test" instead of testing the student's innate talents. If the student has a significant shortcoming or learning disability, it's irrelevant as long as they can pass the same tests as their peers. This creates excellent drones but terrible citizens.
 
Last edited:

hariseldon

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
2,503
3,480
285
So.. time for the long post in response to @share but I'll just start with a small snippet

@i_am_ben and @matt404au - I'm not sure I was attempting to show that affirmative action for girls was necessarily the problem, rather I was just illustrating the situation with some of my own experiences and suggesting that the demographics of teaching have created a hostile environment for male teaching staff, which in itself has led to a certain level of groupthink and an environment which is not suited to male students. I'm not of the view it's any kind of conspiracy, but I do think it's something that I would like to see fixed.


So - response to @share https://www.neogaf.com/threads/white-males-are-recieve-minority-status-at-colleges.1469803/page-3#post-253666250 --

First of all, you've got 'citation needed' for parts of my post. I think I pointed out in https://www.neogaf.com/threads/white-males-are-recieve-minority-status-at-colleges.1469803/post-253666360 a little bit of why I didn't include citations, in that to do it correctly, properly determining whether each citation is truly valid, and to critique it in full, would be the level of effort required for a large piece of work for university. It's something that tends to be misused in forum discussions, in that people tend to dig up references that support their position, without properly analysing whether they're any good (and yes they may be academic, but that doesn't guarantee validity unless you check the counter-arguments made by others). What they do tend to do is confer a certain authority on the person using them, as most people don't actually check the references. Another problem tends to be that people will recite bits of the studies without context, which leads to text which is hard to parse, and which isn't wholly relevant to the discussion without a bit of further expansion (and I think that has happened a little bit here) - I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter @share, rather than what the studies have to say, I consider that to be the more interesting conversation. I'm not going to in this case, I'll instead focus on the written text, for the sake of brevity.

It seems we differ in approach, where you have taken an approach somewhere in the region of a literary survey, where I have instead chosen to discuss my own experiences in the field, my own opinions, etc. My approach is not academic, but I don't think its lack of academic content makes it any less valid - there is a certain groupthink on some topics in academia (as demonstrated nicely by the chaps who recently submitted joke studies and got them published) which ignores those practicing in the field, a complaint I hear a great deal from teachers, where the ideas put forward by academics become law as defined by people with little knowledge of either the original study or the field of education itself.

You seem to be of the opinion that I said that play is outlawed. This is not the argument I was making, and if it came over in that way this is my error. The intended argument is that play in recess is policed in a way which is counter to the tendencies of boys, natural tendencies which you will see play out in every species. I can't speak for America, but in British schools, any incident that comes up as a result of rough play gets treated in the manner of HR getting involved in an incident at work, blowing it out of proportion into a distressing incident for boys requiring conversations about stuff which girls tend to handle better. Because it is administered by women, it's tailored towards women.

In my classes, the students had previously been in an environment with a female teacher who disliked boys. The girls did fine, but the boys were being told off for every little thing, in public. By changing the approach, I was able to improve the outcomes, both in learning and behaviour. I created a structured environment by on day one discussing with the kids what kind of environment they felt would be best for them, which together we worked into a set of clear rules about how to respect each other and their environment. Those rules were enforced with care and consideration for the needs of each student. My students behaved better for me, and for other teachers, as a result. Their self-control improved, etc.

Really the point is, children are not required to play in school. In fact, they shouldn't (in my opinion). School is the place children go to learn. Recess is there in elementary school as a way to encourage phsyical activity in chilhood for the well researched benefits in the long term[7]. But as the children get older (middle school and highschool) they can play on their own time. If you give children the ability to play whenever they want, when they want, it is a well documented catalyst to further disobedience and all of the negative social downsides from all of my cited sources.
I find this really quite a troubling position, sorry to say, and likely based on perhaps a misunderstanding of children and their needs. Play, in all species, has a purpose in social and psychological development as much as in physical development, a place to practice skills and knowledge acquired elsewhere, to put ideas into practice, etc. This goes through adolescence, because they're not fully-formed yet. I do suspect this part of your post might come from misunderstanding my post as believing that everything should be play - note that I use elements of play to disguise learning (I built a program to do times tables where the kids would have a computer each and answer questions, putting them on a leaderboard which would go up on the projector in the classroom - more points for harder questions or for questions they'd previously struggled with - this was very effective - it also produced a matrix for me to indicate their trouble areas, to work on angles I had them guide each other through an obstacle course blindfolded using angles to direct, so as to build the basic foundations) but not as the be-all-end-all.

Your second part is also slightly mis-informed re the intent of my post, and also contains some troubling ideas.

Coping skills come at a different pace for different individuals. In general they should be developed at home, but of course this is not always done, with some parents lacking them themselves and thus not passing them onto their children, which is where school should fill the gap. I would acknowledge that perhaps I formulated my point badly or perhaps too quickly, given I threw this together while I was at work, but I do consider that we learn coping strategies throughout life, but that may be part of my bias as an individual with autism who does not naturally have certain skills, and thus has had to improve my human skills over many years.

school is not about "nuturing individuals to become the best they can" its a much more simple, and not as kind reason. America wants (and any country wants) a skilled workforce to contribute to the economy, reduce crime, and export goods and services[9]. That's why public education is free in the United States, because otherwise child labor would be rampant and we would have a much less skilled workforce (history). The second somewhat more 'genuine' reason for education is to teach people the basic skills and knowledge of things. Notice how broad that is? That's intentional. School teaches you many things you would never plan on using in real life (biology, higher level math and science, etc.) because America wants you to pursue STEM careers (for the reasons listed earlier) since competition among nations is now more than ever largely based around scientific advancement and finding the new technology to hold up your enemies before they do. Everyone is always in some kind of arms race behind the scenes, research on new weapons, computers, ships, planes, etc. etc. is always happening, and America needs as many engineers, computer scientists, nuclear engineers, etc. to contribute new ideas and research to the country.
Your first presentation is a worryingly utilitarian view of the purpose of education. I don't like it, and that's subjective. I regard the idea that we are solely here for the purpose of serving business no better than the Spartans raising children solely to learn the art of war, or indeed of raising children solely for slavery, as was likely the fate of children of slave populations all through history. While they get more creature comforts for their efforts, one has to question whether they are truly free if we say that the sole purpose of education is to indoctrinate them for this semi-slave state.

In my view, a good education will expose each child to a range of things which will spark the interest of the individual, enabling them to make the most of their talents. We teach things that not all will use, so they can decide whether or not they will use them. If we don't teach them, how will they ever know whether that thing is relevant or not. One interesting thing is that private (expensive) schools put far more effort into soft skills, interpersonal skills, debating, etc where state schools, being run in a more utilitarian fashion, focus more on passing exams, to the detriment of the student.

A good education system will work to enhance social mobility by ensuring that each student can fulfil his potential, which itself is beneficial to society by creating more competition at every level, without which bad ideas and practices can calicify as a ruling-class, never challenged, becomes lazy. A good education system will have a better chance of producing great men/women because the tools through which such greatness can be created are offered to a larger number of individuals, improving the odds.

A strong society is not just comprised of workers in industry. A strong society, one which lasts, will export its culture, its ideals, its technology, its philosophical concepts, its academia, as well as its products. It will project military force to back up those other tools of power, but ultimately for a balanced maintenance of power you need a range of tools at your disposal. To that end, society must produce artists, scientists, tacticians, inventors, as well as labourers for the jobs of work demanded by the economy.

Re true nature, it's true that a person's nature can be subverted on some level, as seen in North Korea or Sparta, but it's also true that the vast majority of human society and history has certain constants. A certain level of oppression will create a real problem, and reduce the desire of an individual to participate in the oppressing society. If a boy cannot be a boy, what can he be? If we denounce everything about him that pertains to boyhood then one must argue that yes we are outlawing boyhood, and trying to turn boys into girls, which can only ever lead to harm, since that is not their nature (and we have a few individuals here who could offer a more eloquent defence of the need to be able to express one's gender than I have managed to do).

I think you've gone a bit reducto ad absurdium re true nature, there is a happy medium, and for me, that is allowing a child to behave according to their gender, and not set the behavioural standard according to girls, as that does boys a huge disservice.

I'll be honest, on first reading, your post seemed more relevant than it does on second reading, where you seem to have picked a couple of phrases within my post and decided to dissect those, without due consideration for the whole, while assuming that cherry-picked references render experience irrelevant, and I'm not sure I can argue in favour of such an approach. Professionals are constantly subject to the whims of people doing precisely that, and this has been to the detriment of teaching, and has led to teachers leaving the industry, and to boys being failed abjectly by a teaching system no longer designed with their interests at heart.

PS apologies this post is probably not the best - getting a free minute of peace and quiet is proving quite challenging so I've had to put snippets together in notepad so this may end up a bit disjointed.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,085
15,448
665
USA
dunpachi.com
So.. time for the long post in response to @share but I'll just start with a small snippet

@i_am_ben and @matt404au - I'm not sure I was attempting to show that affirmative action for girls was necessarily the problem, rather I was just illustrating the situation with some of my own experiences and suggesting that the demographics of teaching have created a hostile environment for male teaching staff, which in itself has led to a certain level of groupthink and an environment which is not suited to male students. I'm not of the view it's any kind of conspiracy, but I do think it's something that I would like to see fixed.


So - response to @share https://www.neogaf.com/threads/white-males-are-recieve-minority-status-at-colleges.1469803/page-3#post-253666250 --

First of all, you've got 'citation needed' for parts of my post. I think I pointed out in https://www.neogaf.com/threads/white-males-are-recieve-minority-status-at-colleges.1469803/post-253666360 a little bit of why I didn't include citations, in that to do it correctly, properly determining whether each citation is truly valid, and to critique it in full, would be the level of effort required for a large piece of work for university. It's something that tends to be misused in forum discussions, in that people tend to dig up references that support their position, without properly analysing whether they're any good (and yes they may be academic, but that doesn't guarantee validity unless you check the counter-arguments made by others). What they do tend to do is confer a certain authority on the person using them, as most people don't actually check the references. Another problem tends to be that people will recite bits of the studies without context, which leads to text which is hard to parse, and which isn't wholly relevant to the discussion without a bit of further expansion (and I think that has happened a little bit here) - I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter @share, rather than what the studies have to say, I consider that to be the more interesting conversation. I'm not going to in this case, I'll instead focus on the written text, for the sake of brevity.

It seems we differ in approach, where you have taken an approach somewhere in the region of a literary survey, where I have instead chosen to discuss my own experiences in the field, my own opinions, etc. My approach is not academic, but I don't think its lack of academic content makes it any less valid - there is a certain groupthink on some topics in academia (as demonstrated nicely by the chaps who recently submitted joke studies and got them published) which ignores those practicing in the field, a complaint I hear a great deal from teachers, where the ideas put forward by academics become law as defined by people with little knowledge of either the original study or the field of education itself.

You seem to be of the opinion that I said that play is outlawed. This is not the argument I was making, and if it came over in that way this is my error. The intended argument is that play in recess is policed in a way which is counter to the tendencies of boys, natural tendencies which you will see play out in every species. I can't speak for America, but in British schools, any incident that comes up as a result of rough play gets treated in the manner of HR getting involved in an incident at work, blowing it out of proportion into a distressing incident for boys requiring conversations about stuff which girls tend to handle better. Because it is administered by women, it's tailored towards women.

In my classes, the students had previously been in an environment with a female teacher who disliked boys. The girls did fine, but the boys were being told off for every little thing, in public. By changing the approach, I was able to improve the outcomes, both in learning and behaviour. I created a structured environment by on day one discussing with the kids what kind of environment they felt would be best for them, which together we worked into a set of clear rules about how to respect each other and their environment. Those rules were enforced with care and consideration for the needs of each student. My students behaved better for me, and for other teachers, as a result. Their self-control improved, etc.



I find this really quite a troubling position, sorry to say, and likely based on perhaps a misunderstanding of children and their needs. Play, in all species, has a purpose in social and psychological development as much as in physical development, a place to practice skills and knowledge acquired elsewhere, to put ideas into practice, etc. This goes through adolescence, because they're not fully-formed yet. I do suspect this part of your post might come from misunderstanding my post as believing that everything should be play - note that I use elements of play to disguise learning (I built a program to do times tables where the kids would have a computer each and answer questions, putting them on a leaderboard which would go up on the projector in the classroom - more points for harder questions or for questions they'd previously struggled with - this was very effective - it also produced a matrix for me to indicate their trouble areas, to work on angles I had them guide each other through an obstacle course blindfolded using angles to direct, so as to build the basic foundations) but not as the be-all-end-all.

Your second part is also slightly mis-informed re the intent of my post, and also contains some troubling ideas.

Coping skills come at a different pace for different individuals. In general they should be developed at home, but of course this is not always done, with some parents lacking them themselves and thus not passing them onto their children, which is where school should fill the gap. I would acknowledge that perhaps I formulated my point badly or perhaps too quickly, given I threw this together while I was at work, but I do consider that we learn coping strategies throughout life, but that may be part of my bias as an individual with autism who does not naturally have certain skills, and thus has had to improve my human skills over many years.



Your first presentation is a worryingly utilitarian view of the purpose of education. I don't like it, and that's subjective. I regard the idea that we are solely here for the purpose of serving business no better than the Spartans raising children solely to learn the art of war, or indeed of raising children solely for slavery, as was likely the fate of children of slave populations all through history. While they get more creature comforts for their efforts, one has to question whether they are truly free if we say that the sole purpose of education is to indoctrinate them for this semi-slave state.

In my view, a good education will expose each child to a range of things which will spark the interest of the individual, enabling them to make the most of their talents. We teach things that not all will use, so they can decide whether or not they will use them. If we don't teach them, how will they ever know whether that thing is relevant or not. One interesting thing is that private (expensive) schools put far more effort into soft skills, interpersonal skills, debating, etc where state schools, being run in a more utilitarian fashion, focus more on passing exams, to the detriment of the student.

A good education system will work to enhance social mobility by ensuring that each student can fulfil his potential, which itself is beneficial to society by creating more competition at every level, without which bad ideas and practices can calicify as a ruling-class, never challenged, becomes lazy. A good education system will have a better chance of producing great men/women because the tools through which such greatness can be created are offered to a larger number of individuals, improving the odds.

A strong society is not just comprised of workers in industry. A strong society, one which lasts, will export its culture, its ideals, its technology, its philosophical concepts, its academia, as well as its products. It will project military force to back up those other tools of power, but ultimately for a balanced maintenance of power you need a range of tools at your disposal. To that end, society must produce artists, scientists, tacticians, inventors, as well as labourers for the jobs of work demanded by the economy.

Re true nature, it's true that a person's nature can be subverted on some level, as seen in North Korea or Sparta, but it's also true that the vast majority of human society and history has certain constants. A certain level of oppression will create a real problem, and reduce the desire of an individual to participate in the oppressing society. If a boy cannot be a boy, what can he be? If we denounce everything about him that pertains to boyhood then one must argue that yes we are outlawing boyhood, and trying to turn boys into girls, which can only ever lead to harm, since that is not their nature (and we have a few individuals here who could offer a more eloquent defence of the need to be able to express one's gender than I have managed to do).

I think you've gone a bit reducto ad absurdium re true nature, there is a happy medium, and for me, that is allowing a child to behave according to their gender, and not set the behavioural standard according to girls, as that does boys a huge disservice.

I'll be honest, on first reading, your post seemed more relevant than it does on second reading, where you seem to have picked a couple of phrases within my post and decided to dissect those, without due consideration for the whole, while assuming that cherry-picked references render experience irrelevant, and I'm not sure I can argue in favour of such an approach. Professionals are constantly subject to the whims of people doing precisely that, and this has been to the detriment of teaching, and has led to teachers leaving the industry, and to boys being failed abjectly by a teaching system no longer designed with their interests at heart.

PS apologies this post is probably not the best - getting a free minute of peace and quiet is proving quite challenging so I've had to put snippets together in notepad so this may end up a bit disjointed.
The only thing I can say in thanks for this amazing post is that I'm glad teachers like you exist and I hope all your students thrive.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,384
1,580
935
The overall issue -- and this is a standpoint that acknowledges the issues faced by men and women -- is that corporations have a lot of say in what higher education trains our citizens for. More students in a field = more potential workers = lower wages. Pushing women into STEM is in their best interests first. As a side effect, possibly there will be some women who get into it and are satisfied but there are also women who get pushed into it and find it completely contrary to what they want out of life.
People feel this way about their careers all of the time.

Reasons why we want more people in stem:

- Greater tax base on much higher wages.
- STEM jobs are growing at 17%, while other occupations are growing at 9.8%. 2.4 million stem jobs are going unfulfilled this year, and there is a greater need for it each passing year given what we know about the future of our society becoming more high tech in every way.
- Less reliance on foreign workers.
- More innovation for companies.

So there's a reason why everyone pushes STEM.

Why isn't there an equal push to get women into entrepreneurship? Why isn't there an equal push (anymore) to get women into positions of corporate leadership? That seemed to fizzle out entirely over the past decade. They want women workers but not women leaders. This is of course not universally true but I find that interesting.
Because there is. And having women in leadership positions is heavily pushed, remember that CA board of executives requirement thing.
 
Last edited:

hariseldon

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
2,503
3,480
285
The only thing I can say in thanks for this amazing post is that I'm glad teachers like you exist and I hope all your students thrive.
Very kind but there was plenty wrong with my teaching - I did eventually conclude that I was a better software developer than a teacher. This was in part a result of the hostile environment for male staff, but also in part because of a creeping realisation of my own inadequacies in the field vs some of the incredibly talented people out there. In general, I hugely enjoyed it, it was one of the most fun thing I've ever done, but I also knew that it was better for the kids to be left in the hands of someone more capable than myself. Teaching is REALLY FUCKING HARD. I have enormous respect for those who do it.

Oh I did just want to add one thing - I don't want to give the impression that female teachers are incapable of teaching boys because that is simply not true. I had one personal experience of a female teacher who was a pretty hard-core feminist who really understood me as a kid, better than anyone else ever did, and knew exactly which buttons to push to get the best out of me. I'd say I owe most of the success I've had in my life to her helping me to dig myself out of a pretty nasty hole I was in at that time, because after my 2.5 years out of school I was in a VERY dark place.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,085
15,448
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Very kind but there was plenty wrong with my teaching - I did eventually conclude that I was a better software developer than a teacher. This was in part a result of the hostile environment for male staff, but also in part because of a creeping realisation of my own inadequacies in the field vs some of the incredibly talented people out there. In general, I hugely enjoyed it, it was one of the most fun thing I've ever done, but I also knew that it was better for the kids to be left in the hands of someone more capable than myself. Teaching is REALLY FUCKING HARD. I have enormous respect for those who do it.

Oh I did just want to add one thing - I don't want to give the impression that female teachers are incapable of teaching boys because that is simply not true. I had one personal experience of a female teacher who was a pretty hard-core feminist who really understood me as a kid, better than anyone else ever did, and knew exactly which buttons to push to get the best out of me. I'd say I owe most of the success I've had in my life to her helping me to dig myself out of a pretty nasty hole I was in at that time, because after my 2.5 years out of school I was in a VERY dark place.
I have done enough teaching myself to know that it isn't about getting everything right. It's about tailoring everything you can in order to help your students thrive. Passion has become a greater commodity than raw knowledge. Leadership has become a greater commodity than the ability to supervise/manage.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,456
317
1,025
@i_am_ben and @matt404au - I'm not sure I was attempting to show that affirmative action for girls was necessarily the problem, rather I was just illustrating the situation with some of my own experiences and suggesting that the demographics of teaching have created a hostile environment for male teaching staff, which in itself has led to a certain level of groupthink and an environment which is not suited to male students. I'm not of the view it's any kind of conspiracy, but I do think it's something that I would like to see fixed.
I wasn't suggesting you were. Merely pushing back against Matt's identity driven politics.

Truth is, overall, girls have been consistently outperforming boys since some of the earliest educational studies conducted over a hundred years ago. This is not a new phenomenon. Heck, its not even something that has happened in the last few decades. Things were not better for boys back in the "good old days" when there was roughhousing and there were more male teachers. Boys were doing worse than girls then and they're doing worse than girls now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving results and tailoring programs for boys, but the idea that 1) affirmative action is to blame and 2) we just need to go back to the 'good old days' needs to be dispelled.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,369
11,800
930
Australia
I wasn't suggesting you were. Merely pushing back against Matt's identity driven politics.

Truth is, overall, girls have been consistently outperforming boys since some of the earliest educational studies conducted over a hundred years ago. This is not a new phenomenon. Heck, its not even something that has happened in the last few decades. Things were not better for boys back in the "good old days" when there was roughhousing and there were more male teachers. Boys were doing worse than girls then and they're doing worse than girls now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving results and tailoring programs for boys, but the idea that 1) affirmative action is to blame and 2) we just need to go back to the 'good old days' needs to be dispelled.
lol @ you of all people accusing me of identity politics.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you change the system to suit the feminine learning style, it logically follows that the masculine learning style will be adversely affected. It’s a well documented problem and I suggest Christina Hoff Sommers and Warren Farrell’s books.
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,107
512
430
Reading, Berkshire
Which also has drastically changed in the last decades. Women are outpacing men n education since 25 years.
But the system that makes it harder for boys has been around since basically forever…if anything it's changed to be more accommodating to boys with the inclusion of physical activities, field trips, outside class learning, etc. Boys are the group who struggle with indoor learning/sitting still/rote learning methods

And if I understand how American schools are funded, I'm willing to bet studies would show the underfunding of public schools and mass privatization hurts boys more than girls.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,085
15,448
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Okay but then you can't turn around and complain that men have it hard and no one is willing to help…
I was being facetious. The whole point of school is to "help" and since we already tailor that school experience to help all sorts of groups based on their needs, it's nothing out of the ordinary to expect the same thing for males.
 

share

Neo Member
Dec 17, 2018
4
2
75
Alright sorry for taking so long to respond @hariseldon ! Alot of what you said I don't disagree with, and much of your post was not entirely debatable since it's your own subjective views, so I won't really be heavily touching on those portions to an extent.

Second, thank you for the references, I won't be doing that as doing it well takes more time than I have.
That is understandable, but excluding references kind of bars you from making any solid claims. By that I mean you can't say that "coping skills are developed through your life rather than only in childhood and adolescence", since thats a solid claim, and would require a citation. You can really only work on conjecture if you don't have citations...
First of all, you've got 'citation needed' for parts of my post. I think I pointed out in https://www.neogaf.com/threads/whit...ity-status-at-colleges.1469803/post-253666360 a little bit of why I didn't include citations, in that to do it correctly, properly determining whether each citation is truly valid, and to critique it in full, would be the level of effort required for a large piece of work for university. It's something that tends to be misused in forum discussions, in that people tend to dig up references that support their position, without properly analysing whether they're any good (and yes they may be academic, but that doesn't guarantee validity unless you check the counter-arguments made by others). What they do tend to do is confer a certain authority on the person using them, as most people don't actually check the references. Another problem tends to be that people will recite bits of the studies without context, which leads to text which is hard to parse, and which isn't wholly relevant to the discussion without a bit of further expansion (and I think that has happened a little bit here) - I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter @share, rather than what the studies have to say, I consider that to be the more interesting conversation. I'm not going to in this case, I'll instead focus on the written text, for the sake of brevity.
I agree that, in general, freebase discussion is much more fun and entertaining than a analytical academic style cut and dry citation stuffed essay. I really enjoy having philosophilical discussions specifically because there is generally no right or wrong answer, no stats to bring up, just a fun debate about different outlooks on life. This however cannot translate well to a topic in which we are making claims about specific facts and extending them towards real world implications.
My approach is not academic, but I don't think its lack of academic content makes it any less valid
You are welcome to think that, however in debates about real world things, with real world implications, I think it is important to get a solid foundation of real world facts to build on. I find that sometimes, people may speak anecdotally about what they've experienced, or talk about what they think is most likely happening, and while what they are saying could definitly be the case, it is very hard for me personally to just assume others claims are correct. I need to see evidence or facts about every hard claim, and thats what I try to do in my own essays. Right now I am speaking generally, not making any claims and only speaking conversationally. However when I enter a debate that begins to draw on facts and evidence to support arguments, every claim needs a source. At least, that's what I strive for.
I find this really quite a troubling position, sorry to say, and likely based on perhaps a misunderstanding of children and their needs. Play, in all species, has a purpose in social and psychological development as much as in physical development, a place to practice skills and knowledge acquired elsewhere, to put ideas into practice, etc. This goes through adolescence, because they're not fully-formed yet. I do suspect this part of your post might come from misunderstanding my post as believing that everything should be play
I also agree, as do my citations, that play is an important part of child development. I think play in an environment for children (elementary school for example) is important, as that is when many of our social skills actually shape, but as we grow older and begin to go to middle and high school, the play that takes place is not as impactful for development (my previous citations) and the parents and children have more freedom to mediate their own play time between eachother outside of educational hours. I simply feel as though it is not the job of the education system to get children to play together once they are at a certain age, when it stops to become a part of their education and development and begins to just be playing around. I think that what you said about implementing education into play is a great idea, just not "play for the sake of play".
Coping skills come at a different pace for different individuals. In general they should be developed at home, but of course this is not always done, with some parents lacking them themselves and thus not passing them onto their children, which is where school should fill the gap. I would acknowledge that perhaps I formulated my point badly or perhaps too quickly, given I threw this together while I was at work, but I do consider that we learn coping strategies throughout life, but that may be part of my bias as an individual with autism who does not naturally have certain skills, and thus has had to improve my human skills over many years.
Coping skills are not something that should develop only at home. They should (and are) being developed everywhere during every interaction (see previous citations) including the home. I don't disagree with your statement, infact play plays a heavy roll in coping skill development. When you are playing and go too rough, you learn to create that boundry, when you are playing and someone takes your toy, you cope with it in different ways, whether anger, or agitation, or sadness. These are the coping skills I am talking about, and by punishing kids who get aggressive, they learn that coping with their emotions through aggression is a bad idea. Most of our coping skills are learned and set in childhood, much of them are as you said passed by parents, and much of them are also learned from interactions with other children in play. They are not, however, learned or changed through adulthood. I think that you may just have a different perspective being that your in a unique situation.
Your first presentation is a worryingly utilitarian view of the purpose of education. I don't like it, and that's subjective.
Absolutely. This just has to do with my philosophical outlook on life, which is also influenced by my deterministic point of view. I can talk about it but like you said its totally subjective.
I regard the idea that we are solely here for the purpose of serving business no better than the Spartans raising children solely to learn the art of war, or indeed of raising children solely for slavery, as was likely the fate of children of slave populations all through history. While they get more creature comforts for their efforts, one has to question whether they are truly free if we say that the sole purpose of education is to indoctrinate them for this semi-slave state.
While I understand where your coming from, I think you might have extrapolated my post a bit, or I may have not been clear in my delivery. The US government made a decision because its outcome directly favors it. That does not mean that I think the total robotic perspective the legislators or president had on the issue is necessarily the correct one, it's just explaining why a decision was made. I definitly think education servers a much higher purpose than simply replacing cogs in the business and government (to a certain extent).
I think you've gone a bit reducto ad absurdium re true nature, there is a happy medium, and for me, that is allowing a child to behave according to their gender, and not set the behavioural standard according to girls, as that does boys a huge disservice.
Well the thing is that, in the context of that discussion of objective facts and claims, you interjected a subjective opinion. Of course I went obsurd, but it was simply to demonstrate the point that while everything else discussed can be eventually fleshed out to black and white through evidence and understanding, the idea of a "true nature" that we should allow children to act as is itself somewhat obsurd. We have constructed a society, with a language and social norms, with laws and ideas that direclty contradict that of our animalistic ancestry. So trying to balance our animalistic desires with the desires of the society seems a bit rediculous. Really in my opinion our purpose does not have to be progress society, and in my opinion dismantling society and becoming more animalistic is not in itself regressing. I'm not saying I want that, but both are progress in their own ways. But to try to balance them and make everyone happy is a lose-lose situation. In that scenario we are never able to express our animalistic programming (such as on-demand sexual gratification (mating), violence and agression, etc.), but we are also never allowing the desires of the civilized society to be met, since the civilized society demands equality, a standard of behaviour, calm rational discussion, etc.
I'll be honest, on first reading, your post seemed more relevant than it does on second reading, where you seem to have picked a couple of phrases within my post and decided to dissect those, without due consideration for the whole, while assuming that cherry-picked references render experience irrelevant, and I'm not sure I can argue in favour of such an approach. Professionals are constantly subject to the whims of people doing precisely that, and this has been to the detriment of teaching, and has led to teachers leaving the industry, and to boys being failed abjectly by a teaching system no longer designed with their interests at heart.
So I think the main reason I cherry picked your statements to choose to dissect is because much of what you say is totally subjective. In the context of my post, the purpose was to stay as rigidly factual as I can reasonably stay, and thus trying to argue with your subjective view of education and the purpose of it all seems foolish. I also think that you are on a very dangerous path in your logic, specifically with your view that experience is important. In reality, just because you experienced something doesn't mean it is any indicator of a trend, and has no statistical importance. Combine your experience with the experience of a large enough random sample and now we have the basis for evidence of a trend. You have experienced things, unique from everyone else in the world, so with that being said your experiences alone constitute nothing in a debate. This may sound harsh, but you if I said that my experiences contradicted yours it doesnt mean its a stalemate, its simply that none of our experiences matter unless they are compiled together into data. I also disagree with your view that I "cherry-picked" references, in reality I chose study's that demonstrate my claims are factual, not by ignoring contradicting studys but by researching BEFORE I make the claims. If I were to write up my essay and all the claims first, then find sources after, I would agree, however I did my research, formulated my argument, shot some parts down and confirmed others, and compiled it into a post against your own.

I would love to hear from you again, thanks for the discussion! (and happy holidays).
 
Last edited: