<p>i think we can all agree that women are bad drivers :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are not in crisis because we choose not to see them as such.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. Some writers seem to think that raising kids ought to be easy and if not, there's a crisis.</p>
<p>I think there is a serious, complex social problem that results in high criminality (and therefore low college attendance and performance) among disadvantaged boys of all races, and especially black, Latino, and poor Chinese boys. I also think the school system is neither the source nor the main solution to that problem.</p>
<p>The rest of the rhetoric -- call it "boy crisis" or "gender gap" -- is a bunch of neocon whining aimed at reversing feminist-inspired education reforms of the past 30 years. That's why Bush's Secretary of Education is weighing in -- her statements are not surprising in the least. I think it's a bunch of hooey.</p>
<p>It looks to me like the majority of those posting on this thread are women (moms) and only a minority are men (dads).</p>
<p>It's amusing that this thread mirrors the subject it concerns: the fact that women are more engaged than men in pursuing educational achievement. </p>
<p>This list is a microscopic view into a broader reality. Perhaps one reason why boys are falling in education is that men are disappearing from educating or having a role in education. </p>
<p>You can say this has "always been true". But what's different in that in the past twenty years schools have come to expect parents (mostly moms) to play an increasing role in education. Kids now have four hours of homework each DAY while they are at HS; their assignments require complex skills that teachers increasingly expect parents to be teaching at home. And who are those increasingly involved and burdened parents? You got it--women/mothers.</p>
<p>Women are more involved in this thread because moms are doing more than dads in educating their children. And beyond the home, it is just the same story. Most teachers in K-12 are females as are most school counselors and school psychologists and resource specialists. In addition, most of those conducting research on education are women. Most of those developing new teaching methods and curriculum are women. </p>
<p>I have been speaking about K-12 but you can find the same trend moving into higher education. At this point, women are quickly increasing their representation among college and professional school faculty. Many fields already have more female assistant professors. We are now "importing" (from other countries) a large number of our male students and profesors in the traditional male fields of science and math. If we stopped doing that, women would probably be advancing even faster.</p>
<p>Where are the men on this list? And where are the men in the role of educating our children?</p>
<p>ivyalumni:</p>
<p>I cannot speak for others the way seem to be able to do, but I can say that, for myself, I try to avoid threads when the underlying premise of the thread is advocacy scholarship. I try to avoid research (though am not always successful) in areas where I will run into advocates who are not interested in data that contradict an emotional attachment to a particular position.</p>
<p>This is one such thread.</p>
<p>As for educating my own children, most of that has fallen to me in my household because my wife travels extensively.</p>
<p>I'm a little late joining this discussion, but wanted to respond to the tangent about women being admitted to MIT at a higher rate than men. Matt McGann (admissions officer at MIT) posted a blog during the 2005-2006 admissions cycle that basically laid out the stats for men vs women, supporting the thesis that women who apply to MIT are a much more qualified group dur to the self-selection that occurs. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the blog again to post a link.</p>
<p>I think this whole thread ignores one very critical point.</p>
<p>We need to run some statistical relationship runs true once we account for the majors men and women major in.</p>
<p>At Berkeley, all the hard fields--Engineering, Science, Math--are very heavily male. These majors often have an average gpa of 2.7-3.0. All the easier majors, such as History, Political science, [something]-studies are dominated by women.</p>
<p>I think once you balance that out, men will do the same if not better.</p>
<p>your categorization as "easy" and "hard" is based on a biased supposition. people have different skills and i can find science easy while u find it hard.
scientifically there are many thigns that vary in the human body in women and men which wouldnt surprise me if it had a correlation with specific skills or interests. to say that women choose the "easy" majors and men the hard ones is just plain dumb. i dont think there is an inherent level of like mediocrity in the sexes that makes one choose the "easy" way. although some people have said that women are not made for science (harvard president), there is not really much evidence to support that. i think there are many factors that affect their interest.</p>
<p>sjmom: </p>
<p>Your point about male bashing is a good one. Ridiculing men and boys is now as acceptable as bimbo and blonde jokes once were on the Ed Sullivan show. Ever seen the line of girls' wear with the cute little bunny and the slogans like "Boys are Stupid" or "Boys are Smelly"? I've seen girls wearing these at school and no one bats an eye. I wonder if boys would get away with wearing a shirt that said, "Girls are Stupid"?</p>
<p>JHS: </p>
<p>How come when people advocate for boys it's "whining" but when they advocate for girls it's "championing?" You don't have to be a neocon to want to see an effort in schools to help young boys achieve in areas where they need help so they have a better chance of later graduating high school and have the option of going to college. Schools don't HAVE to be the source of the factors causing the gender achievement gap in order to play a role in ameliorating it. And schools don't have to be the MAIN solution, but they can certainly be part of the solution. </p>
<p>Why is it so hard to imagine that the educational system could be tweaked to help boys without undermining girls? Why the assumption that education reform that helped girls has to be "reversed?" Why can't education reform simply be added to help boys who need it? Don't we have universities jam-packed with PhDs in education who could devise some teaching strategies that help struggling boys find success, without hurting girls? Maybe the effort could become more politically palatable for you if those strategies turned out to not only help boys, but also girls who are struggling. </p>
<p>One small, highly condensed example: an elementary principal in a Boulder,CO school looked at state writing scores that showed boys performing 14 points below girls in one grade. She decide to try something new. She asked teachers to read the book, "The Mind of Boys" and use some boy-friendly strategies during reading lessons (role playing the characters for example). On the next state writing test, girls in the grade still scored higher than the boys, but the boys' scores rose to where the gap was only 5 points, not 14. It did not even require new money to make the effort.</p>
<p>cheers: </p>
<pre><code>I and everyone on the planet would agree that your boys, living in a privileged, two-parent, professional family and attending an excellent 150-year old private boys' school, would not, despite any academic struggles or behavior problems, ever be considered part of a "crisis" for society whether you choose to see it as such or not.
</code></pre>
<p>Ivyalumni: </p>
<p>Very insightful comments. Men are missing in action in the lives of failing boys. Divorce and absent dads. Unwed mothers and disappeared dads. American men who have not been involved in the lives of their sons need a wake-up call. That's probably one reason why Newsweek thought the boy crisis piece was important enough to put on the cover.</p>
<p>Sorry, a person with a 4.0 in Engineering is smarter than a person with a 4.0 in "asian-studies." Same for philosophy or political science.</p>
<p>There is a difference, but stating that one is inherently superior is easy to postulate giving the weight of evidence that shows that these hard majors are given more compensation in the work place and how much development in these fields advance humanity and technology.</p>
<p>Even ignoring the subsantive, intangible difference between the soft and hard majors, the "hard" majors are often graded most harshly at almost all schools versus "soft" majors. This alone can account for the difference between men and women, and a more rigorous statistical study will reveal that IMO.</p>
<p>jazzymom, you have a wonderful way of supporting the different needs of boys without bringing unnecessary emotion into the situation. It seems to me that American society has become a zero-sum game for the genders -- for one gender to do well it seems that the other must suffer. I find it very disappointing that the feminist movement, which began with such promise, has fostered this approach. I can't tell you the number of times a friend has said something like, "I'd vote for Ms. X because it's time we had a woman as President." I usually reply that I just want the best PERSON in office, regardless of gender. A person's gender should have nothing to do with their qualifications for a particular position. (As an aside, I tried to stick with female gynecologists for a while, but just have found that some male OB/Gyn's are a better fit for me.)</p>
<p>I think a good teacher tries to teach the child who is actually in front of him/her, not some idealized or generic student. Why is it so hard to find a way to reach boys that doesn't discourage them or put them in a place where they have to choose between academic success and popularity? Something has changed in the last 20 years which has really given girls a boost. Why can't some smart people figure out how that was done and do it for the boys, too?</p>
<p>again, just because they have a higher level in society nowadays doesnt mean a sicence major is smarter than another major. our perception of what is better has changed. before, it was the philosophers who were better,then painters along with musicians, now is science and mathematics, soon there will be others. to say that somehtinjg is superior is all an opinionated statement.</p>
<br>
<p>(As an aside, I tried to stick with female gynecologists for a while, but just have found that some male OB/Gyn's are a better fit for me.)</p>
<br>
<p>Well, I think that's the one time in which someone's gender might influence their ability to do the job. ;) You know, women actually have a more intuitive sense of what is normal.</p>
<p>i wonder what freud would think about this :)</p>
<p>jazzymom, I beg to differ. Within their own environments, their own schools, my boys have periodically been considered in 'crisis' by school teachers and staff--not especially in their traditional overseas boys' school, but in their elite co-ed American schools. I didn't consider them in 'crisis', but there were attempts to classify them as such inside these schools. </p>
<p>That school administrators would ever get into a panic about my boys or boys like them is part of what I call The Oprah Effect. </p>
<p>We all read the same newpaper stories and we all see the same news segments and in the end, larger society cannot help but adopt these 'crisis' causes as their own. Schools are hugely influenced by the 'fashionable' issues of the day--just ask about any teacher's convention.</p>
<p>They extrapolate the data and apply it to the situation if front of them. The widespread use of Ritalin in upper and middle class schools is proof positive of The Oprah effect. American teachers are insisting that boys sit still and concentrate--like their female classmates. Why? Girls are more compliant in the classroom. If it takes a psychiatric drug to make that happen with boys, so be it.</p>
<p>As clever as we all are, our ability to see beyond the lengths of our own arms is extremely limited. If the newspapers say boys are in crisis, pretty soon all boys are under the microscope. True, some Oprah issues have widespread societal implications--racial discrimination for example. The feminist movement is another example.</p>
<p>The only society-wide crisis that I see happening to boys is this: with the advent of fully co-ed universities and girls' super academic achievement, school administrators have not been able to maintain a separate outlook and expectation for boys. They have resorted to expecting boys to behave like girls--across the socio-economic classes.</p>
<p>The issue of failing academics among black and hispanic boys is primarily an issue of poverty and racism. In my opinion, a subtle change in gender outlook would be about forty ninth on the list of corrective measures for that problem.</p>
<p>I must admit, I grew up with four brothers and I work in an extremely male field, yet I did not realize the extent of male feminization until I raised two boys. This was my idiot observation: as toddlers, boys are initially interested in vehicles. The interest moves on to weapons about the age of three or four. Then boys pick up an interest in balls which translates to an interest in sports. They are also very interested in building things. Early on, their interest in sports combines with an interest in Maths and becomes an interest in sprots statistics--or statistics of any kind. They also like to blow things up given the opportunity. Men carry many of these interests to the grave.</p>
<p>At my basest level, I am minimally interested in most of the above. I could care less about the sword games or army men games or sports statistics--and I don't make an effort to fake that. None of my friends do either.</p>
<p>When my older son turned five, I turned to my husband and said, "I can't believe we have anything to talk about! Look at the roots of your being!" :eek:</p>
<p>He laughed. When you get down to it, modern Western men make a huge effort to partake in traditionally female interests. Their willingness to compromise is the reason we have so much to talk about. Men have made huge concessions on a basic level--though they haven't conceded their dominance in the workplace and the research labs.</p>
<p>As long as they continue to hold onto that dominance, I don't think there is cause for concern. They have it covered.</p>
<p>
Actually, my point was that having an OB/Gyn who was female did NOT make the experience any better. I have a wonderful Gyn. now who is a man who is probably a few years older than me. I actually found that a couple of female Gyn were somewhat condescending, but I think it was just bad luck.</p>
<p>Cheers, although I agree with much of what jazzymom says, I think she misunderstood your point about your sons. You seem to have an intuitive understanding of males. Your attitude is wonderful -- you seem to enjoy what makes them tick, and you don't act like they are dysfunctional or pathological. I think what's wrong with schools in the US is that boys are almost considered a pathogen. "If only they could be more like girls," the thinking seems to be. I prefer to enjoy all the characteristics that make them male, and have worked to bring out the best in my sons. I used to think that I'd be a better mother to girls (ballet, tea parties etc) but it turns out that -- like Jo in "Little Women" -- I just love boys!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry, a person with a 4.0 in Engineering is smarter than a person with a 4.0 in "asian-studies." Same for philosophy or political science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><em>bets you don't major in philosophy or political science</em></p>
<p>Not true. We may have to work a lot harder in engineering and the hard sciences, but I don't think a 4.0 in engineering shows more intelligence than a 4.0 in philosophy. Or vice versa. </p>
<p>Granted, "asian studies" and like fields tend to be newer and more influenced by political correctness, so I won't try to make an argument there,. One can most likely be made, but not by me since I don't understand the idea of asian studies at all. But engineers are not, all other things being equal, by default smarter than philosophers. </p>
<p>
Your point about male bashing is a good one. Ridiculing men and boys is now as acceptable as bimbo and blonde jokes once were on the Ed Sullivan show. Ever seen the line of girls' wear with the cute little bunny and the slogans like "Boys are Stupid" or "Boys are Smelly"? I've seen girls wearing these at school and no one bats an eye. I wonder if boys would get away with wearing a shirt that said, "Girls are Stupid"?
</p>
<p>"Girls can't drive." :-P</p>
<p>I shouldn't say that though. I can't drive either. </p>
<p>Cheers, a very insightful and largely fair assessment. Yes, we like to blow things up. Nuclear world domination! :)</p>
<p>Cheers:</p>
<p>Maybe I did misinterpret the use of "crisis" in your earlier post.<br>
As I read your latest post, I understood you to say that in your boys' schools, particularly in the co-ed American one, your sons' were labeled unnecessarily as being "in crisis" and that administrators were overreacting. You attribute their overreaction to the influence of media reports about boys in trouble. "Oprah" representing media attention in general, I take it. </p>
<p>I agree with you that the administrators were a bit silly to "go into a panic" over what? slipping grades? rowdy misbehavior? of your boys in comparison to others in the school. But that's the fault of the administrators and their narrow interpretation of appropriate boy behavior and as you said, the failure of schools to "define a separate outlook and expectation for boys." It may also be a factor that as an elite school, administrators tend to react strongly to seeing any students slipping away from the ability to grasp the brass ring --- an HYPS, top LAC type school. (Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong.) Their overreaction, however is not in my opinion the fault of the media for reporting on long-term trends that affect a much wider swath of American boys of all ethnic groups. </p>
<p>(BTW, out here in non-elite land, where there are 6 counselors to 3,000 students and the principal most likely doesn't even know the name of a particular kid who may be failing, parents would consider themselves pretty lucky just to get a phone call about slipping grades, much less a show of genuine concern. But that's off topic.)</p>
<p>You say that the problems in achievement for blacks and hispanic boys are primarily due to poverty, racism, singleparenthood etc. and I do not disagree with that. What is very obvious is that within that framework, boys are suffering failure at a much higher rate than girls. I could quote the stats again, but come on, how many times do the facts have to be laid out? How do you (or anybody) know what would help those boys most in school since the very attempt to look at the problem in a gender specific way is dismissed out of hand? Can we at least acknowledge that it would be useful for the think-tank education scholars to tackle that question instead of trying to prove that the gender gap doesn't really exist? </p>
<p>By the way, an interesting factoid according to the Census Bureau is that nationwide the annual high school dropout rate for black and white boys is now virtually identical. In an interview in Esquire, Joel Klein, chancellor of New York City schools, said, "In NYC, it's quite clearly a boy-girl thing. Eleven percent more women graduate than men, consistent across the major racial and ethnic groups. It's a huge number. That's a lot of kids."</p>
<p>I don't agree with the point of view that nothing should be done about the achievement gap until men no longer dominate top positions in business, government, research centers, etc. I don't understand the position that as long as men outnumber or outrank women in the highest levels of the workplace, there's no cause for concern about the education of boys who live on much lower rungs of the ladder, the majority of boys in this country.</p>
<p>Regardless of what many of you say, I believe this issue does have alot to do with society. </p>
<p>Just as one aspect, I can use my parents for example. My parents give me more freedom than my sister. They feel as if she can be taken advantage of, and that I can't (or atleast not to the same degree). With more freedom comes more oppurtunities to screw up. Also, for them it's ok if I make mediocre grades if I'm on, for instance, the varsity football team. My dad has always placed a huge emphasis on sports to me, but when it comes to my sister it becomes more of a focus on grades. And I know my family is not the only one that acts this way.</p>
<p>Edit: It's almost as if women are placed in a safer environment to grow up in. Being a male myself, I have no complaints about things like this. I believe mistakes are sometimes the best teachers, and if you aren't given enough freedom you won't be prepared to fail.</p>
<p>Zoogies - "Not true. We may have to work a lot harder in engineering and the hard sciences, but I don't think a 4.0 in engineering shows more intelligence than a 4.0 in philosophy. Or vice versa."</p>
<p>Umm, on average a 4.0 in Engineering shows significantly more intelligence than a 4.0 in virtually any humanities.</p>
<p>Engineering on average, has higher SAT scores, higher high school GPAs (this is true at UCs, I don't know about other schools), higher drop out rates, higher transfer (out of engineering) rates, lower college GPAs, and higher salaries upon graduation. </p>
<p>So basically this leads down a very clear path. Students who choose engineering are generally smarter, the major is generally harder and the marketplace reflects the fact the skills are generally harder to cultivate. </p>
<p>Regardless, purely on a statistical basis, your claim is incorrect. If a school has an average Engineering GPA of 2.8 and an average Liberal Arts GPA of 3.2, then clearly the Engineer at 4.0 will be a higher percentile than the Poli Sci major at 4.0. Trust me on this one, Engineering <em>always</em> has a lower GPA than Liberal Arts...</p>