NY Times: "At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust"

<p>How are you measuring intelligence, exactly? And again, my second paragraph basically said this isn't really an issue in this thread, but what is an issue is the results of the differences in grading practices. Do you disagree?</p>

<p>"How are you measuring intelligence, exactly?"</p>

<p>Well, we can use GPA, we can use SAT. Those aren't true measures of intelligence - but they correlate well enough to use them. In fact, I think colleges are relatively good at accepting the people with high levels of intelligence. IE: Harvard accepts higher intelligence people than Berkeley does.</p>

<p>"And again, my second paragraph basically said this isn't really an issue in this thread, but what is an issue is the results of the differences in grading practices. Do you disagree?"</p>

<p>Actually, the grading practices are an issue, but now how you would think.</p>

<p>Engineering - as a whole - has a significantly higher drop out/transfer out rate than other majors. That inherently means that come graduation time the average "scholastic ability" of the graduates is higher within the Engineering than other colleges. I believe scholastic ability correlates well with intelligence.</p>

<p>Many of you will not like this</a> article, and may find it offensive, but I think it does a pretty good job of explaining the real reason for this crisis.</p>

<p>Here's an excerpt:</p>

<p>
[quote]
[In 1964] there was no “boy crisis.” The girls made better grades, the boys better scores on standardized tests. There was no yawning gap.</p>

<p>In short, girls haven’t come up. They have always done well in school. Boys have gone down. Why?</p>

<p>I can guess. Boys are churning wads of energy. They are physical and competitive. They want to climb things, test themselves, jump off of things, explore, drive fast, fight, behave like damn fools, and sack cities. In later years this energy may serve them well, but not yet. School is hellish for them, with its year after year of sitting, bored out of their skulls, while some drone babbles. It is worse for the bright, verging on child abuse. They hate it. I did.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I did too. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Girls are more orderly, patient, accept rules with less resistance, and do their homework. They have better handwriting and cut pictures from magazines to paste into projects. They finish assignments on time. In general girls are easier to deal with, certainly for the female teachers who now are almost the only teachers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The article linked by johnM is exactly the kind of whining piece that makes me turn off my brain when people start talking about a "boy crisis". The basic rhetorical theme is "Feminists are castrating our sons." It's hysterical -- the nostalgic vision of his high school where "nearly all the children of educated parents graduated" (imagine that!) and "you didn't screw with" male authority-figure "Chrome Dome", the author's apparent inability to distinguish between third grade and high school (personally, I don't remember the great high school dodge-ball games the author seems to think would solve the problem), the outrageous and inaccurate stereotyping of teenage girls and boys. Has this guy MET a 16-year-old girl since 1962? Not to mention that, as careful readers of this thread will discern, there is no evidence for any meaningful performance gap between the modern-day equivalents of the privileged boy the author once was and the girls who sat next to him in his prep-track classes.</p>

<p>But, hey, I don't want to stand in the way of educational reform. So lets bring back dodge ball! And lets draft some of those super-smart male engineers to teach kids and glower scarily (we'll have to draft them, because paying teachers enough to attract a more skilled, gender-balanced applicant pool would be very, very expensive).</p>

<p>Each time I read an article or listen to a discussion about male/female, boy/girl traits - what I really see is a discussion of the difference in personality traits. </p>

<p>Because the majority of males exhibit certain traits and the majority of females exhibit different ones, the discussion usually becomes one of gender - although this is not the true issue.</p>

<p>Teachers in k-12 schools generally favor the personality type associated with "girls". Because of their "like types" girls usually enjoy and succeed within the programs, activities, rules set out by this type of teacher. Some boys, of like type, also enjoy these activities but the majority would prefer another approach. </p>

<p>Almost every post to this thread reflects the bias or "personality type" of the poster - from the opinion of what makes good math team members and what would make the math team more popular to definitions of intelligence and successful students. </p>

<p>Personality preference is often compared to "hand preference". The vast majority of us prefer to use either our left hand or right hand. When we are using our preferred hand, the writing feels natural, is easier, required less discipline and concentration - so we are freed to think about what we write versus how we write. We can write with either hand. Given enough effort - we may write as well, perhaps even better with the less dominant hand, but it will always require us work against our natural gifts. So it goes with personality type. The majority of girls and some boys flourish in the current K-12, many boys and some girls will grit their teeth and make it work, others (of both sexes, but primarily boys) will find it too egregious. </p>

<p>Many of these "less stellar" students "flourish" in college where the system or subject is defined by a completely different set of values - those more associated with the male personality. And, many of the high school "stars" find themselves struggling to master a very different type of education.</p>

<p>Teachers are NOW mostly female? Um, it used to be that the only things that women could do were teaching, secretarial work, and nursing. So it's not a new phenomenon. </p>

<p>As for being a wad of energy... I'm amazingly energetic, restless, impatient, and was completely bored in high school. </p>

<p>None of that changed the fact that, as a human who had good parents, I knew enough to exercise self-control.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As for being a wad of energy... I'm amazingly energetic, restless, impatient, and was completely bored in high school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem with our grade schools effect everyone. It's just that boys, on average, are a quite a bit more restless, I think. Grade school is great for preparing worker bees, horrible for preparing strong minds.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, hey, I don't want to stand in the way of educational reform. So lets bring back dodge ball!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, his sports comments are pretty dumb, as there is really no lack of contact sports for boys to participate in. That's not the problem at all. But it is a good analogy. </p>

<p>The problem is that the academics are anti-competitive. Intelligent boys tend not to do well churning out worker-bee homework (girls too... but on average they are more tolerant of tedium). Boys just turn off and pretty much drop out. </p>

<p>Some of the most intelligent boys I knew in high school either ended up dropping out or graduating with horrible GPAs. I myself was classified as "gifted" in elementary school. I was sent to a special program for "gifted" kids that was nothing more than a place for us to go watch movies and play games. It's as if we were excused from working because we were "gifted!" What every happened to finding the smarter kids and placing them into a rigorous academic program? (don't scream money... the place where I was sent in elementary school cost much more than a few books and a demanding teacher!) </p>

<p>Needless to say, I dropped out of high school when I was 16. This is much less likely to happen to smart girls.</p>

<p>"Happen to" smart girls? Since when is dropping out somethig that "happens" to you? </p>

<p>I just don't buy the argument that it's too difficult for men to civilize themselves. Mostly, we let them get away with it; by the time they are 16, they haven't heard that putting up with things they don't like is part of life that they have to get used to. Girls are told that all the time - told to conform to what society expects of them. Heaven forbid we do the same to boys.</p>

<p>You're right... It didn't happen to me, I chose it. I'm glad I did though. If society expects you to facilitate the atrophy of your mind, I say don't conform.</p>

<p>
[quote]
by the time they are 16, they haven't heard that putting up with things they don't like is part of life that they have to get used to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If a 16 year old boy was told seriously and with genuine concern that he was going to have to put up with a grueling program of academic rigor because he could not risk wasting his intellectual gifts, he'd be more likely to put up with it.</p>

<p>If, however, he is told to sit in class, learn nothing, and do asinine asignments, then there is no logical reason to put up with it, except to conform. Conformity for the sake of conformity is dangerous to society. I'd rather sacrifice myself to failure.</p>

<p>I have three words for johnM and the whiny author of that article:</p>

<p>Single-sex schools.</p>

<p>Single-sex schools are not an option for everyone. They are overwhelmingly private and cost money, or parochial, or nonexistent in smaller cities and towns. Boarding schools are out of the question financially for the vast majority of Americans. It might be beneficial to closing the boy-girl achievement gap if more public schools in more communities began offering single-sex classrooms as an alternative. </p>

<p>I would like to see some research into the existing single-sex classrooms and schools that are being run by a handful of school districts. All you can find is a paragraph here or a paragraph there from various magazines. For example, I read about a single-sex classroom experiment in CO. A middle school randomly selected a group of students (after getting parental approval) for two single-sex 6th grade classes, 25 students in each, while other sixth graders were divided into co-ed classes. At the end of the school year, state tests indicated that the all-girls class performed the highest in the core subjects of math, English, and science, the all-boys class performed the next highest, followed by the co-ed classes. This is worth a closer look, in my opinion. Climbing on a soapbox, I would like to see think tanks like the Education Sector spend their time and resources doing real research to answer complex questions about what works best for boys as well as girls, instead of putting out slanted commentary and weak studies that reek of bias.</p>

<p>JohnM: </p>

<p>Your own commentary was far better than that "Fred" guy. His column had a few little seeds of truth in it, but he covered it all over with a lot of manure. </p>

<p>Your comments about "asinine assignments" and the refusal to conform could have come from the mouth of the eldest son of a friend. He also has a high I.Q., found his public school classes unchallenging, hated the repetitious "busy work" of homework, stopped turning it in, got straight As on tests and zeros for homework and dropped out at 15. In fact, what he did was go on the internet, found the materials for the GED, took it, passed it, brought it to his parents and announced: I'm not going to high school anymore. </p>

<pre><code> Not having sat in on his classes, though, I don't know if one can say he was bored in school because he was a boy or because he was 14....did he hate school because it was "feminized" or because it was boring. Public high schools are often the luck of the draw whether you get the dynamic, engaging hands-on style teacher or the type who likes to sit and talk at the class or who thinks teaching is having everyone outline the textbook in its entirety.

"Boys cease to be students, and become problems, so teachers don't like them."

This is the only one of Fred's comments that rings true to me, or at least partly true, applying to some boys and some teachers. I have been a volunteer in many elementary school classrooms starting with S1 and I've seen how some teachers treat boys they don't like very much, the ones who have a hard time at 6, 7, 8 years old learning that conformity thing that girls (in general) don't struggle so hard with. Needless to say, S2 did not get assigned to the classrooms of teachers who in my experience were not boy friendly.
</code></pre>

<p>"Girls are told that all the time - told to conform to what society expects of them. Heaven forbid we do the same to boys."</p>

<p>You're right "Heaven forbid."</p>

<p>As I already posted, this isn't about "girls versus boys" this is about the personality type of teachers which corresponds to the personality type of the majority of girls - not all girls! Some boys readily conform - for the "points" or the "approval" of the teacher and some girls will not "bend". </p>

<p>But, I hope one of these "supporters" of the present system can explain why, in an advanced AP class - it should not be enough to understand the concept, support it with details, be able to write a strong cohesive paper or orally present such. Why should one have to, in addition to the above, make a colorful posterboard embellished with glitter, fabrics, gemstones, rope, etc. and used decorative edged scissors to cut out those essays and mount them on coordinated construction paper. Why should this "art project" have to be accompanied by the "presenter" wearing a self-designed and sewn costume bringing a "dish" which represents the "theme" - often with the most absurdly tenuous of ties. </p>

<p>Worse yet, why, is a factually accurate presentation and beautifully done presentation board and model using beads or styrefoam balls to represent chemical structures worth less points on the "rubric" than one that uses "unusual" objects (tableware/dog toys) to represent the concept - even those the dissimilarity of the tableware objects or toys violate the concept being presented. </p>

<p>Because these teachers enjoy their artsy/craftsy hobbies and believe it helps one understand the project. Ah, but these "projects" are not one of many choices - they are often THE choice. </p>

<p>And, many students - mostly boys - chose to forfeit the points associated with such silliness.</p>

<p>And, these are very individuals I want working for me!</p>

<p>Since my previous posts only addresses one aspect of this "teacher personality type". I'll address the other.</p>

<p>The "feeling, caring and sensitivity issue". Teachers, generally favor, the communication syle of the "personality type most found in girls", athough - everyone knows how girls "bully" with their nice/nasty comments.</p>

<p>They reprimand and often disallow honest direct debate. </p>

<p>In a discussion about China's first issuance of "paper money" in the form of scrip issued by individual stores and risks/benefits of such, my son made a comment something along the lines of "You think it's bad if the airline holding your frequent flyer miles goes out of business, imagine if they held your entire cash supply". The teacher agreed and told him that was a timely example. Then one girl said, "That's so mean, you only care about your frequent flyer points -what about the people in this class whose parents work for the airline and may be worried about their dad losing their job and the family losing their home and no college for the kids. The teacher immediately turned on my son and said, "She's right. You should consider others before making a comment like that." ?????</p>

<p>Now, the funny thing is - this airline is NOT out of business. But, my husband was out of work due to the mergers/acquisitions in the banking world. So, in reality the girl's comment COULD have hurt my son by bringing up possiblities for him. Did the teacher think of this??????</p>

<p>Until this time, my son loved this teacher. This "subjectivity" really made him think of her in an entirely different manner. This teacher could have recognized the validity of this girl's comment while still crediting my son's comment as a good example.</p>

<p>But, alas, "boys are so insensitive".</p>

<p>
[quote]
This teacher could have recognized the validity of this girl's comment while still crediting my son's comment as a good example.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, indeed. This teacher was plain bad. </p>

<p>I have to say that my Ss never experienced teachers like that, nor were they expected to do projects after 8th grade. I don't think my Ss ever saw differences in teaching styles between men and women.<br>
As well, the teachers were not neatly divided by gender into different types of classes. Some women taught AP-math and sciences classes, and some men taught AP-English and history. </p>

<p>The one teacher who was unable to deal with boys was, paradoxically, male. He was both Old World and old school. Some of the boys very quickly learned how to push his buttons. One of them was determined to spend as little time as possible in the class. About 5 minutes into it, he would swear. Invariably the teacher would say: "Care to repeat what you just said?" which, of course, the boy did more loudly and with great relish. Upon which the teacher would roar: "Out!" The boy would elaborately make his way out of the class, winking at all his chums on the way. He was a very bright boy, one of the fastest thinkers on his feet that I knew; also a world-class slacker. Some time in junior year, he woke up and began to pay attention. He will be attending a well-known art school in the fall.</p>

<p>It's interesting that projects are seen as favoring girls. For some of my Ss' male friends, these were opportunities to do something with their hands rather than compete with girls on verbal skills and to be able to move around rather than sit still.</p>

<p>"It's interesting that projects are seen as favoring girls. For some of my Ss' male friends, these were opportunities to do something with their hands rather than compete with girls on verbal skills and to be able to move around rather than sit still."</p>

<p>Well, as I mentioned in my earlier post - it isn't really about male/female - it's about personality type. However, the 75% of females are the type which favor these activities. Only around 25% of men are of that type.</p>

<p>And, as for doing something with their hands - most of the males who prefer working with their hands would NOT favor these type of activities. They tend to be much happier with traditional lab and workshop activities. They are not fans of "embellishment" - but, a beautifully detailed pen and ink drawing works for them - but often does not meet the "rubric" for "artisitic/colorful/etc.</p>

<p>However, studies have shown that some types do actually benefit from these activities. And, unfortunately, those that do include the type most likely to become teachers. In fact, most (not all) teachers become teachers because they so loved their school experience.</p>

<p>Chipper:</p>

<p>I'm sorry your son has to suffer through classes taught by less-than-perfect teachers. You second example (the frequent flyer miles) sounds pretty bad to me, although it was just a moment in class. As for "projects" in his AP class: First, out in the real world, visual presentation skills can be very important, and they are an important complement to understanding a concept and being able to present it orally. I'm not that big on presentation, either, but I understand why good schools try to include it in assignments. The forks/dog toys stuff sounds over-the-top, too, but maybe, just maybe, the teacher is RIGHT and some kids (including some boys) DO learn better that way. Why shouldn't it be included in the mix?</p>

<p>And, again, let me remind you and everyone else: The "boy crisis" is not a "boy-in-AP-Chem crisis". There may be a real problem out there, but it completely trivializes the problem to turn it into "the AP teachers are too girly". </p>

<p>My son suffers from this, too, by the way. His fine motor skills were poor from birth, and studio art is the only B he has gotten in high school. He struggles with the visual presentation component of assignments, and the best he ever achieves there is adequacy. What do I think about that? It's fine. It takes the edge off his arrogance; it makes him deal with something that's a lot more difficult for him than assimilating and regurgitating concepts; it forces him to acknowledge and to respect the skills other people have -- yes, often girls -- that are superior to his. Like a lot of smart kids, he can bang out a five-minute presentation in half an hour without breaking stride on his IMs; the visual presentation stuff forces him to plan in advance, block out time, fail and start over again, correct mistakes, focus -- all vital educational experiences that I am sure have helped him grow as a student and as a person. Does it shave a few tenths off his GPA? I guess, probably. Boo-hoo-hoo. If Harvard turns him down in favor of a kid who can handle the concepts AND rock a kickass cutlery-and-dog-toys presentation, how is that unfair?</p>

<p>Chipper:</p>

<p>I agree with JHS that the boys crisis is not about the boys in AP-chem crisis. </p>

<p>But I also want to take issue with the idea that female teachers tend to require projects that involve "embellishments." </p>

<p>In my own experience, going to an all-girls lyc</p>

<p>JHS:</p>

<p>Did you BOTHER to read my other posts on this topic before you jumped in with your:</p>

<p>"And, again, let me remind you and everyone else: The "boy crisis" is not a "boy-in-AP-Chem crisis". There may be a real problem out there, but it completely trivializes the problem to turn it into "the AP teachers are too girly".</p>

<p>I am the one who has been trying to make sure that people know this is about personality type not male/female. As a female with a personality type almost unrepresented among females - the "same sex" school in not a solution I support. </p>

<p>That, said, as I also previously posted - certain personality types are disproportionately represented among males and others to females.</p>

<p>My examples were just that - my son actually liked both of the classes and teachers I used in my post - but, they are representative of this "crisis". These types of activities are "taught" in AP workshops around the country as a way to make the class more "fun" and to give the kids an opportunity to raise their grades. But, whose "fun"? </p>

<p>As for your "graphic skills" argument - I do not find it correlates at all to the "glitter posterboard" example. Learning to use computer graphics, sure, but the kids had this stuff down years earlier. And, all the artsy craftsy stuff usually violates the "Medium supporting the Message" concepts.</p>

<p>Marite:</p>

<p>You, too, must have missed my posts stating that this is not a male/female issue. It becomes male/female ONLY because certain personality types are disproportionatly represented among the sexes. </p>

<p>The project you described is excellent - and my son has had his share of those also. However, I will say that more girls than boys both enjoy and/or are willing to do the "embellishments/costumes/cooking projects" and more female teachers than male teachers have them in their repetoire. </p>

<p>And, as much as my son and I would love the desalination project and learn from it, surprisingly, there are personality types who learn more about any topic from the opportunity to decorate, wear costumes, and cook. So, why not give students a choice of projects?</p>

<p>I wish teachers spent more time learning about personality types and learning styles, rather than assuming that most kids learn best the way they learned best.</p>