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

Parents Forum
141

<br>


<br>

<p>Well, then I don't know how to interpret your comments. To say that gender differences exist does not mean that all members of a gender must display these differences; but it still involves gender stereotypig, whether rightly or wrongly. So since you say that "certain personality types are disproportionatly represented among the sexes" I don't know how to intepret this any other way than as an observation about gender differences, in other words, about male/female. </p>

<p>There are bad teachers and good teachers. Since there are far more female teachers than male teachers, it stands to reasons that, other things being equal, there will be more bad female teachers than bad male teachers in absolute terms. But that is different from asserting that female teachers favor one type of teaching over others because they are female.</p>

<p>In fact, the whole curriculum at my Ss' school was devised collectively, and with input from parents. Most projects involved different kinds of skills. For example, for the unit I mentioned, some students explored the music of the region. The project was capped by a presentation to families in which food from the region was served. The students researched the cuisine and cooked some of it (parents and teachers purchased the more complicated food items). Other students produced artwork based on designs from that region. </p>

<p>It was one of many different units my Ss researched throughout their k-8 careers. And since they have different personalities and interests, although the units were the same, each of them undertook very different kinds of mini-projects. </p>

<p>To me, these were excellent teaching units that did not reflect "teachers' personality types" but certainly tried to accommodate different students' learning styles. I am very thankful that my two sons had these terrific female teachers. I should also note that two female teachers tried to nurture my S's love of math in the early grades.</p>

142

<p>Marite said:</p>

<p>"Well, then I don't know how to interpret your comments. To say that gender differences exist does not mean that all members of a gender must display these differences; but it still involves gender stereotypig, whether rightly or wrongly. So since you say that "certain personality types are disproportionatly represented among the sexes" I don't know how to intepret this any other way than as an observation about gender differences, in other words, about male/female."</p>

<p>It really isn't that difficult a concept. Stating that women have a uterus and men do not is about male/female. Saying that certain personality types are more prevelant in females and other in males is quite different. And, the behaviors we are discussing is directly related to specific personality type and not sex.</p>

<p>"But that is different from asserting that female teachers favor one type of teaching over others because they are female."</p>

<p>That is why I have tried to redirect the discussion to persoanlity type. In fact, teachers do teach to "their preferences". And, the type of personality most attracted to teaching is also that personality type which is more commonly found in women. Unfortunately, this type does not believe that there are differences in persoanality nor that these differences affect learning styles.</p>

<p>"In fact, the whole curriculum at my Ss' school was devised collectively, and with input from parents."</p>

<p>Obviously, you realize that involving parents in curriculum planning is not "the norm" at most schools.</p>

<p>"Most projects involved different kinds of skills. For example, for the unit I mentioned, some students explored the music of the region. The project was capped by a presentation to families in which food from the region was served. The students researched the cuisine and cooked some of it (parents and teachers purchased the more complicated food items). Other students produced artwork based on designs from that region."</p>

<p>Yes, this sounds like the typical "gifted" class in elementary school/middle school. And, there were some kids that loved the "presentation" and festivities - others found it a complete bore. Did all the children/parents have to bring a dish? Did all kids have to dress for the "occasion"? Did all kids have to have a "decorated project board". </p>

<p>"It was one of many different units my Ss researched throughout their k-8 careers. And since they have different personalities and interests, although the units were the same, each of them undertook very different kinds of mini-projects."</p>

<p>We had some teachers that allowed choice, we had others who assigned units, and we had others who demanded that all students do all units. However, the common denominator was the "end of unit festivities" which appeal to certain personality types. We used to have a slogan for these activites "If it doesn't involve a trip to Michael's (arts and craft store) and a trip to Whole Foods it can't be a Gifted Class." And, the vast majority of students who enjoyed these affairs were of similar personality type - mostly girls and mothers.</p>

<p>"To me, these were excellent teaching units that did not reflect "teachers' personality types" but certainly tried to accommodate different students' learning styles. I am very thankful that my two sons had these terrific female teachers. I should also note that two female teachers tried to nurture my S's love of math in the early grades."</p>

<p>I'm glad they met your sons' needs. I found them bogus and boring beyond belief. </p>

<p>My son, too, had a teacher which recognized his gift for math. Unfortunately, this same teacher, for all her good points, ran her class in a manner which totally focused on what is being called "female traits".</p>

143

<p>You've replaced sex by gender and brought up gender stereotypes. I find it just as bad.</p>

<p>The school I've described is not for gifted children. We have no gifted program in our district and never have had. </p>

<p>"In fact, the whole curriculum at my Ss' school was devised collectively, and with input from parents."<br>
In bringing up this point, I wanted to highlight the fact that this project-driven curriculum did not accommodate teachers' personalities only but also what parents--of both sexes--considered best for all the children. And we (and I say we, since I participated in hiring quite a few of these teachers) hired teachers who would be comfortable teaching a project-driven, child-centered curriculum, whether they were male or female.</p>

<p>You may have found your children's projects bogus. I, and the other parents, did not find ours to be so. Instead, I found them extremely well thought out and multifaceted and designed to accommodate different interests and skills. </p>

<p>In my all-girls school, there were very few "projects." It was a very traditional sage-on-the stage lecturing and we girls laboriously writing it all down--that is the girls who did not zone out and dozed in the back of the classroom. My husband had gotten exactly the same type of education in his all-boys school. We were determined to prevent our kids--both boys--from repeating our experience. </p>

<p>I do not wish to ascribe the excellent education my sons received to the fact that their teachers were mostly female in k-8 school; nor would I want to ascribe the fact that some boys do not do well in school to the gender of their teachers. As I said, there are good teachers and bad teachers. There are good curricula and bad curricula. There are serious projects and frivolous ones.
I find extrapolations from individual experiences quite unconvincing.</p>

144

<p>Marite wrote:</p>

<p>"I find extrapolations from individual experiences quite unconvincing."</p>

<p>Then why do you use them? Your post was completely based on your, your husband's and your sons experiences.</p>

145

<p>Marite wrote"</p>

<p>"You've replaced sex by gender and brought up gender stereotypes. I find it just as bad."</p>

<p>I did no such thing. I actually refuted the idea that this issue can be attributed to either sex or gender. I very plainly stated that it is about personality type. Then mentioned that certain personality types are more prevelent among females and others are more prevalent among males. </p>

<p>This is not stereotyping.</p>

<p>I went on to state that I am a female with the personality type which is underrepresented among females. And, I continued, that because of the personality type issue, I am not a proponent of single-sex schools.</p>

<p>So, what part of the above do you have trouble undersanding? Or is it that you prefer to misrepresent those with a different viewpoint that yours?</p>

146

<p>
[quote]
Then mentioned that certain personality types are more prevelent among females and others are more prevalent among males.
[quote]
</p>

<p>Stereotypes do not have to be wrong to still be stereotypes. How am I misrepresenting your views? </p>

<p>Can you describe the female personailty types that you find so detrimental to boys' education? I obviously missed them in my Ss's female teachers.</p>

147

<p>Accusations of stereotyping may disappear in the future. Didn't recent research discover that an astounding number of genes are different, male to female? Something like 68% of femlae genes are different than male? </p>

<p>Though the brain, I believe, was one of the most similar organs, the rest of our bits have a very different genetic make-up.</p>

<p>Though I am not a scientist and therefore not certain what is nature and what is nurture, there are traits among female primary school teachers which do not easily fit with small boy behavior. Mind you, my observations do not hold true for female architects, university professors or attorneys etc.</p>

<p>First and foremost, female primary teachers are low-conflict individuals. They prefer an environment of pleasant harmony and they strive to achieve that in their classrooms with policies such as "You can't say you can't play." </p>

<p>I found the dynamics between powerful boomer professionals and female primary school teachers very interesting. Usually, there was an Iron Fist administrator at the top to protect the vulnerable teachers. Also, the administration often used a Gang of Four vs Two parents technique to overwhelm the more aggressive parents in potentially difficult parent-teacher meetings.</p>

<p>Small boys, with their inordinate interest in weaponry, machinery, balls and explosions, do not adjust to the Pleasantville concept as well as young girls. Ritalin makes them adjust faster. In my experience--feel free to discount this--young girls are motivated to readily accept the conditions because they so enjoy the social challenge and benefits of being a member of a class of 15 or 30. How often do you meet a young girl who LOVES first grade? I meet them all the time. How often do you meet a boy who says he "loves" school? Uh....I can count them on one hand. </p>

<p>Also, many young girls appear to arrive at school already conditioned to please authority. Female primary school teachers, like all other human beings, are partial to flattery.</p>

<p>On the whole, of the three groups, Boys, Girls and Female Teachers, I say boys make the greatest adjustment in primary school. Actually, they do a fair job of adjusting, on the whole, given what they'd rather be doing.</p>

148

<br>


<br>

<p>Nope. I don't know what research you are citing, but since humans and chimps share an exact match in 96% of their genes, I think it is highly unlikely that humans and chimps are more genetically similar to each other than are male and female humans. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Moreover, sharing only 68% genetic similarity is a huge biological gulf. I don't have exact numbers, but humans might share ~68% of genes with creatures as different from us as say cats or kangaroos or perhaps even penguins.</p>

149

<p>Gene expression...sorry...</p>

<p>Gender Determines How Same Genes React UCLA Study Finds</p>

<p>
[quote]
What they found surprised them. While each gene functioned the same in both sexes, the scientists found a direct correlation between gender and the amount of gene expressed. </p>

<p>"We saw striking and measurable differences in more than half of the genes' expression patterns between males and females," said Dr. Thomas Drake, co-investigator and UCLA professor of pathology. "We didn't expect that. No one has previously demonstrated this genetic gender gap at such high levels." </p>

<p>UCLA is the first to uncover a gender difference in gene expression in fat and muscle tissue. Earlier studies have identified roughly 1,000 sex-biased genes in the liver, and other research has found a combined total of 60 gender-influenced genes in the brain - about one-tenth of what the UCLA team discovered in these organs. </p>

<p>Even in the same organ, the researchers identified scores of genes that varied in expression levels between the sexes. Gender consistently influenced the expression levels of thousands of genes in the liver, fat and muscle tissue. This effect was slightly more limited in the brain, where hundreds, not thousands, of genes showed different expression patterns. </p>

<p>"Males and females share the same genetic code, but our findings imply that gender regulates how quickly the body can convert DNA to proteins," said Yang. "This suggests that gender influences how disease develops." </p>

<p>The gender differences in gene expression also varied by tissue. Affected genes were typically those most involved in the organ's function, suggesting that gender influences important genes with specialized roles, not the rank-and-file. </p>

<p>In the liver, for example, the expression of genes involved in drug metabolism differed by sex. The findings imply that male and female livers function the same, but work at different rates. </p>

<p>"Our findings in the liver may explain why men and women respond differently to the same drug," noted Lusis. "Studies show that aspirin is more effective at preventing heart attack in men than women. One gender may metabolize the drug faster, leaving too little of the medication in the system to produce an effect." </p>

<p>"At the genetic level, the only difference between the genders is the sex chromosomes," said Drake. "Out of the more than 30,000 genes that make up the human genome, the X and Y chromosomes account for less than 2 percent of the body's genes. But when we looked at the gene expression in these four tissues, more than half of the genes differed significantly between the sexes. The differences were not related to reproductive systems - they were visible across the board and related to primary functions of a wide variety of organs." </p>

<p>The UCLA findings support the importance of gender-specific clinical trials. Most medication dosages for women have been based on clinical trials primarily conducted on men. </p>

<p>"This research represents a significant step forward in deepening our understanding of gender-based differences in medicine," said Dr. Janet Pregler, director of the Iris Cantor-UCLA Women's Health Center. The center's executive advisory board, a group of businesswomen interested in advancing women's health, helped fund the study. </p>

<p>"This is crucial, because once we understand the gender gap in these disease mechanisms, we can create new strategies for designing and testing new sex-specific drugs."

[/quote]
</p>

150

<p>Marite wrote:</p>

<p>"Stereotypes do not have to be wrong to still be stereotypes. How am I misrepresenting your views?</p>

<p>A stereotype may be defined as "A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image." I am not presenting a stereotype, instead, I am presenting data based upon empirical evidence. At no time did I say that women are xxxx and all men are yyyy. </p>

<p>"Can you describe the female personailty types that you find so detrimental to boys' education? I obviously missed them in my Ss's female teachers."</p>

<p>For convenience, I will used the Jungian terms, depending upon the source of data, 66-75% of females are Sensors and 66-75% of females are Feelers. The reverse is true for males, approximately 60 percent are intutives (versus sensors) and 75% are thinkers (versus feelers). To add icing to the cake, the vast majority of all teachers are SJ's.</p>

<p>The fact that you may have "missed them" does not mean that they were not there. It would be a very very strange set of schools where teachers did not follow the above patterns. More likely, you were not "looking at type". This may have been because your sons' enjoyed this type of teaching or your sons were more willing to comply than others or you attributed the differences in their learning styles with the teachers' teaching styles to another variable. </p>

<p>As Cheers wrote:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>This is exactly my point. Most female teachers, especially elementary teachers are SFJ's. Men who choose this career (although few and far between) also tend to be SFJ's. Most boys are not SFJ's. </p>

<p>Most women who are not SFJ's do not become elementary teachers - NT's, for example, are more likely to become architects, lawyers and professors. Among high school teachers, T's are found more in science departments and F's are more likely found in english/literature/world history. </p>

<p>This is not the same thing as saying that there are no teachers of differing types. BTW, at this time, I'm only using frequency of occurance data. </p>

<p>BTW, more and more research is linking personality type to brain function. And, most research confirms that is is definitely nature versus nurture.</p>

151

<p>The nature vs. nurture debate is yet to be settled. For example, it has been shown that certain types of activities, especially when done early in life leave an imprint on the brain functions. </p>

<p>Whatever group my sons teachers may have been, I really could not detect much difference in teaching style between his male teachers and his female teachers. Some of his male teachers taught English and social studies; some of his female teachers taught science. The one teacher that boys and girls alike thought was ill suited to teach k-8 students was a man. He was moved up to the high school; I do not know how popular he was there.<br>
The curriculum and pedagogical style were agreed on and new teachers were selected on the basis of their ability to implement them. So most of the teaching was not a consequence of the idiosyncracies of individual teachers. Since there were several classes per grade, I could detect differences among the teachers, but they had to do more with temperament and different life experiences and thus funds of knowledge. For example, one had been a Peace Corps volunteer, another one had taught English for a couple of years in a foreign country, one had an interest in the theater, etc...
I guess my kids were lucky in the teachers they had--for the most part. They found the gender of the teachers irrelevant.</p>

152

<p>Likewise, in their private progressive co-ed primary school, my boys found the gender of individual teachers irrelevant. I didn't find the male teachers in that feminized environment to be SFJ's. I'd say the percentage might have been half and half. There were definitely some guys' guys teaching there--and they usually coached a few teams.</p>

<p>In my experience, given their natural proclivites, boys make the adjustment to the overall coed environment fairly easily. On balance, they adapt quickly to the feminized environment and to individual teachers in that environment, be they male or female. It may be interesting to note that the overwhelming majority were female, thus establishing a feminine power structure which the boys may pick up on, being adept pack animals. Boys tend to follow the pack leader--be it female or male.</p>

<p>Later, I had the experience of watching my boys adapt to a highly masculine environment, namely a very old, very traditional English-style boys' school where 80% of the teachers are male. To my eyes, this appeared to be a more natural environment for the boys. Horseplay, irreverence, inappropriate behavior and inattention were treated as par for the course and handled by a sophisticated, tiered system of detentions. In this environment, 'slacker' boys were prodded along without the angst and medication that I saw distributed in coed schools. Do your hard labour and get on with it.</p>

<p>Military themes are PC in a boys' school. Competition is encouraged. Verbal jousting is encouraged though it is stopped at bullying. There are special coat colors for sport excellence, speical ties for academic and cultural excellence. Every boy participates in interschool as well as interhouse sports. Every boy participates in House music which has decidely raucous performances every year. Every boy participates in house drama--again with some quite bawdy performances--all PC in a boys' school. Teams from the A to D level are fielded easily. By the same token, the upper 10%, the academically gifted boys go off to the Math Olympiad, the model UN, Shakepeare competitions, chamber music competitions and so on. </p>

<p>In fact, the top 10% probably lead the same lives in either environment. It's the middle and the bottom that are more at ease in the male environment. Says me.</p>

<p>I will say that the gender of individual teachers in high school can be more important--especially if the teacher is blonde, curvy and flirtatious (and later dismissed for improprieties!).</p>

153

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I mean seriously, why doesn't society do this? This (which currently does not happen ever) would clearly solve every problem.</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

<p>I think research about the consequences of single-sex schools makes sense, just like research on how the teacher's gender affects the the students makes sense. I think one huge reason single-sex schools are not as prevalent as they would be is because of the femminist movement which mandated everything that could be should be co-ed. Seperate is not equal . . . etc. Anyway, one possible problem with single-sex classrooms or schools are inequitable distribution of resources (probably why femminists were against single-sex things), but in particular the distribution of quality teachers. If you were a teacher, would you rather deal with the generally more obedient and less troublesome group of students, or the less-so group? This is why some are against "advanced" or "AP" or special programs- the teachers prefer the more advanced who tend to be the more behaved. Different systems can get complicated. Early years of single-sex brought together for co-ed sometime later? The most advanced in co-ed class-rooms, most or some of the kids in single-sex classes? Perhaps just the lowest performers in single-sex classrooms? I think more research should be done into the effects of single-sex classrooms on students with different characteristics, such as age, proficiency level, etc.</p>

154

<p>I did not go to school in the US, so my thoughts are based on comparing my experience with that of my boys and their friends. I went to single-sex schools k-12. In the latter grades we had some boys, and despite what I've said about the value of different perspectives, the boys' presence was detrimental. Girls were distracted by the presence of boys and vice-versa. Lots of flirting, lots of caring for appearances, lots of macho posing on the part of boys. Apart from that, I am grateful that I went to a single sex school because there was no favoring one gender over another. The curriculum was the same for boys' and girls' schools, the baccalaureat exams were graded anonymously, and so forth. So I did not experience the gender stereotyping that so many of my American peers said they did, of having science questions directed at boys, for example.</p>

<p>In my boys' schools, the main pedagogical difference I noticed was that teaching was more project-driven; but then, my H and I had sought exactly that to counter the boredom of our own k-12 lecture-based education. Another difference from my own experience was the lack of specialization of teachers until 7th or 8th grade, and in some subjects until 9th grade (in French schools, specialist teachers begin in 6th grade). Since so many k-8 teachers tend to specialize in the humanities and social studies, this may account for the more "feminine" style of teaching in those classes. Students, by 6th or 7th grade, became aware of the other sex. Perhaps owing to different developmental stages or perhaps because of the make-up of the classes, girls were as likely to act up as boys and to be ringleaders for mischief. </p>

<p>I have to say that my boys' school was more popular among middle class families and that the more traditional schools in my district was more popular with lower-income families with boys where parents put a great deal of emphasis on discipline and socialization. It was also more popular with immigrants who were more comfortable with traditional-style teaching and saw the less structured, project-driven classes as chaotic. Because these factors drove school selection, it is very hard to ascribe success or failure to teaching style. Certainly, our school was one of the more successful schools in our district, and some of the more traditional ones were on the watch list. But was it due to the teaching style, to the gender of teachers, or to the pool of students and the ability or lack thereof of their families to support their learning?</p>

155

<p>

And me, too! My boys attended HS at an all-boy prep school, and I agree with Cheers' perceptions about the differences. Boys do respond to a challenging, disciplined environment, and they seem to do well in an environment where they aren't "the enemy," which is how I think they are often viewed in a coed environment. </p>

<p>One benefit of my kids' school is that there are up to 5 different levels per subject area. For example, a Junior might be taking College Prep English but also AP Calculus and Honors Physics. The kids take the most challenging classes in each subject area, but their natural abilities dictate what that might be. Also, because it is an all-male school, there is no stigma attached to being involved in the Arts. Of course, sports are big, but so is Drama and studio art.</p>

156

<p>
[quote]
One benefit of my kids' school is that there are up to 5 different levels per subject area. For example, a Junior might be taking College Prep English but also AP Calculus and Honors Physics. The kids take the most challenging classes in each subject area, but their natural abilities dictate what that might be.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That would benefit students of both genders. Once our high school restored honors tracks, there was a range of courses available to students with different interests and levels of preparation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, because it is an all-male school, there is no stigma attached to being involved in the Arts. Of course, sports are big, but so is Drama and studio art.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Make that "no stigma attached to being interested in math and sciences" and you would be describing my all-girls school.</p>

<p>Drama is big in our school. Among my Ss' friends, there are as many boys who've gone to art school as there are girls. One boy who'd been excruciatingly shy in k-8 ended up as a theater major.</p>

157

<p>

Actually, I'm in favor of single gender education for both boys and girls. The boys at my sons' school don't seem to have any trouble connecting with girls outside of school, but at least they are focused on their academic activities during the school day. They also seem to adapt quite easily to coed life in college!</p>

158

<p>I'm all for having a variety of school types available.</p>

<p>However, I would object to all the schools being single-sex due to my previous posts on personality type.</p>

<p>As a "thinking" female, I would have fit in much better at a male school. The style/tone/activities/etc. would have been a better match for me. Likewise, a "feeling" male would be happier with the style/tone/etc. of a female school. </p>

<p>I always fit in better with the males and those few females who felt the same. I like the more direct communication style, the "up-front" "in your face" honesty, objective decision making, open competition, etc. Most females find this unacceptable.</p>

<p>The more traditional female groups with their emphasis on warmth, values, subjectivity, sensitivity, etc. have always seemed "fake" "dishonest" "smile to your face while gossiping behind your back". But, others don't see the same negatives - they see a more sensitive and caring community.</p>

<p>This is all a "perception" of the differences in Feeler/Thinkers. And, it involves much more than rules, sports, activities, etiquette, etc. It is an overiding tone.</p>

159

<p>People, men are a minority on college campuses while women are a minority in high wage workforce. Men are raised to be a tad more concerned about money which repels them from studying English, History, and the vast majority of things that one would go to college for. Men outpace women in business and engineering. Women slightly outpace men in academics.</p>

<p>Furthermore, girls tend to receive more help in school and have the long end of the stick in standards. Teachers simply support them more.</p>

<p>Still the differences are very subtle. After all, the big statistic(who gets more degrees) is pretty meaningless. The vast majority of college degrees are not earned and are the products of grade inflation and scaling. Most degrees at most colleges, don't represent acquired knowledge in subject matter any more. I read papers(formal papers) by college English majors that are poorly formatted and are reaped with grammatical errors.</p>

160

<p>Umm...yeah...so, if there's such a huge "crisis" for men, then why are professional white collar occupations such as law, business, and medicine still dominated by males? If you ask me, the playing field's just naturally being leveled out.</p>