4 ms·

Education designed around sitting quietly in classrooms, which is the opposite of how you get boys to excel (in general), but which is good for girls is a big p

Education designed around sitting quietly in classrooms, which is the opposite of how you get boys to excel (in general), but which is good for girls is a big problem. And there have been some efforts to begin addressing this, in some schools, but we need systemic changes in that area. Obviously a lot more wrong, but fixing that would go a huge way on its own.

yamtaddle 4y ago
I would seriously love to see what happened to boys' school achievement if all we did was double active, outdoor time scheduled in each school day. And add some for higher grades that often have entire days with none of that at all.
kneebonian 4y ago
I also have to wonder how much the move from a production economy to a services economy has shifted things. Producing real goods for people tends to favor physical prowess, whereas a service dominant economy would tend to favor those who are more agreeable/able to make people feel good. Can this partially explain the change?
- kazinator 4y ago
  People who are unfit for academics having to go through higher education just to stay ahead of everyone else doing the same is going to take a toll also. University or college isn't easy even for the nerdiest of us. I don't know how it's now but it used to be that straight-A students out of high school could easily turn into C average, all-nighter-pulling neurotics by fourth year university. Now you have the C students pressured into post-secondary study.
krapp 4y ago
Except that exact model of schooling worked fine with boys for generations.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  We've monkeyed with the details a lot. Multi-grade schoolrooms are all but completely gone now (at least in public schools). Recess time has varied, and took a nose-dive after NCLB (schools were desperate to increase test scores and reckoned more instruction time would help). Recess and free time in general seems more structured and regulated now than it used to be. Fewer kids walk or bike (or ride a horse) to school—the small "neighborhood" school has fallen out of favor for big mega-schools, plus the rise of the 'burbs. At home, I can just about guarantee active outdoor time has plummeted in the last 3ish decades, and kids come to school in whatever state home's left them. I'd further bet less work happens around the house than in earlier decades, outside of actual paid WFH stuff (which is mostly screen shit)—working on cars, mending clothes, caring for chickens or other livestock, that sort of thing, so kids are exposed to and participate in less of it. I dunno if any of those are contributing to this, but it's not like we've held everything the same and just watched boys' achievement fall in isolation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- randomdata 4y ago
  Did it work fine or did we not notice its failings until women had more opportunity to show what could be achieved?
  - jfengel 4y ago
    It didn't work fine. But now that we've noticed, it's a common trope to say "Hey, this system is succeeding for women because it was designed for them", which is most certainly was not. Fixing that is nontrivial, but it goes from "hard" to "impossible", when so many people start it with "The problem is women".
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > which is most certainly was not. I am not sure that is fair. The system was designed for women like software was designed for men. Which is to say that the people doing the work bring their own gender experiences and biases which cannot be separated from the design, and as educators are overwhelmingly female that's what you're going to get. It is not like there is some kind of supervillain sitting in their lair, tenting his fingers, saying "School will be only for women! Muhuhahaha." Indeed, it makes for a great conspiracy theory when you can think that people could actually be that well organized, but back down to reality you really just have a large number of clueless people bumbling around doing the best they can, but the best they can is certainly biased – we all do it. > Fixing that is nontrivial The biggest thing is, who cares? Sitting here in what the OECD identifies as the most educated place on earth, and regarded as having one of the highest quality education systems around, I am really not sure what we have gained from it. Once those students become adults they don't seem to amount to much. We don't stand out on the world stage and in many ways lag behind. This is like trying to fix a dam across a canyon that is completely dry. You might be able to fix it, but take a step back... > but it goes from "hard" to "impossible", when so many people start it with "The problem is women". The double standard is quite interesting. 5-10 years ago when the software industry was identified as not serving women amid the overwhelming presence of men "The problem is men" was quite ever-present. In return, we got "Oh shit, they're right! We'd better do something to fix this." And, while perhaps there is more work to do, it is undeniable that great strides have been made.

yamtaddle 4y ago

I would seriously love to see what happened to boys' school achievement if all we did was double active, outdoor time scheduled in each school day. And add some for higher grades that often have entire days with none of that at all.

kneebonian 4y ago

I also have to wonder how much the move from a production economy to a services economy has shifted things. Producing real goods for people tends to favor physical prowess, whereas a service dominant economy would tend to favor those who are more agreeable/able to make people feel good. Can this partially explain the change?

kazinator 4y ago
People who are unfit for academics having to go through higher education just to stay ahead of everyone else doing the same is going to take a toll also. University or college isn't easy even for the nerdiest of us. I don't know how it's now but it used to be that straight-A students out of high school could easily turn into C average, all-nighter-pulling neurotics by fourth year university. Now you have the C students pressured into post-secondary study.

krapp 4y ago

Except that exact model of schooling worked fine with boys for generations.

yamtaddle 4y ago
We've monkeyed with the details a lot. Multi-grade schoolrooms are all but completely gone now (at least in public schools). Recess time has varied, and took a nose-dive after NCLB (schools were desperate to increase test scores and reckoned more instruction time would help). Recess and free time in general seems more structured and regulated now than it used to be. Fewer kids walk or bike (or ride a horse) to school—the small "neighborhood" school has fallen out of favor for big mega-schools, plus the rise of the 'burbs. At home, I can just about guarantee active outdoor time has plummeted in the last 3ish decades, and kids come to school in whatever state home's left them. I'd further bet less work happens around the house than in earlier decades, outside of actual paid WFH stuff (which is mostly screen shit)—working on cars, mending clothes, caring for chickens or other livestock, that sort of thing, so kids are exposed to and participate in less of it. I dunno if any of those are contributing to this, but it's not like we've held everything the same and just watched boys' achievement fall in isolation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
randomdata 4y ago
Did it work fine or did we not notice its failings until women had more opportunity to show what could be achieved?
- jfengel 4y ago
  It didn't work fine. But now that we've noticed, it's a common trope to say "Hey, this system is succeeding for women because it was designed for them", which is most certainly was not. Fixing that is nontrivial, but it goes from "hard" to "impossible", when so many people start it with "The problem is women".
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > which is most certainly was not. I am not sure that is fair. The system was designed for women like software was designed for men. Which is to say that the people doing the work bring their own gender experiences and biases which cannot be separated from the design, and as educators are overwhelmingly female that's what you're going to get. It is not like there is some kind of supervillain sitting in their lair, tenting his fingers, saying "School will be only for women! Muhuhahaha." Indeed, it makes for a great conspiracy theory when you can think that people could actually be that well organized, but back down to reality you really just have a large number of clueless people bumbling around doing the best they can, but the best they can is certainly biased – we all do it. > Fixing that is nontrivial The biggest thing is, who cares? Sitting here in what the OECD identifies as the most educated place on earth, and regarded as having one of the highest quality education systems around, I am really not sure what we have gained from it. Once those students become adults they don't seem to amount to much. We don't stand out on the world stage and in many ways lag behind. This is like trying to fix a dam across a canyon that is completely dry. You might be able to fix it, but take a step back... > but it goes from "hard" to "impossible", when so many people start it with "The problem is women". The double standard is quite interesting. 5-10 years ago when the software industry was identified as not serving women amid the overwhelming presence of men "The problem is men" was quite ever-present. In return, we got "Oh shit, they're right! We'd better do something to fix this." And, while perhaps there is more work to do, it is undeniable that great strides have been made.