3 ms·

This is a dangerous idea. Why? Because it starts with the idea that single-sex schools are better, then proceed to attempt to prove that point with studies that

This is a dangerous idea. Why? Because it starts with the idea that single-sex schools are better, then proceed to attempt to prove that point with studies that show single-sex classrooms get on average better grades and are more likely to attend college. But attending college and getting better grades is not the goal. In fact, one of the biggest employment and political problems in the United States is due to so many middle class parents conditioning their kids into thinking that going to college will solve their future and guarantee them employment. But, let's toss that aside for the moment. The argument on this site begins with a study of South Korea, which randomly assigns students to coed or same-sex schools (we don't REALLY know how random this is), and shows data which these students are more likely to get higher grades and attend college. But the real question is NOT can they get better grades - the question is whether there are educational systems that can better prepare students to be a success in LIFE, not just get to college. Do students who attend same-sex schools fare better in relationships, do they push society forward in the underlying principals of a better civilization? Do they make the world better, and are they happy? The real result? South Korea is ranked 111th in the world in gender equality. (For comparison, the United States is ranked 22nd). So let's ask something that SingleSexSchools.org will NEVER want to answer - are opportunities for girls in South Korea as good as those offered by men? Is the education of girls in South Korea equal to the education offered to boys? The reality is that South Korea is not just a bad environment for women and girls - it's bad and getting worse. Their rankings in these categories were some of the lowest just a few years ago and have steadily declined each year. I don't really have time for a point-by-point rebuttal, but the basic point is this: removing diversity never makes society stronger. Are there benefits for single-sex activities and education? Of course. Is it 'better' to reduce students interaction with the opposite sex to almost none in day-to-day education? The evidence says otherwise. The issue is always when someone argues for widespread, radical change based on the wrong goals.

VLM 13y ago
"Do students who attend same-sex schools fare better in ..." This being HN I suspect most of us are men who attended sausage-fest university courses. The all male electronics lab was in the same (large) building as the all female nursing courses. Technically a coed school, but the last woman dropped out of the electronics program in 2nd or 3rd semester. Every year is of course a little different. Some statistical analysis of different engineering and hard science grads social outcomes would be interesting. Assuming the rate of female engineers varies much by type. Perhaps a better comparison would be other technical disciplines, from memory the math dept was a much better integrated program. "opportunities" As if college application screeners don't care about a students unique history. All you need is a reputation that school xyz only admits girls from all-girl schools not coed and shockingly the quantity of applications from girls from coed schools will collapse. Why waste time applying if you know they'll not admit you?
zeteo 13y ago
> This is a dangerous idea. Why? Because it starts with the idea that single-sex schools are better, then proceed to attempt to prove that point with studies I'm sorry, someone who attempts to prove their point with studies will always be more persuasive than another's hand waving. >But attending college and getting better grades is not the goal. Again, there are many people for whom educational attainment is important. >Do students who attend same-sex schools [...] push society forward in the underlying principals of a better civilization? Do they make the world better I'd say better education is a pretty big component of pushing society forward and making the world better. Why force everyone to attend co-ed schools? If some want to attend single-sex schools and this has proven educational benefits, let them do so. >For comparison, the United States is ranked 22nd [in the world in gender equality] A big part of which has been played by a well-known group of single-sex schools [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(colleges) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(colleges)
- podperson 13y ago
  We're not actually measuring educational attainment (whatever that is) but admission into a 4 year college program. This is like measuring the effectiveness of the speed of your network by how many feet of cable you bought. Measuring graduation from a 4-year college program would at least be a measure of attainment of credentials, but this can be gamed simply by lowering bars. (The campaign against high school drop-out rates has largely consisted of making it easier to stay and harder to drop out (rather than actually improve any useful outcomes); the campaign to improve girls' science scores in Australian schools has largely comprised removing science from the science curriculum. Educational research is always plagued by these issues.) Single sex schools clearly helped improve the lot of women in the US (and other countries). But it's not clear that it was because single sex schools are better than co-ed (which is at issue) or that they are better than no schools at all (which appears blindingly obvious).
spindritf 13y ago
Let's dig deeper. Is there any proof that any educational system can better prepare students to be successful in life. To put it another way, has the null hypothesis of education (education makes no difference for life outcomes) been ever falsified? Consider this study for example[1] which suggests that schools were more tools of indoctrination than improvement. We find that public schools offered practically zero return education on the margin, yet they did enjoy significant political and financial support from local political elites, if they taught in the “right” language of instruction. Or this one[2], according to which, being suspended (so: missing school) makes no difference in academic outcomes. [1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w19690 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19690 [2] http://ftp.iza.org/dp7794.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp7794.pdf
podperson 13y ago
"This is a dangerous idea." Ideas are dangerous. I think you mean "this is a flawed article because it starts out to buttress a preconception rather than examine the data and then find a conclusion." "we don't REALLY know how random this is" Seriously? It's probably at least as random as any random assignment to condition in US college labs (I speak from a great deal of experience here). We're talking huge n values and a system that presumably at least has some level of public scrutiny (again, unlike US college labs). Why compare to US college labs? Because that's where most accepted social science research labs comes from. In any event, I see two major flaws in the initially cited study that are far more obvious and problematic than this. 1. Not everyone is Korean. Culture does matter. (Not everyone is a US college freshman either, of course.) And worse: 2. The outcome is measured entirely in terms of going to a 4-year college (good) vs. not going (bad). Not, for example, being "happy" 20 years later. Or graduating from college even. Anyway, what would we expect from a rambling rant hosted on the domain singlesexschools.org.
pmr_ 13y ago
I really like your argument (probably because you make a point that is important to me), but I think we also have to accept the realities of methodology. The variables which you (and I) would like to measure are much harder to get at. They require more time, good definitions of hard to define things, and more resources. I think the multitude of different ways to measure the happiness and well-being of a person are a good reminder of this. So researchers go for something that is easy to measure in a shorter time frame and which still provides some indication (some studies show correlation between college education and happiness, college education and income). Of course you would like to measure those things directly instead of using a proxy, but for the short term this can be good enough. You make some interesting connections between different opportunities for girls and boys in South Korea and single-sex schools, but I would be careful to correlate the two. It could very well be that coeducation is helpful in achieving equality on a society level, but maybe after equality has been achieved single-sex education might prove more effective.

VLM 13y ago

"Do students who attend same-sex schools fare better in ..." This being HN I suspect most of us are men who attended sausage-fest university courses. The all male electronics lab was in the same (large) building as the all female nursing courses. Technically a coed school, but the last woman dropped out of the electronics program in 2nd or 3rd semester. Every year is of course a little different. Some statistical analysis of different engineering and hard science grads social outcomes would be interesting. Assuming the rate of female engineers varies much by type. Perhaps a better comparison would be other technical disciplines, from memory the math dept was a much better integrated program. "opportunities" As if college application screeners don't care about a students unique history. All you need is a reputation that school xyz only admits girls from all-girl schools not coed and shockingly the quantity of applications from girls from coed schools will collapse. Why waste time applying if you know they'll not admit you?

zeteo 13y ago

> This is a dangerous idea. Why? Because it starts with the idea that single-sex schools are better, then proceed to attempt to prove that point with studies I'm sorry, someone who attempts to prove their point with studies will always be more persuasive than another's hand waving. >But attending college and getting better grades is not the goal. Again, there are many people for whom educational attainment is important. >Do students who attend same-sex schools [...] push society forward in the underlying principals of a better civilization? Do they make the world better I'd say better education is a pretty big component of pushing society forward and making the world better. Why force everyone to attend co-ed schools? If some want to attend single-sex schools and this has proven educational benefits, let them do so. >For comparison, the United States is ranked 22nd [in the world in gender equality] A big part of which has been played by a well-known group of single-sex schools [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(colleges) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(colleges)

podperson 13y ago
We're not actually measuring educational attainment (whatever that is) but admission into a 4 year college program. This is like measuring the effectiveness of the speed of your network by how many feet of cable you bought. Measuring graduation from a 4-year college program would at least be a measure of attainment of credentials, but this can be gamed simply by lowering bars. (The campaign against high school drop-out rates has largely consisted of making it easier to stay and harder to drop out (rather than actually improve any useful outcomes); the campaign to improve girls' science scores in Australian schools has largely comprised removing science from the science curriculum. Educational research is always plagued by these issues.) Single sex schools clearly helped improve the lot of women in the US (and other countries). But it's not clear that it was because single sex schools are better than co-ed (which is at issue) or that they are better than no schools at all (which appears blindingly obvious).

spindritf 13y ago

Let's dig deeper. Is there any proof that any educational system can better prepare students to be successful in life. To put it another way, has the null hypothesis of education (education makes no difference for life outcomes) been ever falsified? Consider this study for example[1] which suggests that schools were more tools of indoctrination than improvement. We find that public schools offered practically zero return education on the margin, yet they did enjoy significant political and financial support from local political elites, if they taught in the “right” language of instruction. Or this one[2], according to which, being suspended (so: missing school) makes no difference in academic outcomes. [1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w19690 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19690 [2] http://ftp.iza.org/dp7794.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp7794.pdf

podperson 13y ago

"This is a dangerous idea." Ideas are dangerous. I think you mean "this is a flawed article because it starts out to buttress a preconception rather than examine the data and then find a conclusion." "we don't REALLY know how random this is" Seriously? It's probably at least as random as any random assignment to condition in US college labs (I speak from a great deal of experience here). We're talking huge n values and a system that presumably at least has some level of public scrutiny (again, unlike US college labs). Why compare to US college labs? Because that's where most accepted social science research labs comes from. In any event, I see two major flaws in the initially cited study that are far more obvious and problematic than this. 1. Not everyone is Korean. Culture does matter. (Not everyone is a US college freshman either, of course.) And worse: 2. The outcome is measured entirely in terms of going to a 4-year college (good) vs. not going (bad). Not, for example, being "happy" 20 years later. Or graduating from college even. Anyway, what would we expect from a rambling rant hosted on the domain singlesexschools.org.

pmr_ 13y ago

I really like your argument (probably because you make a point that is important to me), but I think we also have to accept the realities of methodology. The variables which you (and I) would like to measure are much harder to get at. They require more time, good definitions of hard to define things, and more resources. I think the multitude of different ways to measure the happiness and well-being of a person are a good reminder of this. So researchers go for something that is easy to measure in a shorter time frame and which still provides some indication (some studies show correlation between college education and happiness, college education and income). Of course you would like to measure those things directly instead of using a proxy, but for the short term this can be good enough. You make some interesting connections between different opportunities for girls and boys in South Korea and single-sex schools, but I would be careful to correlate the two. It could very well be that coeducation is helpful in achieving equality on a society level, but maybe after equality has been achieved single-sex education might prove more effective.