Affirmative action, even when given a justification, is never ideal and is a sign of failure. Too many boys are falling through the K-12 education system, and we need to focus on the specific...
Affirmative action, even when given a justification, is never ideal and is a sign of failure. Too many boys are falling through the K-12 education system, and we need to focus on the specific reasons as to why (that go beyond basic sociocultural theories of the way boys and girls are raised. Differences in psychology and neuroscience need to be recognized and incorporated into understanding what is going with boys in the US. The biggest failure on this front is with respect to reading—this is a very consistent cross-cultural difference that keeps getting chocked up to socialization, completely disregarding essential data points such as girls learning language itself earlier in development than boys. I can say from what I've seen, that even when boys put in the effort with reading they on average struggle more).
I think you are confusing the cause and the effect here. Perhaps affirmative action is an ineffective way to combat discrimination in institutions, but in my view the underlying problem is...
Affirmative action, even when given a justification, is never ideal and is a sign of failure.
I think you are confusing the cause and the effect here. Perhaps affirmative action is an ineffective way to combat discrimination in institutions, but in my view the underlying problem is misogyny, and not affirmative action. The former is the real sign of failure.
that go beyond basic sociocultural theories of the way boys and girls are raised... Differences in psychology and neuroscience need to be recognized
I am very sceptical of biological determinism in general and I think it's a pretty terrible basis for running an education system. One issue I have is that people who believe in this tend to assume that whatever exists in the status quo is the result of the inherent characteristics of the people in question, rather than the absurdist stochastic process we live in. For example someone once suggested to me that "the 1% are getting smarter", the reason being "they are now becoming more inbread [I'm paraphrasing here] and thus their children have all the clever genes".
I actually do think that the social explains a lot of differences in school performance. For example if you look at Taiwan, Taiwanese schoolchildren blow almost all other schoolchildren out of the water in terms of performance. If you go to Taiwan and visit a school you will discover that a really large chunk of Taiwanese students attend more than 12 hours of school a day (regular school and then cram school). Although lots of people argue that east Asians are somehow more clever or gifted, I think a lot of it is down to valuing education.
Similarly girls have to value education more because they suffer so much discrimination in the labour force. If you look at overeducation figures (education relative to required education for a position) women tend to be highly over-educated for the positions they work in. This creates a pressure for women to work harder and try to succeed in the education system which does not exist for boys who have the luxury of being able to do well in the labour force with less education.
This is highly anecdotal, but this statement in your post made me realize something: When I went back to school to get my degree, I felt the need to over achieve because I was in male dominated...
This is highly anecdotal, but this statement in your post made me realize something:
Similarly girls have to value education more because they suffer so much discrimination in the labour force.
When I went back to school to get my degree, I felt the need to over achieve because I was in male dominated fields (engineering/IT). It dawned on me that I could not afford to be wrong in group assignments because that would lead to me being silenced out as the only woman on these projects. I had to get an A in each class because to me it was a signal that I deserved to take up space as the only woman in the room.
That has now carried over into my work in a different sense. I can't "not know" the answer to a question, ever. Those stumbles in the past have led to male colleagues taking less investment in my words and requires more effort on my end for the next time I have to assert my reasoning. On the other hand my male colleagues can stumble over and over again, sometimes with disastrous results, but they are still revered as an expert. While they have an infinite 3 strikes rule, I and other women are often only given one and done.
I've joked that I have to do "crime scene investigation" before heading into important meetings. At times I feel more like a lawyer having to present her case instead of project manager overseeing developmental tasks. It's a burden that I don't see my male colleagues having to grapple with and serves as an additional mental weight I have to handle for the same type of work.
I'm not sure how much this comes into the lack of investment in early education for boys, but there's a pervasive theme that they are allowed to fail more without repercussions. Perhaps this lax approach to their educational methods has perpetuated the downward trends that are now ongoing.
The last part seems contentious. I looked into some of these studies on overeducation and didn't find one that pointed at competition-within-gender as the reason for overeducation. I also found a...
The last part seems contentious. I looked into some of these studies on overeducation and didn't find one that pointed at competition-within-gender as the reason for overeducation. I also found a study that stated "males and females have about the same probability of being overeducated in their jobs", with some of overeducation statistics being impacted by proportions of genders in different fields.
From the study linked above, there doesn't appear to be consensus. So, since I am new to overeducation as a concept, I'd like to ask where the competition-within-gender theory comes from.
I don't understand why we should swing from one extreme framework to the other. There are serious limitations that come with a narrative-based, as opposed to thesis-based, understanding and mode...
I am very sceptical of biological determinism in general and I think it's a pretty terrible basis for running an education system.
I don't understand why we should swing from one extreme framework to the other.
There are serious limitations that come with a narrative-based, as opposed to thesis-based, understanding and mode of discussion of something as technical and layered as sex-based differences in psychology.
There are a myriad of practical issues that arise with these conversations that should definitely be kept in mind. Most notably, there's the risk of the stereotype threat and a self-fulfilling prophecy around what things are considered "boy things" and "girl things". With education, there's also the practical issue of how to communicate the message down the ranks, since realistically the average administrator might not have the background to properly disseminate the concept to teachers. But at some level, these basic realities need to be recognized and acted upon.
What do you mean by this? Even assuming that these differences exist, and that these differences are significant, how would you propose they be "acted upon"?
There are serious limitations that come with a narrative-based, as opposed to thesis-based
What do you mean by this?
But at some level, these basic realities need to be recognized and acted upon.
Even assuming that these differences exist, and that these differences are significant, how would you propose they be "acted upon"?
Despite efforts to dampen their success in admissions, women have, since the nineteen-eighties, been a majority of undergraduate student bodies. Today, they constitute nearly sixty per cent of students enrolled in college nationwide, at private and public institutions. The freshman classes of nearly all Ivy League schools are majority female. Female applicants consistently have higher high-school grades than male applicants, have completed more credits and more challenging courses, and have done more extracurricular activities. Male applicants reportedly have more trouble getting their application materials submitted (which has led Baylor to launch a “males and moms communication campaign” to help keep male applicants on track).
That means that selective colleges that aim to create gender-balanced classes must admit women at lower rates than men. Brown University, for example, which had an applicant pool that was just under sixty-three per cent female in the 2021-22 application cycle, accepted around seven per cent of the male applicants and around four per cent of the female applicants, to admit a class that was roughly fifty-fifty.
Affirmative action, even when given a justification, is never ideal and is a sign of failure. Too many boys are falling through the K-12 education system, and we need to focus on the specific reasons as to why (that go beyond basic sociocultural theories of the way boys and girls are raised. Differences in psychology and neuroscience need to be recognized and incorporated into understanding what is going with boys in the US. The biggest failure on this front is with respect to reading—this is a very consistent cross-cultural difference that keeps getting chocked up to socialization, completely disregarding essential data points such as girls learning language itself earlier in development than boys. I can say from what I've seen, that even when boys put in the effort with reading they on average struggle more).
I think you are confusing the cause and the effect here. Perhaps affirmative action is an ineffective way to combat discrimination in institutions, but in my view the underlying problem is misogyny, and not affirmative action. The former is the real sign of failure.
I am very sceptical of biological determinism in general and I think it's a pretty terrible basis for running an education system. One issue I have is that people who believe in this tend to assume that whatever exists in the status quo is the result of the inherent characteristics of the people in question, rather than the absurdist stochastic process we live in. For example someone once suggested to me that "the 1% are getting smarter", the reason being "they are now becoming more inbread [I'm paraphrasing here] and thus their children have all the clever genes".
I actually do think that the social explains a lot of differences in school performance. For example if you look at Taiwan, Taiwanese schoolchildren blow almost all other schoolchildren out of the water in terms of performance. If you go to Taiwan and visit a school you will discover that a really large chunk of Taiwanese students attend more than 12 hours of school a day (regular school and then cram school). Although lots of people argue that east Asians are somehow more clever or gifted, I think a lot of it is down to valuing education.
Similarly girls have to value education more because they suffer so much discrimination in the labour force. If you look at overeducation figures (education relative to required education for a position) women tend to be highly over-educated for the positions they work in. This creates a pressure for women to work harder and try to succeed in the education system which does not exist for boys who have the luxury of being able to do well in the labour force with less education.
This is highly anecdotal, but this statement in your post made me realize something:
When I went back to school to get my degree, I felt the need to over achieve because I was in male dominated fields (engineering/IT). It dawned on me that I could not afford to be wrong in group assignments because that would lead to me being silenced out as the only woman on these projects. I had to get an A in each class because to me it was a signal that I deserved to take up space as the only woman in the room.
That has now carried over into my work in a different sense. I can't "not know" the answer to a question, ever. Those stumbles in the past have led to male colleagues taking less investment in my words and requires more effort on my end for the next time I have to assert my reasoning. On the other hand my male colleagues can stumble over and over again, sometimes with disastrous results, but they are still revered as an expert. While they have an infinite 3 strikes rule, I and other women are often only given one and done.
I've joked that I have to do "crime scene investigation" before heading into important meetings. At times I feel more like a lawyer having to present her case instead of project manager overseeing developmental tasks. It's a burden that I don't see my male colleagues having to grapple with and serves as an additional mental weight I have to handle for the same type of work.
I'm not sure how much this comes into the lack of investment in early education for boys, but there's a pervasive theme that they are allowed to fail more without repercussions. Perhaps this lax approach to their educational methods has perpetuated the downward trends that are now ongoing.
The last part seems contentious. I looked into some of these studies on overeducation and didn't find one that pointed at competition-within-gender as the reason for overeducation. I also found a study that stated "males and females have about the same probability of being overeducated in their jobs", with some of overeducation statistics being impacted by proportions of genders in different fields.
From the study linked above, there doesn't appear to be consensus. So, since I am new to overeducation as a concept, I'd like to ask where the competition-within-gender theory comes from.
I don't understand why we should swing from one extreme framework to the other.
There are serious limitations that come with a narrative-based, as opposed to thesis-based, understanding and mode of discussion of something as technical and layered as sex-based differences in psychology.
There are a myriad of practical issues that arise with these conversations that should definitely be kept in mind. Most notably, there's the risk of the stereotype threat and a self-fulfilling prophecy around what things are considered "boy things" and "girl things". With education, there's also the practical issue of how to communicate the message down the ranks, since realistically the average administrator might not have the background to properly disseminate the concept to teachers. But at some level, these basic realities need to be recognized and acted upon.
What do you mean by this?
Even assuming that these differences exist, and that these differences are significant, how would you propose they be "acted upon"?
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/esGby