451–460 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Future generations will consider us barbarians for dosing our young boys with drugs because we providing them with physical education/exercise was inconvenient to us. They'll also be able to datamine the internet from this time period and use our own words to hang us.
Depends on the medication. If they're on stims in particular, and the meds actually improve their behavior, then the cause most likely isn't insufficient PE time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed entirely. The goals of our factory system education are not in the best interest of the individuals participating. We home school largely for that reason...I want my children, both our boy and girls, to have individual creative thought, to explore the world, to rough-house, and to not just be a "good citizen" of society. Good citizens rarely make the world a better place. I want them to challenge, think, be in…
Careful though. Go too far in the opposite direction from “rule following good citizen” and you get conspiracy believers, YouTube Do-Your-Researchers, and Anti-Maskers. There needs to be a middle ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Girls the same age are more mature than boys. They develop differently. Maybe that's a factor?
What do we mean by mature though? It's a kind of bias to prefer one over the other, when it's simply different.
Being an adult is sometimes finding some occupancy that with minimum amount of time will give us the psychological comfort to do the maximum amount of paid work through the rest of the week (or day). Why don't we teach kids that being mature is caring for our needs too, instead of pushing them into the square hole of just duties that are demanded of them by everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the former were more likely to skip classes, study things that were not in the syllabus (which helps sometimes), not maintain notes as well, etc. whereas the latter would typically follow the syllabus, teachers' instructions etc. more closely and maintain very thorough notes. Mmm, that's interesting, I have the same observation. I'm not in the US, if that holds any value.
I also completely agree with throwaway53086 & with aviraldg about why the girls always perform better academically, especially in the primary school, because what they said matches perfectly my experience. I grew in Europe and, until I was about 10 years old, I firmly believed that the girls must be much smarter than the boys, precisely because they always received much better grades at school. Alas, eventually I was…
Lots of socialization going on.
Anyone with young boys and girls will notice that girls are much more likely to obey rules and instructions. A lot of doing well in school is about following rules and instructions, and it seems pretty natural that girls will do better. Also, most teachers are women. I haven't checked, but I'd assume most school administrators are women. It seems natural that they'd construct a system that's more suited for females t…
Do you think it has anything to do with girls having better handwriting. I couldn't improve my handwriting for the life of me when i was in school and got really poor grades from teachers not being able to read what i was writing.
I realize that this isn't terribly PC, but isn't it possible that testosterone is negatively correlated with attention span and compliance and positively correlated with risk taking? You certainly see it in other species. Without any value judgment at all, I would expect this would manifest in different outcomes in academic settings versus competitive markets. That is, it seems likely to me that some of this is due t…
There are a couple of points in very early life, then not until puberty.
You could still point to the indirect effects of elevated T during infancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that teachers give artificially low marks to boys for identical work. [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/education-31751672
Why is this getting downvoted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or... we could look at data? No? LAUSD: ~4.5:1 in elementary school, ~1:1 in secondary, ~4:1 in special ed[1] Across all CA public schools: ~2.5:1 [2] Across the US: 3:1 [3] So, more women? Yes. 20:1? Wild outlier. So, what about the claim that it's more women, somehow building a system more friendly to girls? Turns out the data says "not so much" there, too. Principals are roughly 1:1[4] [1] https://achieve.lausd.ne…
According to your data, a 20:1 ratio could be explained. The first figure of your link [3] shows that the ratio for elementary level teachers is 89:11. Plugging these numbers into R shows that it's not exactly a surprising result: > prop.test(1,21,p=11/100) 1-sample proportions test with continuity correction data: 1 out of 21, null probability 11/100 X-squared = 0.31913, df = 1, p-value = 0.5721 alternative hypothes…
This makes the "principals are 1:1" data even more interesting. It also lends a good chunk more weight to the idea that at least elementary schools are an environment with outsizedly more female role models.
I still think the "build a system" argument doesn't hold - see the 1:1 data - but I'm certainly more convinced on "the effects of the system-as-is result in this", even without the conscious build step.