School too girly? (2 Viewers)

[erawamai]

there is much scientific debate about why girls are better at english, and boys are better at maths. but what is completely agreed upon is that.....girls are better at english and boys are better at maths. it doesn't matter why this is the case, it is a fact. so making english compulsory and maths optional does put boys at a disadvantage, wouldn't you agree?

Are you suggesting that there is something genetic which makes boys less able when it comes to English? If that is the case do you think we should just accept this or should be work at making boys overcome this genetic defect? Either way personally I think being able to communicate is slightly more core than being numerate - but only just. I don't think we should change the focus of education in order to be politically correct. Boys need to overcome their genetic inferiority and put their minds to reading rather than crying about being disadvantaged. If what you say about girls being not so good at maths is true then girls have overcome their genetic inferiority in order to do well at maths and science.

I think maths should be made compulsory for the HSC anyway. However this wouldn't change much as the number of people who choose not to do some form of HSC maths is low.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You're completely wrong crazyhomo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

Boys are actually better at everything, however when it comes to highschool testing alot of people speculate that this has to do with brain development. At 17 a girls brain is more developed than that of a boy, however as you get close to 20 this development gap closes.

 

[crazyhomo]

You're completely wrong crazyhomo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

Boys are actually better at everything, however when it comes to highschool testing alot of people speculate that this has to do with brain development. At 17 a girls brain is more developed than that of a boy, however as you get close to 20 this development gap closes.

no. i'm not

SAT is biased towards males and whites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT

that is not a good way of proving boys are smarter at everything. cause it's not true. it's a fact of psychology that boys outperform girls in spatial tasks, while girls outperform in verbal
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/104/107367.htm?z=1685_00000_0000_ep_03

Willingham and Cole (1997) exami-
ned the trend of gender differences on academic tasks
(writing, reading, language use, science, study skills,
etc.) from age 9 to age 17 using a large and nationally-
representative cross-sectional American database.
What they found was that there is some increase in
gender differentiation from age 9 to age 17, with girls
improving more in writing and language use and boys
improving more in science and math subjects.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...01-216.pdf+child+cognitive+tasks+gender&hl=en

erawamai: i'm not saying that boys shouldn't just get over it and try harder at english. maybe they can be as good if they really knuckled down. but you do agree that the way the hsc is set up (having english as a compulsory subject) is skewed towards females?

 

[The Nick]

Yay lets argue about a Miranda Devine article based on dubious studies to which I have never seen a correlation to in real life. Okay, so the preschool thing is rather ridiculous.

But the problem with making blanket excuses for everything is that people hide behind them. You're making an excuse for the boys behaving badly, while there are plenty of guys who don't have any problems. The highest achievers throughout my schooling life, 13 years of co-ed education, were always male.

It's not impossible for guys to do well in school, but if we hide behind excuses like "girls are predisposed to be good at x while boys are predisposed to be good at y", nobody will try to improve, as they can just keep playing the victim and not address the problem.

 

[MasterP]

Boys are actually better at everything, however when it comes to highschool testing alot of people speculate that this has to do with brain development. At 17 a girls brain is more developed than that of a boy, however as you get close to 20 this development gap closes.

Male IQ tends to be spread out over a larger STD, high to low, than female IQ, which is more densely concentrated in the middle.
So Boys may be better at eveything, but they are also the worst at everything (by IQ standards), so it evens out.

 

[loquasagacious]

I agree with erawamai - I am quite good at english/humanities (I don't like the current crop of post-modern content though).

I think that ntb is more on the money with the differing developemental speeds of the sexes - what would be interesting is a comparison of the performance of males/females in university whether the performance gap narrows etc.

How then would it be possible to address the problem though? It would hardly be fair to give boys bonus marks to make up for being slower developers and likewise to change the entire grade structure (eg to boys being a year behind girls grade wise).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well I was thinking perhaps if there is a shortening of the gap that it might be worth considering making the testing occur a year after... it would depend on what the results are for any further studies.

 

[Phanatical]

Miranda Devine isn't the only writer who has commented on this issue. I recommend articles by Glenn Sacks, Joe Manthey and Wendy McElroy for far more comprehensive coverage of this rather significant problem.

 

[veterandoggy]

So has the suggestion that cushioned seats replace hard plastic ones, because boys have bony bottoms and find it hard to sit still for long without padding.

lmao my sis now thinks i am crazy after seeing me pop out a laugh from nowhere.

 

[Gay Captain]

We live in an English speaking country. It is important that our engineers are able to read and hopefully write about something. I think it is pretty sad that a person can graduate from high school and not be able to write or construct some kind of written communcation.

I also do not think Advanced English is equal to 4 unit maths.

Also not many people choose not to do maths. Perhaps some level of maths should be made compulsory however it should not be made to count like english.

As opposed to drawing some kind of written communication? You and I know fully that poor grammar and spelling are not even taken into account when English papers are marked. As long as you write down all the 'right' ideas then you get the marks, no matter how poorly written. Grammar was taken out of English classes years ago because it isn't trendy enough.

 

[Raginsheep]

Its not just engineering that requires maths. Of the major study areas, Arts, Commerce, Engineering, Law, Medicine and Science, the majority of them require maths at a intermediate level. Even in basic life, maths is far more common than one would expect. Thats not to say that english should be ignored. I believe that the level of literacy, in both numeracy and language, need to function properly in today's society should be taught and mastered at the year 10 level.

By years 11 and 12, we should be extending beyond the basic skills. In this situation, if English Advance is complusory, then 2unit Maths should also be complsory, regardles of any sex bais.

 

[Phanatical]

In our society, a command of mathematics is essential - generally up to year 10 standard. The fact that there the SC is now comprised of English/Literacy, Maths, Science, History/Geography/Civics and Computing represents the absolute minimum standard that people are expected to operate under. This represents the "everybody passes the SC" position designed to create people who have the minimum requirements for society, and not much more.

The HSC however essentially cultivates an academic culture where certain academic values are emphasised over others. The English course, for example, is centred around the idea that sources must not be read at face value, no matter the intention of the person expressing the source. There are no right answers, and this is not the sort of environment which I, or many others, find most comfortable. There is much empirical data showing that girls are more likely to be analytical, where boys are more likely to be logical - and this is supported by the fact that most boys find the English course much harder than girls.

There is a huge gender imbalance reflected in the statistics from the HSC. 51% of SC candidates are male, and 49% of HSC candidates are male. But beyond the HSC, boys are not as successful within academic circles with only 40% of university students being male. Such a statistical drop strongly suggests what we already know - that girls do better in the HSC, and are more likely to get into uni.

On a bit of a tangent: In the HSC English courses (from ESL right through to Extension 2), students are tested not on their ability to understand the intention behind the sources, but on their abilities to reinterpret the sources, often with a political bent. In one past HSC, the author of source materials used in the exam actually sat the exam under the guise of a student. To the question "What is the composer trying to convey in this work", even the composer was criticised and penalised by markers for not looking deep enough into the meaning of the work. The idea that there is only one right answer is not one that even I'm game to debate, but to build the entire English curriculum upon the premise that All answers are wrong is dubious at best. That sort of thinking may thrive in Gender Studies and Philosophy departments in universities, but that's no excuse to force it upon high school students.

 

[erawamai]

The HSC however essentially cultivates an academic culture where certain academic values are emphasised over others. The English course, for example, is centred around the idea that sources must not be read at face value, no matter the intention of the person expressing the source. There are no right answers, and this is not the sort of environment which I, or many others, find most comfortable. There is much empirical data showing that girls are more likely to be analytical, where boys are more likely to be logical - and this is supported by the fact that most boys find the English course much harder than girls.

1. Difference between analytical and logical and why they are mutually exclusive please

2. I'm sorry the notion of different interpretations escapes you. In all honesty the notion of different interpretations isn't hard to get your head around. It may also help students understand that other people have different views from their own helping them compare and contrast their views in order to get to a higher truth. I hope you don't think that this is a bad thing?

2. If you haven’t noticed yet social science requires you to be LOGICAL AND ANALITYICAL whereby you decide on a theoretical interpretation of whatever you are writing about and then support this interpretation with evidence.

HSC English is similar.

Part of making kids understand readings is by making them learn ARGUMENT so that they can support the reading which they are suggesting can be seen. If the student is going to successfully support such an interpretation he or she is going to have to understand the text well. Anyway, if there was only one answer there would be no need for students to come up with different arguments in order to support their reading of the text.

The reason why some students struggle is because they have...

a) Bad teachers. Teachers who bumbled through university and couldn’t write a properly supported and structured essay.
c) Students who keep crying about how hard it is to read a 200 page book.

There is a huge gender imbalance reflected in the statistics from the HSC. 51% of SC candidates are male, and 49% of HSC candidates are male. But beyond the HSC, boys are not as successful within academic circles with only 40% of university students being male. Such a statistical drop strongly suggests what we already know - that girls do better in the HSC, and are more likely to get into uni.

What we suppose we do about this? I hardly think boys are genetically unable to do HSC English. It's more likely that the culture among boys is that it is uncool to read and uncool to try hard at English.

On a bit of a tangent: In the HSC English courses (from ESL right through to Extension 2), students are tested not on their ability to understand the intention behind the sources, but on their abilities to reinterpret the sources, often with a political bent.

Understanding the intention of the sources is history. In any case the comparative study of text requires you to understand the context in which the text was written. For example, if don't understand why Blade Runner was relevant at the time of its making or why Brave New World was topical at the time it was written you will be unable to compare and contrast the texts. So in any case your claim that the whole of HSC English is based on interpretations and supporting that interpretation instead of learning about the intentions of the writer are incorrect. Unless of course you just forgot about comparative study of text.

You know phanatical you could have done a masculine interpretation of King Lear. If you did this and supported it well then you still would have gotten good marks.

In one past HSC, the author of source materials used in the exam actually sat the exam under the guise of a student. To the question "What is the composer trying to convey in this work", even the composer was criticised and penalised by markers for not looking deep enough into the meaning of the work. The idea that there is only one right answer is not one that even I'm game to debate, but to build the entire English curriculum upon the premise that All answers are wrong is dubious at best. That sort of thinking may thrive in Gender Studies and Philosophy departments in universities, but that's no excuse to force it upon high school students.

Source please!

 

[M.I.A-187]

man thats stuffed up :S

 

[VanCarBus]

UM, i didnt really read the article, but from what it sounz like to me, I can make sense if this: Boys here are stupid they have no future plans, lots of ma aussie mates have no idea what to do with their lives. But, these blokes finished their HSCs. This is way better than those other illiterate blokes who drop out of y10 and then using their yobbo english do apprenticeships and traineeships. maybe boys have a short attention span, lack of patience and get bored easily. Hence labouring jobs are male dominant because they all dropped outta school or had bottom dirt shithouse UAIs. However, this is not always the case, some ppl dont want to go to uni cause they know what they want to do that will bloom in their futures. 24/7 supermarket/retail workers will get nowhere. ... and i got no fucken idea what im writing here. so rant if u disagree : )

 

[2 Dea]

UM, i didnt really read the article, but from what it sounz like to me, I can make sense if this: Boys here are stupid they have no future plans, lots of ma aussie mates have no idea what to do with their lives. But, these blokes finished their HSCs. This is way better than those other illiterate blokes who drop out of y10 and then using their yobbo english do apprenticeships and traineeships. maybe boys have a short attention span, lack of patience and get bored easily. Hence labouring jobs are male dominant because they all dropped outta school or had bottom dirt shithouse UAIs. However, this is not always the case, some ppl dont want to go to uni cause they know what they want to do that will bloom in their futures. 24/7 supermarket/retail workers will get nowhere. ... and i got no fucken idea what im writing here. so rant if u disagree : )

But some guys who take up appreticeships and drop out after year 10 do have more of an idea of what they want to do, compared to people who just go to Uni and choose a course that looks good. in the past few years, while the housing market was booming, builders and labourers became highly valued. Which meant that they could make $10,000 - $40,000 for a couple of months work or less. I'd rather be outside doing that kind of stuff then sitting inside at a table studying.

 

[samuelblayden]

The reason girls do better than boys in the HSC is because none of the subjects (except maths) have any common sense in them. What with the humanising of the sciences, the post-modernising of the humanities and such...

No one with testicles is willing to take that crap seriously.

i AGREE WITH U MATE

 

[alby]

girls do better in all-girls schools, and boys do better in co-ed schools

nuff said!

 

[VanCarBus]

But some guys who take up appreticeships and drop out after year 10 do have more of an idea of what they want to do, compared to people who just go to Uni and choose a course that looks good. in the past few years, while the housing market was booming, builders and labourers became highly valued. Which meant that they could make $10,000 - $40,000 for a couple of months work or less. I'd rather be outside doing that kind of stuff then sitting inside at a table studying.

YES, i agree with you, im just saying the bludgers who arent working at proper places have no future prospects unless they get off centrelink and stop playin WoW. ahaha. buut yeah, ppl like merrik n rosso , one of em was homeless and now is a presenter on 96.9. so, just maybe, the people with harder lives are most successful because they try very hard to achieve something.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

agree with VCB. many apprenticeships and trades appeal more to males, since it is a lot of 'hands on', pnysical work, where stereotypically and generally, girls would rather read or write and sit in the class room.

i agree that we do need to have both english and maths, and the belief is that high school will cater for these necessary skills. my argument is that we need to change the advanced english course. wheres the good old grammar or comprehension questions? its pretty much only taught in primary school and perhaps in year 7-8, but not a shred of what real "English". Its all nice and good to talk and discuss about concepts and issues, but if we dont have the basic foundations of english literacy and grammar, then the standard of english essays and extended responses will drop. pretty much every year, in the comments released by the BOS markers commenting upon the standard of candidate responses, many complain about the lack of proper grammar and spelling. SPELLING!

we need to change the hsc syllabus, so that we are more prepared for later life, BEYOND obtaining one number.