Does a student's sex matter in education?

[Dawn]

Very specific question
In the context of education, does a student's sex have relevance?

Whether it's in elementary school, middle school, high school, or college. What is the difference between girls and boys in the context of education? Does it differ with age? You've probably heard something by now at some point or another about girls do better at this or boys do better at that, or at least heard something about how, to a degree, some people believe such. How valid are any of these? Any clue why exactly they're there in the first place? If they're invalid, are they completely invalid or only invalid to a degree? If they're valid, do we have the right reasoning for them, or is the reasoning a bit off?​

As is standard in any debate topic I make, I probably won't be getting involved until the discussion has flowed for a bit.

 

[Nihilego]

I don't see how it would matter really. Research showing that girls are generally harder workers has been done but that's not really relevant to the education they receive. Outside of sexual education and sports I don't think gender should have any effect on education.

 

[Azureth]

I thought women couldn't do math.

 

[Eucliffe]

No.

All that matters is how hard the individual works and how dedicated he or she is to studying and learning/remembering the material. It has nothing to do with age, gender, etc. Anyone who thinks it does should learn to not be sexist or stereotypical.

 

[Miz en Scène]

I thought women couldn't do math.

Lolwut?

Gender has nothing to do with education. The only thing that may affect a student's capacity to learn is their social and or genetic background, but gender itself doesn't inherently lead to any appreciable difference in the way students learn. I admit, in some societies, there is more pressure for certain genders to be more proficcient in certain subjects rather than others in order to conform to the status quo, but, really, if you take away that element, there's nothing to say that boys can't be better at x subject than girls or vice versa.

 

[Banjora Marxvile]

I agree with the above, it's more about what you are used to doing and genetics. You are supposed to be good at something that you find interesting and are dedicated to, so it has to depend mainly on personality. For instance, I love bags and the case, and so in textiles in like Year 9 (3 years ago) when we were forced to do it, I did my best on this bag we had to make, just because I liked the topic, and I actually got some nice commens about my finished design.

Gender shouldn't mean anything, basically. It all depends on the student themselves in personality, dedication and to some extent genetics.

 

[Esper]

Is this thread asking about whether people should be treated differently according to their sex or whether different sexes perform or learn better in different areas of education?


I have read more than once that on average boys do better in such-and-such areas and girls better in this-or-that area. Maybe they do, and if so then... so what? It's just an average. I mean, if that's what the statistics show then okay. If we're talking about teaching girls and boys differently then that's just silly because we all know that there are people who don't fit the norm.

https://pewresearch.org/pubs/58/women-cant-do-mathor-can-they

Would you care to elaborate on that article and how it relates to what we're talking about and/or you opinions on it?

 

[Dawn]

Is this thread asking about whether people should be treated differently according to their sex or whether different sexes perform or learn better in different areas of education?

Both.



Also, people have mentioned studies and averages. I think it's important to figure out exactly why the averages are different.

 

[Banjora Marxvile]

https://pewresearch.org/pubs/58/women-cant-do-mathor-can-they

It never specifies exactly also how many of each side were doing mathematical courses and the like. It would be a bit unfair if most of the women picked didn't do any Mathematical courses, or any relating to needing to even rotate objects in their head as well, so... the study does maybe have it's flaws at the moment. Also, the article doesn't say they can't do Math, just says that they feel they can't due to stereotyping and the links they made to it.

Just saying.

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

https://pewresearch.org/pubs/58/women-cant-do-mathor-can-they

inb4 AGHHHHHH A TROLL IMMA REPORT YOU AND YOU'LL BE BANNED MUHAHAHAHAHA

Nah just kidding man you're doing a cool job at being sexist keep it up 5/10

OT:
I don't really think it matters. Boys do better at X and girls do better at Y sounds like a myth to me. Maybe at sports but women can still do good, just remember not to dose testosterone.
I'm sure that if we take proper students the averages should be more or less the same, 5 points difference at worst.

I only think it matters on sex ed, but sex ed fails anyway because I was completely terrified how much boys in my class knew while we had it for the first time. How innocent I was.. now look at me, I'm so dirty minded, yet I have little interest in sex. Why the hell am I telling personal stories anyway?

tldr: you people here type and read walls of text, it shouldn't be a problem to read this. I think. But yeah I'll be serious: There's no difference and if there is, it's minimal.

 

[Rogue planet]

Also, people have mentioned studies and averages. I think it's important to figure out exactly why the averages are different.

Apparently, boys did better in the past because teachers would focus on them more, and expect them to do better in the supposedly more difficult subjects like maths and science. Whereas little effort was given in educating girls because they weren't expected to perform well due to the stronger sexism in those days. Studies have also suggested that boys perform better on exams, and in the past that's what grades were entirely based on.

Now, girls are treated equally and are given just as much attention as boys in all subjects, rather than just home economics. Grades are also based on coursework as well as exams now, and girls are shown to perform better on coursework assignments. Apparently because girls are typically better at long-term projects, whilst boys are typically better at performing under pressure in exams. Maybe it's biological, maybe it's due to the way they're brought up, maybe something else, who knows?

In this country, statistics show that girls do currently outperform boys in every single subject at both primary and secondary school. It's the same for all ethnic groups as well; there are far more girls than boys that pass. I think the statistics are the same for college, but don't quote me on it. University is a bit more even I think.

I think it's too difficult to pinpoint an exact cause. Like I said before, there could be a number of reasons. Personally I think it's not biological. A lot of boys here don't care much for study because it's not "cool", they don't place much value on education. Most girls on the other hand seem to care about it quite a lot. I think it's probably a mix of peer groups teaching certain values, and parental upbringing. Of course there's not a huge margin of difference between gender success rates, it's just the general trend.

 

[Azureth]

Apparently, boys did better in the past because teachers would focus on them more, and expect them to do better in the supposedly more difficult subjects like maths and science. Whereas little effort was given in educating girls because they weren't expected to perform well due to the stronger sexism in those days. Studies have also suggested that boys perform better on exams, and in the past that's what grades were entirely based on.

Now, girls are treated equally and are given just as much attention as boys in all subjects, rather than just home economics. Grades are also based on coursework as well as exams now, and girls are shown to perform better on coursework assignments. Apparently because girls are typically better at long-term projects, whilst boys are typically better at performing under pressure in exams. Maybe it's biological, maybe it's due to the way they're brought up, maybe something else, who knows?

In this country, statistics show that girls do currently outperform boys in every single subject at both primary and secondary school. It's the same for all ethnic groups as well; there are far more girls than boys that pass. I think the statistics are the same for college, but don't quote me on it. University is a bit more even I think.

I think it's too difficult to pinpoint an exact cause. Like I said before, there could be a number of reasons. Personally I think it's not biological. A lot of boys here don't care much for study because it's not "cool", they don't place much value on education. Most girls on the other hand seem to care about it quite a lot. I think it's probably a mix of peer groups teaching certain values, and parental upbringing. Of course there's not a huge margin of difference between gender success rates, it's just the general trend.

One thing of note is unlike in the past where men made up the vast majority of students, nowadays they only make up 40%: https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41928806/ns/business-consumer_news/

Also, 78 percent of the jobs lost since 2007 were held by men, leaving one out of every five working age men out of work.

 

[twocows]

I honestly have no idea. I don't feel like I'm qualified to make a judgment. It's possible there are actual physical differences in the way women and men think toward accomplishing something that may affect their ability to learn (though I think anyone can learn something given time and effort), but I really don't know for sure. And to be honest, I get the feeling that not a lot of unbiased research has been done on this topic.

 

[Livewire]

Men are thought to be better at spatial tasks, whereas women are geared for more verbal tasks. But in terms of education, girls are thought to learn faster because they tend to not be as crazy when they're little, and most little boys tend to be hyperactive, and don't like sitting at a desk from 8-3, 5 days a week. Then factor in socioeconomic and cultural values, which only complicate things further.

 

[Dawn]

I think it's too difficult to pinpoint an exact cause. Like I said before, there could be a number of reasons. Personally I think it's not biological.

Perhaps. Let me push you though because I like where you're going with that.

Perhaps there's a biological root.

Now, girls are treated equally and are given just as much attention as boys in all subjects, rather than just home economics.

But do you think that perhaps the problem might be a step further? What do you think about the theory, that perhaps girls and boys are both equally capable of learning the same things, but that biological differences cause them to learn better through different methods? The theory suggests that the fact we do not acknowledge these differences and try to treat everyone the same is the culprit behind why we see gender based trends in academic success or failure.

This theory is tied in with what Livewire mentioned in the previous post, as those are two of the common observed differences with brain development between the sexes.

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

Men are thought to be better at spatial tasks, whereas women are geared for more verbal tasks. But in terms of education, girls are thought to learn faster because they tend to not be as crazy when they're little, and most little boys tend to be hyperactive, and don't like sitting at a desk from 8-3, 5 days a week. Then factor in socioeconomic and cultural values, which only complicate things further.

Just dropping here to say that I wasn't an hyperactive prick, and I scored pretty darn well. I learned as quick as girls and in some cases quicker.
Just saying, because what you just said is relatively true and I've seen it with my own eyes or parents do not know how to educate their children.

Maybe it is something genetic.

 

[Esper]

Okay, let's assume, like Live Wire said, that boys are on average better at spatial skills. That's just one specialized skill. There's no Spacial Skills 101 class and everything that might possibly use those skills needs you to have other skills in order to learn the subject and do well in it.

I see a problem with trying to teach to differences. That idea reinforces assumptions that all girls or all boys learn one way or another. There's a lot of room for individual differences, such as girls who have great spacial skills if we're using the example above. What we should do is teach to each individual, or at least learn what each child's strengths are before assuming they'll do better one way or another because of their gender.

So yeah. It doesn't really matter if there is a biological component or not since there will always be an individual component.

 

[Livewire]

Just dropping here to say that I wasn't an hyperactive prick, and I scored pretty darn well. I learned as quick as girls and in some cases quicker.
Just saying, because what you just said is relatively true and I've seen it with my own eyes or parents do not know how to educate their children.

Maybe it is something genetic.

When I was growing up in school, I was the same way. I was one of the smartest in the class, ahead of the girls. Hell, when we studied Dinosaurs I had to help my teacher with the pronunciations and the Latin. Parents being clueless is most definitely a part of it too. A young child being in an environment conducive to learning will promote learning, regardless of the child's gender. Just as a child raised in a poor educational setting will usually be behind the 8 ball in terms of educational development. It's part biological and part developmental. Nature AND Nurture, etc.

 

[Dawn]

Okay, let's assume, like Live Wire said, that boys are on average better at spatial skills. That's just one specialized skill. There's no Spacial Skills 101 class and everything that might possibly use those skills needs you to have other skills in order to learn the subject and do well in it.

I see a problem with trying to teach to differences. That idea reinforces assumptions that all girls or all boys learn one way or another. There's a lot of room for individual differences, such as girls who have great spacial skills if we're using the example above. What we should do is teach to each individual, or at least learn what each child's strengths are before assuming they'll do better one way or another because of their gender.

So yeah. It doesn't really matter if there is a biological component or not since there will always be an individual component.

Individualism...
I don't think that applies here. It's not as if anyone makes a choice on how their brain works. That's just part of being a human being. I believe that any individual strengths and weaknesses in learning are probably creditable to some sort of biological strength or weakness.

And if we can find a biological difference that is significantly consistent in one gender, isn't it fair to say that we should be teaching in the most likely to succeed fashion? After all, there's a very limited amount of flexibility on how unorthodox a teaching method can get when you think about the staff, money, and time limitations

 

[Azureth]

I have noticed men like to focus on one thing while women like to do multiple things at once.