[flagged]

miningape 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I do agree there's a disparity between educational outcomes in men and women - but I don't think you can immediately draw your conclusion:

Baked into it is the assumption that current education models fit both genders equally. Boys respond better to active learning and competitive techniques than the more passive techniques used currently. (Could we just as easily draw the opposite conclusion if our current educational culture was geared towards boys?)

Another thing to consider is the various programs that incentivise/enable girls to get into various subjects (in my n=1 experience I had much fewer programs (programming, robotics, maths, etc.) to join despite being already very interested and strong in those subjects).

By comparing age groups directly we are also not controlling for the fact girls mature faster making them better students earlier in life. We are also not considering tail effects of a normal distribution: e.g. top 5% of all students are male, but majority of students in the top 50% are female.

Maybe the solution is to segregate schools on gender, but that doesn't immediately equate to boys crashing and girls excelling.

	▲	bjourne 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree and I don't think gender-segregated schooling is a wise idea. But the argument is Kryptonite to those who favor school segregation because they realize that they more likely than not would end up in the loser group. Works wonders on race baiters too, who has to come up with "reasons" why girls beating boys is the result of "unfairness" while whites beating blacks is "natural".

▲

jadamson 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's trivially not true. Girls do better overall, but it's a long, long way from being bimodal.

Do you have another reason for being against streaming?

▲

bjourne 5 days ago | parent [-]

If it's trivially untrue find me a Western country where boys generally do better than girls. I'll wait!

▲

jadamson 4 days ago | parent [-]

As I said, there is a vast overlap between boys and girls. Boys even do better in some subjects, notably mathematics and (some) sciences[1].

In the same way that if we streamed per-subject, there'd still be a significant number of girls in the top set for maths, if we streamed by performance overall, there'd be a lot of boys in the top schools.

Nothing about streaming implies gender segregation, so I'll ask again: do you have another reason for being against it?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/10/boys-widen...

▲

bjourne 4 days ago | parent [-]

That's why I wrote "generally". There are many countries, subjects, and years of education to compare so you can always find some statistic that bucks the trend.

▲

jadamson 4 days ago | parent [-]

Right, and no statistic, whether it's one that bucks the trend or not, would suggest one gender crashing while the other excels if streaming was applied. No statistic implies segregation.

I've asked twice now and you don't seem to be able to justify your position at all. That being the case, all I'm getting from your original comment is boomer incel vibes - a strange need to self-flagellate on behalf of your gender.

Feel free to post whatever bimodal metric you were referring to if I'm wrong :P

▲

bjourne 4 days ago | parent [-]

Boomer incel vibes? Lol! Maybe i have experience teaching and u don't? Segregate by reading skill. Good group gets 80% girls, bad group gets 80% boys. What happens to the 20% in the "wrong" group? Think. The kids are pressured to conform. Boys will slack off to be with the other boys while the girls will work hard to be with the other girls.

▲

4 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

jadamson 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

In the UK, going by results for GCSE English [1], 23.5% of girls and 15.6% of boys received top marks. This would put the split almost exactly 60/40 going on to A-level English. Maths would be 54/46 in favour of boys.

> Maybe i have experience teaching and u don't?

I don't see any teaching jobs on your CV.

Do bear in mind that while I also don't have teaching experience, I have been in school where some subjects were streamed (Maths, Sciences, Foreign Languages). It worked absolutely fine.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/aug/21/pupils-eng...

▲

bjourne 3 days ago | parent [-]

Wow, you really are a crazy person, aren't you? Attacking my character to win an internet argument. There is a metric shitton of evidence proving that: 1. Girls do better than boys in school. 2. The more girls the better the results. 3. The more boys the worse the results. Denying 1, 2, or 3 is the equivalent of climate change denial.

"All the research shows single-sex schools are good for girls but bad for boys – both in terms of academic performance and socialisation."

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that grouping students by educational achievement exacerbates the problem.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07380... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022976 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/...

▲

jadamson 3 days ago | parent [-]

> All the research shows single-sex schools are good for girls but bad for boys

We're not talking about single-sex schools. Even if we were, that line is simply not true.

> Bottom line: based on this analysis, single sex schooling may provide a modest boost to grades for female pupils, but doesn’t seem to make any difference for male pupils.

https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2024/05/do-pupils-in-sing...

As for your links, the first is very tenuous data, finding effects in "Mathematics and English but not Chinese".

The second (about mental health rather than academic performance) doesn't support your claim: "without negative effects for boys". Not exactly crashing out, is it?

The third is simply old and doesn't control for the differing properties that boys' and girls' schools tend to have in the UK for historical reasons. My link corrects for that.

There may be some negative effects on socialization in a single-sex environments, but we're not talking about single-sex environments, nor about socialization.

> Attacking my character to win an internet argument.

You implied you had teaching experience. You do not.

You've invented insane splits like 80/20 when the data don't suggest that at all.

You're now having to scraping the bottom of the barrel for a link to prove your claim while simultaneously suggesting the effect is as well-established as climate change.

Instead of wasting my time with this nonsense, maybe spend some time proof-reading your CV.

▲

bjourne 3 days ago | parent [-]

I feel no need to spoon-feed crazy internet trolls. I've cited a sample of researchers and research papers that support my conclusion. A few among thousands which show the same thing: girls do better than boys in school. Your response is "It worked fine for ME, the researchers are wrong, and you haven't updated your cv in years so I think you are lying."

I have no reason to waste more time with you. HTH HAND BYE

	▲	jadamson 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> girls do better than boys in school My very first reply said that "girls do better overall". The claims I took issue with were that (a) streaming would result in total segregation (b) which would, in turn, cause boys to crash out. I have demonstrated that neither claim is true, while you've posted random links from Google Scholar apparently without reading them.