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.