I was a horrible student as a child, and in my 20s I strongly held the belief that education was broken. Now that I'm a few decades older I wonder if my problem was not education but life. I did not fit in at most schools, and that had a negative effect on my desire and ability to learn. That's what led me to teach myself computers as a teenager...education and online socialization combined. Win/win.

I think the author is right that education isn't the problem, but they don't really discuss is the social element of schools. Bullying. Ostrification. I'm not really sure how schools are expected to fix that.

▲

pokstad 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There’s something lopsided about education for boys. The system appears to favor girls heavily. There’s projections that college student populations will have shrinking male population. I think this is a systemic issue with school being built to favor a certain philosophy that isn’t well thought out for 50% of the population.

▲

fasterik 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's not that the system favors a particular gender. The system favors personality traits like self-regulation, organization, and conscientiousness. These traits develop earlier on average in girls than in boys.

▲

rootusrootus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> projections that college student populations will have shrinking male population

Projections? Aren’t we already there in reality? That future is today.

▲

XorNot an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What philosophy? The gender based outcomes people never seem able to come up with any coherent explanation of what they think the problem is other then to play to stereotypes.

▲

rootusrootus an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The explanation that I’ve seen floated is behavioral. Boys are active and physical and don’t focus as easily as girls, who are more amenable to sitting quietly and paying attention. The idea is that the current predominant K12 style favors students in the latter behavior group.

I have two kids in K12 and I don’t think it’s that simple. Not that I have a good explanation of my own, mind you.

▲

an hour ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

jplusequalt an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>who are more amenable to sitting quietly and paying attention

Is this explanation not making a blatant assumption here that girls are statistically less hyperactive and distracted than boys?

	▲	rootusrootus 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Is that controversial (assuming otherwise normal children, excluding anybody with ADHD, etc)?

▲

Avicebron an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What philosophy?

They might be referring to the TED Radio Hour "Beyond the manosphere" by Richard Reeves. I think it was on NPR a while ago, I looked it up because the "school isn't designed for boys but girls" sounded familiar.

▲

bilbo0s an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This.

A math test is a math test is a math test.

What's the math teacher supposed to do?

I hate to be that guy, but I think it should be pointed out that asian boys don't seem to have much of a problem. If there's a gender bias, why do they succeed?

▲

HDThoreaun 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So the issue with this take imo is that one of the primary goals of schooling is to socialize kids and force them to interact with others they dont get along with. There needs to be some conflict among the students so that they can gain and practice conflict resolution skills that are absolutely vital. I agree that the current system can be improved, it's just not clear how.

▲

NoMoreNicksLeft 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Any time you try to randomly assort 30 children of the same calendar age into a room with a single (or even several) teacher, it's going to be bad for nearly everyone except those in the very middle of the curve. A very narrow portion of that middle too. It can't not be. And if the teacher tries to cater to the slow kids and the "gifted" kids even a little, then the middle-of-the-curve children will suffer for that too.

The problem isn't "education"... everyone not destined to be a feral caveman needs one. The problem is "public schools". The idea itself is wrong, and it can't be made to work. But our single-minded pursuit of it to the detriment of all other alternatives just compounds the trouble.

Of the 50 people who end up reading my comment above, every one of you will read it a different way, and it's unlikely very many of you will read it as intended.

	▲	layman51 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It might have worked in the very distant past. I learned that there was once a monitorial system of education where a single teacher might be in charge of many students, but only because the teacher would get a lot of help from skilled students who would teach what they had learned to other students in their charge.
	▲	in-silico an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The problem is "public schools". The idea itself is wrong, and it can't be made to work. Do you have an alternative idea in mind?
	▲	kajecounterhack an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Isn't this just solved by better student teacher ratios, which you could totally have in public schools if they were funded better and societally we valued teachers more? What are private schools doing that you couldn't implement in public schools with adequate political will and money?
	▲	yongjik an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Meh, it's not like before public schools most children had access to tutors tailored to their individual needs. Badly misquoting Churchill, public schools are the worst form of education, except for all the other forms.
	▲	bilbo0s an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think I should also gently suggest here that the issue could also be expectations. The idea that you put 30 random children in a class and that therefore there must be some who are "gifted", and there must be some who are "slow". I don't know man? I'm just saying that sometimes sure, all the kids in your neighborhood could be above average. But most of the time, all the kids in a class are just average. And now the poor teacher has to explain to irate parents that their kid's not any more special than the other kids in the class. (Only we don't. We acquiesce to their insanity and label average at best kids as "gifted" and then have everyone be shocked when those kids don't gain admission to Ivies. Ma'am, that kid was lucky to get into his/her state flagship. And even at that state flagship, s/he probably ain't gonna be majoring in ChemE or anything if you want my honest opinion.) Sure, you can have slow kids in a class. But, really? 30 random kids? Is it statistically likely that any are "slow"? Or is it more likely you're dealing with no good parents who don't work with their children at home? Then those same parents come to berate the teachers for not doing enough to teach a fourth grader addition and subtraction. With absolutely no reflection on why a fourth grader, with no learning disability, doesn't understand addition and subtraction.) I don't envy teachers because these are the attitudes they have to deal with. Public Service Announcement: No people, your children aren't "gifted". And it's very unlikely that your kids are "slow". Your kids are very likely, (horror of horrors), just average. Every one of them. If we can just get past those things we can start looking at some of the real issues.