LAUSD OKs Girls-Only STEM School, Plans Boys-Only English Language Arts School 599
theodp writes: Citing statistics that showed a whopping 46 more boys than girls passed the AP Computer Science Exam in 2011-12, the 640,000+ student Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) on Tuesday approved a waiver to enable the District to operate a single-gender, all-girls STEM School called the Girls Academic Leadership Academy (GALA). Students in GALA will follow a six year sequence of computer courses starting in middle school that will culminate in AP Computer Science Principles. "Fewer females take AP courses in math, science, or computer science, and they are not as successful as males in receiving passing scores of 3, 4 or 5," argued the General Waiver Request (PDF, 700+ pages). "An all girls environment is reasonably necessary for the school to improve the self-confidence of girls in their academic abilities, especially in STEM areas where an achievement gap currently exists. GALA's admissions shall also comply with AB 1266 to ensure male students who identify as female are admitted to the school." The school's CS-related Partners include the UCLA Exploring Computer Science Program, as well as Google-bankrolled Girls Who Code, Black Girls Code, and NCWIT. One of the reasons the all-girls STEM school reportedly got the green light is that its backers satisfied federal regulations requiring a "substantially equal school" for excluded male students by submitting a plan for a companion all-boys school that would emphasize English Language Arts, where they often fall short of girls' test scores, rather than GALA's focus on STEM. One suspects the no-fan-of-gender-restricted-public-schools ACLU may call BS on this maneuver.
I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet we are just creating more and more by bullshit like this. Usually it's just for women's benefit, but in this case there's also discrimination against gals too.
Why can't we just end this bullshit and let children grow up to do want they want to do?
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet we are just creating more and more by bullshit like this. Usually it's just for women's benefit, but in this case there's also discrimination against gals too.
Why can't we just end this bullshit and let children grow up to do want they want to do?
Because. This is the sort of shite people with an activist streak get caught up in any more,
leaving important worries like electing good people to govern us languishing on the back burner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By activist you mean corporate lobbyists. They are the ones pushing this computer programming b.s.
A combination of both, methinks. However, you have to look beyond who is doing it, and instead ask why they're doing it.
The activists do it because it shoves their agendae along. They get to put their name in the papers, and more importantly, they get to feel good about themselves while they do it.
The (tech) corporate interests on the other hand, they do it for two reasons: First, they think that by doing so, they get a bigger labor market down the road - thus driving down costs. Second, they get to pretend
Re: (Score:3)
A good point, very well said. The USA's educational system is doubleplusfar from perfect, but I firmly believe that if someone doesn't want to learn, no environment will help. If they do, they'll pick it up.
My brother's ex-wife a brilliant engineer, thou I haven't had the pleasure (or horror, sometimes?) of meeting as many engineers as I could've. She's one of 3 or 4 people I've been able to have a honest, detailed, tech-type conversations with. And I'm fairly sure she never had special classes to learn, be
Re: I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm actually in favor of gender-segregated junior high schools, mainly because of the showboating that goes on due to the hormones. It's been demonstrated that it's significantly curtailed when the other gender isn't present to display toward.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm also personally not against gender segregated high schools, although they do need to be equal in their resources and what they offer. The very idea that there might be a high school full of tech goodies that I wouldn't allowed to go to just because I was a boy is just torture.
I don't like the idea that girls might be kept from CS, but at the same time, I think the forces that are discouraging them don't actually come about because they lack opportunity of this sort. If anything it is a social thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It makes me wonder, if all of the people that came into tech in this fashion were discounted
Re: I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in a country where about half of the schools are mixed, and the other half is one of either single genders. Some teachers union (my wife is a teacher I don't know exactly what the source was) did a study and determined that gender segregation benefits girls in terms of academic performance, but hurts boys for the same.
The wife's guess (who has taught at mixed and gender segregated schools) is that boys get competitive around girls, which seems to make some sense.
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yah, thankfully things are a breeze for skinny math geeks interested in computers at school, jocks were never discouraging. Not to mention how nerds are depicted in movies/TV, nothing to discourage, nope.
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:4, Informative)
Typically females are discouraged from entering science and engineering and it starts at an early age.
This is the opposite of what I have seen. Both the schools and many parents try hard to push girls into STEM. It is the girls themselves that are disinterested. The discouragement comes from their peers, not from "the system".
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Informative)
I was made fun of for being a nerd as a kid, and therefore "discouraged" from it... but the male nerds were made fun of just the same.
As a child, I got special treatment and encouragement from teachers for being a female that was into STEM type stuff. I remember getting into all sorts of special events and programs for girls while the males that were just the same were excluded. I remember getting all sorts of support because my mom resented my "ungirlyness" - but there was no support for the male nerds with fathers bullying them for not being "manly" enough and into sports and such.
As a teenager, I also got encouragement in the form of male attention (from the males into the same things) for being into it. I did not get attention from the males not into the same things... but the males did not get attention from females not into the same things.
As an adult, my gender is irrelevant until/unless I make it an issue. I know a lot of smart women that are not attractive... but it has nothing to do with them being smart; it has everything to do with them prioritizing intelligence based interests over keeping themselves looking attractive. People find them unattractive BEFORE realizing they are smart. (But would you really want to be with those people? Looks will fade for everyone eventually, so keep holding out for that rare person who's going to love you for your mind.)
EVERYONE is made fun of, EVERYONE is found attractive by certain people but not by others (especially if they don't try at the most common ideals of attractiveness)... male or female, it doesn't matter. To suggest that females deserve a "get out of everything free" card just for being female is sexist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:3)
Oh yes it does. But that kind of social engineering happens and is directed at home. The statists can't have that happening.
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
We also need more female sanitation and construction workers! For too long have women suffered in not being represented in these fields!
Re: (Score:2)
"Movements are afoot" sounds like a false equivalence. What's the relative size of the movements? How much attention and funding do they get?
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Informative)
As a father of two boys in their early/pre teens, I call bullshit. I have never heard of any movements to direct my kids into any fields that they don't naturally gravitate to. In fact at a recent high school meeting, I was encouraged to send my child to vo-tech since he doesn't seem to be interested in high school (he is doing poorly in English and Spanish, practically straight As in Algebra and Chemistry), but he's a boy, so he should go fix cars and do plumbing, not STEM, never STEM.
Perhaps you don't see the sexism because you don't have boys at that age, but as someone who does, and lives in a liberal state, I can see for sure that it happens against boys as much as for girls.
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. People literally can't even try to TALK about fighting the catastrophic suicide rate among men without literal crimes being committed to stop people from entering or shut the entire event down and force everyone to leave. Women have a 2:1 advantage over men in tech fields, are nearly 2/3rds of college graduates before that, and utterly dominate all of education (thanks in large part to extremely preferential treatment) before that.
Re: (Score:3)
These schools are stupid and misguided because what is needed is not to provide more education, but to increase the demand for education. Kids are going to school and fucking off because they don't see a future for themselves. It's getting harder and harder to argue with that attitude.
Re: (Score:3)
there's plenty of demand for a strong quantitative education. those jokes about mathematicians not being able to feed their families sound incomprehensibly alien, yet were common just ~15 years ago. according to the bureau of labor statistics, ``the median annual wage for mathematicians was $101,360 in may 2012," followed by an explanation of what a median is, which is perhaps telling.
Re: (Score:3)
Reduced sentences for men ... I should note that I don't actually support this
You should support it. America has the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world. We imprison more than four times as many people as China, Russia, and Iran. There is little evidence that these long prison terms are effective, and plenty of evidence that the prisons are factories for making hardened criminals. It is also an appalling waste of resources. We spend more on prisons than we spend on higher education. Imagine if most of the money spent on prisons was invested in prenatal nutrition,
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, China, Iran and Russia execute way more people than the US too.
China and Iran, yes. But Russia has executed no one since 1996, and has de-facto abolished [wikipedia.org] the death penalty.
Perhaps part of the reason their incarceration rates are lower is that execution eliminates the need for incarceration.
No. Even in China and Iran, the number executed is a miniscule proportion of the total prison population.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because SJW's want the world to be what they *want* it to be, not what it actually *is*.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right Anon. Zoe Quinn would never have gotten away with perjury and domestic abuse if she weren't a woman and a feminist.
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I thought we were trying to end sexism?"
Nope! What ever gave you that idea?!?! The only people who have any interest in doing that are the ones who never talk about it. The moment someone talks about it they are obviously trying to tip the scales one way or the other.
"Why can't we just end this bullshit and let children grow up to do want they want to do?"
Should I let my daughter chose her school? She is 5, next year will be kindergarten. The school in our district has horrible test scores and we are very concerned. Do you think she has all the knowlege, wisdom and maturity to make that kind of decision herself?
At Maker Faire last year I came across a booth for our local tech high school. I'm very interested in all things tech myself and would love to see her grow up the same. One of the kids at the booth started talking to me.. he told me how the school was so great because there was no sports art or music stuff. They could spend all day working on "STEM".
Now I wish everyone would learn more science and technology but hearing this kid go on about how great it was to not have any sports or arts and smiling about it.. I found that rather apalling!
Balance people! Be a well rounded individual! Otherwise you really are losing out on something great!
So.. unless she really really wants this... and then.. only after much discussion I don't intend to send her to THAT school!
So... now in an effort to reduce the imbalances between sexes even more children will be subjected to unbalanced educations.
Yay progress!
Then again... from what I remember of going to a 'normal' school.. they were pretty unbalanced already. Mostly towards big reading, writing and social studies programs with stunted science and technology classes. Although.. they seemed to do ok with math.
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because - as stated in the summary you just read - that's clearly not working. There is no biological reason for females to not perform as well in these subjects, and as they do not, the workforce is missing out on workers. Those missed workers are clearly a resource that the industry would love to have access to.
Sometimes to fight fire we use fire, just as sometimes to fight sexism, gender-specific measures are required to restore the balance. Sexism based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive sexism intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone. Taking a ridiculously black and white position is only going to further sexism.
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:4, Informative)
There has been a lot of research into this topic. Wikipedia has a good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
TL;DR there is no difference between men and women in general. In some specific areas there are small variations, such as higher variability (but the same average) on IQ tests for men. The old "men have better spacial awareness" thing isn't quite right either; men are better are mentally rotating objects, women have better spacial memory. Ultimately though the differences are fairly minor and subject to a huge amount of variation from individual to individual, and gender itself is far from binary.
It's actually quite easy to see that claims about certain genders "naturally" preferring certain things are bogus. Maths used to be considered a male subject, but girls now outperform boys at school. Something social changed for them to overtake boys. In Japan basketball is much more popular with girls at school than boys, but in other countries it's the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet we are just creating more and more by bullshit like this. Usually it's just for women's benefit, but in this case there's also discrimination against gals too.
Why can't we just end this bullshit and let children grow up to do want they want to do?
This is about letting children do what they want to do and about giving them a place where they can do it without society or their so called peers bullying them because of it. If you are really wondering why this is all going on, you could always take some courses in sociology and they'd explain everything to you.
Re: (Score:3)
If fewer girls are interested in STEM, and end up filling only 20% of the STEM related jobs, that's not harming them either. So why do we even need to put so much effort in changing that ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is harming them if they are put off a career in a STEM field by some easily-corrected nonsense.
What nonsense ? And if it's easily corrected, then why isn't that done ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a thought. I'm a guy, they're opening this companion school. My feelings as reading the summary. "Why the hell do they give special treatment to girls for STEM and exclude boys?, that's unfair. Wait, they're opening a companion school for only boys. That's odd. Wait, it's going to cover language arts since males tend to lag there. Why the hell would I want to go to that school? I have absolutely no interest in that. Oh well, at least they're trying to be fair."
Now, if that's my perspective
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sexism isn't just excluding or discriminating,
Yes, it is, in addition to prejudice and stereotyping.
there is one other vital component: harm.
There is no dictionary that agrees with you on this point. I'm going to side with merriam-webster and oxford on this one, as would most people. There is no dictionary in the world that defines harm as a component of sexism.
It's like having a girl's bathroom and a boy's bathroom. The girl's bathroom might even have more facilities (tampon machines/disposal). It's not sexist because it doesn't disadvantage either gender, it's simply discriminating for a perfectly legitimate reason.
It's not discrimination, and there is no dictionary that agrees with your use of this word either. Providing facilities for physical differences has never been regarded as discrimination, as there is no exclusion going on.
Unless someone can show that this school will somehow harm boys then it isn't sexist.
Only if one uses your definition of "sexist". The rest of us use the the dictionary definitions. Redefining words to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken.
I cannot stress this enough: Redefining the word sexism to a meaning not found in any dictionary just to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken!
It would be easier, at this point, for you to change your argument than to ask every dictionary in the world to change the meaning of the word sexism.
Re: (Score:3)
Sexism isn't just excluding or discriminating, there is one other vital component: harm. It's like having a girl's bathroom and a boy's bathroom. The girl's bathroom might even have more facilities (tampon machines/disposal). It's not sexist because it doesn't disadvantage either gender, it's simply discriminating for a perfectly legitimate reason.
Unless someone can show that this school will somehow harm boys then it isn't sexist.
Hmmm, sounds familiar....where have I heard this concept of separate but equal? If only there were some term for this great segregation idea you've come up with. Especially, since there is no harm to boys at all with the implicit notion that they're a harmful influence to the poor delicate little flowers called girls.
Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah girls facilities being better in almost every way to the point of getting private showers while boys are screwed totally isn't sexist at all. They're Seperate But Equal. Women are just more equal than men, so it's a legitimate rap-sorry-discrimination.
Women already get astoundingly preferential treatment throughout the entire education system, which is reflected in their utter domination of virtually every measurable aspect of education up to and including being nearly 2/3rds of college graduates. Meanwhile men are drugged more, punished more and more severely, graded worse, and systematically excluded from opportunities handed to girls on a silver platter.
The harm is there. The harm is proven. It's reflected in graduation rates.
Re: I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score:3)
It's more that boys take failure differently. We're presumed to be behind to start with (because by now everyone knows that boys are outperformed academically by girls).
Therefore we have more tolerance for failure.
Girls are always special and beautiful and awesome. So when they run into something hard they don't do well at right off the bat, they get turned off and move to something which is judged by less objective standards that you can fail "soft" at. It's a problem with prejudice alright, just the posit
Because girls just can not hack it with boys. (Score:2)
Gee I guess this is so girls don't have to face the pressure of competing with boys. We all know that girls need special help.
I just do not know that this is really needed. I know lots of very smart women in STEM that are very bit as talented as any male. The issues of fair pay and frankly pop culture need to be fixed.
Because girls just can not pee with boys. (Score:2)
Re:Because girls just can not hack it with boys. (Score:5, Interesting)
I just do not know that this is really needed. I know lots of very smart women in STEM that are very bit as talented as any male.
There is no lack of talent, just lack of interest. I run an after school robotics and programming class at the local elementary school. The boys love it, and beg their parents to sign them up. Most of the girls are there because their tiger-parents* forced them to join. Many of the girls dropped out, especially when the tryouts for the school play started. I was very frustrated when this happened last year, so this year I recruited a nerdy mom to help out, and provide a role model. That made no difference in the dropout rate.
I think a separate program for girls is a bad idea. It just gives them the message that they can't compete. When we form teams the kids always self-segregate by gender, but that is their choice, not something being pushed on them by the authorities. Since they are on separate gender teams, the girls are not dominated by pushy boys trying to show off. Completely separate classes are not needed.
*ALL of the girls that participate are Asian (Chinese, Indian, or Vietnamese). I have never had a single white/black/Hispanic girl join. I live in San Jose, which has lots of Asians. If I lived in a "normal" place, the gender balance would likely be even worse.
Re:Because girls just can not hack it with boys. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty clear to me that that's what the people designing this program think, at least!
I mean, holy shit! They're talking about implementing a six-year academic program just to get these girls ready to pass the AP exam, which is only equivalent to an introductory college CS course! How fucking insulting can they be, to imply that those girls need six years to learn what they should be learning in one?!
Re: (Score:3)
I've read studies that show girls (and boys) learn better in single-sex classrooms, and also when their teacher is the same sex. I think segregated schools like the one in this article are a great idea. There's nothing wrong with "separate but equal" if they're really equal... and that's the big problem here. The boys' school is not the same as the girls' school.
Only in america (Score:5, Insightful)
Only america could create a society that tells me I should feel bad for finding a career I enjoy in a well paying field.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain that? Why do you feel bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Because I'm white and male and I like technology.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I think the problem is mostly in your head then. There is nothing wrong with being white and male and liking technology, and I don't know of any mainstream movement saying otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't say he felt bad. Can you explain where you got that impression?
Feminism ruins society again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Feminism ruins society again... (Score:4, Informative)
Why would view a program intended to help girls as a put-down on men?
I'm all for programs like this. Give it a try, see what the outcome is. If it fails, end it and start the next experiment. If there are successes, tweak the program and continue.
Re: (Score:3)
Girls already dominate virtually every aspect of education. They get better grades, better facilities, and better treatment to the point of being nearly 2/3rds of college graduates and having a 2:1 advantage in tech fields post-graduation.
If you can't see how this rampant and blatant inequity is sexist and harmful then your staggeringly skewed perceptions are a living demonstration of exactly the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Then how would you handle hostile environments for such minorities in the fields?
I just heard about something similar in a far less controversial situation: a woman who likes birdwatching who started a group for female birdwatchers to enjoy doing it together. She was sick of the male birdwatching culture that can be very belittling to others, certainly women, and it's things like that that keep women from then joining such activities, making the male domination & problem even worse.
It's just a vicious c
Re:Feminism ruins society again... (Score:5, Insightful)
If my son wants to go to the special programming school, because that's what he's really in to, will he be allowed to? No. And why not? Because he might disrupt the all-girl environment and damage the self-confidence of the girls in the class. "You can't come because boys are icky." How is that not "man-shaming?"
Re: (Score:3)
If my son needs sanitary products and cannot get them, yes, he's disadvantaged.
I doubt that the STEM program at the mixed school my son would have to go to if I lived in this district will be on par with the shiny new facilities at the new school that specializes in STEM (for girls). Separate...but I doubt equal.
I have a son and a daughter. It seems as if the world is rolling out a welcome mat for my daughter. And I appreciate that! I want her to have every opportunity! But at the same time it seems like th
As well the ACLU should (Score:5, Insightful)
This country has fought long and hard to remove segregation and discrimination and it is not acceptable to slide so far backwards. One of the biggest challenges in our future is our failures in education today. Our current trend is that secondary education is becoming more and more female, and believe me, we don't want to deal with the crime and productivity implications of an abundance of under-educated men in our country. Focusing on educating girls is a bad idea. Rather, the focus should be on educating all children. We don't give kids the credit they deserve. They are perfectly capable of choosing their favorite subjects on their own.
Re:As well the ACLU should (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is there really a focus only on girls? They are building a school for boys that address their weak areas too. It seems like there is an effort to educate all children, part of which is recognizing that children (and genders) are different and thus have different needs.
Do you have an alternative plan to address these issues? It seems like you don't really understand them, since you talk about children being able to choose their subjects which really isn't the problem at all.
Re: (Score:3)
They are building a school for boys that address their weak areas too
I think it would be smarter to focus on the strong areas. It's better to excel in one job, than to be average in everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Hurrah for sex-segregation! (Score:5, Funny)
I am awed and stupefied, how the idea of sex-segregation — hitherto denounced as "detrimental to equality" [psu.edu] — comes back around as a good one.
What's next? Whites-only school of basketball?
I wish, I was trolling...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I am not rejecting the idea of sex-segregation.
What surprised me — though, given their other obvious insincerity, perhaps, it should not have — is that the same people, who oppose such segregation, suddenly consider it a good idea or, at least, are willing to accept it "for the Greater Good".
I don't see, how you can have one without the other... The numbers would not add-up.
Re:Hurrah for sex-segregation! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, in what universe is "computer science" substantially equal to "english language arts"?
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, in what universe is "computer science" substantially equal to "english language arts"?
"Substantially" means "Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent". So, "substantially equal" means "Equal in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent." It doesn't mean equal in subject matter. So, what universe? Maybe the universe where girls underperform in computer science and boys underperform in english language arts. Sort of like the one we're in, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Your language equations are erroneous: "substantially equal" does not mean "equal in being substantial". It's not commutative.
"Maybe the universe where girls underperform in computer science and boys underperform in english language arts. Sort of like the one we're in, for example."
Is there a theory that the boys underperform in english -because of- the presence of girls?
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a theory that the boys underperform in english -because of- the presence of girls?
Actually there is. Well, it's more a theory that girls and boys need to be taught in different ways for some subjects, English being one of them. Girls and boys like different kinds of books, for example, so getting the class to read something that girls will really enjoy might put some of the boys off. It matters less at higher levels so the best kids will do okay either way, but at the mid to low range it's pretty important.
Sexes ARE different, thankfully (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, maybe, women and men simply aren't the same?
The anatomy and physiology are demonstrably different. Could those natural differences be having an effect on the interests in life? Feminists would like us to think, all of that is due solely to upbringing, but they offer no evidence — while denouncing detractors as "sexists" themselves.
Though businesses aren't allowed to discriminate, sports-leagues openly do all the time. A "co-ed" volleyball team, for example, must have at least two females out of six players at all times — because having more males is an advantage. A team showing up with only one woman is penalized one way or the other (see rule 11 of this set [urbanrec.ca], for example), a team showing up for a coed game without any women automatically loses.
In chess too, for some reason, there are very few female Grandmasters (GMs). It got so embarrassing, a lesser title of Woman Grandmaster (WGM) was introduced... And there are some — but very few [michaelbluejay.com] (all of them from countries with "traditional" views on gender-roles, BTW).
Now, I am not going to claim, women are intrinsically "inferior" to men — for a I don't think, the sexes are comparable, nor do they have to compete. We represent the same species. But we are certainly different — and I am not surprised, if the difference is manifested in aptitude for or interest in different carriers and pursuits.
Re: (Score:3)
If there is not already a special place in Hell for people claiming to there be "plenty of evidence" (of anything) without citing any, Satan better get on with it and build one. In anticipation of the new arrivals from the Internet-forum age.
Except there are plenty of WGMs. It is just that very few of them make it to an actual gender-neutral GM for some reason.
Re:Sexes ARE different, thankfully (Score:4, Interesting)
Appropriate vocational training (Score:5, Funny)
"Boys will also receive additional vocation training in the ditch-digging, garbage collection, and front-line soldiering arts to help prepare them for their future careers as beasts of burden."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are literally banned from studying STEM at that school. On the "beasts of burden" thing: There is no girls-only school for garbage collectors, even though women are woefully underrepresented in that field too. Men are being pushed out of "attractive" jobs, which leaves the burdensome jobs.
Re:Appropriate vocational training (Score:5, Insightful)
All the janitorial staff in my office are men. Pretty sure men clean toilets, too.
The point of these social experiments seems to get more and more women into the desk and office jobs. That leaves only the grubby, dirty, outside jobs for men. And nobody gives a shit about that.
And no, I'm not crying to hold on to some men's only club. On my floor here my technical team is 4 men and 3 women, and our boss is a woman (as are the 2 superiors of hers to whom I report), and ~48/50 of the non-technical desk workers in the cubes outside my office window are women. Which is fine, I love my job and my workplace. So it's not like I'm "scared of teh girls takin' over!" They already have and I'm perfectly okay with that.
But the "it's so awful, get all the training for girls and ignore boys!" hysteria seems pointless. Girls already dominate the educational system. They will dominate the future workforce. A boy growing up now who didn't have all these special programs will have a tough time competing with the girls who were prepped and trained for this their entire lives, so what else is he going to do? Maybe he'll luck out like my boss's husband. He stays home and takes care of the kids while she works. Lucky bastard.
Re: (Score:3)
The pendulum is swinging far into the other direction.
At this point it's more about punishing men for the sins of the past more than it is about equality.
Re: (Score:3)
I love how you literally just throw the word "MRA" out whenever you want to insult someone or something.
What happens... (Score:2)
When they ace it, end up in one of the ultra competitive CS schools (or work environment) and haven't been exposed to whatever it is that causes female students to not do well right now, all in one shot? It would even out eventually, but the first few batches will be in for a rude awakening.
Re: (Score:2)
When they ace it, end up in one of the ultra competitive CS schools (or work environment) and haven't been exposed to whatever it is that causes female students to not do well right now, all in one shot? It would even out eventually, but the first few batches will be in for a rude awakening.
Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs! Well, actually, if they're female eggs than the federal government will be all over you. But if they're male eggs, screw `em. Because, you know, equality.
Black and White? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Time to start masculanism movement (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we get some all-white/all-black schools too? (Score:5, Funny)
First of all, I would just like to say that I applaud this move on the part of the L.A. school district. In the spirit of these groundbreaking projects, I would like to propose a similar measure here in Alabama that would help advance learning among our students as well. My new initiative would launch a series of White-only and Black-only schools that would better serve to the individual needs of students and help them to feel more comfortable in schools where they can feel free to speak freely and learn in a less hostile environment.
Re: (Score:2)
If race segregation was the best solution to the problem then I would support it, but it's not. For historical reasons the best solution to racial problems in society is mixing. For the most part the history of men and women isn't so divided... Most men and women enjoy mixing, as it happens. There are different problems and different solutions are needed, and as long as that solution doesn't disadvantage one gender or cause more social problems then I support it.
Re: (Score:3)
"For historical reasons the best solution to racial problems in society is mixing."
What historical reasons are those? What do you mean by "problem"? What data do you have to support the conclusion that "mixing" is the best solution to that "problem"?
I've never seen tangible evidence to indicate that this society's obsession with "diversity" and "multiculturalism" is justified or that implementing public policy to achieve it yields net positive results.
Re:Can we get some all-white/all-black schools too (Score:5, Informative)
We have those already; they're called "charter schools." Here in Atlanta, anyone can attend the charter schools in theory, but in practice the white parents are the ones who sign their kids up, so the charter school ends up 70+% white and the regular public school (that serves the same neighborhood) ends up 80+% black.
(By the way: yes, those are real numbers; I looked them up.)
Re: (Score:3)
The same school district (Score:2)
that spent $1.3B on 12,000 iPads and couldn't get them to work.
Stem passing scores (Score:3)
If you don't understand that 3, 4 or 5 is the right passing score then you should have studied harder *+&
* For the humor impaired, please try and find the joke in there before you mod me down. /. for?
+ For the math impaired - yes there is a joke in there
& For the humor AND math impaired, what the hell are you on
Separate is Equal? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
title 9 (Score:2)
... title 9 works and is OK i think in part because there's a necessary division between male and female sports. Sexual dimorphism and all that. Girls that want to play a sport have no way of competing on a level playing field if they're competing vs. the guys typically, so separate but equal... is a necessary evil.
where it doesn't seem to apply is in the case where there is no innate barrier to entry. Like saying "lets separate men and women's chess"... or men's and women's academics...
they are internal
Re: (Score:2)
Like saying "lets separate men and women's chess"
There are no men-only chess tournaments, but some are women-only. There are also Woman Grand Master and Woman International Master titles, and there's a separate world championship for women.
are we also suggesting that they think harder now?
Not harder, but differently. And this is not "now". It's been like that forever.
Occam's razor? (Score:2)
Perhaps girls aren't as interested in STEM subjects as boys, because their intrinsic culture, the floating "girlness" passed on from mother to daughter and from playmate to playmate, veers towards social interaction and the softer subjects. STEM is inherently a loner's paradise.
Reengineering people is not a good idea. Girls will find their own way into whatever they wish to do. You can't force them to like what you like, no matter how many Starfleet academies you lock them into.
Re: (Score:2)
And oh yeah: this is being done because employers want more job applicants and thus will be able, over time. to turn STEM jobs into a paper hat minimum wage paradise - for them. They are sick at the idea of all that money flowing out of their platinum parachute accounts and into the pockets of mere laborers. It has to stop!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Is it a matter of sexual attraction? (Score:3)
If it's a matter of not having students who are sexually attracted to each other, they have a serious logistical problem:
I'm not positive, but I think you'd need something like this:
Sex Segregation (Score:2)
Self-Confidence (Score:3)
Comparing the girls and boys schools ... (Score:3)
The girls get a school which emphasizes a broad range of subjects, most of which are geared towards targeting gender inequality by creating a safe learning environment. Even if one of those emphasized subjects doesn't appeal to a particular girl, one of the others may. In other words, it will be labelled as an enrichment program.
The boys get a school which emphasizes a singular subject, most of which are geared towards targeting gender inequality by addressing low test scores. While English will appeal to some boys, it will not appeal to the majority of boys. That is true even if those boys are interested in fields that are traditionally dominated by women. In other words, it will be labelled as a remedial program.
I fail to see how this addresses gender inequality in any meaningful way. If the boys were offered a school geared towards the humanities and the arts, it may be possible to make such an argument. But that's not what's happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole "privatize schools into moneymaking ventures to raise test scores and thus provide cheaper, better labor for corporations" IS the experiment. But finding failure in the experimental results will not be tolerated. The schools will be turned into corporate labor factories, and we've no mechanism to stop them.
What are we losing? Imagination. The overworked, no-time-for-play lab mice have no damned imaginations. They will not be able to grow their minds that way. That requires free time, and freedom t
Re:my two cents (Score:4, Insightful)
To your point (sorry!) There is no "fault". Girls tend not to care about STEM subjects. It's that simple. STEM requires endless hours studying alone, about subjects that would bore an anvil to tears. We literally drug our children to hold still and have the stuff poured into them. It isn't for everyone; that's why so many antisocial types gravitate towards it. You either like it, or you don't.
Teachers don't "fail" - students fail. And "failure" is not the right word. You can't force interest into a human child like some personality-altering enema. A teacher can instill the basics of how to be a human being, like history, and arithmetic, and reading. The rest comes from the child and the matrix the child lives in. You can't manufacture Alan Turings, and God help us if you could - the world does NOT need to be composed of semi-autistic math prodigies. We need the other types as well.
Let the DAMNED children become what they want to become. Here's a poser: has any one of these STEM-pushers asked the kids what they think about their "failure" to become good corporate tech fodder?