The weaker sex

[HVC]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2982001/Can-praise-teacher-harm-girls-careers-Rewarding-good-behaviour-lead-lead-problems-work-earn-praise-know.html

[Martinus]

In general I do not really see what difference it makes, so long as we get good people into the right positions why does it matter if they are 60% female?

Well, assuming that you believe in gender equality (i.e. that no sex is inherently smarter than the other) and assuming that, statistically, the numbers of boys and girls are roughly speaking equal, then it should matter if the end result is distorted like this.

I mean, what's the difference between the statement you made and "In general I do not really see what difference it makes, so long as we get good people into the right positions why does it matter if they are 90% male?"?

In fact, I am surprised this has to be explained. I thought you believed in gender equality. 

[Martinus]

In general I do not really see what difference it makes, so long as we get good people into the right positions why does it matter if they are 60% female?

My point exactly. We have smarter people getting better grades and more intellectual jobs and more athletic people being better in athletics but we are not worrying over that.

Not really, unless you believe the person's gender is statistically relevant when it comes to their intellectual capacity (or, in other words, statistically, people of one gender are smarter than the other).

[Valmy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2982001/Can-praise-teacher-harm-girls-careers-Rewarding-good-behaviour-lead-lead-problems-work-earn-praise-know.html

My point exactly. We have smarter people getting better grades and more intellectual jobs and more athletic people being better in athletics but we are not worrying over that.

Well inequality of outcomes has been interpreted as evidence of injustice so it will always be seen as a problem.  Perhaps correctly, I don't know.

[Valmy]

In general I do not really see what difference it makes, so long as we get good people into the right positions why does it matter if they are 60% female?

Well, assuming that you believe in gender equality (i.e. that no sex is inherently smarter than the other) and assuming that, statistically, the numbers of boys and girls are roughly speaking equal, then it should matter if the end result is distorted like this.

I mean, what's the difference between the statement you made and "In general I do not really see what difference it makes, so long as we get good people into the right positions why does it matter if they are 90% male?"?

In fact, I am surprised this has to be explained. I thought you believed in gender equality. 

I do believe in gender equality.  I was talking about the extent this harms society in any way.  As I said, on the educational level I am sure this will be addressed at some point.  Just like how girls' problems in STEM are being addressed.

[HVC]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2982001/Can-praise-teacher-harm-girls-careers-Rewarding-good-behaviour-lead-lead-problems-work-earn-praise-know.html

its the dailyfail, so it's not the best source, but it thought it went with the thread

[Tamas]

In general I do not really see what difference it makes, so long as we get good people into the right positions why does it matter if they are 60% female?

My point exactly. We have smarter people getting better grades and more intellectual jobs and more athletic people being better in athletics but we are not worrying over that.

Not really, unless you believe the person's gender is statistically relevant when it comes to their intellectual capacity (or, in other words, statistically, people of one gender are smarter than the other).

That is exactly what I am arguing AGAINST.

You argue that the % of females in the group of well-performing pupils matters, and should be balanced. I am saying it doesn't matter one bit.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The assessment system used will at least partially determine who are the "well-performing" pupils.

In the UK we used to have a final exam based system, nowadays there is far more coursework and continuous assessment, this change in emphasis rewards some pupils at the expense of others.

If we believe that there is no sex-based divide in intelligence then we can adjust the assessment criteria to reflect that.

[grumbler]

The assessment system used will at least partially determine who are the "well-performing" pupils.

In the UK we used to have a final exam based system, nowadays there is far more coursework and continuous assessment, this change in emphasis rewards some pupils at the expense of others.

If we believe that there is no sex-based divide in intelligence then we can adjust the assessment criteria to reflect that.

There are many different kinds of intelligence, and I don't believe that the potential for excellence in each kind of intelligence is, in fact, equally distributed among the sexes, either because of nature or nurture.  If we could only acknowledge that, give people choices, and avoid stigmatizing some valid choices, then we would see that the focus on outcomes distracts us from fixing problems in the process.

[Valmy]

Question grumbler: you claim that boys are 6 months behind girls developmentally.  Would it be a good idea to start a boy a year later then?  Not a theoretical question here, I have two boys.

[CountDeMoney]

Would it be a good idea to start a boy a year later then?  Not a theoretical question here, I have two boys.

That's been all the rage lately with the hypercompetitive parenting set.  Not for academics, but sports.  My brother-in-law's brother did it with his two boys.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The assessment system used will at least partially determine who are the "well-performing" pupils.

In the UK we used to have a final exam based system, nowadays there is far more coursework and continuous assessment, this change in emphasis rewards some pupils at the expense of others.

If we believe that there is no sex-based divide in intelligence then we can adjust the assessment criteria to reflect that.

There are many different kinds of intelligence, and I don't believe that the potential for excellence in each kind of intelligence is, in fact, equally distributed among the sexes, either because of nature or nurture.  If we could only acknowledge that, give people choices, and avoid stigmatizing some valid choices, then we would see that the focus on outcomes distracts us from fixing problems in the process.

I agree with that. It saddens me that we live in an era of standardised tests and national curricula.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Question grumbler: you claim that boys are 6 months behind girls developmentally.  Would it be a good idea to start a boy a year later then?  Not a theoretical question here, I have two boys.

Here in the UK children born in the summer will be the youngest in their class. We also start education at 4. Summer-born boys do depressingly badly, the system amounts to pernicious discrimination against them in my opinion.

[grumbler]

Question grumbler: you claim that boys are 6 months behind girls developmentally.  Would it be a good idea to start a boy a year later then?  Not a theoretical question here, I have two boys.

If you can, you probably should.  As RH notes, boys who are born later in the year and aren't held back until they are 5 1/2 or older tend to do poorly compared to peers.  By far the best time to hold them back is before they start.

[Valmy]

Would it be a good idea to start a boy a year later then?  Not a theoretical question here, I have two boys.

That's been all the rage lately with the hypercompetitive parenting set.  Not for academics, but sports.  My brother-in-law's brother did it with his two boys.

With my genetics I don't think a full ride to play football at Stanford is in their future

Here in the UK children born in the summer will be the youngest in their class. We also start education at 4. Summer-born boys do depressingly badly, the system amounts to pernicious discrimination against them in my opinion.

I am thinking about this for my younger son, born at the end of July.  This would put him just one grade behind his brother, born 20 months earlier.  I would rather he start Kindergarten at age 6.