QuoteGender, education and work
The weaker sex
Boys are being outclassed by girls at both school and university, and the gap is widening
Mar 7th 2015 | From the print edition
"IT'S all to do with their brains and bodies and chemicals," says Sir Anthony Seldon, the master of Wellington College, a posh English boarding school. "There's a mentality that it's not cool for them to perform, that it's not cool to be smart," suggests Ivan Yip, principal of the Bronx Leadership Academy in New York. One school charges £25,000 ($38,000) a year and has a scuba-diving club; the other serves subsidised lunches to most of its pupils, a quarter of whom have special needs. Yet both are grappling with the same problem: teenage boys are being left behind by girls.
It is a problem that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago. Until the 1960s boys spent longer and went further in school than girls, and were more likely to graduate from university. Now, across the rich world and in a growing number of poor countries, the balance has tilted the other way. Policymakers who once fretted about girls' lack of confidence in science now spend their time dangling copies of "Harry Potter" before surly boys. Sweden has commissioned research into its "boy crisis". Australia has devised a reading programme called "Boys, Blokes, Books & Bytes". In just a couple of generations, one gender gap has closed, only for another to open up.
The reversal is laid out in a report published on March 5th by the OECD, a Paris-based rich-country think-tank. Boys' dominance just about endures in maths: at age 15 they are, on average, the equivalent of three months' schooling ahead of girls. In science the results are fairly even. But in reading, where girls have been ahead for some time, a gulf has appeared. In all 64 countries and economies in the study, girls outperform boys. The average gap is equivalent to an extra year of schooling.
xx > xy?
The OECD deems literacy to be the most important skill that it assesses, since further learning depends on it. Sure enough, teenage boys are 50% more likely than girls to fail to achieve basic proficiency in any of maths, reading and science (see chart 1). Youngsters in this group, with nothing to build on or shine at, are prone to drop out of school altogether.
To see why boys and girls fare so differently in the classroom, first look at what they do outside it. The average 15-year-old girl devotes five-and-a-half hours a week to homework, an hour more than the average boy, who spends more time playing video games and trawling the internet. Three-quarters of girls read for pleasure, compared with little more than half of boys. Reading rates are falling everywhere as screens draw eyes from pages, but boys are giving up faster. The OECD found that, among boys who do as much homework as the average girl, the gender gap in reading fell by nearly a quarter.
Once in the classroom, boys long to be out of it. They are twice as likely as girls to report that school is a "waste of time", and more often turn up late. Just as teachers used to struggle to persuade girls that science is not only for men, the OECD now urges parents and policymakers to steer boys away from a version of masculinity that ignores academic achievement. "There are different pressures on boys," says Mr Yip. "Unfortunately there's a tendency where they try to live up to certain expectations in terms of [bad] behaviour."
Boys' disdain for school might have been less irrational when there were plenty of jobs for uneducated men. But those days have long gone. It may be that a bit of swagger helps in maths, where confidence plays a part in boys' lead (though it sometimes extends to delusion: 12% of boys told the OECD that they were familiar with the mathematical concept of "subjunctive scaling", a red herring that fooled only 7% of girls). But their lack of self-discipline drives teachers crazy.
Perhaps because they can be so insufferable, teenage boys are often marked down. The OECD found that boys did much better in its anonymised tests than in teacher assessments. The gap with girls in reading was a third smaller, and the gap in maths—where boys were already ahead—opened up further. In another finding that suggests a lack of even-handedness among teachers, boys are more likely than girls to be forced to repeat a year, even when they are of equal ability.
What is behind this discrimination? One possibility is that teachers mark up students who are polite, eager and stay out of fights, all attributes that are more common among girls. In some countries, academic points can even be docked for bad behaviour. Another is that women, who make up eight out of ten primary-school teachers and nearly seven in ten lower-secondary teachers, favour their own sex, just as male bosses have been shown to favour male underlings. In a few places sexism is enshrined in law: Singapore still canes boys, while sparing girls the rod.
Some countries provide an environment in which boys can do better. In Latin America the gender gap in reading is relatively small, with boys in Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru trailing girls less than they do elsewhere. Awkwardly, however, this nearly always comes with a wider gender gap in maths, in favour of boys. The reverse is true, too: Iceland, Norway and Sweden, which have got girls up to parity with boys in maths, struggle with uncomfortably wide gender gaps in reading. Since 2003, the last occasion when the OECD did a big study, boys in a few countries have caught up in reading and girls in several others have significantly narrowed the gap in maths. No country has managed both.
Onwards and upwards
Girls' educational dominance persists after school. Until a few decades ago men were in a clear majority at university almost everywhere (see chart 2), particularly in advanced courses and in science and engineering. But as higher education has boomed worldwide, women's enrolment has increased almost twice as fast as men's. In the OECD women now make up 56% of students enrolled, up from 46% in 1985. By 2025 that may rise to 58%.
Even in the handful of OECD countries where women are in the minority on campus, their numbers are creeping up. Meanwhile several, including America, Britain and parts of Scandinavia, have 50% more women than men on campus. Numbers in many of America's elite private colleges are more evenly balanced. It is widely believed that their opaque admissions criteria are relaxed for men.
The feminisation of higher education was so gradual that for a long time it passed unremarked. According to Stephan Vincent-Lancrin of the OECD, when in 2008 it published a report pointing out just how far it had gone, people "couldn't believe it".
Women who go to university are more likely than their male peers to graduate, and typically get better grades. But men and women tend to study different subjects, with many women choosing courses in education, health, arts and the humanities, whereas men take up computing, engineering and the exact sciences. In mathematics women are drawing level; in the life sciences, social sciences, business and law they have moved ahead.
Social change has done more to encourage women to enter higher education than any deliberate policy. The Pill and a decline in the average number of children, together with later marriage and childbearing, have made it easier for married women to join the workforce. As more women went out to work, discrimination became less sharp. Girls saw the point of study once they were expected to have careers. Rising divorce rates underlined the importance of being able to provide for yourself. These days girls nearly everywhere seem more ambitious than boys, both academically and in their careers. It is hard to believe that in 1900-50 about half of jobs in America were barred to married women.
So are women now on their way to becoming the dominant sex? Hanna Rosin's book, "The End of Men and the Rise of Women", published in 2012, argues that in America, at least, women are ahead not only educationally but increasingly also professionally and socially. Policymakers in many countries worry about the prospect of a growing underclass of ill-educated men. That should worry women, too: in the past they have typically married men in their own social group or above. If there are too few of those, many women will have to marry down or not at all.
According to the OECD, the return on investment in a degree is higher for women than for men in many countries, though not all. In America PayScale, a company that crunches incomes data, found that the return on investment in a college degree for women was lower than or at best the same as for men. Although women as a group are now better qualified, they earn about three-quarters as much as men. A big reason is the choice of subject: education, the humanities and social work pay less than engineering or computer science. But academic research shows that women attach less importance than men to the graduate pay premium, suggesting that a high financial return is not the main reason for their further education.
At the highest levels of business and the professions, women remain notably scarce. In a reversal of the pattern at school, the anonymous and therefore gender-blind essays and exams at university protect female students from bias. But in the workplace, says Elisabeth Kelan of Britain's Cranfield School of Management, "traditional patterns assert themselves in miraculous ways". Men and women join the medical and legal professions in roughly equal numbers, but 10-15 years later many women have chosen unambitious career paths or dropped out to spend time with their children. Meanwhile men are rising through the ranks as qualifications gained long ago fade in importance and personality, ambition and experience come to matter more.
The last bastion
For a long time it was said that since women had historically been underrepresented in university and work, it would take time to fill the pipeline from which senior appointments were made. But after 40 years of making up the majority of graduates in some countries, that argument is wearing thin. According to Claudia Goldin, an economics professor at Harvard, the "last chapter" in the story of women's rise—equal pay and access to the best jobs—will not come without big structural changes.
In a recent paper in the American Economic Review Ms Goldin found that the difference between the hourly earnings of highly qualified men and their female peers grows hugely in the first 10-15 years of working life, largely because of a big premium in some highly paid jobs on putting in long days and being constantly on call. On the whole men find it easier than women to work in this way. Where such jobs are common, for example in business and the law, the gender pay gap remains wide and even short spells out of the workforce are severely penalised, meaning that motherhood can exact a heavy price. Where pay is roughly proportional to hours worked, as in pharmacy, it is low.
There will always be jobs where flexibility is not an option, says Ms Goldin: those of CEOs, trial lawyers, surgeons, some bankers and senior politicians come to mind. In many others, pay does not need to depend on being available all hours—and well-educated men who want a life outside work would benefit from change, too. But the new gender gap is at the other end of the pay spectrum. And it is not women who are suffering, but unskilled men.
An interesting observation from the Economist. It is very easy to dismiss this as boys being more lazy or less clever at humanities - but you can't really do it without repeating the same type of arguments that say girls are less intelligent at sciences and maths. It could have something to do with education methods which seem to favour girls.
Girls' self esteem must be boosted at all costs.
This ties into the other thread we had. Different kids learn differently. Problems occur when all kids are expected to learn the same way. Educators have been alive to this issue for some time. Not all educators have addressed the issue well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2015, 12:38:20 PM
This ties into the other thread we had. Different kids learn differently. Problems occur when all kids are expected to learn the same way. Educators have been alive to this issue for some time. Not all educators have addressed the issue well.
Well what we in Hungary call the "Prussian" education systems solves this problem magnificently: everyone is supposed to memorises the same thing, with practically no regard given to individual skills, or in fact helping to develop any kind of critical thinking or awareness. Learn the words, recite them get good grates, GTFO.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2015, 12:40:12 PM
Well what we in Hungary call the "Prussian" education systems solves this problem magnificently: everyone is supposed to memorises the same thing, with practically no regard given to individual skills, or in fact helping to develop any kind of critical thinking or awareness. Learn the words, recite them get good grates, GTFO.
The Chinese system is the "Prussian system" * 10, and they still see a gap open between boys and girls. It's more than just developing critical thinking skills. In part, it is purely developmental: female teenagers are about 6 months more advanced developmentally than their male age-peers. In part, it sees to be more cultural: girls are more interested in praise than boys, and so will work harder for it and be more reinforced by it.
It is a difficult problem.
Is it a problem though? Does it not go against gender equality that we are even measuring and worrying about this? Should the gender of the pupil matter?
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2015, 01:26:43 PM
Is it a problem though? Does it not go against gender equality that we are even measuring and worrying about this? Should the gender of the pupil matter?
The question isnt should it matter. It does matter.
Turns out women are more hard working, Jews are smarter, blacks are more physically able and gays have better social skills - removing the privilege from the white heterosexual male was not levelling the playing field, it was stacking the deck against him. :P
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2015, 01:26:43 PM
Is it a problem though? Does it not go against gender equality that we are even measuring and worrying about this? Should the gender of the pupil matter?
Yes, it matters, if we teach in a fashion that favors one sex over another. For example, in the choice of books students are required to read: if the books are chosen to appeal to female tastes, then male students are disadvantaged. There are probably ten times as many guys forced to read Jane Eyre as there are girls who've been forced to read Neuromancer.
There's been a fair amount of research done on this. The keys are choice and presentation. If ten times as many girls choose to read Jane Eyre as boys, that's not a problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 05, 2015, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2015, 01:26:43 PM
Is it a problem though? Does it not go against gender equality that we are even measuring and worrying about this? Should the gender of the pupil matter?
The question isnt should it matter. It does matter.
Actually, his question
was "should it matter," Mr. Reading Comprehension! :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2015, 02:48:59 PM
Turns out women are more hard working, Jews are smarter, blacks are more physically able and gays have better social skills - removing the privilege from the white heterosexual male was not levelling the playing field, it was stacking the deck against him. :P
You have better social skills than whom? :hmm:
Maybe they should man up? Crying about discrimination is the way of the loser.
Martinus, thanks for the highlights.
Most languistahs don't care about wasting other people's time.
So, about the article, is it suggesting that there is some sort of natural selection process going on in the school system that favor female attributes?
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2015, 05:14:29 PM
Maybe they should man up? Crying about discrimination is the way of the loser.
So long as there is equality of opportunity, people should accept inequality of outcome. That's what a lot of people cannot accept; they'd rather see equality of outcome than equality of opportunity.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2015, 02:48:59 PM
Turns out women are more hard working, Jews are smarter, blacks are more physically able and gays have better social skills - removing the privilege from the white heterosexual male was not levelling the playing field, it was stacking the deck against him. :P
You have better social skills than whom? :hmm:
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2015, 02:48:59 PM
Turns out women are more hard working, Jews are smarter, blacks are more physically able and gays have better social skills - removing the privilege from the white heterosexual male was not levelling the playing field, it was stacking the deck against him. :P
If you have superior social skills the deck must be stacked against me indeed.
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2015, 02:48:59 PM
Turns out women are more hard working, Jews are smarter, blacks are more physically able and gays have better social skills - removing the privilege from the white heterosexual male was not levelling the playing field, it was stacking the deck against him. :P
You have better social skills than whom? :hmm:
...lolz
Yeah, I grow up in one of the best schools in HK, and the female dominance is very apparent. I was always in the minority, as the boys were kicked out or left. Females mature earlier, work harder, are less likely to become trouble-makers, etc. Same thing in the civil service (except the traditionally male dominated streams like engineering, IT, fire and police etc). I think two thirds of the "generalist" civil service are females. The male washrooms are always empty and the office are full of unmarried women.
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?
On an educational level I am sure educators will come around to this problem like they seem to be working on addressing getting higher STEM grades for girls.
But this is hardly news people have been talking about this for decades.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2015, 08:01:43 PM
On an educational level I am sure educators will come around to this problem like they seem to be working on addressing getting higher STEM grades for girls.
With what money?
Can't we just print more?
Yes. It's one of the perks of sovereignty. :)
Quote from: rufweed on March 05, 2015, 07:52:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2015, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 05, 2015, 02:48:59 PM
Turns out women are more hard working, Jews are smarter, blacks are more physically able and gays have better social skills - removing the privilege from the white heterosexual male was not levelling the playing field, it was stacking the deck against him. :P
You have better social skills than whom? :hmm:
...lolz
Woah, Pdox flashback!
School is a set of rules that accommodate some people more than others.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2015, 09:48:44 PM
School is a set of rules that accommodate some people more than others.
Just like real world.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 05, 2015, 09:51:52 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 05, 2015, 09:48:44 PM
School is a set of rules that accommodate some people more than others.
Just like real world.
Yep. The most important thing you learn in school is how to put up with bullshit and authority figures.
And math.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 06, 2015, 03:13:04 AM
And math.
Grammar and spelling were pretty important too.
That and don't drop large chunks of pure sodium into water.
Quote from: Warspite on March 06, 2015, 03:17:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 06, 2015, 03:13:04 AM
And math.
Grammar and spelling were pretty important too.
In the olden days. English (or whatever language, but mainly English) is important, but parents can teach that easily. Most parents aren't equipped to teach math. That's what I would need schools for.
QuoteThat and don't drop large chunks of pure sodium into water.
^_^
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2015, 08:01:43 PM
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.
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
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2015, 08:01:43 PM
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. :huh:
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 07:34:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2015, 08:01:43 PM
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).
Quote from: HVC on March 06, 2015, 07:46:10 AM
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
:lol:
QuoteMy 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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2015, 08:16:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2015, 08:01:43 PM
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. :huh:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 08:22:08 AM
Quote from: HVC on March 06, 2015, 07:46:10 AM
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
:lol:
its the dailyfail, so it's not the best source, but it thought it went with the thread :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2015, 08:21:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2015, 07:34:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2015, 08:01:43 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 06, 2015, 09:20:00 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 09:50:11 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2015, 09:46:47 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 06, 2015, 09:20:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 09:50:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 09:50:11 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 09:54:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 09:50:11 AM
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 :P
QuoteHere 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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2015, 10:03:26 AM
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.
Thanks. I think that is best.
I think society's job is to provide for equality of outcome across all different parameters that make up a person.
Quote from: The Brain on March 06, 2015, 10:05:13 AM
I think society's job is to provide for equality of outcome across all different parameters that make up a person.
All children must be above average!
Make the pie higher!
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 09:50:11 AM
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.
I was sent to school half a year early, and was the youngest in class for 13 years. AND LOOK WHAT A WELL ADJUSTED HUMAN BEING I'VE BECOME
Quote from: Syt on March 06, 2015, 10:16:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 09:50:11 AM
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.
I was sent to school half a year early, and was the youngest in class for 13 years. AND LOOK WHAT A WELL ADJUSTED HUMAN BEING I'VE BECOME
:ph34r:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 09:54:04 AM
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.
I've heard of that as well. Seems bizarre to me-- when I was a kid there was a sort of stigma attached to kids that had been held back.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2015, 10:29:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 09:54:04 AM
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.
I've heard of that as well. Seems bizarre to me-- when I was a kid there was a sort of stigma attached to kids that had been held back.
No joke, right? When we were growing up, a kid was held back a year, it was because he was either slow or a convict, and you either goofed on him or feared him. Now he's a redshirt.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2015, 10:29:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 09:54:04 AM
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.
I've heard of that as well. Seems bizarre to me-- when I was a kid there was a sort of stigma attached to kids that had been held back.
My sister was held back. There was no stigma, nobody even knew. Why would they? Why would anybody know or care if my kid enters Kindergarten a little later? We are not talking about repeating grades here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 10:36:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2015, 10:29:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 09:54:04 AM
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.
I've heard of that as well. Seems bizarre to me-- when I was a kid there was a sort of stigma attached to kids that had been held back.
No joke, right? When we were growing up, a kid was held back a year, it was because he was either slow or a convict, and you either goofed on him or feared him. Now he's a redshirt.
Cardale Jones of the Kindergarden set.
My kids will enter school as soon as their age permits. I NEED 6 HOURS OF PEACE
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2015, 11:01:37 AM
My kids will enter school as soon as their age permits. I NEED 6 HOURS OF PEACE
Yeah, the counterbalance to this plan for me is another year of paying for daycare :weep:
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2015, 11:01:37 AM
My kids will enter school as soon as their age permits. I NEED 6 HOURS OF PEACE
Yeah, the counterbalance to this plan for me is another year of paying for daycare :weep:
Fuck, I have to pay 420/mo for KINDERGARDEN. YOU FUCKS GET ENOUGH IN PROPERTY TAXES
One of my close circle of friends in the elementary school years was about a year older than the rest of us and we suspected he was held back at some point. Then one day one of us found out he had been held back in Kindergarten and it was a huge scandal. You don't want the stigma of "failing Kindergarten" hanging over your head, whether or not that's exactly what happened.
In his case I think it was something like he wasn't emotionally mature enough to handle Kindergarten (he was rather spoiled and never seemed to keep his shit together if he didn't get his own way) so after a couple weeks his mom pulled him out and put him in the next year. But as kids we didn't make any distinctions-- held back = flunking an entire grade year in our minds. Up until that point we regarded him as one of the smarter kids in our group. He was in TAG and all that. But once we found out he was a grade year older than us (I think a year and a half in my case) all that seemed to be built on lies.
We all eventually accepted it, but if he pissed someone off inside our group they were quick to remind him he "flunked Kindergarten". Now if an outsider gave him shit over it, we'd circle the wagons and defend him. That's just how we rolled.
Sounded like he needed to get one of your group alone and beat the shit out of 'em. That is how I rolled.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 10:52:51 AM
My sister was held back. There was no stigma, nobody even knew. Why would they? Why would anybody know or care if my kid enters Kindergarten a little later? We are not talking about repeating grades here.
And we're not talking about your sister or kid, either. Talking about the guy that was already shaving in 7th grade. Don't think anybody cares in this day and age about waiting out a year for Kindergarten.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2015, 11:05:17 AM
Fuck, I have to pay 420/mo for KINDERGARDEN. YOU FUCKS GET ENOUGH IN PROPERTY TAXES
For a public school? How the hell does that happen? I paid just a little more than that for Tommy's Kindergarten, but it was at a private school.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2015, 11:07:59 AM
Sounded like he needed to get one of your group alone and beat the shit out of 'em. That is how I rolled.
Actually, if anyone in the group needed to be put in his place it was him. On a couple occasions I had to straighten him out & go upside his head. But we usually got along fine.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2015, 11:11:11 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2015, 11:05:17 AM
Fuck, I have to pay 420/mo for KINDERGARDEN. YOU FUCKS GET ENOUGH IN PROPERTY TAXES
For a public school? How the hell does that happen? I paid just a little more than that for Tommy's Kindergarten, but it was at a private school.
QuoteKindergarten Programs
We have 2 optional Kindergarten Programs. Please see our building secretary for the Kindergarten Parent Handbook for further explanations
of the programs.
#1. All Day students attend 5 days a week. There is a monthly tuition $420.00. Please call our office if you are interested.
#2. Every Other Day students attend all day on a daily rotation. GOLD attends Mondays, Thursdays, & assigned Wednesdays. PURPLE attends Tuesdays, Fridays, & assigned Wednesdays.
Screw that rotation crap.
What kind of horrible crap is that? Ohio is un-American.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 11:19:29 AM
What kind of horrible crap is that? Ohio is un-American.
I didn't read the parent handbook.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2015, 10:03:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2015, 09:50:11 AM
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.
It is a decision I wish my parents had made. I was born in late December and my parents were given the choice of keeping me back the year. They opted to keep me in the cohort of the year of my birth. Although I did ok in sports that extra year would have made a big difference - for me it was almost literally a full year. I also struggled a lot in school up until university, partly because I spent too much time in the gym but also because I was always a step behind the maturity of my peers (which partially explained why I spent so much time in the gym).
My parents kept me with my cohorts and I can't think of any negatives that came as a result. Well maybe how I had the head of the NEA as my commencement speaker instead of Oprah. :angry:
Our district doesn't even offer all-day Kindergarten. You do either mornings or afternoons each day.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
Our district doesn't even offer all-day Kindergarten. You do either mornings or afternoons each day.
Freedom!
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 06, 2015, 11:30:37 AM
It is a decision I wish my parents had made. I was born in late December and my parents were given the choice of keeping me back the year. They opted to keep me in the cohort of the year of my birth.
I was born in late August and my parents were given the same choice. Glad as hell they kept me where I was, because the kids a year behind my age group were all dipshits.
My parents actually put me in a year before I would have been eligible by the official date.
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2015, 01:00:14 PM
My parents actually put me in a year before I would have been eligible by the official date.
And they've paid for their mistake...
My mom held my younger brother back in K. We used to make fun of him for it but now he's an organic chemist. Maybe it was a good idea.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2015, 11:05:36 AM
We all eventually accepted it, but if he pissed someone off inside our group they were quick to remind him he "flunked Kindergarten". Now if an outsider gave him shit over it, we'd circle the wagons and defend him. That's just how we rolled.
There was a period in time (I'm thinking 6th/7th grade) where my own friend group gave me a lot of shit for the opposite reason, since I'd skipped 2nd grade and was a year younger.
In elementary school, I'd always got by with my peers -- had to develop social skills quick, like entertaining the bad kids with my great collection of swear words and obscene phrases (thanks Dad!).
I rolled with the punches for a year or two in middle school, and then it was more or less faded, and high school was surprisingly mellow (again, mostly since I could be funny and wasn't too much of a goody-goody).
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 06, 2015, 04:31:38 PM
There was a period in time (I'm thinking 6th/7th grade) where my own friend group gave me a lot of shit for the opposite reason, since I'd skipped 2nd grade and was a year younger.
And rightfully so, goody-goody.
<_< :weep:
Basically anything and everything will get you shit on in school. Yes I am aware :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 04:32:58 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 06, 2015, 04:31:38 PM
There was a period in time (I'm thinking 6th/7th grade) where my own friend group gave me a lot of shit for the opposite reason, since I'd skipped 2nd grade and was a year younger.
And rightfully so, goody-goody.
OK, Martinus.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2015, 11:39:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
Our district doesn't even offer all-day Kindergarten. You do either mornings or afternoons each day.
Freedom!
I remember my elementary school doing only half-days for kindergarten back in the day
I would so pay $420 per month for all-day kindergarten.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2015, 05:41:17 PM
I would so pay $420 per month for all-day kindergarten.
:yes: Sometimes you just want to be pampered.
Quote from: The Brain on March 06, 2015, 06:09:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2015, 05:41:17 PM
I would so pay $420 per month for all-day kindergarten.
:yes: Sometimes you just want to be pampered.
:lol: