Why do girls do better at school?
atis.substack.com
atis.substack.com
1. The age at which children start school has gradually lowered. This has reached a point where ~80% of boys and ~20% of girls do not have the brain maturity to pay attention (boy brains mature at a different schedule from girl brains). The result is that teachers will group classes with young students into two groups: one that is mentally ready to play the educational games and the other group that can play freestyle. Kids no matter what age are very good at learning who the "dumb" group is, even though teachers never / almost never have a negative attitude towards the group that isn't ready to learn. This causes children to think, "The teacher hates me" which causes them to hate school.
2. Schools tend to have extreme punishments towards any kind of violence, even healthy violence. E.g., banning snowball fights. This also creates an environment that is bad for ~80% of the boys and ~20% of the girls, who want to have fun this way.
3. Even intellectual discussions of violence are frowned on. The author received awards when he was a child for writing a story about a man who was trying to escape East Germany and ended up getting both his legs blown off. Nowadays it's hard to imagine anything other than that child getting detention / the police called on them / counseling / etc. This frowning on discussions of violence again causes harm, but a disproportionate amount of harm is experienced by the boys.
Which, actually, is a big part of why this persists.
On the differences of gender dropout in Italy was a very interesting point. They suggest that it is simply easier for a boy to dropout from High School to get a job than it is for a girl.
So when we mention girls do better at school. Perhaps a factor such as incentive may play a role.
The paper suggests an uneducated boy will fare better on the job market than an uneducated girl and thus have less incentive to do well at school and drop out earlier.
I thought it was an interesting view that deviates from the usual ones
I saw one paper that showed gay boys excelled at school on average. But they were clear on that how the data was collected may have affected the outcome. In US for example, a boy that admits to being gay is more likely to come from a liberal well educated home. And children of well educated parents tend fare better at school. Knitting socio economics back to the reason for doing well.
This is a preposterous hand-waving away of hundreds of distinct factors so that you can excuse massive, systemic bias against boys as being a natural outcome.
Would you so flippantly make the same claim about racial disparities in education?
The lack of quality in modern school systems aside, I do not believe in forced equality and fully believe that sorting children by age hurts their academic progress tremendously. By extend, separating boys from girls while teaching each at a different pace might actually improve the educational quality of every child, rather than trying to appeal to merely the average for whatever reason. I believe that the above applies to any characteristic. Education should, in my opinion, be based on an individual's learning capability, but I suppose that would go against everything the modern school system stands for.
Some people say high achiever should go into the economy, it is only right that they earn more. I think these thoughts don't really come from high achievers.
or because since 1980 all the teaching method used by teacher are designed for girl learning style and none are designed for boy learning style!
Because there are no incentive for boy to work hard and get good grade because they never receive praise for good work.
Evolutionary biology plays a big role in this. So it would be more efficient to focus on how to architect environments for everyone to focus on their strengths & use biologically dictated social structures. Sure they can be overthrown, but it only works as long as the environment is stable (at least in the short run).
Finding mechanisms that make our fundamental „truths“ (even if they seem outdated from a political POV), is more stable. Not saying i have the solution, i do believe, we shouldn‘t artificially punish, but rather find ways to encourage & build on that fundament.
Can you be more specific and support the assertion that there exist gender-based learning style differences? Maybe there are; maybe there aren't. But an evidence-free claim such as this benefits no one.
> [Boys] never receive praise for good work.
Again, wildly unsupported claims, while apparently welcome on many social media platforms, are a poor fit for HN.
Now? Well they don't want things to change but they can't deny the stats. The solution? Blame all males for being born inferior and useless. Each top level comment here does exactly that. "Maybe the problem with boys is that they are too much this or not enough that" and so on. As if there was a wave of cosmic rays that only caused damage to XY chromosomes or something.
So what they do is pretend they never made those changes. They pretend girls always did better in school when that is a relatively recent thing. The schools are designed and built for them.
Also spend more than 1 hours in any elementary classroom and just count how many time the teacher praise the boys vs the girl. You will quickly reach the same conclusion.
mostly just anecdata across the net driving that conclusion
I find “Patriarchy” doesn’t actually explain things. It’s a catch-all to describe patterns in society but it doesn’t actually point to a root cause, or indicate a solution.
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/negative-ef...
IMO - This is one of the more obvious answers to this phenomenon
What are you basing your assertion on?
What does men being horny have to do with my response or the article?
You lead your comment with this statement. From this, its apparent to me that you're basing your hypothesis on the difference in educational performance between the sexes based entirely on this supposed difference.
My comment was pointing out that men are also highly driven to reproduce, therefore your point is invalid