Quoting nests are a pain on Tumblr, but here goes.
trick for getting around the issue.
Not really. It was an honest mistake that left out less than a percentage point from the actual number.
leave it in.
Okay. Anyone following the conversation can see it.
theorticlly then, neither has white supremacy had anything to do with a GPA gap between white students and black students.
I’m sure racism/classism has had a significant effect on these scores. But blacks and Latinos have always been underrepresented in higher education/the professions/union-protected trades/top earning jobs in the US. If those lower scores had never historically kept them from succeeding in education/business/professions relative to whites, then my conclusion about why they lag behind today would be different. But it is hard to even imagine a world in which that was the case.
ah, so the historical fact that whole word was chosen by a feminist over phonics because it was the one pedagogy that girls out preformed boys in… despite the fact that girls on phonics out preformed girls on whole word…
is nothing to be concerned over?
really. okay, in that case it a simple matter to teach boys phonics and chuck the rest.
I think we can bridge this historical gender gap in literacy (since the late 19th century), but the reason it is hurting American boys now more than ever is probably not due to this change in pedagogy, given that they lag in reading/writing scores all over the world. For this reason, the argument that a change to phonics would go so far to solve the issue of boys’ loss of competitiveness in higher education/employment is not a convincing one. We need to be looking at the bigger picture, because that has changed much more significantly than teaching, the primary/secondary school GPA gap, the drop-out gap (and boys are graduating in greater numbers than ever), etc. over the period of time in which this crisis has emerged.
The female domination of early education started during and then after the civil war, before then it was a male dominated profession. But all the men went off an died.
If you noticed my notes, I talked about how the mid 19th century educational program, which was coed and brought in a greater number of children than ever before, resulted in girls’ relative academic success. This is why I used the term “frequently” rather than always with regards to women dominating the history of public teaching. Before the federal push for comprehensive, public education in the mid 19th century, the period in which women came to dominate teaching, school attendance was spotty at best, especially in rural areas. I’m not sure about how and in what ways the Civil War impacted the US demographically. Young male life expectancy certainly did dip during that period,(1) but this is a theory behind female participation in early teaching that I had not heard. It doesn’t really help me understand why there was also a feminization of teaching elsewhere, such as in Canada and the UK, at roughly the same time.
At any rate, the (male) class of 1880, regardless of its performance, simply did not have to worry about women outdoing them in terms of career opportunities and wages after graduation. Women’s rate of wage employment was in fact lower at the turn of the 20th century than it had been during the mid 19th century. This is not to say that the gap is not important, but it has been with us roughly since the large-scale expansion and consolidation of public education in the US: simply returning to a slightly earlier pedagogy is probably not going to close it. We may want to look at how certain countries produce smaller gaps in literacy scores now (Denmark, Korea, etc.).
Feminist research into sexual violence excludes female predators to enforce this notion?
or do you imagine that feminism is of no influence?
It has had an influence and can/should do better. Feminism brought the issues of child abuse into a public light, often as the result of feminists’ own personal experiences. The idea was to force predominantly male journalists, legislators, judges, policemen, etc. to respond to these issues instead of ignoring or trivializing them. Although women are still not as well represented (it’s better in the press and judiciary than elsewhere, though) in these positions, feminists need to be involved in child/sexual assault victim advocacy more broadly at this point, as not enough is being done to protect either sex from abusers.
As to the stability of GPA and dropouts: high-school-drop-outs/push-outs. It appears that the financial incentive to have high graduation and test scores have resulted in some interesting practices, like pushing student that are going to drop/fail out into GED programs.
that table 1, where it says it’s mostly males in a GED program? yeah…
and needless to point out, the enrollment gap in secondary education has always increased since 1972.
Yes, dropouts have dropped dramatically across the board because of these policies, which are dubious and counterproductive. But high school males also no further than high school females in terms of GPA than they were 40 years ago and are not actually dropping out at a greater rate than in the past (as sometimes is assumed). Is it fair to infer that they are doing worse now at those levels than they were then? Again, it is not that boys are performing as well as girls in primary/secondary school, but that this gender performance gap has been around for well over 100 years.
College enrollment per capita for men has remained roughly the same for 45 years. But women have entered college in increasing numbers since their movement into the professions/higher education. This is significant to putting the decline of male competitive advantage in perspective.
you removed the quote that gave my words context.
please stop doing that.
I’m sorry, I am having trouble with the nested quotes and am doing my best. I hope anyone who is following this conversation takes the time to look at all the posts.
well you see
crisis is a problem you can’t ignore. and we’ve been ignoring the problems of men and boys for a good long while, disposable as they are.
I do not advocate ignoring boys, but acknowledging what has happened to them (or happened around them) over the past few decades and why it is important.
”Stephen Gilbert, chief executive of the Printers’ Charitable Corporation, points out that girls’ improvement increased dramatically at the end of the First World War.
“If you look back at that period, education for women was considered a waste of time,” he said. “But because of the carnage in the trenches, there was a huge shortage in terms of the numbers of men. Educated women became valued in the marketplace.”
you think maybe war and expectations of disposability has something to do with male underachievement and female over achievement.
kinda why the whole kerfluffle over this issue started in the US after the vietnam war.
Well, to be honest, I don’t know precisely what I think about “male disposability” at this point, especially in the 20th century, but I have been mulling it over. Unfortunately, the conversation about the relative worth of male and female roles in society and all the evo psych/anthropological/historical stuff (suttee vs. “women and children first”, etc.) that comes along with it will probably have to wait for another conversation. (Let alone its impact on “men” across time periods, race/classes, and cultures).
But, by “kerfluffle”, do you mean second wave feminism coming from the New Left (which was a reaction to Vietnam in many ways) or women’s participation in higher ed/professional work?
I don’t follow. Has there been a significant