Huh. I've always had a dislike for same-sex education because it has always seemed to me to be a way of loudly proclaiming that girls and boys are so different from each other that they can't even learn together, and that men and women in general are better off segregating themselves than trying to coexist as equals in one environment.

But I've somehow never thought about the way the presence of boys at school would encourage stereotyping... now it seems obvious. >_

Still, it must depend on a lot of factors. Perhaps at least some same-sex schools might actually try to impose gender stereotypes on all of their students? And I, for one, still think that separating the genders like this is inherently bad... but perhaps the day has not yet come when there are better ways to fight stereotyping?..

I guess it's just another illustration of how important school peers are in socializing us.

P.S. Sorry to double-post. But have they considered the income differences amongst PARENTS who send their children to same-sex vs. mixed schools as a factor?

There are, I think, less extreme and just as effective ways of fighting gender discrimination in the classroom.

While kids in gender-segregated classrooms may score better on standardized tests, I worry about their social skills. How does going to a gender-seperate school prepare you for a gender-integrated world?

labyrus, I doubt the girls will exist in a one hundred percent male-free environment. They will still have families, and neighbors, and if they go to church, there will likely be men and boys there. Just because they're schooled differently doesn't mean they won't be socialized "properly." I've never been a fan of the argument that X method of education will lead to poor socialization.

Which raises a bigger point: how *should* kids be socialized? I mean, I'm not convinced that kids who are "normally" socialized turn out so great. Kids who go to co-ed schools might be more likely to view gender relations in a more "normal" manner that lines up with most people's views, but that really only enforces entrenched sexism. Boys and girls will be socialized to think that "men" "ought to" act a certain way and "women" "ought to" act another. I think lots of people would say these kids are more "normal" than, heck, independent feminist women who don't stand for masculinist bullcrap.

In the U.S., single-sex education is usually a subtle way to sidestep Title IX requirements by creating a separate-but-equal educational track for girls (where have we seen that before?) that will solve the "boy crisis" (i.e., the fact that girls are outperforming boys academically instead of the other way around--perish the thought). But there are some practical advantages to the approach, no question, and this study highlights one of them, I think. Not that this is enough to justify single-sex education, but it's certainly enough, I think, to justify making an intentional effort to see to it that girls in coed schools aren't pressured into a subservient gender role. Additional funding for school counselors, and more stringent regulations dealing with bias on the part of teachers and administrators, would probably help tremendously in this regard.

Cheers,

TH

The study seems to have poor controls. For example, it's possible that girls who go to single-sex schools later have an old-girl network to tap onto. It's possible that girls who are less conformistic might choose single-sex schools and later negotiate higher pay for themselves.

How do countries where most people go to single-sex schools compare to countries where most people go to coed schools?

The problem with comparing countries is that any two given countries are going to have a wild number of variants that would be very difficult to control for.

But then the question becomes, why wouldn't the girls who go to co-ed schools be able to tap into those schools' old-girl/old-boy network? And I would have to guess that the answer would be sexism.

It's hard from the article to know what was controlled for; it's too short. One point that should be considered, though, is whether or not parents who send their daughters to single-sex schools are more invested in their daughters' education and more likely to give them the tools they need to succeed in a male-dominated world.

Another question to think about is what age single-sex education is best suited for, if any. Judging from the references to A-levels, they're talking about the British equivalent of high school. (Another point to think about vis-a-vis socialization: from a social point of view, high school was a dreadful experience for me, and I don't think I'm the only one. I can't imagine that having gone to a single-sex school could have made it worse.) I went to a women's college, and it was a powerfully positive experience, and what was most positive about it for me was being in a place where the normative idea of a human being is female, where it is expected that the leaders will be female. I wouldn't trade that for anything. I don't know whether or not that would have been the case in high school, though.

I'm a first year student at a women's college, and yes, the whole "increased salary later in life" is part of the marketing for this school (but I haven't seen a women's only school that doesn't say it)

almost no women's school that I applied to doesn't have a special program for women in science/math, writing, etc. that hold special programs especially telling women how to promote themselves, and the school's special program here includes an entire semester on jobs, the interview/negotiation process.

still, i wouldn't ever want to go to a coed school; I really do prefer the different attitude that the absence of males makes. I would say socialization is NOT an issue whatsoever - there are guys here quite a bit. but I do prefer to not have them in class - even one male (continuing studies) student will dominate the entire discussion. By the time you get to college, most everyone has had so much experience with guys, that the school is nice to get away from the constant race for guys. I only know one girl here who came from an all-girl high school, and she still knows a ton of guys.

Also, I would say that the economic backgrounds of the students here is not what you guys have been guessing - I know quite a few girls - myself included - that are here because this was the best financial option (even better than a state school for me). We're majority middle class, but not wealthy.

The "monopolizing the discussion" angle bothers me because it seems to be rooted in the idea that men are naturally assertive and should be left that way and women are naturally meek and should be left that way, when one of the ideals of the coed classroom environment is that it will teach men to be more meek and women to be more assertive. If men are monopolizing the discussion, that's a problem with how the discussion is being moderated--not with the presence of men, IMHO.

Cheers,

TH

Tom, I think probably it's not an essentialist notion of how men operate in class versus women, but a realistic picture of how we're socialized. I myself have noticed that I *actually* dumb myself down (I do it far less than I used to) out of fear of seeming obnoxious or unappealing to men. I'm not naturally meek by ANY means (just ask my family if you don't believe me ;)), but I've learned from a young age that men are the ones with ideas, men are the ones who speak their minds, and men should be given deference in an academic/religious/leadership/etc. setting. So in my case at least, it's definitely socialization acting to make me meeker than I am. And I've noticed that where I'm speaking with a group of women, I am more likely to speak up and be assertive and loud and talkative where I am much less so around men. I've also noticed that the more I get used to speaking my mind, the less it bothers me who it's around. So I think that in that way there could be value in single-sex education that's not due to essentialist notions about gender, at least for women like me.

If it's about women's being more deferent around men, then why do you think single-sex schools will solve the problem? On the contrary, if that were true then girls going to single-sex schools would have less experience with being assertive around men, which would hurt them later in life.

Alon, it's like I just said in my last comment -- in my experience at least, the more I get used to speaking my mind, the less I care who I'm speaking it to. That is to say, having positive experiences being assertive is going to encourage assertive behavior. Where women are given an environment that encourages assertiveness, be it a single-sex environment or one that's moderated properly (as Tom notes), they're going to realize that being assertive is a positive thing. That gives us more confidence outside of those protected environments, such that being assertive in a single-sex school WILL lead to being assertive around men.

If single-sex schools could be counted on to be in the hands of progressive feminists, I might be more open to the idea--but since the people running the show are more often than not concerned about the "boy crisis" and looking for clever way to cut funding for girls' sports, I have to side with the Brown v. Board of Education position that there can be no such thing as separate but equal, because separate is inherently unequal.

Cheers,

TH

Women's college graduates make up more corporate board members and CEOs than mixed gender schools. Women's colleges allow women to be in leadership roles and take away the distraction of men on campus. I think men do dominate classrooms and distract women from studying and taking on leadership roles.

I'm not certain the conclusion that the same-sexness of same-sex schools is what results in generating women who tend to be more monetarily successful. Consider these other two potential factors:

1) Same-sex schools, on average, tend to be ranked above average schools. Therefore the graduates will tend to end up in better positions than an "average" college graduate.

2) Same-sex schools are often colleges and not universities. This tends to mean that students get more face time with professors, which is usually a better learning experience.

I work in a research lab, and a couple of the most successful women I know did in fact go to same-sex schools for their undergraduate degrees, but there's also equally successful (and compensated) women there who did not.

FWIW, here's what NOW's president has to say about the issue.

Cheers,

TH

Here's more from NOW.

Cheers,

TH

I went to a girls school in the UK and found it a really positive experience. Girls schools (as with any school) are too concernered with getting good grades for to worry about teaching female stereotypes. We learnt sewing and cooking as well as wood and metal work (called CDT which was compulsary up to GCSE (age 16) and included basic circuitery) and I guess it wasn't biased in anyway other than we didn't do football, rugby or cricket but then that was the same for girls at mixed schools anyway.

As for how does it prepare you for life afterwards I mixed with boys out side of school (not at church) and there were boys in the 6th form which was shared with a local mixed school.

If anything my experience of working with men since I left is that many (not all) men are very arrogant and make a a lot of assumptions about your place and worth as a woman. I've felt looked down on in subtle ways ever since by this assurance that some men have about the rights of just being male - a bit like they have grown up with women thinking about the needs of others around them without it seeming neccessary for them to consider anyone else themselves. I don't mean to put men down by this women have plenty of flaws and I've met a lot of amazing men.

That also isn't to say that I had an easy ride, as I was badly bullied at both my mixed primary school and my girls only secondary school. It's more that I was just encouraged by teachers to believe I could achieve and with the only male influence on my life being my dad who pushed me to achieve the best I could and who I wanted to be one day. That and the few male teachers who could put up with the harrassment from the students.

I don't know about private girls schools but your average state school definately has no old girls club.....

Did they use private coeducational schools as the comparison, or a mix with public? All same-sex schools are private, so if the comparison isn't, you can't tell the effects of same v. mixed sex; it will be confounded with a public v. private school effect. Most students at private schools come from wealthier, more connected families to begin with.

Good point. Although here in the States, public schools are (sadly) also becoming gender-segregated, and not just on an optional basis. There have been some recent victories in Louisiana and Michigan, but I know one local woman who has to send her 9-ish son to a single-sex public school because she isn't allowed any other option. This is increasingly becoming a mandatory thing, it is being pushed hard by the far right, and whatever the benefits of sex-segregation in theory, what it would be in practice under these folks' agenda will be an excuse to address the achievement gap by making good future housewives out of those uppity little girls.

Cheers,

TH

Another thing to consider is that same-sex education has had, in my experience, horrible effects on boys--almost every graduate of a single sex private school that went to college with me had an extremely fucked-up, mysoginistic attitude toward women. Literally every stalker that I knew of could be traced back to some all-boys school somewhere.

There might be some positive effects for women in a single-gendered environment, but the corresponding all-boys schools will do nothing but create a generation nutty, anti-feminist men.

See, I see the point about being offended by the notion that girls should go to single-sex schools "because" they're so inherently different from boys and because they "should" be educated differently... but at the same time, if the studies tend to show that, on balance, single-sex schools *help* girls, then who cares if the right wing has its own reasons for wanting it? As long as we make sure that the schools don't turn to *actually* implementing only their values (and I think it unlikely they will; I also think there will still be coed schools, so there will always be a choice for parents), hey, let the right wing think what it wants. If they're wrong, who cares? :0) I mean, I guess I'm saying a pragmatic approach might be better -- if the fact of the matter is that these schools help girls, might that not be enough?

For an overview of studies, compiled by the US Department of Education, see here -- on balance the studies that have been done *slightly* favor single-sex education, but the compilation notes that there's lots of work left to be done in this area.

Single sex schools for males reinforce male stereotypes and single sex schools for girls shatter stereotypes. Women's college graduates have also risen to the top in politics. Offhand I can think of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton and Elaine Chao. It's related to the whole "self-segregation" idea which should not be necessary but in many cases helps women.

here's a study on the subject

benefits listed, from an all-women's college

I don't think, that as a women's college student,that i'm taught at all to dumb down my ideas - being male-free means that we're loud, we study (more or less) a lot, classroom discussions get really involved and and sometimes heated, but without males around, the whole boy/girl chase is really reduced, so we get to spend a lot more time in leadership (i don't know anyone who isn't a leader of something; rules are in place to prevent one person from dominating).

A professor of mine the other day was talking about when she was an undergrad (in Germany), 98% of the professors were male. So she decided that she wanted to be a high school teacher; it wasn't until she came to the US for a year and saw women as professors did the idea of a woman even being a professor occur to her. So seeing women as leaders is helpful.

"A professor of mine the other day was talking about when she was an undergrad (in Germany), 98% of the professors were male. So she decided that she wanted to be a high school teacher; it wasn't until she came to the US for a year and saw women as professors did the idea of a woman even being a professor occur to her. So seeing women as leaders is helpful."

kryrinn, you hit the nail right on the head. This is the primary reason I generally favor affirmative action. Seeing people like you in power, versus *only* seeing people too different from you for you to relate to, really does make a difference.

So why not pass a law mandating that at least 50% of professors at every university, and 33% of professors in every department, be female? If we're going to segregate by sex, why not do it in a way that gives women and girls more leverage instead of less?

Folks, I know there are people in the sex-segregation movement who mean well, but I promise you that if it's enacted in Mississippi, it will be all about breaking the wills of girls and turning them into future Stepford wives. We've got "Most Christlike" awards and "IN GOD WE TRUST" on every classroom wall. Nuff said?

Maybe it would work in Vermont, but please think of those of us in the red states, who have a hard enough time convincing educators and school board officials not to argue that God hid the dinosaur bones to lead sinners astray. An entire generation of girls will be oppressed by this if school districts are even given the option of mandatory sex-segregation, mark my words.

Now, optional pilot programs? Those I have no problems with. But please, none of this mandatory stuff.

Cheers,

TH

Theoretically, I'm against segregated anything but practically, subordinate groups have to self-segregate to mobilize. I wish there were no need for feminist blogs, radical women of color blogs, minority movements, gay rights movements, environmental movements, etc. but hegemons demonize each subordinate group to conquer and divide everyone not in their ranks. Republicans use identity politics more than anyone for political gains. Their campaigns against gay marriage, reproductive freedoms, immigrants divide and conquer.

Having attended 1 1/2 single-sex schools in the United States, I can definitely testify that the academic environment is different and more fulfilling. Spending time with people that share something so pervasive and resonating with you opens your eyes and empowers you to speak more freely in learning environments. I think I experienced a reprogramming in these classrooms because I learned that no matter where I raise my hand, my ideas matter. The people around me should not determine how I raise my voice.

The people around me should not determine how I raise my voice.

If it's impossible to teach that in a coed environment, feminism is doomed.

I've done the co-ed thing all my life and am currently starting my first year at college. I never considered single-sex education because I didn't see the point; I think when choosing a high school, this was partially because the people who were meanest to me in middle school tended to be girls (there were some jackass boys, too, but what I mean is, I had no reason to believe the environment would be any different at a single-sex school). In high school about half my best friends wound up being guys.

I get that single-sex education can help some women learn to speak up, no matter what, but I learned that at home, from my super-feminist (stay-at-home!) mom. My rationale towards boys dominating the classroom discussion was, if you have something to say, say it. I've heard of girls being intimidated by the fact that boys will just call out of turn, but I never understood why--just call out of turn yourself. And yeah, my high school hadn't had a female student body president for 30 years, since the year after the school became co-ed, but there were women in leadership roles on publications, in the theater company (no one but theater geeks ever complains of the lack of male leadership/interest in the theater), in music groups, and no one cared about student government anyway. I didn't not run for SBP because I was a girl, I didn't run because I didn't want to. That said, I recognize that not everyone had the intensely feminist upbringing I did; I definitely lucked out in what I was bringing to the table.

Also, perhaps the women who choose single-sex colleges do so in part because they are very career-ambitious to begin with.

I'll just weigh in, since I attended a girls-only Catholic high school in an American red-state.

Tom, I respect and understand everything you're saying about girls-only schools. My school's 'brother school' had enormous funding, a huge donation pool, and massive sports programs that my all-girls school just didn't concern itself with. It acted more as a military school and produced mentalities of the same shape -- often strongly committed to hierarchy, obedience, and strict obedience to social rules.

However, my girls-only school was the only place where I ever encountered women as positive leaders in a public arena, which gave me the ability to stand up against these mentalities as a teen and adult. It's not just boys-only schools that foster this type of attitude -- co-ed schools do, too, and it includes both men and women acting in that paradigm.

My entire school was built around the idea of giving girls a framework in which to analyze the forces that direct them specifically as girls. I read Carol Gilligan at 14 and my teachers incorporated in our xian studies classes units on things like examining the patriarchal symbols connected to the institution of marriage. We talked about gender roles and how that affects women in society, in religion, and in the world. And as far as I can tell, no co-ed institution comes near touching that stuff with a ten-foot pole, especially in red states. Yet the school never would have called itself feminist -- it saw itself as catering to the specific needs that girls have -- not intrinsically because they are girls, but because they are subjected to very different social forces than boys are.

Half my school was on scholarship (including me), 1/3 had severe learning disabilities that made it impossible for them to function in a regular academic setting, and almost all were Catholic (and yes we got indoctrination about abortion, although my school was very pro-women's ordination and pro-homosexual marriage). It was economically diverse and intended to be that way. It was in downtown Louisville and offered hundreds of hours of volunteer work to that community as a result of class-time spent doing social service work. The school was committed to getting girls socially and politically engaged at a young age (including sending 15 yr. olds to gay-rights organizations to volunteer). I learned there a more holistic approach to being human, receiving an education that was geared toward the stigmas and social factors I would face as a woman outside of the school. I left as a much more capable human and a stronger woman for it. Besides all the "non-academic" (spiritual, social) coursework, half of my class still went to college on scholarship.

It wasn't without problems, but I'd venture to say that the framework benefited everyone there -- from the staff to the teachers to the students.

I found at 14 years old a women's community in that school. Now, at 23, I have yet to find another one. Growing up in a community like that made a hugely positive impact on my development as an adult. I think it's the experience of experiencing those formative years of adolescence and young adulthood in a community of women invested in helping other women that is most beneficial, unequal sports and funding aside.

I must add that I wouldn't recommend that single sex schools be implemented for children or that students not have the option to attend a co-ed school. I'm just saying that it should be available for anyone who so wishes. I completely agree with nonwhiteperson about divide and conquer v. self-segregation to gain power.

I definitely have no problem with optional single-sex schools, especially for adults. It's the mandatory, separate-but-equal-from-age-6-to-18 movement that really creeps me out.

Cheers,

TH

Mandy, are you saying women are not positive leaders in coed schools?

As a student of both a coed public education and coed college education, and having also spent most of my time in a female dominated ballet school, I would never dream of going to an all women's (or men's) college. The idea does not appeal to me because I do not want to be segregated from half of the population in my everyday life. While studying ballet, I sometimes felt the lack of much of a male presence was a drawback. It just didn't feel balanced to me. I have never felt that men dominated my college classes, and I say if you feel that way, then don't let it happen! If one student, male or female, tries to take all the attention, raise an issue to draw it away from him or her. I also do not feel that men are a "distraction". I'm there to learn, and I am not easily swayed from that by the appearance of some good looking guy (or whatever the case may be). If it's your choice to attend an all women's college, I respect that it's your choice and you deserve the ability to make that choice.
I think mandatory segregation is a scary thought and cannot lead to good things. Many countries that have severe gender segregation do not seem to have a very good reputation for women's rights. On a side note, those who are saying men constantly dominate or merely provide for a distraction, aren't you stereotyping? If I went into a blog and saw men were saying the reverse of that I would be offended.

"I have never felt that men dominated my college classes, and I say if you feel that way, then don't let it happen!"

By what? Um... pretending a boy wrote your papers so the male professor doesn't grade you down? Don't pretend that never happens -- that's what tenure does. As progressive and leftist as the right would have us believe universities are, there are a LOT of sexists still in power.

I don't think *anyone* here is talking about mandatory segregation, so let's stop whacking that straw man. He's dead. I mean, seriously -- anyone in favor of mandatory segregation, raise your hand. If anyone raises their hand, then you can go ahead and argue with them. I won't bother because that notion is just self-evidently silly.

The Law Fairy writes:
I don't think *anyone* here is talking about mandatory segregation, so let's stop whacking that straw man. He's dead.

Not for the 9-year-old son of a local friend of mine, now being educated in an all-male public school classroom because that's the only option his mother has available. The Bush administraton is pushing--hard--for mandatory school segregation, with great success in the red states. Please don't write this off as a straw man. This is serious business, and the objective is very clear and very sinister.

Cheers,

TH

TH, I would be inclined to agree with you if I could find an instance where someone expressed that mandatory segregations of students by sex was a factor in this article or this conversation. The purpose of my post was the fact I have had positive experiences with same-sex education, and I think that same-sex educational institutions should remain an option for young women and young men.

I also don't understand the argument about being isolated from half of the population, implying that children remain in cells from dawn to dusk until they are shuttled off to school.

I think a significant discussion would be why people fear single-sex education and couple it so closely with racially segregated education, especially since no one is arguing about a disparity of resources between co-ed schools and single-sex schools.

Alon Levy, in no way am I suggesting that women can't be positive role models in co-ed schools. However, in my co-ed school growing up, there was a male principal, a male vice-principal, and males filling all the 'valued' subjects (science, math, geography). It wasn't about being positive so much as it was about being 'powerful' in the eyes of other adults. I had great female teachers, but they were low-level teachers, not leaders per se. Once I got to about the sixth grade they started to get phased out for male teachers in certain subjects. As for real-life role models, I never really saw women in positions of power in real life until I went to the girls-only school. It's not that women can't be positive leaders (in any venue); it's just that in my experience they weren't. I'm sure that has to do with economics, religion, and all kinds of gender politics that are specific to my area (Kentucky) but probably salient in many other areas.

Alon, I intentionally didn't generalize about co-ed or same-sex schools. I can't imagine that I could speak for other schools, other cities, etc -- nor did I intend to-- hence the abundance of "I," "me," "my school." I can't imagine how you got the impression that I was speaking about all women in all co-ed schools when I so explicitly stated the opposite.

Tom, that sounds nefarious. I have no doubt NCLB, privatization and religious schools have something to do with this single-sex engineering in the South. You mean not only will schools in the future be religious but they will be single-sex too? What fun!

Rachael, if I went to high school or college today knowing what I know now, I'd speak up alot more and be more assertive. Thanks to continued feminist movement, women are more likely to speak up in class and be assertive in many areas of life. I was very quiet in my high school and college classes and didn't read my first semi-women's studies book until I was 22. It was psychotherapist Anne Wilson Schaef's Women's Reality (this was my 12-step period) and I was pretty taken aback by it. I remember telling everyone I knew about things I'd read in the book as if they were something new. Anyway, teens and young women today have much higher expectations in many facets of life because of feminism.

I apologize, Tom -- what I meant was that no one on this board is arguing for it. I don't mean to write it off as a concern, but rather, I don't think that's an argument we need to make *here*, as I suspect we're all in agreement that mandatory segregation is bad.

TLF, thanks for this. If folks said early on that they believe that mandatory public school sex-segregation is bad, I would have had nothing to get worked up about. I believe that adults should have the freedom to make up their minds about the issue of sex-segregation, and that parents have a similar right with regard to how their kids are educated. My issue is with Title IX and the need to prevent separate-but-equal sex segregation, which is a huge national problem and very much geared, I believe, towards reducing girls' test scores (thereby solving the "boy crisis") and fostering muliebrity within what conservatives regard as an obviously overly-empowered generation of girls. The model is Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, not WomanShare and Camp Sister Spirit.

So I have no constitutional/civil liberties problem with strictly voluntary sex segregation, though personally I never participate in all-male groups as a matter of principle. Most of my friends and mentors are female, and always have been, and almost certainly always will be. I am proud to say that I played with dolls as a kid, and I will likewise raise my kids with similar values. I do not believe that reinforcing gender roles or gender apartheid is a desirable goal--but those who disagree with me on this point have every right to do so as long as they don't screw up the public education system.

Cheers,

TH

The simple fact is, girls in an all girls school (as boys in an all boys school) are probably getting a better education because like it or not, girls and boys respond better to different teaching styles. This study seems to confirm it.

Look for more confirming research in the future (unless it's PC-ed onto the curring room floor).

TLF, see what I mean?

Cheers,

TH

Sorry about piling on you Tom! We were talking about two different things!

Tony, boys aren't socialized to sit still in school and girls get better grades because schools reward passivity and the ability to follow rules. Good behavior is often rewarded by good grades according to the Sadker study Failing At Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls (1995). Schools should focus less on the traditional, authoritative, I teach you listen, human capital model of learning that treats students as cogs to be fitted into a global economy and more on liberatory, dialogical learning that values humans all their diversity.

lol, Tom, well, I did ask them to raise their hands ;)

True enough. ;o)

Re gender and pedagogy: A group of friends and I were talking about this over lunch, and we all agreed that the current way of teaching is way too masculine--and I don't mean too boy-centered, I mean too masculine, in a way that hurts kids of both genders. A more cooperative, team-based model--like what we see in Japan--would be far preferable, I think, to our current competition model. One of my lunchmates, who taught in Japan, talked about how hard it was to teach Japanese kids musical chairs because they kept getting up to let another kid have the seat. The average class size over there is 40--and if we're going to be doomed to large class sizes, cooperative learning is the only way we can give kids a superior education. And I think the reason boys' test scores haven't risen as well as girls' have is precisely because of the reason NWP cites--boys in this country, unlike boys in Japan, are not taught to learn cooperatively. They're taught social Darwinism.

So what I'd really like to see is the feminization of the public school system, period. I think that would benefit everybody.

Cheers,

TH

"One of my lunchmates, who taught in Japan, talked about how hard it was to teach Japanese kids musical chairs because they kept getting up to let another kid have the seat."

That's simultaneously hilarious and encouraging. I couldn't agree with you more; I think that incorporating more stereotypically "feminine" qualities into our educational paradigms could only do good for the next generation.

The simple fact is, girls in an all girls school (as boys in an all boys school) are probably getting a better education because like it or not, girls and boys respond better to different teaching styles. This study seems to confirm it.

But the study says that there's no difference in test scores, only in earnings later in life.

Re gender and pedagogy: A group of friends and I were talking about this over lunch, and we all agreed that the current way of teaching is way too masculine--and I don't mean too boy-centered, I mean too masculine, in a way that hurts kids of both genders.

I think masculine is the wrong word to use - Japan isn't a feminist heaven. Rather, what your anecdote suggests is that schools should emphasize cooperation more and competition less. I'm slightly averse to it, mostly because of my not particularly positive experiences of working in groups, but I'm open-minded to case studies of successful cooperation-based learning.