Questions about Single Sex Education
Clio has a nice discussion going about men and women, boys and girls. She writes:
I myself am not so sure about the merits of single sex education for high school boys. All boys high schools can often develop a hyper-masculine culture where no one wants to be seen as being the slightest bit feminine. If you are even a little bit "girly", you're automatically on the bottom. And because you're not an actual female, you aren't even given the minimum respect high school boys have to give high school girls. It can sometimes drive boys away from the arts. Now I'm not saying that this kind of hyper-masculine culture has to develop in an all male school. In a school with more upper middle class students, there may be enough artistically inclined boys to form a critical mass resistant to this kind of lowest common denominator masculinity. But a hyper-masculine culture can develop. One of my closest friends teaches at an all boys Catholic high school in the north end of Toronto. From his account, the school culture is not at all hospitable to the arts. I have a couple other friends who also attended all boys Catholic schools in the Toronto area and their experiences were much the same. This really shouldn't be much of a surprise. The presence of women civilizes men. Left to themselves, they can turn into barbarians.
(A commenter at Clio's writes: I'm sure there are all-male environments that do just that (say, prison), but I haven't seen any evidence of it in education. Unfortunately, as Paul Graham has noted, in some ways schools are a lot like prisons, so, yes, it does happen in education.)
Now, of course, this says nothing about the merits or demerits of all girls schools. Young women at these schools really do seem to get more opportunities to try on more traditionally masculine roles, whether in leadership or academics. Their self-esteem really does seem to be higher, undoubtedly because they are not being constantly judged by males on their appearance. They don't have to meet male behaviour expectations and they don't have to face aggressive male competition. They can try stuff out. Furthermore, while there are doubtless disadvantages to all girls schools, they don't seem to involve turning young women into hyper-feminine math haters. An all girls school doesn't seem to encourage bad behaviour either. A women needs a man much, much more than a fish needs a bicycle, for some things, but she doesn't usually need him to show her how to act like a civilized human being.
And, of course, neither does any of this say much about single sex education at the Elementary or Middle School level. I have to agree with Clio this far, contact with girls in earlier grades would not seem to be particularly helpful in turning budding Conans into civilized gentlemen. Furthermore, it is indisputable that young boys do have a different needs and a different development timetable. I just don't see much downside to educating younger children separately.
I used to argue against single-sex education, thinking that the sexes need to learn to understand each other from an early age, but now I suspect I was wrong. Co-education doesn't seem to do much to develop mutual understanding, and it may even encourage both sexes to play to their stereotypes, especially when puberty sets in. Boys allow themselves to be "artier"; girls allow themselves to be "tougher", when they aren't trying to prove something to the opposite sex.
I myself am not so sure about the merits of single sex education for high school boys. All boys high schools can often develop a hyper-masculine culture where no one wants to be seen as being the slightest bit feminine. If you are even a little bit "girly", you're automatically on the bottom. And because you're not an actual female, you aren't even given the minimum respect high school boys have to give high school girls. It can sometimes drive boys away from the arts. Now I'm not saying that this kind of hyper-masculine culture has to develop in an all male school. In a school with more upper middle class students, there may be enough artistically inclined boys to form a critical mass resistant to this kind of lowest common denominator masculinity. But a hyper-masculine culture can develop. One of my closest friends teaches at an all boys Catholic high school in the north end of Toronto. From his account, the school culture is not at all hospitable to the arts. I have a couple other friends who also attended all boys Catholic schools in the Toronto area and their experiences were much the same. This really shouldn't be much of a surprise. The presence of women civilizes men. Left to themselves, they can turn into barbarians.
(A commenter at Clio's writes: I'm sure there are all-male environments that do just that (say, prison), but I haven't seen any evidence of it in education. Unfortunately, as Paul Graham has noted, in some ways schools are a lot like prisons, so, yes, it does happen in education.)
Now, of course, this says nothing about the merits or demerits of all girls schools. Young women at these schools really do seem to get more opportunities to try on more traditionally masculine roles, whether in leadership or academics. Their self-esteem really does seem to be higher, undoubtedly because they are not being constantly judged by males on their appearance. They don't have to meet male behaviour expectations and they don't have to face aggressive male competition. They can try stuff out. Furthermore, while there are doubtless disadvantages to all girls schools, they don't seem to involve turning young women into hyper-feminine math haters. An all girls school doesn't seem to encourage bad behaviour either. A women needs a man much, much more than a fish needs a bicycle, for some things, but she doesn't usually need him to show her how to act like a civilized human being.
And, of course, neither does any of this say much about single sex education at the Elementary or Middle School level. I have to agree with Clio this far, contact with girls in earlier grades would not seem to be particularly helpful in turning budding Conans into civilized gentlemen. Furthermore, it is indisputable that young boys do have a different needs and a different development timetable. I just don't see much downside to educating younger children separately.
posted by Thursday at
8:16 PM
10 Comments:
Paul Graham writes in the piece I linked to in the main post:
Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.
In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.
"all boys Catholic high school in the north end of Toronto"
http://iectomorph.blogspot.com/2007/04/north-end.html
Colour me surprised that Shakespeare isn't so popular in schools with high numbers of West Indians and non-English-speaking recent immigrants. I fear genuine artistic interest is only to be found in schools with large numbers of university-track students. This has little or nothing to do with the presence or absence of women and more to do with lingusitic ability, intelligence, and imperative to resume-pad.
- Their self-esteem really does seem to be higher, undoubtedly because they are not being constantly judged by males on their appearance.
Oh, my aching sides! As anyone who`s had the misfortune to converse with women (between the ages of fourteen and forty, say) knows, they are infinitely more judgemental than men. Indeed, thinking back to my recently-concluded schooldays, I would venture to say that bulimia and anorexia were much more common in the single-sex private schools of the West-Side of Vancouver (not the West End!) than in the public schools of the same neighbourhood. Perhaps the notoriously-undiscriminating attentions of teenage boys help to militate against the viciousness of female nit-picking.
- This really shouldn't be much of a surprise. The presence of women civilizes men.
This is undoubtedly why single-mothers raise such marvelously well-adjusted sons.
Having tutored high school girls from single-sex and co-ed schools for about 2 1/2 years now, my impression is that the single-sex girls are more emotionally retarded around males. You see this when they interact with boys their own age, as well as with elder males (I'm 26).
If they don't have lots of practice in quotidian shoot-the-bull sessions with boys (in class, at lunch, walking to class, etc.), then they don't get any feedback from the environment on what works. Co-ed girls get constant, daily feedback.
I'm referring to boy-girl relations in general, not necessarily flirtation.
It's the same situation with male geeks who never interact with girls. It's no wonder they say and do awkward things when finally in the presence of girls, again even in non-romantic contexts.
Another downside for single-sex girls is that, though in their school status may accrue to some quality other than good looks, in real life it is the exact opposite. Whether they can handle the transition easily, I don't know.
Agnostic, the theory is that once girls have had a chance to build confidence in a particular area of knowledge, or expertise, they won't be so vulnerable to worries about their appearance.
I don't know whether that's true, of course. I believe fred s. is right, and that the incidence of eating disorders tends to be high in all-girl schools and dorms. But that's only my impression (and his): I don't know if there are any statistics to support it.
About women and men civilizing each other: I believe that this is true, but that this civilizing effect requires the efforts and input of two parents of the opposite sex (preferably two who get on well together); and that it could be handled in some venue other than the schools.
After all (to take up Agnostic's comment again), most geeks and nerds, I presume, went to mixed-sex schools; why didn't that help them to learn to mix with girls more effectively?
Anyway, I'm not wedded to the idea of single-sex education. I don't think I would have liked it, but then, I didn't like school at all. I found it a miserable place, and I'm convinced that, in spite of the fact that I had quite a few good teachers, it retarded both my intellectual and social growth.
alias clio
Thurs - maybe I skimmed too quickly, but that link to Graham doesn't seem to say anything about single-sex vs coed schools re "hyper-masculinization". It's not the presence of girls that prevents the Lord of the Flies descent, it's the absence of real adult, particularly male adult, authority. Not that all-male schools can't be nasty, brutal places, but I'm just not seeing the evidence for the accusations often thrown out aabout them - that the all-male environment in itself is a bad idea and more likely to produce stunted, misogynist men. Some tony girls' schools that I've heard of sure sound like nasty sinks of cattiness and eating disorders, as other commenters mention, but I don't think that overrides the general finding of benefit.
Another downside for single-sex girls is that, though in their school status may accrue to some quality other than good looks, in real life it is the exact opposite. Whether they can handle the transition easily, I don't know.
(Rolling eyes) Yes, agnostic, developing a sense of self-worth based on something other than how one ranks as a piece of ass couldn't possibly be an asset in leading a satisfying life. After all, what else is there to life but status? Frankly, I've never been able to figure out why girls who are sub-alpha in sexual attractiveness don't just kill themselves.
To address your question (slightly) more seriously, no, I can't recall being horribly traumatized by the transition from single-sex high school to co-ed university. In fact, at 18 I was long past the age of becoming aware that most males wouldn't care about anything but what I looked like. Those schools aren't cloisters, ya know. Can't say that not copping to the general narrow criterion of worth put me at any disadvantage in finding a good mate, either. Quite the contrary.
If they don't have lots of practice in quotidian shoot-the-bull sessions with boys (in class, at lunch, walking to class, etc.), then they don't get any feedback from the environment on what works. Co-ed girls get constant, daily feedback.
Yeah, I'm well aware of some of the "feedback" my daughter gets from the teenage apes at her school. Now, that's not fair, of course, I know that most of the boys at her school are nice kids and behave themselves around the girls. But I think it's a load of bunk that you have to have to be educated in coed classrooms to develop the social skills necessary to function around the opposite sex. It's not like we live in some Taliban society where there's no opportunity to interact with opposite sex. Attendance at my single-sex high school didn't preclude dating, proms, and all the standard non-school hanging out that boys and girls do. At any rate, I doubt all the socially retarded nerds people write about got that way from being deprived of coed education.
Fred -
1. Toronto has a long northern border. The school where my friend teaches at has a fair number of East Asian immigrants, but not a lot of black students.
2. Its not mothers that civilize men, but potential mates. All else being equal, acting like a jerk will make you less attractive to women.
Agnostic - Yes, there are definitely downsides to all girl schools too.
Clio - Yes, probably the best thing is to have different options. This one size fits all thing has to go. What I'm objecting to is the idea that single sex education is some kind of panacea. Its not.
Moira - Schools, like prisons, are self contained little worlds, and what you do there has little immediate consequences outside that world. Thats Graham's point. I would contend, however, that the presence of females injects at least some real world consequences into the mix. Act too brutally masculine and you will have less chance getting a girlfriend, or at least the girlfriend you want.
Thursday,
"All else being equal, acting like a jerk will make you less attractive to women."
It's probably more accurate to say that a judicious mixture of acting like a jerk and acting nice yield the best result: in a mixed-gender environment, aggresively competing for status with your fellow males and being kind toward potential mates seems to be the best course of action. This signals to the female that you are simultaneously a forceful alpha-type male (provided your statius competition is somewhat succesful) and a suitably compassionate mate. Hence the fierce jockeying that adolescent boys engage in in front of girls.
You've neglected to mention the most compelling modern reason to favour single-sex education, especially for young boys: the emasculating environment that female teachers have created in public (especially elementary) education. Indeed, your mithering about feral boys needing civilizing by women suggests a rather too-credulous acceptance of this pernicious feminist bullshit.
Roll your eyes at somebody else, Moira.
If you don't care about status, and therefore figuring out what boosts or sinks your status, then great. But remember that most people that age are terribly concerned about status and how to increase it. So they must on some level worry about their physical appearance.
If I were going to be as snarky as you, I'd argue that your wish for youngsters to stop caring about rank would only come about if we gave them a lobotomy in whatever lobe drives their status-seeking behavior.
I didn't say girls at single-sex schools got zero feedback from boys, only that they got much less. It's like someone who deals with bad customers throughout the day vs. only several times a week: who is more likely to have found an empirically proven polite way to tell the bad customer to shove it?
And no offense, but the girl from the single-sex school is not in a disinterested position to judge how socially adept she is compared to co-ed girls. I explained that my impressions are just that.
Two commenters have mentioned anti-social nerds -- but that just proves my point. You have to scrape the lowest depths of the high school status hierarchy to find people that socially awkward. At an all-girls school, I don't think you'd have to. The same goes for deplorably brutish behavior among boys: easier to find at an all-boys school, whatever the causes.
You know, Agnostic, having mixed with the products of single-sex private schools when I was a young girl myself, I don't think I could agree with this. I found nearly all of these people extremely social. Some were rude and arrogant, it's true, but very few were socially awkward.
That may have been because in Canada, private schools were nearly always for the children of the very rich, or at least that's how it was 25 years ago. Their parents gave dances, parties, and other such events to ensure that their children grew up with social graces in the presence of the opposite sex.
Educate boys and girls in the same school but in different classrooms.
Not that I'm at all in favour of public schooling. This whole jail parallel is too close to be coincidental.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home