Poll: Segregating schools: A Good Idea?

[stompy]

I always thought so, most of my friends came outside of school.... But apparently class time is the only time they can socialize. Seems like most(many) on here are like "oh noes how will I evar see teh girlz if they aren't forced to be around me?!"
I actually figured the poll numbers would be a lot closer, but I suppose you learn something new every day.

Actually coming from an all-boys school, I don't seem like I've got problems communicating with the opposite gender, nor does it look like that when I see friends talk to some girls... and it's not like people cannot be successful while going to a single-gender school.

Edit: By successful, I do mean career-wise, but I do also mean in a social sense as well.

 

[Joeshie]

And again, this is a classic case of not going to the source, and attacking the problem where it would cause the best results. Segregation between genders might have a small, very small, impact on study results short term. Segregation between individuals based on their performance, and education based on their level would inste raise study results everywhere drastically, for everone, on a long-term basis.

Obviously, that would be the best way to go about it, but it would be ridiculously costly and time consuming. Segregation is a cheap alternative that has shown to have results time and time again. It might not be nearly as effective as judging a student based on each individual basis, but it's also far more inexpensive and less time consuming. That's the reason why it should be considered.

 

[sabotstarr]

if the school is still co-ed then the idea would be good but that probably wouldn't happen.

 

[latenightapplepie]

There should obviously be the option. I'm not in favour of all schools being co-ed, or all schools being single-sex. Parents (and students) should have the option of being able to choose. There are merit in both approaches and ultimately what works for one student may not work for another.

 

[stompy]

There should obviously be the option. I'm not in favour of all schools being co-ed, or all schools being single-sex. Parents (and students) should have the option of being able to choose. There are merit in both approaches and ultimately what works for one student may not work for another.

You know, I completely agree with you. Some people work better when they don't have the other gender around, while some work better because they do have the other gender around. If we're thinking of this (implementing [more]* single-gendered schools) because of the academic advantages it would give, then perhaps we should think into something like when latenightapplepie (I prefer blueberry ) has suggested.

* I don't know how it's in the US, but where I live, there are quite a few high schools that are single-gendered already. And they're government-owned (though, for some, you do need to do tests to get in).

 

[JMeganSnow]

Personally, I wouldn't mind it as long as I can get reclassified as a guy. I vastly prefer the company of men to the company of women.

Otherwise, I doubt it matters and should be left up to the parents/students involved. I prefer a school that segregates everyone from everyone (i.e. taking classes online), plus it has the added benefit that I don't have to go anywhere to attend class. MUCH better.

 

[Sir_Montague]

Mmm... No.

 

[willard3]

Uh yeah no. There's already an excellent double standard at work with regards to private gender-specific schools.

Namely...

All-girls school = bastion of higher learning and empowered women
All-boys school = obsolete leftover from a sexist past

 

[Zersy]

Hell no.

What's the point?

trust me i'm speaking from experiance theirs alot of differance when their seperated
although that differance varies on whether it's good or not

Gah, I know I'm a grammar Nazi, but DEAR GOD!

I mean... SWEET JESUS... Use a spell checker or something!

Now I do not believe that people study better if they're in gender-specific classes.

Are you going to comment on the post propely or what ?

I have to understand it first.

Hmm okay.

What i'm saying is that I have been to schools that both have Guys and Girls teached together and teach seperated and i noticed there was a difference but the fact whether it was good or bad varied.

Now if you can't read that then i recommend that you go to the Optician.

 

[stompy]

Uh yeah no. There's already an excellent double standard at work with regards to private gender-specific schools.

Namely...

All-girls school = bastion of higher learning and empowered women
All-boys school = obsolete leftover from a sexist past

Eh? Would you kindly run that by me again?

 

[theklng]

No not by race, but by gender.
EDIT
Also segregating classes not schools(thread title is to catch eyes)

We where discussing this in my business ethics class today, well not discussing but it was brought up in our debate over affirmative action and discrimination in the workplace. I found it to be intriguing, my professor pulled up some data about how schools/classes that separate boys and girls improve scores(for math and science) for both parties.

Now I personally find separating schools/classes by sex to be a good thing, boys and girls both learn differently so why not teach them differently? It would also lessen the distraction of the whole middle school/high school dating/flirting crap that goes on

Do you believe this would be beneficial? In what ways? Are there downsides?

wait, so in order for people to get better grades in an arguably irrelevant institution, you would want to limit their social upbringing in a time where their social behavior will determine how most of their lives will be spent?

no. i see no valid point in separating genders. if anything, children need to know that both genders exist in the real world in the same way that all races exist in the real world. any attempt to create an illusion that will be broken is vain and will leave people inexperienced at a later stage of their lives. there is no gender separation in the human mind, the same archetypes exist on both sides. society changes genders into what society sees them as.

 

[Noamuth]

Most definitely not.

Both genders need to learn to be around each other and grow around each other, or else they end up being all awkward when they get booted out of school and thrown into the workplace.

 

[GreenDevilJF]

170 people voted no as of now.

Thats 170 people who post in offtopic sections of a video game forum.

Face it: even if you are in the same room as the fabled females, you'll still never get laid.

Meanwhile the rest of the middleschool students are fingering eachother in studyhall. Segregate public schools and enforce strict uniforming. Hell, they are opening gay-only schools in illinois. Children have no rights until they turn 18. Private schools may do as they wish.

This.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I'm just wondering, but don't people actually communicate with the other gender outside of school?

I always thought so, most of my friends came outside of school.... But apparently class time is the only time they can socialize. Seems like most(many) on here are like "oh noes how will I evar see teh girlz if they aren't forced to be around me?!"
I actually figured the poll numbers would be a lot closer, but I suppose you learn something new every day.

Perhaps you should do this poll again in an adult environment and see what kind of results you get. Change the title though. Please change the title, I'm sure you'd be accused of academic dihonesty or perhaps just incompetence if you didn't. Especially in the poll, you are asking 2 different questions and allowing only one answer. Your results would be meaningless.

Pretty much all of my social interaction during my school years was with girls from outside my school (comprehensive school girls are so much more fun than selective grammar ), and even in school the vast majority was outside of class time. Segregating classes by gender might possibly have made a difference to my grades at GCSE, maybe not. It probably wouldn't have made much real difference to my social interactions, a few games of footsie that would have been carried out in the dinner hall instead. Maybe I would have decided that 'this shit be whack' and started pissing off down the park during my lunch break to 'interact' with girls from the local comprehensive a lot earlier....but I still voted no.

Why? As unimportant as classtime social interaction with girls was (viewed from an adult perspective), I consider an extra 5% on my GCSE maths and science even less so. People like company and they like the company of the opposite sex. The idea that people will turn into a bunch of socially inept fucktards if you segregate classes is a bit silly, it's just 'nicer' to have some women around. An extra 5% in 2 subjects when I was 16? I really don't give a flying fuck. Like I said earlier, try segregating the work environment and see what kind of reaction you get. There is also the issue of having the *ahem* womans perspective in subjects such as the humanities (Religious Education, history, social geography etc) and literature and art classes. Basically anything where you might want to actually discuss something other than being told 'this is how it is, learn it you little bastards'. You probably won't appreciate it at school, but if you go on to do anything like that at a higher level you'll be glad of having heard these opinions even if you dismissed it as the whining of some prissy little know all girly at the time.

However, since the option for totally segregated schools exists I think there should also be an option for parents to send their children to schools with segregated classes if they so wish.

 

[aussiesniper]

I'm in an all-male school, and I'm already losing the ability to talk to women without feeling extremely awkward.

The only advantage that could be gained from segregating male and female children is that people like me would no longer be at a social disadvantage. Segregating them isn't going to stop the stupid/careless ones from becoming pregnant, but it will stop the average student from being confident around the opposite sex.

 

[tront]

I don't know about in other countries but in Australia the only single-gendered schools are expensive private schools. This could give the impression of people being smarter since those schools have state of the art equipment and higher rated teachers.

Also, with the different learning styles between girls and boys, it really depends on the teacher. It's all the luck of the draw because if i get a teacher who teaches in the "female" way i just have to make do and vice versa.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

wow

so 30 people clicked yes

i mean sure 3/4 are proably jokeing but what about the other 1/4.

 

[beddo]

I don't have to admit that because I see no evidence that it is true. Yes there are some difference in brain biology on different levels however, similar differences can be seen within people of each gender.

I think it's far too narrow minded to assume that you can somehow lump people into one of two groups roughly equal in size. No wonder there are so many gender imbalances, we should stop seeing people as being different because of their gender!

All it has done is led to outrageous expectations and discrimination against both on so many levels.

So instead we lump everyone into on big pile without recognizing the differences of people? People are different because of their gender.This does not mean that one sex is lesser just that they are different.
I realize that not everyone will fit into their gender stereotype but surely its better to provide the best education for most rather than a mildly less effective education for all?

I wasn't suggesting teach people as one large group, I was saying that assuming that just separating gender will lead to better education for either or both group remains unproven. People are only physically different because of their gender, we do not know if this carries over to the mind.

Who is anyone to dictate the people that shouldn't receive as good an education as the rest? I'll tell you one thing, it is poverty and lack of education that creates a recurrent cycle, essentially, given the current socio-economic state of the 'West', you are suggesting that poorer people should not receive as good an education as everyone else.

What needs to happen is for education to be improved at younger ages. The most important development occurs from birth to five years old. We need to invest heavily in decent education and parental aid so that later on in life, education can be more effective.

 

[Silver]

And again, this is a classic case of not going to the source, and attacking the problem where it would cause the best results. Segregation between genders might have a small, very small, impact on study results short term. Segregation between individuals based on their performance, and education based on their level would inste raise study results everywhere drastically, for everone, on a long-term basis.

Obviously, that would be the best way to go about it, but it would be ridiculously costly and time consuming. Segregation is a cheap alternative that has shown to have results time and time again. It might not be nearly as effective as judging a student based on each individual basis, but it's also far more inexpensive and less time consuming. That's the reason why it should be considered.

Much cheaper than wasting away our resources like we are now. A lot of college drop-outs aren't the poorly performing students. It's the people who were too good before, and didn't get to learn how to study for real, since everything was below their level.

When these people have to take extra classes, when these people drop out, and waste away their potentials in low-paying fastfood restaurant, we're wasting talent.

It's not that expensive to give students assignements on their own levels, we just need to realise how important it is, and start doing it. We'd have to do away with the regular school system, and probably have different schools with different difficulty levels. The classes would still be as big as before, the work load would be only be a tiny bit higher, with an extra test or two each semester to grade performance, and some paperwork to ship students back and fourth.

 

[willard3]

Uh yeah no. There's already an excellent double standard at work with regards to private gender-specific schools.

Namely...

All-girls school = bastion of higher learning and empowered women
All-boys school = obsolete leftover from a sexist past

Eh? Would you kindly run that by me again?

All-girl schools (especially the "sister" colleges like Vassar and stuff) are viewed as shining beacons of light in the educational system. All-boys schools are frequent targets of "integration" and are rarely left alone...especially the military schools (remember that flap about integrating the Virginia Military Institute where they call each other "Brother Rat"?)

The "obsolete leftover from a sexist past" is a reference to the fact that all colleges in the U.S. used to be gender-segregated and very few colleges admitted women at all. I'm all for co-ed colleges, but once co-ed started becoming the norm, all-male colleges were/are seen as clinging to their sexist roots and are backward and closed-minded.