English Club Chatter

The articles seem to attach two benefits to single-sex classrooms: better performance and the overcoming of gender stereotypes. I admit I didn't look too deeply into the research, but it seems a little simple. Can a separation of the sexes in school make that large of a difference? I can see the improvement of performance in some instances, but overcoming gender stereotypes is a little more difficult for me to believe. I also noticed, as I read the articles, that this great change wasn't as great as they made it sound. One student, who had heroically overcome gender stereotype, said that he "would not feel comfortable talking about [poetry] in front of girls." Has anything really been "overcome" here? He feels the same way about the subject, and he participated in the class, but he won't outside of class. They seem to be reiterating these stereotypes while saying they are overcoming them. "I know poetry is for girls," they seem to be telling their students, "but it's okay if you like it, too, as long as you don't let the girls know that you do." Or even, "we know math is harder for you, and we don't expect you to do as well as boys in it, but let's give it a try anyway. Okay, girls?"

I agree with the point that Erin touched on- while theories may sound great on paper, they can get muddled and inconsistent when put into practice. Other studies have already shown that teachers often discriminate in the classroom, without necessarily meaning to, by lavishing attention on "good" students and ognoring "bad" ones, thus perpetuating the very things that make a student "bad." It seems then just a short and easy step to emphasizing certain things in a girls-only classroom, like poetry, and certain things in a boys' classroom, like math and science. And then there's always the question of socialization- if students are separated by gender, where do they learn how to behave around them?

I agree with Erin and Trish. It would still promote stereotypes and discrimination. I think it would also make students shy and nervous around the opposite sex and once they got to college, they wouldn't know how to behave properly because of it.

Has anyone else been in a single-sex school? The high school I went to was all-male. It's hard for me to figure out exactly what effect that had on me, but I think I can bear out Ashley's point anyway. My situation was compounded because I was also singing in an all-male choir, but when I hit college I did find it awkward relating to women, since I had so little experience of normal social relations with the opposite sex. As for the educational issues, I'm not at all convinced I learned more in a single-sex environment. My school had a very good reputation in Toronto, but its principal rival was a school that was co-ed. As far as I could tell, there were excellent students at both places. Furthermore, the experience at the other school was bound to be richer just because there was a wider, more diverse, range of experience in the classroom. Imagine reading Virginia Woolf, or Margaret Atwood, or Toni Morrison in a class without women. Wouldn't that be odd?

Of course, the danger no one's mentioned yet is that if women are allowed into the classroom, men may not be able to compete :) !! Isn't there some report out somewhere arguing that men are becoming obsolete? When's the last time on campus you were in a class with a majority of men? Hmmmm. Maybe the reason women are discouraged from going into science is that if they figure out how to reproduce without us, we'll be in serious trouble.

serious trouble? or life without drama? it's all a matter of perception. at least we'll have bigger bank accounts.

I've given this issue a lot of thought. I've actually started several posts and erased all of them. Regardless of what I come up with, it all goes back to the philosophy I had in high school. Being under a very lax system, it was easy to get away with skipping school...but I always went. Why?

Because there are way more hot girls at school then there were at my house.

Case settled. If I would have went to an all boys school...I somehow figure I would have dropped out.

What if we make you obsolete in terms of reproduction in the workforce as well? How large would this magnificent bank account become without a job, dear Johnny? Whose name would be on the checks then?
Plastic surgeons might have a whole new set of clientel...
Drama would infiltrate your begging days.
Or, you'll perish of boredom.
Either way, I perceive you lose, haha.

haha. well in that case, jess, I suppose I would be perfectly accepting of the role reversal. As long as the 'need' for partnership exists, I would be more than willing to be a 'house husband'. not a beggar, however. I mean how many women or wives do we see begging? Unless, it's for attention from their significant other. But who needs independence? So, yes, being a house husband sounds fine with me. Well, as long as the "paycheck" can buy me a new car or something that would keep me from getting bored. Maybe something shiny? jk--of couse;)

and you must think the way I think and agree with nearly everything I agree with. God knows,I would hate to have my mind warmed and challenged. I just would't feel dependent enough.

Any thoughts on the Math/Arts: Male/Female argument? If women are naturally more inclined to the Arts, including literature, why, I wonder, are most of the writers we all read from English and American Literary history men? Are they all, to quote Arnold, "girly men"? Is it just because of the patriarchal culture -- women weren't supposed to write, people need something to read, so men were forced to step in? Did literature used to be more manly, but is now more feminized? And does the idea that women are more naturally suited/inclined to the Arts even make sense? It seems to be based on some notion that the Arts involve more emotion, more left-brain activity, but is that necessarily true? I think many writers, past and present, would be rather irritated by the idea that they were working just to push the emotional buttons of their readers. Reading literature can be as right-brain, as much of an intellectual exercise, as doing math, can't it? And I'm no math expert (too feminine I guess), but my sense is that when you get to a certain level of sophistication, math is intensely imaginative. Why else do you hear the word "beautiful" so often in connection with equations or proofs? There are some real problems with the underlying assumptions of these educational studies!

I think that is just a so-called stereotype that women lean more towards the arts and men lean more toward math and science,because,since I've been here, I've met a mixture of men that are persuing some type of degree in the arts and I've met women thar are persuing some type of degree in math and science and they are all very intelligent.

Thank you Mr. Bush, et. al.

What a gem! I love them more every day! The fun times never cease!

What about the young people who aren't gender-specific? Wouldn't this reinforce the social construct that your gender is your biology? It's true that males and females tend to have different learning styles but the "real" world just doesn't deal in discreet catagories like that. It would seem like we're not preparing young people to move and live in the world as well as we should. When it gets rough, focusing on binaries seems to be the way to cope. Why? Because it's simple and obvious. How about taking that money and energy and buying something productive like, I don't know...more textbooks or better lunch food? How crazy would that be??

Caught my attention on this...on separate gender education... We already have this in most affluent cities throughout this country. Mainly through private institutions. In fact, I happen to know quite a few people who have attended these schools. Normal and kind, cool people. They learn the process of nature (birds and bees, gender interaction, appropriate gender based relationships and actions etc) through a far out concept called social upbringing, parties and/or numerous extra circular activities (one could be had without the other) Usually, they save the flirting and romantic perversions for out of the class activity. They don't diligently work for their education to use the school as a dating service, fantasy creation or asylum.

so we know these types of gender based schools already exist.

Do they work?
Sure. Ask the majority of those that attend such schools and they will tell you they do.
Do they work for everybody?
I'm sure they don't work for everybody, silly. But what does? Therefor, we create options.

Now, it's one thing to be opposed to these types of schools. That's fine. But simply stating the obvious, "Bush is a moron", doesn't rally people to your ideas...even if I might agree.

Everyone and everything is in a category for funny political people. political hacks are political hacks. no matter what side of the isle they reside. Right or Left. And they are the ones that have trouble accomplishing anything towards the improvement of lives and culture. (although for some reason they think they do) They dig themselves too deep. Can't get out. That's why many of them are easily disappointed when they find out what this type of narrow thought has brought them after the 'wonder' years.

I'm not a fan of Conservatism and most certainly not a fan of liberalism or Liberalism. Mainly for the reasons above. These two sides approach any subject given to them with a pre-distinguished slant. They have no ability to span beyond this mindset. They may pose a hypothetical but the question usually has a tinge of bias hidden somewhere within the anals of its content. sooo....we must research. (of course, I am still baffled why this is a topic of discussion for English undergrads but hey..whatever. I think you'd be better suited as a PS prof) I have asked several of my pals (consensual of course) from the past if private female schools (or male schools) "sucked". They acknowledged the lack of suc**** but agreed that the gender recess assisted with their concentration.

Thanks fearofbeingstoned. We need your kind of flavor around here.

Not my thread, actually, but I think education issues are fair game for anyone who is engaged in education (as either a student or an educator). Also, a fair number of English grads do head toward careers in education.

On same-sex versus co-ed, it's hard to come to any conclusion on the basis of anecdotal evidence, since the only reliable perspective would be someone who knows both types of school. I think same-sex education works fine, to the extent that students by-and-large go on from such schools to live balanced and successful live. The question, though, is whether graduates from same-sex schools are actually better off than those in mixed schools. The evidence in the articles Trish pointed to seems to me inconclusive, partly because it's anecdotal, partly because it's based (as I said before) on some rather questionable premises (concerning, for instance, the nature and justification for the study of the Arts). That said, however, I'm not strongly opposed to same-sex education. I suspect there are other much more important factors in schooling: class size, quality of teachers, physical environment, funding generally, for instance. And these are hard to sort out. Are my mixed feelings about my own school due to it's having been same-sex, or to other factors, or to a mix of all of them?

From my own experience teaching high school, moreover, I can say that one major unrecognized factor in education is the environment a student faces OUTSIDE of school, including family life. Students who come from strong, supportive, healthy homes (of whatever type -- nuclear family, single parent, same-sex parents) are going to do better than those who come from homes that disrupt their lives and hold them back. But that's a whole other issue.

Fair enough. Point well taken. I just think we must view all aspects prior to jumping on political bandwagons. That is all. I hate being chastised and looked at like I’m an alien for titling myself as a libertarian (very very very small c and not one of those silly moderates who can’t decide left from right). But I will be damned if I reject thought and ideas. I like to sway to one far side or another, left or right, (even if in heart I am neither) to see which one smells the funniest. I've recently decided they both stink.

So back to HH..., is home life, or even mental issues, a separate and complete entity of its own? Does this not effect a student's work? I would almost certainly think it does. Now, I am sure these are not the only issues which face students, but obviously there are many things wrong in our public education system. I am surrounded by half a dozen educators in my family and like to walk that route as well. So, I know the mantra. Sure, funding is a problem. But school lunches are not really the underlying cause. So how do we fix problems in our public systems (universities, garbage collection, public schools, etc) Well, for the time being we don't have the right to barge into a home and tell a father, mother, etc. to stop being a dip. So, let's try different theories and ideas. Let’s quite re-writing and start writing.

I recently read or saw ( can't remember because it wasn't really my cup of tea at the moment) that a certain school in Ohio went gender based (or was created) and fairly strict on standards and dress, etc. This was a public school. Free tuition but admission was very competitive (not based solely on grades, however ). A chart of performance rivaled any private school in the area. Pretty amazing?

Alright, too sunny for this stuff. Time to take some pics. Just thought it was an interesting thread again.

side note: I only say mental issues because it is very prevelant in the inner city public school systems.

no implication meant. just want to be clear on that one. After all, I don't want to get stoned (again). I like the id though. one of my better ones. ok. so I hope I cleared that up.

and as far as my “flavor” (as mentioned several posts up). My flavor, I admit, can be a bit acerbic. sarcastic at times. in fact, many find it to be complete gibberish or a foreign “language”. Some people understand it, need it. But not many. Ohhh, the woes of speaking. But, I am just a casual observer, mediocre poster, and enjoy the intellectual exchanges of the so called ‘public fora’ on many levels. Including this little one. Well, back behind the closed curtains I go and back to the thread you go …….

Wow.

So, I read all of the new updates to this topic and then turned on my TV. Of course I happened to record the Simpsons tonight.

What is the episode about?

They divide the boys and girls into same sex classes. Lisa actaully decides that she doesn't like the division and dresses up like a boy to take math classes. (The girls, as Skinner said, "aren't as good in math and science...the real classes.")

Check out the Wikipedia description of the episode here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Just_Want_to_Have_Sums

It's great, and since it's not an original date, it seems perfectly fitting for our topic.

The Simpsons...is there anything they don't know?

Thanks for all your thoughts, fearofbeingstoned, it’s good to hear from lots of different people on here. I’m surprised you’re baffled, though- I think a thread about education issues is a perfectly acceptable topic for English Undergraduates, not only for the reasons that Dr. Hamlin has stated, but also because, as students and American citizens, we are able to talk about a broad range of subjects, even those that don’t directly affect us (though there are many students on campus that have children of their own). I guess we’re able to, to use your words, “span beyond the mindset” of English type activities. (Also, it was my idea, so I think it’s great!)

What baffles me is your own stance on things- in one post you deride partisanship, in another you call moderates “silly.” Perhaps I’m naïve, but there doesn’t seem to me to be much else (libertarianism is its own “category,” just like Liberal and Conservative, there just aren’t as many of them). I’m moderate, and I don’t feel at all silly about it, mostly because I think there are decent “ideals” that spring from both camps (though I lean towards one side more than the other). I put “ideals” in quotes because they are much like theories; they sound really great, but the people who put them into practice often muck them up and pull them closer to one extreme or another- much like a good theory about education. My feeling is not that single-sex classrooms are a terrible idea, but that put into practice on a large scale could cause problems down the road. Single-sex classrooms in wealthy private schools are probably successful in large part because of the teachers who are highly paid (comparatively!) and motivated administrators who are keeping a close eye on what is going on in each classroom- not to mention the larger percentage of parents who are highly involved and particularly discerning because of their own educations. When an idea like this trickles down into the public school system, there is a very real danger of frazzled teachers using sex categories to decide larger issues like what kids learn, guided by the stereotypes that girls like art and poetry and boys math. If it’s easier, someone with less motivation or energy will do it.

Frankly, I think the whole thing is a last-ditch attempt at a panacea for a foundering education system, easier than addressing other issues- including the problem of hungry kids, who, as other studies have shown, benefit greatly from increased nutrition and proper health care.

And Billy, I caught the end of the Simpsons episode last night too, and what I thought was interesting about it was when they found out Lisa was a girl (who had been masquerading as a boy in order to get into the “real” math classes), Bart claimed the reason she had done well in math was because they had taught her how to think like a boy. It seems to me just another example of the logical fallacies that are so often behind policy changes such as this one.

I keep butting in -- sorry. But it's also worth remembering the history of single-sex education. First, there was all-male education, because women were not educated. Then there were all-women's schools, because women wanted to get an education and men wouldn't let them into their schools. Yale University, believe it or not, admitted women only in 1969! So it's not as if someone at some point made a decision that single-sex education was better for logical reasons. Perhaps there are arguments to be made in its favor, but I'm a little suspicious.

I think I was stoned. damn. that always happens.
but at least the wheels are turning.

on moderation...nothing wrong with 'moderation'. but it is in a separate category compared to left or right. I believe it's the middle category.

and on the history of gender-ed....it's a bit precarious to compare 1806 to 2006.

so let me head back to the topic.....(which IS a great one Trish)....

Late into the night I try to accomplish as much as possible. I also contemplate various things that I read or witnessed during the day. A clear mind allows me to conk out when I slam my head on the pillow…..sooo…Last night I thought about the dilemma raised in a previous post concerning gender-specific roles.(What about the young people who aren't gender-specific?)

It is a good question to raise. And I do not believe that question was meant to mean sexual orientation. So let me explain where im going.

When we are young, we really don’t give much thought of roles and who we are or should be. It’s that simple. These roles are placed on us by ‘society’ (I hate that word) and politicians (be it statehouse or schoolhouse politicos).

Example 1: I knew and was close to a member of the opposite sex most of my life. (I believe we call them females). Well, one that wasn't my mother. She played softball, talked about knives, played video games, watched baseball and maybe even killed rabbits for all I know. Now, certainly these traits could be learned or biological. either or. (not the point) However, “playing ball” is universally considered a male ‘thing to do’. But I am almost certain that she never THOUGHT that she should play with Barbie’s instead of catching a fiery fast ball. It is just something we don’t think about. We do what we do. Nevertheless, this girl was very creative as well. Poet and artist and all that great stuff. But let me continue my point before you fall asleep…..(I get to it at the end)

Example 2: I am a male. (sometimes referring to myself as Alpha Male but I do have a Master in B.S.. I don’t even know what alpha male means …keep reading). Sure, I can add numbers and reconcile quicken just fine. However, I really suck at Math. Oh…But wait! How can this be? I am Alpha Male. I tend to enjoy using my creative abilities more than my technical abilities. I only do the latter because I must. I can write decent songs. Create neat publications. Paint scenes like Grandma Moses (which is not saying much) and so on. I consider myself better at these creative endeavors than the technical ones. So hold on…let me continue the circle here…

Back to the question: What about those who are not gender specific?

I pose another: Is anybody gender specific unless it is forced upon them?

And yet another one which piggy backs the initial question: Should we really be tampering with defining roles of gender when it comes to the ultimate goal of improving public schools?

I mean, I would have despised being placed into a gender-specific school simply because the education was geared towards Mathematics and Science and that's a male thing to do. Lame! I would rather be in a music theory course or an art class. However, if the school did consist of a liberal arts curriculum and it proved beneficial to my develoment I might not mind a gender-specific school. As long as my 'social curriculum' was still obtainable on the weekends.

SUMMARY: Same sex schools could be dangerous if constructed for the wrong reasons (I think this is what HH was hinting at). When a gender-specific school (or any other alternative which is meant to fix a broken education system) is established it should be for the benefit of educating the populous through a liberal arts curriculum. Not because each gender has a role to play. Not to create Alpha Males or Alpha Females.

ok..throw thou stones. just don't hate my 'flavor'..

I'm sorry, I'm going to get a bit off topic because I'm a little bugged about this...

Geez, fearofbeingstoned! Civilly debating a legitimate point in a forum that is designed specifically for that purpose is NOT the same at throwing rocks at someone because you don't want to listen to or understand what they are saying. I'm not so dogmatic that I would attack you for believing something I don't. If you got the sense that I was attacking you, then I apologize- I simply wanted you to clarify a point that seemed muddled. I realize that online comments lack tone of voice and body language, and can often be misread, so I think it's understandable when it happens... : ) (Emoticons help!)

As far as the argument; yes, I think a single-sex system would be difficult for a biologically ambiguous kid to fit into, but perhaps no more than a regular public school.

As a side note, I have a close friend who didn't attend a single-sex school, but a small rural Christian school where there were no classrooms at all. They basically left kids to themselves to complete their work for the day in little cubicles. He later attended public school for a while, and found it difficult to assimilate. And even today, though he's intelligent and a self-starter, he's dissatisfied with the experience and feels lasting effects from the lack of socialization. I know this is only marginally pertinent, but I think it's interesting how much an effect not having certain others around can have, be it the other sex or everybody altogether. Maybe being inclusive is just good for kids, even if it distracts them from their schoolwork a little.

.....

it seems like we are all discussing how everybody agrees on here.

i concur trish.

but i just have to say my head is spinning,,,,

.....

it seems like we are all discussing how everybody agrees on here.

i concur trish.

but i just have to say my head is spinning,,,,

Jesi, your head may be spinning, but I'm seeing double :)

now how the heck did i manage that.

haha

What about teachers? Does it matter how classrooms are separated when there are thirty-six kids in there? Great teachers can encourage many boys to appreciate poetry whether secretly or overtly, and great teachers can teach many girls how to learn about math and science.

Also, I found this an odd comparison on the one website:

" We understand that some boys would rather read a book than play football. We understand that some girls would rather play
football rather than play with Barbies."

Who are these oddballs who prefer books? Who are these tomboys? What is being insinuated here and how do we deal with other issues such as sexual orientation or race?

hi i'm new can somebody fill me in?

Hi Amber! Welcome to the English Club blog : )

We have general conversations here about a variety of topics (check out the archives to the right if you'd like an idea of the kinds of things we talk about). The English Club also hosts events like movie nights, charity events, poetry readings, and my favorite, the yearly Christmas party (I'm getting into the festive spirit already!)

If you're not getting the English Club emails, let Dr. Hamlin, our club advisor, know at hamlin.22@osu.edu and he'll get you on the list.

We have a very special event planned this week. We'll be hosting a roundtable discussion about Faith and Freedom of Speech in the Classroom, Thursday at noon in Bromfield 117 (next to the library). It's shaping up to be a pretty interesting discussion, so I hope you'll be able to make it. Keep an eye on our blog and the English Department website for other events and items of interest.

How about you- are you new on campus? Are you an English major, or just interested in literature and the like?