Is "Boys/Men Only" too Taboo?

[Lena_Horne]

I remember this being discussed a few years back but not from the particular angle I am wondering about. I've become, shall we say obsessed, with the St. Grottlesex/Ivy League atmosphere of years gone by. I have bought some forty-odd yearbooks over the past year and a half, mostly focusing on the prep schools and Harvard (but I do have some Princeton and a little Yale).

And a little gnat of a question has been buzzing around in the back of my head. Is co-education really the better option?

Now, I feel as though I'm opening a can of worms. As a black American I am well aware of the advantages of Civil Rights (and wholly agree with them) but what about the sexes? Eleanor Roosevelt for instance believed in a mutual respect between the two but that each performed best within their own spheres of influence. I tend to agree with this opinion more often but it looks backwards by modern standards.

It seems that in modern society the "upper-class" schools have traded what they considered their duty to mold boys into upright, "respectable" leaders for a much more "open" community. At Harvard, for instance, in the late 70s a debate opened up surrounding the Final Clubs' (Porcellian, etc.) refusal to admit women which eventually saw them breaking all official ties with Harvard. Should they have had to go that route? The same issue came up at Princeton which led to the eating clubs (Tiger Inn, etc.) privatizing as well.

Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth when I believe that equality can be enforced between races but not necessarily the sexes? I personally have found that my education was watered down while I was in school as I couldn't take Home Economics courses or anything I might find remotely useful as they really aren't being offered anymore. (And now this ties into another thread currently on the forum about being a stay-at-home wife). Those skills would come in handy for me and other young women who would like to forgo a career and instead focus on their home and married life. Now, distinct masculinity and femininity seem to be frowned upon as the order of the day. ...Or perhaps I'm exaggerating.

I apologize if my question is somewhat out of sorts, I haven't been in the habit of posting discussion questions for some time now and I'm rather out of practice.

L_H

P.S. If anyone would like to see scans of my yearbooks just ask, I've run across many a famous name.

 

[DeaconKC]

I feel it is a disservice to both genders to say we are the same. Anyone who says men and women think alike is being totally dishonest with themselves. Let each realize and use the strengths that is in us naturally. Of course, we must all be treated equally and fairly, but if someone wishes to open an single gender school/club/whatever, they should be allowed too. My wife likes a "girl's night out" with her friends as I do with going to a baseball game with "the guys". She is still my best friend, and I would rather be with her than anyone else. In I Peter, he states for husbands to care for their wives as the "weaker vessel" this is not degrading as the greek root means something valuable or delicate. Look at how small children react to men and women, playtime with the guys and nurturing from the ladies. We need both in our lives, even as adults. Enjoy and revel in the differences!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I'm not exactly sure what the question is. The only one i can glean from the first post is: "Is co-education really the better option?". So i'm going to take it literally as a starting point.

The only other option to co-education is segregated education, and we all know where that got us in a different sphere of "difference". All people should have access to the teaching that suits them best, assuming they are qualified (i.e. clever enough to pass entrance standards). To segregate education would potentially/hypothetically exclude girls from the best teacher of a particular subject who will ever exist, but happens to teach at a boys only school (and vice versa). This can be nothing but a bad idea.


But then, since higher education - and most of high school education - is already segregated along economic lines (which funnily enough largely turn out to be the same racial lines that used to exist) why not segregate further?

bk

 

[Edward]

There was actually a fair degree of reasearch done into this some years ago in the UK; I don'tg recall any of the details now, but if memory serves they concluded that boys perform better in a mixed environment while girls perform better in a single-sex environment. I would personally put this down, in large part, to persistent gender inequality in society, but that's conjecture, really. [huh]

 

[tuppence]

There was actually a fair degree of reasearch done into this some years ago in the UK; I don'tg recall any of the details now, but if memory serves they concluded that boys perform better in a mixed environment while girls perform better in a single-sex environment. I would personally put this down, in large part, to persistent gender inequality in society, but that's conjecture, really. [huh]

Well I don't know if Australia borrowed your research, but this was the consensus over here too.

 

[Paisley]

Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth when I believe that equality can be enforced between races but not necessarily the sexes?

I don't think equality can be enforced in any sphere.

I think race and gender are two very different things. Gender is much more distinct than race, which has seen numerous classifications over the years.

Funny thing is, it seems like men are the ones now who are inclined to stay home (when they're not a work). No matter what I go to (besides dances), it's almost all women. [huh]

 

[Nighthawk]

More interesting to me is the debate that happened over letting women attend West Point/Annapolis/Colorado Springs.

NH

 

[Treetopflyer]

Not a bad thing

I agree with Paisley, “Gender is much more distinct than race.” I have traveled around the world, literally, and I have found that no matter what the race, nationality or for the most part, culture, that all men tend to think and act alike and all women tend to think and act alike. To answer the question, I don’t necessarily think that separating the genders in an academic environment was a bad thing. I guess the question I would then ask is “ was there a vast difference in the quality of education that was offered to gender separated schools?”

 

[Odalisque]

And a little gnat of a question has been buzzing around in the back of my head. Is co-education really the better option?

The trouble with this and all "all-encompassing" topics is that there is no single "best" answer. The learning environment for one person is not necessarily the best for another. And you will always have people who want co-ed or segregated learning not because it's the best but because they want that freedom of choice. Which is fine.
I think the system we have now is the most workable. There are a vast number of co-ed schools, yes but there are a good many single sex schools as well. You have the option to choose which you prefer and attend accordingly. the best of both worlds in my opinion.

Good debate topic by the way.

 

[Slim Portly]

I feel it is a disservice to both genders to say we are the same.

So would I, had I ever actually heard anyone say this.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've personally never had a problem with single-sex anything -- being forced into a co-ed gym class when I was in junior high was a very distasteful and traumatic experience.

As far as Home Ec goes, I think it should be compulsory for all kids. Anyone who can't sew a button or boil an egg without someone to hold their hand is going to have a very hard road ahead of them in life.

 

[DerMann]

As a student of an all male college, I would like to say that this is probably one of the best choices I've made academically.

Apart from the fact that they are ridiculously well endowed financially, they offer an education that contends with the Ivies. My largest class is something like 30 and after I get done with introductory level classes, they shrink down to about 4-10. Most of the time you get to know your professor very well.

It always makes me feel proud to attend when I see shirts or signs that say "WABASH COLLEGE - CO-ED NEVER."

Without the presence of ladies on campus, it makes life a bit easier academically. No having to worry about making a fool of yourself in front of them and you feel like you're in a room full of your closest friends (student population of 950). Best of all, my family can't pester me with the question, "so have you found a girlfirend yet?"

There are downfalls to the system, though. Some people, in this modern day, simply cannot handle being without girls for extended periods of time (a few of my friends go to IU every weekend, if not more), and depression can be quite a foe here. Without the need to impress girls, many (read:most) guys attend class in sweat suits and flip flops. Even the most slovenly dressed chap on campus is still very serious about his academic life, though.

All in all, going to an all male school makes you realise that you're going to school for your future, not to party all the time.

It's also been a dream of mine to join a club like the Drones (at least since I started reading Wodehouse). This is the closest I'll get to it until I get wealthy enough to do so, though :\

 

[Paisley]

More interesting to me is the debate that happened over letting women attend West Point/Annapolis/Colorado Springs.

NH

I worked at the Air Force Academy for 2.5 years. The women cadets seemed to get an equal share of injuries (as far as I could tell from seeing cadets wearing casts) and being screamed at and humiliated.

I was enlisted myself. The women TIs in basic training were way meaner than the male ones. I happened to be in a co-ed flight in basic--the drum and bugle corps. However, I spent the first eight days of training in an all-women flight before being transferred to the D&B corps. I don't recall the presence of male trainees making a bit of difference in our training. Personally, I liked having the guys around.

 

[DeaconKC]

I've personally never had a problem with single-sex anything -- being forced into a co-ed gym class when I was in junior high was a very distasteful and traumatic experience.

As far as Home Ec goes, I think it should be compulsory for all kids. Anyone who can't sew a button or boil an egg without someone to hold their hand is going to have a very hard road ahead of them in life.

You just nailed it right there. Things like balancing a checkbook, knowing a little about cars, etc. should be taught to all.

 

[Edward]

being forced into a co-ed gym class when I was in junior high was a very distasteful and traumatic experience.

Being forced into a gym class of any sort was a very distasteful and traumatic experience for me! Quite possibly one of the reasons I so dislike sports nowadays, for the most part.

As far as Home Ec goes, I think it should be compulsory for all kids. Anyone who can't sew a button or boil an egg without someone to hold their hand is going to have a very hard road ahead of them in life.

Absolutely. We had a little of this when I was at school; I was in one of the first year groups where the boys did a little cookery, and the girls did a little craft and design. Prior to my third form year (13/14 year olds), those subject were strictly divided on gender lines, which seems horrific at this distance. Much as I would have hated it at the time, I do wish now that we could have been taught to run up a pair of trousers on a sewing machine!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Along these lines, I just received an email forwarded by the hierarchy with the subject line "for women only". This is an email regarding fellowships for female scientists at the postdoctoral level from L'Oreal. If your genetic profile is XY and you define yourself as Male, you need not apply. If this ain't discriminatory, i don't know what is.

Now, far be it from me to comment upon such a "political" (as defined here) matter, but while a graduate student and elected member of the graduate student committee i was a firm proponent (mostly because i'm a confirmed stirrer of pots and releaser of pigeon-chasing felines which may or may not have previously resided in "bags") of a Title IX group called "Men in Science". Needless to say i was warned off this course of action by those in the hierarchy. Also needless to say, the "Women in Science" group is going strong at that particular University, and i believe - either directly or indirectly - receives Federal funding. Now, Title IX comes into this as there is no such group to which men can apply. The spurious argument that science is "a boy's club" is not backed up by any facts, and especially not at the graduate student or postdoctoral level. The only level at which men (in the US) retain superiority - largely because of tenure - is at the professorial grade. As ageing, tenured, professors retire or die off we are seeing a real shift in the demographic - racial and gender - as faculties treat everyone equally, judging only on the quality of the research the candidate has produced. Those crazy left wingers in the faculties are generally a force for good when it comes to diversity!

Does this impact on the current discussion, or are we focussing on high school level education issues?

bk

 

[Paisley]

Along these lines, I just received an email forwarded by the hierarchy with the subject line "for women only". This is an email regarding fellowships for female scientists at the postdoctoral level from L'Oreal. If your genetic profile is XY and you define yourself as Male, you need not apply. If this ain't discriminatory, i don't know what is.
bk

Long ago, Judge Judy was hired by L'Oreal as in-house legal counsel. She was assigned to making sales calls; her male colleague wasn't. I'm glad things have changed since then, but I agree that any position should be given to the best candidate for the job, period.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

As far as Home Ec goes, I think it should be compulsory for all kids.

I agree 100%. It's an extremely useful course for girls and boys.


Another course that should be compulsory for every kid in every high school: personal finances. Teenagers ought to be taught how to open checking/savings accounts, balance checkbooks, apply for loans, pay bills, understand interest rates, make and keep budgets, be thrifty, write resumes, apply for jobs, succeed in interviews, etc.

.

 

[John Boyer]

...Another course that should be compulsory for every kid in every high school: personal finances. Teenagers ought to be taught how to open checking/savings accounts, balance checkbooks, apply for loans, pay bills, understand interest rates, make and keep budgets, be thrifty, write resumes, apply for jobs, succeed in interviews, etc.

.

I coudn't agree more, particularly with, "write resumes, apply for jobs, succeed in interviews". I recently hired for a flex time Customer Service position from a major University. Of the 6 applicants, 5 disqualified themselves on physical attire, alone. It is sad that the business administration dept. of a major University can not give students basic instructions on how to show up for an interview.

I actually took Home Economics in HS (mid 1970s). If was very valuable. John

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

If the schools are incompetent regarding the core courses (math, science, reading, literature) how do you expect them to teach even basic everyday subjects.

As an aside....

My cousin is about to enter elementary school. While she was visiting a school her mother overheard other mothers saying, "I don't want my child to attend a school that gives too much homework, schools should focus on social interaction and building networks." This is for grade school. Specifically, grade three.

Ludicrous.