Boys in Educational Danger

January 27, 2006 9:14 AM

Doug Anglin, a high school senior in Massachusetts is suing his school district because it favors girls over boys. He claims, "'From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this." Research does indicate that boys are, indeed, lagging educationally. Is it the system's fault? Are boys naturally disinclined to succeed in an educational setting?
posted by John of Michigan (102 comments total)

Because when you get a job, they're certain to reward your rebellious ways...
posted by InfidelZombie at 9:23 AM on January 27, 2006

This is the stuff that gives lawyers a bad reputation.
posted by amro at 9:26 AM on January 27, 2006

What a tool.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:27 AM on January 27, 2006

I hope this little shit gets a beatdown from a gang of girls who decided to get rebellious.
posted by EiderDuck at 9:27 AM on January 27, 2006

Well, the system has always been biased in this way. It is only now when women aren't as fettered with the submissive behaviours that prevented them from being noticed in the past that this sort of thing begins to get noticed.

But don't worry boys, you still make about 25% more than women do in the real world. Bias in the education system is still 'balanced' by bias in the employment system.
posted by id girl at 9:28 AM on January 27, 2006

What a prick.
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:31 AM on January 27, 2006

According to my sociology textbook, boys score higher on tests while girls get higher grades. The explanation given is that teachers tend to favor girls because they are more co-operative. A lawsuit is kind of ridiculous though, I think it's one of those double standards that can't be eliminated from society without draconian measures.

Doug Anglin needs to grow a pair, shut-up, and remember that women will be paid less than he will be in whatever profession he chooses.
posted by 517 at 9:31 AM on January 27, 2006

Yeah, he's really rebellious in that striped Abercrombie shirt.
posted by Plutor at 9:32 AM on January 27, 2006

The system isn't "biased" that way, it's designed that way.

This may be too big of a jump, but it's a common misunderstanding of patriarchy that it's intended to "keep women down" (which it does, no doubt). But what it's really designed to do is keep the vast majority men--especially adolescent men--under the control of a power hierarchy. You know, kinda like in an army?

The educational system is a fundamental piece of the process of male pacification. Not that their's anything wrong with that.

Well, that's my hair-brained theory, anyway...
posted by mondo dentro at 9:33 AM on January 27, 2006

And the SAT is culturally biased.

What neutrally derived and applied system isn't going to be biased in a country that has immense diversity of experience of its citizens who all have variant physiological and biological make-ups?

It can't be done.

The Court in this case should dismiss the case and use the language from products liability caselaw: require that the Plaintiff show a "safer alternative design."
posted by dios at 9:34 AM on January 27, 2006

ugh. there's.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:35 AM on January 27, 2006

While this is interesting research, there is no such thing as an 'unbiased' educational system. Asserting that there is/should be, but that your school is not, is just encouraging a self-entitled climate of blaming others for failing you.

The hall pass argument is crap; that should benefit boys, in that they should be in class more, rather than goofing off.

Anglin -- whose complaint was written by his father, who is a lawyer in Boston -- Bleh. Once again the middle class confuses meritocracy with privilege.

And what id girl said. Let's see his father challenge discrimination in the legal world instead.
posted by carter at 9:35 AM on January 27, 2006

What bullshit. Who cares if schools reward behavior that women are better at following? The career world rewards behavior (e.g. single-minded cut-throat zeal) that men are better at following.

Also, the claim that (relatively) lower male performance is bad on boys' self-esteem seems suspiscious to me, given the typically anti-intellectual climate amongst the students' peers. "Oh Boston, please help me be a better nerd!"
posted by mowglisambo at 9:36 AM on January 27, 2006

Yeah, he's really rebellious in that striped Abercrombie shirt.

LOL.
posted by delmoi at 9:39 AM on January 27, 2006

Yeah, because he is such a man. sheesh

So what exactly is wrong about sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say in a formal educational system? The option is?
I was dissatisfied with my formal education at that level as well, so I convinced my family to let me home school. There are plenty of paths to education, if you are dissatisfied with one suing is not the optimal course of action. Actually doing something about it.. .well that would mean you have to take responsibility for your own actions, or lack thereof.
posted by edgeways at 9:39 AM on January 27, 2006

I think he's mixing up a lot of different issues here, some legitimate, some stupid. So to categorize the complaints listed:

A) Boys make poor choices more often than females, therefore punishing those choices is unfair to boys. A prime example of this category is the suggestion that if boys skip community service and don't graduate as a result, the school should abolish community service. Also in this category: "Boys rebellious ways are punished." and "teachers should look past poor work habits and rule-breaking." These are the complaints that make him look stupid.

B) Some requirements are stupid: Like decorating your notebook with glitter. Though he paints it as a gender thing, I think it should just be a "stupid" thing. Seems like there are grounds for legitimate changes here.

C) Boys and girls are treated differently in similar situations: Boys get asked for hall passes, girls don't. Again, if this is true, it's a legitimate complaint.


D) Teachers are more inclined to mentor and encourage girls than boys Again, if true, that's a legitimate complaint and should be addressed.

But honestly, I think educators are aware of problems B-D and they should be working to fix them. Now if he hadn't thrown in all those category A complaints and made himself look like a whiney ass who thinks preople are entitled to do well regardless of the choices they make, then maybe he'd be able to get somewhere with this.
posted by duck at 9:40 AM on January 27, 2006

Gerry Anglin, Doug Anglin's father, said the school system should compensate boys for the discrimination by boosting their grades retroactively.

Well now this just makes me think that old Dougie's grades aren't good enough to get into Holy Cross and daddy's looking to fix it.
posted by jrossi4r at 9:45 AM on January 27, 2006

C) Boys and girls are treated differently in similar situations: Boys get asked for hall passes, girls don't. Again, if this is true, it's a legitimate complaint.

Hmm... unless girls tend to be more trustworthy or well-behaved of their own accord, which may have been the origin of the practice. (we don't know for sure, though)
posted by mowglisambo at 9:45 AM on January 27, 2006

It's also interesting to note the socialized bias that he has. Boys "can't be expected to decorate notebooks?" I decorated quite a few during my high school stay. And a lot of the behaviors, like sitting still in class and not being "rebellious" are socialized behaviors. Gimme conclusive proof that men "naturally" (his word) cannot do these things and maybe I'll give him a little more credibility.
This sounds like just another divorced dad poisoning a kid with misogyny...
posted by klangklangston at 9:45 AM on January 27, 2006

"Gerry Anglin, Doug Anglin's father, said the school system should compensate boys for the discrimination by boosting their grades retroactively."

Well now this just makes me think that old Dougie's grades aren't good enough to get into Holy Cross and daddy's looking to fix it.

Bingo.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:47 AM on January 27, 2006

Sit down, Anglin.
posted by NationalKato at 9:47 AM on January 27, 2006

klangklangston: indeed, we should ban the art requirement for boys! All those self-portraits rendered in charcoal are just too touchy-feely for the male of the species. I mean, when was the last time the world saw a male artist of any import?
posted by mowglisambo at 9:49 AM on January 27, 2006

For example, he proposes that the high school give students credit for playing sports, not just for art and drama courses. He also urges that students be allowed to take classes on a pass/fail basis to encourage more boys to enroll in advanced classes without risking their grade point average. He also wants the school to abolish its community service requirement, saying it's another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result.

So, basically, he wants it easy during his senior year. With a 2.88 GPA, perhaps he should spend less time worrying about discrimination and fucking study.
posted by NationalKato at 9:53 AM on January 27, 2006

He says that teachers must change their attitudes toward boys and look past boys' poor work habits or rule-breaking to find ways to encourage them academically.

As a girl who spent an inordinate amount of time sitting quietly reading while teachers wasted hours upon hours on the disruptive unruly little bastards that didn't want to learn I say , "HELLS NO!"

Why in the name of all that's holy should we ignore rule-breaking? Why should we allow any student to disrupt the class to the point that the other students aren't getting any attention from the teacher?

Growing up I saw far more examples of girls being held to higher/different standards than boys and being punished more harshly. Personally I was forced to attend a rage management training program in fourth grade because I got in a fight and beat the daylights out of a boy. The boy, ho'd been picking me for months, merely had to do write offs "I will not tease girls." Other boys who would get in fights often were reprimanded slightly while the girls who got in fights were suspended, paddled, or had to take classes in dealing with their emotions.

If this kid was really concerned about his grades, he'd buckle down, decorate his damn notebook and pay attention in class. Does he really think in college the professors are going to say, "Oh, you have a penis...therefore you only have to sit through 30 minutes of class as opposed to the whole hour. Oh and while we're at it, get that pretty girl over there to write your papers for you, what with you being unable to express emotion in all your manlyness."??
posted by teleri025 at 9:56 AM on January 27, 2006

Gosh, these are the types of people I'm scared to end up working with.
"I don't like the results so I shall blame everyone else but myself."
Ditto on other's comments about how the real world works, I'd love to see him complain that he gets paid more after he graduates.
posted by like_neon at 9:56 AM on January 27, 2006

ME: C) Boys and girls are treated differently in similar situations: Boys get asked for hall passes, girls don't. Again, if this is true, it's a legitimate complaint.

Mowglisambo: Hmm... unless girls tend to be more trustworthy or well-behaved of their own accord, which may have been the origin of the practice. (we don't know for sure, though)

No, even if girls are generally more trustworthy, it's still unacceptable. The question shouldn't be are boys or girls more trustworthy but is *this* person trustworthy. What you're suggesting is popularly called "profiling" and academically/legally called "statistical discrimination."

In the workplace, statistical discrimination (based on prohibited grounds such as sex or race) is illegal. For example, you can't hire only men for heavy lifting jobs on the grounds that "men tend to be able to lift more than women." even though it's true that on average men can lift more. You have to make the judgement based on waht each individual can lift. If in the end you hire more men than women because you found more men who could lift, that's fine. But you can't penalize one person for the average characteristics of the group to which they belong.

In the workplace it's illegal. In the school it may or may not be illegal, but it's still wrong. So yes, if you know that this boy is less trustworthy than that girl, by all means ask the boy for a hall pass. But "Boys are less trustworthy" doesn't cut it.
posted by duck at 9:56 AM on January 27, 2006

Another day, another dumbass lawsuit.
posted by ktoad at 9:58 AM on January 27, 2006

This kid's head is so full of fucked-upness God only knows where to start. Notebooks with glitter? Maybe I'm a freak, but my femininity has never pulled me to decorate my notes with glitter and feathers, and fuck whomever would try to get me to do that. And sorry man, but I never had some magical female drama and art talent that set me apart from my male friends. Nor have any of my male friends ever been any less helpful and willing to do community service than my female friends--doing that isn't a male-female thing, it's a human decency thing.
posted by schroedinger at 10:02 AM on January 27, 2006

The argument that this somehow prepares boys for the working world is bull. Boys start lagging in middle school, when they hit puberty, especially in reading. This means that they are less able to succeed in high school, meaning that even if high schools do their best it won't help.
The kind of discipline enforced in schools is not the kind of self-discipline that we need in employees. The reading, however, is necessary. You can't just disregard the lag in educational success in boys as some sort of right-wing obsession. Colleges at the lower tiers are having a difficult time finding male students, and something like two or three times as many boys as girls drop out of school.
I realize that there is a knee-jerk reaction among some liberals to disregard this problem, as if it "Serves them right" after all the years of oppression of women. But these boys didn't oppress anyone, and feminism properly understood does not mean the oppression of one sex for the other.
We can help boys. Why not do it? Why is this so controversial?
posted by austin5000 at 10:02 AM on January 27, 2006

Some people don't need to be in school past grade eight, and this guy is one of them. Seriously. If he can't sit still and pay attention in a classroom, he should get the fuck out and learn a trade or something. Unfortunately, our society has "evolved" to a point where you need a masters degree to land the same (blue collar, skilled) job my father took right out of high school 30 years ago.
posted by you just lost the game at 10:06 AM on January 27, 2006

(Everybody has 15 minutes of fame.)
posted by cass at 10:06 AM on January 27, 2006

austin5000, boys hardly deserve to be punished for discrimination, and I think the guv'ment does need to take a good hard long look at why girls are outperforming boys (same way they need to take a good long look about why those underperforming boys end up getting paid more).

But this kid is not who I want at the forefront of the movement. His proposals for ways to balance the scales are idiotic and he comes off as an immature douche.
posted by schroedinger at 10:07 AM on January 27, 2006

We can help boys. Why not do it? Why is this so controversial?

I don't think the idea of helping boys is controversial. I think what's controversial (well, not really controversial since no one has yet said they support them) are the suggestions made about the causes of the problem (boys are "naturally" disinclined to do what they're supposed to do) and the proposed solution (we should remove the consequences of making poor choices, and reward them as we would reward good choices).

I agree that there's a problem with boys acedemic performance that needs to be addressed. I bet there are plenty of people here who also agree. But this lawsuit is stupid.
posted by duck at 10:08 AM on January 27, 2006

duck, maybe you are right that statistical profiling is inappropriate in this situation. I would not agree with a wholesale put-down of statistical profiling, however, as it is a helpful and perfectly legitimate way to make predictions under uncertain conditions (insurance companies do it all the time, for example). And I'm sure there are times where profiling is used in other of the school's rules that no one complains about (e.g. the eleventh graders have fewer privileges than the twelfth graders. Surely some of the juniors are more able to handle responsibility than some of the seniors, but just as surely no one would suggest changing this rule-- to make it more fair would be to make it unwieldy.) Whether profiling is going to be considered appropriate from situation to situation is going to be a matter of personal taste.
posted by mowglisambo at 10:09 AM on January 27, 2006

Among those who have ADHD/ADD, males have ADHD by a ratio of 3 to 1 versus females. This may contribute to the averages as well.

So what exactly is wrong about sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say in a formal educational system? The option is?
I was dissatisfied with my formal education at that level as well, so I convinced my family to let me home school.

Imagine the following scenario - you have a 5th grade class of 30 children, 5 of them have ADHD. Another 3 have undiagnosed learning disabilities. The class is half male and half female. Furthermore, some of the children are right-brained, some are left-brained. How is a teacher who sees hundreds of children a day going to be able to tailor an education that will suit the needs of each child? It will be hard enough just to maintain discipline in the classroom.

The formal education system is a compromise, it's partly for convenience - it would probably be impossibly expensive for a typical public school to reduce it's class size to 5 students, for example - one approach is taken and applied to diversely different people. The fact is, bias against males isn't intentional, it's just a function of this system, and whenever a child (usually a boy) has a problem, rather than looking for underlying causes, the teacher doesn't have time to do anything except chalk up poor performance to laziness or bad character. They have 20 to 50 other children to worry about, and it's just easier to moralize about Little Johnny and his bad upbringing.

It's natural for little boys to want to run around, be a little rowdy, and make noise. This is play, and it's just as valuable for learning, if not more, than sitting quietly at a desk. However, this sort of behavior has no place in 'the system'.

This is a goddamn shame, but I don't see it changing. As edgeways said, home schooling is a valid option for some (as long as parents take care to ensure the child socializes normally as well). A lawsuit, however, is certainly no antidote.
posted by tweak at 10:09 AM on January 27, 2006

There's a lot of literature on this, such as Christina Summers's The War Against Boys. In fact, teachers are getting around to dealing with the fact that in some ways they don't serve boys as well. However, most good teachers (e.g my wife) recognize that boys have a harder time paying attention, and will be less inclined in general toward some subjects. The answer is not to redefine education and give credit for basketball. In all my reading on the cognitive differences between boys and girls, I've never come upon an expert recommending lowering the bar or scrapping community service. This kid needs to dry up and recognize that all his hours of basketball won't prepare him for life.
posted by QuietDesperation at 10:13 AM on January 27, 2006

there are many people in the "real world" who get through it by blaming other people for their problems, threatening legal action and complaining the system is stacked against them

there's a lot of doug anglins in the world and they're starting to have a real effect on it ... the response of those who have to deal with them is inevitably to bend over backwards because lawsuits are much harder to tolerate than a subpar employee ... people, including managers, just want to get through the day without upsetting confrontations with people and if that means tolerating mediocrity and passive aggressive rebelliousness, so be it

doug will find a niche for himself in the real world and those unfortunate enough to deal with him will treat him with kid gloves

it's annoying as hell, but that's how it looks ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:14 AM on January 27, 2006

amro writes "This is the stuff that gives lawyers a bad reputation."

And boys!

What a tool this guy is.
posted by OmieWise at 10:14 AM on January 27, 2006

It's natural for little boys to want to run around, be a little rowdy, and make noise. This is play, and it's just as valuable for learning, if not more, than sitting quietly at a desk. However, this sort of behavior has no place in 'the system'.

What grade are you talking about? Doug Anglin is a highschool senior. The time for being rowdy, making noise, and running around happens after school. This jackass needs to sit down and study. I guarantee he has no problem following orders and directions on the baseball field. Why? 'Cause he enjoys that.

We can discuss the sorry state of public education and the fact that young boys aren't learning as well as young girls...but let's also agree this kid needs a swift kick in the ass and taught that 'the real world' ain't an MTV series.
posted by NationalKato at 10:15 AM on January 27, 2006

I agree that there's a problem with boys academic performance that needs to be addressed. ... But this lawsuit is stupid. Right you are, duck. It is being addressed, though not quickly enough for the kid in question.
posted by QuietDesperation at 10:16 AM on January 27, 2006

We can help boys. Why not do it? Why is this so controversial?

Because the kids are all right. Remember three years ago when it was all about aving little girls? "Resurrecting Ophelia" or whatever it was? So the (marketing) cycle begins anew.

Teenage boys are dicks. I was a teenage dick. But that's my fault, not "the system's." This kid needs four years of U Mass Dartmouth to teach him some humility and his dad needs to be drowned in the Neponset River for thinking that his seed deserves special treatment.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:18 AM on January 27, 2006

Anyone notice this?

Anglin -- whose complaint was written by his father, who is a lawyer in Boston -- is looking for broader changes.

Explains a lot to me.
posted by tippiedog at 10:19 AM on January 27, 2006

I'd do him.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:23 AM on January 27, 2006

Anyone notice this?

Carter did.
posted by NationalKato at 10:23 AM on January 27, 2006

At the high school, 64 percent of the teachers are women, and 36 percent are men, according to the school system.

Oh noes!1!!!1! I'd be willing to bet that this is due to the distribution of female/male students at teachers' college being pretty close to 64/36, rather than any dastardly conspiracies.
posted by you just lost the game at 10:30 AM on January 27, 2006

You can't just disregard the lag in educational success in boys as some sort of right-wing obsession.

I've looked and looked and looked and I can't find any comment to this post that suggests this at all, except yours, austin5000. Examples?

I realize that there is a knee-jerk reaction among some liberals to disregard this problem, as if it "Serves them right" after all the years of oppression of women. But these boys didn't oppress anyone, and feminism properly understood does not mean the oppression of one sex for the other.

Again, this is weird and innacurate completely out of nowhere. austin5000, do you believe that this schoolboy is being oppressed? The only thing Doug Anglin is getting "served" is a dish of 2.88 GPA for his academic effort (or lack thereof) in HS...nothing more or less. But if you would like to believe there's a leftwing conspiracy at play here, you go right ahead.
posted by contessa at 10:38 AM on January 27, 2006

This lawsuit is interesting. The common understanding several years ago was that school and classroom dynamics were indeed biased, in favor of boys, as they got called on more and took more teacher attention, etc. (egs here, here, and here).
posted by onlyconnect at 10:49 AM on January 27, 2006

What a lucky girl, his future wife.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:01 AM on January 27, 2006

I think it's worth noting, also, that some of the discrepancies the suit is pointing to may have more to do with the way the working world splits along gender lines. Girls may be more likely to take a college prep or AP class because most of the "female" jobs (nurse, teacher) require degrees. It's possible to make a living without a degree by going to trade school or working construction, etc., but those areas are traditionally "male."
posted by jrossi4r at 11:02 AM on January 27, 2006

Girls also get better grades in college (compared to men of similar college-entering credentials, i.e. SATs and H.S. GPA), though this is partly attributable to course selection (girls are more likely to take humanities classes, which grade somewhat higher on average).
posted by grobstein at 11:10 AM on January 27, 2006

So yes, if you know that this boy is less trustworthy than that girl, by all means ask the boy for a hall pass. But "Boys are less trustworthy" doesn't cut it.

The girl interviewed about these practices was class president and the boy had C- GPA. Neither one of them has anything but antecdotal evidence to show that boys get asked for hall passes more than girls.
I also doubt there is more than one teacher who expects students to decorate notebooks with glitter, and he doesn't give any other examples of assignments that are harder for boys to complete.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 11:16 AM on January 27, 2006

Girls may be more likely to take a college prep or AP class because most of the "female" jobs (nurse, teacher) require degrees. It's possible to make a living without a degree by going to trade school or working construction, etc., but those areas are traditionally "male."

Exactly, which is the explanation for this phenomenon:

Colleges at the lower tiers are having a difficult time finding male students, and something like two or three times as many boys as girls drop out of school.

Women know that the only way they even have a hope of getting ahead and making it is by getting an education. Men generally have the option of (or have deluded themselves into believing they can) still have a good, solid professional life without a college education.

Traditional "female" middle-class careers are things like teaching and nursing, which require bachelors degrees, if not graduate degrees. Even many pink-collar jobs (eg, secretaries) expect bachelor's degrees. Meanwhile, plenty of male-gendered trade job whose salaries are the same or higher as these others don't have the same academic expectations.
posted by deanc at 11:17 AM on January 27, 2006

I think everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room: Girls are smarter and boys are dumber.
posted by klangklangston at 11:21 AM on January 27, 2006

Girls are smarter and boys are dumber.

But the smartest are first-borns!
posted by carter at 11:24 AM on January 27, 2006

I'm a first born, and I support your thesis.
posted by klangklangston at 11:27 AM on January 27, 2006

You're so smart, klangklangston!
posted by carter at 11:29 AM on January 27, 2006

What a total piece of manure shitture...

Among Anglin's allegations: Girls face fewer restrictions from teachers, like being able to wander the hallways without passes, and girls are rewarded for abiding by the rules, while boys' more rebellious ways are punished.

It has nothing to do with gender , it's by abiding to rules that one doesn't get punished for breaking them ! Chrissake ! It's that easy.

Anglin -- whose complaint was written by his father, who is a lawyer in Boston -- is looking for broader changes. He says that teachers must change their attitudes toward boys and look past boys' poor work habits or rule-breaking to find ways to encourage them academically.

And not girls ? What about girls with poor work habits and rule-breaking behavior? He's out of his mind maybe or just a biased lawyers that could teach biased teachers a trick or two ?

He also wants the school to abolish its community service requirement, saying it's another burden that will just set off resistance from boys

Poor boys ! Wahhhh Waaahhh I don't wan't to do hard job or show I'm actually able to do more then pushing a ball into a basket ! Waaaaahhh I want to play with PlayStation and Xbox and jerk off to internet porn ! WAAAAHHHH !

Some parents literally RUIN future generation for the shake of a little publicity I guess.
posted by elpapacito at 11:30 AM on January 27, 2006

Smartass.
posted by NationalKato at 11:30 AM on January 27, 2006

I'm a first born girl and I support your thesis.
posted by teleri025 at 11:30 AM on January 27, 2006

Oh noes!1!!!1! I'd be willing to bet that this is due to the distribution of female/male students at teachers' college being pretty close to 64/36, rather than any dastardly conspiracies.

Yes, that's one of the things that should be addressed instead of bitching that being too lazy to get out and fulfill the graduation requirements entitles you to graduate in spite the requirements and have you your grades retroactively raised, to boot.

And on hallpasses and glitter, note that I said those things should be addressed if they're true. Agreed that the evidence of the true-ness is pretty thin.
posted by duck at 11:33 AM on January 27, 2006

I'm a girl and my grades in high school stunk. Who can I sue?
posted by amro at 11:39 AM on January 27, 2006

Schools when they do well do well for the mediocre. Women are more likely to be mediocre than men be it for weel or woe.
posted by I Foody at 11:39 AM on January 27, 2006

Well, for what it's worth, I was a girl who couldn't sit still and didn't like to follow directions.

And as for this one:

D) Teachers are more inclined to mentor and encourage girls than boys

Just wait til college, when the reverse often happens (if not due to outright sexism or differing/diminished expectations, then resulting from the fact that most university faculty are male and many of the opportunities I saw given to male classmates would have looked unseemly if they were offered to female students--i.e. major one-on-one office hour time, shared research trips out of town or on field expeditions, etc.).
posted by availablelight at 11:40 AM on January 27, 2006

When I was in high school, honors kids (regardless of gender) got away with a ton of stuff that kids who were fuck-ups never could. Why? Because the fuck-ups required so much more supervision that the administration either didn't notice that the honors kids snuck off campus for lunch, or just didn't care because at least those kids came back for class.

Schools treat over achievers "better" because they don't have time to spend checking everyone's noses, so they check on the kids that have a track record of being a problem. If it so happens that boys have by and large been the problematic hall roamers, of course they're going to ask them for a hall pass. Whether that's the case or not, who knows -- and it may not be "fair" but it's also not racial profiling by highway patrolmen. You're being asked for a hall pass. Big frikkin deal.

I have no sympathy for people like this. He needs a swift kick in the tail rather than help filing a lawsuit. The educational system has been "sit down, shut up, do as you're told" from time immemorial -- it's more lax now than it probably has ever been from a behavioral standards POV. If this kid has a problem, it's clearly not too much structure -- it's lack of it.
posted by Medieval Maven at 11:46 AM on January 27, 2006

D) Teachers are more inclined to mentor and encourage girls than boys

Just wait til college, when the reverse often happens

Well that's not really relevant to whether it's right for teachers to mentor boys less in high school. Remember that about 40% won't go to college (surely higher for males), so it's not like you can just say "well it all evens out." And frankly, sometimes old cliches are right: Two wrongs don't make a right.

But still, this lawsuit is stupid.
posted by duck at 11:47 AM on January 27, 2006

This reminds me of our shop teacher, who used to sit the girls with the largest tits in front, so that he could ogle them during class.
And my girlfriend's sister, who's doing post-doc research into dental science, has all sorts of stories about women getting fucked over in the math and science sphere. On the priorities list, I'd think that'd come first rather than rejiggering our schools to let this guy not get smacked for wanting to be a douchebag and blaming it on some ineffable "male" nature.
(Which is pretty fucking insulting, you know, as a man. I did well in arts and drama, and both can grow an awesome beard and kick this little whiner's ass.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:50 AM on January 27, 2006

Schools treat over achievers "better" because they don't have time to spend checking everyone's noses, so they check on the kids that have a track record of being a problem.

That's fine, checking on kids who have a track record of being a problem or don't check kids who are high achievers. What I'm objecting to is checking on the kids who have a particular chromosome in common with kids who have a track record of being a problem. Sure, ask them for a hall pass if you don't believe them to be trustworthy...And ask the girls who you don't know to be trustworthy for a hall pass to.

No, it's not as bad as being pulled over for DWB but surely you can understand that when your teachers always presume you're up to something evidence or no, that you're going to start to resent them (regardless of your sex, not because boys "naturally" rebel) and feeling like they're out to get you rather than there to help and mentor you, is going to have a negative effect on how you approach your education.

And I say this as a female former honours student, who did go off for lunch and whenver else the mood struck me (which was allowed, so there was no sneaking involved), and who didn't come back for class, and who slept in rather than going to morning classes, and wandered out of class "to the washroom" for trips to the video store. Nobody ever said boo to me about it because I was getting straight As and they had no reason to think I was getting in any real trouble.
posted by duck at 11:55 AM on January 27, 2006

Which is pretty fucking insulting, you know, as a man. I did well in arts and drama, and both can grow an awesome beard and kick this little whiner's ass.)

My beard sucks, I am not a real man.....*sobs*
posted by ozomatli at 12:02 PM on January 27, 2006

And not girls ? What about girls with poor work habits and rule-breaking behavior?

Yes, thank you. This douchestick is implying that boys will stand up for themselves and rebel against authority, while girls sit there and meekly follow orders? That's more sexist and obnoxious than any of this.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 12:07 PM on January 27, 2006

Ozo: Well, that's probably true. All real men have mighty, mighty beards. Like Benjamin Harrison!
posted by klangklangston at 12:09 PM on January 27, 2006

Ozo: Well, that's probably true. All real men have mighty, mighty beards. Like Benjamin Harrison!
posted by klangklangston at 2:09 PM CST on January 27 [!]

And a "more than one beer" thirst?
posted by ozomatli at 12:12 PM on January 27, 2006

The schools are so fucked up the days that I suppose this kind of crap is no longer surprising. It's another sad sign of our precipitous decline.

If his female teachers had had the authority to take a strap and blister his bare male ass any time he misbehaved or mouthed off, he and the schools would be a lot better off.

FWIW, I'm male and I had no trouble with school. These worthless whining asses should be made to either shut up and study or get kicked out, permanently.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 12:16 PM on January 27, 2006

I spent three years teaching at an all boys high school. The majority of the teachers were male, and the learning environment was geared for boys. Even in this uber-male place, we still had honors students who could break the rules and fuck-ups constantly in detention.

Basketball and drama were not counted toward academic credit, artistic output was required for art class, and everyone did their community service requirement (4 years of it, not just senior year).

And when students mouthed off, were disruptive and generally didn't sit down, shut up, and do their work, they got in trouble for it. I was always telling my students there were times for running around and there were times for doing work. If they didn't work in my class, they were disciplined (detention, essays, trips to the office, etc). I still had parents who tried to get their sons' grades changed and punishments revoked. The parents had more of an entitlement complex than the kids some times.

But it all comes down to the fact that the students are still children. They need to learn appropriate social behavior. They need to be aware of society's norms and the consequences they face when they deviate from those norms. When you're 17 you're supposed to make mistakes, get in trouble, and hopefully you learn a few lessons before your mistakes start to become irrevocable, like in your 20s and 30s.

By trying to solve his son's problems through litigation, Mr. Anglin is doing his son an immense disservice. The boy will never learn to take responsibility for his actions and he will suffer all his life.

The thing is, Doug Anglin probably isn't a bad kid. Yeah, he's stupid and needs to grow up, but I don't think he's a bad kid. He also wouldn't be agreeing to this lawsuit if his father weren’t pushing entitlement down his throat.

I swear, the parents are worse than the kids.
posted by bryghtrose at 12:26 PM on January 27, 2006

If his female teachers had had the authority to take a strap and blister his bare male ass any time he misbehaved or mouthed off, he and the schools would be a lot better off.

I'd still be in school if that were the case....
posted by ozomatli at 12:35 PM on January 27, 2006

Am I the only one who thinks this kid has a point. Newsweek addresses this in the most recent issue and Australia is ahead of the curve (huge pdf). Boys learn differently than girls and the schools are probably not doing a good job of addressing this. However, I am not sure that a lawsuit is the best vehicle for getting them to change.
posted by caddis at 12:37 PM on January 27, 2006

If his female teachers had had the authority to take a strap and blister his bare male ass any time he misbehaved or mouthed off, he and the schools would be a lot better off.

Mhhh...do you remember inflicting pains on animals when you was a kid ?
posted by elpapacito at 1:02 PM on January 27, 2006

caddis,

I sort of agree with about 10% of what the kid is saying. Public schools needlessly homogenize education. Its an imperfect public institution. Nothing too earth-shattering here.
Credit should be given in some manner for participation in team sports, because student athletes tend to develop stronger work ethics and responsibility as I understand it. I don't agree with the community service requirements either, but that another topic.
BUT, having said that, a lawsuit is a poor approach and many of the points above about parents instilling a little discipline and personal accountability are well taken and would go a long way to closing the gender gap.
posted by sfts2 at 1:03 PM on January 27, 2006

Credit should be given in some manner for participation in team sports, because student athletes tend to develop stronger work ethics and responsibility as I understand it.

But if they're developing stronger work ethics and responsibility, they get their credit in the form of higher grades (cause y'know their work ethic and responsibility would cause them to do their math and english homework).
posted by duck at 1:07 PM on January 27, 2006

Am I the only one who thinks this kid has a point. Newsweek addresses this in the most recent issue and Australia is ahead of the curve (huge pdf). Boys learn differently than girls and the schools are probably not doing a good job of addressing this. However, I am not sure that a lawsuit is the best vehicle for getting them to change.

You may be, actually. The NewsWeek article is rather biased. It heavily presents the one side's argument (with little discussion of its presenters' credentials) and marginalizes the response (there's an opposing view point essay noted in one of the sidebars). The school systems "these days" are arguably way more lax than at other times. Men invented this practice of learning and historically seem to have done fine with it. It's disingenous to say that boys need special attention because girls are achieving.

Kids of both genders are failing now for reasons that are far more compelling than genetics -- teaching to the test rather than teaching how to learn, for one thing. Artificially leveling the playing field so that Bobby the Jock can get an A in Basketball while Jenny Honors Student labors away on actual academics is not the solution. Besides, you do get credit for athletics -- it's called gym. If you want sports to count, so do plays, art shows, and concerts.

Oh, and duck -- I agree that it should be checking up on anyone who is a known problem, and I benefitted from the same things you're talking about. It's not right, per se, but it's also a simple consequence of too many kids, too few teachers, and probably burn out. I mean, I guess someone might have cared that I was off campus, but they were too busy trying to stop people from dealing drugs in the halls, so it's all relative.
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:25 PM on January 27, 2006

I swear, the parents are worse than the kids.

i've taught kids before (from elementary to high school), and i felt that needed repeating.
posted by lord_wolf at 1:29 PM on January 27, 2006

"And a "more than one beer" thirst?"

I know I do!

"I swear, the parents are worse than the kids."

Got into a discussion with my girlfriend about her mother's class, and how she taught a kid in fourth grade that had NEVER BRUSHED HIS TEETH. The parents felt it was the school's resposibility to teach him that. Along with a slew of "They have to learn not to hit in kindergarten, instead of starting to read" stuff, I now have more sympathy than ever for teachers.
posted by klangklangston at 1:31 PM on January 27, 2006

duck,

Do you think that practicing for 15 hours a week and working out for another 8 deserves no credit whatsoever? There is value to the individual and society in healthy strong bodies.

I read a study, (will I ever be able to find it again?...hmmm.) that seemed to argue that those that participated in high school athletics were well above average in terms of grades. This is consistent with my personal experience, fwiw. Another study I heard discussed referenced to studied professional football players, who were found to be significantly above average in intelligence. You cannot even participate in HS athletics in my city without a 2.5 GPA.

The stereotype of the dumb jock is pretty well disproven - for me anyway. These dumb jocks are doing better in school than average, while still allocating 20+ hours a week to struggling to compete in a team environment, traveling, deal with adversity, injury, etc. A little more valuable than your average Latin class in terms of preparing kids to be productive members of society.

I'll try to find the sources....
posted by sfts2 at 1:37 PM on January 27, 2006

elpapacito says "Mhhh...do you remember inflicting pains [sic] on animals when you was [sic] a kid ?"

When I was probably 3 or 4 years old I cut off a kitten's whiskers. I don't think it was painful, but I still regret doing it. (At that age, I thought that's what one did with whiskers...)

When I was eight, I think, I had a two horned toads for pets. They were pretty cool animals. They didn't drink water; you had to sprinkle it on their backs. You had to feed them live flies, also. I put one of them on a hill of red ants because I thought it would eat the ants. Something pretty close to the opposite ensued. The horned toad didn't make it. I still remember that pretty vividly, too.

That's all I can think of, unless you want to count insects. No crucified squirrels or such.

Your insinuating that I'm a psychopath because I believe that corporal punishment can be beneficial at times leads me to wonder about your mental health.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 1:46 PM on January 27, 2006

Here's a quick quote from a synopsis just to 'prove' I'm not imagining things...


"Studies from the 1960s and earlier revealed that athletic participation had a negative effect on academics. One team of researchers reviewed 41 studies and concluded that nonathletes performed slightly better in schoolwork than athletes (Ballantine, 1981). The majority of studies from the past two decades, however, indicate that students involved in sports excel in the classroom. Ballantine (1981) cited 6 studies showing a positive relationship between academic achievement and athletic participation, and a study by the U.S. Department of Education revealed that students who participate in cocurricular activities are three times more likely to have a grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 or better (Mihoces, 1996). "
From the report by:

National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin
posted by sfts2 at 1:46 PM on January 27, 2006

Do you think that practicing for 15 hours a week and working out for another 8 deserves no credit whatsoever? There is value to the individual and society in healthy strong bodies.

No, I don't think that. I think there should be credit for these things, but as others have noted, you get the credit for those things in PE class, where the purpose is to teach them to develop healthy and strong bodies. Sports can teach them to develop healthy and strong bodies, but that's not it's purpose, and what some students learn instead is to abuse and injure their bodies. And if they do develop better work habits as a result, then presumably the result will be better grades in everything else as well.

Note that I didn't cite the stereotype of the dumb jock. And I don't remember where, either, but I also seem to remember a study about how people who play high school sports do better in their careers (I don't remember anything about grades and I recall that the causation argument was shakey at best). The intelligence point isn't particularly relevant.

So by all means, let them do sports and take advantage of all the benefits it offers, but it's an extra-curricular. If you want to exercise and learn about your body for credit, take PE. Oh, and if you do get credit for sports, they'll have to let everyone on the team and give them equal play time. You can't cut people out of a for-credit course or allow some students the chance to do the work of that course and not others.
posted by duck at 1:51 PM on January 27, 2006

Speaking of parents and other interesting things...a bit of context. The study refers to 'remembrance roles' or what kids want to be remember for when in HS. MY emphasis.

"Coleman assumed that adults prefer high school students to strive to be remembered as brilliant students. However, he found evidence that the parents of the students purported to value academics, but may actually have valued nonacademics behaviorally. Further, he assumed that participation in extracurricular activities diverts students' energy from the academic curriculum. According to Marsh (1992), this viewpoint supposes a zero-sum model in which a commitment to one (e.g., athletics) represents a loss to the other (e.g., schoolwork).

Many replications of Coleman's research have been conducted. Because of increased societal emphasis on athletics for females, since the mid-1970s the same four remembrance roles have been used for both males and females: brilliant student, most popular, athletic star, and leader in activities. Studies have consistently found that a majority of male adolescents wish to be remembered as athletes. In contrast, the role of athletic star is selected least frequently by females, while the roles of leader in activities and brilliant student are chosen most often (Eitzen, 1975; Feltz, 1978; Goldberg & Chandler, 1991; Holland & Andre, 1994; Kane, 1988; Thirer & Wright, 1985; Williams & White, 1983). Research on college students has found the remembrance role of brilliant student to be the predominant choice (Furst & DiCarlo, 1991; Pearce, Fisher, & Baluch, 1993; Whitfield, Cort, Fallone, & Baluch, 1993). "
posted by sfts2 at 1:55 PM on January 27, 2006

Thanks sfts...I never said you were imagining anything. Though I note you've got a lot of correlations and no indication of what was done to demonstrate causation. In the last point in particular (GPA) causation if it exists could easily go the other way.

I'm not saying that playing sports doesn't make kids do better in school, jus that what you cite isn't necessarily great evidence that it does.

FInally, getting back to the topic of the article -- if doing sports makes boys do so much better in school, then why would they need their grades retroactively raised to account for their liking sports? The lawsuit is stupid.
posted by duck at 1:57 PM on January 27, 2006

"Do you think that practicing for 15 hours a week and working out for another 8 deserves no credit whatsoever? There is value to the individual and society in healthy strong bodies."

Yeah, because the life of a high school athlete is so much harder than that of a nerd... Society, especially social groups within high school, just don't reward the athletic at all!
If you're done sniffing jock straps, the benefits of sports should be accrued through sports. If athletes get better grades than non-athletes why exactly would we need to further reward them?
And finally, the argument that athletes get better grades can probably be controlled out by looking at the type of classes they take, the amount of extra help they get, and the frequent number of times that coaches and principals call in teachers to make sure that Johnny QB doesn't end up sitting out for the big game. While the average jock may work very hard to maintain good grades and still practice a demanding physical activity, let's not pretend that makes them superhuman or that they're not generally afforded advantages that people outside of sports don't get.
And a 2.5? They have to maintain a middle-C average? That must be soooo tough!
posted by klangklangston at 1:57 PM on January 27, 2006

40 years ago, the vast majority of teachers were female, discipline was much stricter, and everybody "knew" that boys were smarter than girls and therefore deserved more opportunities. Why could my dad and his buddies sit still, make the honor roll, and go on to be successful, but this guy and his buddies can't? When did that style of learning go from what everybody did in school to being described as a so-called "feminine" learning style?
posted by hydropsyche at 2:03 PM on January 27, 2006

Personal opinion but I don't think that letting all kids play equal amounts of time in a competitive sport prepares them for the real world...but that is a WHOLE 'nother topic.

Oh, and I know you didn't use the dumb jock reference...but I do think that you are showing a fairly strong, but subtle bias for academics over athletics, (1 hour for PE is cool and 6 hours for everything else) and I think what I am trying say is that in my view, the physical part of this, in our land of obesity, deserves a little more 'respect.'

...and by all means if a person is the chorus or school play, that should be for 'credit' as well, just like athletics.
posted by sfts2 at 2:04 PM on January 27, 2006

So, if we're giving credit for all the extra activities, where do we get the time/money for actual academics? And where do you draw the line at what receives credit? Do the athletes get the same amount of credit as the kids working on the school play? Then what about the 4H Club or the Future Homemakers of America? I don't think it's detrimental that a kid should learn the value of doing something just for the love of doing it, with no expectation of credit or recognition.

but I do think that you are showing a fairly strong, but subtle bias for academics over athletics

Yes. Because we're talking about school--an academic institution.
posted by jrossi4r at 2:14 PM on January 27, 2006

klangklangston,

Above C (2.0) is above average, and I hope that facts don't get in the way of your well-formed opinion. Its sort of dismissive to say 'oh, they're just taking basket weaving' or 'teaacher won't ever fail the star.' I'm sure there is some of that, and probably more in the intense sports (revenue producing for colleges - football and basketball) But there are 50 guys on the FB team besides the star quarterback. And in general, its not the case.

heading into derail territory, so I'll let it go for a bit.

duck, I know I only quickly grabbed part of the study, but its just a google away so you can find your methodology or causation info if desired. Agreed the lawsuit is a bad way to go.
posted by sfts2 at 2:18 PM on January 27, 2006

Aside to ozomatli: yeah, me too. Unfortunately, I don't think I would have appreciated it at that age. I think the typical adolescent male would find it painful and humiliating. Which is what punishment should be.

I wasn't seriously suggesting it as a solution, though, because I think that, realistically, we're too far gone as a society for that to happen. Just look at some of the responses in this thread (e.g., from the "this kid has a point" and jock-strap-sniffing morons).

It's probably OK, though. These kids will make good personal servants for the Chinese when they take over. Resentful and mouthy enough for their masters (and mistresses) to enjoy their dominance but too ignorant and ineffectual to make any serious trouble for them. (And I think the Chinese are partial to the cane—more painful than the strap, in general.)
posted by Crabby Appleton at 2:29 PM on January 27, 2006

Oh, and if you do get credit for sports, they'll have to let everyone on the team and give them equal play time.
yeah, because there are no prerequisites for academic classes and someone who has just finished algebra is allowed to go ahead and sign up for calculus.
sfts2- C stopped being an average grade for high schoolers a long time ago. All the classes are dumbed down so that you can get A's and B's without knowing anything.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 2:39 PM on January 27, 2006

yeah, because there are no prerequisites for academic classes and someone who has just finished algebra is allowed to go ahead and sign up for calculus.

That's disingenuous. You know as well as we do that there are plenty of guys who go out for sports who practice and never really play. That, and what do you do with the kid who plays football, basketball, and baseball (I've known them) and the kid who is in Drama, Literary, Band, and Debate? What about the kids who are just in Band? Or, God forbid, the kids in the X Religion Extracurricular Club? Or the kids that aren't involved at all? Do the uninvolved kids get effectively punished for being shy? Do the over-committed kids get points for getting two hours' sleep but being in ten extras?

Also -- I think that MetaFilter in general is populated by people who were "above average" and those of us that valued grades (because of couse some smart people don't) probably don't think of a C as average. We think of C as above a D. D's are considered to be failing in many schools, so really, a B is "average" if you're talking about the middle of the grading scale.
posted by Medieval Maven at 2:55 PM on January 27, 2006

While I think that the current system doesn't really appreciate boy's different learning style, this whole thing about credit for sports etc. doesn't strike me as a solution. They are there to learn some academics. Physical health is a great goal too, and making it easier for people to participate in sports is a goal that all schools should seek. Nevertheless, it doesn't address the real issue with how boys take in information and how the requirements to sit quietly and absorb for hours on end are difficult. I don't think a little extra gym will solve that problem. Give them an environment where they are motivated to learn and can concentrate on the material and they will prosper.
posted by caddis at 3:28 PM on January 27, 2006

caddis: How is it then, that under this system, which has not changed appreciably w/r/t "sit, be quiet, do as you're told," boys previously did just fine? What's different now? Why weren't boys always doing so badly? I really think that this is an artificial issue -- there are plenty of girls who don't excel either. Problems in education have less to do with chomosomes and more to do with kids of either gender just not learning. Lance Mannion makes the point well:

If you have an incoming high school freshman class of 100 boys and 100 girls, you have 61 boys who are reading at or above their grade level and 72 girls who are and you have 67 kids, boys and girls, who aren't!

67 kids out of 200 who can't read at their grade level? That's a big problem. And for 28 of those kids you can't attribute the trouble to their being boys, because, well, they're girls. Which suggests that reading skills aren't necessarily a matter of gender and that those 39 boys who are having trouble might very well be having trouble for the same reasons the girls are.

(he's citing numbers that are to do with the actual stats of the situation -- read the whole post I linked to get the context.)
posted by Medieval Maven at 3:43 PM on January 27, 2006

. I guarantee he has no problem following orders and directions on the baseball field. Why? 'Cause he enjoys that.

I guarantee he has no problem sitting still for several hours at a time while he is playing video games.

At the high school, 64 percent of the teachers are women, and 36 percent are men, according to the school system.
That is because for years teaching was considered a "feminine" job and the pay is commensurate. Most guys get out of college, see how much their degree is worth as high school teachers and decide to go into the business sector.

On the topic of athletics, I would love it if physical activity was given more time in our school day. Two hours a day doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It would be great if every kid in America started the day with either half an hour of yoga or half an hour of calisthenics. But at the same time, I don't think guys should be getting "extra credit" for being on the football team.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:37 PM on January 27, 2006

"I guarantee he has no problem sitting still for several hours at a time while he is playing video games."

Or jerking off for three hours at a stretch. I suppose he'd want credit for that too, you know, to offset the female bias in other areas.

(And yes, of course I'm biased towards academics at a school. Why aren't you?)
posted by klangklangston at 11:43 PM on January 27, 2006 [1 favorite]

And yes, of course I'm biased towards academics at a school. Why aren't you?

Damn, that is well put!
posted by OmieWise at 4:31 AM on January 28, 2006

Girls are smarter and boys are dumber.

Don't tell the (male) scientists:

A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests.

In a paper that will reignite the academic row over genetic differences between men and women, two prominent psychologists will argue in the British Journal of Psychology that men have larger brains and higher IQs than women, which makes them better suited to "tasks of high complexity".

posted by NortonDC at 9:15 PM on January 28, 2006

But then again, that's adults, not children.
posted by NortonDC at 9:33 PM on January 28, 2006