wHATEver. I was independently reading up on explosives via the internet (ooo! compuserve!) when i was like, 11. and i have indepedently taken the initiative in learning to shoot a gun, and i've always been involved in so-called "boyish" activites alongside "girly" shit. my boyfriend is a better cook than i am and i'm better at farm-style and outdoors-type work than he is.
Well, and that's exactly it -- divides should be dictated by interest or skill or disposition. That may correlate to gender for ninety percent of a culture, but that doesn't mean that we should reinforce and cater to those gender differences through systemic segregation.
I say to just let the student choose.
That way guys like me can separate the cool chicks from the lame girly, girl ones.
I take it that katie likes to blow shit up.
Ha! I've used a similar argument for issues like political correctness. Discouraging racial or sexual slurs just makes it a bit more difficult to distinguish the biggots from everyone else. (Not that we aren't all racist or sexist to some extent, but obviously there are extremes).
See, historically THAT was a good case for segregation. Let's move all of the people with good teeth to America, and keep all of the dental rejects at home.
(psst: bbc is the british brodcasting corportion, bcc is
bellevue brooklyn community college. hahaha.)
bellevue brooklyn hah! Nice. Hey are you at the same address you were at last time I asked? I have a package I keep neglecting to send off.
I know nothing about how schools are run in Britain, but doesn't it seem like for classes on the middle/high school level that there are certain topics everyone needs to know about in order not to be a complete fucking moron? Including chemistry and biology and health and maybe a dabbling of physics? And whether or not you're interested, you've gotta learn em, because you need both a knowledge of "how computers work" and "how to perform first aid" in order to be a reasonable facsimile of an educated person.
Why should we cater to their educational whims?
Also I don't see how "the human soul" can possibly be considered a "science" topic, but that's another story.
Well, apparently this is a trend across most developed countries -- certainly the numbers regarding people in different fields attest to that fact.
I agree that k-12 education shouldn't cater to interest so much as needs. I do agree, however, that education should cater to learning style (which, as Katie pointed out) may be partially linked to this topic.
I go back and forth on the liberal arts concept. There are topics which are of general value. There are others which, regardless of their practical application, may help teach people to think (conceptually and even physically) a certain way which is also critical (e.g., math). However, I also dislike the idea of trying to force people to be "well rounded"; I've been in too many interesting classes that were watered-down because most of the kids didn't want to be there. The people who are disinterested don't really pick it up; the people are are don't get nearly as solid of an education. It's unfortunate.
When I was in middle school the girls had to do calisthenics and health posters or just sit around gossiping, while they turned the boys loose with basketballs or a football (depending on the weather).
If the boys didn't play they got yelled at, girls they didn't care as long as we weren't fighting. Oh, those were the days.
The boys should just blow up the girls, or keep them chained underneath the boys' desks, to do what comes naturally, which they're going to end up doing anyway, after all that education. Either way then, the boys will have the school to themselves. I don't understand why the simplest solutions are always overlooked. Why, oh why, must it always fall unto me to point them out?