Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do liberal schools teach people how to provide sources?

Are you going to actually add anything to this discussion? One of my sources, Myself. I grew up in an era with PSA's urging the teaching in a more female friendly way. Ask other 30-40 year olds and they will tell you the same thing. My sister-in-law is a teacher and has been instructed in this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E-yb4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sKBMcLzRHY

Do liberal schools teach people what sources are?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
boilogy prof.

It makes sense that someone would study boils but I didn't know they had their own field of study with teachers and everything.

Good thing it's summer and I'm off the clock. But thanks for providing constructive feedback

If you can't enjoy a silly and obvious typo a vacation may be just the thing that is needed. Also where did you get the idea that only constructive feedback would be on OT? Are we not more than that? ARE WE NOT MEN?

I'm 30 now... and the PSAs that I grew up included that super scary, empty office chair voiceover dude demanding that you brush your teeth.... it was fething ridiculous. So no... I've not seen these mythical PSAs urging people to teach specifically to girls and feth the boys, they had their chance


The only real difference in education that I recall, is that by the time my brother was in elementary school, certain teachers of his were quick to try and tell my parents that he had ADHD... because "he drums on the desk from the moment he sits down, to the moment school is over".... which is kinda the opposite of ADD or ADHD, because he was completely focused on drumming, and they failed to realize that with drummers, there's no "off" switch


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

If you can't enjoy a silly and obvious typo a vacation may be just the thing that is needed. Also where did you get the idea that only constructive feedback would be on OT? Are we not more than that? ARE WE NOT MEN?

Yep... not enough victim blaming in your response.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
boilogy prof.

It makes sense that someone would study boils but I didn't know they had their own field of study with teachers and everything.

Good thing it's summer and I'm off the clock. But thanks for providing constructive feedback

If you can't enjoy a silly and obvious typo a vacation may be just the thing that is needed. Also where did you get the idea that only constructive feedback would be on OT? Are we not more than that? ARE WE NOT MEN?

Spoiler:

We might be Devo, but figuring that out is off topic for this thread.

Maybe we aren't.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Language and verbal skills are now more emphasized, while there is less focus on math and science. Open book tests are more common, while timed tests less so. Group work is more common. All these things play to women's strengths to help them, despite all ready being on a level playing field. Now it's imbalanced to favor female students.

Are you serious? All of your claims here are wrong, to the point that I have to wonder if you know anything about education.

Language and verbal skills are not "female" things, and math and science are not "male" things. And, as much as I like math and science as an engineer, there's a pretty compelling argument that language and verbal skills should be emphasized more. Those are skills that everyone can expect to use, while math and science beyond a certain point will only be used by people continuing on into those fields later in life.

Open-book tests benefit everyone, regardless of gender. In the real world you usually have your "book" available and can look something up if you forget a minor detail. This puts the emphasis on knowing how to solve a problem, not successful memorization of specific facts or equations.

Group work similarly benefits everyone, regardless of gender. In the real world you will have to work in groups, and if you can't then you're going to struggle to get a job above minimum-wage toilet scrubber.

Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students.

Could you provide some evidence to support this claim?

http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/students-can-detect-teachers-gender-bias-boys-suffer-most/
https://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/new-study-shows-grading-bias/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/elementary-school-bias-boys_n_2404898.html
http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/discrimination-against-boys-in-education-and-elsewhere/
http://boysmeneducation.com/are-female-teachers-biased-against-boys-are-male-math-teachers-just-better-lets-look-at-some-research/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/


In the Real World the "open book" isn't exactly always available. Knowing basic facts is sometimes instrumental in both learning and discovery. If learning these things weren't important you could make 90% of a high school education "just google it".

 cuda1179 wrote:
{sources}

That's something at least. But the actual evidence cited (as opposed to conservative interpretation of it) doesn't really support your point about "liberal bias". Your own sources state that the teacher/student gender difference effect works both ways: boys score worse with female teachers, girls score worse with male teachers. The reason boys do worse overall seems to be due to the fact that more lower-level teachers are women than men, not some kind of inherent bias in the system. And then there's the question of how you measure the "real" scores. For example, one of your sources mentions comparing standardized test scores to class grades, an approach that depends on the (seriously mistaken) assumption that standardized tests are an accurate evaluation of a student's success in a class.

In the Real World the "open book" isn't exactly always available. Knowing basic facts is sometimes instrumental in both learning and discovery.

Except "basic facts" isn't what I'm talking about. If you don't know basic facts you're going to fail an open-book test. You're going to sit there flipping desperately through the book trying to find even a hint of something that you can maybe turn into partial credit on a question you can't answer. What open-book tests do is avoid the problem where a student knows how to solve a problem but can't remember if a particular equation is x^2 or x^3, or if a historical date was 1730 or 1740.

And aside from this you still haven't done anything to justify your claim that open-book tests are about bias in favor of women.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
{sources}

And aside from this you still haven't done anything to justify your claim that open-book tests are about bias in favor of women.

Actually, I did. It was included in one of the videos I linked to.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Actually, I did. It was included in one of the videos I linked to.

Can you explain this in your own words instead of saying "just watch this video"? I've been generous enough to explain my position in text form instead of just pointing you at some youtube videos, so maybe you could do the same?

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Actually, I did. It was included in one of the videos I linked to.

Can you explain this in your own words instead of saying "just watch this video"? I've been generous enough to explain my position in text form instead of just pointing you at some youtube videos, so maybe you could do the same?

Am I the only one that knows how google works? Yes, studies have shown that closed book tests and time limits slightly favor boys. Open book tests and no time limits slightly favor girls. It basically boils down to boys do better with constrained environments (use what you have the best you can), while girls are better overall planners using unlimited resources and can then better arrange their answers.

neither philosophy is really better than the other. Sometimes a good solution now is better than a perfect solution later. Sometimes it's not.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Am I the only one that knows how google works? Yes, studies have shown that closed book tests and time limits slightly favor boys. Open book tests and no time limits slightly favor girls. It basically boils down to boys do better with constrained environments (use what you have the best you can), while girls are better overall planners using unlimited resources and can then better arrange their answers.

neither philosophy is really better than the other. Sometimes a good solution now is better than a perfect solution later. Sometimes it's not.

Do you understand the difference between "girls happen to be better at {thing which is desirable for other reasons}" and "{thing} is favored because girls are better at it"? The two are not interchangeable.

PS: I am a man and I do much better on open-book tests, and I think closed-book tests are often completely inappropriate.

Am I the only one that knows how google works?

It is not my job to research and write your argument for you.

 cuda1179 wrote:


http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/students-can-detect-teachers-gender-bias-boys-suffer-most/
https://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/new-study-shows-grading-bias/

By the time you get to the actual study and ignore the articles telling you "this is what the study says", you get the actual conclusion of the paper:

Overall, results shed new light on the nature of gender interactions in the classroom. Students’
responses to teachers’ characteristics are an important determinant of their effort, all the more
that students’ actions need not be consistent with teachers’ actions and perceptions. Importantly,
the two effects we find go in the same direction: they both increase the gender gap in student
investment; Indeed, with a male teacher, the gap between boys’ and girls’ effort increases because
girls invest more; with a female teacher, the gap increases because boys invest less.
The growing gender gap in education has become a concern for policy makers (Weaver-Hightower
2003). Further research may help explain what shapes students’ perceptions, whether and how misperceptions
can be corrected, and how much these perceptions affect student effort and investment
in other contexts.

It's not that teachers act differently, it's because students think teachers act differently and therefore they adjust their behavior to match their expectations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/elementary-school-bias-boys_n_2404898.html
http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/

This paper does not show any kind of bias, it does show that grades are driven by test results as well as classroom behavior. And that different genders have different classroom behaviors.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds

No actual study linked.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/discrimination-against-boys-in-education-and-elsewhere/

No link to the actual study, just a "my opinion, based on her opinion, based on a study she read" article. It does appear to reference the same study that shows that classroom behavior influences grades, and not teacher bias.

http://boysmeneducation.com/are-female-teachers-biased-against-boys-are-male-math-teachers-just-better-lets-look-at-some-research/

Blocked at work.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/

Nice article about how previous thoughts that girls were suffering don't appear to be true, and how boys express themselves differently, and how family dynamics have different impact on boys when it comes to school performance, and how societal expectations of behaviors in boys impact their participation in school. But after a long read, it still doesn't say what you think it says.

Thoughts for the future:

1) Never, ever, believe any person that tells you what a study says. Always review the actual study instead of the interpretation of the study.
2) Learn the difference between Primary and Secondary Sources.
3) Learn that YouTube videos are garbage as sources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If learning these things weren't important you could make 90% of a high school education "just google it".

 cuda1179 wrote:

Am I the only one that knows how google works?

There is a certain amount of irony here.

Maybe I just had some weird education, but none of it included "make random claims, then demand that other people Google them to see if they are correct or not when called out on them".

 d-usa wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

It's not that teachers act differently, it's because students think teachers act differently and therefore they adjust their behavior to match their expectations.

[There is a certain amount of irony here.

Maybe I just had some weird education, but none of it included "make random claims, then demand that other people Google them to see if they are correct or not when called out on them".

The study DIDN'T say that teacher didn't act differently. It stated that students expected it, which may very well be accurate.

Trying to link to the exact research studies I read months ago, while I'm at work with limited internet access and with an apparent time constraint (complaints that I don't respond after less than 90 minutes passed) is a bit much for the OT forum of Dakka. The fact is that these studies do exist, regardless of my ability to find them at the moment. Heck, I was ask for citation for things that have been widely know to the public. Such citations really aren't necessary to most. This isn't my job or some kind of legal defense. My comments aren't "random" either, as they were direct replies to others' posts.

If your best defense against "the study didn't say that teachers acted differently" is "it didn't say that they didn't either", then there really isn't much point to keeping the discussion going.

 d-usa wrote:
"make random claims, then demand that other people Google them to see if they are correct or not when called out on them".

If anything, it shows that he has a bright future here in the Dakka OT... he'll fit right in!

 cuda1179 wrote:
The fact is that these studies do exist, regardless of my ability to find them at the moment.

Heck, I was ask for citation for things that have been widely know to the public.

Such as?

My comments aren't "random" either, as they were direct replies to others' posts.

It's kind of interesting that you don't have time to provide any proof to the ridiculous claims you makes, but you have plenty of time to respond to every person explaining how you're wrong.

So, if teacher didn't treat students differently, where did the expectation come from?

The study I can't find at the moment actually confirmed this. They had teachers (male and female) grade papers. Some papers had male names, some had female names, others were nameless. The catch was that certain papers had three duplicates, identical in every way except the name on the top.

The study found that teacher had a favorable bias towards their own gender. This bias was slightly greater in women. The bias was also slightly greater in lower grades. Since a majority of teachers are female, especially in lower grades) boys are often shortchanged from the start and struggle to regain self confidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
"

Heck, I was ask for citation for things that have been widely know to the public.

Such as?

.

I was told I needed a citation when I mentioned college protestors demanding resignations and safe spaces. This is WELL known. The "racist chicken sandwich" also made major headlines about a month ago.

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, if teacher didn't treat students differently, where did the expectation come from?

The study I can't find at the moment actually confirmed this. They had teachers (male and female) grade papers. Some papers had male names, some had female names, others were nameless. The catch was that certain papers had three duplicates, identical in every way except the name on the top.

The study found that teacher had a favorable bias towards their own gender. This bias was slightly greater in women. The bias was also slightly greater in lower grades. Since a majority of teachers are female, especially in lower grades) boys are often shortchanged from the start and struggle to regain self confidence.

Yes, those are the studies we're talking about. However, let's go back to your initial claim:

Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students.

Your claim was that male students get lower grades for equal work, the study actually showed that students with opposite-gender teachers get lower grades. A female student with a male teacher suffered from the same grade bias. This suggests that we need to work on unbiased grading methods but it isn't at all the same as proving a bias against male students specifically.

Also, just a heads up:

If you are asked for a source, but don't have time to provide it, then the better answer is "I don't have time to locate it right now, I'll try to find it later" rather than "can't you google".

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, if teacher didn't treat students differently, where did the expectation come from?

The study I can't find at the moment actually confirmed this. They had teachers (male and female) grade papers. Some papers had male names, some had female names, others were nameless. The catch was that certain papers had three duplicates, identical in every way except the name on the top.

The study found that teacher had a favorable bias towards their own gender. This bias was slightly greater in women. The bias was also slightly greater in lower grades. Since a majority of teachers are female, especially in lower grades) boys are often shortchanged from the start and struggle to regain self confidence.

Yes, those are the studies we're talking about. However, let's go back to your initial claim:

Also, in teacher studies it is shown that male students receive lower grades for equal work than female students.

Your claim was that male students get lower grades for equal work, the study actually showed that students with opposite-gender teachers get lower grades. A female student with a male teacher suffered from the same grade bias. This suggests that we need to work on unbiased grading methods but it isn't at all the same as proving a bias against male students specifically.

You might want to reread what I typed. Yes, both boys and girls are down-graded by an opposite sex teacher. However, as I pointed out the problem is that female teachers showed more bias. Combine this with the fact that most teachers are female and the likelihood of boys being downgraded is significantly greater. It's not an equal bias at all. Kind of one of those "Desperate Impact" things that we keep hearing about from the White House.

 cuda1179 wrote:
You might want to reread what I typed. Yes, both boys and girls are down-graded by an opposite sex teacher. However, as I pointed out the problem is that female teachers showed more bias. Combine this with the fact that most teachers are female and the likelihood of boys being downgraded is significantly greater. It's not an equal bias at all. Kind of one of those "Desperate Impact" things that we keep hearing about from the White House.

Yes, but "there are more female teachers than male teachers" is much less interesting then "liberal bias is oppressing boys", isn't it?

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
You might want to reread what I typed. Yes, both boys and girls are down-graded by an opposite sex teacher. However, as I pointed out the problem is that female teachers showed more bias. Combine this with the fact that most teachers are female and the likelihood of boys being downgraded is significantly greater. It's not an equal bias at all. Kind of one of those "Desperate Impact" things that we keep hearing about from the White House.

Yes, but "there are more female teachers than male teachers" is much less interesting then "liberal bias is oppressing boys", isn't it?

I see once again you glossed over the "female teachers have greater bias" part again. Also, you have to admit that Desperate Impact against boys exists. Liberal bias also exists, it's just in addition to the teacher bias issue.

We are complately off topic but have strayed into an interesting tangent. The BBC has a report today on the fact that women now outnummber men in British universities, and some ideas about why this is happening.

One of them is that the Nursing profession is woman dominated, and since it was turned from a diploma subject to a degree subject, automatically a large number of women were added to the university population. Another is that women gain a higher differential benefit in salary from having a degree than men do, so it's a rational response to future financial expectations. Another factor is that working class white men are far less likely to go to university than working class asian men, which argues it is not an effect of maleness but an effect of cultural attitudes.

The issue isn't in any way understood, and I bring it up here to make the point that this kind of social situation is often extremely complicated and doesn't lend itself to any easy analysis of cause, effect and solutions.

I would also add that the assumption that universities need to contain equal numbers of men and women itself is open to question.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I see once again you glossed over the "female teachers have greater bias" part again.

Because it has nothing to do with my point. Teachers of both genders were biased, even if not to the exact same degree, and the primary factor in the overall grade difference was simply that female teachers are more common than male teachers. This likely reflects a "people of all genders are unconsciously biased" issue, not a deliberate attempt by the school system to favor female students over male students. If you changed the gender ratio without changing anything else about the schools you'd likely see the exact opposite result, an overall bias in favor of male students.

Also, you have to admit that Desperate Impact against boys exists.

And this is why "verbal and language skills" are important things to teach.

Liberal bias also exists, it's just in addition to the teacher bias issue.

Like your weird theories about how open-book tests are meant to bias the system in favor of women?

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I see once again you glossed over the "female teachers have greater bias" part again.

Liberal bias also exists, it's just in addition to the teacher bias issue.

Like your weird theories about how open-book tests are meant to bias the system in favor of women?

You mean other than studies and test show that women DO benefit from open book tests? The Department of Education stated as much and was part of their decision to put emphasis on promoting education for girls in STEM fields. (no, I don't have the quotation for that at the moment).

I'm really not trying to claim that there is some dark agenda against boys. I'm just saying that sometimes the best laid plans have some really crappy consequences. Over emphasis on promoting girls has left boys in a bit of an educational void and they are being neglected in areas of their special needs even when girls are being catered to.

I'll say flat out that complaining about open book tests not being like the real world is utter BS.

I do taxes. Half of doing taxes is knowing that a rule exists and knowing where to find the specifics of the rule rather than memorizing all the rules. Same with any other intellectual pursuit.

In the real world, you don't need to memorize how to get places when the ability to read a map gives you better navigational skills.

 cuda1179 wrote:
You mean other than studies and test show that women DO benefit from open book tests? The Department of Education stated as much and was part of their decision to put emphasis on promoting education for girls in STEM fields. (no, I don't have the quotation for that at the moment).

"Women benefit from open book tests" is not the same thing as "open-book tests are meant to favor women over men". As I have already pointed out there are good reasons for having open-book tests that have nothing to do with favoring one gender over the other. And even if open-book tests benefit women they don't hurt men. If you can get a good grade on a closed-book test then you can get at least the same grade on an open-book test. Men are not losing anything here.

Also, leveling the playing field is not a bad thing. Boys already get special privileges. They are more likely to be hired for a higher salary than women. They are more likely to be promoted. The 'real world' is more friendly to males than females.

 skyth wrote:
I'll say flat out that complaining about open book tests not being like the real world is utter BS.

I do taxes. Half of doing taxes is knowing that a rule exists and knowing where to find the specifics of the rule rather than memorizing all the rules. Same with any other intellectual pursuit.

In the real world, you don't need to memorize how to get places when the ability to read a map gives you better navigational skills.

I'd love for a lawyer to stand up in court and say "objection your Honor. I know that line of questioning is illegal...... I just can't remember the right being violated or the legal precedence in case law. Give me a few minutes to look it up". I'd love for an EMT to whip out their IPhone and say "Siri, how do I apply a tourniquet? " How about a psychiatrist having to constantly pull out the cheat sheets to remind him what to ask a patient?

I'll admit there are many times when an open-book life is the way to go, but don't act like closed book is not needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
You mean other than studies and test show that women DO benefit from open book tests? The Department of Education stated as much and was part of their decision to put emphasis on promoting education for girls in STEM fields. (no, I don't have the quotation for that at the moment).

"Women benefit from open book tests" is not the same thing as "open-book tests are meant to favor women over men". As I have already pointed out there are good reasons for having open-book tests that have nothing to do with favoring one gender over the other. And even if open-book tests benefit women they don't hurt men. If you can get a good grade on a closed-book test then you can get at least the same grade on an open-book test. Men are not losing anything here.

No, just no. Let's say at your job your company has a financial windfall. upper management declares 200% raises for EVERYONE!!!, except you Peregrine, you can stay at your base pay. We aren't hurting you, we're just helping everyone else.

There is a difference between basic knowledge and in-depth knowledge. Like I said, half of it is knowing that there is something out there. That leaves the other half that you know.

Just like attorneys do research on cases before going into court. They don't need to memorize everything. Doctors do research on techniques and diseases before going into an operation.

Also, answering questions about things you look up and explaining them HELPS you memorize and learn them.

Being able to find information and use/understand that information is an important skill.

 skyth wrote:
Also, leveling the playing field is not a bad thing. Boys already get special privileges. They are more likely to be hired for a higher salary than women. They are more likely to be promoted. The 'real world' is more friendly to males than females.

Actually, you are wrong. Until age 32 women are more likely to be paid a higher salary than a man for the same job. According to the Department of labor, for the same job women will out earn men by 6%. Also, women are slightly more likely than men to be hired in health care fields, and in areas concerning STEM women are TWICE as likely as their male counterparts to get hired.

I think I have another troll going on ignore.