STRUGGLE WITH BOREDOM

                                 STRUGGLE WITH BOREDOM

     It seems to me that so much of life is an escape from boredom.  Perhaps this is no real earth shattering revelation, but I nonetheless feel compelled to address it.  I mean, why not?  What else is there to do?  I’m convinced that many of humankind’s vices are rooted in sheer boredom.  That being said, let me ask a question.  Is boredom the same emotion as depression, or is it something altogether different?  I ask this question because I feel that the two are related in an important way.  If we could construct a theoretical continuum on which “elation” stands at one end and “depression” on the other, we might be tempted to throw “boredom” somewhere right in the middle, possibly leaning toward the “depression” end of the spectrum.  But there is a problem with this depiction—specifically, it seems as though boredom can coexist with depression in a very intimate manner, and yet it does not accord well with elation at all.  Thus, the question might better be asked as “When does boredom morph into depression?”  Hmmm.  That is not an easy question to answer, and for that matter, it is not an easy matter to define clearly any emotion.  But let me cut to the chase here.  The main point I wish to establish is that human beings tend to be nonchalant toward feelings of boredom.  Think about it.  If your best friend calls you up one day and says that she is bored, do you typically feel a need to reach out to her and console her, try to help her?  Probably not.  After all, life is boring, deal with it…right?  On the other hand, if she calls and tells you that she is depressed and feeling very down, chances are good that, being a compassionate friend, you will try to lift her spirits and feel genuine concern for her mental well being.  The problem here is that we are failing to recognize boredom for what it truly is.  Boredom is a thick veil that blinds us from being rational.  In a sense, it is a patent indicator that we are insane, at least temporarily. (All right, maybe I hyperbolize a bit here.)  The fact of the matter is that every breath we take, every image we see, sound we hear, taste we taste is an insoluble mystery and intricate expression of the most exquisite action.  Even the very concept of boredom itself is exhilarating to grapple with…like trying to catch a butterfly with a hoola hoop. (Can you picture that?)  My suggestion is to attack boredom straightway, as it begins to rear its ugly head.  Try to define it, see where it wants to go, ask whence it has come…and then watch it gently glide away…or maybe EXPLODE!  Once we realize that boredom is an irrational response to life, perhaps it will automatically follow that “suffering” in all of its manifestations will dissipate substantially.

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON EDUCATION

The passion for teaching and learning has elicited a lively and spirited discussion between AS and myself. It may seem at first glance that we have both strayed from the initial topic in places, but it is nonetheless entertaining and fulfilling (for yours truly, at least) to look back on how this candid conversation has fluidly unraveled. I have found it significant that Steve’s initial essay roused my critical faculties, and yet, in retrospect, as I look back on the entire discussion, I cannot pinpoint any specific claim with which I really disagree. In fact, I believe my vision has been expanded as a result of this discussion. As far as I can tell, we both wholeheartedly agree that students can thrive in both a same-sex and a co-ed educational environment. I also believe that we both would agree that students learn best when subjected to a variety of teaching techniques and attitudes—cross-training if you will. Perhaps it would be of benefit to promote the idea of students participating in BOTH environments at certain points of their scholarly careers. Then again, this idea is bound to open a whole new can of worms, and would most certainly be difficult to implement on a large scale…but I am one of those people who believe that ideas possess value in and of themselves. Thus, I have brought it to the table for reflection, and perhaps for a thrashing. I hesitate somewhat to put this material within the pages of this blog, for a forum is a more likely venue for this matter; but I like the dynamics involved, and I feel the attitudes expressed enrich and reflect the “personality” of the Train to Freedom. Thus the lengthy entries. At any rate, what follows is more of the aforementioned conversation between AS (Steve) and me. I hope you have been enjoying the ride.

In a message dated 4/9/2006 7:13:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:
Tops to you AS. Since you have taken the time to write such a detailed response to my commentary on your essay, I feel obliged, in the spirit of friendly banter of course, to reciprocate.
Hey Todd,

Thanks. I enjoy our conversations.

In truth, I have nothing to rebut, although I do have a couple of questions, qualifications, and elaborations...for the sake of clarification. First off, by "diversity" I simply mean "variety", more specifically as it refers to differences in people and personalities. Certainly all words to some degree derive their meanings through the eyes of the beholders, but I do think that most would agree that men and women are fundamentally "different" in many aspects (if we didn't assume this ab initio, this discussion would not be unfolding), and therefore, eliminating women entirely from a milieu is necessarily eliminating a significant source of "diversity". Don't get me wrong though. I do understand what you are saying about diversity being a difficult term to pin down, for certainly one cannot meaningfully "quantify" "diverse" characteristics that exist amongst individuals.

Thanks for the clarifications, Todd. I was concerned about the views of people who take words like "diversity" and turn them into an ideology, to be achieved at all costs. You're clearly not talking about that.

My main contention is that, owing to the fact that approximately half of the world population is comprised of women, it generally behooves men to be exposed to their ways of viewing the world, which, as I asserted before, tend to be fundamentally different in many respects from those of their counterparts (for better or for worse, I might add). I believe, that in the main, a school environment should be as representative as possible of the larger global "population" in regard to gender and cultural "diversity". (An all-boys school over represents the y-chromosome!)


I want to look at what is effective. If boys and girls do, indeed, learn differently, then I see great value in appreciating and serving those varying styles of learning. I see sufficient evidence of sex-based differences in learning approaches to warrant increased educational opportunities. Merely putting children, young adults, or even older adults together in an environment to facilitate exposure to differences in others' ways of viewing the world does not seem helpful to me when much of what is at stake appears to be the development of the very cognitive faculties needed to perceive and appreciate those differences!

Here's another way to look at it. Assume that girls and boys do learn differently and that awareness and accommodation of those differences allow many students to achieve their full academic potential. Here are some links that provide some of the evidence for this assumption, from the National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE).

http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-brain.htm
(brain differences)

http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-learning.htm
(learning style differences)

http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-singlesexvscoed.htm
(single-sex compared to co-educational schools)

http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-forgirls.htm
(advantages of single-sex schools for girls)

http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-forboys.htm
(advantages of single-sex schools for boys)

http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-equity.htm
"Computers, Brains, and Gender Equity" essay)

(Of course, the NASSPE is an organization with an agenda. However, one can easily examine the sources behind their claims, so, at least for purposes of forming a reasonable assumption, I am confident to use their summations of the data.)


One question I have for you is "What compelled you to choose an all-boys school?" I raise this question because in general, I agree with you that educational options should be available, and I agree with you that people learn differently in different environments. However, it makes sense to me that a compelling reason should exist before a student should deviate from the norm, so to speak. For example, in the case that a bright boy continues to neglect his studies in a conventional co-ed school and ascribes the motives behind his slack to an attraction to girls, then perhaps it is best for that boy to attend an all-boys school as an experiment. Or perhaps he should try a study-at-home protocol...or whatever. The point I am attempting to make is that I believes options should exist, but conventions should at first be attempted. After all, one has to start somewhere. Why not with the "conventional" approach? If it doesn't seem to work, THEN there is a compelling reason to change and try something a bit more unorthodox.


To answer in somewhat reverse order, I think the conventions are first being attempted and the conventions are the starting point. The same-sex movement is exploring alternatives to co-educational models as a response to difficulties many students have in a "conventional" educational environment. I think this approach allows plenty of room for variation and gives us more freedom than does a "one-size-fits-all" model that seems to have its own challenges.

As for me, having the opportunity to attend my school was a blessing. My parents chose my school for the more strict disciplinary environment and wider opportunity of course offerings than were available in co-educational public schools. I chose my school because of what I considered a greater educational opportunity, an positive attention to boys (who, in my elementary school years, seemed kind of like second-class citizens in the classroom), broader range of elective courses and the opportunity for technical education at the high school level, greater sports opportunities (both interscholastic and intramural), and larger number of extracurricular activities.

In a nutshell, those are the reasons. Could those things have been achieved by an overhaul of the Chicago public schools? Sure. However, if I can go get my dinner from my local supermarket, or go to the zoo and fight the biggest lion for his or her dinner, which do you think I'm gonna do?


You have mentioned your cousin and her experience with mathematics. This is a particularly interesting point, and it is in fact one that ties with some of my former comments about boys and girls being "fundamentally" different in various respects. Indeed, studies continue to show that boys outscore girls in mathematic and "science" skills. Girls, on the other hand, tend to outscore boys in reading and writing skills, and they show a greater degree of "emotional intelligence". I do believe that the educational environment and self-fulfilling prophecies have a lot to do with these findings.

I agree, there can be an element of self-fulfilling prophecies here.


However, I do not intuitively believe that the way to enhance a girl's math skills or to enhance a boy's language skills is to isolate boys from girls. In fact, I believe that the opposite approach should be taken. Interactive learning is a great conduit for higher education, and I believe that boy students should be working in conjunction with girl students in learning and teaching roles. The idea here is cooperative learning and teaching. Your cousin feared competition with boys in mathematics, at least that is how it appears to boil down. An educational system should be set up to dilute this fear by endorsing cooperation. If one thinks about it, there is really no sound reason why the aforementioned statistics should exist. Mathematics is really nothing more than a type of language, and the converse is also true (of course)--language behaves very "mathematically". It is not correct to say that mathematics is "analytical" and language is "creative" or "intuitive". The fact is that mathematics, at its heart, is creative and expressive. Of course it is also analytical. Likewise, reading and writing are creative and expressive, but they can also be subjected to analysis and "scientific" scrutiny. If boys and girls can work TOGETHER, they could all benefit tremendously. In the process, they would be obtaining a great deal of "emotional intelligence". What is the "teacher's" role in all of this? Well, pretty much the usual--guidance and supervision. But he or she should inspire the overarching notion that deep learning and understanding is greatly enhanced through the act of teaching itself. Therefore, it behooves the "students" to play the role of "teachers" to each other.

You're talking about the interbeing of learning. Teaching and learning inter-are. Again, I agree. However, there can be many paths to learning, many dharma doors, if you will.


In this way, you create a microcosm for many of my "Utopian" ideals--which brings me to my final question (oooo--at long last!). Why does the idea of "Utopia" scare you? I think we all have our ideas of a sort of "Utopia". I think it is "hardwired" in our neurons, so to speak, to think of how our ideal world would be. It's basically just our own perspectives of heaven, I suppose. At least, that is how I meant it. I didn't necessarily mean it to be in keeping with the St. Thomas Moore's original.
I think I was getting caught up in the terminology of "Utopia." My fears result from situations that try to achieve some sort of "Utopia" through merely changing a few things on the surface of society without penetrating to the root causes of why things are the way they are. I see tremendous potential for ideologically-driven abuses, but that's just me.


Well Bro, I think that pretty much covers everything for now. Oh yes--somebody should press charges against R. Mayweather. That behavior is just criminally stupid. At least the gloved combatants seemed to make amends after the show. Take care Ace. Hit me whenever. Pax tibi sit.

Todd R.

Yes, making amends is a good first step. Thanks for your ideas. You're helping me understand the bases of my own views more completely and are persuading me of the validity of my position even more than I had persuaded myself. hehe

Now where did I put those gloves? We're gonna need 'em, friend! :-)

All the best to you, too, Todd!

Steve

Hey there Buddy. As usual, I am always (well, usually) up for a spirited debate amongst good sports who appreciate intellectual honesty above all--and I DO believe that is true of you. But, the funny thing is, I do not see any specific point where we are clearly at odds. Perhaps we would be at odds in this hypothetical extreme case--an extreme that I feel both of us would adamantly oppose--but an extreme hypothetical case that may give us both some insight into where we stand in relation to each other in this discussion. Let us for kicks suppose that an election is to be held tomorrow on issue X. If issue X passes, ALL schools, from here on out are co-ed. If issue X "fails", all schools, from here on out, are single-sex. Now, if I HAD to vote in one direction or the other (a true dichotomy), I would vote FOR issue X. The primary reason for my vote would be because I would view a "no" vote on issue X as a vote for segregation. In short, I am sure that if one tries hard enough, he or she can find "scientific evidence" that supports the theory that blacks learn differently from whites, Hispanics learn differently from Russians, Indians learn differently from Israelis, etc. Perhaps they do. But I believe that it would be clearly wrong to segregate people on the basis of these "scientific findings"--even if they were "true". (And on that, I really don't believe it possible to "prove" this kind of stuff. It ultimately will always come down to rhetoric, cherry picking, and spin-doctoring.) In many ways, this smacks of somewhat watered down Nazism (Don't worry Bro, I'm not calling you a Nazi!). I believe it would also become a breeding ground for gang mentality. Anyway, in summary, I guess my primary point here is that if we cast our votes differently, then it could be that we have located a fundamental sticking point--and it could be an impasse at that point, because, although I am always willing to hear out counterpoints, I can not presently see myself changing my vote...I am pretty steadfast on that. On the other hand, if we both cast our votes with like mind, then I don't see any substantial difference in our views. You know my vote Bro! It's up to you to decide if this is a debate or merely a stimulating conversation! Looking forward to the final tally! Namaste!

Todd R.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm think we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one because I feel this discussion is rapidly reaching a point of diminishing returns.

For the record, we can't compare different ethnic groups or "races" (use of quotation marks there is intentional because I have a lot of problems with that term) in the same way that we compare men and women and girls and boys. Specifically, I am unaware of *any* difference between "races" or "ethnic groups" that is even remotely comparable to the differences between men and women, many of them genetically based.

I don't accept your claim about quasi-Nazism, although I don't take any personal offense from your use of the term here. However, I don't see much value in continuing the discussion beyond this point, since as you have said, the amount of disagreement here is fairly limited.

I do hope you will continue updating Train to Freedom because I enjoy reading it.

Peace,

Steve
In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:46:41 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:
Me again AS.

Yo!

Now come on, do you REALLY think I would be who I am today if I let you go THAT easily? HA! (Who am I, really?)

Well, of course you would / would not!


Seriously though, I do feel the need to clarify a couple of points further, lest I be misunderstood. (If anybody is going to misunderstand me, dammit, it's going to be me!)

OK, if you insist. Hehe


First, I want to vehemently stress that I am NOT calling YOUR views quasi-Nazism.

I didn't think you were calling my views quasi-nazism, not at all.


I do believe that one can, without too much of a stretch, draw comparisons between EXTREME mandatory gender division and Nazism, but then again, I believe that anything taken to such an EXTREME can be argued as "Nazism", or at least, by definition, "fanaticism".

Yes. The operative word here is "extreme."

Having agreed thus far, I must make at least one more point. (See how this goes! )

For one thing, extreme gender inclusion, where such inclusion may harm the persons included, can also be regarded as "Nazism," or as you suggested, "fanaticism."


Anyway, from everything you have stated, it is poignantly clear that you do NOT favor an extreme stance, and therefore, I am certainly not arguing that YOUR views are in keeping with quasi-Nazism.

Indeed.


Furthermore, let it be known that I, like yourself, do not truly believe in this thing commonly (and ignorantly) referred to as "race". When put under the microscope, this "thing" or "essence" we call "race" quickly vanishes.

The challenge, of course, is to make sure that the lenses of this metaphorical microscope are clear, unclouded. If not, just like an annoying left jab kept firmly in the face of a hapless opponent, dirty or scratched lenses can prevent us from seeing accurately.

(Methinks it's too early in the morning for such a maladroit mixed metaphor. I tried to save it with a wee bit of alliteration.)


Now, what I do call into question is whether, if we really, truly put this "thing" or "essence" of "gender difference" under the microscope, will it also vanish? Prima facie, I realize the absurdity of this question. But, when we truly strip ourselves, don't we ultimately draw the conclusion that we are in fact "genderless"?

If we truly strip ourselves, don't we ultimately draw the conclusion that we are in fact the elementary particle or wave? Are we not pure energy? Or matter and energy alternating their states?

We have manifested in the physical universe with bodies. Those bodies are at once a source of sorrow and of joy. I don't see the solution as getting rid of our bodies. As such, I disagree somewhat with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who said, "We are spiritual beings having a physical experience." While one can easily say that, one can also easily say that we are physical beings having a spiritual experience. Similarly, we are emotional beings having a mental experience. In fact, we could articulate many kinds of experiences by considering all the permutations of our m attributes (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, environmental) taken n at a time.

The reason I am not fond of such an approach is simply that we are multifaceted beings. We are at once body, mind, emotions, spirit, interactions with other beings and the environment at large. To me, realizing and embracing our true nature means consciously to know and experience all of these aspects of ourselves, more or less in relative balance, most of the time. There may be times when we must emphasize one aspect, such as when we have a major project at work that consumes our time and attention. However, over the long haul, if we do not have a relative balance, we create dis-ease and dis-content for ourselves.

Moreover, we manifest in both the historical and ultimate dimensions simultaneous. In the historical dimension, we have birth, death, coming, going, being, nonbeing, same, different, male, female, and all sorts of other dualistic phenomena. However, in the ultimate dimension, which some call "God," "Nirvana," the "Tao," and so forth, we are one with all that is; we have never been born and we can never die. In the historical dimension, we are waves, while in the ultimate dimension, we are water or ocean.


I think we do, and I think we can in turn draw a conclusion that THIS realization may just be the absolute pinnacle of "higher" education. Now for the ever-present (yet ever-changing...huh?) paradox: it doesn't really matter which type of school one attends--same-sex or co-ed. Is that any kind of an answer? Of course not. It just begs the question: What type of school environment is most likely to foster this ultimate epiphany?
Consciousness, baby! It's all about consciousness.


Hey, does this qualify as a koan? First and Final word: Mu.

Metta

Todd R.

That's nicely signed. Thanks. With metta, you cannot go wrong.

Let me close with my own variation on the self-directed lovingkindness meditation.


I deserve to live in safety.
I deserve to be healthy.
I deserve to be happy.
I deserve to be prosperous.
I deserve to abide in the brahmaviharas.
I deserve to live with ease.

I am willing to live in safety.
I am willing to be healthy.
I am willing to be happy.
I am willing to be prosperous.
I am willing to abide in the brahmaviharas.
I am willing to live with ease.

May I live in safety.
May I be healthy.
May I be happy.
May I be prosperous.
May I abide in the brahmaviharas.
May I live with ease.

Have a great day!

Steve (aka AS)

Keep punching!


In a message dated 4/12/2006 5:51:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:

PS--I found INFINITE value in continuation of this discussion! Seek, and you will find! Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.....!

Todd R.

All right now AS--NOW I have you! Correct me if I'm wrong (figure of speech of course--I'm never wrong!), but you explicitly stated that (well, in truth I paraphrase) further discussion on this topic would be pointless and that we were quickly heading down the path of diminishing returns. Well, if we in fact did not pursue this a bit further, you would not have composed this absolutely brilliant response--and I mean that sincerely. The analysis and the expression of the ideas involved are superb, and I hope that you will consider inserting these insights into your book if you have not already done so. Of course, if one was so inclined, he or she could take issue that "spiritual", "emotional", "physical", etc. cannot be truly isolated and viewed independently from one another (sort of like electricity and magnetism can not be isolated). However, I believe a rational counterargument to that position would be that to articulate ANY idea necessitates the a priori assumption of independent "ideas" and "energies", even though at SOME "level" of "reality" (the "ultimate" level) this is an erroneous assumption (This is that). The fact is that in order to articulate these kinds of ideas effectively, one must compose words in such a way as that meaning can be derive BETWEEN the words themselves. That is the art and the craft at stake here. In my opinion, you have done that spectacularly. I must admit that I do like and agree with the notion that we are indeed spiritual beings having a human experience. I remember well the flash of insight when I first heard those words and reflected on them. They were EXTREMELY (fanatically ?) influential upon me, and caused me to drastically change the way I viewed reality. However, as you have so well pointed out, as one proceeds further on the journey (metaphorically speaking, I suppose), he or she comes to find (rather quickly, I might add) that things are not NEARLY that simple! I think one of the most challenging things to come to grips with is that the more we "learn" about "ourselves", the more exponentially complex, or multifaceted, we become. This is when we determine for ourselves that knowing "all" of "ourselves" is an exercise in futility (this actually hearkens me back to the uncertainty principle)...so we need not strive. Rather, we should take refuge in the journey itself, taking snapshots along the way. Well, I had better bail from this one while I have a chance! Your words above prompted a rush of thoughts, so I'm just rambling away here! I hope I haven't totally jumped the tracks! Take care AS. Appreciate the exhilaration! Shanti.

Todd R.

Cynicism lacks any real conviction. It doesn’t like the game as it’s being played, and so it spoils it. At bottom, cynicism is a cheap and shoddy response to a life we are afraid to love because it might, for a time, be painful. -- Julia Cameron, from The Sound of Paper

BACK FROM HAITUS

BACK FROM HAITUS

Warmest salutations everybody. Many famed detectives of lore have insisted that the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime. Well, what can I say, but that I dare not break a tradition that holds in such high regard. I may be a criminal, but I’m not about to break a law like that. That would just be plain and simple arrogance--kind of like defying gravity or something. Riddle me this, Batman. Why did I dismount the train of freedom and leave so many in the lurch? And why am I returning now? Is this some MOMENTOUS occasion or something? Okay, while all of us masterminds are on the same page, I’ll give you a hint. Remember Ockham’s Razor, which basically states that the simplest theory is usually the best theory (recall the KISS principle). What is the simplest theory? Well, I simply haven’t felt like writing anything in my blog for a while, and now I do feel like writing something in my blog. Simple as that. So is this some MOMENTOUS occasion? Of course it is. It is NOW. Anyway, now that I am here, I would like to thank everybody who has taken the time to leave comments on this site. Your words for the most part are quite flattering, and I do appreciate them. My good cyberspace comrades Steve and Vishwanthar (aka AS and VB) have been particularly kind with their remarks and critiques over the last several months, and it is actually some recent correspondence with Steve that prompted me to jot this entry (Please note that I take all credit, but any blame can go to him! The perfect scapegoat! HA!). A couple of days ago, Steve sent me an essay he wrote pertaining to his educational background. Having a passion for education and harboring many ideas on the topic myself, I responded. Steve thereby diligently responded to my response, and in turn, I responded to the response which was issued as a response to my response….uh, still with me? (If not, fear not. I lose myself all the time. It comes with the territory.) Anyway, feeling absolutely free and criminal, I am taking liberty to publish this conversation along with Steve’s original essay WITHOUT prior consent from the other party. Sorry Buddy, but that’s the way the TRAIN rolls! HA! Thanks again AS for your contributions! You’re always a great sport! (Sure hope all this copies right and transfers to the TRAIN!)


Some of my experiences in a single-sex school and why I am enthusiastic about them

In many respects, I think [that offering students in elementary, middle, and high schools the option of single-sex education] would be much better than the current system of mandatory co-ed schools. One of the great blessings of my life has been the opportunity to attend an all-boys high school. Of course, my school was a private school and, since I do not come from a rich family, my parents had to work very hard to provide that opportunity for my brother and me. I can’t thank them enough for that.I have a cousin who is close to my age who attended an all-girls high school. She has agreed with me that a big benefit to a single-sex educational environment is that the students don’t have to worry about impressing members of the opposite sex all the time! For high school kids, I think that’s a huge benefit.If you’re not worried about impressing the girls in your classes, you can be free to explore subjects that might otherwise be considered “unmanly” or “geeky” with a lot more ease. For example, I now earn part of my livelihood through writing. One of my high school English teachers, whom I’ll simply call “Mr. D” out of respect for his privacy, helped cultivate my interest in writing and enthusiasm for it. Leading us eager students--yes, “hungry students,” he called us--through Jack London’s novel Martin Eden, Mr. D showed us boys that writing could definitely be a manly pursuit.Mr. D had other interesting ways of teaching in an all-male environment. For instance, he would ask the class, “Who are we?” I remember the first few times he did that, my classmates and I would stare at each other with puzzled expressions on our faces or maybe push back a giggle that was bubbling up and demanding to be expressed. After getting a lot of blank stares, Mr. D would remind us, “We are young men seeking truth.” Damn! How could a kid not be inspired by such words? Here was a guy, maybe only 15 years older than we were, who was definitely manly, in a positive and healthy but certainly not fake or exaggerated sense--just a man confident in himself--who was challenging us to consider ourselves as men pursuing virtue. Heck, I am still inspired by that today!Mr. D also made writing assignments enjoyable. Instead of making us write about some fluffy literature that did not interest us, his assignments often included what he called “discovery essays.” Discovery essays were short compositions about topics that interested us. There were very few guidelines about acceptable subject matter, but we had to write about something new that we were exploring in almost any area of activity or about something that we had recently learned. We were very free with the choice of subjects about which we could write, but we did have to write well. Mr. D set high standards for the writing and I remember earning a “B” in his class. He gave out “A”s only rarely, so I felt great to have scored that “B”.The subjects of the essays were very diverse. We were free to write about sports, hobbies, pets, part-time jobs (for the many of us who worked to help pay school expenses, including yours truly), cars, school subjects--pretty much anything. At the time, I was pursuing a kind of unconventional curriculum. I decided to write some of my essays about music appreciation and music composition. I was an honors program dropout, not because I didn’t meet the grade standards (I did), but because I wanted to study music instead of a third year of math. Despite having gone on to earn a computer science degree and work in IT for 9 years after college, I do not regret my choice in the slightest. Taking those two years to study classical guitar with Mr. H (another incredibly inspiring and influential teacher) was a wise decision that I still savor, even 25+ years later. It set me on a path of exploring the great beauty, communication, common language, and emotional impact of music--a human cultural phenomenon that has often been called a “universal language.”Being in an all-boys environment helped me study French during all 4 years of high school in a place where it was not considered “gay” or “stupid” to learn about a foreign language and culture. That study prepared me very well for college courses in French where the classes were taught entirely in French (i.e., no English was spoken in the classes). Our teacher, Mr. G (again, an amazing man who knew how to deal with boys without being an asshole or heavy-handed) taught the 3rd and 4th years of French just like a university course: class met only 3 days a week and great emphasis was placed on study and preparation outside of class hours. What great grooming for university studies!In addition to all of this academic work, there was a hell of a lot of fun. We had a great sports program that included an incredible intramural program that was great for kids like me who had to work part-time to help pay expenses. Boxing was our most popular intramural sport and I competed in it all 4 years with varying degrees of success. I learned that there was nothing incompatible whatsoever between enthusiastically cultivating the life of the mind, on the one hand, and playing rough, but fun, contact sports, on the other.We had social events to which girls were invited. Those events were well organized and supervised. I don’t feel that my social life was harmed at all by attending an all-boys school. If anything, it was enhanced because I learned to set some boundaries in my life and learned not to allow some testosterone-crazed high school infatuation with a girl to rule my life or become the object of hallway gossip, which was sadly too common with friends who attended co-ed schools.If I’m waxing rhapsodic here about the “good old days” of high school, so be it. No, the setting wasn’t perfect, but what in life is perfect? (Hmm...is everything in life already perfect just as it is without our superimposing human judgments on it?) Nevertheless, having the opportunity to attend a single-sex school remains one of the great joys of my life. While school had some difficulties, there was nothing out of the ordinary. Yeah, several times I bemoaned the fact that there were no girls at our campus (especially in the springtime). However, I always knew that there would be some events in just a couple of days (on the weekend) when I would be able to meet plenty of attractive girls, so it was never a big deal. I enjoyed the camaraderie and close friendships I had with my classmates.Although it may be contrary to conventional “wisdom,” we had a lot fewer fights in our school than did co-educational high schools in our area. For one thing, there were no girls to fight over--a huge source of conflicts and potential violence. For another, we had strict, but fair, disciplinary rules. A fellow could get away with a lot of things if he put his mind to it, but fighting was not one of those things. Getting involved in a fight at school put a student on a disciplinary path that quickly led to expulsion. However, there was even a way around that because, instead of fighting, if two students holding a grudge would agree to a formal boxing match to work out their differences, the dean of students would arrange it for a certain date after school, with a referee (one of the athletic coaches) and seconds--the whole deal. I once participated in one of those bouts. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, I eventually became friends with the kid I fought.Would I have had all these opportunities in a school that was co-ed? Probably not. I’m not sure how it would have gone, really. However, I do think I would not have developed as wide a variety of interests and the level of self-confidence I now have in a more traditional co-ed environment. Might I have developed those things later? Perhaps. Perhaps not.In any case, I feel strongly about this issue because it has been important to me and to my brother. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to attend an all-boys school and I believe the option should be available to all students, at least for part of their formal education. Boys and girls do learn differently. We can recognize that and celebrate those differences and use the knowledge of those differences to enhance the educational opportunities for all children.

In a message dated 4/8/2006 1:44:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Spikereinhard writes:

Hey there AS. Thanks much for the excellent essay. I enjoyed reading it--but hey, I feel obliged to play the Devil's Advocate on this one--as is my wont (is it also my want???).

Awesome! I appreciate your comments, Todd. Thanks for taking the time to write and send them.


My theory is that you would have excelled in the academic fields regardless of the school you attended, so I do not accredit your achievements to the all-boys school.

Oh, I don't give the all-boys school all the credit for my doing well in school. Indeed, I did very well in college, too, and was surrounded by incredibly wonderful, and often beautiful to behold, young women. My basic point is that I felt I had more freedom to explore things in a more unconventional way. Note, too, that I said I might have done those things in a co-educational environment, too.


It is certainly well and good that you did enjoy and benefit from your experience, but in the main, I personally believe educational facilities should present even MORE diversity amongst the students and the faculty.

Hah. IMHO, diversity is in the eye of the beholder. While I agree with you in general that more diversity is a great thing (assuming, of course, that we can agree on a working definition of "diversity" that we can implement), I believe student and faculty populations can be diverse in many different ways. Perhaps it's not such a big issue for me because I grew up in a diverse, multicultural neighborhood, long before those words were used in common parlance and very long before they became an industry for consultants.


Certainly it is true that the presence of both "boys" and "girls" in the same school can present challenges--but that is life, and education should be founded and grounded upon principles that prepare one for life.

And there's the rub, my friend. While I certainly agree that education should prepare the students for life, The challenge is how best to achieve that. I began my essay by suggesting that giving students the option for single-sex schools would be a good thing, or at least better than mandating co-ed schools in all cases. I realize that different options will work better for different students. My cousin, whom I mentioned earlier, was pleased to be able to take courses in math and science without having to worry that boys in the class might be "better" in those subjects than she was, or getting caught up in the stereotypical and unfair lament that "Math is hard for girls." That's not an issue for all students, but it is for some.


Unlike you, I attended a co-ed high school, and I can attest to the problems that you address and expose, as I was a screw-off during my junior and senior years. However, the school district I attended was and still is one of the best in the state according to many polls, and it has turned out countless well-adjusted, well-informed students.

Of course it turned out such students, and that is great. I simply believe that we need more options in education. I understand that just because I had a great experience in high school, that does not mean everyone would. I do feel that some students could benefit from such an approach.


Perhaps I would have achieved higher marks and would have been more focused if I had attended an all-boys school--it is difficult to say--but my "intuition" says no...my "rebelliousness" and need for experimentation at that time in my life had little to do with the presence of girls in my school--it was much more nature than nurture, if you will.

What can I say? I can say that I believe students should have the single-sex option, but you already know that's how I see it.

It's possible that you would have been less focused in a different environment. Your environment seemed to suit you well. I am glad for you. My environment suited me well. Could I have thrived in other environments? As you said, I probably could have. My experiences would have been somewhat different, but I probably could have done well.

Maybe some of my enthusiasm is about simply being grateful for what one has, in this case my experiences.


In addition, I feel the stronger argument is that women are actually attracted by men who achieve academic success, so the presence of girls (young women) in schools should be a motivating factor for boys (young men) to diligently pursue their studies.


Intuitively, Todd, that point makes a great deal of sense to me. However, based on what I observed when I was a teen, it wasn't so simple. I remember knowing many girls who were very attractive and got good grades (whether at a traditional co-educational public school or an all-girls school) who dated boys who were into the "bad boy" attitude and not doing well in school. Maybe that is different these days; I don't know. I do remember scratching my head and trying to figure it out.

I like your idea. Because it seems intuitively right, it deserves greater exploration. My experience certainly might not be the norm, or even close to the norm. Indeed, I'd like very much for it to be true, for selfish reasons if for no other ones! I just don't think it's quite that simple. Again, I know I may be not seeing the issue clearly enough.


Like you Brother, I too am very passionate about education during all stages of "life".

I have learned some of that passion from my parents. They have always displayed a remarkable flexibility, adaptability, and willingness to explore and learn new things. I guess I am just a continuation of them in that respect.


In fact, I have often thought about writing a sort of "Utopia" book, and an EXTREMELY large piece of this book would be on principles of education.

Utopian ideas scare me, but I'll read your book anyway, if you decide to write it.


Many of those principles I have outlined in my "Parenting" articles on Train to Freedom, but another PRIMARY concept that I have not so much elaborated upon heretofore is that I strongly believe in early and continuous exposure to cultural DIVERSITY.

First, you did one hell of a good job on those "Parenting" articles. Pat yourself on the back for them. And update the blog already, will ya??

Second, I couldn't agree with you more on the "early and continuous exposure to cultural DIVERSITY." I grew up in a very diverse neighborhood and attended a very diverse elementary school. (Despite the absence of the fairer sex, my high school was pretty diverse, too.) As a result, what we now call "diversity" was simply the natural state of things. I grew up seeing the other kids just as other boys and girls and didn't think of them as members of African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, "whites," or any other group.

Girls and women do not cause violence any more than do African Americans or Hispanics or Jews or Pagans.

No, and in fairness to me, I didn't say they caused violence. I *might* have been guilty of something *bordering on* a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy--note the emphases on "might" and "bordering on"--in observing the greater number of fights in the co-ed schools I knew of at the time. There could have been other factors, so perhaps I drew my inference to hastily. However, I stand by my observation that at least one factor was removed from my school's environment.


Ignorance manifested as intolerance and disrespect is the root cause of violence. I am probably becoming tangential at this point, but I do strongly believe that language studies and comparative religion studies instilled throughout each and every individual's academic careers would yield a considerable reduction in violence and crime in general.

Yes, yes, yes! Now you are preaching to the sangha! Can I get an "amen," dharma brother???

Those are good points. We also need mindfulness in there somewhere.


Anyway AS, I hope you have taken offense to my offense!

Hmm...now where did I put those gloves??? Heh heh.

(I know you corrected that sentence to insert "not" before "taken," but I liked it the first way!

You make a good spokesman for the single-sex case, but in the main, I am not convinced that it is the way to go.

Again, I think it should be an option, not required for everyone.

Keep punching, and take care.

Todd R.

Always keep punching! And throw more punches, too--at least more than the other fellow! Unless, of course, the other fellow is me.


PS--Tonight, PBF will annihilate Zab! I'm calling for an 8th round TKO. This fight will be a mismatch, but PBF will put on a show and carry him for the sake of those who are willing to pay 50 bucks to watch it. Such is the business of prize-fighting.

Yeah, I agree with your prediction. Hey, 7 rounds and a fraction of an 8th are reasonable. I am still not keen on the whole PPV deal, but that's another rant for another time!

Cheers,

AS

Tops to you AS. Since you have taken the time to write such a detailed response to my commentary on your essay, I feel obliged, in the spirit of friendly banter of course, to reciprocate. In truth, I have nothing to rebut, although I do have a couple of questions, qualifications, and elaborations...for the sake of clarification. First off, by "diversity" I simply mean "variety", more specifically as it refers to differences in people and personalities. Certainly all words to some degree derive their meanings through the eyes of the beholders, but I do think that most would agree that men and women are fundamentally "different" in many aspects (if we didn't assume this ab initio, this discussion would not be unfolding), and therefore, eliminating women entirely from a milieu is necessarily eliminating a significant source of "diversity". Don't get me wrong though. I do understand what you are saying about diversity being a difficult term to pin down, for certainly one cannot meaningfully "quantify" "diverse" characteristics that exist amongst individuals. My main contention is that, owing to the fact that approximately half of the world population is comprised of women, it generally behooves men to be exposed to their ways of viewing the world, which, as I asserted before, tend to be fundamentally different in many respects from those of their counterparts (for better or for worse, I might add). I believe, that in the main, a school environment should be as representative as possible of the larger global "population" in regard to gender and cultural "diversity". (An all-boys school over represents the y-chromosome!)
One question I have for you is "What compelled you to choose an all-boys school?" I raise this question because in general, I agree with you that educational options should be available, and I agree with you that people learn differently in different environments. However, it makes sense to me that a compelling reason should exist before a student should deviate from the norm, so to speak. For example, in the case that a bright boy continues to neglect his studies in a conventional co-ed school and ascribes the motives behind his slack to an attraction to girls, then perhaps it is best for that boy to attend an all-boys school as an experiment. Or perhaps he should try a study-at-home protocol...or whatever. The point I am attempting to make is that I believes options should exist, but conventions should at first be attempted. After all, one has to start somewhere. Why not with the "conventional" approach? If it doesn't seem to work, THEN there is a compelling reason to change and try something a bit more unorthodox.
You have mentioned your cousin and her experience with mathematics. This is a particularly interesting point, and it is in fact one that ties with some of my former comments about boys and girls being "fundamentally" different in various respects. Indeed, studies continue to show that boys outscore girls in mathematic and "science" skills. Girls, on the other hand, tend to outscore boys in reading and writing skills, and they show a greater degree of "emotional intelligence". I do believe that the educational environment and self-fulfilling prophecies have a lot to do with these findings. However, I do not intuitively believe that the way to enhance a girl's math skills or to enhance a boy's language skills is to isolate boys from girls. In fact, I believe that the opposite approach should be taken. Interactive learning is a great conduit for higher education, and I believe that boy students should be working in conjunction with girl students in learning and teaching roles. The idea here is cooperative learning and teaching. Your cousin feared competition with boys in mathematics, at least that is how it appears to boil down. An educational system should be set up to dilute this fear by endorsing cooperation. If one thinks about it, there is really no sound reason why the aforementioned statistics should exist. Mathematics is really nothing more than a type of language, and the converse is also true (of course)--language behaves very "mathematically". It is not correct to say that mathematics is "analytical" and language is "creative" or "intuitive". The fact is that mathematics, at its heart, is creative and expressive. Of course it is also analytical. Likewise, reading and writing are creative and expressive, but they can also be subjected to analysis and "scientific" scrutiny. If boys and girls can work TOGETHER, they could all benefit tremendously. In the process, they would be obtaining a great deal of "emotional intelligence". What is the "teacher's" role in all of this? Well, pretty much the usual--guidance and supervision. But he or she should inspire the overarching notion that deep learning and understanding is greatly enhanced through the act of teaching itself. Therefore, it behooves the "students" to play the role of "teachers" to each other. In this way, you create a microcosm for many of my "Utopian" ideals--which brings me to my final question (oooo--at long last!). Why does the idea of "Utopia" scare you? I think we all have our ideas of a sort of "Utopia". I think it is "hardwired" in our neurons, so to speak, to think of how our ideal world would be. It's basically just our own perspectives of heaven, I suppose. At least, that is how I meant it. I didn't necessarily mean it to be in keeping with the St. Thomas Moore's original. Well Bro, I think that pretty much covers everything for now. Oh yes--somebody should press charges against R. Mayweather. That behavior is just criminally stupid. At least the gloved combatants seemed to make amends after the show. Take care Ace. Hit me whenever. Pax tibi sit.

Todd R.