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.
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.
posted by Todd Reinhard at 2:11 PM
2 Comments:
Hey guys,
Thanks, vb, for your observation. As I have mentioned to Todd, I want more options available. (I still owe Todd a reply to his most recent response to my response...). However, I want more choices rather than fewer. I thrived in my high school environment. Maybe others would not. They deserve to have opportunities that will work best for them.
I will say, at this point (and hopefully to be developed better) that I do not buy the argument that because the world contains both men and women that the best way to educate children and young adults (and even older adults, for that matter) is necessarily to educate them together at all stages of the educational process. At some level, I do think familiarity can breed contempt; I just don't know exactly where that level is.
Anyway, more to follow and hopefully very soon! Thanks, gentlemen, for keeping my brain stimulated. :)
Thanks again for the comments warrior scholars. Steve, I am very much looking forward to your in-depth response--and I can hardly take credit (or blame?) for keeping your head stimulated! But before digging into too deeply with those body shots, let me point out that I do not disagree with you that options should be available. I do believe, however, that unless there is compelling evidence that a child will not or can not achieve his or her full potential in an "orthodox" educational system, there is no reason to deviate. I mean basically, why be a rebel without a cause? (Hyperbole here of course!) Also, I agree that familiarity can and does breed contempt. However, I believe it is important to ask and to find out why this is. I believe the only way we can find a suitable answer is to work through that situation and in that situation. As I have said, an EXTREMELY large focus in education must be on garnering EMOTIONAL intelligence, and this can be best achieved by exposure in most situations--or so it is my opinion and my experience. Again, I am not making any ABSOLUTE criteria here, as most of those type of statements turn out to be false, but I do believe, that, in the main, we need to work with one another. There will inevitably be problems--but learning to work through them together is part of the educational experience. It is the learning and art of diplomacy, of communication. That is a challenge, but school IS a challenge, and it should be a challenge. Well, enough of me for a while. Seems kind of silly commenting on my own blog, doesn't it? HA! Take care Brethren! Metta.
Todd R.
Post a Comment
<< Home