Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we should clarify that the boys are in crisis is really that white boys are in crisis. This is a new development.

Are they? Their college enrollment numbers are much better than other races. But there are fewer men than women enrolled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

People say this but schools are built MORE for jumping around and learning tactilely than they have been at pretty much any other point in human history. It doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

If anyone has any insights into international school systems I would love to hear some opinions of this. I know that most East Asian countries and the Scandinavian seem to do school better than us, do they also have this problem of unequal success between genders and the need for physicality from the boys? Do they have any solutions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we should clarify that the boys are in crisis is really that white boys are in crisis. This is a new development.

Exactly. Women and minorities were told to "just work harder". They did. They surpassed the white boys. Now it's an injustice? Give me a flippin break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

Simmer down.
I’ve got two girls and a boy. I’m just reporting what I’m seeing. In a private K-12 school as well. Very wealthy population.

Don't start a fight you can't finish. School isn't failing your son, you and your son are failing school in a way that didn't happen in previous generations.

Pin your hopes on your daughters and plan for trade school for your son. That's what happens when he can't hack the academics, and there's no shame in it. (Don't worry, you can pretend at the country club that he's an artist.) But blaming schools and girls when the only thing that changed was boys' ability to cope? Hell no.

What are you moaning about?

My son is at an Ivy. I’m the one who posted earlier. I’m just trying to offer you a counter perspective. Perhaps you can’t take a minute to open your eyes.

This is what I see with his friends and their cohort. Including one brilliant kid who recently dropped out of college. 35 ACT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

People say this but schools are built MORE for jumping around and learning tactilely than they have been at pretty much any other point in human history. It doesn't make sense.

Another lie. Used to be half day kindergarten, now it's full. How is that for MORE jumping around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

How was the environment modified for girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

People say this but schools are built MORE for jumping around and learning tactilely than they have been at pretty much any other point in human history. It doesn't make sense.

Another lie. Used to be half day kindergarten, now it's full. How is that for MORE jumping around?

That's one piece of information. The schooling system as a whole was much more structured, with less movement, and experimentation in the past. Believe me, I'm a man who was a boy a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

If anyone has any insights into international school systems I would love to hear some opinions of this. I know that most East Asian countries and the Scandinavian seem to do school better than us, do they also have this problem of unequal success between genders and the need for physicality from the boys? Do they have any solutions?

I grew up in Europe and everyone sat quietly in their seats and did their work with zero issues. Everyone was respectful, raised their hand when they wanted to speak, there was no nonsense in the classroom. There was one teacher for 40 of us most of the time. One lesson was taught to all of us at the same time. Coming to the US for college was such a shock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

Ranks of desks and the requirement to sit quietly at them. A single instructor delivering a lecture. Subject matter blocks. Tests. The way school has been for hundreds of years, long before girls were even allowed through the door.

When our grandparents went to school there was no milling around the room, no sitting in the beanbag to calm down, no phones/games. A transistor radio would get you suspended, and now kids openly bring their Switch to class. (My god, the crap they let boys get away with... My daughters told me about the behavior tolerated from boys in their school and I was appalled.)

The double standard is wild, and still the parents of boys complain all day. Dress code is the glaring example, but girls' tone is policed as well, and their academic work is assessed unfairly. My daughter and her boyfriend compared the notes from a teacher on a written assignment, and my daughter was docked a point for a misspelling. Her boyfriend had misspelled the same word, and the teacher let it go without comment.

Raise better boys. That's all I can tell you. I personally am DONE accommodating mediocre men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

I'm a former teacher and I would love to hear about how school has been modified to meet girls' needs at the detriment to boys. And a warning to you (since I anticipate a non answer or a lie)...everyone here went to school K-12 and remembers what it was like. If anything, schooling had a much higher standard for discipline and rote memorization. Hence, the magnet options like Arlington Traditional School. But please, enlighten us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should clarify that the boys are in crisis is really that white boys are in crisis. This is a new development.

Exactly. Women and minorities were told to "just work harder". They did. They surpassed the white boys. Now it's an injustice? Give me a flippin break.

Women are doing pretty well. But I don't think this is racial thing. It's not like black boys are doing great either. Black and Hispanic boys are still doing way worse than white and Asian boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

Simmer down.
I’ve got two girls and a boy. I’m just reporting what I’m seeing. In a private K-12 school as well. Very wealthy population.

Don't start a fight you can't finish. School isn't failing your son, you and your son are failing school in a way that didn't happen in previous generations.

Pin your hopes on your daughters and plan for trade school for your son. That's what happens when he can't hack the academics, and there's no shame in it. (Don't worry, you can pretend at the country club that he's an artist.) But blaming schools and girls when the only thing that changed was boys' ability to cope? Hell no.

What are you moaning about?

My son is at an Ivy. I’m the one who posted earlier. I’m just trying to offer you a counter perspective. Perhaps you can’t take a minute to open your eyes.

This is what I see with his friends and their cohort. Including one brilliant kid who recently dropped out of college. 35 ACT.

You cannot be serious. You are trying to blame these spoiled rich kids' K-12 education for their crappy behavior? Sounds like the education was just fine. The kid learned enough to score a 35 and get into college. Blame it on poor parenting or poor mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now.

We have not made it cool though to be a smart boy.

And our schools are failing boys generally. They are set up for girls to succeed and sit quietly in classrooms, but not for boys to jump around and learn, tactilely or experientially.

This is such blatant goal-post moving. For the entire history of formal education until 25 years ago, boys did just fine in school. Girls were supposed to be ill-suited for academic rigor. Too delicate, too emotional, or whatever. Now that girls excel in the environment that was built for boys, it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit.

What do you mean built for boys? They modified the environment to benefit the girls. What do you know, you can't serve both well at the same time.

Ranks of desks and the requirement to sit quietly at them. A single instructor delivering a lecture. Subject matter blocks. Tests. The way school has been for hundreds of years, long before girls were even allowed through the door.

When our grandparents went to school there was no milling around the room, no sitting in the beanbag to calm down, no phones/games. A transistor radio would get you suspended, and now kids openly bring their Switch to class. (My god, the crap they let boys get away with... My daughters told me about the behavior tolerated from boys in their school and I was appalled.)

The double standard is wild, and still the parents of boys complain all day. Dress code is the glaring example, but girls' tone is policed as well, and their academic work is assessed unfairly. My daughter and her boyfriend compared the notes from a teacher on a written assignment, and my daughter was docked a point for a misspelling. Her boyfriend had misspelled the same word, and the teacher let it go without comment.

Raise better boys. That's all I can tell you. I personally am DONE accommodating mediocre men.

You mean back when an 8th grade education was enough? Or when some kids didn't show up at all because the schools didn't take their kind? Or when corporal punishment was allowed? Or when parents reinforced the punishments at home for bad behavior? A LOT of things have changed since those days.