Georgetown Prep is taking a beating with this Kanvanugh scandal...does it deserve it?

[Anonymous]

Both girls and boys thrive in single-sex classrooms. If psychotic lawyers didn't rule the roost, public schools would switch to single-sex classrooms and society would be better for it.

I went to a girls' school K-12. I agree that girls' schools are superior to co-ed schools for girls. But the same is not true of boys single-sex education. No way.

[Anonymous]

I went to school 10 years after Kavanaugh and have no trouble believing Ford's story. The atmosphere described matches what I remember as well. Are any of you defenders actually alums or all parents anxious about the street value of DS's diploma? It's a toxic environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Both girls and boys thrive in single-sex classrooms. If psychotic lawyers didn't rule the roost, public schools would switch to single-sex classrooms and society would be better for it.

I went to a girls' school K-12. I agree that girls' schools are superior to co-ed schools for girls. But the same is not true of boys single-sex education. No way.

Why should it be superior? Perhaps it was for you but my experience, as a quirky, nerdy girl in a an all-girls school with more than its share the of queen bees was less than optimal. Co-ed college was much better.

[Anonymous]

This thread is both disgusting and sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

Oh, so everyone's sons need to be put in more distracting settings and have their confidence beat out of them for a "real education"?

fyi, boys have lower GPAs but for the last 40 years have still outperformed girls on SAT math. Many PhDs and MDs argue single-sex classrooms help boys thrive.

So sitting in a classroom full of boys who might do better than them academically is good for them, but sharing a classroom with girls who might do better than them academically is having "their confidence beat out of them"? I'm not sure whether to hope you knew the implications of that or you didn't when you posted it, but neither is a good look.

Both girls and boys thrive in single-sex classrooms. If psychotic lawyers didn't rule the roost, public schools would switch to single-sex classrooms and society would be better for it.

Choose your poison.

THE PROS
• Makes boys less competitive and more cooperative and collaborative
• Makes girls feel less pressure as they mature and develop
• Increases staff sensitivity and awareness of gender diff erences
• Improves peer interaction
• Provides positive same-gender role models
• Provides more opportunities to pursue academic and extracurricular endeavors without racial and gender stereotypes
• Is less distracting than co-ed environments

THE CONS
• Promotes gender stereotyping
• Undermines gender equality
• Doesn’t prepare students for work or family life
• Makes exclusion acceptable
• Doesn’t value diversity
• Deprives access to mainstream programs
• Doesn’t socialize students to be less sexist
• Expensive to run two parallel programs

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/singleeduc.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

Oh, so everyone's sons need to be put in more distracting settings and have their confidence beat out of them for a "real education"?

fyi, boys have lower GPAs but for the last 40 years have still outperformed girls on SAT math. Many PhDs and MDs argue single-sex classrooms help boys thrive.

So sitting in a classroom full of boys who might do better than them academically is good for them, but sharing a classroom with girls who might do better than them academically is having "their confidence beat out of them"? I'm not sure whether to hope you knew the implications of that or you didn't when you posted it, but neither is a good look.

Both girls and boys thrive in single-sex classrooms. If psychotic lawyers didn't rule the roost, public schools would switch to single-sex classrooms and society would be better for it.

Choose your poison.

THE PROS
• Makes boys less competitive and more cooperative and collaborative
• Makes girls feel less pressure as they mature and develop
• Increases staff sensitivity and awareness of gender diff erences
• Improves peer interaction
• Provides positive same-gender role models
• Provides more opportunities to pursue academic and extracurricular endeavors without racial and gender stereotypes
• Is less distracting than co-ed environments

THE CONS
• Promotes gender stereotyping
• Undermines gender equality
• Doesn’t prepare students for work or family life
• Makes exclusion acceptable
• Doesn’t value diversity
• Deprives access to mainstream programs
• Doesn’t socialize students to be less sexist
• Expensive to run two parallel programs

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/singleeduc.pdf

That is a pretty weak 5-page (with giant font, mind you) summary that doesn't even specify if they are talking about K-12, 6-8, 9-12, one year, one class, entire education, or what? Most kids who spend some time in a single sex school also spend time in a co-ed school. They get the best of both worlds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

Oh, so everyone's sons need to be put in more distracting settings and have their confidence beat out of them for a "real education"?

fyi, boys have lower GPAs but for the last 40 years have still outperformed girls on SAT math. Many PhDs and MDs argue single-sex classrooms help boys thrive.

So sitting in a classroom full of boys who might do better than them academically is good for them, but sharing a classroom with girls who might do better than them academically is having "their confidence beat out of them"? I'm not sure whether to hope you knew the implications of that or you didn't when you posted it, but neither is a good look.

Both girls and boys thrive in single-sex classrooms. If psychotic lawyers didn't rule the roost, public schools would switch to single-sex classrooms and society would be better for it.

Choose your poison.

THE PROS
• Makes boys less competitive and more cooperative and collaborative
• Makes girls feel less pressure as they mature and develop
• Increases staff sensitivity and awareness of gender diff erences
• Improves peer interaction
• Provides positive same-gender role models
• Provides more opportunities to pursue academic and extracurricular endeavors without racial and gender stereotypes
• Is less distracting than co-ed environments

THE CONS
• Promotes gender stereotyping
• Undermines gender equality
• Doesn’t prepare students for work or family life
• Makes exclusion acceptable
• Doesn’t value diversity
• Deprives access to mainstream programs
• Doesn’t socialize students to be less sexist
• Expensive to run two parallel programs

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/singleeduc.pdf

You know this is not a study. It’s a student who took info from various sources and paste that into this doc.

Oh, and I can also find a study which shows the value of single sex schools.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22222.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I laugh when I see the national media refer to Prep as an "elite private school." If they're referring to academics, it's far from elite. Even calling it second-tier is something that you'd only hear from boosters.

Have you heard the term...perception is reality?

Whether the "elite" narrative is deserved or not, interest in the school from prospective applicants is very high.

There will still be 4 applications for every 1 slot.

Sure - but that doesn't make them elite. Elite is when nobody bother to apply without standardized test percentile scores in the 80s-90s. The fact that a lot of mediocre students with money want to opt out of their local public doesn't make you "elite" academically.

The kids I know who have attended Prep are the ones who are debating whether to go there versus Bullis or Good Counsel, not SFS, STA or GDS.

Brains do NOT make you elite. Money makes you elite. If you think differently, you must be an immigrant.

Because immigrants don't have money? Really? I can name a few Saudi Prince's and scion's of Asian businessmen who would laugh at that.

No, because only an immigrant could have such an idealized picture of America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. I have a son at an all male HS that is also being mentioned on this thread. Most of these students attended coed schools before HS so it's not like they have never been in a classroom with girls before. He has a part-time job and works with women and girls a few days a week during the school year and all summer long. His boss is a woman. His favorite teacher at the school is a woman. The vast majority of the moms at the school work. I am the primary breadwinner in our house and my DS knows that. He freely admits his younger sister is a better athlete. Stereotypes and prejudices like yours help me to realize even more the value of an all male HS.

I have yet to meet a Prep or Gonzaga kid with a working mother. That's part of the whole cultural attitude that breeds these boys.

You have got to be kidding me. So you don't have a son at either school and you must not know more than a very few moms from those schools -- OR you're just lying. I couldn't even begin to try to list the many and varied careers of the professional women who have sons at these schools, even just the ones in my extended circles. Suffice it to say there are doctors, nurses, lawyers, educational professionals (teachers/professionals/admins), tech execs, business owners, and feds among many others. And I'd venture to guess that even among the non-working mothers the vast majority are highly educated, with successful careers behind them. I would say that the parent body is very comparable to that of the highly rated co-ed public schools that my kids also attended.

[Anonymous]

I came into this discussion because I didn't have an opinion of Georgetown Prep at all before this (didn't grow up around here, live in Virginia, we don't do private school) and was curious to learn more. You've all done a great job of convincing me that it's a cesspool. And by "you," I don't mean the anti-Prep folks, I mean the people defending it. It's like you're determined to prove all the worst stereotypes of all-male schools.

[Anonymous]

These things also happened at the publics around here too. This isn't exclusive to privates or single sex. It happened/happens at every school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that these kids live in 1952. Their mother's don't work(compared to 70% of mother's nationwide). They arent seeing girls outperform them in class, which is what happens at every coed school. They don't learn to see women as equals. Add in the one upsmanship, and you get a bunch of swaggerers who objectify women. I know people who teach at all male Catholic high schools. They tell me that their students are complete sexists.

The problem is you don't know what you are talking about. I have a son at an all male HS that is also being mentioned on this thread. Most of these students attended coed schools before HS so it's not like they have never been in a classroom with girls before. He has a part-time job and works with women and girls a few days a week during the school year and all summer long. His boss is a woman. His favorite teacher at the school is a woman. The vast majority of the moms at the school work. I am the primary breadwinner in our house and my DS knows that. He freely admits his younger sister is a better athlete. Stereotypes and prejudices like yours help me to realize even more the value of an all male HS.

I have yet to meet a Prep or Gonzaga kid with a working mother. That's part of the whole cultural attitude that breeds these boys.

That says more about the circles you travel in than Prep or Gonzaga mothers.

I am the immediate PP, a Gonzaga mother and every single Gonzaga mother I know works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I came into this discussion because I didn't have an opinion of Georgetown Prep at all before this (didn't grow up around here, live in Virginia, we don't do private school) and was curious to learn more. You've all done a great job of convincing me that it's a cesspool. And by "you," I don't mean the anti-Prep folks, I mean the people defending it. It's like you're determined to prove all the worst stereotypes of all-male schools.

You really thing your public is any better? Think again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came into this discussion because I didn't have an opinion of Georgetown Prep at all before this (didn't grow up around here, live in Virginia, we don't do private school) and was curious to learn more. You've all done a great job of convincing me that it's a cesspool. And by "you," I don't mean the anti-Prep folks, I mean the people defending it. It's like you're determined to prove all the worst stereotypes of all-male schools.

You really thing your public is any better? Think again?

My public isn't all-male, so right there we avoid that dynamic, which you all have done nothing to convince me isn't highly problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came into this discussion because I didn't have an opinion of Georgetown Prep at all before this (didn't grow up around here, live in Virginia, we don't do private school) and was curious to learn more. You've all done a great job of convincing me that it's a cesspool. And by "you," I don't mean the anti-Prep folks, I mean the people defending it. It's like you're determined to prove all the worst stereotypes of all-male schools.

You really thing your public is any better? Think again?

My public isn't all-male, so right there we avoid that dynamic, which you all have done nothing to convince me isn't highly problematic.

This has nothing to do with all male. I went to public high school here and they had the same kind of parties. Don't kid yourself this is an all male school or private school issue.