Reply to Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys.

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Scott Galloway how to save teenage boys."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We have made it culturally cool to be a smart girl now. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [i]built for boys[/i], it's unfair to boys? That's some bullshit. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

If you don’t know this stuff you haven’t kept up.  “The War on Boys” is a place to start. [b] If you are a former teacher and haven’t heard of this issue, you don’t belong in the classroom.
[/b]
Anyway, my boys are fine — I have removed them from public school and placed them in a more appropriate private, and they are thriving.  I just feel sorry for the ones left behind.  [/quote]

form·er1
/ˈfôrmər/
adjective
1.
having previously filled a particular role or been a particular thing.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? FORMER = not in a classroom. Just because you read (and evidently, you struggle with this) does not make you an expert or even vaguely qualified to opine on this issue. I have taught and volunteered extensively in my kids' classrooms. Parents deserve the lion's share of blame when their boys aren't doing well.

[/quote]

Lol.  What a correction!  No wonder you “retired.”  [b]Seriously, that book is widely known and has been out for 25 years, and you aren’t aware of it?  Did you have no interest whatsoever in education?  How do you not know the basic literature in your field?  It’s like an English teacher never having read Shakespeare.[/b]  Do public school kids even read Shakespeare any more?  Sure, everything is fine with our education system![/quote]

Here is some information on the author of “The War on Boys," Christina Hoff Sommers, whose work is allegedly "basic literature" in field of education.

Sommers created a video "course" for the conservative website PragerU and has appeared on Red Ice's white nationalist podcast Radio 3Fourteen.

Does anyone need any more information about how unqualified she is or more proof that PP is a nutjob?

[/quote]

I mean the article was in The Atlantic, it wasn’t some fringe theory.  Do you think Caitlin Flanagan is a nut job?  Bari Weiss?  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics