David Brooks’ column this week surprised me – not because he makes a case for gender-separate education, but because a normally articulate columnist is reduced to ridiculous generalizations to make his points.
AAUW did pretty extensive research on gender-separate education in the 90’s and came up with a clear conclusion: it’s good for girls, but not for boys. Girls relax in a more cooperative, less competitive atmosphere where they can excel without fear of not being feminine enough. Boys, however, are left with each other – competitive and annoying. They generally don’t learn more or achieve more.
But Brooks ignores this research completely, relying instead on one random author to make his case. He then throws out some ridiculous statements:
For example: “…these new-wave young adult problem novels, which all seem to be about…” – has he read them all? How on earth would he know what they “all” are about? There is a ton of young-adult literature out there today. I’m an English teacher & I haven’t begun to read it all.
And “…men and women can excel at any subject. They just have to be taught in different ways.” Have to? Or else what – they will fail to learn? Such a sweeping statement is easily refuted by just a glace through several centuries of American education.
Too bad Brooks didn’t do his homework – he could have written a meaningful piece instead of a superficial, one-sided argument that will go no further than entertaining dinner-table conversation.
Read the column “The Gender Gap at School” at http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html?8qa
No comments:
Post a Comment