This is your President

>>So, again, I ask you... when they graduate with their inability to excel in coed environments... How will they compete for jobs with those who can do everything they can do, and do it in diverse, dual-gender work environments?<<

Quite well, or at least all my friends who were educated in single sex environments seem too.

Just because your educated in a single-sex classroom, does not mean that suddenly you can't work when there are people of the other sex around. It just means that in certain areas of the school curriculum girls and boys have less distractions and can learn better, something that you need to get into University let alone get a MBA!

As an exampe my mother was educated in a single-sex classroom and went on to be a University Medalist (she got the highest scores of her year). She also works in a dual gendered environment (one of the busiest veterinarian hospitals in Brisbane) and is considered one of the best employees, often being asked to step in and mediate between other staff members. She is also the person who deals with the hardest and most difficult clients (show breeders of both sexes, or so she says) and is compentent at that too... WoW! Pretty impressive for someone who was educated in a single-sex classroom!

I also remembered today, a study in which they seperated the english classes in an Australian school into single-sex classes of boys and girls. Everything else ran exactly the same way for the rest of the semester (they all ate lunch together, there was no seperation in other classes). At the end of the semester the students were asked if they wanted to go back to their old classrooms. The answer was a resounding NO. Every class said that not only did they want to stay single-sexed, they wondered if they ould possibly change their other classes too.

I will try to find that study for you. I don't promise anything because we are coming up to exams, and the Uni library is always a mess this time of year (Why can't people reshelve things properly~! ), but I will try!

Kit

 

>>So, again, I ask you... when they graduate with their inability to excel in coed environments... How will they compete for jobs with those who can do everything they can do, and do it in diverse, dual-gender work environments?<<

Quite well, or at least all my friends who were educated in single sex environments seem too.

I don't know where they interviewed, but they wouldn't land any of the jobs I've interviewed for... My question wasn't "How do you think they will fare?" My question was, "By what means are they going to get the job when an employer is interviewing 30 other candidates with the same qualifications, or more, and the demonstrated ability to function consistently above the mark in dual-gender team environments?

Just because your educated in a single-sex classroom, does not mean that suddenly you can't work when there are people of the other sex around. It just means that in certain areas of the school curriculum girls and boys have less distractions and can learn better, something that you need to get into University let alone get a MBA!

Let's say I'm an employer... I don't know any of this stuff... all I see is a bunch of candidates who are equally poised, and yet have the advantage of having a history of excelling in dual-gender, diverse environments.

As an exampe my mother was educated in a single-sex classroom and went on to be a University Medalist (she got the highest scores of her year). She also works in a dual gendered environment (one of the busiest veterinarian hospitals in Brisbane) and is considered one of the best employees, often being asked to step in and mediate between other staff members. She is also the person who deals with the hardest and most difficult clients (show breeders of both sexes, or so she says) and is compentent at that too... WoW! Pretty impressive for someone who was educated in a single-sex classroom!

So if people educated in single-sex classrooms can go out into the world and perform exceedingly well in dual-gender environments, you just proved to me there's no reason my tax dollars should fund single-sex classrooms in the first place... considering even your mother seems fully capable of working around males. Or did she instantaneously acquire that ability only the minute they handed her the piece of paper with her name and "Diploma" on it?

I also remembered today, a study in which they seperated the english classes in an Australian school into single-sex classes of boys and girls. Everything else ran exactly the same way for the rest of the semester (they all ate lunch together, there was no seperation in other classes). At the end of the semester the students were asked if they wanted to go back to their old classrooms. The answer was a resounding NO. Every class said that not only did they want to stay single-sexed, they wondered if they ould possibly change their other classes too.

Just because a study shows that if you expose children long enough to racism, Nazism, Fascism (or gender bias, for that matter) and they come to accept it after being immersed in that environment doesn't mean the study actually proves their performance was better... It only proves you can brainwash kids into believing anything you tell them.

I will try to find that study for you. I don't promise anything because we are coming up to exams, and the Uni library is always a mess this time of year (Why can't people reshelve things properly~! ), but I will try!

So far, it seems the study only addresses the ability to brainwash kids minds...not of increasing their performance strictly by the virtue of gender isolation.

But hey, thanks for trying.

As for my original question about why I should hire you when I'm looking at other candidates with the same abilities, skills, educational level and a proven history of performing well in dual-gender environments throughout their work and education... Why on earth should I hire you (instead of them)?

Please answer the question being asked,

 

In response to Kimball Kinnison's post:

If you choose to do so, there is no problem. No rights are violated. If I passed a law stating "Cheveyo must sit at the back of the bus", then your rights would be violated. You still have not explained why it is wrong to allow a voluntary separation by sex.

If it were mandated that all public schools had to be single sex (or even any percentage of them), I would agree that the program is wrong. However, if no one is being forced to participate, what is your problem with it? Neither your rights nor the rights of anyone else are infringed by providing the option.


You are arguing that as long as it's optional, it's fair.

Given the option, I daresay plenty of "whites" in the 1960's would have chosen a segregated classroom, leaving the "blacks" just as segregated, whether they had chosen to be or not. (I'm sure there are still some who would love to have this choice today, but are not allowed to by the public school system.)

Let us suppose, then, that all of the girls (or all of the parents of all of the girls) in a particular school district decide that they would be better off in single-sex classrooms. Now suppose that the boys (and/or their parents) feel they would be better served by a dual-gender classroom. Haven't they essentially been denied that choice if there are no such classrooms available?

 

Let us suppose, then, that all of the girls (or all of the parents of all of the girls) in a particular school district decide that they would be better off in single-sex classrooms. Now suppose that the boys (and/or their parents) feel they would be better served by a dual-gender classroom. Haven't they essentially been denied that choice if there are no such classrooms available?

Let's look at it from another perspective: If all the boys decided to attend a same-sex private school, whould you then advocate bringing boys in from another district to compensate? Otherwise, you are forcing all the girls to attend same-sex schools as well. (FYI: enforced busing for purposes of forcibly desegregation has been found to be unconstitutional when applied by race. I expect that the same standard would be applied to gender as well.)

Something similar did happen after the Civil Rights movement started to build up momentum. As "blacks" moved into predominantly "white" neighborhoods, more and more "whites" moved out. The government (other than busing people to different schools) could do very little about that, and even the things they could do were later (mostly) ruled unconstitutional. If people other people exercise their right to choose, then there is little you can do to change their choices. You should not be able to force parents to have their children attend co-ed schools, if they don't want to, just because YOU don't like it?

Why should taxpayers (who pay for the public schools) not be allowed to have a say in how they operate? If there is enough support among those who pay the taxes for such a program, who are you to demand that they enroll their children in private schools (while still forcing them to fund public schools that they are not using) in order to get the education they want?

It is logically inconsistent to say that it is unconstitutional to give vouchers to parents (in actuality providing a refund for the educational services they are not using) because the money might go to a religious school, and then turn around and say that those same taxpayers should just shut up and take whatever education their children are given in public schools. Which way do you want it? Allow same-sex public schools/classrooms or reimburse taxpayers who do not use the public schools system (even if they wind up paying for a religious school). Remember, those tax dollars are not owned by the government, but entrusted to the government.

You can't have it both ways.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball: You can be certain I do not advocate forcing your children to go to a particular school.

However, like you said... it's up to us to decide how our money is spent collectively (and individually).

There could potentially be certain tax reforms that would ensure that homeschooled, or privately-schooled children's families receive tax credits in one form or another... but then again, let's try to realize that for our mutual interests, pursuing our elected officials by letter, phone and vote is the best way to ensure that our individual interests are represented in the decision-making process.

Of course, you already know where my vote will be cast with regard to federal funding of single-sex schools... in the interests of practicality as I mentioned in my last few posts.

 

There could potentially be certain tax reforms that would ensure that homeschooled, or privately-schooled children's families receive tax credits in one form or another... but then again, let's try to realize that for our mutual interests, pursuing our elected officials by letter, phone and vote is the best way to ensure that our individual interests are represented in the decision-making process.

Unfortunately, many such reforms that have been attempted have been ruled unconstitutional because "federal" money might go to fund a religious school. Part of the problem is that government official have forgotten that it is not really their money, but the taxpayers' money that has been entrusted to them.

Again, if you look at what I have written, I have clearly stated that I would support starting such programs in areas where there is sufficient interest to support them. That does not necessarily mean a majority of students would be using them (just like with GT programs), but that there are enough taxpayers willing to lend their support to the program to justify the funding. In the case of individual classrooms (where there is sufficient support), the total cost would be little-to nothing above what the current system is. (Cost of running 2 co-ed classrooms is approximately equal to the cost of 2 smae-sex classrooms.)

At the very least, there is sufficient evidence in support of the idea to test it further. You say there is not enough proof to implement the system? How else does one get the proof (one way or the other) except through experimentation? Anything less is only going to be a bunch of hot air.

If (for the sake of argument) there was plenty of evidence that showed that same-sex education was highly beneficial to a large percentage of students, would you change your opinion about it? I know that if there were clear evidence that it were extremely harmful I would be very much against it. However, we don't have that evidence (either way). All we have is a bunch of theories. Why don't we try testing a few of them?

Kimball Kinnison

 

I have an idea... why don't you get together with others and form a coalition to fund the testing out of your pockets.

Why should I fund the testing, since you're trying to prove a point, not me?

If you don't like the way things are with funding issues... write your Congressman/woman, Kimball.

I wouldn't vote for it even if evidence suggested it worked 50 percent of the time... I'd have to also be convinced that there weren't detrimental effects simultaneously occurring. However, we know from other psychological studies that segregation has detrimental effects.

Are a couple more points on an SAT score worth the price of a segregation mentality? I won't ever believe so.

How about funding studies on improving all the factors that we already agree are problems but have so far done little to improve?

You can't convince me that the price of segregation is worth a small increase in performance that has yet to even be consistently proven. Also, it's your Congressman/woman you really need to convince, not me.

No one is stopping you from enrolling your kids in a private school, in the meantime.

 

I wouldn't vote for it even if evidence suggested it worked 50 percent of the time... I'd have to also be convinced that there weren't detrimental effects simultaneously occurring. However, we know from other psychological studies that segregation has detrimental effects.

So basically, you wish to set an impossible standard for ANY program to meet. EVERY educational program has some detrimental effects, because none of them are perfect. You demand that we provide proof, but you just admited that you have set a much higher standard for any proof we could possibly give you (considering the current number of theories and dearth of hard evidence) than is set for any other educational programs.

I remeber hearing a lot of similar arguments about block scheduling for high schools. (Block scheduling is where you have about half of your classes one day and the other half the next. Class times are roughly doubled, but only every other day.) People claimed "How will children know what classes they have each day?" "How will they be able to concentrate for so long?" "There's no proof that bolck scheduling works." and many other complaints.

When we moved to Willimasburg, Va from Fairfax, Va, my brother was in high school (We moved after his Freshman year). Bruton High School implemented block scheduling during his Junior and Senior years. From that one change alone, his grades went from Cs and Ds to Bs and Cs with a few As in there as well. Many other students saw similar improvements. Unfortunately, some students' grades went down because of it as well. It does have detrimental effects for some students, but beneficial effects for many more. Are you opposed to block scheduling as well?

How many people does a program have to help before it is worthwhile? 100? 1000? 100000? 1000000000? Where do you draw the line?

How about funding studies on improving all the factors that we already agree are problems but have so far done little to improve?

I agree with this as well. But I do not believe that ANY option that has potential should be rejected out of hand. If it has potential to help students, it should be studied. Supporting the option of same-sex classrooms does not mean that you reject finding other options as well. Tell me, though, which solutions to those problems do we look at? The ones you want, the ones I want or the ones no one wants? (Hint: there can be more than one correct answer to that multiple choice question.)

No one is stopping you from enrolling your kids in a private school, in the meantime.

No, but there are plenty of people happy to make me keep paying for their kids to go to public school while I pay my own kids tuition at a private school. (Note: I am unmarried and do not have any children. I am speaking from the "J. Random Citizen" viewpoint.) That seems to be your answer to a lot of things? Why should I have to pay twice for my kids education?

FYI, I do write my congressman (Tom Davis, R-Va) and my Senators (John Warner and George Allen). I am fairly active in the political process where I live. I have actively voted in every election since I turned 18 and have actively encouraged others to do so as well (even those who I know would vote in opposition to my choices). Just because I am posting here does not mean this is the limit of my political activity. (For example, I am currently helping rally opposition to Senate bill S.2048 because it would almost completely destroy the fair-use rights of consumers and effectively lengthen copyright terms indefinitely.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

Unlike gender segregation, block scheduling doesn't directly open the door to larger societal problems like sexism.

We have to be aware of the long-term effects of our choices.

And I'm glad you're involved, Kimball, I never assumed you weren't. I simply restated that if you want to convince someone... convince them.

You can convince me of things that are in the best interests of our children and taxpayers when they don't incur greater, long-term social costs... in this case, a segregation mentality helps reaffirm the efforts of sexists throughout history... as much as "voluntary racial segregation" at the expense of the taxpayer would do the same to reaffirm the efforts of racists throughout history.

I don't tell people they need to be around one another, but I also don't encourage anyone to "stick within their own kind", whether racially, sexually or otherwise.

Neither segregation, racism nor sexism have positive net effects on society. Net results, that's what I'm talking about... sure, everything has detriments, but if the sum total of the benefits and detriments is a negative... the net result isn't worth the few benefits promised.

Though... you still haven't answered my more pragmatic question... which is aimed at addressing one of the long-term detriments of gender segregation. (See previous posts on job competition.)

 

Darth_SnowDog: Where do employers place these products of segregated learning when it's clear from your commentary that they cannot perform optimally in diverse environments?

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said . . .

how precisely will these candidates sell themselves to prospective employers when employers will be most likely to ask, and I have been asked these questions myself:

1. How do you perform in diverse team environments?

2. How well do you perform under pressure or distraction?

Firstly, having a few same-sex classes (probably in high-school--I doubt it would ever apply to colleges) does by no means mean that a person is crippled socially, nor that they are unable to function in a diverse environment. I wish you'd stop speaking in extremes on this point, because it's hopelessly inaccurate.
Secondly, even if by some miracle a person failed to interact at all with a diverse culture, that doesn't mean he can't work efficiently with others of different cultures. If you don't have an open mind--which is the most important thing--you can still have all the diverse interaction but fail miserably in a diverse environment.
Open mind.

How will they compete for jobs with those who can do everything they can do, and do it in diverse, dual-gender work environments?

This obviously refers to a person devoid of all diverse interaction, and does not particularly pertain truthfully to the issue. It's an extreme assumption.

My question was, "By what means are they going to get the job when an employer is interviewing 30 other candidates with the same qualifications, or more, and the demonstrated ability to function consistently above the mark in dual-gender team environments?

In other words, how is a candidate who has never interacted with someone from the opposite gender, someone who has never been exposed to a diverse culture, and thus someone who must never have gone to elementary school, high school, or college going to rise above the other candidates?
Let's get on the same page.

because a study shows that if you expose children long enough to racism, Nazism, Fascism (or gender bias, for that matter) and they come to accept it after being immersed in that environment doesn't mean the study actually proves their performance was better... It only proves you can brainwash kids into believing anything you tell them.

Ummm . . . we're talking about studies which do show their performance is better.

So far, it seems the study only addresses the ability to brainwash kids minds...not of increasing their performance strictly by the virtue of gender isolation.

I'm getting tired of this. How on earth do you make the preposterous leap from same-sex classrooms to gender isolation?

You can convince me of things that are in the best interests of our children and taxpayers when they don't incur greater, long-term social costs... in this case, a segregation mentality helps reaffirm the efforts of sexists throughout history... as much as "voluntary racial segregation" at the expense of the taxpayer would do the same to reaffirm the efforts of racists throughout history.

Same-sex classrooms do not promote sexism, because neither gender is being discriminated against unduly (ie, through mindless bias). Same-sex classrooms do not teach that one gender is superior to another, or that different genders must play different roles in society.

womberty: Let us suppose, then, that all of the girls (or all of the parents of all of the girls) in a particular school district decide that they would be better off in single-sex classrooms. Now suppose that the boys (and/or their parents) feel they would be better served by a dual-gender classroom. Haven't they essentially been denied that choice if there are no such classrooms available?

There's a world of difference between 'denial of opportunity' and 'lack of opportunity.'

 

StarFire:

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said . . .

I don't understand, first you're saying they perform better when learning in gender-separated environments, and now you're not sure you said that? If you haven't been saying that that their optimum performance in a classroom would be achieved by gender separation... then what else are you saying?

Firstly, having a few same-sex classes (probably in high-school--I doubt it would ever apply to colleges) does by no means mean that a person is crippled socially, nor that they are unable to function in a diverse environment. I wish you'd stop speaking in extremes on this point, because it's hopelessly inaccurate.
Secondly, even if by some miracle a person failed to interact at all with a diverse culture, that doesn't mean he can't work efficiently with others of different cultures. If you don't have an open mind--which is the most important thing--you can still have all the diverse interaction but fail miserably in a diverse environment.
Open mind.

So if they can perform equally well in diverse environments, including gender diversity... why offer gender segregated classes?

By the way, here you're not actually answering the question... you're rationalizing. Instead of giving me reasons to hire you, you're giving me reasons to dislike you by trying to talk your way out of a question that most people would answer with quantitative or qualitative examples of how they surpass the other candidates.

You wouldn't have been hired for any of the jobs I've interviewed for had this been your actual answer to the questions being posed... regardless of what your actual abilities are. The only way an interviewer knows how well you perform in diverse environments is if you give them specific examples. If you have great performance reviews, but you don't show them to me, how the hell do I know?

The point is... I'm here in this interview telling you I have ten other equally qualified candidates. Whether I really do or not, you don't know. But then I ask why I should hire you over them when they are just as qualified and have never had any difficulty whatsoever working with people of the opposite sex, in school or otherwise. If this is my roadblock to hiring you and it will not change, what other things can you show me that will give me a preferable overall impression of you as a candidate, over and above the others who can do just as well as you? What's your strategic competitive advantage (which distinguishes you over and above all others) going to be in this situation?

This obviously refers to a person devoid of all diverse interaction, and does not particularly pertain truthfully to the issue. It's an extreme assumption.

Again... So if they can perform equally well in diverse environments, including gender diversity... why offer gender segregated classes?

In other words, how is a candidate who has never interacted with someone from the opposite gender, someone who has never been exposed to a diverse culture, and thus someone who must never have gone to elementary school, high school, or college going to rise above the other candidates?
Let's get on the same page.

And yet again... So if they can perform equally well in diverse environments, including gender diversity... why offer gender segregated classes?

Ummm . . . we're talking about studies which do show their performance is better.

Where in Kit's post did it indicate that study had performance data? As I recall, Kit's post strictly mentioned the preferences of the subjects as they were observed following the "experiment." Preferences have nothing to do with actual performance.

I prefer to drink Coke over Pepsi, especially given my years of exposure to it. Does that mean it increases my health?

I'm getting tired of this. How on earth do you make the preposterous leap from same-sex classrooms to gender isolation?

We're not isolating/separating/segregating genders for the duration of thi

 

The point is... I'm here in this interview telling you I have ten other equally qualified candidates. Whether I really do or not, you don't know. But then I ask why I should hire you over them when they are just as qualified and have never had any difficulty whatsoever working with people of the opposite sex, in school or otherwise.

Two incorrect assumptions form the basis of your question. First, you incorrectly assume that just because a person has been educated in a co-educational environment, it demonstrates that they have no difficulty in working with those of the opposite sex. PPOR. Interaction skills depend on a variety of factors and can only be judged accurately on an individual basis. You can find those with both good and bad interaction skills in both co-ed and single-gender environments.

Second, your question iteslf is flawed because you should expect each candidate to provide a different answer. The reason you should pick one individual over another should be unique to the individual. The reason I would give would be completely different from the reason you would give. Otherwise, what is the point on asking them to distinguish themselves? You should be able to just pick one at random.

I don't understand, first you're saying they perform better when learning in gender-separated environments, and now you're not sure you said that? If you haven't been saying that that their optimum performance in a classroom would be achieved by gender separation... then what else are you saying?

You are drawing an extreme conclusion from his statements. Tell me, what do employers do with applicants from all-boys schools or all-girls schools? I've yet to see that any such past has a tendency to affect a person's future career options in any significant way. Do you have any proof to the contary? (PPOR)

Allow me to provide a quote that you seem to be fond of:

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. - Gandhi

Your constant repetition that there would be harm done does not equal proof either. If you have any actual, hard proof, of these negative effects (as opposed to the seemingly baseless fears you have been expressing), please provide it. Like I said before, all we have been discussing are theories. Now would be the time to test them.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Two incorrect assumptions form the basis of your question. First, you incorrectly assume that just because a person has been educated in a co-educational environment, it demonstrates that they have no difficulty in working with those of the opposite sex. PPOR.

I'm not saying they don't. PPOR on your assumption that there's evidence that the net effect of gender segregation is positive.

Interaction skills depend on a variety of factors and can only be judged accurately on an individual basis. You can find those with both good and bad interaction skills in both co-ed and single-gender environments.

Prove that to the interviewer.

So, my assumptions are incorrect, but yours aren't? Convince me why I should hire you. Proof? Read every psychological study on virtually every facet of human behavior. You're the one who wants to prove your theory, so do your research... don't ask me to do it for you.

Second, your question iteslf is flawed because you should expect each candidate to provide a different answer. The reason you should pick one individual over another should be unique to the individual. The reason I would give would be completely different from the reason you would give. Otherwise, what is the point on asking them to distinguish themselves? You should be able to just pick one at random.

You're just filibustering... trying to tell me everything but the answer to my question. Of course everyone's answer is different... but then I'm not asking everyone, I'm asking you what your answer would be.

How hard is it to answer this question, anyway?

You are drawing an extreme conclusion from his statements. Tell me, what do employers do with applicants from all-boys schools or all-girls schools? I've yet to see that any such past has a tendency to affect a person's future career options in any significant way. Do you have any proof to the contary? (PPOR)

Again, I'm not saying to what degree applicants get turned down on the basis of their being schooled or not schooled in a segregated environment. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Consider the interview a test of character. If all they want to know are your raw qualifications, they would just make their decisions by looking at the resume. If you answer the question combatively, it won't win you any personality points. You don't need to be schooled in a segregated environment to know that.

If a few people got lucky... good for them. Both my sister and brother are managers for two multimillion dollar corporations... Both of them conduct interviews, and neither of them wants to hear filibustering in an interview.

Your constant repetition that there would be harm done does not equal proof either.

What am I attempting to prove?

Like I said before, all we have been discussing are theories. Now would be the time to test them.

Based on the existing research out there, there's nothing that even suggests it's worthwhile to test, much less accept, gender segregation at the expense of the American taxpayer. At least some studies demonstrating some positive net effects would be a precursor to determining whether or not to go there, but you have to provide that to me. Not the other way around. You have your own vote, and I'm not asking you to change it... I'm only explaining why I have no intention of changing mine.

I'm going to post a few studies below... I won't go into boring you with too many details. After all, you should be fully capable of reading them yourself. Or do you also want us to spoonfeed research to you, which should be conducted by you, too?

The following references are from the office of Dr. Campbell Leaper, UCSC Professor of Psychology. Leaper's work on peer relationships suggests that encouraging cooperative cross-gender relationships in childhood may foster positive relationships between women and men in friendship, work, and love.

Gender, affiliation, assertion, and interactive context of parent-child play. Developmental Psychol

 

I'm not saying they don't. PPOR on your assumption that there's evidence that the net effect of gender segregation is positive.

How about the fact that the number of single-sex schools is increasing? Or how about a study ("Differences between pupils from mixed and single-sex schools in their enjoyment of school subjects and in their attitudes to science and to school.", Educational Review, 42(3):221-230, 1990.) that shows that same-sex schooling helps break down gender-based stereotypes. Studying the attitudes of 13 and 14-year olds in both same-sex schools and coed schools showed that students in the coed schools showed typical gender-based stereotypes (girls not interested in math and science and guys not interested in arts and drama), while those at single-gender schools did not show these stereotypes.

How about another study published in 2000 that looked at 270,000 students in both coed and single-sex schools in Australia. Students at the single-sex schools ranked (on average) 15-22 percentage points higher than students from coed schools.

So, my assumptions are incorrect, but yours aren't? Convince me why I should hire you. Proof? Read every psychological study on virtually every facet of human behavior. You're the one who wants to prove your theory, so do your research... don't ask me to do it for you.

I'd expect you to hire me (or not) based on who I am, not based on whether I went to a all-boys high school. By the time you see the applicant, they would (probably, depending on the job) have attended college and worked in the real world for a while. Here is a news flash for you: high school years are not the limit of your existence.

You're just filibustering... trying to tell me everything but the answer to my question. Of course everyone's answer is different... but then I'm not asking everyone, I'm asking you what your answer would be.

How hard is it to answer this question, anyway?

It depends on the job. Emphasizing my physics skills (which got me my current job) would do me nothing towards getting my previous job. My programming skills got me that one. Neither of those skills would help me if I was applying to be a baker (but my personal brownie recipie might help there instead). Perhaps my Certified Quality Improvement Associate certification would get me the job instead.

If the interviewer has already decided that they will be prejudiced against someone who received a single-sex education instead of interacting with the person themself and forming an unbiased opinion (based on their own impressions), then nothing will help me get the job. The employer's mind is already made up against me. It is a bad question to ask.

Again, I'm not saying to what degree applicants get turned down on the basis of their being schooled or not schooled in a segregated environment. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Consider the interview a test of character. If all they want to know are your raw qualifications, they would just make their decisions by looking at the resume. If you answer the question combatively, it won't win you any personality points. You don't need to be schooled in a segregated environment to know that.

If a few people got lucky... good for them. Both my sister and brother are managers for two multimillion dollar corporations... Both of them conduct interviews, and neither of them wants to hear filibustering in an interview.

That's not filibustering. Since I don't know what job I've "applied" for with you, how do I know which of my skills to emphasize? Depending on the the job, I would pick one of my skills and talk about how my schooling helped me develop that skill in a way that would benefit your company. However, I don't know which job I've applied for. Give me an example and I'll give you an answer. Until them, I stand by my statement that it would have to be different for every person (and for every interview).

Based on the existing res

 

First, you incorrectly assume that just because a person has been educated in a co-educational environment, it demonstrates that they have no difficulty in working with those of the opposite sex.

Not true -- if a person had be educated in a dual-gender environment, but had a terrible GPA, it wouldn't give them much advantage over someone educated in a single-sex classroom. And, if a person truly had trouble dealing with the opposite sex, I'm sure it would show up sooner or later - whether in the interview, or in a resume full of job-hopping due to an inability to cope.

However, if you had two applicants with the same (good) GPA, and no work experience, which would you choose? The one who had managed to excel in the supposedly more difficult dual-gender environment, or the one who was (again, supposedly) only able to succeed when the distractions due to members of the opposite sex were removed?

 

womberty: However, if you had two applicants with the same (good) GPA, and no work experience, which would you choose? The one who had managed to excel in the supposedly more difficult dual-gender environment, or the one who was (again, supposedly) only able to succeed when the distractions due to members of the opposite sex were removed?

I don't know how many times I've had to restate this point you make so well... but thanks for adding. This is precisely the crux of my employment-related question.

Kimball: How about the fact that the number of single-sex schools is increasing?

What precisely does this prove? The number of crack addicts is probably increasing... does that mean crack is a good thing? Does that mean crack "for medicinal purposes" bears clinical efficacy in treating depression, instead of exacerbating it? The number of Muslims in this country is increasing exponentially... does it mean that Christianity is wrong?

How about another study published in 2000 that looked at 270,000 students in both coed and single-sex schools in Australia. Students at the single-sex schools ranked (on average) 15-22 percentage points higher than students from coed schools.

Ok, let's look at this study... here's some key statements I find rather peculiar:

The fact that girls consistently outperform boys in terms of academic progress throughout their primary and secondary schooling is well established.

Yes, and in the article they don't care to mention the myriad variables that cause this... ranging from earlier female maturity to the existing gender inequality that makes many women and minorities work harder to achieve the same level of success in their careers monetarily and otherwise.

I realize the study goes on to say that they intended to prove what was not known about the effects of single-sex schooling... However, my point in bringing up the way this article opens is that they first acknowledge that many variables could be in the mix affecting the disparity between the learning curve for boys and girls... and yet they don't manage to completely isolate those variables from their study on single-sex schooling. Instead of isolating for them, they compensate for them... using god knows what algorithm, when what they really needed was an isolated, controlled, double-blinded study... which cannot be produced, given the inherent bias, both genetic and environmental, that has already affected their learning curves since birth...

On the other hand, students are entirely capable of performing similarly in both single-sex and coeducational environments in spite of these fixed biases, as demonstrated by one of the studies I mentioned in my last post.

In brief, the findings indicated that after adjusting for measures of students? ?abilities? and school sector (government, Catholic and independent), the achievements of boys and girls in single-sex environments were, on average, 15-22 percentile TER ranks higher than the achievements of their counterparts in co-educational settings.

Whoah, wait a minute... "after adjusting for measures of students 'abilities'"? So, it seems there's bias actually employed in this study... Instead of adjusting anything, why didn't they isolate the variable being studied and remove all others from the equation?

Furthermore, how do we know they didn't adjust to compensate for variances in performance between genders in the single-sex schools? This is critical, because if they tried to smooth out these variances, any evidence of negative effects of gender segregation would not be observed in this study and a realistic net result cannot be calculated, taking into account both benefits and detriments of single-sex schooling.

but understandings are emerging from the research evidence suggesting that co-educational settings are limited in their capacity to accommodate the large differences in cognitive, social and developmental growth rates of girls and boys

 

I only have a moment (still solving the differential equations), but I wanted to point one thing out:

Whether it's a good question or a bad question isn't my issue. It's a question the employer always asks... whether he/she bothers to actually ask you the question directly, the employer is asking it in their mind from résumé to interview to offer letter.

It could be a wholly appropriate question in the interview, but it is a bad question for proving your point. You were demanding a specific answer to a question in a hypothetical situation without providing enough background for that situation. What sort of answer would you expect? Without a full scenario, how can I possibly answer? Your demanding an answer without sufficient background is illogical and distracts from the real issue.

Ok, let's look at this study... here's some key statements I find rather peculiar:

I notice that all of your quotes came from the summary page I linked to. Did you take the time to read any of the actual study (it's a PDF at the bottom of the page)? I know it's 24 pages, but at least in includes the actual data and analysis instead of being a media release writen by someone else who probably didn't perform the study.

I'll try to find the relevant points in the study itself for you that address your points (such as the built in biases), but that will have to wait for later. Back to the equations. (I need to find where a an extra 2 came from.)

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: One more bit:

I believe the detriments to society as a whole, and not just the detriments to the individual, far outweigh the individual or societal benefits... such that I am not contesting whether or not gender segregation works sometimes... I'm simply saying there's no reason for me to vote to have federal funds contributed to this misguided cause... this red herring of a political platform.

How do you intend to quantify the detriment to society? It is all good to claim there will be a detriment, but it is hard to prove unless you can quantify it.

 

Kimball: The intent of the study you cited was not at all to measure the effects of gender segregation in schools in particular. The overall intent of this study was to identify the state of, problems associated with, and solutions for proper, responsible feedback of student performance data "for monitoring, accountability and improvement purposes" in the face of outcome-based education.

In the US, outcome-based education has become a necessity due to the stringent demands of the increasingly competitive global marketplace. I scanned through every page of this study, and its scope had nothing to do with demonstrating the specific outcome of gender segregation either full-time or part-time in schools.

Again, here we go presenting evidence which doesn't directly address the question being asked... From someone who is a physicist, I'd expect you to know better than to dance around the issue of this attempt of the Bush administration to plant a red herring--drawing attention away from all the other factors impeding our childrens' education at which Bush has, as a Governor and a President thus far, failed miserably in addressing.

 

I should be in bed now, but:

From someone who is a physicist, I'd expect you to know better than to dance around the issue of this attempt of the Bush administration to plant a red herring--drawing attention away from all the other factors impeding our childrens' education at which Bush has, as a Governor and a President thus far, failed miserably in addressing.

That's funny. To me, it appears that YOU are the one "drawing attention away from all the other factors impeding our childrens' education". You are focusing on one single program option (in reality a clarification of the previous Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) in a bill that Bush signed. You seem to be completely ignoring the many other programs he approved along with that small clarification. Allow me to list a few for you:

• Expanding the Troops-to-Teachers Program (Title II, Part C, Sec 2302) Some of the best teachers I ever had were ex-military.
• An additional $1,000,000,000 in appropriations for improving technology in classrooms (Title II, Part D, Sec 2404
• Increased funding for ESL programs (Title III Part A)
• The Dropout Prevention Act (Title I, Part H) and Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk (Title I, Part D)
• Establishing a Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund (Title II, Part A)

Do you disagree with any of these provisions? If so, well I'm sorry, but that's life. It is highly unlikely that you will get a bill that everyone agrees with in its entirety. If you do, then the one portion (which was only a clarification of an existing policy) is just part of the compromise. That's the way a compromise works.

Note that California started a trial program in 1997 to establish 12 same-sex public schools. This was allowed under the former policy (which is why Bush's addition is only a clarification, not a change). While many people have tried to use that program to disprove the effectiveness of public, same-sex schooling, it is important to note that the program was ended after a new administration took over in California, and the single report that has analyzed that (very short term) attempt was issued by the same administration that ended the program for political reasons. That (in my eyes, at least) makes that report fairly suspect. There was no opportunity to study the longer-term effects, yet then concluded that the long-term effects were negligible? That makes no sense.

It has always been allowed. If you have a problem with it, it is not I who needs to contact my representatives to do something about it, but you. Your attempts to bring it up now are clouding the issue away from the other programs that Bush has begun to implement.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball: First of all, thanks for bringing those things to my attention. However, I'm not convinced that Bush champions education in the way a President should... simply because he signs bills introduced by Congress doesn't equate to what I was talking about. I'm talking about leadership... championing the cause of education.

If he signed any of these bills, funny I didn't hear as much about "The need for stronger arts, humanities and newer technologies in the classroom" as I have about the Ten Commandments, prayer time and gender segregation... everything your average 18th-century white Christian American might want in the classroom. Granted Bush alone isn't the one championing these rather obtuse ends... but this seems to be the way politicking has gone in the last 10 years or so.

At any rate, I like how you completely segued away from having to acknowledge your error in digging up a study which doesn't prove your point any more than it proves mine.

I also like how you avoided having to address the issue I'm actually concerned with.. which is simply the fact that this attempt in and of itself, is a red herring which seems to be getting much more attention from the Bush camp than these other issues. And what about the job interview situation? Instead of actually answering that, you danced around it. The question I essentially was trying to ask you was how you would sell yourself in spite of your disadvantage compared to other candidates.

It doesn't matter what job you're interviewing for, you simply couldn't arrive at the most logical train of thought... you weren't even thinking of how you would position your gender-segregated education as an advantage instead of a disadvantage.

I wasn't going to give you the map to that track because it's your job to think of it. That you didn't simply furthers my point... because if you really believed a gender segregated education was an advantage, you'd have told me how so... However, you said you didn't think it was a disadvantage.

If I have to choose between two completely equal candidates, and one of them had to take the harder, more distracting path of education, and the other one didn't, but again they're completely equal in every other respect... you'd lose. So in one sense it is a rhetorical question, not merely looking for the "right" answer... there isn't one. I'm testing your character to see how you'd respond. I already know the outcome... but your approach wasn't to try to answer the question, it was to try to get around it. You pointed out your friends who've done "quite well". I'm willing to bet in every one of those scenarios there was something else that made them the better candidate... and not necessarily related to their gender-segregated portion of their education. So, my guess is they probably haven't faced this seemingly no-win scenario.

You attempted at one point to say that gender-segregated education is an advantage because it provides something coeducational environments don't. However, if the other candidates have the same GPA, same overall academic achievement, and same course of study (i.e. same degree...) and were yet able to achieve all that in the more difficult, distracting environment of coeducational learning... that kind of negates that, doesn't it?

So then what other ways would you spin your gender-segregated education as an advantage? You didn't have an answer before, but maybe you'll come up with one now... now that I've practically spoonfed you the objective of this question (which, really, is something no one will do for you in a real interview).

Why, simply because of the virtue of Bush's pretending to give a flying crap about Christian conservative values do you tend to defend everything he does, even if certain initiatives, such as gender segregation, have every indication of having negative net effects on society based on decades of psychological research which predominantly points in that direction?

Show me a study that contradicts all this other research... a study which deals wit

 

I only have a moment (I need to leave for work), but I wanted to reply to a few things:

However, I'm not convinced that Bush champions education in the way a President should... simply because he signs bills introduced by Congress doesn't equate to what I was talking about. I'm talking about leadership... championing the cause of education.

Bush originally proposed most of the measures in the No Child Left Behind Act. Admittedly, most of the details were worked out by Congress (because that's their job), but the ideas are ones that he first expressed and called upon Congress to act upon.

If he signed any of these bills, funny I didn't hear as much about "The need for stronger arts, humanities and newer technologies in the classroom" as I have about the Ten Commandments, prayer time and gender segregation... everything your average 18th-century white Christian American might want in the classroom. Granted Bush alone isn't the one championing these rather obtuse ends... but this seems to be the way politicking has gone in the last 10 years or so.

Have you considered your news sources? I follow a variety of news sources and have seen them talk about many different education programs that Bush has proposed. My family gets both the Washington Post (a fairly liberal publication) and the Wasington Times (a very conservative publication). I've noticed that the more libral media has been focusing on things like the same-sex schools and Ten Commandments issues while the more conservative reports talk about his other programs. It is very informative to read articles about the exact same speech and learn that Bush emphasised two (almost radically opposed) different programs.

At any rate, I like how you completely segued away from having to acknowledge your error in digging up a study which doesn't prove your point any more than it proves mine.

Thank you, however that is not what I was doing. I was simply not answering portions of your comments until I had a chance to gather more data. (I wrote those things at 1am.) I do have other things to do as well (such as work until 4 today and class from 4:30 to 10).

You once suggested you didn't care whether charitable relief came from the KKK or the Nazi party... well, this is the fundamental difference between you and I. If society profits thanks to a fascist, nazi or segregationist mentality, that is an IOU I would not want on my conscience. You might have absolutely no problem with it, but I do. So go spend your dollars to support fascism, segregation and naziism... but don't come panhandling for mine.

That is not what I said. I said that I was opposed to discriminating against any group, on the basis of their ideals, if they meet all other criteria. I, personally, am opposed to groups like the KKK or Neo-Nazis, and I would probably not accept charity from them either. However, that doesn't mean that they should be discriminated against by the government. They have a right to equal protection (and consideration) just like anyone else.

Kimball Kinnison

 

That is not what I said. I said that I was opposed to discriminating against any group, on the basis of their ideals, if they meet all other criteria. I, personally, am opposed to groups like the KKK or Neo-Nazis, and I would probably not accept charity from them either. However, that doesn't mean that they should be discriminated against by the government. They have a right to equal protection (and consideration) just like anyone else.

When an organization is committed predominantly or solely to the deliberate, willful infringement of others' rights, even though they are allowed legal protection, that doesn't mean we owe them financial endorsement/sponsorship. They forfeited that right... just as a murderer forfeits the right to roam the streets freely when they are convicted.

I don't get my information strictly from liberal or conservative sources. I don't read the Utne Reader, I don't read the Washington Times. I also don't believe a lot of what I read.

Why am I having to answer for how I feel towards Bush? If I feel that way, I'm entitled to... but that's not the real issue, again, is it?

Despite the media coverage, I've seen the results... in our schools, I've heard it from our administrators... and Bush's own state where he governed... the performance speaks for itself. If he hasn't improved considerably our education... why should he promise things he cannot deliver? Why should any politician?

I don't care how many babies he kissed or hands he shook... I care about whether or not the baby kissing and handshaking (or paper signing) has actually produced any results... and what those results are, both quantitatively and qualitatively. But that's a separate discussion all together.

I made several edits to my post... so you may want to re-read it, because there were other issues I addressed in there. The basic crux, Kimball, is that you have not proven to me why I should contribute my tax dollars to what appears to be nothing more than a red herring because it, in and of itself, has not proven to make a substantial dent in student performance over and above coeducational environments... In addition, the studies I cited show that single-sex schools are no less prone to gender typing and discrimination than coeducational ones. That in itself is a hugely negative social consequence which obviously isn't addressed by a shift from coed to single-sex classrooms.

 

When an organization is committed predominantly or solely to the deliberate, willful infringement of others' rights, even though they are allowed legal protection, that doesn't mean we owe them financial endorsement/sponsorship. They forfeited that right... just as a murderer forfeits the right to roam the streets freely when they are convicted.

Are you saying then that such an organization should then lose the right to use public facilities for a peaceful meeting? After all, the public is then footing their bill for maintenance of the facilities. How about holding a peaceful rally in a public place (like the Mall in DC)? Where do you draw the line?

As long as an organization is obeying the laws, the government cannot allow its decisions about that organization to be based on the orgaization's ideals. That is discrimination and is illegal. It violates their right to equal protection under the law as surely as forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus did.

I'll type more later.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I'm stating primarily my opinion. Whether or not the people agree with my view is for the courts to decide. I don't have anything to say about public facilities for which costs have been sunk and all organizations should have equal opportunity to use them... but for what? Should they be allowed to set up mortars on public grounds to shell and firebomb Mosques or Churches?

I'm not talking about civil rights... I'm talking about government endorsement of criminal behavior. If an organization engages in hateful behavior that borders on harassment or something else criminal, the decision against them isn't because of their beliefs as an organization so much as it is against their act of trampling the rights of other individuals or groups. Typically, organizations such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis are rallied solely for the purpose of abridging other groups civil rights and freedoms.

Are you saying the Neo-Nazis have a right to Jewish bank accounts and valuable possessions to fund the extermination of the Jews... even if they "promise" it's going to be used strictly for "charitable" purposes, how do we know those charities aren't somehow funneling resources back into Jewish extermination? Maybe extermination is their idea of charity... In any case, it's not a strictly black or white issue, which is why we have courts to interpret when an organization has overstepped the bounds of the law and needs to have certain rights and privileges removed as a form of punishment, but not to exceed the nature of the crime.

Imagine them petitioning for the funds, "Ethnic cleansing, spiritual cleansing... what's the difference?"

At any rate, what does this latest digression have to do with our discussion on single-sex education? My last statement about fascist, Nazi and segregationist mentalities has nothing to do directly with the idea of faith-based initiatives or federal funding of religious charities. It's more an aside about how you and I differ in our core philosophies.

While you believe that those who abuse other people's rights should not be punished by having certain privileges (not core civil rights, like freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, mind you) taken away... much as Michael Milliken had his Series 6 and 7 licenses stripped from him (preventing him from being a broker)... I don't believe in supporting the growth of a segregationist mentality which isn't a necessary step in furthering our educational performance as individuals and a nation, in the first place.

There are many other things we can, and should, focus on, before considering a solution that has no more clinical merit than a placebo. That is why I consider the single-sex classroom a red herring. It draws attention away from hundreds of more critical weak links in our educational system... which can actually improve performance if fixed, as opposed to creating a solution that has potentially devastating social consequences, both short term and long term. The difference between those weak links and this perceived problem of gender integration is that a) there's no proof that gender-segregated schools do better than non-segregated ones consistently and solely for the reason of their being gender-segregated. b) there is no evidence that negates the positive correlation psychologists have routinely found between gender segregation and the formation of gender bias/discrimination in both teachers and students. c) gender-segregation, unlike the many weak links in the educational system, doesn't encourage human accountability.

What do I mean by human accountability? Simple. The many weak links in the educational system that exist now, if we address them, require that individuals be held accountable for these weak links and their solutions. However, if we encourage gender-segregation as a solution, we're essentially rationalizing the problem is nature's fault... and not ours.

Unfortunately, this does us no good, because, as researchers have found, gender-segregated schools tend to have no less occurrence of gender bias or gender disc

 

Kimball: You are focusing on one single program option (in reality a clarification of the previous Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) in a bill that Bush signed. You seem to be completely ignoring the many other programs he approved along with that small clarification.

The small clarification you speak of are actually amendments to the regulations--or rule changes, as the original CNN article describes--implemmenting Title IX, which is the 1972 civil rights statute designed to ensure equality for the genders in public schools.

According to the article: "What the proposal would do is give the school districts more flexibility and latitude in determining what constitutes a comparable educational opportunity." Anyone who has seen the school system in action knows that with relaxed regulations, there lies the potential for inequality. The potential is what worries me, and is why I have already sent letters to my appropriate legislators condemning this act.

Any Amendment that weakens the stregnth of civil rights laws is inherently wrong. Surely you must recognize this.