Women do better in single sex schools (in England); but men do worse.
There's a natural experiment in England where there are quite a lot of single sex schools. There are a bunch of confounding factors that are hard to kludge out - social-economic backgrounds, etc.
Some cultures and religions prefer the sexes to be separated. This may not be a good reason to many people.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I find it hard to believe that all females(or males) exhibit same behavioral and learning traits. And even if this happens to be true, then why stop at gender-segregation? How about divide on gender, then divide on introvert-extrovert, then divide on active-passive, then divide on "external validation seeker"-"doesn't give a shit about external validation", then divide on "interested in learning"-"interested in getting the fuck out of here"...I am pretty sure you will be left with a class of 1 in the end.
The only division I would be interested in is segregating the fast learners(whatever be the reason - is sharp, already knows stuff, studies outside class) from regular learners, so that fast learners don't get bored or try to derail the class, and slow learners don't feel left out.
PS - I am not implying that you are supporting gender-segregated education. I am making a general point.
> I don't see anyone suggesting such a thing, but instead, that the majority of each gender may have certain behavior and learning styles in common.
Unless you can prove that certain behavior is common among majority of females, and that certain common behavior is more significant than bazillion traits which are not shared, and then that certain behavior is significant to learning, and is more important than traits which aren't shared - the segregation is meaningless.
> Why go any further? Just because one type of segregation may work, doesn't mean that all types of segregation would work.
The chances that a group of students is going to be consistent, coherent, and will respond to the teaching style in the same way is essentially zero(group size > 1). If gender segregation show a noticeable, significant improvement; by all means have it. But don't make claims in advance.
You're demanding hard conclusions where there aren't any. However, they can be said to exhibit a tendency where the chances aren't exactly 100%. It's the difference between correlation and causation, and correlation is not "meaningless."
> You're demanding hard conclusions where there aren't any.
I am demanding hard conclusions, failing which I am demanding you don't make any if you aren't sure(gender difference became apparent to me that day, gender segregation works etc).
> It's the difference between correlation and causation, and correlation is not "meaningless."
I didn't claim correlation is meaningless - I just claimed you are claiming correlation, and for fuck's sake, causation, when there isn't any.
Correlation is when 2 random variables aren't probabilisticaly independent. If you can cite me correlation between gender and behavioral traits when it comes to learning, and that study isn't some crackpot theory based on how I taught a ruby workshop, I am more than willing to be corrected.
If you can cite me correlation between gender and behavioral traits when it comes to learning, and that study isn't some crackpot theory based on how I taught a ruby workshop,
This is where you're dishonest: You say you're looking for hard connections, yet any evidence is subject to a value judgement on your part. Tails I lose.
> This is where you're dishonest: You say you're looking for hard connections, yet any evidence is subject to a value judgement on your part. Tails I lose.
I am looking for correlation, as in the sense correlation is defined, or causation. I don't think correlation or causation is open to value judgement.
I am not implying that you are supporting gender-segregated education. I am making a general point.
I was just trying to describe a point of view, not one I myself hold.
I think that division by sex is often used as a proxy for division based on learning styles. Not fast vs slow per se, but in how people respond to teaching styles and student interaction.
> I think that division by sex is often used as a proxy for division based on learning styles. Not fast vs slow per se, but in how people respond to teaching styles and student interaction.
Which brings me back to my initial point. Is there data that suggests males and females respond significantly differently to teaching styles, and all member of a group(male or female) are consistent?
I am pretty sure you will be left with a class of 1 in the end.
You say that like it's a bad thing. In the ideal case, we would have completely personalized education for every student. Most of what prevents it is lack of resources (and then of course you would need teachers smart enough to make it work).
I am not saying like it's a bad thing. I am pointing out a group of students isn't going to be consistent and coherent for a group size > 1. At a broader level, if you are claiming that a group of females is different from a group of males, that is true; but that is meaningless since a group of females is again different from a group of females.
I'm sure there is, but you can segregate the students in many ways to change the dynamics - race, parental income level, personality type, eye color, etc. - but will this change be positive? See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/education/23single.html?_r...
