Gender segregated classrooms? Yay or Nay?

[James]

[quote=azurewolf]One last point: keeping everyone together is NOT optimal in any way. it's just easier. Teaching everyone in the same fashion when clearly everyone is different does not work the best. However, addressing predispositions is a great start in optimizing the learning environment in a practical way.
[/quote]

[font=arial]I thought I'd address this one first. My answer is simple: bingo.

I am definitely not promoting a "one size fits all" approach. I am simply pointing out that creating subdivisions based on gender is not only somewhat arbitrary, but it puts students in an environment that is contrary to the idea of preparing them for the big bad world, so to speak. If school is designed to improve childrens' problem-solving, communication and interpersonal skills...surely creating generalized divisions isn't going to help that.

On the other hand, I think everyone has to acknowledge that each individual student has different learning needs. Unfortunately most schools don't have the resources to deal with students on that basis all the time - that's why some schools have special programs for students with particular learning requirements. [/font]

[quote name='azurewolf']Yes, there will be problems with this method, but there are problems with having boys and girls together - if you can't see that, then you are just going on blind faith. But there's a good chance that the problems might be less or they are less severe when you separate boys and girls. Are you going to force a boy to learn to knit even though he's not physically capable of doing so? Are you going to make girls run long distances when they haven't developed the stamina? No.[/quote]

[font=arial]I'm going on blind faith? Thanks. lol

Seriously though, I'm obviously not going on blind faith. That's not really a fair comment to make, lol. I've obviously put thought into the matter and given reasons to support my opinion - I haven't just said "OMG, boys need to mix with girls cuz its better!!!"

I've never met a boy who is physically incapable of knitting, or a girl who doesn't have the stamina to run as far as a boy. That's an incredibly old-fashioned (and very out-moded) analysis.

Of course there are differences between the genders, I think everyone would agree with that. But we don't live in a world where women need to learn sewing and men need to learn how to hunt wild boar - men and women need to have a diverse range of options and they need to be able to compete with each other as much as possible.

I'm certainly far from an expert when it comes to education and I do recognize that there are subtle differences between men and women. But the idea that we need to have completely seperate classes (and entire subjects) for each gender is a concept that went out with the ark.

Perhaps educators might want to focus on the more complex aspects of learning environments and learning habits - it's fine to say that all girls concentrate better than boys, but what about those who don't? You know? It's still very arbitrary and general. I think some (not necessarily you, Azure) have the impression that it's the educational silver bullet. My only message is that people tend to be more complex than their gender, especially when it comes to education.[/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]Okay, building on what one local news station reported on Tuesday another local station did this report during the five o'clock news. Looks like there is some truth to the fact that boys and girls learn differently [i]and[/i] girls we're kicking butt.[/color][/font]

[quote=13WHAM News]Evan Dawson (Rochester, N.Y.) -- Girls are not just competitive with the boys in school, they're beating them in nearly every subject.

New research shows that boys struggle more with the classroom setting and some core subjects. Some believe the solution is to separate boys and girls into same-sex classes, even in public schools.

At Mercy, an all-girls high school in Rochester, students don't have to worry about what boys think of them. Some of the young women at the top of Mercy?s senior class this year say that makes a huge difference.

Senior Mary Kate Howard said, "There's people judging you always, but I think girls worry less about what other girls think than about what guys think."

Ken Hilton, research director for Rush-Henrietta schools, said he has found that in all grades--from kindergarten through high school--girls are dominating boys in class grades. However, he has also found that the gender-gap disappears when it comes to standardized tests like the SATs.

This finding suggests that girls are biologically better equipped for the classroom structure, especially at younger ages.

"School and its norms are a large part of the gap that we call the ?achievement gap.? Girls are just better at school than boys," Hilton said.

Hilton does not support separating public schools by gender, but he does suggest that some classes such as middle school English be separated by sex. That's because his research shows girls far out-performing the boys in English classes.

The National Organization of Women recently criticized any plans to separate by gender.

Albert Roesser, President of NOW in Rochester, said, "Gender separation is gender discrimination. Separate is unequal. School is the workplace for children. Separating our daughters and sons does not prepare them for the real world."

But Mercy students say such an idea is more about learning than about gender and it has helped them succeed.

Mercy Senior Kelsey Abelein said, ?Girls are trying to overcome a stereotype of a typical schoolgirl who isn't as smart as the guys. I feel the girls are outgrowing that and getting past it." [/quote]

[James]

[font=arial]I think there's plenty of evidence to support that concept, not just in the US but over here in Australia as well. This is one of the principle reasons why there are gender-segregated schools in the first place.

The only question is whether or not parents feel that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I suppose that's where it's good to have choice in the school system, as a parent.[/font]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=James][font=arial]I thought I'd address this one first. My answer is simple: bingo.

I am definitely not promoting a "one size fits all" approach...

On the other hand, I think everyone has to acknowledge that each individual student has different learning needs...[/font][/QUOTE][COLOR=maroon]I agree with you here, however, I think learning to deal with the other sex (which is basically the only thing that is being removed from the learning environment) can be achieved through other places/things/people than just school. There are other activities outside of school people can focus on. And I remember (don't quote me, but I swear it was recent) that although people seem to be getting smarter, the new generation (after the peak of IQ kids, lol) of kids are actually scoring lower on IQs.[quote name='James][font=arial]I'm going on blind faith? Thanks. lol[/font][/QUOTE]Two things: I didn't mean you directly, and I could have worded that better. I meant, you can't really dismiss something you have no knowledge of (i.e., segregated schooling) simply because you are only familiar with something else. Like, saying black is black even though you've never seen white. [QUOTE=maroon']I've never met a boy who is physically incapable of knitting, or a girl who doesn't have the stamina to run as far as a boy. That's an incredibly old-fashioned (and very out-moded) analysis.[/quote]It was an example used to illustrate a scientific point. We can see *directly* that girls develop fine-motor skills (i.e., dexterity, subtle hand movements) faster/earlier than boys, while boys develop gross-motor (i.e., running, tumbling) skills faster/earlier. These can be seen directly, but its long-term effects, although well documented, are not as easy to explain (hence the length of this thread). The *analogy* - not analysis - works in this regard, IMO.

You can see my point by taking a very young boy and a very young girl and enrolling them in a knitting class and a gymnastics class. The girl will most likely have trouble with gymnastics at first, while the boy will be frustrated with knitting. Through various complicated social and psychological factors (from Adler's inferiority complex all the way to spiral dynamics), the two will switch roles in terms of proficiency. This would NOT be the case if you took them later in life, like after the age of five, but the significance of this difference still remains relevant to this discussion (see below).[quote name='James']Of course there are differences between the genders, I think everyone would agree with that. But we don't live in a world where women need to learn sewing and men need to learn how to hunt wild boar - men and women need to have a diverse range of options and they need to be able to compete with each other as much as possible.[/quote]I don't recall seeing anything about boys and girls learning different things. Approaching things differently - yes - but not learning different things. I think that's what the primary confusion is about.

Take calculus/math, a common thing that people think boys are better at. Scientifically and statistically, there is no noticeable difference in mathematical aptitude between the sexes. What IS noticeable is the approach or types of problems boys and girls struggle with.

Let's say you have a sphere on the x-y-z plane. All the data is given, a volume is asked for. A boy would most likely draw a graph and solve it using either a volume equation or intuitively derive the volume. A girl, on the other hand, would most likely prefer not to graph it and mathematically figure out the problem, feeling more secure having written out the equations and derivation and theory - all through nongraphical computation of calculus.

Both these ways are valid, and give you the same answer. However, some problems are more practical and feasible graphically, and there are some problems where graphing the thing is a pain in the *** and leads only to more confusion and frustration. In the former case, a boy would handle and understand the problem easily, while a girl would struggle; in the latter, roles are reversed.

Notice how both the boy and the girl are learning CALCULUS. One is not knitting and the other running. I also realize there are exceptions, but those exceptions would not fare any worse or better with the segregation if you think about it since both approaches would be addressed. That's another thing: they will still be taught both methods for calculus, but extra help will be given for one method. [quote name='James']Perhaps educators might want to focus on the more complex aspects of learning environments and learning habits - it's fine to say that all girls concentrate better than boys, but what about those who don't? You know? It's still very arbitrary and general. I think some (not necessarily you, Azure) have the impression that it's the educational silver bullet. My only message is that people tend to be more complex than their gender, especially when it comes to education.[/quote] I wouldn't call it arbitrary, as it is rooted in statistics...[/COLOR]

Oh, and yeah, about that article CHW posted: boys already don't seem to conform to the teaching system in the first place. Also, if you watch children play (boys and girls separately), you'll notice the school system reflects that of what the girls do more than what boys do in their games (like the rules used. If you want elaboration, just ask).

[Raina]

[COLOR=Blue]I'm not sure whether or not there should be gender segregated classrooms.

I went to a co-ed primary school, and found it a little hard to learn with boys around. They were just so loud!

Then I went to a girls' high school. There, I found that my classmates went crazy at the mere sight of a boy walking by the school. Now that was distraction!

I also went to saturday school, which was co-ed. Yeah the guys were annoying at times... But I found it good to hear their perspective on things. It was a nice change to the feminist opinions I usually heard from my all girls high school.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that... well... it depends on the age of the students...? I don't know! That's why I voted for 'Unsure'. :animeswea [/COLOR]

[James]

[quote name='AzureWolf']I agree with you here, however, I think learning to deal with the other sex (which is basically the only thing that is being removed from the learning environment) can be achieved through other places/things/people than just school. There are other activities outside of school people can focus on. And I remember (don't quote me, but I swear it was recent) that although people seem to be getting smarter, the new generation (after the peak of IQ kids, lol) of kids are actually scoring lower on IQs.[/quote]

[font=arial]Yeah I think you have a reasonable point here. This also depends on school.

I think the optimal mix might even be segregated classrooms for most classes, but then having times where students need to do joint projects and things like that - perhaps this would help to address the balancing problems of a segregated classroom situation.

As I said before, I don't deny that there are differences between males and females and that a gender segregated system has its benefits...I am just bringing up various possibilites and I think it's worth considering the consequences (be they positive or negative). I suppose that is something which will continue to be researched in the future.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']Two things: I didn't mean you directly, and I could have worded that better. I meant, you can't really dismiss something you have no knowledge of (i.e., segregated schooling) simply because you are only familiar with something else. Like, saying black is black even though you've never seen white. [/quote]

[font=arial]Okay, no worries. :catgirl:

Basically I agree with that statement - this is true for a variety of different discussions, too. Dismissing something without having considered it (or without having some knowledge or experience of it) can be a problem.[/font]

[quote]It was an example used to illustrate a scientific point. We can see *directly* that girls develop fine-motor skills (i.e., dexterity, subtle hand movements) faster/earlier than boys, while boys develop gross-motor (i.e., running, tumbling) skills faster/earlier. These can be seen directly, but its long-term effects, although well documented, are not as easy to explain (hence the length of this thread). The *analogy* - not analysis - works in this regard, IMO.
[/quote]

[font=arial]I think that mentioning the longterm effects is important, because there is also very little information about the longterm effects of having entirely segregated classes throughout one's school career. So, you know, we're really dealing with a series of unknowns anyway - it will, as always, come down to the choice parents make. It will be the parent who will probably have to address any lack of balance that their child faces in such an environment.

I think that your analogy (which I would also call an analysis of the situation) was problematic because you were bringing up red herrings - you were talking about teaching completely different subjects to males and females; there was no indication that the same subjects could be taught, but there might be a different emphasis for each group. It's a worthwhile qualification to make.[/font]

[quote]You can see my point by taking a very young boy and a very young girl and enrolling them in a knitting class and a gymnastics class. The girl will most likely have trouble with gymnastics at first, while the boy will be frustrated with knitting. Through various complicated social and psychological factors (from Adler's inferiority complex all the way to spiral dynamics), the two will switch roles in terms of proficiency. This would NOT be the case if you took them later in life, like after the age of five, but the significance of this difference still remains relevant to this discussion (see below).[/quote]

[font=arial]That is fine in and of itself...but the key word here is "most likely". In truth, we are talking about vast generalizations and assumptions of ability without any objective criteria - I suppose that, more than anything, is an issue I would raise with this system of education.

When you have some girls who are better at gynmastics and some boys who are hopeless with it, you still have a reality where every individual is different - and therefore, I think it is difficult to model an entire education system around this principle.

So, yes, I would say take it into consideration and perhaps utilize gender segregation (or the concept of it) under certain circumstances. However, modeling an entire system on what is still quite a vague system of assumptions is probably not the wisest path, in my humble opinion.[/font]

[quote]I don't recall seeing anything about boys and girls learning different things. Approaching things differently - yes - but not learning different things. I think that's what the primary confusion is about.[/quote]

[font=arial]I think it's just the way it was worded and the choice of subjects, haha. The implication was that boys are good at one thing, girls are good at another and it's as simple as that - obviously a course structure couldn't be based on that. I see what you're saying now though that it's been clarified.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']I wouldn't call it arbitrary, as it is rooted in statistics...[/quote]

[font=arial]It's still arbitrary - you're still asking the question "how long is a piece of string", essentially. Gender division is a nice idea but it's also very general and if taken on its own, represents a dismissal of more fundamental learning patterns (of individual students).

Perhaps if gender division were used in conjunction with co-ed programs and with an acnkowledgement of individual learning needs, it would be the best solution. But then it comes back to funding and staffing and all of those things. So it's an issue that probably goes around in circles forever with all the demands related to it.[/font]

[quote]
Oh, and yeah, about that article CHW posted: boys already don't seem to conform to the teaching system in the first place. Also, if you watch children play (boys and girls separately), you'll notice the school system reflects that of what the girls do more than what boys do in their games (like the rules used. If you want elaboration, just ask).[/quote]

[font=arial]I think there's some truth to that, but there's also a lot of convention involved. [/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

I disagree with the principal behind separating the students for many reasons. Primarily because unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that they will ever learn to live together. About the only separation I agree with is what some schools have done where some of the classes are offered as a girls only or boys only, but the student can only have two or three of their total classes an all one gender type of class.

The reasoning was that for classes they were struggling in the removal of distractions could potentially help them to learn better. But by not separating them completely they still get the necessary socializing that later on will prepare them for a world that is not separated by gender.

I have no problem with that type of system, but to completely do away with the other gender like they do at an all boys or all girls school is something I do not agree with.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Personally, having attended both mixed and single gender schools, I definitely think that co-ed school as a far better alternative to what's being offered here even if it's on a voluntary basis. As many people have said, separating kids based on gender will only lead to more awkward social interaction when they're older, and trust me I know first hand this is true. By separating people, you make them less aware of others, by keeping them ignorant of others and their difference you breed idiocy [cooties anyone] if that keeps up you eventually lead to the separated kids having no idea how to integrate into a society which does not split men and women into different workplaces actively.

I agree there may be some element of distraction between the ages of say 12 and the rest of your life if you're male because of the opposite sex, but this is going to occur wherever you go, and it's just going to get worse if you keep a whole load of teenage boys cooped up with only a few female teachers to look at.[/SIZE]

[Morpheus]

Another large issue with splitting the genders relates directly to the point of those who support the segregation: Children having their hands held through school and being taught only the way that they learn best will cripple them even more. There is no "I'm going to explain this twice" in the real world. You have to get used to thinking of things several ways. If you're, say, good at learning through hands on activities and this is the only way you have ever learned to do things, what are you going to do in a large college class or seminar? You can't survive in the real world without the ability to take in information in a multitude of ways and just as easily adapt it to fit solutions.

[black rurouni]

Gender segregation is the most crazest thing that can happen to a school. we did that too but it was lunch gender segregation and on the first day the boys had a food fight and the girls were at the door screaming '' we want boys,we want boys''. If they to that in to classrooms my school would be shut down( basicly i say nay). :cool:

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=darkred]Defiantly nay. Others have already touched on the reason why. Life isn?t separated and keeping the kids apart in that manner will only hurt them in the long run. They need social interaction to help prepare them for dealing with a world that is not separated.

Also, as others have mentioned, exposing them to different ways of learning will only better prepare them for the challenges they will face in life. It?s a nifty idea I?m sure, but very flawed. If the kids can?t learn to study and do well with distractions in school, then they aren?t going to be able to do it in the workplace.

I can see doing what Aaryanna_Mom mentioned where they can have a few classes like that. That would be helpful for students who are struggling with certain topics and yet still keep them in an environment that is mostly mixed. But beyond that, I?ve never been a fan of separating students based on gender. [/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=James][font=arial]I think that mentioning the longterm effects is important, because there is also very little information about the longterm effects of having entirely segregated classes throughout one's school career. So, you know, we're really dealing with a series of unknowns anyway - it will, as always, come down to the choice parents make. It will be the parent who will probably have to address any lack of balance that their child faces in such an environment.

That is fine in and of itself...but the key word here is "most likely". [B]In truth, we are talking about vast generalizations and assumptions of ability without any objective criteria - I suppose that, more than anything, is an issue I would raise with this system of education.[/B]

When you have some girls who are better at gynmastics and some boys who are hopeless with it, you still have a reality where every individual is different - and therefore, [B]I think it is difficult to model an entire education system around this principle.[/B]

[B]So, yes, I would say take it into consideration and perhaps utilize gender segregation (or the concept of it) under certain circumstances. However, modeling an entire system on what is still quite a vague system of assumptions is probably not the wisest path, in my humble opinion.[/B]

It's still arbitrary - you're still asking the question "how long is a piece of string", essentially. Gender division is a nice idea but it's also very general and if taken on its own, represents a dismissal of more fundamental learning patterns (of individual students).

[B]Perhaps if gender division were used in conjunction with co-ed programs and with an acnkowledgement of individual learning needs, it would be the best solution. But then it comes back to funding and staffing and all of those things. So it's an issue that probably goes around in circles forever with all the demands related to it.[/B][/font][/QUOTE][COLOR=maroon]I see your point and what the potential dangers are. Yes, there are exceptions (if we can call it that since there are so many who would be categorized as such), we both agree that it could be negative and/or positive, and that every kid is different. So while ideally something that optimizes "individual learning" would be best, it's currently not practical, so I don't think segregation willl be too harmful to try out.

And I think what it boils down to: do you think it's worth trying to see if it's better or worse? I realize you don't favor it all that much for the reasons you've stated before, but do you feel it's an avenue worth exploring for the sake of better education, or the wrong direction altogether?[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon']And I think what it boils down to: do you think it's worth trying to see if it's better or worse? I realize you don't favor it all that much for the reasons you've stated before, but do you feel it's an avenue worth exploring for the sake of better education, or the wrong direction altogether?[/COLOR][/quote]
[size=1]Well, there are schools that are gender-specific already. You could see if it's yielding results by checking out their standardized test scores and comparing them to co-ed schools. I realize that there's more data for co-ed schools, but it'd probably give you a vague idea.[/size]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']Well, there are schools that are gender-specific already. You could see if it's yielding results by checking out their standardized test scores and comparing them to co-ed schools. I realize that there's more data for co-ed schools, but it'd probably give you a vague idea.[/size][/quote][COLOR=maroon]Yeah, that would work really well, actually. But I feel that the only problem with those segregated schools is that they are segregated either out of culture or tradition, before psychology became fully accepted and solid data existed on the two sexes. Therefore, except for segregating them simply for the sake of segregation (or removing distractions), I don't think there's any difference in how they teach the boys from how they teach the girls.

Now if they actually did work on boys' weaknesses and took advantages of their strengths (and the same for the girls), then yeah, that type of information would be perfect.[/COLOR]

[James]

[quote name='AzureWolf']And I think what it boils down to: do you think it's worth trying to see if it's better or worse? I realize you don't favor it all that much for the reasons you've stated before, but do you feel it's an avenue worth exploring for the sake of better education, or the wrong direction altogether?[/quote]

[font=arial]Yeah, I do think it's worth trying. At the very least, knowing more about it is a good thing.

I suppose that I would never want something to be brought in on the basis of "we'll stop the distractions with this method", because I don't think that has any demonstrated educational value.

However, if it's shown that environments can be tailored for individuals' needs (including the male/female division), I think this would be fine - at the very very least, it would be an [i]option[/i] for those parents who choose it. Having that option available is probably not a bad thing.[/font]

[Chronus]

[QUOTE=only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1][FONT=Georgia]HEHE I guess we should probably start another thread for corporal punishment and just so you know I wouldn?t brutally beat my own kid. :animeswea Id just teach them that crime doesn?t pay. I'm very hurt and offended that you rolled your eyes at me?. :animecry: :p

Anyway back to the main topic, I really don?t see what's the big deal in segregation. People do it naturally as I mention in my last post. of course there?s the few that kick with everyone but those are rare. If the kids all meet up during their breaks then they have there little flirting time or making out time :animenose or whatever the point Is there still together and they will have their time to socialize. It will also build the confidence for some students to go and talk to a girl/boy. CONFIDENCE you know how many kids don?t have that now a days :animesigh . Bottom line is why not give it a chance and see how it works out. If the grades improve hey good to go if the grades stay the same bring in corporal punishment j/k. :animesmil [/FONT] [/SIZE] [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

After the rolling of the eyes I do believe you've learned your lesson, dont you?LOL jk
Im against beating kids!

back to topic ya Men cant we all agree that having wemon in are classes is the only reason we go to school! :animeswea

[Adahn]

[size=2]I'm against separating males and females in classrooms.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]If people want students to be less distracted, they should have harsher measures against students carrying on unrelated conversations in class. Whenever I heard people talking, or someone tried to talk to me, it completely threw off my concentration on the subject.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]If there's one thing classrooms will always foster, it's sexual frustration. Whether your object of attention is present or absent, the inability to express oneself physically is constantly denied in a school setting. Completely removing visual heterosexual attention will only serve to eliminate the only available expression of sexuality for those people, which is looking upon an object of desire. If anything, it would cause those individuals to divert more of their attention to fantasies, removing them even further from the learning environment.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]The whole idea of separating people by their method of learning is ridiculous. I learn differently from most females, and I learn differently from most males. It would probably be better for my learning to get individual attention, but there aren't the resources for that sort of thing to be implemented publically. The more you separate people into learning groups, the more you'll learn that separating people into learning groups is impossible. The only way to do the job is the quick and dirty method, which is to lump everyone together and teach them the same way. If they don't 'get' it, then they can ask questions, and the teacher can maybe offer a different perspective.[/size]

[only1specialed]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond]Yeah i know its an old topic

Man i cant believe so many people voted no.. and see thats the problem. Most people mainly still kids in high school are only saying that they only go to school for the chicks (or guys depending on gender)... has anyone noticed that thats not the point of school. Keep the genders in the same school but different classes. that should work best instead of just seperating them in general. they can probably have like one or two classes in which they share classes like PE or Band practice and other stuff like that. so that way everyone is happy and hell boys might finally starting thinking with their heads upstairs instead of the head downstairs. Ya mean.

by the way do you know the results for that school that was trying to segregate the classes.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=only1specialed][COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond]Yeah i know its an old topic

Man i cant believe so many people voted no.. and see thats the problem. Most people mainly still kids in high school are only saying that they only go to school for the chicks (or guys depending on gender)... has anyone noticed that thats not the point of school. Keep the genders in the same school but different classes. that should work best instead of just seperating them in general. they can probably have like one or two classes in which they share classes like PE or Band practice and other stuff like that. so that way everyone is happy and hell boys might finally starting thinking with their heads upstairs instead of the head downstairs. Ya mean.

by the way do you know the results for that school that was trying to segregate the classes.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[size=1]That's a rather pretentious point of view -- the problem is that the people who said "no" only did so because they're horny teens? Of course it [i]couldn't[/i] be that we had actual objections to the idea, that would be silly. :p[/size]

[pooperson]

I believe that integration of sex in the classroom can help students to better their social skills. Thus, more people will be "people people", and the world will be a much happier place.
Not everything that you learn in school can be taught by a book, and the ability to work cooperatively with others is one of those skills. However, if you are female and are exposed only to an environment of other females, then how can you learn anything about the male mind? [and vice versa].
I believe that it is important for students to be exposed to both genders. For girls like me, communicating with boys is much, much easier, so if I was put in a classroom full of girls, I wouldn't know what to do at all. Not that I hate girls or anything, but I just prefer the presence of both genders. :D

[DeadSeraphim]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1]That's a rather pretentious point of view -- the problem is that the people who said "no" only did so because they're horny teens? Of course it [i]couldn't[/i'] be that we had actual objections to the idea, that would be silly. :p[/size][/quote]
[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Keep your logic out of this, boy![/font][/color][/size]

[Sara]

[color=#b0000b][size=1]I dunno about y'all, but the thought of being in girl-only classes pretty much terrifies me.[/size][/color]

[dranixe]

Man by nature (including females of course) is a social well-being. ITs a little hard separating both of them since it would somewhat be hard when the environment seems to be only one gender. Females usually start the pep in the class since its their nature, boys just form groups... IT would be better to fuse since as i have seen, based on what i have experienced of having an all boyz school, having girls really seems to bring a nice environment, to have a little change in the gender environment (not in a distracting way), but to promote socialization towards each other. It will be hard when they would socialize later on after a person's schooling years.

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=slategray]How about the students pick where they want to be? That's reasonable.

They could attend a co-ed high school, and then go to a single-sex college, if they feel like that would be a better environment.

It doesn't have to be such a hassle.

(I would, however, get far more distracted in all girl classes. Those damn skirts. >> Oh... wait... that's why I'm not doing well in math anymore. Haha.)[/color][/size]

[Dagger]

[quote name='Sara][color=#b0000b][size=1]I dunno about y'all, but the thought of being in girl-only classes pretty much terrifies me.[/size'][/color][/quote]
Mm, I don't think it'd be so terrible. Unless you're talking about the vicious social aspect of it, in which case I'd agree--but only for middle school and maybe the beginning of high school.

My college used to be single-sex, and my English professor actually began teaching there shortly before they made the switch to being co-ed. She told us that she could see a huge difference in how her female students behaved before and after the change--afterward, she had to pay much more attention to body language in order to figure out when a girl wanted to speak up but wasn't quite confident enough to raise her hand or otherwise break into the discussion.

Hearing this surprised me; although I'd definitely expect to see that kind of behavior among children and younger adolescents, I'd have assumed that people would have grown past it by the time they got to college. Then again, this was back in 1969, so regardless of sex, students were probably carrying a whole bunch of different conceptions about gender and whatnot to college with them.

~Dagger~