#if srl
> > The truth is that while many of these sorts of reasons may be true
> > in some cases, it's actually quite usual for kids who attend single-sex
> > schools to have contact with the opposite sex outside of school hours.
>
> are we talking primary/secondary schools here, or colleges? I think they
> may be different cases.
Hmm. The terminology is slightly different over here.
Primary: 4-10
Secondary, 'O' level exams: 11-16
6th form, attached to secondary school, 'A' level exams: 17-18
Tertiary college, 'A' levels plus other qualifications: any age.
University (Degree level): 18+
I don't know much about what primary kids do when they leave school.
Go home, I presume :) Ok, I would guess they get to mix with the
opposite sex in the local park.
Secondary school pupils generally hang around in groups after
school and those from single-sex schools will usually mix with
the opposite sex.
6th form pupils are either pretty much like school kids or, depending
on the individual and the type of school, more like tertiary college
students.
I attended a tertiary college, which is basically just like university
except you're studying 'A' levels and there's no on-site accomodation.
> But what if the decision to segregate you does you more good in the end?
> for example, if your parents decide when you're 6 that the public schools
> in your area suck and that they want to send you to a private school?
Depends what you mean by 'does you good'.
Does going to an exclusive school do you good ?
Academically, perhaps.
In my experience (I moved from a school in a well-off area to a
poor school in a poor area at 13) there's something to be said for
both, also for seeing more than one side of life.
Certainly the crap school I went to later in my education didn't
help me academically, but I learnt a _lot_ more about things that
are really important (IMO.)
> At the college level, most American students do get the choice as to
> whether they attend a single-sex institution or not. and in general,
> females seem to do better academically and professionally--- particularly
> in the sciences--- when they attend single-sex colleges.
Um, a 'college' in the US is what ?
Is it a university (Degree level) ? If so, it seems very strange
to me that such a thing as a single-sex university could exist !
> For example, there aren't many women Physics PhDs. But 1 out of every 9
> female Physics PhDs hold an undergrad degree from Bryn Mawr.
Hmm.. I presume you're saying that Bryn Mawr is a single-sex institution ?
Well, it certainly _looks_ like a single-sex institution is good for
women in that case, but I don't know if that's an accurate synopsis
given that evidence. I'd have to think about it :)
I know at my uni there were hardly any women doing physics, but I
also know that I didn't talk to most of the people on my Comp Sci
course because they were a bunch of geeks. Perhaps women were also
put off the course because of the extreme levels of geekiness ?
I have wondered why Psychology is almost exclusively female while
Comp Sci and Physics are male-dominated. Is it really just social
conditioning and/or the effect of societal pressures, or is it just
that women are less attracted to Physics and Comp Sci ? Are these
two sciences 'pushed' more to males ?
I really don't know the answers. I'm inclined to believe that
societal pressures (peer groups etc) and conditioning (girls get
Barbie, boys get Action Man type stuff) are to blame.
I find it hard to believe that women are simply less inclined to
have an interest in Comp Sci and Physics. I can't see why this
should be, considering that there is a whole lot more going on in
Comp Sci and Physics than there is in Psychology (in terms of
'exciting new advances'.)
Well, I can be inclined to believe anything, but I don't have the
faintest idea which of these postulates (is that the right word ?)
is right, if either.
Cheers,
Rik
--
285. Find beauty in the breakdown.
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
