This post is a reaction to the column by David Brooks from last Friday called The Crisis of Men and Boys. Brooks, in turn, is commenting on a recent book by Richard Reeves called Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It. I have not read the book yet and I'm undecided whether I will do that. Reading about dismal things is not good for my own psyche. So here I'm just going to make a few observations and then stop.
First, I already was aware of how male children of parents who have at most a high school education are struggling now. This can readily be attributed to the decline in manufacturing and the concomitant decline in private sector unions, so the evident scarcity of decent well paying jobs that call for manual labor. I think the country botched this terribly, both on the left and on the right, though for quite different reasons. I do think it is fixable. Better late than never.
Second, I was surprised that there were similar gender differences among the elite students, though this might be quite a different phenomenon than the one mentioned in the previous paragraph. Single parent households are less common for this group. But having a helicopter parent probably happens fairly frequently with this sub-population and having the kids be over programmed is part and parcel of that. Indeed, the whole Excellent Sheep phenomenon might be explained this way. If you asked whether there are gender differences among children as far as being obedient to parents, irrespective of whether the kids are high academic achievers or not, I'm not sure where I'd come down on that one. And that sort of thing might depend on the generation when the kids went to school. It also might depend on the culture/religion/nationality of the parents. But it wouldn't surprise me too much for gender to matter in aggregate.
Third, which is cause and which is effect might be hard to sort here, but there is no doubt that increased income and wealth inequality in the society overall is related to viewing school as a passport to well paying jobs and GPA as an important component of that. This view existed even when I was in high school, but it clearly has intensified since. In the current jargon, there is emphasis on extrinsic motivation in school and, in turn, that reduces consideration of intrinsic motivation (curiosity, passion for the subject matter) that might better promote learning. With the focus on extrinsic motivation, school becomes something of an artificial game. I'm guessing that it still affords an avenue for self-expression for some kids, as it did for me, but they are comparatively few. The rest get jaded, because playing an artificial game makes it appear that nothing really matters. Are there gender differences among those who can function amidst the artifice? I suppose there are.
Fourth, this one may be less popular to mention these days but I believe school teachers are of lower quality now as compared to when I was in school because, especially for women teachers, there weren't many other paths for having a decent job when I was in school, but now there are. And teaching is paid comparatively poorly now. If earnings drive career choice, there is an obvious selection issue as to who becomes a teacher. Nowadays, teachers may not be well equipped to accommodate students who don't seem engaged in class activities or to get them a specialist to deal with their learning disability.
Fifth, there may be a differential effect that technology plays on children. I'm thinking particularly of video games and whether the skills learned in that domain are useful for school. When my younger son was still in elementary school, he became very absorbed with Age of Empires and learned a lot of historical facts that way. It gave him an interest in history for a while which was satisfied by watching shows on the History Channel. But he also developed a belief that learning should happen in a snap. Slower and more deliberate learning eluded him as a consequence. Then, of course, there were all these other games that were either a race or a battle against some competition. The games were absorbing, but might not have much to offer outside the gaming environment. I don't know how this goes with girl children (both of my kids are boys). But I can readily imagine gender differences here.
Let me wrap up with a thought experiment. How would my cohort from elementary school, junior high, and high school fare if they started first grade in the late 1990s or early 2000s rather than in the early 1960s, but they had the same parents. (How the parents would have adjusted to the times is outside the thought experiment). In particular, would I have failed in school or done pretty much the same as I did back then? I did have quite a lot of trouble with "fine motor activities". For example, threading a needle was a challenge for me. At school this manifest mainly via poor handwriting. But I was either extraordinarily fortunate or socially adept in some way to make good friends within the school environment and I was able to learn a lot from my friends this way. Would that skill have been impeded if I started school 40 years later? If so, would it be the loneliness that would do me in and perhaps impede my academic performance? Or would it be more evident that I'm an introvert and could be okay learning on my own? I don't know, but I think this sort of thought experiment useful for others to consider, before focusing on remedies. We tend to look for solutions before we understand the problem we're trying to solve. We shouldn't do that here.
No comments:
Post a Comment