Encourage girls to be 'disruptive' in lessons

[JIM CURRAN]

Encourage girls to be 'disruptive' in lessons, expert says
Teachers should promote “disruptive” behaviour among girls to help prepare them for their future careers, according to the director of a leading network of single-sex schools.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... -says.html

[JIM CURRAN]

Child banned from school trip for eating chocolate
A mother had to make a 160-mile journey to collect her daughter after she was banned from a primary school trip for eating some chocolate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10 ... olate.html

[JAC]

Both of the above articles show people working with children, or influential in policy making, who seem to have not a skerrick of common sense.

[maizie]

I think if you pursue the second story a bit further a completely different picture emerges. How about the poor wee innocent banned for having a chocolate bar having a further £30 worth in her bag...and having a poor behaviour record

I think the Daily Telegraph is getting more like the Daily Mail and if it cared about its fading reputation as a 'quality' paper it ought to make sure its journalists check out their stories properly..

The first story is bizarre. The girls who are disruptive at our school (and there are a fair few of them) are mostly going nowhere except early motherhood and life on benefits..

It does raise an interesting question, though, as to whether girls are more compliant and conscientious by nature or nuture. And the old one about whether women should play by male rules or do things their own way..

[kenm]

It does raise an interesting question, though, as to whether girls are more compliant and conscientious by nature or nuture.

I would expect both to be influential. There is a particular effect that may influence this: in mammals, females are homogametic, males are heterogametic, i.e (in this context) the sex determining chromosomes are XX in females, XY in males. I have read somewhere, but have been unable to find a reference showing that it is still believed, that this contributes to higher male mortality at all ages, and also to greater variability of any measurable characteristic. This is illustrated by men producing more Nobel prize winners, more criminals and more imbeciles, because the effect of a gene, defective or beneficial, on a man's X chromosome is unlikely to be counteracted by a dominant one on the much shorter Y.

And the old one about whether women should play by male rules or do things their own way.

That's a totally different sort of question, with no general answer, but arguments incorporating ethics, sociology and politics. A particular answer must depend upon the individual woman's character and circumstances.

[maizie]

This is illustrated by men producing more Nobel prize winners, more criminals and more imbeciles, because the effect of a gene, defective or beneficial, on a man's X chromosome is unlikely to be counteracted by a dominant one on the much shorter Y.

I'm following you with regard to criminals and imbeciles (though that sounds dreadfully non PC) but Noble Prize winners? Wasn't there, for example, a woman involved in the discovery of DNA?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... c=y&page=2

I suspect that the preponderance a male Nobel Prize winners does indeed have something to do with the male chromosome but not in the way you interpret it

[kenm]

I suspect that the preponderance a male Nobel Prize winners does indeed have something to do with the male chromosome but not in the way you interpret it

There are, of course, other reasons, but if this effect exists at all it would make a contribution in this area.

[JIM CURRAN]

Girls Should Play More Video Games, And Other Thoughts On “Cognitive Balance”

http://anniemurphypaul.com/2013/07/girl ... e-balance/