My CEO asked on his blog for us to come up with ways to influence the education system to encourage and reward creative ways to teach science, technology, engineering and math. Here's my response.

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamdizzle 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]avoiceformen 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

Today's feminized education system neglects the learning styles of most boys, who are not content to sit still in a classroom and are taught primarily by female teachers. Boys desire competition and active learning, and it benefits them to learn from a teacher who understands them.

What changed in the past fifty years, out of curiosity. My father grew up in the supposedly golden days of yore, and he had to sit still in class for hours at a time, was taught mostly by female teachers, and (since he was in Catholic school) would have been rapped on the knuckles if he misbehaved. Yet, he graduated with ease, as did most of his male compatriots, and there was never this problem of "oh noes, if we don't let them run around they'll fail". Shit, man, I graduated near the top of my class despite being forced to sit through long classes without competition or active learning.

Boys today are routinely anesthesized by amphetamines and similar drugs meant to "treat" normal masculinity - but we call it ADHD.

No one I know is on ADHD medication, and all of my male friends are "normal" and "masculine". Perhaps it's a problem of definitions, since what the hell counts as "normal"?

Only 40% of college graduates are male. If America expects to keep up with the rest of the world in technology, she better start paying attention to the plight of her boys and men.

That, at least, is an interesting question. Is there a plight to men, and (if so) is it really institutional, or simply a difference in outcome? To wit, does the fact that men don't go to college (or drop out) reflect a reality that somewhere there is systematic discrimination, or just that men are being less responsible?

I mean, don't we usually say things like "just because there aren't many female CEOs doesn't make it discrimination"?

The west will never be able to compete with China as long as institutional misandry is the dominant doctrine of business and government.

[Needs Citations]

Edit: since you are discussing the issues, I'm also removing all of my downvotes of your comments. It's good to see us able to have a mature debate about this.

[–]Truewords 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"That, at least, is an interesting question. Is there a plight to men, and (if so) is it really institutional, or simply a difference in outcome? To wit, does the fact that men don't go to college (or drop out) reflect a reality that somewhere there is systematic discrimination, or just that men are being less responsible?"

Yes it has nothing to do with the amount of attention that is devoted to females education.

Lets see

-3 inch federal catalog dedicated to girls education (its illegal to have one for boys.)

-"Female only" scholarships even tho they represent 58% of college attendance and of course their are no Male only scholarships.

-The WEEA (womens educational equity act) still to this day recieves funding, no similar act for boys

-Almost all female teachers

-Title IX destroying mens sports programs in college thanks to its "proportionality" requirement (if females represent 58% of college students then they by law have to make up 58% of the athletes) and of course that law is working its way into highschools now as well as into the STEM fields in college.

-Super feminized education and the decrease/elimination of recess (something boys in lower grade school need).

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

-3 inch federal catalog dedicated to girls education (its illegal to have one for boys.)

Did that cause schools to be more strict on boys in school? Shit, man, I went to high school only about a decade ago, and I don't remember many people punishing boys who were screwing around in class (girls either, for that matter).

-"Female only" scholarships even tho they represent 58% of college attendance and of course their are no Male only scholarships.

That's private scholarships. AFAIK, there are no government-funded scholarships which can be "female only", so I'd be interested if you can find one.

-The WEEA (womens educational equity act) still to this day recieves funding, no similar act for boys

Did that make it more difficult for boys to graduate? My understanding of the complaint is that we think boys are now dropping out in greater numbers, not simply that there are more female graduates. Even if the WEEA accomplished every one of its goals, how would it make more boys drop out?

Almost all female teachers

Which has been true for a good long while.

-Title IX destroying mens sports programs in college thanks to its "proportionality" requirement (if females represent 58% of college students then they by law have to make up 58% of the athletes) and of course that law is working its way into highschools now as well as into the STEM fields in college.

My understanding of "proportionality" does not require a balancing of participants, but a balancing of scholarship funding (if there is a $200,000 scholarship budget, it must be evenly divided between men and women), and balancing of equipment needs (not the same amount of money on equipment, but the same quality and same replacement.

-Super feminized education and the decrease/elimination of recess (something boys in lower grade school need).

That's begging the question. My point is that boys have been (up until recently) treated as little hellions who needed to be disciplined in order to bring them in line with what education expected. Now, we're saying education should be changed to provide for the little brats. What gives?

[–]Quazz 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quazz 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamdizzle 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

The reasons for males dropping out of the system are discussed here at reddit/mensrights all the time. When faced with institutional misandry, a stark reality, many men simply give up.

So, the fact that men have worse results proves that there's institutional discrimination (as opposed to some men simply lacking the discipline to excel in academia)?

Out of curiosity, if a woman said "I didn't go into engineering because I saw a lot of sexism", does that prove that there's actual institutional sexism?

Probably not. Differences in outcomes do not prove discrimination, we use that line all the damned time.

Judging by your posting history, you are a man-blaming misandrist, and I don't really have time for you.

Oh, come on now, I didn't start off with personal attacks (despite you being an apologist for the dumbass classmates I've been burdened with for a good decade now, the very "masculine" students who don't pay attention, don't do the work, and generally blow off class), the least you can do is step up to the plate and debate.

[–]Hamdizzle 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamdizzle 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I've stated that, as proven by a multitude of articles and books in the manosphere, misandry is institutionalized, especially in the education system, and that this has resulted in hardships for men and boys in the educational system.

All those "show" is that the way we've come to expect/allow boys to act is counter to the educational environment. But, whether we should tailor boys to education or tailor education to boys is a fundamental question. In my life, I am bothered by people (both boys and girls) who ignore education, or screw around in class, or generally don't put forth the effort and discipline to succeed, and then claim that there's something wrong with the system.

Sommers' book is an interesting thesis, but hardly conclusive. The argument is almost always "society is not what would allow boys to succeed (unstated presumption: the way boys act is 'right'), therefore society should change". I don't grant that. I was taught discipline, responsibility, focus, and hard work, and succeeded.

In my father's generation, there was never discussion about whether the classroom environment (far more despotic and demanding of discipline and focus than today) was unsuited for boys. The assumption was always that boys had to be taught to control themselves. During that time, we were a nigh-untouchable behemoth of science and technology. We've become more lax, more accommodating, and have become less successful. Are you really claiming that becoming even more accommodating to undisciplined and irresponsible boys will make us better?

[–]Hamdizzle 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/27/should-men-tame-their-rhetoric/#comment-67272

Laura Grace Robins January 27, 2011 at 18:21 I have been working on a post,which I titled, “The Feminization of Rhetoric”. Since I don’t know when I will get around to finishing it and since it is timely here, I will post the quotes I am using from chapter 3 of this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5SRDicjOYxkC&pg=PA1&dq=rhetoric+history&hl=en&ei=bCZCTYDsLoP6lweC-NXvDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=rhetoric%20history&f=false

Several “a-ha” moments occurred to me in the following quotes, which has convinced me that men need to reclaim rhetoric from the hands of women and be able to express themselves in whatever way they see fit.

“Let us start with this question: Who owns rhetoric? Throughout most of Western history, the answer has been clear: rhetoric was the property of men, particularly of men of property. The continuing discipline of rhetoric was shaped by male rituals, male contests, male ideals, and masculine agen¬das. Women were definitively excluded from all that rhetoric implied. In the nineteenth century, however, higher education was opened—slowly, par¬tially, grudgingly—to women, and at that same time the theretofore closed field of rhetoric began to shift and change.”

“Rhetoric may have had its inception in the necessity of defending oneself, but as soon as it was rationalized into technical form it became a powerful psychological tool and a disciplinary refuge for men—the Boys’ Clubhouse where no girls were allowed and where men could thus work out their contests in private.”

Rhetoric as it used to be and as I see here is the “powerful psychological tool” that can defeat feminism. Women have taken this tool away from men. Rhetoric has become so feminized that even men shame other men by saying ““Such anger does not contribute to a meaningful dialogue” or “if you can’t have a civil conversation, please leave”. These are all attempts to take away one of man’s most natural and powerful tools. I think feminists are betting on that you will all just sit back and be shamed into ‘polite’, feminine conversation, while they hijack Rhetoric. BUT something created by men and for men, never works on a woman. Oh how she tries, but she just can’t debate like a man and then often has to resort to the ever famous “shaming language”.

“And what happened to this agonistic educational culture? After over two thousand years as the central element in education, public verbal con¬test died out almost completely in the nineteenth and early twentieth cen¬turies. Instead of the oral, argument-based, male-dominated education of the pre-1870 period, education post-1870 was much more interiorized, irenic, negotiative, explanatory. The older methods of academic defense and attack died out with startling rapidity, says Ong, because of the entrance of women into higher education. Contestive, combative educational methods that had worked satisfactorily for all-male schooling now came to seem violent, vul¬gar, silly. A man could attack another man verbally, and was expected to do so, but to attack a woman, either physically or intellectually, was thought ignoble. As more women entered colleges, their influence—both tacit and explicit—caused the abandonment of the agonistic tradition and the evolu¬tion of less overtly contestive educational methods. Thus the educational structure we inherit, an amalgam of newer irenic values and half-under¬stood survivals from a more agonistic time in education.”

“From no women in colleges in 1830 to three-quarters of all American colleges admitting women by 1900 was a change in educational culture that was unprecedented in modern history. We see, within seventy years, an ab¬solute revision of the all-male enclaves that colleges had been for over a millennium. There were, of course, schools that remained all-male—some even to the present day—but the college experience was ineluctably changed by the gradual influx of young women. This is not the place to detail the horrified objections, the often frantic attempts to safeguard the portals, the manifold arguments advanced against coeducation (see Woody). Women were on the move and would not be denied. And where women and men went to college together, the atmosphere and curricula changed as a re¬sult—the atmosphere and tone of life with startling rapidity, and the cur¬riculum more slowly but just as certainly.”

“Before women came onto the scene, “Education in all-male institutions was set up as a struggle for domi¬nance; one had to wrest authority from the teacher by proving one could “master” the subject—and the proof was by ordeal. There was no sense in which student and teacher were assumed to be friends. That is a modern concept. For students of most colleges before 1850, the faculty had one clear definition. It was the enemy.” “Traditional rhe¬torical training was harsh, competitive, filled with public testing, and often brutal and humiliating. But the entry of women into colleges changed the most basic rhetorical rules of engagement, and from cold, distanced, de¬manding lecture-recitation teaching and agonistic competition, rhetoric af¬ter 1900 became at its most typical a personalized editorial relationship, critical but not usually antagonistic. At its most progressive, it became a partnership between teacher and student. The very experience of student and teacher coming together to study discourse had after 1900 an ethos radically different from that of a hundred years before.”

“This, then, was college and university culture, from medieval times through and past the Civil War. It was man against man in a constant series of ritual tests of worthiness—in the classroom, on the platform, in the de¬bate hall, in the dormitory. In Latin or in English, the agonism was always present. It existed in the argumentative rhetorical theory stretching from Cicero to Whately, in the forms of thesis and defense, lecture and recitation, in the purring slash of the professor’s oral rebuke, in the barking give and take of the debate club’s hall, in the silky logical entrapment of the perspir¬ing bachelor’s candidate, and in the roaring denunciation of backsliding that issued from the pulpit. College was a man’s world, and it was a world red in tooth and claw.”

“In a space of less than forty years, however, all this agonistic rhetorical culture was swept away, and rhetoric itself was changed forever. The pri¬mary effect of coeducation was the quick decline of public contest as a staple of college life. As Ong argues, the agonistic impulse is purely a male-against- male phenomenon. Males perceive it as noble to struggle ritually—either physically or verbally—with other males. Even to be bested in such contests preserves honor, if one has obeyed the rules of the contest. The winner and the loser have established a hierarchy they agree on and can shake hands. But to struggle in ritual contest with a woman? It was unthinkable. There was no precedent for it, and no psychological rationale. Fighting with a woman, to the agonistically charged male, is ignoble on the face of it. To be victorious in such a contest would confer only slightly less shame and loss of face than to be defeated. Real men do not fight women. And thus, when women entered the educational equation in colleges, the whole edifice built on ritual contest between teacher and student, and between student and student, came crashing down.”

“Real men don’t fight women”. How many times have we heard that?! This is how it all started; women coming into college and eliminating Rhetoric and in turn the heart of being male. Once stripped of that key tool, women could beat men into submission however they wanted to, all they had to say was “be nice to the ‘ladies’”. Women think they engage in Rhetoric, but all it is, is a “dumbed down, preetified” version. Real Rhetoric is seen here and places similar and it may seem “mean”, but we have not seen Real rhetoric for close to 200 years. No one knows what it looks like anymore, all we know is feminized Rhetoric. So, when women whine about all the “mean, nasty” men, they should be reminded that this was life before women came onto the scene and demanded entrance in males spheres. If you don’t like it, women, then go back to baking, knitting or blogging, and let men have their tool of Rhetoric and to use it as they see fit! Men once protected you from this ‘harsh’ world, but you demanded to be included in it, starting with higher education. They changed their rules for YOU, as a courtesy and now that you are ‘educated ‘ and ‘independent’, let men regain what they have lost.

“If classrooms and lecture-halls were more orderly, other elements of college life changed radically as well. The change can most clearly be seen in specialization of function by gender. The decline of public agonistic contest as a way of college life led to a resulting canalization of that agonistic im¬pulse into a variety of more private arenas. Male contest cannot be done away with, and after coeducation it continued as an underground phenom¬enon. We can note after 1870, for instance, the decline of general interest in college debate; at school after school one sees the gradual breakdown of the older literary and debating societies. At least part of the reason for this de¬cline was the public nature of the debate clubs. Women could not easily be kept out of them, and to debate with women was unnatural, demoralizing, demeaning to the men whose private enclaves the club halls had been. Stripped of much of their psychological rationale, literary and debating clubs languished and were abandoned; their houses and halls—some of them quite elaborate—were usually bought by the institution or by fraternities.”

[–]Hamdizzle 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

“Just as it seemed Aristotelian argumentative rhetoric was picking up steam, however, teachers began to find themselves facing classes of women. Such a rhetoric was dangerous, and it could be fed to women only in harm¬less bits and pieces, stripped of its popular uses. The situation of rhetorical instruction for women mirrored the attitude that women’s proper sphere was private, minimizing traditional agonistic oral forms and maximizing analysis and composition.”

“A new sort of rhetorical instruction was needed, one that minimized the agonistic tendency inherent in oral rhetoric. Women’s colleges and the coeducational schools turned increasingly to a form of discourse that no one found threatening from women: written composition. Composition had been a subject in both grammar schools and academies since the early part of the century, but around 1820 we begin to see it given strong impetus in colleges as well.’6 Composition was an important element of Blairian belletristic instruction, and at the same time rhetoric needed purging of its public and oratorical elements in order for it to become a safe subject for both men and women. That is what happened between 1840 and 1890, as rhetoric became composition and rhetorical practice became composition- rhetoric. By 1885, even the term “rhetoric” had begun to give way to “composition” at most schools, and after 1895 we sel¬dom see it in textbook titles.”

[–]Hamdizzle 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamdizzle 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hamdizzle 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I received no scholarships due to my penis, only due to my scholastic achievement.

So, the lack of a positive benefit for having a penis is equivalent to a punishment for having one?

I received no internship because I had a penis, and two hot though not particularly bright women seem to have an advantage when being hired by men.

Well that's kind of disappointing. I don't really understand it, though. I've never been at a disadvantage for internships because of my gender.

I was supposed to believe that I was a potential rapist simply on account of my penis.

Unrelated entirely to academic achievement.

Nevertheless, I graduated summa cum laude in engineering from U of M because I perservered, even though I faced plenty of misandry.

Well, I'm not sure (based on your own assertions) that one who is just a "genius" and never had to work hard really "persevered", but I'll accept it.

My point is that the educational system does not need to be adapted to irresponsible, undisciplined, boys. The boys must be adapted to the system, as they were back when we were the best damned country on the planet. We need to go back to when education was "this is how it is, and if you aren't up for it, get the fuck out", as opposed to the coddling of students with "different educational styles".

[–]Hamdizzle 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I hate justifications which say "men who fuck around in school aren't at fault, it's the school's fault for not catering to them". I busted my ass in school to do the reading, to pay attention, to do well, and all of this "boys aren't to blame for when they don't buckle down, put their shoulder to the wheel, and get shit down" stuff just rubs me the wrong way.

Do me a favour and put your huge fucking ego aside for a second, ok? It's patently obvious that you think if YOU were able to do something, then there's no way anyone else is experiencing discrimination. You are quite literally ruled by your personal experiences.

You demand proof that education changed in the 80's, somehow ignoring the AAUW's "girls shortchanged by schools" campaign, and the wholesale rewriting of educational curriculums, AND rewriting of textbooks, that occurred in the late 80's early 90's...

You are either woefully uninformed, or deliberately obtuse. Don't even bother asking me for proof this happened, it's widely acknowledged. I suspect you may be ignorant of these developments though, since I suspect you are too young to have ever gotten anything but a feminist education.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do me a favour and put your huge fucking ego aside for a second, ok? It's patently obvious that you think if YOU were able to do something, then there's no way anyone else is experiencing discrimination. You are quite literally ruled by your personal experiences.

I don't get it. When the OP wrote that he was a "genius", and thus never had to work hard, you don't call him out on his "ego". When I admit that I worked my ass off to succeed, you accuse me of having an ego? WTF, dude?

the wholesale rewriting of educational curriculums, AND rewriting of textbooks, that occurred in the late 80's early 90's...

But, if anything, we've become more accommodating to students with different learning styles. In my father's day, there was never any discussion about having to change education to suit boys who were misbehaving, the boys had to be molded to gain an education.

Are you really claiming that we're more strict now when it comes to whether kids sit still, pay attention, and don't fuck around?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

What changed in the past fifty years

I'd posit the attitudes of teachers and administrators towards male behaviour. As you said, 50 years ago, a boy being naughty would get a rap on the knuckles and that would be the end. These days, the boy would receive a detentions; meetings with his parents. Then he might have to have counselling, and a referral to a psychologist who might prescribe any number of medications. Essentially, he'd be psychologically abused because he didn't fit the preferred feminine mold. This attitude hasn't just been tolerated, but explicitly encouraged.

No one I know is on ADHD medication

While your anecdotal evidence is both fascinating and informative, approximately 9.5% or 5.4 million children 4-17 years of age in the US have ever been diagnosed with ADHD, as of 2007. That's about twice as high as most other Western countries. Further, the trend is still continuing upwards. By 2020, ~15% of children could be diagnosed with ADHD. I wonder how your father and his friends coped in school without these fancy medications and exotic mental disorder diagnoses.

does the fact that men don't go to college (or drop out) reflect a reality that somewhere there is systematic discrimination, or just that men are being less responsible?

This is a great question, and should be discussed at length. Unfortunately issues affecting men don't receive any funding or publicity, so it won't be. There won't be any studies "proving" systematic discrimination. There won't be any lobbyists and action groups pressuring politicians to create "anti-discrimination" laws to favour men. There won't be any special funds and programs created to help the "oppressed" males. Instead, men will simply be labelled as lazy and deserving of their low rate of graduation. I wonder how that attitude would be been received when the above happened for women when they had low rates of graduation. The problem is that feminism doesn't and hasn't addressed equal opportunity, only equal outcome. So the actions of the movement are directly responsible for this disparity because they paid no regard to the causes of the disparity, and they fought for equal outcome instead. Perhaps we should respond in kind? Perhaps, by pushing for men to also receive equal outcome, we're simply leveling the imbalance created? I frequently refer to men's rights as a counter-balance. We'd be unnecessary if feminism actually did what is claimed to do. So I'm fine with fighting fire with fire in this instance.

[Needs Citations]

I agree. That's just conjecture.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd posit the attitudes of teachers and administrators towards male behaviour. As you said, 50 years ago, a boy being naughty would get a rap on the knuckles and that would be the end. These days, the boy would receive a detentions; meetings with his parents. Then he might have to have counselling, and a referral to a psychologist who might prescribe any number of medications. Essentially, he'd be psychologically abused because he didn't fit the preferred feminine mold. This attitude hasn't just been tolerated, but explicitly encouraged.

I would argue that it would end with a rap on the knuckles back then because the boy would learn his damned lesson and his parents would instill some discipline in him. I never saw boys (nor girls) punished for back-talking a teacher, screwing around in class, or generally just not giving a damn about school.

I wonder how your father and his friends coped in school without these fancy medications and exotic mental disorder diagnoses.

By focusing on their work, and exerting some self-control. The problem with ADHD is that we aren't willing to say "wow, my kid's a fuck-up, I should see to that". We want the easy answer, we want it to not be because our kid choosing to be ill-behaved or that we failed to instill discipline, we want it to either be medical (ADHD) or the school's fault (this entire thread).

I wonder how that attitude would be been received when the above happened for women when they had low rates of graduation

IIRC, there was not a period after women were given equal (or even pretty-equal) access to education when they didn't take to it like a fish to water. If huge swaths of women were dropping out in the 1970s and 1980s, I'm unaware of it.

So I'm fine with fighting fire with fire in this instance.

I guess I don't see this as fire. Little boys need to have discipline and focus to succeed in school, same as has been true for decades.

[–]Quazz 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That, at least, is an interesting question. Is there a plight to men, and (if so) is it really institutional, or simply a difference in outcome? To wit, does the fact that men don't go to college (or drop out) reflect a reality that somewhere there is systematic discrimination, or just that men are being less responsible?

When even really intelligent people just give up and fail to see to the point and thus get worse jobs than they could have, then is the time we should say: Yes god damnit!

I believe that time has passed already.

I've personally been a victim of this bullshit. Back in primary me and a few other guys had some competitive thingy going on. Well, at least I did, they just were forced to study. Anyway... I was doing great, always about on par with the best guy in class (we were with 32).

Then I went to secondary school... Bam. All the competition gone. In fact, they made learn what I had already learned in primary school again... This bored me and you can see how I give up over the years with my grades further plumeting.

I'll tell you, I don't even know how the hell I graduated without redoing any year. What I do know, is that I'm fucked for life because of that bullshit.

I had to give up engineering for the exact same reason and I'm now doing some courses that I'm wondering why the fuck I'm in classes that are so easy. The only comfort is that at least I'll earn about as much..

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then I went to secondary school... Bam. All the competition gone. In fact, they made learn what I had already learned in primary school again... This bored me and you can see how I give up over the years with my grades further plumeting.

I had to give up engineering for the exact same reason and I'm now doing some courses that I'm wondering why the fuck I'm in classes that are so easy. The only comfort is that at least I'll earn about as much..

That doesn't seem to be a complaint about the male vs. female system (if anything, the "feminized" system seems to be alleged to be more driven by focus and the ability to absorb information sitting in a classroom), but about being the smartest kid in the class.

Believe me, I've had those complaints as well, but so did my dad (who grew up in the 60s and 70s, before these changes), and I'd wager so did my uncles (older).

Comments