I think it's a pretty poor article. She appeals to Oxford admissions and top jobs as if this is reflective of boys in general. (Why is the apex fallacy so prevalent with these people?)
Boys schools receiving more funding "makes her nervous." Of course the only reason boys schools would be getting more money is if they had underachieving students, in which case it makes perfect sense. Nothing to be nervous about.
She points out that funds are limited so a greater budget for underachieving students would mean less money somewhere else. So what? Argue for more funds in general then. It doesn't change the fact that a larger portion of funds should be going to those who need it
Her reference to girls having lower activity in sports really isn't comparable.
She ends her article by stating that
if we bake this factor into the formula, it will mean more money is spent on boys’ education and, given everything else, this could mean we will store up worse imbalances for the future.
She does a piss-poor job of justifying this. The funds are indexed to the achievement of students, not their gender. If an imbalance shifted to girls underachieving then funds would shift accordingly.
[+]ilikepizza26261 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
I think it's a pretty poor article. She appeals to Oxford admissions and top jobs as if this is reflective of boys in general. (Why is the apex fallacy so prevalent with these people?)
Boys schools receiving more funding "makes her nervous." Of course the only reason boys schools would be getting more money is if they had underachieving students, in which case it makes perfect sense. Nothing to be nervous about.
She points out that funds are limited so a greater budget for underachieving students would mean less money somewhere else. So what? Argue for more funds in general then. It doesn't change the fact that a larger portion of funds should be going to those who need it
Her reference to girls having lower activity in sports really isn't comparable.
She ends her article by stating that
She does a piss-poor job of justifying this. The funds are indexed to the achievement of students, not their gender. If an imbalance shifted to girls underachieving then funds would shift accordingly.
[–]Strikester101[S] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link