Boys should go to boys only schools.
Eton-college/Andover is by far the most preferred institution for boys all over Britain/the-world/The-U.S. Perhaps, because it offers the best education a boy can have. How many coed schools compare? Zero.
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Actually most research suggests that both boys and girls perform better in single-sex schools. Boys are afraid that girls will call them nerds/dorks if they perform 'too well' academically. They spend more time attempting to be entertaining/charming/annoying to impress girls than concentrate on the lesson.
the research on the above-right is simply about how in "coed classrooms" if there are more girls than boys then boys do better and does not say anything about boys-only classrooms.
Boys in coed schools feel more proficient in sciences and mathematics than their female counterparts; are thus more confident and understand they can use their superior potential to get girls to notice them.
That is they understand if they do well in these 'boring/boyish' subjects girls will ask them for help and will do their homework/classwork with them etcetera.
Consider this comment from one of the boys in the single-gender class: "We don't just do war poems and Macbeth, we do Wordsworth too. It's a challenge, in a way, which Mr J sets us to show the girls we're capable of doing it, but I couldn't talk about these things if there were girls there!"
Boys care more for what girls think of them than what other boys think of them. A giggle from a girl can be life-threatening; boys feel they do better around boys because the judgement is less harsh/felt.
The numbers speak for themselves.
Again; less threatened by bigger males who tend to be less aggressive when there are no girls to impress/scare/intimidate
Frat boys, choir-boy-molesting-priests, gang-rapists, gangs etc have two things in common: They are generally all-boys and that they are horrible.
One boy in the company of ten women is likely to behave much better than five-ten boys/men/males with one girl.
Boys in all-male stags are up-to no good.
Give the girls a break
Girls perform better when there are no boys around. And girls-only groups unlike boys-clubs tend to be civilized. Compare sororities with fraternities. Women when in the company of other women and no men; tend not be catty/biting/rude but rather are not scared to be happy helpful and open. There's a lot of singing/dancing,make-up and slumber-parties/beach-parties/parties. Girls have fun with other girls and need not worry about jealousy over boys or annoying/intrusive boys or looking bad or whatever.
If all the boys were in boy's schools then girls would need not worry about most of the problems women face. Also we can openly communicate about girlie matters, feelings and hormones without being conscious.
The left will have us believe that there are no such things as platonic friendships between members of the opposite sex. Or that
homosexual relationships are a myth. Or that the only thing that foments girl-rage is boys.
Fact is; so long as people are being themselves, are not worried about what other people think and remain civilized it's all good.
The moment people are pressured to have/be-in physical relationships and are trying to fit into gender stereotypes/standards that is when there's a problem.
But when this occurs naturally and it is human nature to have certain feelings after puberty; there is no problem.
boys perform better in co-ed schools and girls perform academically better in girls only schools.
According to several studies boys do better when there are more girls than boys in a classroom because girls help them focus.
Males are natural competitors; while girls are encouraged to be shy and submissive no matter how gender-neutral a society claims to be.
Males around girls feel the need to prove themselves while girls figure if they seem dumb and popular boys will like them.
Therefore under-perform and boys perform better in coed classrooms.
This is just to impress boys but also not to be judged by girls around them. If a girl participates aggressively in a coed classroom she is laughed at by the 'mean/cool/hot-girl'-crowd. Girls learn that being enthusiastic in the classroom is not for them.
The boys lose, the girls gain. Overall, the argument neither supports nor opposes gender segregation.
boys are more aggressive, violent, stereotypically masculine in boys schools
Boys feel the need to prove that they are in fact boys and thus indulge in shootings and bombing other than other masculine pranks which they would be ashamed to perform in the company of girls.
There is no paucity in spit/fart bombs,slingshots and other such weaponry in a boy-dominated classroom.
[['Catcher in the rye'- must read for all those who think boys are gentle in the environment of their sex alone]]
Again; this is in reference to schools that have student bodies that are predominantly male.
Boys only feel the need/pressure to be stereotypically male when in the presence of few women; when there are more girls than
boys; boys don't have to worry about not being able to bring a girl to a school dance or to have to compete with bunches of other boys for the female minority. They do not hate girls when there are none or too many; only when they are in a minority.
When in the company of boys alone; boys are less homophobic; are happier to be themselves (no girls to impress or fight over) and overall are pleasant.
In "Catcher in the rye" the only tension between the boys comes from girls/sex.
No-one should have to go to school at all.
If school was optional it would make life better.
What do you think?