How can i teach math to girls?
get them a sex change
That's not vague as shit or anything.
I'm a math teacher. Girls are, for the most part, better at math than boys. This is because they can sit still and listen due to years of being told to sit still and listen.
Of the top 10% of my students, I would wager 80% of them had a vagina.
>>26567648
Boys are too busy going through puberty to pay attention in school.
>>26567648
i wrote a ten page long report on how the school system fails boys at a kindergarden level
i never worked harder on a report before, every source was perfect and all taht shit
the teacher gave me a %70 :^) i fucking hate schools and teachers. fuck it.
>>26567818
Girls are better before puberty too.
>>26567914
Saying "there's a problem!!" without offering any kind of viable solution will earn you a 'C', especially if the problem exists outside of the school system too. Women are better employees at virtually every non-labor intensive job.
Lucky for us men though -- recent feminism has led to the creation of girls who don't sit still and listen. The end result will cause an evening out of the genders.
I think the most interesting part of this is that the child's upbringing has significantly more impact than the child's gender. The real issue is that gender changes how the child is raised (for most parents).
>>26567543
Like you would to a boy.
Women obtain about 40% of math degrees
>>26567648
Girls aren't better at math, girls just learn differently. Boys learn better by doing, girls learn better by listening, that's the difference.
>>26567648
I have a question. Is it rare for female students to have a crush in their male teachers? Has that ever happened to you? Stories?
>>26568573
This. It's why the education system heavily favors females because it caters to how females learn. Guys don't like to sit down and listen to some fuckwit explain shit for 45 minutes. That shit is boring.
>>26568605
Oops, on*.
>>26568418
oh no i did propose multiple solutions as well
most of them involved mandatory investigations of gender bias,as well as raising the pay grade of gradeschool teachers so men (who are attracted to higher paying jobs) will be persuaded to consider teaching a child as a legitimate career choice.
>recent feminism has led to the creation of girls who don't sit still and listen.
these girls were created by sitting and listening, listening to the bullshit spouted by cultural relativists and critical theory-loving, marxist brainwashing fucks. women are better employees at jobs that don't require creativity or aggressiveness to succeed, so literally all of the important ones are occupied by men.
>I think the most interesting part of this is that the child's upbringing has significantly more impact than the child's gender. The real issue is that gender changes how the child is raised (for most parents).
do you mean those wackjobs who neurosuggest that their little boy start taking hormones and wearing dresses because he likes playing with dolls sometimes? yeah, fucking freaks. but school raises you just as much as your parents do, so a huge portion on how the kid turns out is determined on their teachers (whoa re mostly female, starting out from very impressionable ages in gradeschool and gradually lowering until they reach college).
>>26567648
Middle school or elementary?
>>26568573
You're totally wrong, but that's okay because you'll never be teaching kids. Girls get to "do" so infrequently that they learn way more during projects and hands-on activities compared to the guys. For instance, in AP Statistics I did a paper-airplane experiment to explain how blocking works. On the follow-up quiz, the 40 student class of 23 girls and 17 boys had 15 girl A's and 5 boy A's. Furthermore, a girl built the furthest flying paper-airplane.
I think the boys were too busy having a dick-measuring contest whereas the girls were just designing as teams.
I love using this story to explain to people how terrible the sexism in today's world really is. People like you exist. People who don't even realize how stupid and inexperienced they really are.
>>26568573
E-fucking-xactly. Trying to explain to a boy how to do something and having him hands on trying to actually do it are two different things.
>>26567648
Pure math is extremely easy for girls to pick up because it is all just simple concepts and rote memorization.
If you tried to teach them a subject that required intense study, abstract concepts and a degree of creativity, like engineering or computer science, you would start having trouble.
Problem is, since pure math is so useless, the majority of female STEM graduates can't get a job. Hence the whole "no women in STEM" meme
>>26568418
>women are better employees at virtually every non labor intensive job
Could you explain to me, without being snarky or passive-aggressive, how you know that for a fact?
>>26568605
Depends on how attractive you are. I have slept with one former student -- but only once she had graduated and spent a semester at college. She informed me that a few, but not many, had crushes on me. The super good-looking teacher at our school always had girls fawning over him. The ugly ones get nothing.
>>26568626
>>26568653
See>>26568670
Honestly you're fucking clueless.
>>26568656
I've taught every grade from 5 to 12.
>>26568670
>You're totally wrong, but that's okay because you'll never be teaching kids
Except I do teach kids so I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've had several boys that just couldn't learn with the traditional methods so I've had to sit down with them and teach with interesting visual aids, with tangible physical items that they can touch and having them figure it out on their own. They always get it almost instantly because boys don't learn well when you're just standing at a blackboard and giving a lecture. This is a fact, it's been scientifically documented.
I never claimed anything about sexism but it's clear you're the ignorant one. Boys need to taught in a different way and the current classroom system just doesn't work for them.
>>26568689
Any statistic that results from a study cannot be used for inference. Of course, if you paid any attention in any basic logic class you would have known that.
It's quite likely that social work is a major that has been normalized for women to receive. Or perhaps they were told at a young age that computers are for boys. Or any fucking other thing.
>>26567543
Probably the same way you teach males, on a broader level.
From student to student, find out what works best for them.
I know there's an implication here, but seriously, just shut the fuck up.
>>26568716
I've taught AP Statistics for quite a few years. I know a lot of useless information. I'm sure if I cared enough I could go find the specific experiment that was ran. It was a group of college students assigned specific tasks after a day of half-classroom half-hands on learning. Girls beat the guys in output by a statistically significant margin.
I suppose I overstated the point. I shouldn't have generalized to all jobs.
>>26568682
>Trying to explain to a boy how to do something and having him hands on trying to actually do it are two different things.
I would have ever learned about computers if I had to listen to some smartass with a degree try and teach me it. I learned by actually using a computer, taking it apart, learning how things worked by experimentation.
This is what a lot of teachers, specifically female teachers, will never understand about boys. This is why we need men teaching boys.
>>26568770
>Any statistic that results from a study cannot be used for inference.
Are you a Markov chain? Because that sentence doesn't actually make any sense, but contains words that seem like they should make sense together. Are you trying to say something about how correlation is not causation, but you tripped over a thesaurus in the process and turned your point into word salad?
>>26568740
Since you think I'm not well-read, I'll just link you to a compendium of scientific research on learning methods. You're an idiot and should read up so you stop fucking up our kids.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf
>>26568889
Really? Because my boys are keeping up just fine and often surpassing the girls while your boys are falling behind the girls. So your boys are barely scraping by and mine are succeeding with flying colors, and I'm the one fucking up our kids? The irony is amazing. I already know what I'm talking about, I was mentored by one of the best teachers in the country. I know how boys learn, after all I am one.
>>26568726
thank you for actively contributing to a system that is discriminatory and FAILS fifty percent of the population every day. how the fuck you got to a teaching position by being as biased as you are blows my mind, but what can i expect from such a disgusting excuse of a learning institution.
have you ever stopped to think about just why you have a majority female student population in your AP classes? it's because most boys don't get a fair fucking chance at ever enjoying learning or being in school, so they never manage to make it to higher level classes. it's nothing but pure boredom and torture for most of them, and the people who are supposed to help them? tell their parents they have a fucking disability and to mindfuck them permanently by prescribing ritalin and adderal. FOR BEING WHO THEY ARE, this is what they get. you don't give a flying fuck about them though. you just want your students to be like lemmings as possible, never challenging you, never stepping out of line, so you never bother changing your teaching method to suit them.
>>26568889
since you love reading papers so much, here are some to show how much you and your shitty kind fucked up
http://people.terry.uga.edu/cornwl/research/cmvp.genderdiffs.pdf
http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp133.pdf
http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/why-girls-do-better-in-school-010212/
fuck you and fuck everyone like you. you're the one failing your boys because you're a lazy piece of shit, too arrogant to change his own method and too egotistic to admit he's wrong. you are everything wrong with the education system and i hope you die slowly, bleeding out from a fatal gunshot wound by one of the drugged-out male students who you fucking failed.
>>26568880
No, I'm citing word-for-word how statistics works. I'm sorry that you don't know scientific language. Correlation not implying causation is one of the many problems studies have, but they're not the only problem. Studies also have the issue of not accounting for confounding variables. And, most importantly, studies never come from a random sample -- and as such no statistical model can be used to accurately predict future actions.
>>26568689
To me your plot just demonstrates the kinds of considerations that are used to create IQ tests. I don't mean this in a SJW "emotional intelligence is a valuable skill guize" sense, but something deeper... The fact that your top majors (that are actually labeled) are physics, astronomy, philosophy, and mathematics suggests to me that IQ is a measure of one's inclination to ceteris paribus style reasoning: formal systems, small number of simultaneous factors, intellectual myopia, depth at the expense of breadth and losing the forest for the trees.
For an opposing example, success in psychology and social work (which apparently have low-IQ graduates) is about getting a sense for people. Like, you can crack open the DSM and you'll find diagnostic flow charts near the end, but the caveat is that those are basically useless on their own as diagnostic criteria. You have to know what it looks like for someone to actually have a particular symptom, rather than being basically normal with minor deviation, which is, I guess I'd say, "being in tune with the phenomenology of others," or "being able to navigate complexity." That's a valuable skill, but apparently something outside the domain of what IQ tests for.
I guess the point I'm really going for here is, people who seriously think IQ is a measure of "intelligence," regardless of their IQ score, are not very smart.
>>26567543
teach a class of traps
>>26568950
My boys do just fine. My students had the highest scores in the state last year in AP Stats, and 4th highest in AP Calc (at least of schools that report their scores -- not all schools do).
My boys don't fail, they just don't exceed the same way the girls do.
Also, I have to admit -- the most intelligent students I've ever had, all 3 were males.
>>26568689
What the fuck are you talking about?
Pure mathematics requires extreme creativity, which depending on how good your schooling was, you might not get to real math until your upper division math classes. Anything before that is baby math: here are the formulas, use algebra to reach a solution.
>>26569007
>I'm sorry that you don't know scientific language.
Haha, well played Mr(s). Markov chain. In fact, "study" is a very generic term, and I assume by "statistic" you really mean "statistical model." Generally though not always, data themselves are sound, but on the other hand, and you don't seem to realize it, but you're actually repudiating the entire field of statistics. I actually agree that data generated from complex phenomena are immune to inference, but if you pull that thread all the way you end up believing that complex systems science cannot be done in a coherent manner and statistics is a gigantic waste of time, since you would never use statistics in a non-complex scenario. Of course, pulling that thread even further leads to repudiating science as a whole, because there are no non-complex systems, only those for which simplicity is an occasionally serviceable approximation, and I assume that's not where you want to go.
I assume that's not what you believe and that you're living with crushing cognitive dissonance on this subject, because you use the phrase "confounding variables." It really doesn't get much more dualistic than that. So ultimately you probably get to use this sort of folk epistemology stuff to brush aside things you don't want to believe, and things you do want to believe have well-accounted confounds and well-posed sampling, because that's how motivated reasoning works.
>>26569065
>My boys don't fail, they just don't exceed the same way the girls do.
And that's a failing of your teaching methods and the education system.
I've been teaching long enough to know it's not entirely your fault. When you get a 40 kid classroom, it's extremely difficult to maximize the learning potential of every single individual. That's just how it works. However, instead of saying "Well I'm doing just fine, it's just the boys are not as smart." you say "What am I doing wrong, what are the boys weaknesses, how can I improve to help the boys learn better and get them up to standard?"
That's why I'm not convinced you're a teacher. No teacher that cares about their students would ever say "Well the boys just simply aren't as good." That's a load of shit, boys are just as capable if not more so. You just don't want to learn ways to improve them because it means learning a new way to teach or you don't want to help them to pad out your agenda.
I'm not in it for either gender. I want both girls and boys to succeed and I want to maximize the potential for both because that's what a teacher does.
>>26569001
>Students are handed a sum of L4 which they can either keep or allocate part of the
sum to bet on their own performance at a te
st where grading is partly discretionary.
How the fuck can you read this shit and give it reason? If you honestly believe in your gender differences, you're one to believe women are less confident. Of course they will under-estimate their own skills.
And the paper concludes with a paraphrase of my opening statement. Girls sit down and listen better, so they're better students.
Gotta sleep, kiddos to teach. Peace.
>>26569007
The way the world works is through correlations. A -> B can only be causally inferred if all relevant variables are taken into account, I think you get that.
But there will always be noise in your models, even in randomized controlled experiments due to unexplained errors. If all studies point to one direction, chances are that its that. Waving aside evidence because "correlation isn't causation" is pure folly.
>>26567648
it's too bad schools don't prepare you for the math you actually need in college for relevant majors
i was working with euler's totient function earlier today and was never taught anything even close to it, or anything with totatives
>>26569421
I was so mad that only after leaving school I actually learned that it was possible to enjoy learning and better. In school they teach you how to memorize shit, everything is memorizing rules and practicing them. I didn't have a fucking clue of the why's and how's of math, I just memorized what they taught me without understanding how it actually worked
A few months ago I had to relearn a bunch of maths that I forgot to help pass an aptitude test for a job and on top of using khan academy I read a book by Gelfand called Algebra and that's not deep but the way it teaches things, on top of actually going online and searching WHY these rules exist, what numbers are, how they interact, the interesting things with all numbers, even the understanding of the decimal system... It was all so different to school.
I got C's in school but scored the highest possible on the aptitude test for the military. Fuck that nonsense.
>>26567914
>the teacher gave me a %70 :^) i fucking hate schools and teachers. fuck it.
corresponds to my feelings desu though i was getting 100% the shit they spat out of their mouths just irked me
>>26567543
Teach her statistics first and how 77C doesn't really equal 1 dollar.
>>26568689
Lmao i hope you're not implying computer science is harder than pure math
>>26568418
>women are better employees at virtually every non-labor intensive job
I'm not even going to bother ridiculing you. This is objectively false.
