Educational disadvantage.

When you were growing up, did you feel that there was systematic favoritism in your school.
Based on your social status, address or sex?

tallaght01

Not WITHIN the school, but I feel very strongly that public schooling in Dublin is crap. For example, if you're from Tallaght, it's very very difficult to go to a good school that's reasonably close by.

If you couldn't afford to go to a private school, you had to go to a crap school. So, poorer people are very much discriminated against, in my opinion, and it still make me really mad, even though I've been out of the school system for about 12 years.

rainbow kirby

tallaght01 wrote: »

if you're from Tallaght, it's very very difficult to go to a good school that's reasonably close by.

+1

I'm from Firhouse, so close enough to Tallaght - and I went to school in Rathfarnham because any other school close to my house was absolutely terrible.

A_M101

Nope, it was quite well accepted that my secondary school was better or at least just as good as the closest fee-paying school.

It was an all-girls school so there was no gender disadvantage.

I don't even think social status had any effect.

Nevyn

Due to the school being a convent school there were subjects it did not offer due to lack of facilities and teachers and some they didn't think fitting for young ladies, we were discouraged from doing honours physics and apllied maths.

The guidance office didn't' have any books on the DIT or any of engineering or technical courses in other colleges/Uni but sure we were all garenteed a place in the local secaterial school.

I was leaned on to change some of my subject choices as bio, chem, phyics, german and music ( which was extra and done out side of school ) for the leaving cert was deemed a bit much for a young lady and they tired to get me to quit a science subject and take up bisorg.....

fits

My parents sent me to an all-girls school 20 miles from where I grew up (with many schools closer), so that I would have access to all the subjects I would want. I must say I got excellent teaching in the sciences and maths.

I cant really say if there was disadvantage due to social background in that school. It was very large and classes were streamed.

rainbow kirby

We still got a bit of that crap from teachers as recently as when I was in secondary school Thaedydal - I wanted to do 3 sciences for my LC, and only found out on the first day of 5th year that they'd made the schedule in such a way that nobody could do 3 sciences - even though they'd said at the end of TY that we could make that choice. Stupid convent school. They tried to push languages and business on us, and there was almost no encouragement for girls who wanted to study the sciences. In the end, 8 of us did physics for LC, 13 did chemistry (mostly people who wanted to do medicine or nursing) and I was the only one to take applied maths (which I picked up externally at the start of 6th year).

My sister is there now, going into TY. I only hope she'll get a little more encouragement than I did, as I know she wants to do bio/chem/music for LC.

tallaght01

rainbow kirby wrote: »

and I was the only one to take applied maths (which I picked up externally at the start of 6th year).

serious kudos for doing LC applied maths on your own!!!!!!!!

DenMan

Thaedydal wrote: »

Due to the school being a convent school there were subjects it did not offer due to lack of facilities and teachers and some they didn't think fitting for young ladies, we were discouraged from doing honours physics and apllied maths.

The guidance office didn't' have any books on the DIT or any of engineering or technical courses in other colleges/Uni but sure we were all garenteed a place in the local secaterial school.

I was leaned on to change some of my subject choices as bio, chem, phyics, german and music ( which was extra and done out side of school ) for the leaving cert was deemed a bit much for a young lady and they tired to get me to quit a science subject and take up bisorg.....

Excuse me for posting here ladies. That's very unfortunate, but alas happens a lot in schools ran by the church. In my secondary school (boys) we were encouraged to study Maths, History and Physics. I really enjoy both Mathematics and History and excelled at both subjects. However I also love Music, Arts and enjoy cooking (yeah I know, but I enjoy it). Most of which were frowned upon by my school. You should be allowed to follow your own path and pick the subjects you feel are best for you rather than seeing them put down and discouraged by the administration.

metaoblivia

Within the school, the only bias I noticed (and this was later on) was the separating of students based on academic ability. The students who tested "gifted" were given one group of teachers and completely separated from the other kids. The same thing happened with the students who tested way below average or had behavior problems. And when I say separated, I mean that my school had a hall for each grade level, and then a hall for the gifted students, and a hall for the remedial students.
The students who didn't test gifted or below average were then all supposed to be grouped together, but that wasn't the case. Very often, the ones who tested toward the higher end of average were grouped together, and the ones who tested toward the lower end of average were together.

Public schools in general in the States are divided along the lines of wealth. If you're lucky enough to live in an area that's well off, chances are the public schools there are very good. If you live in an area that's poor, it will be reflected in the schools. My immediate area had four high schools, all relatively close to each other. Two were on the wealthy side of town, and two were on the poor side of town.
The two wealthy high schools were very good high schools. They consistently won state awards for academics, sports teams, and extracurricular activities like art, drama, music. The other two high schools had horrible reputations for gangs, violence, and a lack of academic standards.
The county has tried to even things out by busing, and turning the two poorer high schools into magnet schools, but the reputations of all four schools still stand.

stovelid

I grew up in West Tallaght in the 80's and went to a public school there.

Some of the (including the so-called guidance counselor) teachers were openly dismissive of your ability to do anything except leave school and work/sign on or try forlornly to 'get a trade'. When you add low educational expectations in the area anyway and disruptive pupils, it's little wonder that the further education take-up from the area was something like under 1% percent at the time. Myself and my friends that went on to third level definitely did not get enough encouragement and had to motivate ourselves by and large.

Have no idea if it has all changed these days, as I left school in the late 80's.

On the positive side, there were also some fantastic, 'crusading' teachers (as there always are in schools like that) but to me, most were at worst: dismissive or at best: benignly indifferent to anything except drawing a wage and not being assaulted.

In my school opportunities were limited and they were automatically reserved for teachers children or children who had the right parents.
From the first day in school we were segregated by our percieved standing.
I have some than I did because of this prejudice, despite their obvious intelligence.
That is life defining stuff.

ntlbell

Moonbaby wrote: »

In my school opportunities were limited and they were automatically reserved for teachers children or children who had the right parents.
From the first day in school we were segregated by our percieved standing.
I have some than I did because of this prejudice, despite their obvious intelligence.
That is life defining stuff.

What sort of opportunities are you referring to?

First dabs on the toffee milk or a skiing trip in the alps?

Ginny

I had experience of both ends, I went to a VEC school for 1st-4th year and a convent semi fee school for 5th and 6th year.
I left the VEC as like Thaed I was being pushed to do Home Ec for the Leaving Cert, as they didn't offer Bio, Chem and Physics as an option.
To be perfectly honest I still think I would have gotten the same results in the Junior Cert if I was in the convent school for it (I doubt they would have been better), but then again I did a lot of extra study at home in both schools.
The only thing really lacking in the VEC was any sort or PE hall, we did ours in the yard, and if it rained in the school hall, my eyes were really opened when I went to the convent school with its dedicated sports hall, and where sports and extra curricular activites were encouraged.

cuckoo

metaoblivia wrote: »

Within the school, the only bias I noticed (and this was later on) was the separating of students based on academic ability. The students who tested "gifted" were given one group of teachers and completely separated from the other kids.

I wish that there had been a system like that in my old school - yeah, i know i should horrible and elitist, but after the frustration of sitting in an honours English class that was constantly disturbed by one of the dimmer light bulbs in the box "....i don't understand what that word means....". The girl should have been doing pass english, if not foundation level, but her daddy was Important, and his child had to be accomadated.

I do remember a feeling from my school days that the treatment of people did vary according to how much of a fuss their parents were willing to make - those with the more hands off, 'the school knows best' parents were treated differently.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

What sort of opportunities are you referring to?

First dabs on the toffee milk or a skiing trip in the alps?

Well everything, but particularly things like the option to take higher level in a subject you were good at, or in competetions like those programmes universities run for right students, or take part in activites that you had an interest in like sport, debate or drama.
Basically get encouraged in any way shape or form.

Stheno

The system where I grew up was that the schools pooled resources, so the girls did Honours Maths and Physics in the CBS and they did Honours Chemistry and Accountancy in the Pres.

To further add to it any year they had an overflow in Honours English both schools pooled with the V.E.C.

I ended up doing Maths in the CBS, English in the V.E.C. and the remaining five subjects in the Pres.

Piste

My school is good, it's girls only so there's no division of sex, and it's public so there's no division accorting to "status". I have noticed though that the girls with wealthier parents tend to work a lot harder and be a lot more ambitious than the girls whose parents are less well-off.

ntlbell

Piste wrote: »

I have noticed though that the girls with wealthier parents tend to work a lot harder and be a lot more ambitious than the girls whose parents are less well-off.

I would of thought that would be standard across the board.

ntlbell

Moonbaby wrote: »

Well everything, but particularly things like the option to take higher level in a subject you were good at, or in competetions like those programmes universities run for right students, or take part in activites that you had an interest in like sport, debate or drama.
Basically get encouraged in any way shape or form.

Were you in a school outside Dublin?

When I was in secondary school 1990/91 when I started I think all the above were options in any school near me (all public)

Climate Expert

The Irish schooling system is inherantly biased towards girls. I had some disgustingly sexist female teachers in secondary school who had real issues with men. A huge amount of bitter. single, childlesss 30 year olds and a handful of divorcees.

The CAO system is biased towards women as well and should really have gender weightings to avoid females dominating certain professions.

Madame Razz

Went to a huge convent school, 150 in my year, all girls, very good facilities, all subjects, mostly good teachers but a few SHOCKING ones, as always happens.

Classes were streamed which was a good thing I think but I did feel that those of us in the top stream were deffo favoured by the teachers and principal, and that the nuns had little or no time for those people in the lower streams. Treatment of the students discipline wise was the same for everybody, regardless of where you lived or who your folks were, though there were one or two they were less than tolerant of, but with good reason, as they tried their best with these people. But most certainly there was an intelligence bias, which, i think, is a typical pres nuns thing.

The most elitist person was most certainly the Guidance counsellor who tried to push me towards doing medicine and physio when I had no interest in either, with no good reason why, other than the fact that they were prestigious.

In fairness, I did music outside of school, as did a few others, and the school were very accomodating of this, which i know was not the case in neighbouring schools.

My school wasn't fee-paying, in fact the only fee paying school in the vicinity was 35miles away and it was mixed.

I can honestly say that I got a good well rounded education, and a real one at that, as i met people from different backgrounds that perhaps subsequent friends of mine(who went to fee-paying schools) wouldn't have. (For example, they were shocked when they heard that 6 girls in my year were pregnant by 6th year, or that somebody was borne out of incest, or that we had Travellers in our year)

I think meeting people from different backgrounds is what life is all about and I'm glad I was not shielded from this in my teenage years, unlike a lot of my friends. (realisitically Daddy doesn't always drive a beemer and mummy doesn't always go to the golfclub!!!) I think it has better equipped me to deal with life and to be as unjudgemental as I can be.

However I am not so sure that, had I not been in the top stream, my education and/or treatment in the school would have been as good.

That said, if classes hadn't been streamed I doubt my education would have been as good as it was either!!

I still resent being given a muppet of an Irish teacher tho....grrrrrrrrr..

stovelid

Climate Expert wrote: »

The Irish schooling system is inherantly biased towards girls. I had some disgustingly sexist female teachers in secondary school who had real issues with men. A huge amount of bitter. single, childlesss 30 year olds and a handful of divorcees.

The CAO system is biased towards women as well and should really have gender weightings to avoid females dominating certain professions.

Wait a minute, this is the Ladies Lounge.

Are you trying to get some kind of reacti.......oh

mahamageehad

Climate Expert wrote: »

The Irish schooling system is inherantly biased towards girls. I had some disgustingly sexist female teachers in secondary school who had real issues with men. A huge amount of bitter. single, childlesss 30 year olds and a handful of divorcees.

The CAO system is biased towards women as well and should really have gender weightings to avoid females dominating certain professions.

without trying to stir things up, IMO anyone who thinks that the CAO system is biased towards women doesnt understand it at all and/or is just tryin to cause trouble

Twee.

I enjoyed my school and everyone got unlimited support and help from all staff and the guidance counsellor. It was an all girls, non fee-paying school with an excellent TY. The subject choices were pretty average for LC.
Unfortunately I had to travel quite a bit to get there! I left the house before half seven every morning for a bus journey that could be 35 minutes or an hour. There was one school where I lived and one other close by but I felt I made the right choice going where I went.

spurious

Climate Expert wrote: »

The Irish schooling system is inherantly biased towards girls.

While running the risk of taking things slightly off-topic, there is a certain amount of truth in what you say.
The SEC is well aware of the under-performance by boys and the fact that the exam game as it is currently is played better by girls.

Piste

ntlbell wrote: »

I would of thought that would be standard across the board.

It probably is, but I've only ever been to the one school so can only speak for that.


It's funny how some people are saying they were discouraged from doing higher level, in my school it's assumed you'll be sitting higher level in all subjects but Irish and Maths (and French for LC) which are streamed. People only do pass if they want to and if it's possible that with work they could comfortably pass honours then they are encouraged to stick with it.

Macha

I went to a Protestant, girls-only boarding school.

We weren't allowed to play any "macho" sport like soccer or rugby. And by the time we got to 6th year, we were doing aerobics videos for PE (wtf?). PLUS we weren't allowed down to the shops on a Wednesday because the boys schools get a half day & the likelihood of meeting a member of the opposite sex went up considerably (and we all know talking to a boy gets you pregnant :rolleyes:

There were also no options such as technical drawing & others like that. Then again, it was one of the only schools to teach Latin & I was the only person in my class doing it for the LC. So you win some, you lose some.

Edit: Climate "Expert": just saw your post. Care to explain??

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

Were you in a school outside Dublin?

When I was in secondary school 1990/91 when I started I think all the above were options in any school near me (all public)

We had the facilities it was just that your access to them depended on what the staff thought of your social status/address etc.

Perhaps it is a culchie thing, we had broader percieved social diversity in our small group.
TBH it was all snobbery....we were all much the same.

Bijoux

I was made go to a primary school where I was isolated because of my address and social background. I used to go to a small school in the country, which I loved, which was run very well, and everyone got on well, but when I moved house and changed to the other school, it was in the 'posh' area of town....and everyone in that school treated me like an outcast, because I didnt live in a house worth half a million euro, and cos my daddy wasnt a barrister and my mum didn't drive a Merc.

Worst two years of my life, thank god it's over!

Secondary school was grand though!:)

rainbow kirby

Climate Expert wrote: »

The CAO system is biased towards women as well and should really have gender weightings to avoid females dominating certain professions.

What about the subjects that are traditionally male-dominated?

I study computer science, and there are very few women studying CS. Engineering is desperately short on women too, especially in electrical and mechanical engineering. There aren't many women who study physics either.

Piste

There are scolarships specifically for girls to entice them into science/engineering subjects in college.


Personally I think they're going completely the wrong way about it, they need to attract better looking guys and then the girls will follow :pac:

Bijoux

rainbow kirby wrote: »

What about the subjects that are traditionally male-dominated?

I study computer science, and there are very few women studying CS. Engineering is desperately short on women too, especially in electrical and mechanical engineering. There aren't many women who study physics either.

I'm currently studying physics in college...I was in an all girl secondary school, where there were about 120 girls in every year...about 7 years ago, only 4 people in my school took physics....when I did my leaving cert (2007), there were sixteen girls in my physics class....apparently the year after I left they had two physics classes, so it seems to be getting more popular!

Handsome Bob

There was very much an educational disadvantage in my school. As far as teachers went, we either had the experienced teachers but who couldn't control a class and had a poor system of teaching or A LOT of green teachers sent to us who really had no system of teaching established yet. Poor facilities also was a problem.

Basically anyone who did well in the LC were the ones that could teach themselves. If you were a student who had potential but needed guidance, you were screwed.

Monkey61

I found in my school anyway (though I imagine it's prevalent in a lot of countryside non-privateschools) that academic achievement was never pushed as much as it should have been. It is very difficult to be clever and have to sit through classes with people that aren't at the same level and to never be pushed to be better cos "aren't you doing grand as you are."

Classes were obviously geared towards those with average ability, those that were below average got special classes, those that were above did not. I think I missed out on an awful lot that would have been available to those in fee paying schools.

Climate Expert

There are scolarships specifically for girls to entice them into science/engineering subjects in college

More sexist rubbish.

Where are the scholarships for men to take up medicine, teaching or nursing?

Macha

Climate Expert wrote: »

More sexist rubbish.

Where are the scholarships for men to take up medicine, teaching or nursing?

I think the difference is men can get into these but don't want to (?). Women do want to get into science/engineering but face obstacles...? Just throwing it out there.

byhookorbycrook

mahamageehad wrote: »

without trying to stir things up, IMO anyone who thinks that the CAO system is biased towards women doesnt understand it at all and/or is just tryin to cause trouble

or won't pass the l/cert!!

Semele

I'm from Northern Ireland and I've been to both comprehensive and grammar schools. I went to the local high school when I was 11 as my mother worked there as a TA, so it was convenient, and felt I was too young to make the much longer journey to the grammar school in the next town every day.

I've seen the best and worst of both:

The high school had limited resources and limited subject choices for GCSE. However I was easily one of the best students throughout school and we were encouraged by the teachers far more than were others- to the extent of having far more informal and relaxed relationships with them in the classroom than the lower-level classes. I was on first name terms with many of my teachers and could get away with slagging that probably would have got others suspended. I was in the (1) higher level class for our GCSE years- the rest of the classes were middle level- and we were assigned the best teachers for every subject. The school might not have been the best but our class was referred to by all teachers (i kid you not) as "la creme de la creme". Obviously I loved it at the time since we were treated like royalty, however it made me very lazy and complacent about work.

For my A-levels I moved to the school I could have gone to at 11 and found it an entirely different story. Without sounding like a tw*t, I was used to getting top results with no effort in my old school- here I had to actually work for it as the standard as a whole was much higher. Saying that though, the standard varied far more as it was assumed that at that level we would all be of equal ability- which was not the case. I still think that there should have been some sort of streaming at A-level. I don't mean to sound elitist by that but the fact is that I didn't ever work in my 1st school because I didn't have to, and even now that we were being more intellectually challenged there were always enough slower people in the class to hold us back.

I think I learned more in the second school in 2 years than in 5 at the first. Our first school had really high league table results- 1st in N.Ireland for a few years in a row around the time I was there, beating my 2nd school, but I later realised it did this by putting all effort into the maybe 30 of us that had the potential to do really well and counting on the fact that we would outweigh the dross that they just ignored.

I think I'd be so much better off now in a system that took the best of both: I loved the challenge of the 2nd school but hated the fact that the class was so much bigger and of such mixed ability; and I loved the streaming of the 2nd school but not its attitude that we could do fine without being pushed- so we might as well all just sit down and have a chat!

I have since been left with a crippling inability to force myself to study which has blighted my college years- where ability alone is not enough! One actually has to go to lectures and study and stuff it seems...

Climate Expert

taconnol wrote: »

I think the difference is men can get into these but don't want to (?). Women do want to get into science/engineering but face obstacles...? Just throwing it out there.

The exact opposite actually. Women can do whatever they want but chose not to. Women keep men out of lots of high points courses.

Mikel

taconnol wrote: »

I think the difference is men can get into these but don't want to (?). Women do want to get into science/engineering but face obstacles...? Just throwing it out there.

I think the reverse is true. The outperformance by girls relative to boys means means that the very high points courses (pharm, med, physio) are dominated by girls.
Proper order some might say....... well if the situation was reversed etc etc.

One interesting point about medicine though, if women come to dominate the ranks of graduating doctors, there could be other consequnces.
A certain percentage will turn to childrearing at some point, which will reduce the time they work or they may leave the profession altogether.
At the moment GPs in Ireland and the UK are dying out, it's harder to get people to work the unsocial hours, so will we face a shortage of doctors?
Any shortfall will be taken up by doctors from places like India and Africa, leading to a drain from places where they are needed very badly

rainbow kirby

Bijoux wrote: »

I'm currently studying physics in college...I was in an all girl secondary school, where there were about 120 girls in every year...about 7 years ago, only 4 people in my school took physics....when I did my leaving cert (2007), there were sixteen girls in my physics class....apparently the year after I left they had two physics classes, so it seems to be getting more popular!

That's good to see that the hard sciences are becoming more popular in an all-girls school - I did my LC in 2002 and there were 8 of us in my year that did physics that year, 4 did it the year before that, and 6 did it the year after.

At the moment GPs in Ireland and the UK are dying out, it's harder to get people to work the unsocial hours, so will we face a shortage of doctors?
Any shortfall will be taken up by doctors from places like India and Africa, leading to a drain from places where they are needed very badly

It's quite possible alright. Personally I think making medicine a graduate entry subject like it is in the US would be a good idea - yes it would mean it takes longer to qualify as a doctor, but it would mean that those who were really committed to it would go for it, plus it would mean that future doctors would have a broader range of life experience before they begin their medical training.

fits

Mikel wrote: »

One interesting point about medicine though, if women come to dominate the ranks of graduating doctors, there could be other consequnces.
A certain percentage will turn to childrearing at some point, which will reduce the time they work or they may leave the profession altogether.
At the moment GPs in Ireland and the UK are dying out, it's harder to get people to work the unsocial hours, so will we face a shortage of doctors?
Any shortfall will be taken up by doctors from places like India and Africa, leading to a drain from places where they are needed very badly

And should we not facilitate childrearing in all careers? To be honest I think the whole mindset about women in the workforce needs to change. If theres a shortfall we need to train more, end of story.

Btw I read that article in the times too and thought it was a heap of sh1te.

Twee.

Physics was quite unpopular in my year with only nine in the class. Stranger though was that history had just six of us!
My school brought Technical Graphics in for TYs last year, thanks to a new male teacher. Hopefully they'll continue and maybe bring it in for Leaving Cert.

Climate Expert

Twee. wrote: »

Physics was quite unpopular in my year with only nine in the class. Stranger though was that history had just six of us!
My school brought Technical Graphics in for TYs last year, thanks to a new male teacher. Hopefully they'll continue and maybe bring it in for Leaving Cert.

I think the got rid of it as a LC subject.

Twee.

Climate Expert wrote: »

I think the got rid of it as a LC subject.

Aw Well, maybe they'll bring in something as an alternative to Art, Home Ec and Music for the "other" subjects!

Mikel

fits wrote: »

And should we not facilitate childrearing in all careers? To be honest I think the whole mindset about women in the workforce needs to change

Way to miss the point.

Btw I read that article in the times too and thought it was a heap of sh1te.

I'm not referring to any article in the Times, which is just as well seeing as you deconstructed it so succintly.:rolleyes:

cuckoo

Mikel wrote: »

Way to miss the point.

?

It had been stated in the thread that the gender imbalance entering medicine was a problem, as the female graduates might want to leave the workforce for a while to have children. Fits was saying that this isn't what should be seen as a problem - that the problem is with the system, not the doctors. Male doctors should also be allowed want to have careers that allow them to spend time with their families.

fits

Mikel wrote: »

Way to miss the point.

I'm not referring to any article in the Times, which is just as well seeing as you deconstructed it so succintly.:rolleyes:

I didnt miss any point.
There was an article in the Times a few weeks ago about this very issue which caused quite a stir which is why I assumed you were talking about it.

paperclip2

Climate Expert wrote: »

.
The CAO system is biased towards women as well and should really have gender weightings to avoid females dominating certain professions.

I haven't read all the replies so if this has been answered already apologies.

The CAO is a points based merit system, ie the higher your grade the higher your points and in you get to your course, be you male or female.

If demand exceeds places a random lottery selection process is used among those who have the neccessary points.

The points for any particular course is based on the demand for that course from the student body.

Gender is never a bias in the selection process through CAO (although it can be as part of policy in individual instutes of higher learning).
It can also be an issue at schools level, where girls are out-performing boys in many areas of the curriculum, but this isn't something that CAO can realisticaly be expected to address.

Climate Expert wrote: »

Women can do whatever they want but chose not to. Women keep men out of lots of high points courses.

This is a wider societal issue. Look at the number of stories here from girls who were actively discouraged from participating in courses at second level leading to careers in science and engineering. If you have spent five years doing languages and humanities then its unlikely you will have sufficient academic knowlege and self awareness to accurately assess your performance in a non-related field at third level. Hence girls tend to shy away from such areas leading to initiatives to encourage female particpation.

Medicine is the most significant anomly in this regard and this has been principally due to the high status nature of this career. It attracts aspirational and ambitious learners, be they male or female. Since the number of places has always been regulated so stringently the natural result has been sky high points. Therefore those who can play the education game are duly rewarded. At present the educational system favours women. In previous generations it did not.
(Additionally, entry to medicine will change in 2009 I think!)

It is the nature of the curriculum at second level as well as issues such as male psycho-social development and traditional, narrow view teaching styles which restricit the ability of certain young male learners to achieve their potential within the current education system.

Also there have been initiatives to attract men into more female dominated areas, e.g. http://www.maryhanafin.ie/january24.htm

At present its not the evil girls banding together to keep the lads out of particular courses. Its an educational system in need of an over-haul in regard to how it approaches the whole area of learning assessment. It is my personal belief that the 'one size fits all' mentality of the LC needs to change.

Have soap-box! Will travel!! Sorry for banging on so long!

fits

Good post paperclip.

I have to say while the current system may favour a certain type of student who is often female (although I would not consider myself to have been one of those students). I cannot see how any changes to the curriculum/assessment/teaching styles are going to favour boys.
I dont see why they should either. Things always even out when people get older (or even favour men rather than women).