E é por isso que mulheres vivem mais que homens ;)
Mostrando postagens com marcador homens. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador homens. Mostrar todas as postagens
17 setembro 2015
08 março 2015
Educação: Meninas deixando os meninos pra trás
It is a problem that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago.
Until the 1960s boys spent longer and went further in school than girls,
and were more likely to graduate from university. Now, across the rich
world and in a growing number of poor countries, the balance has tilted
the other way. Policymakers who once fretted about girls’ lack of
confidence in science now spend their time dangling copies of “Harry
Potter” before surly boys. Sweden has commissioned research into its
“boy crisis”. Australia has devised a reading programme called “Boys,
Blokes, Books & Bytes”. In just a couple of generations, one gender
gap has closed, only for another to open up.
The reversal is laid out in a report published on March 5th by the OECD, a Paris-based rich-country think-tank. Boys’ dominance just about endures in maths: at age 15 they are, on average, the equivalent of three months’ schooling ahead of girls. In science the results are fairly even. But in reading, where girls have been ahead for some time, a gulf has appeared. In all 64 countries and economies in the study, girls outperform boys. The average gap is equivalent to an extra year of schooling.
The OECD deems literacy to be the most important skill that it
assesses, since further learning depends on it. Sure enough, teenage
boys are 50% more likely than girls to fail to achieve basic proficiency
in any of maths, reading and science (see chart 1). Youngsters in this
group, with nothing to build on or shine at, are prone to drop out of
school altogether.
To see why boys and girls fare so differently in the classroom, first
look at what they do outside it. The average 15-year-old girl devotes
five-and-a-half hours a week to homework, an hour more than the average
boy, who spends more time playing video games and trawling the internet.
Three-quarters of girls read for pleasure, compared with little more
than half of boys. Reading rates are falling everywhere as screens draw
eyes from pages, but boys are giving up faster. The OECD found that,
among boys who do as much homework as the average girl, the gender gap
in reading fell by nearly a quarter.
Once in the classroom, boys long to be out of it. They are twice as likely as girls to report that school is a “waste of time”, and more often turn up late. Just as teachers used to struggle to persuade girls that science is not only for men, the OECD now urges parents and policymakers to steer boys away from a version of masculinity that ignores academic achievement. “There are different pressures on boys,” says Mr Yip. “Unfortunately there’s a tendency where they try to live up to certain expectations in terms of [bad] behaviour.”
Boys’ disdain for school might have been less irrational when there were plenty of jobs for uneducated men. But those days have long gone. It may be that a bit of swagger helps in maths, where confidence plays a part in boys’ lead (though it sometimes extends to delusion: 12% of boys told the OECD that they were familiar with the mathematical concept of “subjunctive scaling”, a red herring that fooled only 7% of girls). But their lack of self-discipline drives teachers crazy.
Perhaps because they can be so insufferable, teenage boys are often marked down. The OECD found that boys did much better in its anonymised tests than in teacher assessments. The gap with girls in reading was a third smaller, and the gap in maths—where boys were already ahead—opened up further. In another finding that suggests a lack of even-handedness among teachers, boys are more likely than girls to be forced to repeat a year, even when they are of equal ability.
What is behind this discrimination? One possibility is that teachers mark up students who are polite, eager and stay out of fights, all attributes that are more common among girls. In some countries, academic points can even be docked for bad behaviour. Another is that women, who make up eight out of ten primary-school teachers and nearly seven in ten lower-secondary teachers, favour their own sex, just as male bosses have been shown to favour male underlings. In a few places sexism is enshrined in law: Singapore still canes boys, while sparing girls the rod.
Some countries provide an environment in which boys can do better. In Latin America the gender gap in reading is relatively small, with boys in Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru trailing girls less than they do elsewhere. Awkwardly, however, this nearly always comes with a wider gender gap in maths, in favour of boys. The reverse is true, too: Iceland, Norway and Sweden, which have got girls up to parity with boys in maths, struggle with uncomfortably wide gender gaps in reading. Since 2003, the last occasion when the OECD did a big study, boys in a few countries have caught up in reading and girls in several others have significantly narrowed the gap in maths. No country has managed both.
Girls’ educational dominance persists after school. Until a few
decades ago men were in a clear majority at university almost everywhere
(see chart 2), particularly in advanced courses and in science and
engineering. But as higher education has boomed worldwide, women’s
enrolment has increased almost twice as fast as men’s. In the OECD women
now make up 56% of students enrolled, up from 46% in 1985. By 2025 that
may rise to 58%.
Even in the handful of OECD countries where women are in the minority
on campus, their numbers are creeping up. Meanwhile several, including
America, Britain and parts of Scandinavia, have 50% more women than men
on campus. Numbers in many of America’s elite private colleges are more
evenly balanced. It is widely believed that their opaque admissions
criteria are relaxed for men.
The feminisation of higher education was so gradual that for a long time it passed unremarked. According to Stephan Vincent-Lancrin of the OECD, when in 2008 it published a report pointing out just how far it had gone, people “couldn’t believe it”.
Women who go to university are more likely than their male peers to graduate, and typically get better grades. But men and women tend to study different subjects, with many women choosing courses in education, health, arts and the humanities, whereas men take up computing, engineering and the exact sciences. In mathematics women are drawing level; in the life sciences, social sciences, business and law they have moved ahead.
Social change has done more to encourage women to enter higher education than any deliberate policy. The Pill and a decline in the average number of children, together with later marriage and childbearing, have made it easier for married women to join the workforce. As more women went out to work, discrimination became less sharp. Girls saw the point of study once they were expected to have careers. Rising divorce rates underlined the importance of being able to provide for yourself. These days girls nearly everywhere seem more ambitious than boys, both academically and in their careers. It is hard to believe that in 1900-50 about half of jobs in America were barred to married women.
So are women now on their way to becoming the dominant sex? Hanna Rosin’s book, “The End of Men and the Rise of Women”, published in 2012, argues that in America, at least, women are ahead not only educationally but increasingly also professionally and socially. Policymakers in many countries worry about the prospect of a growing underclass of ill-educated men. That should worry women, too: in the past they have typically married men in their own social group or above. If there are too few of those, many women will have to marry down or not at all.
Continua aqui
The reversal is laid out in a report published on March 5th by the OECD, a Paris-based rich-country think-tank. Boys’ dominance just about endures in maths: at age 15 they are, on average, the equivalent of three months’ schooling ahead of girls. In science the results are fairly even. But in reading, where girls have been ahead for some time, a gulf has appeared. In all 64 countries and economies in the study, girls outperform boys. The average gap is equivalent to an extra year of schooling.
xx > xy?
Once in the classroom, boys long to be out of it. They are twice as likely as girls to report that school is a “waste of time”, and more often turn up late. Just as teachers used to struggle to persuade girls that science is not only for men, the OECD now urges parents and policymakers to steer boys away from a version of masculinity that ignores academic achievement. “There are different pressures on boys,” says Mr Yip. “Unfortunately there’s a tendency where they try to live up to certain expectations in terms of [bad] behaviour.”
Boys’ disdain for school might have been less irrational when there were plenty of jobs for uneducated men. But those days have long gone. It may be that a bit of swagger helps in maths, where confidence plays a part in boys’ lead (though it sometimes extends to delusion: 12% of boys told the OECD that they were familiar with the mathematical concept of “subjunctive scaling”, a red herring that fooled only 7% of girls). But their lack of self-discipline drives teachers crazy.
Perhaps because they can be so insufferable, teenage boys are often marked down. The OECD found that boys did much better in its anonymised tests than in teacher assessments. The gap with girls in reading was a third smaller, and the gap in maths—where boys were already ahead—opened up further. In another finding that suggests a lack of even-handedness among teachers, boys are more likely than girls to be forced to repeat a year, even when they are of equal ability.
What is behind this discrimination? One possibility is that teachers mark up students who are polite, eager and stay out of fights, all attributes that are more common among girls. In some countries, academic points can even be docked for bad behaviour. Another is that women, who make up eight out of ten primary-school teachers and nearly seven in ten lower-secondary teachers, favour their own sex, just as male bosses have been shown to favour male underlings. In a few places sexism is enshrined in law: Singapore still canes boys, while sparing girls the rod.
Some countries provide an environment in which boys can do better. In Latin America the gender gap in reading is relatively small, with boys in Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru trailing girls less than they do elsewhere. Awkwardly, however, this nearly always comes with a wider gender gap in maths, in favour of boys. The reverse is true, too: Iceland, Norway and Sweden, which have got girls up to parity with boys in maths, struggle with uncomfortably wide gender gaps in reading. Since 2003, the last occasion when the OECD did a big study, boys in a few countries have caught up in reading and girls in several others have significantly narrowed the gap in maths. No country has managed both.
Onwards and upwards
The feminisation of higher education was so gradual that for a long time it passed unremarked. According to Stephan Vincent-Lancrin of the OECD, when in 2008 it published a report pointing out just how far it had gone, people “couldn’t believe it”.
Women who go to university are more likely than their male peers to graduate, and typically get better grades. But men and women tend to study different subjects, with many women choosing courses in education, health, arts and the humanities, whereas men take up computing, engineering and the exact sciences. In mathematics women are drawing level; in the life sciences, social sciences, business and law they have moved ahead.
Social change has done more to encourage women to enter higher education than any deliberate policy. The Pill and a decline in the average number of children, together with later marriage and childbearing, have made it easier for married women to join the workforce. As more women went out to work, discrimination became less sharp. Girls saw the point of study once they were expected to have careers. Rising divorce rates underlined the importance of being able to provide for yourself. These days girls nearly everywhere seem more ambitious than boys, both academically and in their careers. It is hard to believe that in 1900-50 about half of jobs in America were barred to married women.
So are women now on their way to becoming the dominant sex? Hanna Rosin’s book, “The End of Men and the Rise of Women”, published in 2012, argues that in America, at least, women are ahead not only educationally but increasingly also professionally and socially. Policymakers in many countries worry about the prospect of a growing underclass of ill-educated men. That should worry women, too: in the past they have typically married men in their own social group or above. If there are too few of those, many women will have to marry down or not at all.
Continua aqui
29 janeiro 2014
26 janeiro 2014
30 agosto 2013
21 agosto 2013
A Segunda razão mais comum para assassinatos? Problemas financeiros!
No que deve ser um dos mais obscuros projetos de pesquisa já feitos, uma equipe britânica estudou casos de “Destruidores de Famílias”, em que um membro da família assina outros. Alguns padrões emergiram dos 71 casos encontrados.
Por um lado, a maioria dos assassinos era do sexo masculino: 59 dos 71. Destes, mais da metade estava na casa dos trinta. Cerca de 20% das mortes aconteceu em agosto e quase metade aconteceu nos fins de semana, principalmente aos domingos.
Por quê?
Os pesquisadores afirmam que muitos dos casos são baseados em percepções de masculinidade e sensações de ser desafiado. A razão de tantos casos acontecerem nos fins de semana e, em agosto , os cientistas argumentam, é que um pai afastado (novamente, geralmente o pai) terá acesso às crianças durante os meses de verão (no Hemisfério Norte) e fins de semana – mas, no final desse tempo, ele pode ter que devolvê-los à mãe, o que explicaria os assassinatos que acontecem em agosto e aos domingos.
Os dados confirmam isso: o motivo mais comum por trás dos assassinatos, os pesquisadores descobriram, era uma família com pais separados, que incluiu questões como o acesso a crianças. Essa categoria foi responsável por dois terços dos motivos declarados.
A equipe também quebra algumas suposições que as pessoas podem fazer sobre os assassinos, como a de que são sempre homens frustrados com histórico de doença mental. Na verdade, 71% dos assassinos estavam empregados, e muitos tinham carreiras de sucesso (embora muitos também não fossem – os pesquisadores afirmam que a segunda razão mais comum para os assassinatos era a dificuldade financeira).
Os dados defendem a colocação de assassinatos como estes em uma nova categoria de crime, diferente dos “assassinatos por diversão”, com os quais às vezes são confundidos. Os pesquisadores vão ainda mais longe para categorizar os assassinatos familiares em quatro diferentes subcategorias:
Hipócrita: O assassino tenta colocar a culpa por seus crimes sobre a mãe, que ele responsabiliza pela quebra da família. Isso pode envolver o assassino telefonar para o seu parceiro antes do assassinato para explicar o que ele está prestes a fazer. Para estes homens, o seu ganha-pão é fundamental para a sua ideia de família ideal;
Desapontado: Este assassino acredita que sua família foi responsável por deixá-lo para baixo ou agiu de forma a prejudicar ou destruir a sua visão de vida familiar ideal. Um exemplo pode ser a decepção de que as crianças não estão seguindo os costumes religiosos ou culturais tradicionais do pai;
Anárquico: Nestes casos, a família tornou-se, na mente do assassino, firmemente ligada a economia. O pai vê a família como o resultado de seu sucesso econômico, permitindo-lhe mostrar suas realizações. No entanto, se o pai se torna um fracasso econômico, ele vê a família como não servindo esta função;
Paranoico: Aqueles que percebem uma ameaça externa à família. Muitas vezes são os serviços sociais ou o sistema legal, que o pai tem medo que o coloque contra os filhos ou até o tire dele. Aqui o crime é motivado por um desejo de proteger a família.
Por Ana Claudia Cichon
Por um lado, a maioria dos assassinos era do sexo masculino: 59 dos 71. Destes, mais da metade estava na casa dos trinta. Cerca de 20% das mortes aconteceu em agosto e quase metade aconteceu nos fins de semana, principalmente aos domingos.
Por quê?
 |
| Agosto, mês do desgosto. |
Os dados confirmam isso: o motivo mais comum por trás dos assassinatos, os pesquisadores descobriram, era uma família com pais separados, que incluiu questões como o acesso a crianças. Essa categoria foi responsável por dois terços dos motivos declarados.
A equipe também quebra algumas suposições que as pessoas podem fazer sobre os assassinos, como a de que são sempre homens frustrados com histórico de doença mental. Na verdade, 71% dos assassinos estavam empregados, e muitos tinham carreiras de sucesso (embora muitos também não fossem – os pesquisadores afirmam que a segunda razão mais comum para os assassinatos era a dificuldade financeira).
Os dados defendem a colocação de assassinatos como estes em uma nova categoria de crime, diferente dos “assassinatos por diversão”, com os quais às vezes são confundidos. Os pesquisadores vão ainda mais longe para categorizar os assassinatos familiares em quatro diferentes subcategorias:
Hipócrita: O assassino tenta colocar a culpa por seus crimes sobre a mãe, que ele responsabiliza pela quebra da família. Isso pode envolver o assassino telefonar para o seu parceiro antes do assassinato para explicar o que ele está prestes a fazer. Para estes homens, o seu ganha-pão é fundamental para a sua ideia de família ideal;
Desapontado: Este assassino acredita que sua família foi responsável por deixá-lo para baixo ou agiu de forma a prejudicar ou destruir a sua visão de vida familiar ideal. Um exemplo pode ser a decepção de que as crianças não estão seguindo os costumes religiosos ou culturais tradicionais do pai;
Anárquico: Nestes casos, a família tornou-se, na mente do assassino, firmemente ligada a economia. O pai vê a família como o resultado de seu sucesso econômico, permitindo-lhe mostrar suas realizações. No entanto, se o pai se torna um fracasso econômico, ele vê a família como não servindo esta função;
Paranoico: Aqueles que percebem uma ameaça externa à família. Muitas vezes são os serviços sociais ou o sistema legal, que o pai tem medo que o coloque contra os filhos ou até o tire dele. Aqui o crime é motivado por um desejo de proteger a família.
Por Ana Claudia Cichon
20 agosto 2013
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
Postagens
