Mind Over Muscle

Mind Over Muscle By DAVID BROOKS, a New York Times Op-Ed from October 16, 2005

Once upon a time, it was a man's world. Men possessed most of the tools one needed for power and success: muscles, connections, control of the crucial social institutions.

But then along came the information age to change all that. In the information age, education is the gateway to success. And that means this is turning into a woman's world, because women are better students than men.

From the first days of school, girls outperform boys. The gap is sometimes small, but over time slight advantages accumulate into big ones. In surveys, kindergarten teachers report that girls are more attentive than boys and more persistent at tasks. Through elementary school, girls are less likely to be asked to repeat a grade. They are much less likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability.

In high school, girls get higher grades in every subject, usually by about a quarter of a point, and have a higher median class rank. They are more likely to take advanced placement courses and the hardest math courses, and are more likely to be straight-A students. They have much higher reading and writing scores on national assessment tests. Boys still enjoy an advantage on math and science tests, but that gap is smaller and closing.

Girls are much more likely to be involved in the school paper or yearbook, to be elected to student government and to be members of academic clubs. They set higher goals for their post-high-school career. (This data is all from the Department of Education.)

The differences become monumental in college. Women are more likely to enroll in college and they are more likely to have better applications, so now there are hundreds of schools where the female-male ratio is 60 to 40. About 80 percent of the majors in public administration, psychology and education are female. And here's the most important piece of data: Until 1985 or so, male college graduates outnumbered female college graduates. But in the mid-80's, women drew even, and ever since they have been pulling away at a phenomenal rate. This year, 133 women will graduate from college for every 100 men. By decade's end, according to Department of Education projections, there will be 142 female graduates for every 100 male graduates. Among African- Americans, there are 200 female grads for every 100 male grads.

The social consequences are bound to be profound. The upside is that by sheer force of numbers, women will be holding more and more leadership jobs. On the negative side, they will have a harder and harder time finding marriageable men with comparable education levels. One thing is for sure: in 30 years the notion that we live in an oppressive patriarchy that discriminates against women will be regarded as a quaint anachronism.

There are debates about why women have thrived and men have faltered. Some say men are imprisoned by their anti-intellectual machismo. Others say the educational system has been overly feminized. Boys are asked to sit quietly for hours at a stretch under conditions where they find it harder to thrive.

But Thomas G. Mortensen of the Pell Institute observes that these same trends - thriving women, faltering men - are observable across the world. In most countries, and in nearly all developed countries, women are graduating from high school and college at much higher rates than men. Mortensen writes, "We conclude that the issue is far less driven by a nation's culture than it is by basic differences between males and females in the modern world."

In other words, if we want to help boys keep up with girls, we have to have an honest discussion about innate differences between the sexes. We have to figure out why poor girls who move to middle-class schools do better, but poor boys who make the same move often do worse. We have to absorb the obvious lesson of every airport bookstore, which is that men and women like to read totally different sorts of books, and see if we can apply this fact when designing curriculums. If boys like to read about war and combat, why can't there be books about combat on the curriculum?

Would elementary school boys do better if they spent more time outside the classroom and less time chained to a desk? Or would they thrive more in a rigorous, competitive environment? For 30 years, attention has focused on feminine equality. During that time honest discussion of innate differences has been stifled …. It's time to look at the other half.

It is time we realized that the Constitution is flawed. Actually, one part is flawed, but is very flawed nevertheless; the Electoral College. In 1787, the Constitutional Convention came to a compromise. Because some of the delegates wanted Congress alone to elect the President and some wanted a direct election of the Presidency, the founders came to a compromise: The Electoral College. The Electoral College was made as a hybrid of direct elections and Congress electing the President. However, much has changed since 1787. We can now get information about almost everything in the blink of an eye. We can go around the world in a day. The world has now welcomed the idea of Representative Democracy that the founders created long ago. If the world has changed so drastically in the past 224 years, why shouldn’t something like the Electoral College change with it? We have discovered the flaws of the Electoral College over the years, and we should now answer the great question: Should we change the Electoral College? I feel we shouldn’t just change the Electoral College; we should abolish it all together. The Electoral College is flawed, and that fact is becoming more and more apparent over the years. For one thing, it gives voters in small states more voting power than in larger states. This is because the Constitution dictates that every state much have at least 3 electoral votes, even if their population isn’t high enough to justify it. In Wyoming, for example, the least-populated state, there are 187,876 people for every electoral vote. In New Jersey though, there are 627,993 people for every electoral vote (Ball). That means that a vote for president in New Jersey is only 30% as powerful as a vote for president in Wyoming. In a country that believes in “one person, one vote”, does that sound right? If we as a nation truly felt that every vote counts, we must consider abolishing the Electoral College. Also, The Electoral College discourages turnout, both Republican and Democratic, in “safe” states, because, due to the Electoral College. Let’s use the neighboring State of New York as an example. It is a largely Democratic state; Democratic Governor, Democratic Assembly, Democratic majority of Congressmen and Senators, and it very often sends all of its Electoral votes to the Democratic candidate. This makes it a safe Democratic state, and both Democrats and Republicans don’t give much attention to it to focus on swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania and Iowa and Missouri (Votes Count 1). However, we tend to forget that there are 3.1 million Republicans in New York. Do they feel very compelled to vote for President, knowing that their votes (most of the time) won’t count, and that the Democrats will carry the state, as they do always? Of course not, and the Democrats also aren’t compelled very much to vote either: If your candidate is going to win, why bother voting for him or her? And this doesn’t just happen with Republicans in New York: It happens with Republicans in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and California, and with Democrats in Texas, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas (Votes Count 1). This disenfranchisement of members of the minority party of a state is a disgrace to the American ideals of every one having a fair share in their government, and thus the only way for all their voices to be heard to abolish the Electoral College. Then there is the most popular reason for the abolition of the Electoral College, mainly because it the most obvious; It allows a candidate who lost the popular vote win the Electoral vote and thus the Presidency. As one writer for the New York Times wrote, “We have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors”. This major flaw can allow the Electoral College to completely and utterly ignore the will and decisions of the citizens of the United States, as it has done in the presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. And, what makes it worse is that the electors don’t necessarily have to vote for the candidate who won the majority in his or her states. No, they can vote for anyone they please, like votes for vice-presidential candidates Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 and John Edwards in 2004, third-party candidates like John Hospers in 1972, failed primary candidates like Ronald Reagan in 1976, or even no on at all. In 2000, Washington, D.C. elector Barbara Lett-Simmons decided not to vote for anyone in that election, costing Al Gore 1 electoral vote. While her voting wouldn’t have changed the election, it just gives you one example of how careless of the popular vote presidential electors can be. If you truly believe that every citizen of this country should have an equal say in how runs it, you should consider abolishing the Electoral College. Now, some might say that, despite these flaws, the Electoral College is vital to Federalism, because it gives small states more say in the government than they would have if there were a direct election of the Presidency. I would just like to point out, is that really a good thing? Why should we give a state of 500,000 people 4 times the person-to vote ratio that a state of 36,000,000 has? Even if you wish to give them more say, one has to admit that 4 times is a little too much. We want everyone’s voices to be heard, regardless of their state. We should seriously consider abolishing the Electoral College and replace it with a direct election of the Presidency. The Founders had a good idea when created the college, but times have change, and our elections should change with it. And, I’m not the only one supporting this; a 2000 poll found that 61% of Americans favors a direct population of the president. That’s a majority, and we always have to listen to the voice of the majority. In 2009, Representative Gene Green (D-TX) introduced the Every Vote Counts Amendment, which, when passed, would abolish the Electoral College and create a direct election of the Presidency. I urge you all to introduce it once again in the new Congress, which will go along way to make every citizen of this great Nation of ours, have an equal and fair say in the electing of their leader. Only Children: Spoiled Brats or Normal Kids?

Picture your ideal family. Most likely, it includes more than one child. But what about the cost? What about sibling rivalry? What about the stress? What about sharing the attention and love? In this economic downfall, parents need to realize that having an only child could actually be beneficial to both them and the child.

Raising a child costs about $286,050, and that’s before college

(www.time.com). Imagine that much money. Now imagine it times three. That’s almost enough money to buy a private jet. Although having a large family is something that matters a lot to many people, financial stability is by far more important.

Not only does money have to be distributed between multiple children, but so does love and attention. Children can survive and live with limited money, but love is a must. No matter how fair the parent may be, to the children, they will always seem to have a favorite. Maybe it’s because they got the bigger piece of cake or maybe it’s because they hung up more of their sibling’s artwork, but it is a proven fact that only 15% of children feel that their mothers show no preference as to which child they like best (www.futurity.org). It has also been proven from a study in Boston, that children who believe their parents show favoritism have more physiological problems, and are more prone to behavior problems. Not all parents choose favorites, but those who do are making their children face consequences that were easily avoidable. Not only is more love and attention given to only children, but so are opportunities. Only children do significantly better in school, and more singletons go onto higher education than those with siblings (www.time.com). Since this generation will be the caregivers of the older generation, shouldn’t it be encouraged that they go on to higher education? More opportunities lead to more exposure to culture with their parents in only children’s free time, instead of crowding around the television. I know some only children who are significantly more cultured than a great deal of adults, which makes them far more interesting to be around.

Stress and pressure are two things children and parents in large families feel at home. For the parents, the stress of preparing three different meals for three picky eaters and filling out three different forms for three different activities is simply exhausting. Not only does my mom say this on a regular basis, but I know other mothers of multiple children who repeat this concern often as well.

For the children, it’s all about getting the better grades, making the parents laugh the hardest at their jokes, and getting the most awards at graduation that kills them. Only children have no one to live up to, and their parents only have one meal to cook, one form to sign, one child that they can enjoy every minute of being with. The only stress and pressure singletons experience is self-imposed.

So the myths are wrong? Yes. Although some say that only children are spoiled… well of course they get more; they’re the only person receiving the love in the house. It’d be ridiculous for parents to only give their only child one third of what they have to give to compromise for a family of five. It’s not realistic. Do you ever hear someone say that a child with only two siblings is spoiled compared to a child with five siblings? No. Society is set on pointing fingers at the only child because of myths started decades ago. Additionally, it is commonly said that only children have a tough time making friends, and spend their lives as loners when it’s actually the contrary. Only children are more willing to share their toys in order to make friends, because they are more excited to have children their age to interact with. It might actually be harder for children with siblings to make friends if they have a negative relationship with them.

Only children and children with siblings have different home lives, and to some, one is better than the other. The more practical option, right now? One child. Money is tight for everyone, and therefore it’s time that the only child as no longer viewed as a spoiled brat, but someone with more opportunities that could be of benefit to them in the long run. These myths can’t live forever, and it’s our job to stop them. Works Cited

“Are Only Children Happier?” The Week (2010): 1. Web. Jan. 2011.

“It’s depressing when moms pick favorites.” Futurity (2010): 1 page. Web. February, 2011

Newman, Susan. “Mowing Down the Only Child Myths.” Parenting Bookmark: 1. Web. Jan. 2011

Sandler, Lauren. “The Only Child: Debunking the Myths.” Time.com. Time, 8, July 2010. Web. Jan. 2011. School uniforms leave N.J. students dressed for success

Published: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 5:17 AM Updated: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 5:18 AM

By Star-Ledger Editorial Board

Star-ledger photo/ Jennifer Hulshizer Several New Jersey school districts are requiring school uniforms in their public schools.

They'll still be stylish, just a bit stodgier.

As New Jersey students are getting back to classwork, nearly two dozen districts are enforcing school uniform policies aimed at improving performance and attendance and discouraging crime. In elementary and middle schools in Newark, a school uniform policy has been in effect since last year. Belleville will be extending its uniform policy to middle and high schools. Plainfield, meanwhile, is encouraging its high school students to don the new duds -- mostly polo shirts and khakis -- which will become mandatory for them in 2010.

A uniform policy or strict dress code is not a silver bullet for solving all problems, but many educators and parents think it improves the academic and social atmosphere of a school. We agree.

The modern push for uniforms in public schools gained impetus in 1996, when President Bill Clinton suggested it in his State of the Union address as part of school reform. The proposal was embraced by many parents and educators, particularly in urban school districts, as a way to decrease theft and quell pressure on students to compete for status by sporting designer clothes.

Dress codes also are thought to curb gang activity, because students are less able to wear items with identifying markers. And matching all students makes it easier for school personnel to spot intruders in the hallways.

Whether or not uniforms improve academic performance is up for debate. But anything that might lead to a better learning environment in some of the state's most troubled districts is worth giving the old-school try.