Critique of “with No Boys to Ogle, We Had Time to Learn free essay sample

A Critique of â€Å"With No Boys to Ogle, We Had Time to Learn† by Christine Flowers Schools are divided into two categories around the world as we know: single-sex or mixed schools. While mixed schools accept both males and females, single-sex schools accept students of a certain single sex only. Both coed and single-sex schools have pros and cons, which nobody can deny. Some studies, however, have shown that there is no particular benefit to single-sex education. The study of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 1998, for example, â€Å"found no evidence to support single-sex education as better than coed education. † (qtd. in Elizabeth). As a proponent of single-sex schools, and herself a student receiving a 16-year single-sex education, Christine Flowers, in her article â€Å"With No Boys to Ogle, We Had Time to Learn†, argues against the common stereotypes of single-sex education and aims to provide the readers with various benefits of attending single-sex institutions. We will write a custom essay sample on Critique of â€Å"with No Boys to Ogle, We Had Time to Learn or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Throughout the article, the main point she contends is that, in the absence of the opposite sex, students can focus more on academics. The author is somewhat right to say that people pay more attention to their studies in a single-sex educational environment, because in a single-sex school, people have fewer chances, if any, to date and socialize with the opposite sex; therefore, they might have more spare time to spend on studying. However, the point Flowers makes is not necessarily true. People actually benefit more from attending a coed school than attending a single-sex school. Flowers clarifies the typical life of a student at a single-sex college through her personal experiences at Bryn Mawr College. She describes Bryn Mawr students as â€Å"brilliant, independent and focused† (Flowers 79). She then cites two examples of women whom she idolizes and describes as â€Å"two very independent dames† (Flowers 79): the Greek goddess of wisdom, Pallas Athena, and an alumna of Bryn Mawr, Katharine Hepburn. Nevertheless, meeting â€Å"brilliant, independent and focused† women is not limited to women’s schools only; in fact, women in coed colleges can also be very intelligent, autonomous and concentrated like those in single-sex ones. It is true that attending a women’s college can make a woman â€Å"brilliant, independent and focused†, but it does not necessarily make her superior to other women from coed colleges. Whether or not a student will be successful mainly depends on how seriously she treats her study and how hard-working she is, not merely on the educational environment she is immersed in. According to the article, sitting in the same class with the opposite sex is very distracting, which is not true. In fact, children in mixed schools will get acquainted with being with the other sex. Therefore, they will not be distracted from their studies, because they treat each other as colleagues and classmates. I have been going to coed schools since kindergarten, and I never feel distracted sitting in the same classes with boys. It is just normal to be around both boys and girls; this is how our human society is shaped. The reason why Flowers supposes the existence of male friends will cause distractions is probably that she does not know how to react or communicate when the opposite sex is around, which is the consequence of going to women’s schools throughout her life. If she simply treats the opposite sex as schoolmates who are also there to learn, not as boys whom she should pay full attention to, she should be able to concentrate on her work. Next, Flowers believes that â€Å"schools are designed for academics, not as social clubs† (80), which is partially wrong. We all agree that schools are for studying and not for socializing only. Yet apart from helping students to accumulate academic knowledge, mixed schools also aid them to enhance their social skills, particularly to promote their abilities to naturally communicate with people of the opposite sex. Furthermore, males and females think differently because of different brain structures; therefore, having the opposite sex in class will benefit the students since men and women, with different perspectives, can exchange their ideas and learn from each other. All in all, coed schools offer the students better education than single-sex schools, since coed schools help develop their social and communication skills, which is an advantage that does not exist in single-sex schools. In conclusion, while Christine Flowers is right about diverse benefits of single-sex education, she is far too biased against coed education. With an appropriate and positive attitude towards the opposite sex, attending a coed school is actually, in many ways, more beneficial than going to a single-sex school.