Another counterargument to "redshirting" the boys: it's not fair to the boys who don't need it (or the girls who really do), to be held back an extra year.
Yet again, coding things by gender fails on the margins.
Isn't it equally not fair to the boys and girls who would do better under this new redshirting system?
If we believe the boys are a minority, then we should be in favor, right? More people benefit from the gender coded redshirting than the current system.
Unless we have some reason to have a bias toward conservatism. Say perhaps we fear the unknown consequences of plan based on a substack article and an HN comment thread.
Isn't this just asking for "evaluate the situation honestly and adapt"? Kids are moved up and down in the education system, or at least used to be, based on perceived success chances. They can also leave school early for uni, catching up as it were.
If we believe the boys are a minority, then we should be in favor, right? More people benefit from the gender coded redshirting than the current system.
Unless we have some reason to have a bias toward conservatism. Say perhaps we fear the unknown consequences of plan based on a substack article and an HN comment thread.