The statistical finding that girls are now doing better than boys in their secondary examination results seems to me of doubtful significance, and raises a few questions. In the first place, the education authorities, which in essence means the government of the day, have adopted a curious league table approach to educational achievements which reveals an unwarranted belief in the power of statistical analysis. Apart from the political value of the eternal gender bickering, who really goes sleepless at night over a marginal difference in academic skills at an early and tumultuous age?
It is more to the point to consider the object of education, from the philosophical point of view. Cardinal Newman, in a classic study of university education in the mid-19th century, insisted on the necessity for a rounded education which avoids narrow specialisation but develops the capacity in the student to see all things in the universe, physical and moral, in relation to one another. His views were echoed later by another great teacher, Matthew Arnold. We, in our purblindness, have in recent decades insisted more and more upon applying reductionist principles in education, so that we can produce tame workers with specific skills in the shortest time possible, to satisfy our industrialists.
From a sound philosophical stand, the prime consideration in devising educational machinery is to meet the needs of the student, and, as Newman stipulated, build up a balanced personality, capable of evaluating the environment and of undertaking subsequent studies of cultural value both to the individual and to society. Economists are on tainted ground in arguing that schools should turn out youngsters who will fit usefully into business institutions, but have the pressure of politics behind them in emphasising the economy rather than the individual.
In order to draw out (that is what education means, literally) the most in a young person, the syllabus must be made interesting, preferably congenial. Children are suited by temperament to practise different skills. A fundamental knowledge of reading, writing and calculation is, of course, essential for civilised living. But beyond these primitive achievements, we should be guided by disposition. Girls and boys have different interests and should be encouraged to follow them, not stampeded into learning things that leave them disinterested and cold.
It is possible that boys are today showing at an academic disadvantage against girls because they are being encouraged by promoters of role-models to opt for training in kicking or hitting a ball to amuse an audience, and take their football more seriously than their cultural studies. Girls, as a rule, prefer quieter pursuits, and may study music and art, which leave them more time for academic pursuits. And it cannot be disputed that to cook good food, provide comforts, and bring up children to honour true ethical values is quite as important, if not more so, than playing politics or the money-market. To sacrifice such considerations to the craze for statistical comparisons and arbitrary standards is nothing short of wicked.