Boys and girls distract each other from their education, especially in

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES
SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS
ARE GOOD FOR
EDUCATION
Single-sex schools are schools that only admit those of one specific
gender, believing that the educational environment fostered by a single
gender is more conducive to learning than a co-educational school.
Studies conducted have shown that boys gain more academically from
studying in co-education schools, but that girls find segregated schools
more conducive to achievement. However academic results are not the
only criterion on which the success of the education system should be
judged. In the United States, a long-standing controversy over the
Virginia Military Institute resulted in a landmark Supreme Court ruling, in
June 1996, that the institute must admit women. Nevertheless the Court
left room for private (i.e. not state-run) single-sex institutions and other
such schools, where needed, to redress discrimination. Proponents of
single-sex schools maintain that, by removing the distractions of the
other sex, students learn more effectively and feel better about their
education. Opponents maintain that co-educational schools in contrast
are important in that they prepare students better for the real world,
and do not attempt to segregate students from the realities of adult life.
adolescence as their sexual and emotional sides develop. Too much time
can be spent attempting to impress or even sexually harassing each
other (particularly boys toward girls). Academic competition between the
sexes is unhealthy and only adds to unhappiness and anxiety among
weaker students. As Tricia Kelleher, a school principal, argues, ‘rather
than girls defining themselves by their interests, they define themselves
by what the boys think of them or what other girls think boys think of
them’.[1] Furthermore, John Silber, President of Boston University,
declared in 2002 that his university would prioritize male applications in
order to even up the student composition and ensure the male
population did not become ‘ungentlemanly’ towards women due to their
numerical inferiority. A single-sex environment is therefore a space
where (children) can learn without feeling pressurized by the other
sex’.[2]
[1] Kelleher, Tricia et al., ‘Should boys and girls be taught
together’, perspicacious.
[2] Kelleher, Tricia et al., ‘Should boys and girls be taught
together’, perspicacious.

Boys and girls are an unwelcome distraction to

each other
Boys and girls develop at different times and
POINT speeds, therefore they should be taught
separately

POINT
Co-educational schools attempt to establish uniformity in the teaching of
two groups, boys and girls, who typically learn and develop at different
speeds and using different methods. ‘They do not develop in the same
way or at the same time; boys favour visual processing and do not have
the hand-motor control that girls readily achieve in early grades’.[1] It is
widely accepted that ‘boys develop more slowly than girls..that’s true at
every level of analysis’.[2] Furthermore, they develop physically at
different speeds, girls often developing earlier which can lead to bullying
from the opposite sex for those who either over-develop or under-
develop. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, at least in the
United States, elementary school boys are 50% more likely to repeat a
grade than girls and they drop out of high school a third more
often.[3] If they were taught separately and the curriculum and
teaching was tailored to their needs, drop-out rates would not be so
high nor as vastly disproportionate.
[1] Gilbert, M. ‘Single-sex schools help children thrive’. The Christian
Science Monitor 20 September 2007.
[2] Bronski, M., ‘Single-sex Schools’. Znet, 25 October 2002.
[3] Gilbert, M. ‘Single-sex schools help children thrive’. The Christian
Science Monitor 20 September 2007.
Children need to be exposed to the opposite sex in
preparation for later life
POINT
The formative years of children are the best time to expose them to the
company of the other gender, in order that they may learn each other’s’
behaviour and be better prepared for adult life. Moreover, the school's
role is to prepare its students for life which involves interaction between
the sexes, by preventing inter-sexual interaction we hurt the role of the
school significantly. The effects of same-sex schools are significant. This
creates segregation men and women, this which as a result of a lack of
contact between them can create fear and uneasiness between them.
This might be compatred to segregation between black and white in the
USA or South Africa where the resulting racism and troubles to bond has
yet to heal. We already live in a society where women are discriminated
against, segregation cannot be the answer to this. Furthermore, the
number of subjects benefiting from single-sex discussion is so small that
this could easily be organised within a co-educational system.
Furthermore, even if girls naturally perform better in an environment
without boys, they need to learn how to perform just as well with boys.
Dr. Alan Smithers, a respected British schools expert, declared in a 2006
report that ‘distraction by boys was a myth’ and that ‘half a century of
research has not shown any dramatic or consistent advantages for
single-sex education for boys or girls’.[1]
[1] Asthana, A. ‘Single-sex schools ‘no benefit to girls’’. The Guardian,
25 June 2006.
Single-sex schools are manifestations of
patriarchal societies

POINT
Single-sex schools are a throwback to the patriarchal society of the past;
in many historical cultures, only men were allowed an education of any
sort. To perpetuate this is to remind women of their past subservience
and to continue to hold them from full social inclusion. In India, where
the colonial yoke of British rule remains, the national average for the
difference in male-female literacy is 16.7%, with some districts as high
as 28%.[1]Single-sex schools discourage female education and make it
increasingly difficult for parents to find room for girls in the limited co-
educational schools. A push for single-sex education therefore is
‘predicated on outdated, moronic, and destructive gender
stereotypes’.[2]
POINT
Men always say that they do not understand women, perhaps because
they were sent to single sex schools. Research has proved that boys
who went to single sex schools as opposed to mixed schools are more
likely to get divorced and suffer from depression in their 40. This is
o Boys called out eight times as often as girls did. When a boy yelled
proof that we should school our children in mixed schools in order to
give them the best bill of emotional health. Dr. Diana Leonard, who
presented the findings, concluded that ‘Boys learn better when they are
with girls and they actually learn to get on better’.[1]
Research Spotlight on
Single-Gender Education
NEA Reviews of the Research on Best
Practices in Education
Found In: teaching strategies
Share61
If you walked into the average public school classroom in
the United States, you'd find an equal number of boys
and girls. But some experts suggest it may be time for a
change.
Single-gender education and the often-spirited dialogue
surrounding it have raised a number of issues concerning
the best manner to educate boys and girls.
In 1993, American University professors Myra Sadker and David
Sadker published their research in Failing in Fairness: How
America’s Schools Cheat Girls, which describes striking
discoveries about fairness in American schools. During a three-
year study, trained observers visited more than 100 elementary
school classrooms in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia and noted student-teacher
interactions, including the following:
out, the teacher ignored the "raise your hand" rule and usually
 praised his contribution. Girls who called out got reminders to
raise their hands.
o Teachers valued boys' comments more than girls' comments.
Teachers responded to girls with a simple nod or an OK, but they
praised, corrected, helped, and criticized boys.
o Boys were encouraged to solve problems on their own, but
teachers helped girls who were stuck on problems.
Male dominance in the classroom may come as no surprise to
advocates of single-gender education who suggest that boys and
girls are regularly treated differently in coeducational settings and
o Is Single-Gender Schooling Viable in the Public Sector? Lessons
that both boys and girls could both benefit from single-gender
classrooms. Studies suggest that when boys are in single-gender
classrooms, they are more successful in school and more likely to
pursue a wide range of interests and activities.
Girls who learn in all-girl environments are believed to be more
comfortable responding to questions and sharing their opinions
in class and more likely to explore more “nontraditional” subjects
such as math, science, and technology. In addition, advocates
believe that when children learn with single-gender peers, they
are more likely to attend to their studies, speak more openly in
the classroom, and feel more encouraged to pursue their interests
o The Evidence Suggests Otherwise: The Truth About Boys and
and achieve their fullest potential.
Of course, these beliefs have been challenged as well. The
American Association of University Women published Separated
by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls
(1998), which notes that single-sex education is not necessarily
better than coeducation. According to the report, boys and girls
thrive on a good education, regardless of whether the school is
single-sex or coeducational. Some findings include:
o No evidence shows that single-sex education works or is better for
girls than coeducation.
o When elements of a good education are present—such as small
classes and schools, equitable teaching practices, and focused
academic curriculum—girls and boys succeed.
o Some kinds of single-sex programs produce positive results for
some students, including a preference for math and science
among girls.
Additional research on the effectiveness of single-gender
classrooms is necessary, but we all can agree that we need to
construct an educational environment that meets the social and
intellectual needs of boys and girls.
Here are two additional studies from the current research on
single-gender education:
from California’s Pilot Program( PDF, 402 KB, 83pp)
This report provides a good background and review of the
literature with a broad assessment of where research stands on
the controversy. It covers a pilot program in California, the
nation's biggest pilot project, a project that was subsequently shut
down. This report presents the findings of a three-year case study
of an experiment of single-gender schools with the public sector.
It provides a thorough analysis of the topic and examines future
directions for single gender school reform program. Amanda
Datnow et al., 2001.
Girls ( PDF, 363 KB, 21pp
"The real story is not bad news about boys doing worse; it's good
news about girls doing better. In fact, with a few exceptions,
American boys are scoring higher and achieving more than they
ever have before. But girls have just improved their performance
on some measures even faster. As a result, girls have narrowed or
even closed some academic gaps that previously favored boys,
while other long-standing gaps that favored girls have widened,
leading to the belief that boys are falling behind. There's no doubt
that some groups of boys—particularly Hispanic and black boys
and boys from low-income homes—are in real trouble. But the
predominant issues for them are race and class, not gender.
Closing racial and economic gaps would help poor and minority
boys more than closing gender gaps, and focusing on gender gaps
may distract attention from the bigger problems facing these
youngsters. The hysteria about boys is partly a matter of
perspective. While most of society has finally embraced the idea
of equality for women, the idea that women might actually
surpass men in some areas (even as they remain behind in others)
seems hard for many people to swallow. Thus, boys are routinely
characterized as 'falling behind' even as they improve in absolute
terms." Sara Mead, Education Sector (2006).
THIS HOUSE BELIEVES
THE INTERNET BRINGS
MORE HARM THAN
GOOD
The Internet is a network connecting computers across the world. It has
its origins in military and academic projects dating back to the 1960s,
but began to be more widely available from the end of the 1980s. The
creation of the World Wide Web (1989) and web browsers (early 1990s)
gave ordinary people easy ways of getting around the Internet. Over the
past fifteen years, millions of different websites have been set up, giving
people the chance to shop, do business, play, learn and communicate
online. Over the same period it has become much easier, cheaper and
faster to get online in order to do these things.
Now more than 30% of the global population have access to the
Internet. Continent-wise, this breaks down as: Europe: 58.3%, North
America 78.3%, Latin America 36.2%, Africa 11.4%, Asia 23.8% and
Oceania 60.1%.[1] These figures are growing all the time, as technology
designed to access the Internet becomes both more mobile and much
cheaper to produce. The arrival of the Internet has vastly changed the
way in which people search and access information. News travels more
quickly than ever, and current affairs can be discussed all over the world
instantaneously via forums, blogs, and social networks. Search engines
like Google and Wikipedia have now become ubiquitous starting points
for researching anything from minor queries to academic reports. Many
people also maintain social links through the Internet with services such
like Facebook, Skype, and Flickr, to name but a few. Research in the UK
has shown that the average adult spends around 22 hours 15 minutes
online each month.[2]
Some believe the Internet is dominating the lives of its users. Nicholas
Carr in his book The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way
we Think, Read and Remember,[3] that all this time spend online
cannot be healthy, whereas other have cheered the increased
possibilities for research, meeting new people and keeping in contact
with one another. The strongly contested debate remains as to whether
the internet is an active force for good in society or not.
The Internet has increased economic and creative
prosperity in a leveled way
POINT
The Internet has brought greater prosperity, allowing not only
established business more distribution channels over a wider
geographical area but it has also allowed individuals through e-bay, for
example, and small independent businesses to flourish. This has brought
a lot more choice to ordinary people, and also driven down prices as
people find it easier to compare different companies’ products. The main
advantage to small businesses is that they can cheaply set up online and
find a global market for their goods and services. By making it easier to
work anywhere with an Internet connection, the internet has also
allowed many more people to work from home and to share projects
with co-workers across the whole world which has allowed for greater
economic efficiencies.
The Internet has also provided a cheap and wide-reaching platform for
independent creative people to share and distribute their work. This is
done via self-promotion similar to small business, in the form of digital
portfolios and self-hosted blogs as well as sharing content more
generally, take for example the vast array of independent movies gets
regularly posted to video-hosting websites such as Vimeo. The Internet
has given anyone creative equal footing by which to compete as
everyone has the potential to reach the same global audience.
The power that the Internet gives to citizens is
good for democracy
POINT
People often complain that their opinions are ultimately pointless as
nothing will change. This trend can be demonstrated with the numbers
of people going out to vote consistently falling, however with the rise of
the Internet this trend could reverse. What the Internet has enabled is
for everyone, in one way or another, to have the chance to truly have
their voice heard. It has given them the ability to fully engage in topics
that matter to them on a personal level. As this website and this very
debate show, people can debate, share opinions, and start petitions in
ways that were never truly available before. Not only is democracy being
revived, it is also being demanded in countries that do not have
democracy due to Internet access. This can be seen in what has been
described as the Arab Spring, whereby the Internet was used as a tool
to organize pro-democracy protest in a number of Middle-Eastern
countries including Tunisia, Egypt and Syria, to name a but a few.[1]
The Internet helps to bring communities and the
world closer together.
POINT
With the ability for anybody to easily and quickly share rich information
online, via a whole host of tools, the Internet serves bring people
together. Firstly take for example social networks. Friends can remain
connected to each other when miles apart. People can maintain and
even create friendships without the barrier of geography. Additionally,
social networks have a capacity to distribute news in a timely and
targeted manner, directed at the people whom it mostly concerns, that
is far greater than that of traditional media cannot compete. Secondly
there are many instances of hyper-local news communities springing up
online in which people can truly engage in their community, and help
improve it. This model can and is extended to bigger areas, helping to
engage society for its greater good. For example Fillthathole.org.uk,
provides a nationwide portal for U.K. citizens to report road potholes.
Thirdly the Internet brings the world together by not only encouraging
direct communication with people from other countries, but also by
being able to share and distribute information in a way which traditional
forms of communication could not do.
The quality of information online cannot always be
relied upon
POINT
The Internet has become a major source of information for many
people. However, online information has usually not gone through the
same checks as newspaper articles, books or factual television
programming. There is a higher risk that some of the facts or quotations
from a particular source in an article are false. Whereas newspapers
might lose customers if people find out they have been ‘selling lies’, a
blog and other online content can be easily created and uploaded as
well as just as quickly being deleted. If people base their opinions on the
information they find online, they could well be basing their opinion on
false information. Take for example the 2006 conspiracy film Loose
Change which has had millions of views. A report from the thinktank
Demos in a report titled “Truth, Lies and the Internet: A Report into
Young People’s Digital Fluency”[1] state that the film contains a
“...litnay of errors, misattributions, vague insinuations, subtle misquotes,
and outright falsehoods...” Since the Internet gives equal space to
material of greatly varying quality, the degree to which the internet can
been viewed as being a total force for good is drawn into question. If an
informed society is an empowered society it therefore stands to reason
that a misinformed society is disempowered society.
The Internet is a threat to privacy
POINT
Everyone’s privacy can be greatly harmed by the Internet. Some
websites store information. Some ask us to fill in information which can
be sold to other sites for commercial purposes. As the Internet gains
more and more users the temptation for criminals to gain our private
information becomes greater. Hackers can hide their true location when
engaging in illegal activities online, so the likelihood of their being
brought to justice is low. Whenever people post something online, it
becomes almost impossible to erase, and with the proliferation of social
networks posting personal information online is becoming second
nature, this is a dangerous precedent. Take for example the posting of
our locations online via geotagging, this for many is an action which
doesn’t take much consideration, however, to demonstrate the danger
of this designer Barry Borsoom setup the website PleaseRobMe.com
which would grab geocaching data and tell people when a person’s
house was potentially empty.[1]
With the aid of the Internet then, we are symbolically sleepwalking into
a big brother style existence, in an information age all data about
ourselves is an important asset and one which needs defending. The
infringement and degradation of our privacy as a side-result of the
Internet should be of great concern, and it is potentially one of the most
detrimental effects the Internet could have on society.
The Internet has allowed a large amount of
criminal, offensive and discriminatory
information to be easily accessed.
POINT
The ability for anyone to be able to publish anything online without
barriers resulted in a large amount of information which could not only
be incorrect but could also be criminal, offensive or discriminatory if it
were available to the general public. This sort of information would not
usually be widely published via offline channels, but with the advent of
the Internet it is very easily accessible by anyone like never before, and
this is a dangerous president. A cavalcade of propaganda from extremist
groups such as religious zealots or Neo-Nazis for example can be
accessed by anyone around the world. This is dangerous as vulnerable
people could easily be taken in and exploited if the discovered this
material. It is quite often found that ‘lone-wolf’ terrorists, for example,
have gotten their information and inspiration from the Internet. Garry
Reid, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Special Operations and
Combating Terrorism in the USA states that “Enabled by 21st-century
technology, extremists have optimized the use of Internet chat rooms,
Web sites and e-mail chains to spread their virulent messages and reach
a global audience of potential recruits”.[1] But it is not only terrorists
who are utilizing the Internet at a detriment to society. Various reports
have linked a sharp rise in paedophilia with the growth of the
Internet[2] as it is an easy and often anonymous way to share such
material with the world. The ability for anyone to publish anything online
could clearly do considerable harm to society, which would have
otherwise been much less prevalent and easier to control and regulate.
Research Using the
Internet
Written by W. Brock MacDonald, Academic Skills Centre, and June Seel, UTM
Library
 Fair-Use Policy
More and more students are turning to the Internet when doing
research for their assignments, and more and more instructors
are requiring such research when setting topics. However,
research on the Net is very different from traditional library
research, and the differences can cause problems. The Net is a
tremendous resource, but it must be used carefully and critically.
The printed resources you find in the Library have almost always
been thoroughly evaluated by experts before they are published.
This process of “peer review” is the difference between, for
example, an article in Time magazine and one in a journal such
as the University of Toronto Quarterly. Furthermore, when books
and other materials come into the University library system, they
are painstakingly and systematically catalogued and cross-
referenced using procedures followed by research libraries the
world over. This process is the basis for the way materials are
organized in the Library, and it makes possible the various search
functions of the Web catalogue.
On the Internet, on the other hand, “anything goes.” Anyone can
put anything they want on a Web site, there is no review or
screening process, and there are no agreed-upon standard ways
of identifying subjects and creating cross-references. This is both
the glory and the weakness of the Net – it’s either freedom or
chaos, depending on your point of view, and it means that you
have to pay close attention when doing research on-line. There
are a great many solid academic resources available on the Net,
including hundreds of on-line journals and sites set up by
universities and scholarly or scientific organizations. The
University of Toronto Library’s Electronic Resources page is one
such academic source. Using material from those sources is no
problem; it’s just like going to the Library, only on-line. It’s all the
other stuff on the Net that you have to be cautious about.
Here are a few basic guidelines to remember:
 Don’t rely exclusively on Net resources. Sometimes
your assignment will be to do research only on the Net,
but usually your instructors will expect you to make use of
both Internet and Library resources. Cross-checking
information from the Net against information from the
Library is a good way to make sure that the Net material
is reliable and authoritative.
 Narrow your research topic before logging on. The
Internet allows access to so much information that you
can easily be overwhelmed. Before you start your search,
think about what you’re looking for, and if possible
formulate some very specific questions to direct and limit
your search.
 Know your subject directories and search
engines. There are several high quality peer-reviewed
subject directories containing links selected by subject
experts. INFOMINE and Academic Info are good
examples. These are excellent places to start your
academic research on the
Internet. Google, Bing, Yahoo and other search engines
differ considerably in how they work, how much of the Net
they search, and the kind of results you can expect to get
from them. Spending some time learning what each
search engine will do and how best to use it can help you
avoid a lot of frustration and wasted time later. Because
each one will find different things for you, it’s a good idea
to always use more than one search engine. For
specialized search engines and directories you might also
like to try Beaucoup which includes 2,500 + search
engines and directories or the Search Engine Colossus
International Directory of Search Engines that includes
search engines from 230+ countries around the world.
 Keep a detailed record of sites you visit and the sites
you use. Doing research on the Net inevitably means
visiting some sites that are useful and many that are not.
Keeping track is necessary so that you can revisit the
useful ones later, and also put the required references in
your paper. Don’t just rely on your browser’s History
function, because it retains the Web addresses or URLs
of all the sites you visit, good or bad, and if you’re using a
computer at the University the memory in the History file
will be erased at the end of your session. It’s better to
write down or bookmark the sites you’ve found useful, so
that you’ll have a permanent record.
 Double-check all URLs that you put in your paper. It’s
easy to make mistakes with complicated Internet
addresses, and typos will make your references useless.
To be safe, type them into the Location box of your
browser and check that they take you to the correct site.
The following points are guidelines for evaluating specific
resources you find on the Net. If you ask these questions when
looking at a Web site, you can avoid many errors and problems.
 Authority
 Who is the author?
 Is the author’s name given?
 Are her qualifications specified?

 Is there a link to information about her and her position?
 Is there a way to contact her (an address or a “Mailto”
link)?
 Have you heard of her elsewhere (in class, or cited in
your course text or in Library material)?
 Has the author written elsewhere on this topic?
 Affiliation
 Who is the sponsor of the Web site?
 Is the author affiliated with a reputable institution or
organization?
  Does the information reflect the views of the organization,
or only of the author? If the sponsoring institution or
organization is not clearly identified on the site, check the
URL. It may contain the name of a university (U of T
Mississauga’s includes utoronto) or the extension .edu,
which is used by many educational institutions.
Government sites are identified by the extension .gov.
URLs containing .org are trickier, and require research:
these are sites sponsored by non-profit organizations,
some of which are reliable sources and some of which
are very biased. Sites with the .com extension should also
be used with caution, because they have commercial or
corporate sponsors who probably want to sell you
something. The extension ~NAME often means a
personal Web page with no institutional backing; use such
sites only if you have checked on the author’s credibility in
print sources.
THIS HOUSE BELIEVES
REALITY TELEVISION
DOES MORE HARM
THAN GOOD
Reality television has become very popular over the past decade with
shows such as "Survivor", "Big Brother" and "The Apprentice" attracting
big audiences and making a lot of money for broadcasters worldwide. A
definition of reality television is quite difficult but at its most basic it
means programmes that show things really taking place, rather than
drama or comedy that follows a script. Typically reality TV involves a
group of people who are not trained actors being filmed in unusual
situations over a period of time. Sport and news programmes are not
considered reality TV. Documentaries that explore aspects of society are
a grey area, with some closer to news reporting and others blurring into
reality TV because they set up situations which did not already exist.
Recently celebrity versions of reality shows have made definition even
harder, because they show the private lives of professional singers,
actors, sportspeople, etc. as they cope with new situations. Reality TV is
often a hot topic as proponents believe it paints an unrealistic and
inappropriate portrait and is therefore bad for our society and the
children that make up the majority of the audience. They call for a cut in
the number of hours given over to reality programmes, or even to ban
them completely. Opponents meanwhile maintain that people should be
allowed to watch what they like, and that reality programmes make
good TV, as shown by consistently high viewer figures.
Show less
The sheer number of reality programmes is now
driving TV producers to create filthier, more
corrupt reality shows
POINT
Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and
more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage,
shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find new
ways to shock. When the British Big Brother was struggling for viewers
in 2003, its producers responded by attempting to shock the audience
that little bit more1. "Big Brother" programmes have also shown men
and women having sex on live TV in a desperate grab higher ratings to
justify their continued existence. Others have involved fights and racist
bullying. Do we let things continue until someone has to die on TV to
boost the ratings?
When reality is "constructed" then it substitutes the "natural" reality.
This in turn has adverse effect on the natural growth of the children
who are either actively involved into it or as audience become a passive
recepient. We therefore in a pursuit of commercialization are taking
away an inalienable right of children i.e. full personality development in
a natural environment which is not contaminated by "constructed"
reality.
Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity
status, and discourages the value of hard work
and an education
POINT
Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant
celebrity. They are typically built about shameless self-promotion, based
on humiliating others and harming relationships for the entertainment of
each other and the viewers at home. These programmes suggest that
anyone can become famous just by getting on TV and "being
themselves", without working hard or having any particular talent. Kids
who watch these shows will get the idea that they don't need to study
hard in school, or train hard for a regular job. As John Humphrys points
out, 'we tell kids what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why
some behave the way they do' 1 As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears,
'addiction to celebrity culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down
women.'2 Reality shows encourage such addictions and promote the
generally misguided belief that they should aspire to be the reality stars
they watch on their televisions.
1
Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm.
Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:
Reality shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting
television, encouraging such behaviour in society
POINT
Reality shows are bad, lazy and corrupting television. They mostly show
ordinary people with no special talents doing very little. If they have to
sing or dance, then they do it badly – which doesn’t make for good
entertainment. They rely on humiliation and conflict to create
excitement. Joe Millionaire, where a group of women competed for the
affections of a construction worker who they were told was a millionaire,
was simply cruel. The emotions of the contestants were considered
expendable for the sake of making viewers laugh at their ignorance.
Furthermore, the programmes are full of swearing, crying and
argument, and often violence, drunkenness and sex. This sends a
message to people that this is normal behaviour and helps to create a
crude, selfish society. One American reality show, “Are You Hot?”, in
which competitors submit to a panel of judges for ‘appearance-rating’,
was blamed by eating disorder experts as encouraging the notion that
‘appearance is the most important thing’ (Becker, 2003).1 Furthermore,
Paul Watson, a former reality TV show producer, believes they are
‘predictable and just creates more of the same and makes our film
makers lazy’ (Jury, 2007).
Reality TV can be educational and have real effects
in society in a way other television programmes do
not
POINT
Reality TV can be very educational. They educate people by displaying
disastrous consequences of someone's behaviour, thus deterring others
from doing unplanned and silly actions. Programmes such as "The
Apprentice" have made people think about business. Jamie Oliver has
raised issues of youth unemployment and poor diet, and "Fit Club" has
got people thinking about health and fitness. Jamie Oliver's inaugural
reality show, 'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless youngsters the 'chance to
train and lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of school
meals'1. Without the TV show's popularity funding the initiative, the
youngsters involved would not have had such an opportunity and school
meals would still reflect what kids want to eat, not what they should be
eating. Such effects on society are beneficial and should be encouraged,
not restricted.
The public can always just turn reality
programmes off, or watch something else
Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively
anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and
societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly
different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these
programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows
like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments,
make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what
principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people
who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually
we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the
Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids
who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is
nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands
them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We
should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to
hide them.

POINT
Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality
television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as
"The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera
and other international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs
in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or
Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms.
More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately,
reality shows have not ruined television as a whole, they have merely
added another option for viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of
money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they
are actually good for all viewers, regardless of personal taste for genres.

Reality television forces us to analyse our own

behaviour as a society

POINT
 FORMALLY
RECOGNISED.
The term curriculum refers to the programme of study in various
academic subjects (e.g Maths, English, History, Science, Spanish)
followed by students at various levels of education. The school or
college's teaching staff are employed to teach this curriculum, and
students are periodically assessed (e.g. by exams and term papers) in
their progress in each curriculum subject. As they grow older, students'
achievements in their curriculum subjects are seen as important in
helping them get into a good university or college, and to find a good
job when they leave education. Depending on which country you are in,
schools and colleges may also be held accountable for their students'
results in the curriculum subjects.

The academic curriculum has never been all that schools and colleges
offer to their students. Often a range of other classes, clubs and
activities is available to students, sometimes in lessons but more often in
the lunch break or after school. These are referred to as extra-curricular
activities and they are mostly voluntary for students. Examples would
include sports, musical activities, debate, Model United Nations,
community service, religious study groups, charitable fundraising, Young
Enterprise projects, military cadet activities, drama, science clubs, and

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES hobbies such as gardening, crafts, cookery and dance. Because they are
not examined in the same way that the academic curriculum is, and
because most of them take place outside lessons, such activities have
EXTRA-CURRICULAR less status in education than the main curriculum. However, they are
often held to be very important to the wider education of young men
ACTIVITIES IN and women. This topic examines whether the extra-curriculum should
be given more importance in schools and colleges
SCHOOLS SHOULD BE
 Extra-curricular activities provide children with a
rounded education.
POINT
The normal curriculum can only go so far as to teach and educate
students about academic theories. But students whose only experience
of school or college is one of rigid academic study may not be able to
apply what they have learned in practice.1 Extra curricular activities
encourage a diverse range of skills and methods of learning that
encompass the diverse needs of students. For example, schemes such
as Young Enterprise allow students to experience of practical business
skills and valuable communication and team work skills. If the extra-
curriculum was given an equal footing in student life there will be an
improvement in the student ability to grasp things as a whole, because
students will have received a more rounded education.
Extra-curricular activities have important health
benefits.
POINT
Most extra-curricular activities are physically active, getting the student
out from behind their desk and making them try new things. Physical
activity is extremely important for general health whilst ensuring that
students are exposed to practical tasks, not just what is taught in
class.1 Sports clubs and teams give students the opportunity to do
physical exercise in an enjoyable environment whilst activities such as
the Duke of Edinburgh award teach skills such as map reading and
organisation of a group. The outcome of giving the extra-curriculum the
same status as the curriculum will therefore be well balanced
individuals. Schools have a pastoral duty to consider the well-being of
their pupils which includes physical health and practical abilities.
Extra-curricular activities encourage interpersonal
interactions that are good for building a strong
civil society.
POINT
Boosting the place of the extra-curriculum in schools is one way of
addressing a weakness in modern society, a lack of civil strength and
community. Activities offered in schools are vital in providing
opportunities to learn the diverse skills help to equip young people with
the civic spirit, initiative and organising skills to set up their own clubs,
teams and activity groups when they leave education. An article in The
Guardian argues that 'The riots suggest that the education system must
concern itself with a lot more than simple exam results'.1 A successful
extra-curriculum often depends on building links between the school and
the wider community, bringing local enthusiasts in to work with
students, and sending students out to work on community projects, help
in primary schools, perform for local audiences, etc. Thus, extra-
curricular activities have wider social implications than the individual
schools and pupils.
Students should be focused on gaining the
specialist skills they need for their chosen
profession.
POINT
Students should be allowed to focus upon subjects and activities that
will help them towards their chosen career. Most specialist professions
still provide a range of career opportunities, without any need to
compromise academic education by over-emphasis on non-academic
activities. There are concerns that schools do not focus enough on core
subjects: 'School-leavers and even graduates lack basic literacy and
numeracy skills, according to a survey of big employers'.1 In most
aspects of life skills specific to an individual job are more important than
whether they are "well-rounded". In addition, changes in career are
possible but not necessarily desirable. For example, athletes who have
been injured in mishaps can continue their career in the same field but
just in a different post. No longer could they play, but they could still
coach or even give sports science lectures to aspiring super stars. And if
someone does wish to radically switch career in mid-life, there are
plenty of evening classes and continuing education opportunities to
allow them to retrain.
Making extra-curricular activity compulsory will take the fun out of it and
strip it of its benefits. 'In the end, the key is fun.'1Successful extra-
curricular groups work precisely because the students have voluntarily
chosen to be there. If some were forced to take part, they would be less
enthusiastic and spoil the activity for the rest. And the more the activity
is like ordinary school, the less attractive it will be to young people. Most
of the personal development benefits associated with extra-curricular
commitments – such as altruistic service, initiative-taking, and
leadership skills – come from the voluntary nature of the activity. If that
voluntary aspect is removed, then the benefits are lost too.

Academic qualifications are the most important for

the future.

POINT
Higher Education institutions place a greater importance on the
curriculum than the extra-curriculum when selecting students, and so do
employers. University admissions tutors are not interested in whether a
student applying for medicine for example is able to play a musical
instrument. Nick Collins in The Telegraph says that 'the suggestion that
non-academic pursuits could make any difference to pupils' applications
is a myth, according to Mike Nicholson, director of undergraduate
admissions at Oxford.'1 Extra-curricular activities are fun, but they have
never been shown to actually play a vital role in a student's life.

Making extra-curricular activities compulsory

makes them less attractive to the student.

POINT