Education for son or daughter?

[winstein]

Now, here's a question that might be thought-provoking. For now, I won't tell you how I got this question, because I want to see some responses from all of you who come here first.

Basically, in this situation, you only have only two children, one a son and the other a daughter. Age is irrelevant in this case, so take that out of the equation. However, the problem is that you could only afford formal education for one, so it's either your son or daughter. In this case, would it be your son or daughter that would be the one with the education?

It would be best to provide your reasoning for your choice, as it would give your choice some substance. After all, no answer is truly wrong.

Thanks for reading.

 

[OverlordRuby]

The girl. She will already have a distinct disadvantage in the world, so she deserves the education. But I'd make her teach her brother all the stuff she learns at school to balance it out.

 

[Sushi-X]

The girl.

I would rest more easily knowing that the girl is more likely to be sympathetic to her younger sibling and teach him all she knows and there isn't any rule saying that I couldn't help anyways.

I would make sure both of them had a future.

 

[Feenie]

I'd also say the daughter. She would probably teach her bother anyway, so that way they can both get an education. Also, the girl will have more problems to go through(probably), so it's important for her to get an education. I'd want them both to get an education, though. I'd teach the boy myself, if I had to.

 

[Xenidal]

I would choose not to give the money to either of them... out of fairness. If one is able to earn enough money to pay for his own education then so is the other. There's no point in giving one of them a clear advantage if I truly love them both equally.
In reality, I'd split the money and give half to each of them, but in this hypothetical situation it sounds like an all-or-nothing deal.
If not giving the money is not allowed in this hypothetical situation, I'd give it to the son, because I used a random number generator and it returned 0.2935566436 and I decided beforehand that any number less than .5 would be the son and any number greater than or equal to .5 would be the daughter.

 

[Gutharchera]

I think that the best answer for this is the smarter of the two children, in order to maximize the chance of success.

However if they were both of the same intelligence, i would then take in consideration who was the best looking. It may sound silly, but a good looking child would have more chance in the world with no education, they might not have to rely on it. So essentially the uglier of the two would get education.

 

[MizuTaipu]

The child who seems to have more potential than the other, and a stronger work ethic.

 

[Gama]

I agree with dannyjenn. Neither of the children would get a formal education in this hypothetical situation, if I were the parent. Instead, I would spend the money in the best way I could to benefit both of their futures equally, even if this means benefitting both of them considerably less than a formal education would.

For those of you who are saying you would put the daughter into education and not the son... I think the fact that she is in relative to him likely to face more problems isn't a good reason to give her the education. With her getting formal education and him not, he will face considerably more problems in life than she will. It may be true that if both were given the same opportunities she would suffer more, but the fact is that whichever you give the formal education to will be considerably better off.

Also, I think the idea of one sibling teaching the other is a little flawed. Firstly, there's a massive difference between being able to learn and being able to teach - the non-educated sibling would get a significantly lower standard of education. More importantly, even if they did somehow get the same standard of education, they wouldn't have the official qualifications that the educated sibling would have, so they would still be considerably worse off, as that is what counts far more than the actual knowledge.

I'm not sure it's fair to base it on who is smarter because I presume you would have to make this decision at a very young age, and it would be very difficult to tell.

A stronger work ethic is interesting. I suppose if only one child actively wanted a formal education, or one clearly wanted the education more, then it could be a good idea to give it to them. Still, though, I'd be reluctant, because as I said, I presume this decision would have to be made at a relatively young age, and making a decision that makes such a massive impact on the rest of your life based on your actions at such a young age is really harsh.

 

[Luminosity]

I'd make them fight to the death. Whoever survived, got the money

Nah, just kidding. In seriousness, I'd split the money and set up an education fund for each of them. There are grants, scholarships, and getting a job to help pay for the rest. And I think having to help pay for their education would make them appreciate it more.

 

[Xenidal]

Also, I think the idea of one sibling teaching the other is a little flawed. Firstly, there's a massive difference between being able to learn and being able to teach - the non-educated sibling would get a significantly lower standard of education. More importantly, even if they did somehow get the same standard of education, they wouldn't have the official qualifications that the educated sibling would have, so they would still be considerably worse off, as that is what counts far more than the actual knowledge.

I agree with this, especially the last part. It isn't necessarily the fact that you've learned anything or know anything that gets you the job... you get the job based on whatever degree you have. You can be the smartest person in the world or the best person in the field, but if you have no degree then you have a pretty low chance of getting a job. Unless you gain enough recognition that an employer would be willing to take the chance hiring you.
The only jobs in which this would not be the case would be art-oriented fields where you get hired based on your abilities and no one ever looks at what degree you have, or if you start your own company and don't have to worry about anyone hiring you.

 

[Goodbye Blue Monday]

I wouldn't determine it based on the gender of the child. I would determine it based on the child who is able to get more out of it.

Of course, this is precisely why we should have free and quality public education for all, so people don't have to make this choice. But this isn't the politics forum, so that's a discussion for another time.

 

[Almonds]

In that situation, of course I'd try to find another way to get them equally educated.

But if you put it that way in the poll, then I will, just hypothetically, choose the one who shows the most potential, and the will to be educated.

 

[Winterdaze]

Whoever wants it more. I think that's all that really matters.

 

[Xenidal]

Whoever wants it more. I think that's all that really matters.

But how would you determine who wants it more? The one who wants it more won't always make a big deal about it. I could see if one kid wanted it and the other clearly didn't (and I don't mean he showed no signs of interest in it... I mean he literally said that he didn't want it)... otherwise I don't know how such a determination can be made considering you can't read minds.

 

[winstein]

Well, since this thread isn't active for some time, I shall reveal how I got the question.

This question is inspired by a Baha'i teaching that "Parents have the responsibility of educating their children from birth. An unusual feature of Bahá'í beliefs is that, if there has to be a choice, girls should be educated in preference to boys: 'Most important of all is the training of girl children, for these girls will one day be mothers, and the mother is the first teacher of the child'." (Source)

This quotation (the one inside) actually highlights the importance of education to females, so they should take priority. This does not mean that once you have provided education for the girl despite neglecting the boy, then you are done. In fact, it means that if you can afford to educate both son and daughter, the right thing to do is to provide both of them the education, because education's important for everybody, and everyone deserves to be educated, which is more apparent in this age of information, compared to the past ages where being illiterate wasn't an issue to live life.

If I provide the choice to choose both of them, this answer to the question would be one-sided because the right action is apparent. This is why I exclude the option to include both to see what you guys and girls consider is the one with more value. It's like asking you the question: "If you could choose one, would water or air be important?" Of course both of them are important, but air has some importance over water, because while you could survive hours without water, you can't survive without air for minutes.

Thanks for reading.