If I recall correctly, this has been done before. Last time the obvious happened - the boys wee rowdy at first and then order set in, a hierarchy is established. The girls rapidly descend into cliques and intense, unrelenting psychological and often physical bullying follows.
I expect this will happen again.
You only have to have the misfortune to accidentally watch a few minutes of Big Brother to know that that occurs in adults too. Blokes argue, yes, they tease and rib each other and sometimes two "alphas" slug it out once, but it is the women who plot, bitch, isolate and feud consistently IMHO.
I put it down to the historic, primordial division of labour between men and women. Men hunted, women foraged. Men who bitch, hold grudges, feud and plot end up with less meat and the chance of dangling off the end of a mammoth tusk. Women can form cliques and exclude other women so their "enemy" is denied the gossip about the best food or resources without such risks. Men need to sort it out fast and then rebuild ultimate life-or-death trust again and bond. Women do not have to do that, in fact I suspect in a foraging environment, such cliques may be advantageous to the clique.
I am a bloke, so I prefer the male way of doing things. Sort out the argument...and GET OVER IT. I also think this is why soap operas are mainly for Women, for they are all about grudges, bitching, gossip, secrets held then opportunistically let out the bag, backstabbing and historic feuds. Men like war films - big fight, sort it out, win or lose. New King. Over*.
I suspect the new programme will show that Girls and Boys are very different at a deep psychological level in how they play and fight. They say if the world was run by Women there would be no war. Watch the programme and see that you would get 1984 and worse. New Labour is heading towards that.
Of course this is not strictly about Men and Women or Boys and Girls, but Feminine and Masculine. We are all a blend of each trait. Right now, New Labour is, IMHO, the most Feminine political party outside the emasculated LibDems. It is not a nanny state that lies ahead, but a harridan state that wants to proactively control, to "protect" and "prevent". Men tend to want to "defend" by a pre-emptive show of force and capability and the will to retaliate only if a transgression occurs. Look at Elephant behaviour and the parallel is there.
When boys have no father the male testosterone meets only the Feminine example of "protection" and I wonder if this is why we get a rise in pre-emptive action, violent behaviour and gangs?
Lets see how the programme unfolds.
* I hate the term "end of", btw.