Log in

View Full Version : Girls = Boys at Math



JazzRemington
26th July 2008, 16:33
By David Malakoff
ScienceNOW Daily News
24 July 2008

Zip. Zilch. Nada. There's no real difference between the scores of U.S. boys and girls on common math tests, according to a massive new study. Educators hope the finding will finally dispel lingering perceptions that girls don't measure up to boys when it comes to crunching numbers. "This shows there's no issue of intellectual ability--and that's a message we still need to get out to some of our parents and teachers," says Henry "Hank" Kepner, president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in Reston, Virginia.


It won't be a new message. Nearly 20 years ago, a large-scale study led by psychologist Janet Hyde of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, found a "trivial" gap in math test scores between boys and girls in elementary and middle school. But it did suggest that boys were better at solving more complex problems by the time they got to high school.


Now, even that small gap has disappeared, Hyde reports in tomorrow's issue of Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/321/5888/494). Her team sifted through scores from standardized tests taken in 2005, 2006, and 2007 by nearly 7 million students in 10 states. Overall, the researchers found "no gender difference" in scores among children in grades two through 11. Among students with the highest test scores, the team did find that white boys outnumbered white girls by about two to one. Among Asians, however, that result was nearly reversed. Hyde says that suggests that cultural and social factors, not gender alone, influence how well students perform on tests.


Another portion of the study did confirm that boys still tend to outscore girls on the mathematics section of the SAT test taken by 1.5 million students interested in attending college. In 2007, for instance, boys' scores were about 7% higher on average than girls'. But Hyde's team argues that the gap is a statistical illusion, created by the fact that more girls take the test. "You're dipping farther down into the distribution of female talent, which brings down the score," Hyde says. It's not clear that statisticians at the College Board, which produces the SAT, will agree with that explanation. But Hyde says it's good news, because it means the test isn't biased against girls.


The study's most disturbing finding, the authors say, is that neither boys nor girls get many tough math questions on state tests now required to measure a school district's progress under the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind law. Using a four-level rating scale, with level one being easiest, the authors said that they found no challenging level-three or -four questions on most state tests. The authors worry that means that teachers may start dropping harder math from their curriculums, because "more teachers are gearing their instruction to the test."


The results "essentially confirm" earlier studies--and they should finally put to rest the idea that girls aren't going into technical fields because they can't do the math, says Ann Gallagher, a psychologist who studies testing at the Law School Admission Council in Newtown, Pennsylvania. But she still thinks there may be cultural or psychological reasons for why girls still tend to lag behind boys on high-stakes tests such as the SAT. Among students she's observed, she says "the boys tend to be a little more idiosyncratic in solving problems, the girls more conservative in following what they've been taught."




http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/724/1

RedAnarchist
26th July 2008, 16:36
I know plenty of women who are much better at maths then me, its absolute rubbish that women would be worse than men at it. In high school I had more female maths teachers than male.

I had to re-do my GCSE Maths exam twice (and even then I only got an high D). Whilst doing that, I got an A Level in English.

ChristianV777
26th July 2008, 23:44
I don't really like generalized studies to begin with.
I know it's looking at on average, but I'm a male who is awful at Math and I know there are lots of other males who will say the same.
I just never liked the idea that "boys do better at math than girls, while females are better at linguistics".
Perhaps it was always because as a male I was the opposite and maybe I had a knee-jerk reaction to hearing it when I was younger.

Lost In Translation
27th July 2008, 00:53
There's always been a double standard, it seems, when admitting females into the science departments in University. In any math class, you'll find the males still outnumber the females.

But the stereotype that men should go into sciences, while women go into arts is still going strong, regardless of how rapid the number of females in the physics department is increasing.

spartan
27th July 2008, 01:01
Most of the time it's not that people are bad at something or are more intelligent it's just that they cant be arsed doing it.

If women are better then men at maths one year and then men are better the next perhaps it's because one of them weren't as arsed one year whilst the other was?

professorchaos
27th July 2008, 01:20
I agree. We should adjust scientific data for "arsedness".

jake williams
28th July 2008, 21:26
I just never liked the idea that "boys do better at math than girls, while females are better at linguistics".
That line is so full of shit, and so obviously, it's just that everyone is retarded. Math in elementary and high school is pretty basic without a lot of work to do but you kind of have to think, whereas doing well in English class entails, in virtually every case (students never do actual linguistics, English class is fuckup but I won't get into that), entails more or less quickly understanding and accepting conventions.

I haven't noticed boys doing "better" at math, but a perceived advantage or interest can occur, for obvious while unnatural reasons. Girls can tend to do better at English for what I think, again, are obvious while unnatural reasons.

Drace
28th July 2008, 21:31
There's no real difference between the scores of U.S. boys and girls on common math tests

Math tests are shit.

politics student
28th July 2008, 21:39
I read a brilliant book on the subject of gender differences recently.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2587988.ece

An enjoyable read. :D

Raoul_RedRat
30th July 2008, 22:53
The results "essentially confirm" earlier studies--and they should finally put to rest the idea that girls aren't going into technical fields because they can't do the math

The fact that some persons thought it to be necessary to disprove the abject notion that sexuality can determine the intellectual capacities that someone has or can achieve through his/her life only shows how ignorant even smart individuals mistake the idea of emancipation.

In my opinion there are only two valid forms of research which can include the variable of sexuality. And that is either the research that does so because it wants to understand human species as a whole just as how we put other living thing under the proverbial microscope. Or the more important form research, social research that shows what factors still enable and sustain gender inequalities in certain communities and consequently shows what is needed to cast off this history c.q. tradition and socialization of he/she thinking.

534634634265
30th July 2008, 23:08
i mean, according to "tests" and "studies" which people here despise so much:p,
there is a performance difference between women and men. theres proof that women outperform men academically, but whether thats a genetic difference or a culturally induced one is really where the debate should lie.

sorry, but this thread seemed like a lot of asinine back-patting as everyone agrees how silly the methods of determination are. just thought i'd come and play "devils advocate" a little.:D

Raoul_RedRat
30th July 2008, 23:19
...there is a performance difference between women and men. theres proof that women outperform men academically, but whether thats a genetic difference or a culturally induced one is really where the debate should lie. ...

There shouldn't be any debate, it is completely irrelevant that women outperform men. Assumed that performing better academically is preferred I am only curious on a personal note what I could learn from these women to perform better myself.

Even if you could trace these differences back to genetics, I think that intellectual/mental capacities can always be countered or altered. Genes are only the rudimentary preconditions for how an individual can develop. We as human beings have the capacity (under the assumption that we are of good mental health) to compensate for differences to our own benefits.

Perhaps this relates to my own history of being the only academic in my entire family. But please do attack these thoughts because I'm unsure if there is any reason in what I say.

534634634265
30th July 2008, 23:30
There shouldn't be any debate, it is completely irrelevant that women outperform men.
not if thats what this topic is debating


Assumed that performing better academically is preferred I am only curious on a personal note what I could learn from these women to perform better myself.

performance issues,eh? they have pills for that. or you could try the rhythm method.:laugh::laugh:


Even if you could trace these differences back to genetics, I think that intellectual/mental capacities can always be countered or altered. Genes are only the rudimentary preconditions for how an individual can develop. We as human beings have the capacity (under the assumption that we are of good mental health) to compensate for differences to our own benefits.

Perhaps this relates to my own history of being the only academic in my entire family. But please do attack these thoughts because I'm unsure if there is any reason in what I say.
nothing meant as an attack, friend.:wub:
i agree. if the differences are solely genetic then we can change them, or evolve/develop beyond them. if they are cultural then things might be more difficult.:D
i view the difference as a mix of both genetic and cultural. you may be the first academic in your family, but that doesn't mean more will come, nor does it mean more WON'T come. its simply the fact of how things are now. raise any spawn of yours to value an education and you'll have smart kids. raise them to value only hard work and singleminded determination, and you'll have little workers. do both and you'll have little socialists.:thumbup:

Raoul_RedRat
30th July 2008, 23:54
yadayadyada

So we agree huh, let me quote myself again.


There shouldn't be any debate...:laugh:

534634634265
31st July 2008, 01:17
we don't agree on all points, just some.
i think there ARE differences between men and women, both genetic, and cultural. according to what i've read from you, you think there aren't. thats the crux of the matter. i posted contrarily to you, because you stated that its irrelevant that women outperform in academics. i disagree on that point, friend.

Raoul_RedRat
31st July 2008, 01:49
we don't agree on all points, just some.
i think there ARE differences between men and women, both genetic, and cultural. according to what i've read from you, you think there aren't. thats the crux of the matter. i posted contrarily to you, because you stated that its irrelevant that women outperform in academics. i disagree on that point, friend.

Well we do agree on those points, the fact that I think differences between men and women are irrelevant doesn't entail denying the reality of differences between men and women. I only deny the presumed 'womanhood' or 'manhood' that is purported in such facts. It is irrelevant to know that it are women or men under the assumption that genetic influence cannot be traced in such detail (unless you deny free will) and that cultural determination can be countered, diminishing the distinction between men and women.

So yes there are differences between men and women, firstly the obvious biological/genetic differences that are in most of it's aspects unchangeable (but one must be hesitant), but the biological and genetic do not suffice for our more comprehensive understanding of 'man' and 'woman'. Secondly I recognize culturally determined differences between men and women, yet practice shows that these differences can be emancipated (we are in potential equal) and they neither suffice for our comprehensive understanding of 'man' and 'woman'.

You could counter with the question what "our comprehensive understanding of 'man' and 'women' is", by this I mean the conceptual sum of all individual experiences of male and female identity. A conception of male and female differences fails if it cannot fulfill the requirement of such a comprehensive description. So in my interpretation it would be "biological determination + cultural determination + self awareness + potential construction of ones self = I'm a man/woman/undecided/et cetera.", but not in one genesis but rather a continuing fact of human identity. Someone can be for the most part of his/her life be just the sum of his/her physical attributes added with his/her socialization, but can become self aware of these features and reinvent his/her own identity.

534634634265
31st July 2008, 03:18
i need an emoticon for stunned silence, other than the "embarrassed face" one.
that was a well reasoned and well phrased argument. i find myself without a reply, so i quit the debate.
let this row of emoticons show my sequential reactions to what i just read.
:eek::ohmy::blushing::o:)