Feminism

[merithyn]

In other words, girls, just like boys, were treated badly by their peers for doing well in school.  Hmm.  Kind of knocks a hole in the idea that differences in school performance were/are due to peer pressure.

Guess it does for where you went to school. Not to discount what you saw, I witnessed the opposite with the boys in my class. There was always a competition for who did best in class, which is why I got punched for winning all the time.

I do think that the close in the gap has more to do with the way that math and science are now taught. There was a huge study some 20-25 years ago that showed that teachers favored boys in those courses over girls, and would actively dissuade girls from succeeding. (Cameras were used in the classroom, not anecdotal stuff.) Since that study came out, there have been a ton of changes in how things are handled in the classroom.

I just can't imagine that there's a single thing that's going on. There has to be dozens of reasons why girls don't choose to go into STEM coursework in college. I, personally, believe that it's worth exploring and potentially fixing. I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that, however.

[MadImmortalMan]

Yeah, I can agree with that. Greatness requires creativity, which can be encouraged (or discouraged) but cannot be taught - you can either do it or not, meaning it is based on innate ability.

Currently we discourage all hell out of it.

[merithyn]

It wasn't a theory. It was fact. Girls did worse than boys in math and science. That gap has changed dramatically in the last decade and a half, erasing the gap, but the gap definitely existed.

I'm not questioning the gender difference in math achievement, I'm questioning the "ostracism" theory behind the reason for the differences.  Frankly, I think it's utter bullshit, and that it's popular only because it is a useful kind of lie.  And the achievement gap in math SAT scores hasn't gone anywhere:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-math-gap-persists-with-a-33-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/ .

My personal experience was that yes, girls were ostracized for doing well in school. Not by the boys, as I said, but by other girls. I was constantly called a know-it-all, told that I was a show-off, and otherwise treated poorly because I was at the top of my class in middle school.

And this kind of things never happens with boys?  Do the other boys revere the ones who get the highest math scores?

You're probably right.

So what explains it?

[Malthus]

I understand all of that. The question is why, not what.

There is extreme male brain theory - as exemplified by the arguable connections between Asperger's and mathematics ability.  I think that was what Malthus was driving at earlier.  All very speculative IMO but perhaps there is something to it.

Yeah I haven't read up on it or anything but anecdote seems to suggest there is something to it.

From personal experience: I'm pretty average(and suck at math), but my older brother is a mathematical genius - he's a professor of physics now (mind you, at the University of Iowa, not Harvard, but still). When we were kids though, it was sidely assumed he was retarded (these days, "developmentally challenged") and the school authorities attempted to "stream" him into the stream that teaches basic vocational skills. 

[dps]

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

That doesn't make sense. So long as women make less than men, it will make sense for the woman to stay home with the children while the man goes to work. Financially, that's the responsible thing to do. It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change.

First, I've known of cases where the doctor has cleared a woman to go back to work in less than 6 weeks.  Second, men now have the choice to take paternity leave as well, and in theory can stay on paternity leave even after the woman has returned from maternity leave.  In fact, I know of 1 case in which the mother took 12 weeks maternity leave starting with the birth of the child, and as soon as that was up, the father took 12 weeks paternity leave.

More importantly, the 12 weeks leave that FMLA requires most employers to grant most employees isn't really going to make much difference in most people's careers.  What hurts a woman's career is when she decides to stay at home until the child is 2 or starts school or something.  At that point, most places aren't going to grant leave for that long, and she's quit her job.  There's no guarantee that she'll get it back, and even if she does, she's lost a lost of senoirity at that point.

Besides, choices have consequences.  You want legislation that would change that.  I seems to me that to accomplish that, you'd need legislation that both extends the amount of leave that companies are required to give, which, OK, not great for business but then again requiring the employer to grant leave at all isn't great for business and how much time they are required to grant is arbitrary anyway, but it would also seem that you would have to make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed.  Still, we'd have to come up with a number.  What is it?  6 months, 1 year, 2, more?  If we're mandating that both parents have to take the max, are we going to provide everybody taking that leave an income for that period?  If yes, how are we going to pay for that?  Beyond that, I can see the point with regards to raising a child, but what about someone who wants to take extended periods of time off for other reasons?  Say somebody wants to go on a trip to the Holy Land, or just wants to not work and chill for a year.  Or someone wants to not work for a while to care for their elderly parents, such care maybe being required for a few months, but hey, if the old folks prove stouter than expected, maybe it's the next 20 years.  Do we make a value judgment that those choices have less merit than taking time off to have a child and deny those people leave while giving it to those who want to have a baby?  Maybe?  I don't know, but either way, it seems to lead back to the suggestion someone made earlier that you're not just demanding equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome as well.

[DGuller]

I looked at the raw data from College Board referenced by the guy I quoted, because I don't exactly trust people from conservative think tanks.  One thing that I realized is that not only is male average math SAT score about a quarter of the standard deviation higher than female average, but also the male standard deviation is higher.  That would exacerbate the gender differences at the right tail of the distribution even further.

[dps]

In other words, girls, just like boys, were treated badly by their peers for doing well in school.  Hmm.  Kind of knocks a hole in the idea that differences in school performance were/are due to peer pressure.

Guess it does for where you went to school. Not to discount what you saw, I witnessed the opposite with the boys in my class. There was always a competition for who did best in class, which is why I got punched for winning all the time.

There was a certain amount of competition among the smart kids, yes, but also a certain amount of hostility towards them by those who weren't considered to be in that group. 

[MadImmortalMan]

I looked at the raw data from College Board referenced by the guy I quoted, because I don't exactly trust people from conservative think tanks.  One thing that I realized is that not only is male average math SAT score about a quarter of the standard deviation higher than female average, but also the male standard deviation is higher.  That would exacerbate the gender differences at the right tail of the distribution even further.

Okay, but why?

[DGuller]

Actually, the coefficient of variation is identical for both genders.    The standard deviation is higher by exactly the same proportion that the average is higher. 

[Camerus]

In my experience as a teacher, girls do a lot better in grades 9 - 10, though by grades 11 - 12 it evens out a bit.  I believe this is because girls simply mature faster than boys and are able to handle things like organization, study habits, listening in class, etc. better than boys in the younger grades.

In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.  What's more, girls do better than boys overall academically.  So while some question of why girls perform worse than boys in math and science is valid and warranted, to my mind, the bigger question should now be why do girls do better than boys overall in school? 

[garbon]

In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.

Because those lead to dead-end jobs, if they even lead to a job?

[DGuller]

In my experience as a teacher, girls do a lot better in grades 9 - 10, though by grades 11 - 12 it evens out a bit.  I believe this is because girls simply mature faster than boys and are able to handle things like organization, study habits, listening in class, etc. better than boys in the younger grades.

In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.  What's more, girls do better than boys overall academically.  So while some question of why girls perform worse than boys in math and science is valid and warranted, to my mind, the bigger question should now be why do girls do better than boys overall in school?

Good point, it seems like this kind of questioning of differential results is a one-way ratchet.

[Camerus]

In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.

Because those lead to dead-end jobs, if they even lead to a job?

Nice how you cropped out my main point, which was that questions of why girls do better in school overall (and in specific fields like English) largely go unasked.

Besides, don't you have a degree in art history?  Are you working a dead end job now?   

[Scipio]

I object that my non-sequitur has been marginalized!

[garbon]

In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.

Because those lead to dead-end jobs, if they even lead to a job?

Nice how you cropped out my main point, which was that questions of why girls do better in school overall (and in specific fields like English) largely go unasked.

Besides, don't you have a degree in art history?  Are you working a dead end job now?   

Because I wasn't interested in your main point.

Nope, only a minor. Besides, I went to a school whose name recognition goes far.