Slashdot Mirror
Winnie Wrote a Math Book
SoyChemist writes "Hollywood is not known for providing a wealth of positive female role models. Danica McKellar, the actress that played Winnie Cooper on The Wonder Years and Elsie Snuffin on The West Wing, has written a math book for teenage girls. 'Math Doesn't Suck' is done in the style of a teen magazine. It even includes a horoscope, cute doodles of shoes and jewelry, and testimonials from attractive young career women that use math at work. It focuses on fractions and pre-algebra and uses mnemonics like calling a reciprocal a 'refliprocal', because you just take the fraction and flip it upside down. Wired interviewed McKellar about the new book and her crusade to eliminate the achievement gap between boys and girls in math courses. McKellar graduated Summa Cum Laude from UCLA. While studying there, she co-authored a proof and presented it at a conference. After she and Mayim Bialik — star of Blossom and a PhD in neuroscience — appeared in a 20/20 episode about intellectual actresses, several literary agents came knocking on her door."
There's a hot female geek
Rock-paper-scissors will have to decide this, guys.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
There actually is some degree of astronomy science in astrology, and yes, it involves math and geometry. How many of you know that Halloween falls near 15-degrees Scorpio, and what that actually means, mathematically speaking?
If you don't, then stop talking about things you know nothing about.
My blog
Tara Smith, a Professor of Epidemiology, and author of the science blog Aetiology (which I like) reviewed the book here , and has a short interview with Danica.
Anyone taking honours-level mathematics will author thousands of proofs before they graduate.
... "author". As in writing it up and getting it published, in a peer reviewed academic journal. See here, published in Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General.
By "author" they mean
You are the fringe lunatic. I gave links to two research papers(NOT YOU) that point to this kind of research of men actually falling behind in general in education, you are just talking making things up without consulting the actual research. I took the time to read on the papers and know that this gender gap no longer really exists if anything in general boys are behind girls and need more attention, this is a myth created by women groups like AAUW and their popularized 1992 report which I mentioned. But I am sure you forgot the already with your low level of dialectic argument.
... "The gap in performance between American men and women in the natural sciences and in mathematics is genuine and indeed a cause for concern. But this gender gap, it is also important to recognize, affects the prospects and careers of very few people. It is far from a monumental social problem. In 1994, for example, 450 American men received doctorates in mathematics compared to 146 women. In the physical sciences, 2,335 American men received doctorates compared to 659 women (NCES, 1996, Table 266). To achieve parity in mathematics and the physical sciences would affect fewer than 2,000 women a year"
... "The AAUW's own commissioned research in fact undercuts the position it trumpets---that girls receive less attention than boys. The AAUW sponsored a nationwide survey of 3,000 children between grades four and ten which forms one important statistical base for its glossy, highly publicized reports (American Association of University Women [AAUW]/Greenberg-Lake, 1990). When I tried to obtain a copy of this report, I had a difficult time.
http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html
Here is some info about how hard this report is to obtain that popularized this mythical gender gap against women in 1992, which I am sure is another conspiracy theory:
http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html
"While the politicized version, How Schools Shortchange Girls (1992) is available for a mere $16.95, obtaining the full data report requires a payment of $85.00 for unbound xeroxed pages. The AAUW provides an 800-number for ordering its reports, but the person I called at this number knew nothing about the full data report. I then called the AAUW offices, left messages, and waited for weeks to get telephone calls returned until I finally located someone who knew of this report.
"That the AAUW should make the report difficult to obtain is understandable. The data from their own report do not back up the charges they publicize---that girls receive less attention from teachers.
When asked about their personal experience, boys and girls reported receiving virtually identical amounts of attention from their teachers (Table 13). The gender differences that occur are trivial, and sometimes favor boys and sometimes favor girls."
Actually, the quote is "Math class is tough," and only 1.5% of all Teen Talk Barbies said that phrase. If you find one now, it's worth quite a bit of money. (And I'll bet more than 1.5% of the population actually thinks that math class is tough.)
</barbienerd>
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
I'm still amazed at how people still push to help girls succeed. It makes me think it has become a larger political issue about advancing women's views, and not because they are actually struggling. All the recent evidence points to girls succeeding beyond boys, and yet, where are the pro-boy programs? You will always be able to point out a specific area of work that men outnumber women, or vice versa, but that doesn't mean we should rectify that "problem". There's a much larger issue where boys are being left behind.
Women have outnumbered men at colleges for ~25 years now. Women outnumber men 58% to 42%.
75 percent of girls aim for college degrees vs. 66 percent of boys
The study found that not only are girls in the nation's 100 largest school districts graduating at a ">72 percent rate versus 65 percent for their male counterparts, but that the gender gap is even wider among minority students.
Actually you have to treat them very differently. I can make off-color jokes with my male co-workers. I can make physical contact with my male co-workers. I can go to a bar after work with my male co-workers. If I were the type of guy to treat people like shit, I could do so, with my male underling co-workers.
We are all just people.
Actually, you have to treat the devious wenches as lawsuit bait from the moment they set foot in your department
I concur wholeheartedly. I have witnessed people go down hard because the organization chose to prevent the possibility of a lawsuit by placating a female by firing a male for the most banal, unsubstantiated fluff.
My personal protection mechanism is to interact only much as necessary for me to remain employed. It's sad to act this way but reality is harsh. I really like women, too. There is just no way I can afford to jeopardize my livelihood on perceived harrassment.
-- Posted from my parent's basement