No Gap Found In Math Abilities of Girls, Boys

sciencehabit writes "For anyone who still believes that boys are better at math than girls, a massive new study published today in Science shows there's no difference. '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.' But the researchers do note a disturbing trend towards omitting harder kinds of math questions from standardized tests."

Comments

I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our equal sex overlords.

Re:I, for one

[rhyder128k]

Yeah, real equal. Women average better than men in most school subjects and more women than men go to university. There are loads of female dominated jobs and academic subjects, yet no affirmative action for us. When women want to work a 25 hr week in a career that's "rewarding", the feminists complain that women average lower salaries.

That's feminism: When men are doing better at something "Men and women are equals, the men must have had an unfair advantage!". When women are doing better, "Men and women have different brains and are good at different things!"

When will the geek community use their intelligence and realise when that they're being shafted?

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the geek community use their intelligence and realise when that they're being shafted?

So in your mind the geek community is exclusively male...? I think I see the problem here...

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

Re:I, for one

[Relic of the Future]

When women want to work a 25 hr week in a career that's "rewarding", the feminists complain that women average lower salaries.

Do you have data to back up that claim?

Re:I, for one

[rhyder128k]

It's predominantly male.

Obviously, you think that men are the only people who would be interested in fairness in this issue? Sounds like you've got a lot to learn.

Re:I, for one

[y86]

You sir are a racist or a bigot.

No just kidding, good point.

Re:I, for one

[rhyder128k]

I demand you cease your terrorism, sir!

Re:I, for one

[Colonel Korn]

Never in my life have I encountered a serious situation where the system favors girls or women over me. Not in school, not in business, not in anything beyond women getting to order first in restaurants. While girls have very slightly higher average scores in grade school and a slight majority when it comes to overall university attendance, the "advantage" is both very small and in my opinion caused by the fact that most girl-focused subcultures are more compatible with academics than are those focused around boys.

I think that any blame in this imbalance has to fall on anti-intellectualism among boys.

Yeah, real equal. Women average better than men in most school subjects and more women than men go to university. There are loads of female dominated jobs and academic subjects, yet no affirmative action for us. When women want to work a 25 hr week in a career that's "rewarding", the feminists complain that women average lower salaries.

That's feminism: When men are doing better at something "Men and women are equals, the men must have had an unfair advantage!". When women are doing better, "Men and women have different brains and are good at different things!"

When will the geek community use their intelligence and realise when that they're being shafted?

Re:I, for one

[rhyder128k]

58% to 42% in the UK in higher education (2005-2006). I wish there had been someone like you around in 1984 when the situation was the exact reverse of the current one. "Hey, it's no big deal and it doesn't make any difference!". Would have come in real handy.

Re:I, for one

[drsmithy]

Do you have data to back up that claim?

When you compare the same jobs, same qualifications, same experience, same competency and same working hours, there is no meaningful difference between male and female salaries.

Note that most comparisons do *not* do this (eg: they frequently average salaries for men and women across the entire workforce), because they are trying to support an agenda.

Re:I, for one

[AmberBlackCat]

By the way, the next time somebody discusses the lack of female presence on Slashdot, think about the kind of things that get modded insightful here.

Re:I, for one

[leoxx]

When you compare the same jobs, same qualifications, same experience, same competency and same working hours, there is no meaningful difference between male and female salaries.

Source?

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, Hear!

Re:I, for one

[cl0s]

Men are pretty much better at whatever they want to be better at. Now I understand all history books were written by "men", yada yada, but if you pick the best male mathematician of all time agaisnt the best female mathematician of all time who is better? Or the best alive, or even the top 5 would be men before a female even entered the list. Even a fruit cup will jump into pretty much a 99.9% womans industry and dominate (ie. Fashion). Females might be better at cooking and cleaning, but we gave you that one... wait not cooking, the best chefs are male -- atleast you can clean?

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

someone got it right

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's easy to use a facile analysis to do say women make less than men. Look at education, for example. We had a female Ph.D in our group. This goes counter-point, because she probably made more than any of us. But let's say she made less. She sucked. She never got anything really done and operated at the level of a mid-level developer at best. She got pushed out of the group eventually. Had she made less, the feminists would be up in arms - more education, less money = sexism!!!

The fact is that to really decide you'd have to do intensive job performance analysis. To really figure out if two people are doing the "same job" and should make the "same money", you need to know if they're actually doing the same job at all. Feminists aren't interested in that, because their agenda is to make it seem like they're victims. It's trivial to do that using bad statistics, and most men are too pussified to object.

Re:I, for one

[Lane.exe]

OH MY GOD YOU POOR VICTIM

Maybe when you've been on the receiving end of oppression for 10,000 years, maybe when you live in a society that isn't geared toward promoting the dominance of your sex, maybe when you weren't raised in an environment of almost absolute privilege, you get to complain. But on the whole, the fact that you might be complaining that women are smarter than you and dominate a few areas of the job market, while still lagging significantly behind in most others, is just fucking pathetic. Grow a pair, be a man.

Re:I, for one

[oni]

I think that any blame in this imbalance has to fall on anti-intellectualism among boys.

I wholeheartedly agree. Look at the difference in culture here. Girls have feminism. All their lives they're told that they're wonderful and special and have this innate power and value that comes from being a woman. Look at all the role models that women have in popular culture. In every movie and TV show, and especially in advertisements, women are always smart, always strong, always winners.

What are boys told? They are innately bad. Members of their sex are responsible for all the world's ills. Boys fall back on their instincts - they value themselves in terms of sexual conquests. They fall back on their instincts to achieve those. And the instincts serve them well all through high school, and they manage to feel okay. It's ok to cut school, ok to put all your time and attention into some stupid car (for example) because that gets you sex, and that makes you worth something.

Basically it's like you said, anti-intellectualism.

Re:I, for one

[AmaDaden]

Yeah. Personally I've always found the tech Girls vs. tech Guys thing a culture problem of geekdom and nothing more. I have meet several girls who are good at tech but just never got in to the field because it's a 'guy' field. The comment from the GP is the typical "get off my lawn" argument that geek guys have on the issue. Most people I have dealt with (both guys and girls) view a tech girl more negatively then they would a tech guy at first and then have no trouble treating them as an equal after they have proven them self. There is a clear guys are better then girls thought out there but there is no substance to it.

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

But do you have a source for a study or something? Perhaps you have numbers that you've compiled yourself that we can see?

Re:I, for one

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

When you compare the same jobs, same qualifications, same experience, same competency and same working hours, there is no meaningful difference between male and female salaries.

I don't think you are correct. I remember reading a study a year ago that compared men and women's salaries for the same jobs and levels of education and experience and the results were women paid 15% less overall (25% less when one only looked at the private sector).

I don't recall who the study was by and Google does not turn it up right away. Do you have a source for your claim?

I'd also like to note that even if there is reliable data showing men and women make the same amount for the same job (with the same qualifications, experience, hours, etc.) that does not necessarily indicate equality as it allows for it to be harder for women to get high paying jobs. For example, if you look at all the people who are CFO's for fortune 500 companies and determine that the men and women make about the same, but 90% of those CFO's are men, that could very easily be an indication that it is harder for women to get those jobs because of discrimination. Alternately, it could indicate that for social reasons women are less likely to go into a career track that would lead them to such a position. The point being, same pay for the same job is not conclusive evidence of no gender discrimination.

Re:I, for one

[stickrnan]

When you compare the same jobs, same qualifications, same experience, same competency and same working hours, there is no meaningful difference between male and female salaries.

At my last job I, and about every other man, was overlooked for positions and raises for women that had less education than, less experience and less seniority. Sure, it might be better on average. But in certain industries, it hurts to be a man, and there's no affirmative action group for us. Frankly, I don't want one. I find better opportunities elsewhere.

Re:I, for one

[pallmall1]

When you compare the same jobs, same qualifications, same experience, same competency and same working hours, there is no meaningful difference between male and female salaries.

Source?

How about this for a source?

Re:I, for one

[story645]

Most people I have dealt with (both guys and girls) view a tech girl more negatively then they would a tech guy at first and then have no trouble treating them as an equal after they have proven them self.

Are you sure it's not 'cause the girl's typically a newbie, and all newbies tend to be treated quite badly at first by a vocal subset of geeks. I

I dunno, I've never felt like anyone was viewing me negatively 'cause of my gender, more like a sparkly object 'cause yeah the # of girls interested in tech seems tiny. And actually, the sparkly factor may be where the negativity comes in, 'cause I've noticed it sometimes comes with kid glove behavior.

Re:I, for one

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Never in my life have I encountered a serious situation where the system favors girls or women over me. Not in school, not in business, not in anything beyond women getting to order first in restaurants.

I recall at the end of high school, when I was looking at scholarships to fund my higher education, that there were plenty of scholarships available that had a gender or racial requirement, making me ineligible. That is a situation where women had a real advantage over me. One of the universities I was applying for also had a quota for both races and genders, which meant women with lower test scores were admitted aver men with higher test scores. Again, that clearly favored women over me.

Now it is entirely possible that other social factors provided males an advantage over women, like math teachers who wrote recommendations that subconsciously took into account their prejudices about gender. Still, if you didn't see anything that did not clearly favor women, either times have changed or you were independently wealthy.

I'd also note that while participating in hiring a technical writer for a tech start-up I worked at, we hired on a woman who was clearly less qualified than one of the male candidates. This might be because all the other writers were women, but I also overheard comments from a higher up manager about our company "needing more women" as we were mostly men simply because the field we worked in is mostly dominated by men. We actually went out of our way several times to hire women when possible, but most of them ended up being less than competent and were eventually let go. Whatever the case, women were given preferential treatment in several cases.

Re:I, for one

[story645]

Like my posts? Dunno 'bout you, but I dig the karma.

Seriously though, it's the old demographics issue. Something like %10-20 of engineering schools/comp sci programs/hard sciences, etc. are female, and slashdot pulls primarily from those populations(but even then a small subset, say y%, y20.) So y% of 10% means slashdot should only have a couple of girls (and I've seen at least one comment by a girl, excluding me, on almost every post here) just 'cause of distributions.

Re:I, for one

[pembo13]

Never seen female only scholarships? I have. I've never seen male only scholarships however.

Re:I, for one

[e2d2]

If I gave a fuck about that I wouldn't be much of a man would I?

I'm not here to worry about female or male feelings when I post. I'm here to discuss topics and rant on them at length. And to maybe find that nugget of knowledge that shows through now and again in the comments here. The good stuff.

Also, the fact that you assume that slashdot moderation is somehow a group consensus shows a real lack of understanding.

Re:I, for one

[Theaetetus]

At my last job I, and about every other man, was overlooked for positions and raises for women that had less education than, less experience and less seniority. Sure, it might be better on average. But in certain industries, it hurts to be a man, and there's no affirmative action group for us. Frankly, I don't want one. I find better opportunities elsewhere.

See, legislation such as affirmative action is based on studies, not anecdotes. That's probably your problem.

Re:I, for one

[e2d2]

But the whole industry is filled with ego and men deal with it fine everyday.

Honestly, I don't see a need to bring in more people based on gender or attract more women. This is a merit based industry. If you do well then no one cares what gender you are. Why should we worry about attracting more women to computing? What is the need?

Re:I, for one

[stickrnan]

I'd prefer it based on logic more than anything else. But legislation and logic are mutually exclusive.

Re:I, for one

[Theaetetus]

Wow... did you feel the breeze from the point flying over your head?

Re:I, for one

[mrsteveman1]

Bigot eh....

Sally has 6 slices of bread, 12 pieces of ham and 6 pieces of cheese. How many sammiches can sally make before the man of the house gets home from work?

Re:I, for one

[Eternauta3k]

Maybe when you've been on the receiving end of oppression for 10,000 years, maybe when you live in a society that isn't geared toward promoting the dominance of your sex, maybe when you weren't raised in an environment of almost absolute privilege, you get to complain

So, when the oppressed group gets some power, it just does the same thing they did to them? Besides, the degree to which contemporary society is geared towards men is questionable.

the fact that you might be complaining that women are smarter than you and dominate a few areas of the job market, while still lagging significantly behind in most others, is just fucking pathetic

He's saying the coherent course of action would be to give men as much of an unfair advantage as women have. That we should make affirmative action universal and make every company, career, field, etc. representative of gender and race, even if it means we won't have the best person we could have in every spot.
One of the problems with this equality thing is that we can't have, for example, a company with 1/10 men and another company with 9/10 men. Each one seeks an even distribution when it might not be the most efficient thing to do.

Re:I, for one

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Most people I have dealt with (both guys and girls) view a tech girl more negatively then they would a tech guy at first and then have no trouble treating them as an equal after they have proven them self.

My view from the computer science field is that social factors result in both positives and negatives for the probable competence of a woman who has trained herself for a career in CS. Generally, I think it is considered socially undesirable for women, which weeds out most candidates except those exposed to repeatedly by a pro-CS environment (a parent or relative or mentor who is an expert and gets them into it at a young age) or those who have natural gifts that give them an advantage. This, taken alone, would tend to mean there are fewer women in the field, but they would be more competent. Then, however, they go through a formal education which is weighted against them due to quotas which allow less competent ones to continue and preferential treatment from peers (I knew a girl who did not write any of her own code and had several CS boyfriends happy to help her with all of it). As a result, a significant number of the women who go into CS end up with an inferior education and inferior experience. This carries over into the workplace where the male-dominated culture tends to give them more leeway and hire them preferentially just to have a few women in the workplace.

Overall, It is hard to say what all this results in. From my personal experience, working with really, really smart people on the high end of the CS field, I'd say about 2/3 of the women programmers/architects we hire are below the average for the company. The remaining 1/3 are at the top of the game, better on average than the men. Not many tend to fall into the middle. That's just my perspective though. Statistically and across the field as a whole things could be quite different.

Re:I, for one

[spicate]

Most people I have dealt with (both guys and girls) view a tech girl more negatively then they would a tech guy at first and then have no trouble treating them as an equal after they have proven them self.

Are you sure it's not 'cause the girl's typically a newbie, and all newbies tend to be treated quite badly at first by a vocal subset of geeks. I

I dunno, I've never felt like anyone was viewing me negatively 'cause of my gender, more like a sparkly object 'cause yeah the # of girls interested in tech seems tiny. And actually, the sparkly factor may be where the negativity comes in, 'cause I've noticed it sometimes comes with kid glove behavior.

This is a problem a lot of women in tech have noticed - at least in the 90s, women sometimes had LESS expected of them at work, and as a result were not taken seriously when higher-level positions opened up.

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

And when men do have higher salaries often its because they are more aggressive in asking for raises and bonuses.

Re:I, for one

[mdwh2]

I'm not sure it makes the sense to play the "YOU POOR VICTIM" card, if that's the card being played to support "affirmative action". I also don't know any women who live 10,000 years to experience that, nor any men come to that.

Here in the UK, girls are outperforming boys at GCSE and A Levels ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/883836.stm ) - does that mean we should have "positive" discrimination in favour of boys to make up?

I don't for one minute doubt or support the horrendous sexism that still exists in many areas of live - but that doesn't mean it's related to this particular issue, nor does it mean the answer is more discrimination. I feel that any decisions should be made on an individual level. So sure, at an interview you might take into account that a person's individual experiences means that they had it harder than someone else, and that they might have better potential despite lower test scores. What you don't do is judge people based on what's between their legs, or the experiences of their forefathers (what are we, Klingons?).

Oxford and Cambridge have a problem with getting state school applicants, and there is a huge inbalance. But they don't resort to discrimination or quotas - rather they have programmes where people go to state schools to encourage people to apply, and people's background is taken into account on an individual level (e.g., a private educated person might have 6 A Levels whilst a state school person doesn't, but the state school never allowed that person the chance to take that many).

(And before anyone accuses me of wanting some male-only club, the huge inbalance in gender in maths/computer University courses and jobs is something I hate, and would much rather there was a 50/50 split. But that doesn't mean I support discrimination, no matter what I personally want.)

Re:I, for one

[AmaDaden]

Are you sure it's not 'cause the girl's typically a newbie, and all newbies tend to be treated quite badly at first by a vocal subset of geeks.

Short answer is yes. Long answer is that is what they are doing they are just far harsher on girls then guys with it. They treat every girl as if she is a "what part is the mouse again?" level newbie even if they have a comp sci PHD.

Re:I, for one

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I think that any blame in this imbalance has to fall on anti-intellectualism among boys.

Ah yes, blaming the victim - tried and true.

Re:I, for one

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I don't think you are correct. I remember reading a study a year ago that compared men and women's salaries for the same jobs and levels of education and experience and the results were women paid 15% less overall (25% less when one only looked at the private sector).

The poster was correct. About 10 years ago Statistics Canada did exactly that kind of study and found less than a 3% difference in income after normalizing for these sorts of factors. Less than 3% among younger groups (for reasons that should be obvious). But that's never what gets reported. Instead it's "Women earn 65 cents on the dollar compared to men"... of course that number is achieved by, amongst other intellectually dishonest things, comparing women working 30 hours/week to men working 52 hours/week. Well duh, yes working longer at the same job means you make more money... do they really expect to work less hours and still get paid the same? Well, sadly, yes I've heard that suggestion made in the name of "equality".

Here's another statistic that rarely gets any press - men put in more time for the benefit of their families than women. Again from Statistics Canada. Yes, when you include all the time getting to and from work, time at work, time doing things for the family at home etc. etc. men put in about 4 hours a week more than women.

Re:I, for one

[AigariusDebian]

Girls have a more socially-oriented brain structure that tends to react with less confidence to unfounded criticism. In my opinion, all people get treated equally bad in tech circles, but typically girls get less confident under such pressure and fail to advance.

Re:I, for one

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Alternately, it could indicate that for social reasons women are less likely to go into a career track that would lead them to such a position. The point being, same pay for the same job is not conclusive evidence of no gender discrimination.

<cough> <cough> Well yes, proving a negative has always been rather hard.

Re:I, for one

[TheSync]

This article claims that A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job..

Of course, women are now graduating college at higher rates than men. There was a recent study mentioned in the New York Times which claims that in US urban areas, women 21-30 earned more on average than men (as high as 120% in Dallas), although nationwide women in that age range only made 89% of men. The suspicion is that urban areas are attracting more college and higher educated women.

At the same time, I've seen a couple of industries that are notable anti-female, so while things are getting better in general, things still have a long way to go.

Re:I, for one

[stuntmanmike]

The geek COMMUNITY is predominantly male, but there are tons of female nerds and geeks out there.

They just don't want to come to our party, because we're a bunch of socially inept misogynist pricks.

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

3, and each sammich consists of 2 slices of bread, 4 peices of ham and 2 pieces of cheese.

Re:I, for one

[DamnStupidElf]

When you compare the same jobs, same qualifications, same experience, same competency and same working hours, there is no meaningful difference between male and female salaries.

So one woman CEO at one company in the U.S. solves the world's sex discrimination problems?

Note that most comparisons do *not* do this (eg: they frequently average salaries for men and women across the entire workforce), because they are trying to support an agenda.

Assuming men and women have equal opportunities, such an average is appropriate. The expected value for the sex of an employee should be roughly 51% female, because of the male/female ratio. An average of salaries should show a slightly higher mean wage for women, since as a higher percentage of the population they have a slightly higher probability of being in very high paying positions. The distribution of salaries is not normal, instead it has a very high end that causes the mean to be significantly higher than the median. This distribution means that the mean salary for the more numerous sex should be slightly higher, assuming equal job opportunities.

Re:I, for one

[DamnStupidElf]

Sally has 6 slices of bread, 12 pieces of ham and 6 pieces of cheese. How many sammiches can sally make before the man of the house gets home from work?

As many as she wants?

Re:I, for one

[mrsteveman1]

Everyone knows Anonymous Coward is male, so, no points for you Mr Coward.

Re:I, for one

[proudfoot]

You really don't know what a mean is do you?

An average of salaries should show a slightly higher mean wage for women since as a higher percentage of the population they have a slightly higher probability of being in very high paying positions.

Think about this for a second. Second issue is this - women are generally considered the primary caretakers of children, and at the same time, are more likely to take time off, or prefer to work less hours. This is probably a good reason why they make less.

Re:I, for one

[drsmithy]

None on hand (and I'm certainly not going to waste time trying to dig it up for a Slashdot discussion, since it's usually obfuscated).

If you can, find some of these "studies" that include some raw data, or more than just a soundbite conclusion. Look through said data and be sure to normalise for factors such as shorter working hours. You will find that, for the same job, women are paid the same salary.

(After all, if women really did earn significantly less, employers would be falling over themselves to save money on staffing costs by employing them.)

Re:I, for one

[drsmithy]

I don't think you are correct. I remember reading a study a year ago that compared men and women's salaries for the same jobs and levels of education and experience and the results were women paid 15% less overall (25% less when one only looked at the private sector).

Then why aren't employers falling over themselves to save money by employing women ? Knocking 25% off your salary expenses (a significant part of any budget) would confer a substantial competitive advantage.

I don't recall who the study was by and Google does not turn it up right away. Do you have a source for your claim?

Not on hand (and they were in dead-tree format anyway).

I'd also like to note that even if there is reliable data showing men and women make the same amount for the same job (with the same qualifications, experience, hours, etc.) that does not necessarily indicate equality as it allows for it to be harder for women to get high paying jobs.

This is a different topic to "same work, same pay".

For example, if you look at all the people who are CFO's for fortune 500 companies and determine that the men and women make about the same, but 90% of those CFO's are men, that could very easily be an indication that it is harder for women to get those jobs because of discrimination. Alternately, it could indicate that for social reasons women are less likely to go into a career track that would lead them to such a position.

Or they just might not be interested because, you know, men and women are different.

The point being, same pay for the same job is not conclusive evidence of no gender discrimination.

Correlation != causation.

Or, to put it another way, "discrimination" in outcome is not evidence of "discrimination" in process. No-one seems to scream "discrimination" that a disproportionate number of high-level sprinters, for example, are black.

Re:I, for one

[drsmithy]

So one woman CEO at one company in the U.S. solves the world's sex discrimination problems?

Who said anything about that ? I was talking about salary comparisons.

Assuming men and women have equal opportunities, such an average is appropriate.

It is completely inappropriate. It does not account, for example, for the fact that women (on average) work significantly fewer hours than men both in short term (ie: a 40 hour week instead of a 50 hour week) and the long term (ie: taking several years off to raise a family).

(Whether this happens by choice or "discrimination" is irrelevant. It happens, and therefore any calculation which does not account for it is wrong , meaning conclusions drawn from those calculations are, similarly, wrong .)

This is just one of the more obvious and glaring bad assumptions that an overall average takes - there are several others (for example, that the distribution of males and females within any job will be normal).

The expected value for the sex of an employee should be roughly 51% female, because of the male/female ratio.

Only if you're working with unrealistic and broken assumptions. Real people with differences are not the same as simplistic equation people, who are identical.

Re:I, for one

[boast]

Grow a pair, be a man.

Back to the kitchen, be a woman.

Re:I, for one

[Cederic]

Please stop using the term 'affirmative action' and use its real name: discrimination.

The UK Minister for Equal Opportunities wants to make it legal to discriminate against men, on the basis that men get higher pay than women.

Of course, the report she's basing this one notes that women in part time work get paid a higher rate per hour than men in part time work do.

Quite how this justifies discriminating against men in pay and job offers I'm personally a little confused. Lets just say I know how to get my gender legally changed and if necessary, I will.

Re:I, for one

[Theaetetus]

Please stop using the term 'affirmative action' and use its real name: discrimination.

I discriminate between cheap wines and expensive ones, a hamburger from McDonald's and one from Chez Henri... What's so bad about discrimination?
Oh, wait, you meant that it was sexist. Sorry, no. That term is specifically reserved for discrimination based on gender by a person in power - it's part of the definition.

The UK Minister for Equal Opportunities wants to make it legal to discriminate against men, on the basis that men get higher pay than women.

Oh, excellent. Well, welcome to the 1970s, Limey.

Of course, the report she's basing this one notes that women in part time work get paid a higher rate per hour than men in part time work do.

She might also be basing it on the study that women earn less than men in the same jobs, even when corrected for experience, time, benefits, etc.

Quite how this justifies discriminating against men in pay and job offers I'm personally a little confused.

Again, this is because you think discrimination=sexism. It doesn't.

Lets just say I know how to get my gender legally changed and if necessary, I will.

Oh, well, feel free then. Because if your salary is the only possible consideration you could have when deciding whether to have a penis or not, then you probably should base your decisions on that.

Re:I, for one

[Cederic]

She might also be basing it on the study that women earn less than men in the same jobs, even when corrected for experience, time, benefits, etc.

Except that the study sadly didn't show that. Oops.

The study did show that women working part time earn significantly less per hour than men working full time. Which is the statistic she quoted to justify this foolish suggestion.

Obviously this loses its significance when you correct for experience, time, benefits, etc - oh, and whether the job is full or part time. Because at that point, the study shows that the corrected earnings per hour for women are higher than men.

Again, this is because you think discrimination=sexism. It doesn't.

If someone is discriminated against on the basis of gender then it is sexism. Shit, check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism if you don't believe me.

Even taking your unusually narrow view of what constitutes sexism, "Affirmative action" invariably involves somebody in a position of power discriminating against another person.

If the legislation stated that it was fine to pay women 20% less than men because women get maternity leave and men don't, and because women take more sick leave than men, then it would be discriminatory and sexist.

Maternity leave itself is sexist. Why should women get so many months off on full pay because of a lifestyle choice? Sweden offer men equal rights in this area, why can't other countries.

If legislation is brought in that permits favouring women over men when recruiting then it is discriminatory and sexist.

I don't think these are complicated concepts.

Because if your salary is the only possible consideration you could have when deciding whether to have a penis or not, then you probably should base your decisions on that.

You may be amazed to discover that it's possible to change your legal gender without taking any medication or receiving any surgical alterations at all. Legal gender does not have to resemble physical characteristics.

Re:I, for one

[Martha Bridegam]

This conversation relates directly to the shortage of women who actually stay in the tech professions after beginning training for them. In my high school, a male kid who was a year behind me in math was voted "class genius." He was a perfectly nice kid -- wasn't his fault that he fit a positive stereotype for being a male good at math, and I fit a negative stereotype for being a female good at math. It not being his fault, I only took a quiet revenge: when it came time for his yearbook photo as "genius", I wrote an equation on the board behind him that he didn't understand. Every geek female has a similar story. I regret to say I went into law and journalism, where I faced my share of harassment for being female and ambitious, but not quite what I would have faced in a tech profession. Any woman who stayed in math and the sciences in the '80s despite the continual harassment, discouragement and insults had to be not just twice as able as every male coworker but also a warrior with the hide of a rhinoceros. The sad part is, I thought the tough-hide requirement had lessened over twenty years. Apparently not. Not judging by this place.

Re:I, for one

[Poorcku]

http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html

this is the source. and the study comes from the IWF (independent women's forum!).

to sum it up, they found that when controlled for all the variables above, women make about 98% of what men earn.

Re:I, for one

[Poorcku]

The point being, same pay for the same job is not conclusive evidence of no gender discrimination.

i was like WTF!? for a second, than i realised you could be right. it is no evidence of gender discrimination but it is evidence against the gender wage gap (myth).

Re:I, for one

[eugene ts wong]

atleast you can clean?

I don't mean to sound like a troll, but men seem to dominate the janitorial field as well. I honestly can't think of a woman who definitely can clean better than a man.

Re:I, for one

[eugene ts wong]

One of the problems with this equality thing is that we can't have, for example, a company with 1/10 men and another company with 9/10 men. Each one seeks an even distribution when it might not be the most efficient thing to do.

Yes, and no.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but remember that men aren't allowed to have men only companies. Women are allowed women only companies. Technically, we could have 75% - 100% of the workforce made up of women, and affirmative action could even know about it, but affirmative action wouldn't step in to help us.

Re:I, for one

[vajaradakini]

So you missed the study where people admitted that they didn't hire women for top leadership positions because women aren't viewed as capable of leading? And the other one where people are often hesitant to hire women for important jobs because they're viewed as potential mothers? That women getting the same results as men had their accomplishments consistently undervalued?

Re:I, for one

[vajaradakini]

Second issue is this - women are generally considered the primary caretakers of children, and at the same time, are more likely to take time off, or prefer to work less hours. This is probably a good reason why they make less.

And this is the fault of women, not society? If men and women were viewed as equal partners in child-rearing, instead of the responsibility falling primarily to one partner over the other, wouldn't they both take time off to look after the kid?

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

But where they for the same amount of time?
We have women where I work who are paid less but are not expected to come in every fucking Saturday, like I have done for the last 5 months.

Also I think men are more willing to ask for pay raises because they are not a self-conscious. and more likely to get them because they are talking to other men.

Re:I, for one

[cptnapalm]

If you've been in school, you've encountered one.

The old school approach was the cumulative final. Girls did poorly on that so research was done on how girls could do better. What they found was that girls would do better (and boys worse) when there were more tests, more quizes and more homework. So the curriculum was changed to the system which played to girls' strength and boys weaknesses.

According to the data I've seen, when it comes to test time, the boys do rather better than girls. It is homework in particular which girls are better about doing.

Anecdotes: I've seen several professors/teachers independently give similar opinions on what they see in their classrooms. The girls are on average much more dutiful, but those that are inquisitive are overwhelmingly male. And a quote from the article which reminded me of this: "the boys tend to be a little more idiosyncratic in solving problems, the girls more conservative in following what they've been taught."

Re:I, for one

[cptnapalm]

Ever consider that people don't particularly like you because you seem to do little other than whine, complain and demonstrate your pettiness?:

Re:I, for one

[Theaetetus]

Except that the study sadly didn't show that. Oops.

There's more than one study, you know. For instance, there's the October 2003 study from the US General Accounting Office titled "Women's Earnings" that found that when corrected for hours worked and experience, including part time work vs. full time work, women still only earn 80% of what men do. Oops.

Obviously this loses its significance when you correct for experience, time, benefits, etc - oh, and whether the job is full or part time.Because at that point, the study shows that the corrected earnings per hour for women are higher than men.

Ooooh, fail. "When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000."

If someone is discriminated against on the basis of gender then it is sexism. Shit, check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism if you don't believe me.

Okay, sure. Hey, look at that - it's not just "discrimination based on gender = sexism". It specifies either being based on traditional gender roles, or restricted job opportunities.

Seriously, why would you link to a definition that disproves your claims. Is this your first time on Slashdot?

Even taking your unusually narrow view of what constitutes sexism, "Affirmative action" invariably involves somebody in a position of power discriminating against another person.

Oh, weep for poor Whitey! The Man is keeping him down, by not allowing his historical actions in keeping minorities and women down to continue. If only we could start on, well, not a level playing field, of course, but an unadjusted playing field that directly reflects the status quo as its been for hundreds of years!

Maternity leave itself is sexist. Why should women get so many months off on full pay because of a lifestyle choice? Sweden offer men equal rights in this area, why can't other countries.

And they should. I'm glad we agree on paternity leave.

You may be amazed to discover that it's possible to change your legal gender without taking any medication or receiving any surgical alterations at all. Legal gender does not have to resemble physical characteristics.

It depends on your jurisdiction, and you'd still require evidence from your doctor, therapist, and others strong enough to convince a court that you're transgender. It's not like filling out a form.

Re:I, for one

[Cederic]

Oh, weep for poor Whitey!

Now there's a crass assumption. Plus of course, it's perfectly possible to be male and against sexism, or black and against racism. Although affirmative action may be sexist or racist it's possible to be a black woman and against affirmative action.

I'm not a black woman.

I'm struggling to understand why you're even trying to argue here. Your points are poor, you're quoting US statistics in response to my UK ones, you've making false assumptions about me, and attacking me personally. What exactly is your point here?

My point is that affirmative action on the basis of gender is sexist. The link I provided confirms that definition of sexism (while also providing others - fortunately I've been on Slashdot long enough to know that there can be many answers). You haven't disproved that.

Re:I, for one

[Theaetetus]

Now there's a crass assumption.

Actually, it was crass sarcasm. I thought that should have been painfully obvious.

Your points are poor, you're quoting US statistics in response to my UK ones

No, I quoted and cited a study in response to your non-quoted, non-cited assertion. There's two fundamental differences there, and the country of origin isn't one.

you've making false assumptions about me

Again... Sarcasm. The only assumption I made about you is that you aren't an oppressed minority. Bet I'm right.

and attacking me personally.

When was that?

What exactly is your point here?

Well, I made a long post above, and you only responded to one line in the sarcastic paragraph in the middle. Maybe you missed the point. I'd go back and read it, and try responding to any one of the other paragraphs. They'll clear up your confusion nicely.

Re:I, for one

[Martha Bridegam]

The phrase: "...do little other than..." gives it away: I'm a stranger to this speaker, so I would guess the above is a phrase he habitually directs at a woman he abuses in real life, someone he believes he knows well. Classic Internet misogyny again: posts with female usernames attract displaced anger from men and boys who resent their mothers and girlfriends.

Re:I, for one

[Sosetta]

Most CFOs are old guys. Like 60+. When they were entering the work force in their 20's, it was 1970 or so, a time when there was massive sexism in America. So is it any surprise that there are more men than women at that level of corporations?

It's not like they're given these jobs. They have to fight and sacrifice a lot to get there. They don't get to spend a lot of time with family. Many of them didn't take a lot of vacation time and worked 60+ hours a week to get where they are now.

Which would you rather do, work nonstop climbing the corporate ladder or stay at home and raise your children. There are a lot of women who would take the latter choice. There is virtually no opportunity for a man to make that choice.

Re:I, for one

[story645]

They treat every girl as if she is a "what part is the mouse again?" level newbie even if they have a comp sci PHD.

That's what I call kid glove treatment, which I've gotten my fair share of. And when I complained to the dean about a specific professor doing this, the dean told me I was gravely mistaken. So, trying to give that prof the benefit of the doubt, maybe a combination of sheer lack of exposure to women in tech and the few they meet often not being the most tech savvy* has conditioned many guys to treat most girls like total n00bs. Plus, I've noticed a screwed up sense of chivalry sometimes coming into play.

*Most of the people I've met in comp sci are totally clueless about tech, not just girls. I just think numbers (and girls often being more willing to admit that they're newbies and ask for help) make it seem like more girls are newbies.

Re:I, for one

[cptnapalm]

"so I would guess the above is a phrase he habitually directs at a woman he abuses in real life"

Of course you would, as you are a stock example of the misandrist cult.

Pretend that you are not just another man-hating feminist: "He was a perfectly nice kid." But of course you must attempt to humiliate him: "I wrote an equation on the board behind him that he didn't understand." And of course you are the uber-capable, twice as good as any man, blah blah blah woman.

You are a stereotype.

Re:I, for one

[Martha Bridegam]

No, you are attacking a stereotype who lives in your own mind.

Re:I, for one

[JAlexoi]

The most simple business logic.
FACT: Men are more likely to sacrifice personal time for work and/or professional activities. Women are less likely to do that.

Why should an employer pay women ,that have the same productivity per hour as men, but spend less time on professional activities the same amount?
I'd bet that women that do actually spend the same amount of time working have better/faster/more rewarding careers then men.

I have several female colleagues in contrast to them male colleagues do at least 1 hr of overtime per week, and countless on professional development. Female colleagues get in at 9:00 and 17:00 they are OUT for the day, NO exceptions in 2 years now. I am and all my colleagues(both male and female) are Java developers.

Re:I, for one

[cl0s]

As for a job cleaning, your probably right. What I mean is some women take pride in having a clean home. Like strive to be great at it where I haven't seen too many men get into it the same (as with cooking or fashion). Even though I was being a little sarcastic, that's not at all a bad thing, I don't see why its a problem, yes some women want to be math geniuses and programmers and maybe in some places find resistance in that but feminist make it seem like your a barbarian or living in the ice age if your a female or want a female that wants to have babies and maintain the house (cleaning, cooking, the kids health, usually keeping track of the bills and more also), its not like its an easy job or not challenging -- it can be as rewarding as you make it. But guess what, to grow as a community someone has to have babies (men can't do it, nature has already chosen ladies to do this, this also impedes on their professional success in life, naturally. This has nothing to do with men keeping females down.). Then someone has to raise and care for them - which the natural choice would again be the female - as naturally she is the one that has to breastfeed, therefore the man has to work and progress in his professional career. Plus theres nothing like a Hispanic barefoot chick with a straw broom in the kitchen :).

Re:I, for one

[eugene ts wong]

I think that you are right about women doing a better job of keeping the house looking nice and tidy. Women probably love Ikea more than we do. I'm just generalizing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the best bachelor pad is just mediocre compared the best mainstream family household. It's apples and oranges, but still.

You're right about it being as rewarding as we want to make it. This is true for all jobs. I really hate it when feminists make it sound so bad. They really are insulting the women who want the job. They certainly aren't helping men to look at it in a positive way.

Plus theres nothing like a Hispanic barefoot chick with a straw broom in the kitchen :).

LOL I agree with almost all that you said, but this I take issue with. ;^P I don't discriminate against Hispanics. I want all women to be treated like that. ;^P And they can clean the washroom while they are at it. ;^P

That being said, I seriously do believe that men should do a bit of each chore, just so that we are constantly aware of how much work it is. Also, it gives us incentive to reduce the amount of work [e.g. do we really need to use 2 cups instead of 1?]. I get really angry, when people make extra work for somebody else without any concern for that person.

Re:I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a female, a long-time slashdot reader, and have a Phd from MIT. If you ever dated or worked with someone of my kind, you probably would change your opinions.

The implicit association bias follows us everywhere. We have to be much better to be given the same level of opportunity.

Can it be time?

[gcnaddict]

I want more women in my IT department! Too bad nothing will come from this...

(even if anything does come from this, it'll probably take a decade or two, which makes me feel old already)

Re:Can it be time?

[gardenwall2]

Three out of eight in the department I work in are women. But only one of us started in IT. My background is music business administration and ending up in computers because a computer was donated to the not-for-profit I worked for in the early 1980's, and I couldn't stand to see it just sitting there not being used. However, I have noticed over years that it's a field dominated by men. Is it just me, or are men more curious than women about IT and other related areas in general?

Re:Can it be time?

[digitrev]

Men do tend to be more interested in technical things. In fact, the cog. sci. department has a related hypothesis that they're currently testing. The hypothesis is that Asperger's syndrome and the autistic spectrum is just the extreme case of the male brain (literally: testosterone poisoning).

Re:Can it be time?

[Bomarc]

You can have ours....
The first is 58 years old, weighs about 245lb, 5' 3"....
The second one has short grey curly hair, weights about 195 lb, 5' 7"

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's real hard to become interested in something that people tell you you're not supposed to be interested in every time you ask a question about it during early childhood. Hence why I never learned how to dress well until I was 20.

Re:Can it be time?

[KillerBob]

Is it just me, or are men more curious than women about IT and other related areas in general?

It's not just you. And I think it has more to do with males generally being drawn towards things of a more technical nature. I know far more males who like to tinker with things than females, which is strange given that probably 90% of my friends are female. What I've noticed is that the women tend to have more important things to worry about, and don't think about the little things that are largely inconsequential to them. It doesn't matter to me how my car works, it matters to me *that* it works. I paid for the extended warranty on it for a reason.

Re:Can it be time?

[The Warlock]

Likewise, I never learned to cook until I was in college.

Now I'm pretty good at it.

Re:Can it be time?

[KillerBob]

Men do tend to be more interested in technical things. In fact, the cog. sci. department has a related hypothesis that they're currently testing. The hypothesis is that Asperger's syndrome and the autistic spectrum is just the extreme case of the male brain (literally: testosterone poisoning).

I know somebody who's transgendered (MtF) and has been diagnosed with Asperger's... though to be fair, her current psychologist thinks that it was a misdiagnosis, and that the reason she was socially retarded was because she was sent to an all-boys school, as she no longer has those social problems since going to University and now working in a coed environment. The fact that she's got an eidetic memory, a gift for languages and maths, and an IQ in the stratosphere (high 99.9th percentile) is just a coincidence. She does have other symptoms, though, like the inability to tune out background "noise" and conversation.

So the theory goes, at least... as far as facts go: neurochemically, she's got a brain that's more consistent with a female brain at the horomonal level (and she hasn't started taking horomones yet), and she has been diagnosed with Asperger's. :)

Re:Can it be time?

[infinite9]

The hypothesis is that Asperger's syndrome and the autistic spectrum is just the extreme case of the male brain (literally: testosterone poisoning).

I have asperger's and so do three of my children. My daughter (with asd) is entering the 9th grade this year effectively three years ahead of where I was in math. It's frightening. She skipped the 3rd grade and looks younger than she is. She looks like a 12 year old entering high school. I've been preparing her for a couple years for the time (about now) when I won't be able to help her with math anymore. It's really shocking to me how smart she is.

I think the human race, at least in the developed world, is selecting for intelligence. Intelligent people have better health care and better resources making them more likely to reproduce and afford more children. I think this natural selection mixed with how our environment has changed is responsible for the increased incidence in asd.

We need to think long and hard about how we educate children and what we consider normal. The one-size-fits-all public education system is the worst possible thing you can do to an asd kid.

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? Then how come most social reject geeks aren't six foot bastions of manliness?

I'm not bitter.

Re:Can it be time?

[warriorpostman]

There's an interesting book, written by Simon Baron Cohen, about male and female cognitive behvior, and it's relation to autism/Asperger's-syndrom

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essential-Difference-Women-Extreme-Science/dp/0713996714

I found it pretty fascinating, and the author himself was concerned about publishing the book in the face of cultural/political resistance against this type of theory. I find the theory pretty persuasive, and I don't think it necessarily precludes women from science/engineering. In fact, my experience working with competent women in the the software world, was that they were generally respected and had congenial relations with their male coworkers.

At the risk of sounding flamey, I kind of feel like general population of women (at least in this country) do not encourage other women to go into math/science/engineering. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a lot of women are significantly intimidated by other women who DO have an aptitude (and in my mind, more importantly, inclination) for "systems-building", as put forth in Simon Baron Cohen's theory.

For the record, almost every woman I've dated in my life, has had at least some fundamental interest in what I do for work, despite not really being able to 100% grasp my somewhat rambling explanations. The notion that men are from mars, and women from venus, is pretty simplistic and overall, a pretty useless idea.

Re:Can it be time?

[2names]

"I think the human race, at least in the developed world, is selecting for intelligence."

You, sir, are outcho goddammed mind.

The intelligent people in developed countries are being outbred by the people of lower intelligence.

I know it is not science, but sheesh, haven't you seen Idiocracy?

Re:Can it be time?

[drsmithy]

I think the human race, at least in the developed world, is selecting for intelligence.

A quick sample of the average TV show and current world leaders, would suggest your theory is, at best, questionable :).

Intelligent people have better health care and better resources making them more likely to reproduce and afford more children. I think this natural selection mixed with how our environment has changed is responsible for the increased incidence in asd.

There's a very clear inverse relationship between "intelligence" and offspring. Statistically speaking, "smarter" you are, the less kids you'll have. From memory, the reproduction rate of "smart" people isn't even at replacement levels.

Re:Can it be time?

[RockoTDF]

Because Androgen has a lot to do with other elements of masculinity as well. Abnormal testosterone levels with aspergers syndrome are usually in utero. The timing has more to do with it than just the levels.

Re:Can it be time?

[RockoTDF]

There is a difference between selection and breeding. Selection involves choosing a mate, breeding involves having kids. Smart people are selecting each other, but breeding less. Less intelligent people are having a lot of kids. Also, I would imagine that as more and more women become career women (and not just "have a job") that trophy wives and marrying your cute college sweetheart will be less common, further skewing the bell curve as intelligent women will have an easier time meeting intelligent men.

Re:Can it be time?

[RockoTDF]

There was actually a study where newborns were placed in cribs with screens mounted above. On one side, cars, motors, engines, machinery, etc. On the other side, faces, people, etc. The results were in line with adult stereotypes. The boys stared at the machines, the girls at the people/faces.

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation please.

Re:Can it be time?

[2names]

Wrong. In the context of infinite9's post "selection" absolutely means breeding. Did you read the entire post?

Re:Can it be time?

[KillerBob]

I'm gonna have to agree with the AC there and ask for a citation.... a newborn baby's eyes haven't even formed fully yet, and everything's a blur for their first 2 weeks to 1 month. it's nearly 6 months before they can see as well as an adult. they identify their mother by smell.

Re:Can it be time?

[dmcq]

It's a big problem trying to get some women into an IT company. Twenty or more years ago there was no problem but nowadays it just doesn't seem to be possible to find enough. They are just not interested and it would make a better environment if there were more in the organization.

Re:Can it be time?

[oni]

Can you point to just one example of someone telling women they're "not supposed to be interested" in IT?

Because I'm calling bullshit on your comment.

Re:Can it be time?

[DaveV1.0]

HR would like to have a word with you about that joke you told. They said you should bring everything in your desk.

Re:Can it be time?

[RockoTDF]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=14&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.kth.se%2Fmatstat%2Fgru%2F5b1501%2FF%2Fsex.pdf&ei=sSuKSJGRJIfsgATVxOSsDg&usg=AFQjCNEXFhXvU3VvTAngOLCDby6b48_vkg&sig2=K9wWxLB1yYL-4fO0jvMVLQ

(The file is called sex.pdf , don't be alarmed, totally sfw!)

In this one they used mobiles, not engines. There is another study out there that is with 12 m/os that does use engines, cars, etc that gets the same results. It's all in "The Essential Difference" by Simon Baron-Cohen, cited in a few posts above.

Re:Can it be time?

[KillerBob]

There is another study out there that is with 12 m/os that does use engines, cars, etc that gets the same results. It's all in "The Essential Difference" by Simon Baron-Cohen, cited in a few posts above.

I can believe that one. But you originally said "newborns". A newborn baby can't see, because their eyes haven't fully formed... best practical example I can find is the following site: http://tinyeyes.com/tinyeyes/ ... obviously not real, exactly, but a quick Google search for "newborn vision" will reveal many articles which outline the timeline for the development of vision in infants.

Re:Can it be time?

[dvice_null]

I know a woman who was forbidden to use the family computer by her father (probably because the father feared that the computer could break (at that time, the computers were quite expensive and he is not that good with computers).

After I met her, allowed her to use my computer and started teaching her, she has become something above average with computers (yes, she is using Linux), even she is still not interested with programming.

Re:Can it be time?

[oni]

I don't think it necessarily precludes women from science/engineering.

Honestly, I'm a little disappointed that you made that statement after reading the book. Maybe you didn't mean it the way it sounds.

**Nothing in the book suggests that women are, or that they should be precluded from anything they want to do**

A little review of the difference between a statistic and discrimination: a statistic is something that is true of a population, for example, men are on average, taller than women. Discrimination is applying that statistic to an individual. For example, imagine a job for which height is a requisite (I can't think of such a job, please just play along) "wait a minute! who is this woman who wants to interview for this job? Women aren't tall enough! Statistics prove that! She can't have the job."

See what happened? It's entirely possible that she might be tall enough - even taller than the other men who are interviewing. I took the statistic (which was true) and applied it to an individual. That was discrimination. Nothing in the book supports or suggests discrimination.

More men might be interested in science. That's a statistic. It's true. There's nothing wrong with it being true, and we as a society shouldn't be afraid to say the truth. However, any individual woman that you might meet may well have more interest (and aptitude) for science than you or I or any individual male. So nobody should make the mistake of discrimination. Give everyone a fair shot. But don't be surprised when the outcome corresponds to the statistic.

Re:Can it be time?

[Maxo-Texas]

I started my daughter on math with parabolas at about 6.
She was an honors student in math.

Though she was good at math-- she never really liked it. Now she is a graphic artist and happy.
She has also enjoyed managing people at a fast food restaurant during college. Her husband is the gearhead of the family.

Re:Can it be time?

[Machtyn]

From memory, the reproduction rate of "smart" people isn't even at replacement levels.

Which doesn't make them very smart, does it?

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simon Baren Goddamnquack.

If he was in physics he'd be a string theorist.

Re:Can it be time?

[warriorpostman]

You're right. That was poorly written on my part.

Reagarding your statement: "Nothing in the book supports or suggests discrimination", I totally agree. I was trying to address the misperception that the book's theory implies or affirms discrimination against women, since they are statistically less likely to be technically/scientifically inclined. My bad.

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think her reason for being bored with it is because you had her learn at it at such a young age.

Re:Can it be time?

[msoori]

You really expect us to believe that?

Re:Can it be time?

[mrchaotica]

How does that theory account for females with autism?

Re:Can it be time?

[RockoTDF]

I read the book over a year ago, and made a mistake.

Re:Can it be time?

[digitrev]

I don't know. I didn't come up with the hypothesis. If I recall correctly though, it has something to do with an excess of testosterone while in the uterus. Some girls have more testosterone than guys at times.

Re:Can it be time?

[h4rm0ny]

I saw it all the time growing up. Boys were given boys toys and shied away from doing 'girl things.' Girls were given girl toys and led towards doing more stereotypically girlish interests. In every little way, boys and girls seemed to be led in different directions, whether it was suggestions of careers or selecting school options. Now if you want to make the case that it's less so with young children currently being raised, then that might be so and I would love it to be so, but the GP is most certainly not talking bullshit in my experience. Do you honestly think there isn't cultural reinforcement from adults on the perceived gender roles?

Re:Can it be time?

[Maxo-Texas]

Right... as opposed to her being bored because I didn't teach her soon enough.

"No Win" Jeopardy-- it's a game anyone can play.

It is what it is. She was encouraged. She did enjoy it. But in college she found other things (including a husband, partying and her MRS. that appealed to her more).

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it is not science, but sheesh, haven't you seen Idiocracy?

Wow. Grats on citing Idiocracy. I hope your Assburgers treats you well for the rest of your days.

Re:Can it be time?

[PPalmgren]

They had a documentary on either Discovery or National Geographic recently about the brain, and it talked about How those problems could be caused by an extreme male brain (known as the "S" brain or Systems brain). They also stated that in the US, most men have "S" brains where most women have "E" brains, and they stated a large majority of people with autism are males. I think it is genetically linked as well as culturally linked, because even apes, which have no cultural influence, will choose toys the same way human infants do. Female apes will choose dolls, where male apes will choose trucks. I think this has to do with what our brains are geared for, and what we are interested in. At the core of it, men and women are not equal because for hundreds of thousands of years our ancestors performed specific roles in the family unit. I don't find anything wrong with embracing these differences as long as people realize that there are deviations and they should not be discriminated against. I think this study simply highlights the problem I have with the school system. The system has been re-geared toward everyone meeting the minimum. I bet if they extended this on to college they would have much different results, since college students are allowed to choose their interests. Every math and science course I took in college was male dominated. My engineernig classes were 95% male, and over 50% left handed. People are different, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Re:Can it be time?

[Kjella]

The intelligent people in developed countries are being outbred by the people of lower intelligence.

I know it is not science, but sheesh, haven't you seen Idiocracy?

The film doesn't follow from the evidence. I think the intelligent people have made progress in a lot of fields like for example medicine that have enabled the less intelligent to live longer and breed more, while the scientists have been busy pursuing the science. Likewise people that almost instinctively picks up the defender role, often married to the job and high chance of being injured/killed, they enable the more peaceful to live longer and breed more while often sacrificing their own lives.

I think it's always been that way, that mankind produces "exceptions" because as a whole we would do better than if everyone was average family men. Given the limited lifespan it's obviously preferable to have someone extremely dedicated to progress in some area of knowledge. Everyone has their professional honor, but I don't see a plumber completely losing himself in his work the way a scientist can. That I think accounts for the difference within the same society.

As for the rich vs poor and breeding it's very easy. In countries with poor care for the elderly, having grown-up kids that can help you financially or otherwise is a huge plus. Thus, breed as much as you can afford. I've not seen that related to intelligence though, only to poverty. Once they know that their basic needs will be met now and as they become elderly, they too want to pursue other goals. It's really quite that simple.

In any case, if you want to "win" evolution it's simple. Start having a dozen kids. The reminder of your life (or at least the next 30 years given a year apart and until they're 18) will be spent doing nothing else but raising kids, but go right ahead. Moat of the people getting all xenophobic end up basicly saying "They can't have more kids because we don't want more kids", like if we're happy with two kids they can't be allowed to breed three. Wanna play the breeding game then do it instead of crying foul...

Re:Can it be time?

[rohan972]

The one-size-fits-all public education system is the worst possible thing you can do to an asd kid.

Or a kid without asd. You are wrong about it being natural selection though. Have a read of The Measurement of Intelligence by Lewis Madison Terman written in 1916 on the introduction of intelligence testing in schools. There is nothing natural about the selection process you are observing.

One sample paragraph: "It is safe to predict that in the near future intelligence tests will bring tens of thousands of these high-grade defectives under the surveillance and protection of society. This will ultimately result in curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the high-grade cases, of the type now so frequently overlooked, are precisely the ones whose guardianship it is most important for the State to assume."

Re:Can it be time?

[coolGuyZak]

Really? What was the mistake?

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want more women in my IT department! Too bad nothing will come from this...

(even if anything does come from this, it'll probably take a decade or two, which makes me feel old already)

Isn't that when the restraining order is up?

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

From memory, the reproduction rate of "smart" people isn't even at replacement levels.

Which doesn't make them very smart, does it?

That depends upon their goals. Maybe intelligent people tend to value enjoying their life to its fullest more than passing on their genes to improve humanity in the long term. Of course these may not be mutually exclusive. That's why I broke into a sperm bank and replaced it all with premium content from my own loins. That way I benefit the race and still don't need to find a baby sitter if I want to go on a three night drunk. Of course it doesn't show up on statistical studies, but I imagine a lot of us secretly pass on our superior genes without being identifiable and suffering the social consequences.

Re:Can it be time?

[RockoTDF]

I said they used images of cars, motors, and such, which was referring to a similar study done when the infants had better sensory abilities.

Re:Can it be time?

[ChromeAeonium]

Someday, the (intelligent and well educated) descendants of those you call 'unintelligent' will probably be saying the same thing.

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the human race, at least in the developed world, is selecting for intelligence. Intelligent people have better health care and better resources making them more likely to reproduce and afford more children.

Well you would be wrong, poor people still have to make their own fun and can not always afford contraception.

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apes do have some kind of culture too. They're not that different from us.

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the human race, at least in the developed world, is selecting for intelligence. Intelligent people have better health care and better resources making them more likely to reproduce and afford more children. I think this natural selection mixed with how our environment has changed is responsible for the increased incidence in asd.

So the "developing" world is not selecting for intelligence? I would say the opposite is true. Your life may depend on how smart you are in some countries, whereas in the US the worst-case scenario is most likely a low-wage job that still allows you to reproduce.

Re:Can it be time?

[oni]

Boys were given boys toys and shied away from doing 'girl things.'

Well first of all, that wasn't what I asked. But since you brought it up, I'm sorry that some parents buy toys their children don't want, but for most children, studies show that they do prefer those gender-specific toys, and that these aren't "perceived" roles, as you put it, but inborn preferences. Men and women are different because of our genes.

The question I asked, which nobody has answered yet, is if anyone can give an example of girls being told they not supposed to be interested in IT. I can give you an example of the opposite:

Think about what it means to be a geek. If you're a guy, the joke is that you'll be a virgin until you're 30, and you'll live in your mother's basement. What's it like for a self-identified geek male in highschool? You're a social outcast. Society tells you that you're a failure, and to be a real man, you need to do manly things and the most important thing for you to do is to get a girlfriend. Being a geek or a nerd as a male is a death sentence.

Now look at what it's like for a girl. Geek girls are awesome. Many girls self-identify as geeks even though they have no real knowledge or propensity for computers. It's just so great - it's considered so cool, that they actually lie about it. Anything that you want to do, as a girl, is encouraged.

So that's the world as I see it. Boys feel tremendous pressure to avoid being labeled a geek, being associated with computers, etc. But for girls, anything they do, and everything they do is just super. Wow, you go girl! Girl power! Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them, right? There are no examples of girls being told they're not supposed to be in the IT field because that's just ridiculous. That doesn't happen in the western world. A girl who wants to be in the IT industry is fawned over. She's so special, so awesome, we just love geek girls. But for a guy, it's a hard, lonely life.

And yet, even in this climate, more boys than girls choose the IT field. It is clear to me that this happens in spite of culture, not because of it.

Re:Can it be time?

[mdwh2]

Just look at a toy store and see what's marketed towards girls, and what's marketed towards boys. Certainly here in the UK, my experience in the 80s was that home computers were seen more as things for boys to use, than things for girls.

Let's take a look (and believe me, this was the first website I tried, I didn't go looking for obvious cases of differences):

http://www.hamleys.com/Boys%20+%20Hamleys%20Toys/020000000,default,sc.html :

Action toys, radio controlled, vehicles, dressing up as ppl with superpowers, military vehicles, scalextric, building sets, gokarts, trains, models. Whilst nothing computer related admittedly, they include electronic toys, and encourage things like building things, as well as generally encouraging boys to associate with jobs and things in the real world.

http://www.hamleys.com/Girls%20+%20Hamleys%20Toys/030000000,default,sc.html :

Playsets, baby dolls, dressing up to look pretty, fashion dolls, fluffy toys, baby, another baby, knitting, OMG PONIES, and be a beautiful Disney Princess.

God, it makes me sick. I wish I hadn't looked.

Re:Can it be time?

[mdwh2]

I've wondered why the gender imbalance exists in geek subjects like computers. I mean, usually pressure to be "masculine" is geared towards being macho, violent, extrovert and so on - none of the things you associate with the typical geek!

Many of the original computer programmers were women, so it's not clear there was a historical reason for this either.

My suspicion is that this is largely down to toys and in general, gender differences in upbringing. When I was growing up in the 80s, there were lots of electronic hand-held toys, and home computers were appearing. Two decades later, adults have all these hand held gadgets, and I spend my working day with computers. My situation was definitely helped by the toys available to me as a child - but such toys are far less likely to be marketed towards girls.

See my other comment for my check out of a random toy store - it's sad to see that the gender differences in marketing are still here 20 years on.

I feel that changing the way children are brought up will have much more of a better long term effect than things like "positive" discrimination. Unfortunately, I fear any attempt to market toys in a more gender neutral way will have the likes of the Daily Mail screaming "OMG Boys forced to play with PONIES, it's Political Correctness Gone Mad!!!"

Re:Can it be time?

[mdwh2]

But a single anecdote is beside the point. Obviously there will be girls who just don't like maths/computers/etc - there are large numbers of men who don't either, after all!

But if a girl did enjoy maths - if that girl was your daughter, she'd have an advantage. If that girl was someone else's daughter, I feel she'd have been less likely than a boy to be encouraged into pursuing studies and a career in maths.

Re:Can it be time?

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Well there is a significant difference between "never" and "so infrequent as to be statistically insignificant"... in decades of taking and teaching science and CS I have never once heard such a comment directed to a female. In fact the schools went out of their way to encourage female students to take math, engineering and science - starting several decades ago.

It became quite trendy about 25 years ago for parents to give their little children presents that were "gender neutral" or even "gender opposite" toys, e.g. giving dolls to boys and trucks to girls. The thing is, as the parents rapidly found out, the boys found ways to use the dolls to play war etc. etc. Boys and girls are different. Women and men are different. It's not a crime and not a bad thing - people should just get used to it.

Re:Can it be time?

[dontmakemethink]

I expect most folks here haven't heard of Asperger's syndrome or at least don't know much about it.

The three common tell-tale characteristics are:
- a "circumscribed area of interest", meaning you don't care about much except one field of interest
- abnormal body language
- uncomfortable with eye contact

Sound familiar to anyone? IT departments are full of Asperger's "suffers", although it has its advantages, like exceptional long-term attention focus.

Re:Can it be time?

[dontmakemethink]

Actually if they're trying to determine if high testosterone levels and Asperger's are linked, they should simply compare Aspergen's body hair amount do non-Aspergen. That will have cultural variances too, but the result should be pretty consistent within the cultures themselves.

Re:Can it be time?

[Anonymous Coward]

What people fail to address in this type of rhetoric is if their progeny actually reproduce. Just because you have 9 kids and those kids have 9 kids doesn't mean they won't all just end up dieing anyways. Its pretty easy to see that more kids just puts a greater strain on the system in poor neighborhoods and can cause it to collapse. It also thins the available resources in a family. All this coallesces to cause birthrates to increase, infant mortality to increase, and an increase in crime. You are wrong, our poor aren't going to pass their genes on in the long run. The one child with health insurance, a full ride to college, and parents that are there will end up having many great GRANDchildren, and that is what matters in the scope of evolution.

Re:Can it be time?

[j_l_larson]

Yes, at my last software engineering job, the architect for my project said with a straight face and total seriousness: "I don't think women should be doing this sort of work. They should be at home making babies." That is a direct quote.

Re:Can it be time?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Intelligent people have better health care and better resources making them more likely to reproduce and afford more children.

Clearly you've never watched Idiocracy. The idea is that the intelligent people in society delay having children in order to focus on their careers. The problem is that they never get around to having those kids. Meanwhile the trailer-trash have tons of kids. Fast forward a thousand years and you end up with a society of idiots.

Re:Can it be time?

[turing_m]

I used to worry a lot about this, although I am not worrying as much these days. Scarcity of all things - energy, minerals, food, water... is going to give rise to lots of competition. I doubt that competition is going to favor the stupid nearly as much as the last 60 years has. Somehow I don't think the selection pressure will be great for those who are naturally inclined towards sitting on a couch, watching TV and collecting welfare payments.

If anything, it will look more like the previous millions of years where life was nasty, brutish and short. All you have to do to see the selective pressure for intelligence in humans over time in our typical environment is look at a timeline to see how ape brains have evolved into human brains - to the point where brains are using 20% of a person's energy. 17,000 years have elapsed since the lascaux cave paintings, and that's only 680 generations, or iterations in which the natural environment has selected for intelligence. That's pretty impressive to think that the sum total of human civilization has been pretty much created within that time.

Re:Can it be time?

[Nethemas the Great]

Can you point to just one example of someone telling women they're "not supposed to be interested" in IT?

As president of my local ACM student chapter, I have made it policy that our members must make all possible attempts to proselytize girls into geekdom any chance they get. One of our highest priorities for the coming year is to develop a relationship and alliance with the Asian American Student Association on campus which just so happens to consist primarily of girls. Do we get double bonus points?

Re:Can it be time?

[Deadstick]

She skipped the 3rd grade

Hope she had a fast-track program to make it work. I skipped third grade in 1949 and just went from an ordinary second grade class to an ordinary fourth...it raised a lot more problems than it solved: last pick on PE teams, bullying from the dimbulbs and so forth. I had a high-school classmate who skipped two grades, and it was even worse for him.

rj

Re:Can it be time?

[HumanoidCarbonUnit]

I can tell you several times I've been told I shouldn't look into that or at least that was what I thought that the person was trying to say.

When I was interested in become an astronomer in my freshman year in high school I got strong vibes from everyone, including my parents, that I shouldn't go into that field because it had some odd hours and I wouldn't be around to raise a family properly.

I had a computer teacher my same freshman year who never thought anything of any of my work. He would only ever talking to the guys in my class about getting jobs in the IT industry. When he found out I wanted to get into The University of Michigan he told me that it would be very hard and that they only took 4.0 students (which I was). He then told an old buddy of mine that he could get in easily. This buddy is, frankly, something of a moron who did not even have a GPA of 3.0.

Yet another example is an old boyfriend I once had. He told me that girls suck at math and I shouldn't even be in the same math class as him (Trig, Functions, and Statistics). The first time he said this I thought he was joking. The second time he said that I shouldn't think about going into anything science-y because it would be to hard for me to be able to do I kicked him in the balls and broke up with him.

As for it being cools for girls to be geeks I can assure you its not, at least not in high school. Where I went to school there where no teachers who catered to you and no one cheered you on. The only teacher who ever showed interest in helping me learn more was the physics teacher who did the same thing with all the guys. I just think he was delighted to have a female student that want to go into a science.

Re:Can it be time?

[digitrev]

Well, the test I took involved answering some social and organizing related questions, doing an eye emotion test, tossing balls at a velcro target, mental rotation, peg stacking, 2d/4d ratio (2nd and 4th fingers), and following a specific set of directions regarding a mechanical device.

Re:Can it be time?

[heteromonomer]

Mod parent up. Wish I had points, he has a point.

Re:Can it be time?

[tcdohl]

No, he typed it out for his own stupid pleasure, dipshit.

Re:Can it be time?

[vorpal22]

Keep in mind that the celebration of the girl geek is a fairly new social development. This certainly wasn't in place back when I was a teenager (I'm 30 now). Let's wait 20 years or so before we make any conclusions as to how this has affected the interest of girls in more scientific pursuits.

Additionally, I think that girls largely base their self-worth on the opinions of other girls, and girl-geekery, I suspect, is not celebrated largely within the female community just yet.

Re:Can it be time?

[glwtta]

Intelligent people have better health care and better resources making them more likely to reproduce and afford more children.

You are confusing being able to afford more children with actually having more children.

In any case, the overwhelming majority of people in the developed world both survive into adulthood and reproduce, making the average number of offspring the only differentiating factor - that's not exactly natural selection.

Re:Can it be time?

[totally bogus dude]

This might just be coloured by your perspective. As a stereotypical male geek, I too would love it if there were more girls in IT. Or at the very least, in the IT department I work in. I think it's fair to say that girl geeks will be treated as something special by the majority of male geeks, for a variety of reasons (romantic, social, etc).

If you're a male geek, then you're surrounded by other male geeks who collectively put girl geeks on a pedestal, even if you don't. But that's not necessarily the reality for the girl geek, who's primary direction from society will be from her peers, not yours. As another respondent to your post said, girl geeks are probably subjected to much the same negative pressures from their peers as male geeks are. Also remember that society's attitude towards geeks has changed a lot in a fairly short amount of time, so the greater acceptance of girl geeks you're seeing may also be reflecting a greater acceptance of geeks in general. I get a laugh out of our online marketing team who proudly call themselves geeks, but have no idea what the difference between "a website" and "a domain name" is. I think now "faux geek" is something of a counter-culture, a "it's cool to be uncool" thing.

The other issue is that excessive encouragement of girl geeks may actually be received negatively by them, i.e. they're likely to be aware that they're getting special treatment just because they happen to be female. This may be a significant disincentive for some, by making them feel like anything cool/clever that they do or create will always be overshadowed by the fact that they're a woman. After all, a girl who decides to engage in geeky pursuits despite the social disadvantages amongst her peers is almost certainly doing it because she's really in to it. To then be treated with kid gloves by her peers in geekdom probably takes a lot of fun out of it. The girls who enjoy getting special treatment just because they're girls probably wouldn't have gone into tech in the first place, as there are fair easier avenues if you just want attention.

Re:Can it be time?

[vorpal22]

I think the human race, at least in the developed world, is selecting for intelligence. Intelligent people have better health care and better resources making them more likely to reproduce and afford more children.

I have to disagree with your assessment. I strongly believe that it is not intelligence that leads to success so much as it is business acumen. I, for example, am quite intelligent (not to toot my own horn, which is not my intention), but I have no sense for business at all, and thus recognize that there's a good chance I will never be rich. My father, on the other hand, while also very smart but probably not quite so much so as I, has a great head for business and has done extremely well for himself in life.

As others have pointed out, studies indicate that the intelligent are generally having fewer children as well.

Re:Can it be time?

[Slithe]

Well, maybe she is not a good programmer? I have used a computer since I was 8, but I was not very 'good' with them until I was 17. Now I am possibly better than the Slashdot average (I am now 22). I remember being proud of myself at 16 for figuring out how to add an icon to the desktop. Now, I am a veteran of Linux/*BSD/etc, and I have pretty good experience with C/C++/Python/Java and experience with pattern-matching, OpenGL, etc. Even if a person starts late, they still have plenty of opportunities to improve themselves. If they do not want to, they might not be good at it.

Re:Can it be time?

[Devout_IPUite]

It's not that girls aren't supposed to be interested in IT, it's that girls aren't supposed to be interested in being smart, and being smart is perceived as a requisite for playing with computers.

So a girl is directed to be pretty and like pink, fashion, and liberal arts. Boys are directed to like dirt, sports, and technology. No one (usually) says "Girl, no computers for you!", what they do is as parents and within the media groom girls for different interests.

I guess the clearest example I could give is the perception that "Boys like toys, just bigger boys like bigger toys" with action figures often replaced by cars or computers later on. Computers are often considered a 'toy' in this same vein, so it's making computers 'manly'.

Re:Can it be time?

[Devout_IPUite]

Unless of course they're smart enough to realize that we don't really NEED 6 billion people. So what if you're not at replacement levels? Your population will decrease? That's really not that bad. Biggest effects I see are reductions in real estate cost and an increase in social security taxes.

Perhaps we're entering into a time in the world where ideology is more important to pass on the genetics. Just maybe.

Re:Can it be time?

[sir fer]

Men and women are different because of our genes.

I think you'll find it is because of the differences in chromosomes

What!

[rob1980]

Next they'd have you believe that girls fart and use the internet too... I'm not buying it!

Re:What!

[EnrikeKr]

Hahahahahahaha... That's funny.... And Kill Rates thinks so...

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

girls don't fart, they "foof"

Re:What!

[AutopsyReport]

When my wife goes to the bathroom, I have to remind myself that she isn't trying to replicate Harry's Dumb and Dumber toilet scene. No... she's just a woman, and unfortunately just my wife.

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

When my wife goes to the bathroom,

Nothing good ever begins with that phrase...

Re:What!

[juancnuno]

Dude! Girls totally fart!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcDP_Yew-g

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife does all that. And she's a[n adult] girl, at least she was last time I looked.

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

my old sarge had it right. He knew that girls were awful at math cuz they wuz alwayz told my men
  that a short length that the dumbass computerized editor of this won't let me display grafically was a hot ten inches.

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

My girfriend can rip farts (silent and deadly) that are 10x worse than mine and spends 48% of her life on Facebook.

Woman can only be rational 75% of the time since the other 25% of the time is 'that time of the month'

The formula:
25% Sleep + 48% Facebook + 25% PMS = 98%
Woman only has 14.69 minutes of time per day for logical thought.

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

Next they'd have you believe that girls fart and use the internet too... I'm not buying it!

Lies! Girls do not fart, they fluff!

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do they fart, on the internet, but on cakes

Re:What!

[indifferent children]

If your girlfriend had even 14.69 minutes of time per day for logical thought, she wouldn't stay with an insensitive clod such as yourself.

Re:What!

[Jarik_Tentsu]

I hate to sound sexist, but in my experience, in areas like Maths and Physics, boys and girls might get similar marks. HOWEVER. Out of the ones who get the highest marks, the guys barely study at all, where the girls get those marks by working hard and studying their asses off.

Does this point to the fact there's no difference in ability? Or that some boys are naturally more talented at the sciences and maths, whereas girls have the natural ability to be more disciplined and study harder?

I reckon it's the latter.

Girls seem to be able to get disciplined studying going a lot more than boys do, but boys seem to get similar marks without any study at all. Both get the A+, but one got it from talent, and one got it from hard work.

~Jarik

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I have seen you are probably right. I think the reason for this is the same reason as why women tend to be more level headed(less genetic mental illness) and almost never have mutations like color blindness. Say that your a man XY you only have one X chromosome that means that if that chromosome gives you math wize skills then you will have math wize skills, but if you were a women you would have two X chromosomes some cells would use one and another cells would use the other chromosome. So you would have brain cells that were super math and others that were regular math or worse. I think this would give at most half the math wize powers, if not less then half because the normal math ones fuckup your math thoughts. But this means that if your a man XY with a X chromosome that sucks at math then you will have a lot trouble with math. I believe I seen graphs of IQ of women VS men and the Women tended to be much closer to the norm, while men where more all over the place. I would love to see some research on this. This should even effect all human attributes artist ability, Compassion, Cruelty, criminal behavior, leadership skills, self confidence, etc.

Men are all more likely to be really bad or good at these things while women should tend be more normal.

However, the crazy women stereotype may be a result of have half your cells insane and the other being normal, wow that you really make you fill like two different people.

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a boy, and I've met girls who I'm better at math than.

Therefore boys are better at math than girls.

Heh, stupid girls probably can't even follow simple basic logic like that ;-)

Re:Nonsense

[digitrev]

I can follow the logic, just not the logic that led you to the structure of your first sentence.

Re:Nonsense

[ari_j]

I agree. He should have used "whom" as the object of "than." :P

Re:Nonsense

[HappySmileMan]

Well boys may be good at maths, but sentence structure is not our strong point

Re:Nonsense

[kestasjk]

http://xkcd.com/385/

Re:Nonsense

[coinreturn]

Now if we could just get all of you to have sexual reassignment surgery, you'd fit the mold properly.

Re:Nonsense

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Well, no one's debating that girls aren't better at English.

Re:Nonsense

[LandDolphin]

Holding true that there is an xkcd strip for everything.

Re:Nonsense

[Lord Ender]

That's logically invalid. There have to be at least two boys such as yourself for the statement to be true.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar, you never met a girl!

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

:) thats the way it works !

Re:Nonsense

[PJ1216]

As displayed here: http://xkcd.com/385/

Re:Nonsense

[DeadDecoy]

Hold on while I make an xkcd strip of that last statement.

Re:Nonsense

[Mursk]

Math is easy.

English are hard...

What?

[HappySmileMan]

Among students with the highest test scores, the team did find that white boys outnumbered white girls by about two to one.

Ok then, so in most of the western world, boys are better than girls at maths...

Re:What?

[Kingrames]

Among students with the highest test scores, the team did find that white boys outnumbered white girls by about two to one.

Among students, the team did find that white boys outnumbered white girls by about two to one.

Re:What?

[HappySmileMan]

According to TFA more girls than boys do the SAT, doesn't give whether more boys than girls did other tests, but the article implies girls outnumber boys.

It also says boys do 7% better in the maths portion of the SATs, but writes it off as a statistical illusion due to more girls doing the test (they don't know how averages work?).
I bet it wouldn't be a statistical illusion if the girls where the ones getting 7% better.

Re:What?

[SpeedyDX]

Right, but what they're trying to emphasize is that gender is not the discriminating factor. Rather, culture is. So your statement is kind of misleading in that it emphasizes gender as the discriminating factor, and subjugates "western world" into a circumstantial factor.

Re:What?

[IAAE]

Although they may be able to say that there is a statistically significant difference between the performance of white boys and white girls, they can only say this is true for the U.S., not for the entire western world. Similarly, it would be incorrect to say that in all "Asian" countries that girls are better than boys at math from the results of their study.

Re:What?

[HappySmileMan]

The article is much more misleading than my statement though, it claims girls are equal to boys at maths, then says boys are better (at least white boys and the average SAT taking boy).

The title shouldn't be "Girls = Boys at Math", it should be "Boys better than Girls at maths, but for cultural reasons, not gender related reasons."
I imagine that this title would never be chosen because it's either not politically correct enough, or not attention grabbing, regardless of it's accuracy

Re:What?

[HappySmileMan]

Well yes, I only read about half of TFA when posting that. But the vast majority of people in the US are White AFAIK, so unless the results for asian are very phenomenally skewed in favour of girls, the overall average should show that boys are better

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah c'mon now, everyone knows that if males are better at something than Females it is a statistical anomaly or someone is a sexist pig (what's everyone's favorite thrown around word? Misogyny!). Now if Girls score higher or are better at something than Boys of course it will get praised as truth and gospel. We live in a Politically correct world where Girls must be better than Guys at something, even if it wastes billions of dollars of tax payer money for it. When will people understand that equality doesn't mean "do the reverse".

Grrl Power?

Re:What?

[at_slashdot]

That also might mean that black girls are twice as smart as the black boys. That doesn't sound far-fetched.

Re:What?

[adonoman]

What has happened is that a culture has formed among guys who don't do great in school that going to college is a waste of time. Women in general have less of this, and are more likely to try for college regardless of previous academic success. As a result, fewer guys take the SATs, but those that do represent tend to come from stronger academic backgrounds, raising the average for guys.

Re:What?

[HappySmileMan]

No it doesn't, and if true it would make it more likely that TFA is correct, since it only quotes White and Asian people's results (without figures of course), I'd imagine that with Asian AND black girls outperforming the boys then overall the results may be roughly equal.

Of course if the boys are overall better, don't worry, that 7% is just an illusion.

Re:What?

[dedazo]

My sister (we're twins) consistently kicked my ass at math and just about everything else, right up until we got to 10th grade or thereabouts. Then she turned into a vacuous fashion fiend with god-awful grades who liked hanging out with other vacuous fashion fiends.

I think peer pressure has a lot to do with how kids perform at things like math. Math is not cool, therefore if you want to be cool then you have to suck at math, or generally just suck at school.

I always got good grades, but I was also good at sports and generally avoided the "jock" scene and the do-nothing i'm-so-cool rich kid crowds. I'm kind of proud at having been able to achieve that balance.

Thankfully she grew out of it eventually, but not in time to do rather badly in high school. It's just as well she didn't need a scholarship to pay her way through college (where she did pretty good).

Re:What?

[AP31R0N]

Americans are better at counting than Brits, as Brits seem to think there is more than one math.

Re:What?

[HappySmileMan]

I'm Irish you insensitive clod.

Re:What?

[Lord Pillage]

I was going to mark this down, but I thought I'd ask: Where's your source for this information? I'm sure you've got a study to refer to and haven't pulled this out of your ass. Wait a sec... This is Slashdot. What am I talking about?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just as well she didn't need a scholarship to pay her way through college

Didn't need one, or couldn't get one because of the grades?

Re:What?

[DragonWriter]

It also says boys do 7% better in the maths portion of the SATs, but writes it off as a statistical illusion due to more girls doing the test (they don't know how averages work?).

No, they know how averages work; the basis is that there is a selection bias in taking the test (people taking the test tend to be on the high end of the ability distribution of the whole population of test takers and non-takers because they tend to be the ones planning to go to college), and a higher percentage of the females in the population taking the test (and therefore more girls taking the test) is likely to mean that the girls taking the test are, on average, not as high on the ability distribution of girls in population than boys taking the test are on the ability distribution of boys in the population.

Re:What?

[gnick]

It also says boys do 7% better in the maths portion of the SATs, but writes it off as a statistical illusion due to more girls doing the test (they don't know how averages work?).

They wanted to do the statistics and provide figures. But the study was done by a group of 5 women - The math was too hard. =)

That's why a 7% gap with 1.5 million participants is just a "statistical illusion". If their confidence boundary with that many data points equates 7% with "Zip. Zilch. Nada.", their standard deviations must have been huge.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

+4 to +1 in 10 minutes, the feminists must travel in groups

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Math is short for mathematic. I believe the subject is generally called "mathematics"... we keep the plural, it's maths.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

... or the title would be too long for a /. headline because of the CSS

Re:What?

[absee123]

I wondered about this when reading the article too. I think the difference might be more attributable to the fact that, due to differing interests, more boys are taking the SAT with the intention of entering a math or math-related program. This makes it obvious that boys would score better on the math portion of the test (and most people in a math/engineering program have probably noticed there are lot more men than women) and girls would likely score better than boys on the other portions, no?

Re:What?

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm not sure you know how averages work, with regards to standardized tests. In states where very few people take the SAT, average scores are much higher because the only people who are taking it are taking it because they need it to get into college.

In states where higher numbers of students take it, the average score is much more, shall we say, average.

Basically what they're saying is that in a larger sample size, you're going to get a more average score, whereas a smaller sample will be more self-selecting and can skew higher.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maths is just one abbreviation of mathematics, as math is another. I don't see how you can say that either is more correct.

captcha: calculi :)

Re:What?

[hedwards]

No, what happened is that achievement got redefined in a way which favors women.

Things like group work and lessening the impact of the critical thinking skills which used to be standard. Combined with in many places mixing the math courses up into a jumble so as to have "integrated math."

It might not be that way everywhere in the US, but the reason why girls have pretty much all of the high scores these days has more to do with changing the rules than anything to do with women.

I'm not suggesting that girls can't do math or that there's any reasonable conclusion to be drawn, but pretending that all the money being taken from educating boys to be used educating in a female friendly way has consequences.

At some point, there just needs to be a disparity. If women for whatever reason don't want to take engineering CSC or some highly technical course of study, I'm not sure why that needs to be "fixed."

Seriously, I might have misunderstood feminism, but I thought the point was to increase choices and achievement not force new equally restrictive constraints on women while also screwing over men to achieve it.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA posits that the 7% gap is due to more stupid girls taking the tests. And it makes some sense; the people who don't take the tests are the ones who don't want to go to college. The ones who don't want to college are more likely to have done poorly in school. So if 80% of boys and 90% of girls (no idea what the real numbers are, doesn't matter for this argument) take the test, you've got an extra 10% of stupid boys who aren't in your average.

Not that I'm good at explaining things.

Re:What?

[AcidPenguin9873]

Seriously, I might have misunderstood feminism, but I thought the point was to increase choices and achievement not force new equally restrictive constraints on women while also screwing over men to achieve it.

> Seriously, I might have misunderstood feminism, but I thought the point was to increase choices and achievement while also screwing over men to achieve it.

There, fixed that for you. :)

Re:What?

[dedazo]

Didn't need one, or couldn't get one because of the grades?

Well, she ended up at Wellesley. She didn't need one in the sense that it wasn't a problem to pay for it, but she wouldn't have been able to get one in a million years (there) with her grades.

Re:What?

[adonoman]

No real quotable source - CNN's "Black in America" would back this up for african americans in particular, but in general it's just my own, admittedly anecdotal, experience.

Re:What?

[Beetle B.]

My sister (we're twins) consistently kicked my ass at math and just about everything else, right up until we got to 10th grade or thereabouts. Then she turned into a vacuous fashion fiend with god-awful grades who liked hanging out with other vacuous fashion fiends.

A lot of parents are becoming more interesting in girls-only schools (or so I was told on the radio - it never lies, you know). Apparently studies have shown that girls who study in such schools generally perform better and are also more interested in tech fields. They spend less time at the mall and obsessing on fashion. Of course, they still had boyfriends, etc. But it really does make a difference if you go to a school where you don't concern yourself with "why does that guy in the second row not look at me?" and can focus on everything else.

Why do I get the feeling that it would be even more true for boys studying in boys-only schools?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that writing the 7% off as an illusion with providing the statistics in doing so is a bit suspect; however, I somewhat understand their logic. Since the people unlikely to take the SAT are those that are less likely to go to college, they say more girls taking it means that more girls on the low end of the spectrum are taking it, since basically everyone on the high end of the spectrum takes it. That brings the average down. Supposedly.

Also I'd just like to point out that the SAT maxes out at Geometry, while the SAT II math portion includes up to algebra II and trigonometry. Not exactly mentally taxing stuff. If you are looking for a genetic difference in ability to learn a skill i would look towards the higher levels personally, at lower levels it is not a surprise that some people struggle and some succeed regardless of gender.

Re:What?

[buddyglass]

Put down the stats book and work on your reading comprehension.

Re:What?

[bloobloo]

My anecdote (if we're going with memories from the media) is that while girls do better in girl-only schools, boys do better in mixed schools.

Hypothesis being that they will tend to be more sensible so they don't look like fools in front of the girls.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are better at counting than Brits, as Brits seem to think there is more than one math.

Category Theorist: ALL OTHER MATHS ARE A LIE

Re:What?

[lessthanpi]

If girls are so smart, why do they still live in igloos?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

writes it off as a statistical illusion due to more girls doing the test

In case you don't see how this would work, take the simple example of eleven girls and eleven boys, and give them "smart numbers" of 0, 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10.

The average "smart number" for the groups is 5 in each case. But let's say we don't test everyone for smart numbers - only those going on to higher education. But remember, you're only going to go on to college if you're already smart. So say girls with numbers 3-10 get tested for college, and 0-2 go on to work at McDonalds. On the other hand, boys with "smart numbers" 3, and 5-10 get tested for college, where as 0 and 2 work at Burger King, and 1 and 4 get locked up in prison. Now you have 8 girls tested and 7 boys, with an average score of 6.5 for girls and 6.86 for boys, a difference of ~5.5%

Now it's not that boys as a whole are smarter than girls - if we look at the whole population both are identical. It's just that we have a larger number of girls taking the test - the key being that those with lower scores are the ones least likely to take the test, and as such are the ones we "add" to the girls average. More girls taking the test means that more "stupider" girls take the test, bringing down the average. It's easy to bring the average of girls up to the level of boys - just tell Miss Four that she can't go to college. I doubt, though, that anyone will say it's a bad thing for women that more of them are going on to higher education than boys.

The numbers I give are contrived, but the effect should be the same for larger samples. If you selectively exclude lower performers from your average for a subgroup, the average of that subgroup goes up.

Re:What?

[dedazo]

A lot of parents are becoming more interesting in girls-only schools

If I was a parent I'd be cautious about this. There's a big difference between a x-only school and a good school, and the difference in results between a good school and a mediocre one is enormous in most cases.

I was lucky to attend mostly private Catholic schools. And I say that not because of the religion angle (which I always disliked), but because it's only later that you realize how much better you had it (from a cultural standpoint) compared to most people who attended public schools. Note that this is true for the place I went to school in, and not necessarily applicable for all countries/regions/etc.

I'd prefer to have my children go to a good school rather than one that caters to gender homogeneity (sp?). I think the advantages of the former far outweigh the latter. But if the two aspects can be combined successfully, then fine.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. The study was done by a group of 5 women. There was a 7% gap on SAT scores in favor of the boys. That was based on 1.5 students taking the SAT in 2007. The article does call that gap a "statistical illusion" and just hand-waves it away by saying that more girls than boys take the test but does nothing to back up that claim and gives no details as to what percentage of girls/boys actually take it. TFA even points out that "It's not clear that statisticians at the College Board, which produces the SAT, will agree with that explanation."

In the areas where it's saying that they're a dead-even match, they get no closer to actually citing figures than another hand-wave that says "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." So, assuming that the US has approximately even white and Asian populations and no other ethnic groups, it's a dead heat - Case closed.

TFA starts off with:

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.

It certainly seems that the referenced study started off with the same conclusion before they started their research.

Re:What?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The title shouldn't be "Girls = Boys at Math", it should be "Boys better than Girls at maths, but for cultural reasons, not gender related reasons."

Some people just won't let go.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The really ironic thing is that gender is a culturally defined construct according to sociologists. So the logic is mostly circular.

Re:What?

[drinkypoo]

Seriously, I might have misunderstood feminism, but I thought the point was to increase choices and achievement not force new equally restrictive constraints on women while also screwing over men to achieve it.

That was the point. However, lots of man-haters have described themselves as feminists and like everything else ("organic" farming, for example, or "recycling") it has become diluted and irrelevant.

Just keep in mind that the people sitting on top of everyone else are there because people are unhappy and they feel that they need their crap to survive, or because they have control of things which should be free to all people and you do need "their" "products" to live, and that the argument about maintaining the resource for all doesn't hold up when you behave as these wardens-cum-plunderers have basically since the first monkey discovered that it was possible to rule other monkeys with fear. These are the people in control of the media and the people who decide, ultimately, to what groups these terms will be applied, and thus (more or less) what they mean. The only exception is a group with a private membership, for example Greenpeace, and giving yourself a name only makes it easier for them to call you Terrorists (or Communists, or whatever.)

Re:What?

[shilad]

It also says boys do 7% better in the maths portion of the SATs, but writes it off as a statistical illusion due to more girls doing the test (they don't know how averages work?).

I bet it wouldn't be a statistical illusion if the girls where the ones getting 7% better.

I think you misunderstood the author's logic. More college-interested girls take the test than boys. The author suggests that these extra girls are not drawn uniformly across all ability levels. These "extra" girls may be disproportionately drawn from lower ability levels, pulling down girls averages.

It's easy to imagine cultural mechanisms that could lead to this phenomena. For example, perhaps lower-ability girls are more often encouraged to apply for college than boys.

Re:What?

[story645]

No real quotable source - CNN's "Black in America" would back this up for african americans in particular, but in general it's just my own, admittedly anecdotal, experience.

But you can't generalize because CNN's study was looking at African Americans, which means that there's a whole set of social/cultural/economic factors that make the particular trend much more prevalent in the African American community than in any others.

I know cultures where college is expected, so every kid out of high school applies somewhere. Lots of cultures were a girl is expected to just get married and skip the higher ed and I know of one small religious community where it's predominately the girls who go to college (and some form of grad school too.)

Re:What?

[AftanGustur]

I think you misunderstood the author's logic. More college-interested girls take the test than boys. The author suggests that these extra girls are not drawn uniformly across all ability levels. These "extra" girls may be disproportionately drawn from lower ability levels, pulling down girls averages.

That's called a 'hypothesis', it's not a theory, and if you are going to base results on some research on this unprooven 'hypothesis', then you have just ejected yourself from serious research.

It's easy to imagine cultural mechanisms that could lead to this phenomena. For example, perhaps lower-ability girls are more often encouraged to apply for college than boys.

Say WHAT ??

What would anyone do that ?

Re:What?

[Theaetetus]

No, what happened is that achievement got redefined in a way which favors women.

Things like group work and lessening the impact of the critical thinking skills which used to be standard.

I wonder which SAT you took where you were allowed group work. Oh, wait, you weren't? So, the findings on this study have nothing to do with your whine about redefinition of achievement above? Okay...

If women for whatever reason don't want to take engineering CSC or some highly technical course of study, I'm not sure why that needs to be "fixed."

It might be because engineering and other "highly technical courses of study" tend to pay better than "pink-collar" industries. Yeah, actually, that's definitely why it needs to be fixed.

Re:What?

[Theaetetus]

According to TFA more girls than boys do the SAT, doesn't give whether more boys than girls did other tests, but the article implies girls outnumber boys. It also says boys do 7% better in the maths portion of the SATs, but writes it off as a statistical illusion due to more girls doing the test (they don't know how averages work?). I bet it wouldn't be a statistical illusion if the girls where the ones getting 7% better

Orrrrr, you could read the next sentence of the article: "You're dipping farther down into the distribution of female talent, which brings down the score," Hyde says.

What he's arguing - right or wrong is unknown, but we'd have to look at the data instead of just a summary - is that the group of girls taking the test goes from, say, the 40th percentile up, while the group of boys taking the test goes from, say, the 60th percentile up [numbers greatly exaggerated for clarity]. Because of more boys saying, "bah, I'm only at the 50th percentile, it's not worth taking it and doing poorly," fewer boys take the test and the average for boys is higher... This actually is a statistical illusion, if you believe his premise - that the smaller pool of boys taking the test is smaller because it doesn't include the lower-ranked students.

This premise does make some sense, too - due to gender-bias in our society, there are more blue-collar fields in which men can make a good living: carpentry, plumbing, electricians, auto mechanics, etc. Women are pressured away from those fields, so if they want a chance at a career, even if they have the same academic ability as the guy who gets a GED and goes on to be a successful plumber, they're going to try to go to college. No one hires a secretary, nursing or dental assistant, etc., without at least an associate's degree these days.

Re:What?

[Theaetetus]

They wanted to do the statistics and provide figures. But the study was done by a group of 5 women - The math was too hard. =)

That's why a 7% gap with 1.5 million participants is just a "statistical illusion". If their confidence boundary with that many data points equates 7% with "Zip. Zilch. Nada.", their standard deviations must have been huge.

Orrrrr, you could read the next sentence of the article: "You're dipping farther down into the distribution of female talent, which brings down the score," Hyde says.

What he's arguing - right or wrong is unknown, but we'd have to look at the data instead of just a summary - is that the group of girls taking the test goes from, say, the 40th percentile up, while the group of boys taking the test goes from, say, the 60th percentile up [numbers greatly exaggerated for clarity]. Because of more boys saying, "bah, I'm only at the 50th percentile, it's not worth taking it and doing poorly," fewer boys take the test and the average for boys is higher... This actually is a statistical illusion, if you believe his premise - that the smaller pool of boys taking the test is smaller because it doesn't include the lower-ranked students.

This premise does make some sense, too - due to gender-bias in our society, there are more blue-collar fields in which men can make a good living: carpentry, plumbing, electricians, auto mechanics, etc. Women are pressured away from those fields, so if they want a chance at a career, even if they have the same academic ability as the guy who gets a GED and goes on to be a successful plumber, they're going to try to go to college. No one hires a secretary, nursing or dental assistant, etc., without at least an associate's degree these days.

Re:What?

[Artista42]

Last time I checked there were people of other races than white in the Western World. And according to this study: http://www.vermontinstitutes.org/equity/data/RankedMath8.htm

more Asians are good at math than white people. So wouldn't that mean more of the students with the highest test scores would be Asian (though they're in the Western world)? And the team did also find that with Asians, the result was reversed.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Seriously, I might have misunderstood feminism, but I thought the point was to screw over men.

fix'd

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also says boys do 7% better in the maths portion of the SATs, but writes it off as a statistical illusion due to more girls doing the test (they don't know how averages work?).

They wanted to do the statistics and provide figures. But the study was done by a group of 5 women - The math was too hard. =)

That's why a 7% gap with 1.5 million participants is just a "statistical illusion". If their confidence boundary with that many data points equates 7% with "Zip. Zilch. Nada.", their standard deviations must have been huge.

For someone being snide about statistics, you have some things to learn... try looking up "selection bias".

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That or none.

But we'll just keep studying the One True Mathematic.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that gender is a biologically defined construct according to nature.

Re:What?

[glwtta]

but pretending that all the money being taken from educating boys to be used educating in a female friendly way has consequences

Yes, what are these people thinking, spending money to educate women, when they could've used it to educate men?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

maths is correct (mathamatics, yes it's a plural)

Re:What?

[buddyglass]

It sounded like you were painting their "statistical illusion" comment as ludicrous simply because of the large sample size.

As a side note, another interesting explanation for the fact that there are more female SAT takers is the phenomenon Harvard Pres. Larry Summers got in trouble for pointing out. Basically, IQ and ability among men is less tightly clustered around the mean than for women. Both groups have a similar mean, but if you go several standard deviations out, in either direction, the men will outnumber the women.

So then, if students below a certain level of ability simply elect not to take the SAT, that group is going to have a larger number of males than females.

Re:What?

[ahabswhale]

This "maths" shit is pissing me off. I wouldn't mind it if it were just the Brits doing this (although it's still stupid) but it appears that a bunch of Americans have suddenly become British and think math should be plural.

If you're not British (or belong to a British commonwealth) then please stop being a fucking asshole and calling it "maths" when it's fucking "math" you stupid fucking morons. // rant over...

Re:What?

[Sky Cry]

The title correctly states, that "Girls = Boys at Math", because the scope is the whole world, not just western part of it.

You, however, seem to be capable of seeing the world only from the western perspective.

Re:What?

[eugene ts wong]

> Seriously, screw over men.

*Now*, it's fixed.

The Important Question....

[tb()ne]

Was the study conducted by a male or a female?

Re:The Important Question....

[gparent]

Because obviously if it was conducted by a male, it will be biased toward boys and if it was conducted by a female, it will be biased toward girls, right?

Thus, I hereby suggest hiring a transsexual robot to lead the next survey.

Re:The Important Question....

[philspear]

No you insensitive clod, because if it was done by men the quantification would be way off!

Re:The Important Question....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if it was conducted by a female it would be biased toward boys with the additional finding that girls are being "held down" and Title IX needs a steroid boost.

Re:The Important Question....

[Nymz]

5 females. Perhaps there should be a study of studies where the authors themselves exhibit no gender gap to authors that exhibit one.

Janet S. Hyde
Sara M. Lindberg
Marcia C. Linn
Amy B. Ellis
Caroline C. Williams

Re:The Important Question....

[ari_j]

No, because a girl would have messed up the math while distracted due to a smudge in her make-up and botched the results. Duh.

Re:The Important Question....

[Anonymous Coward]

TActualFA from Science was authored by 5 women.

Re:The Important Question....

[corgan517]

if it was done by men, the results for the girls would have been reported not in percentages or A's B's and C's, but in 34A's 38C's and 46DD's

Re:The Important Question....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's obviously the wrong way to do it. You hire a COUPLE, existing of exactly one male and one female.

And you better make sure the male is masculin enough to withstand the feminist "we are better than you", and vice versa, make sure the female is masculin enough as well.

Exclude all gays, lesbians, geeks, gooks, nerds, chinks, chico's, niggers, unmarried people, democrats and republicans. In short, anyone who doesn't belong to your own race, belief, political and sexual persuasion, hair color, shape of nose and smell of breath. And all wogs and all the British, and them suspects from Kent too.

Re:The Important Question....

[Trillian_1138]

Thus, I hereby suggest hiring a transsexual robot to lead the next survey.

Male-to-female or female-to-male? Though, as someone who is trans, I was always a little jealous of the ease of MTF and FTM adapters in the computer world...just pop one in and you're good to go.

Oh, how I wish it were that simple...

-Trillian

Re:The Important Question....

[Gearoid_Murphy]

I, for one, welcome our transsexual robot overlords and their unbiased assessment of cognitive differences between the sexes!!!!!

Real Story is

[daveatneowindotnet]

Boys test scores have been degrading for years as classrooms are intentionally made more "girl-friendly". Parity thru hamstringing if you ask me.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

at Harrison Bergeron High...?

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

How does correcting an unfair imbalance equal hamstringing? More attention was paid to boys, and they did better. Now that teachers are giving more time to girls and teaching in a more gender neutral fashion, the scores are becoming more equal. If I give you something that I don't give to others, and then I take some of that away from you in order to more fairly distribute it, I am not hamstringing you.

Its sad, so many people have gotten used to having unfair advantage, they consider it their birthright. White males tend to be the worst whiners.

Re:Real Story is

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Back in my day, Our math teacher would call on girls ask them a really tough question then after the wrong answer was given: " of course you don't know you're just a silly girl!" So if being "girl friendly" is not doing that, its an improvement. I think he was trying to be funny in an ironic sense, but really it was just too close to being blatant sexism for the irony to work.

Re:Real Story is

[HappySmileMan]

My technical drawing teacher did that, but it was always taken for what it was, a joke, no-one got butthurt about the sexism of an old mans joke and the girls in the class went on to get good results, and they acknowledge that the teacher helped them with a lot of it.
I'm sure if they spent all their time getting offended they wouldn't have done nearly as well.

Re:Real Story is

[oldhack]

Always whining. Girls are half the student body, might as well accomodate them. What, boys not smart enough to deal with that?

Re:Real Story is

[Dave114]

How does correcting an unfair imbalance equal hamstringing? More attention was paid to boys, and they did better. Now that teachers are giving more time to girls and teaching in a more gender neutral fashion, the scores are becoming more equal.

As mentioned on 60 minutes, "Girls outperform boys in elementary school, middle school, high school, and college, and graduate school".

Does that sound very equal to you?

It goes somewhat against the grain of this report, but what this study seems to indicate is that, relative to their performance in other subject areas, girls aren't doing well in math.

Re:Real Story is

[adri]

Of course, there's not enough information in TFA nor in the research.

If you give more of math to boys, and they develop better at it, do you know if you've challenged them and developed them to their maximum? If you take some away and redistribute it to the girls (or across racism/cultural/religious/socioeconomic/etc) then are you still challenging -any- of them to their maximum?

I'm white, and I'm whining because I don't want to see more dumb people.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when the "fix" is removing hard questions from EVERYONE (as the article says) because one group doesn't do as well on it. THAT is hamstringing, and that is what is going on (the article even says it).

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in public school in the 80s and 90s none of my math teachers were men. Typically, a quarter to a half of our grade would be 'homework checks' or art posters where you draw a picture of issac newton and an apple. I was never in a class that you could even pass by just being able to understand and perform math.

So in my day girls had huge advantages in math classrooms, with sypathetic teachers and rote learning and grades based on following the rules -- and guys still did better in math. I can only image how hostile the classrooms are now. Judging by your id, back in your day maybe there was a bias for men but that has long since been overcorrected for.

Re:Real Story is

[alan_dershowitz]

There is evidence that boys and girls learn better in different sorts of environments. Early one one claim was made that girls were too intimidated to participate in class because boys were loud and rambunctious, tending to interrupt, shouting out questions or answers. The "solution" was to force the boys to sit down and shut up so that the girls wouldn't be intimidated and therefore could learn better. the problem is that it now appears that this has been actively detrimental to boys' education because it is contrary to THEIR learning style. One solution is sex-segregated classrooms.

Re:Real Story is

[Chandon Seldon]

More attention was paid to boys, and they did better.

Now more attention is paid to girls (and material is taught in style that favors girls), and they do better in almost every area. The exceptions were mathematics, engineering, computing, and hard sciences.

If it's good that teaching-style change has made girls completely catch up in mathematics, then obviously you support a change in teaching style that will make boys catch up in biology and psychology - even if that makes it harder for girls - right?

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

If there is unfairness in the way that biology and psychology are taught, and there are ways of teaching those subjects that would be more accessible to boys, then yes, of course I support using those methods. Why would you assume otherwise?

Re:Real Story is

[HappySmileMan]

If it's good that teaching-style change has made girls completely catch up in mathematics, then obviously you support a change in teaching style that will make boys catch up in biology and psychology - even if that makes it harder for girls - right?

No you idiot, it's only sexism if it's women who are wronged

Re:Real Story is

[kestasjk]

Its sad, so many people have gotten used to having unfair advantage, they consider it their birthright. White males tend to be the worst whiners.

"White women tend to be the worst whiners." Oh what nonsense, how dare you!

"White men tend to be the worst whiners." Wow, how insightful, what an enlightened well-balanced person!

Re:Real Story is

[Solandri]

How does correcting an unfair imbalance equal hamstringing? More attention was paid to boys, and they did better. Now that teachers are giving more time to girls and teaching in a more gender neutral fashion, the scores are becoming more equal. If I give you something that I don't give to others, and then I take some of that away from you in order to more fairly distribute it, I am not hamstringing you.

I dunno if there's hamstringing going on. But girls used to score better than boys on reading and verbal tests under the old system (which you claim discriminated against them). And they still score better than boys under the current system. That would seem to contradict your hypothesis that the genders are equally capable and that the school system has merely gone from being unequal to equal.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that teachers are giving more time to girls and teaching in a more gender neutral fashion, the scores are becoming more equal

No, boys are being taught as if they were girls. They're not. Boys are now are medicated to zombies to stop what is normal human boy behaviour, because female teachers apparently can't deal with normal boys. And male teachers are now virtually banned due to pedophilia hysteria. Tragically, some "ADD" boys even think the drugs are helping them, because they make them sit still during deathly boring and inappropriate (for boys!) female-oriented shit that they were right to act up against when they weren't doped up.

Seriously. Boys need harsh (but fair) discipline, large segments of rote learning, adversarial tuition from an authority figure ("think you can outsmart me, the teacher, mofo?"), and plenty of peer competition - boys should be competing to get grades ("there's only 3 As given out in this class"), not being told they're special and important individuals even if they get a few word problems wrong sometimes.

Occasional cool-science demos work as treats - now also not allowed because of overreaching safety concerns (and budget problems, granted). Seriously, boys *should* love chemistry and physics, only they're incredibly neutered today. In my day, we each made small amounts of thermite one day (budget concerns don't apply there- cheap, easy, important for everyone to know in case you ever need to disable a tank). Now you might get to watch a video of some thermite being set off. If that hasn't been totally taken off the curriculum (wouldn't want people being able to defend themselves, oh no).

The learning strategies are very different. Think of boys as young members of a wolf pack being trained to hunt, and you're not far off what they need (even if they're hunting for roots of quadratic equations rather than rabbits). Note that what they need is rather different from what they want or think they need at the time, but they're boys, they shouldn't be expected to know or understand that until they're 18 or 20 at least.

If I was a boy today, I know I'd be forced onto serious medication. If I was lucky, I might have a fulfilling career as a shelf stacker. There's no way in hell the frou-frou standards of teaching today would meet what my needs were as a child, there's no way they'll meet the needs of any male children I have (unless they're congenitally girlbrained, which some males probably are), they're no way they're meeting the needs of males today.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you weren't in the "special" room? Did you by any chance take a short bus to school?

Re:Real Story is

[daveatneowindotnet]

I was using "girl-friendly" as a euphemism for boy hostile, Hence the quotes, but my brevity is probably to blame for any misunderstanding. I apologize. My opinion as to why it is hamstringing is this. Firstly math proficiency in (America at least) has been declining sharply, so relatively speaking girls may not be getting better at all at math, boys may just be getting worse.

The gap between girls and boys has not narrowed in language however why is this. My thought, there has been no effort to teach English (for example) in "boy friendly" ways. No competition based learning for Dr. Seuss. Why are little boys not entitled, to the benefits little girls are? I'm sure most of us have seen the latest new math classes with cooperative tables for children to find an answer. Why not have the inverse?

And Truth once again dies an ignorable death at the feet of Political Correctness and White (Male) guilt.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me crazy, but I can't think of anything more gender neutral than mathematics.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you missed the articles about how students in the US are performing more poorly today than they were 20 years ago, and that there is an alarming decline in students gravitating towards science and math.

Damn statistics and their inherit leaning towards justifying whining white males.

Re:Real Story is

[LandDolphin]

"There is evidence that boys and girls learn better in different sorts of environments"

Maybe that is why so many private schools separate the boys and the girls. To give each the best school tailored to their needs.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

I never said that the genders are perfectly equal.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

I knew that line would get a rise out of someone. A day without making someone uncomfortable is a wasted day in my book. Are you a white male, by chance? Whiner.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

If you've got proof, I'll buy it. Otherwise, what we have here is self serving propaganda.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

School is more about work than being smart. Intelligence can help a student avoid some of the work, but very intelligent people can still fail if they don't work or pay attention, and below average people can succeed without too much difficulty if they work a bit more.

The problem with modern teaching is it is based more and more on work, and less and less on thinking. Instead of giving a problem and saying "use your fucking brain to find a way to solve it", it is now "here's a problem, here's the method to solve, how to solve it, and apply that method after learning it". As girls are generally more willing to work than boys, it makes school more suited for girls than boys.

A related problem of modern schools is with motivation. Boys need competition in order to excel, girls need encouragement and a friendly environment. Of course, modern schools now tend to avoid competition as much as possible which makes them uninteresting for most "alpha" males.

Personally, I think the idea of having one teaching method and environment for everyone is pure stupidity.

Re:Real Story is

[Jason Levine]

I went to public school in the 80's and 90's and never had a math class where my grade depended on my ability to draw. (If it did, I would have flunked math for sure.) All of my math classes required the students to know and understand math to pass. I was in the honors/AP classes, but I had friends in the normal classes and don't remember them ever having assignments that required drawing skills in math class.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is stupid. The goal should not be to educate everyone equally bad, but to educate everyone the best way possible.

Re:Real Story is

[fitten]

How does correcting an unfair imbalance equal hamstringing?

Yeah, but did you move the bar up or did you move the bar down in your efforts to 'correct' an unfair imbalance?

We could make is so that no one is taught to read. It corrects the imbalance between those who have a hard time learning to read and those who have no problem reading. Is it is 'good' correction? Probably not.

As others have said, boys and girls tend to learn better in different environments. Forcing boys to learn 'like a girl does' handicaps him. Forcing a girl to learn 'like a boy does' handicaps her. The solution has been to make the classrooms more suitable for girls at the expense of boys, including medication to enforce behavior more appropriate to girl-friendly environments. While this may be a 'win' for girls, it has definitely been at the expense of enabling boys to reach their potential.

Re:Real Story is

[digitrev]

Always whining. Boys are half the student body, might as well accommodate them. What, girls not smart enough to deal with that?

Re:Real Story is

[flink]

How about not formulating the teaching style based on what's between someone's legs and instead teaching to the individual. Splitting up kids and teaching boys and girls differently is just going reinforce the same cultural stereotypes that created the disparity in the first place. Aggressive girls and passive boys who don't live up to western heteronormative ideals are going to feel even more singled out.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

Teachers only have a limited amount of time and attention. It would be nice if we could hire an unlimited amount of good teachers, but we can't. IF teachers were giving unfair amounts of that time and attention to boys, and IF we decide not to spend more money on teachers, then the correct action to take is to increase the amount of time and attention given to girls, at the expense of the boys.

IF this is just dumbing down the curriculum in order to level the playing field, then that would be wrong. But I don't see any evidence that is the case.

Re:Real Story is

[geminidomino]

Back in my day, Our math teacher would call on girls ask them a really tough question then after the wrong answer was given: " of course you don't know you're just a silly girl!" So if being "girl friendly" is not doing that, its an improvement. I think he was trying to be funny in an ironic sense, but really it was just too close to being blatant sexism for the irony to work.

Unfortunately, going from one fucked-up extreme to the other isn't really "improvement" as much as a different group getting screwed.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

Good point, I was going to mention that. It's actually more complex, people have four different primary learning styles, and most schools only teach to one or two. It isn't just gender.

People can learn through hearing something, reading something, watching something, or doing something. Most schools only teach through lecture and books, with a relatively few demonstrations and lab activities for the other learning styles.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

As mentioned on 60 minutes [cbsnews.com], "Girls outperform boys in elementary school, middle school, high school, and college, and graduate school".

Yeah, but after a while you get to choose your own subjects, what you want to follow and MAYBE the ones that boys choose are more difficult than the ones girls choose. I don't know if any study has been performed in this direction, but no matter what the study regarding the "boys/girls" smarts is, we never end up anywhere because no study takes into accounts the actual reasons for the scores they get. The fact that you have a lower grade than your other class mates doesn't make you more smart or more stupid, it just means you didn't learn properly the answers that you should have known during the test. Grading is subjective and tests are subjective.

Conclusion: this article is a typical POS (not "point of sale") that's completely irrelevant and it's used just as fuel for /. crowds, hopefully, nothing more.

Re:Real Story is

[Chandon Seldon]

OK. Now that we're clear on where you stand, I can clearly present a conflicting view.

First, men and women really do learn differently. This isn't simply an issue of who gets more attention; the way the material is presented can make it easier for boys and hard for girls or vice-versa.

Second, this isn't "doing it wrong". The goal is to teach the students - if there is a way to present the material that makes it easy for girls it is best if girls are taught that way. Boys in the class are going to have a hard time, but it's better that some have an amazingly informative class than that everyone gets a mediocre class.

Personally, I think the best solution would be to test each student for learning style and then put them in a class with a teacher comfortable teaching in that style. My guess is that this will be very close to splitting by gender - but even if I'm wrong and boys and girls have identically functioning brains, this would still drastically improve education for everyone.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

typical feminists, they got their equality 20 years ago but that wasn't enough. Now they need reparations for all the damages done earlier.

"White males tend to be the worst whiners." That doesn't sound like unfair treatment to white males to me, no siree, not one bit.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbing down public education to achieve parity for a variety of groups has been the norm for decades. Put your kids in private or home schools if you want them to learn anything other than pop-culture.

Re:Real Story is

[Raffaello]

inherent: adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute

inherit: verb [ trans. ]
receive (money, property, or a title) as an heir at the death of the previous

Re:Real Story is

[Solandri]

I never said that the genders are perfectly equal.

Well then girls doing as well as boys in math could just as easily be interpreted as boys being hamstrung as it could be interpreted as girls no longer being held back.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

What a sad person you must be. I pity you.

Re:Real Story is

[abstract daddy]

How does correcting an unfair imbalance equal hamstringing?

Where did he say anything about correcting an unfair imbalance?

Its sad, so many people have gotten used to having unfair advantage, they consider it their birthright. White males tend to be the worst whiners.

Replace "white" with "black" and you would be modded -1 Troll in a blink of an eye. Which is interesting because I thought black people are oppressed to the point where they're on the verge of being shipped off to gas chambers. That's what conventional liberal wisdom says at least. Anyway, white males are actually starting to get the short end of the stick in the Western world, and they're also quickly becoming a minority. Political correctness and feminism are out of control.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

One of the best teachers I ever had was a humanities teacher in high school. She went to every seminar on teaching, developmental psychology, and learning she could find time and money for. Then she would come back and try to put what she learned into practice.

One time she came back and had us all do tests to determine learning style and left/right brain bias. In the theory she learned, there are four styles, learning by reading, hearing a lecture, seeing a demonstration, and doing an activity. This doesn't tend to correlate with gender. As well, some people are more right brained/intuitive, and some are more left brained/logical. This does.

She tried to make time for all learning styles in proportion to how many could learn well in that style. One tool she used was having us all do brain maps rather than take standard notes. She said this engaged more different styles of learning, helping even kinesthetic learners.

Oh sadness. I just went to look up learning styles on wikipedia, and evidently, there is a LOT of criticism of this technique, and no credible evidence it helps kids learn better. Ah well, another cherished childhood memory tarnished. :(

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

So sad, wanting to make people question their assumptions. People should obviously be allowed to live in their own illusions without ever being challenged or made to feel uncomfortable.

Re:Real Story is

[abstract daddy]

heteronormative

Are you being serious?

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

And you must be a white woman whiner who complains because we haven't wasted billions more of tax payer's money to force woman to go into engineering or science. I bet you believe that when a White male fails it is his fault and he is stupid and all that, BUT when a girl/woman fails it is society and at some point in that female's life someone made them go into the kitchen and make them a sandwich and that's why they failed math. You're just as bad as the staunch woman haters. Oh and by the way, fixing the unequal education given to Boys does not mean "take what is happening and do a complete 180". Fucking liberal feminists, no only are you delusional but you want the Government to fulfill your inequality on my dime. Fuck you, Man OR Woman.

Re:Real Story is

[jimbolauski]

Now that teachers are giving more time to girls and teaching in a more gender neutral fashion, the scores are becoming more equal.

All that has happened is now the males are not excelling so it appears girls are catch up but realy males are being slowed down.

Its sad, so many people have gotten used to having unfair advantage, they consider it their birthright. White males tend to be the worst whiners.

Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, I rest my case, now you can go back you your white man hating ways.

Re:Real Story is

[abstract daddy]

AC is following the principle that the validity of an anecdote is proportional to its political correctness. The more an anecdote reinforces liberal ideology, the more valid it is.

Re:Real Story is

[Talderas]

The only way to make education fair is to teach to the learning strengths of the gender. The only way for end result equality to occur is to segregate.

Boys used to be on top, teaching methods were changed to make things more "fair" for girls, and now girls are on the top. Some people like to call this fair, saying that it's time that girls were on top. This is far from fair.

Then again, people would cry about things not being equal with all-boys or all-girls schools.

Re:Real Story is

[Rabbit Time!]

I LOVE this argument. I mean, I admit that I'm only in my 20's, so I guess I wasn't around when kids were allowed to jump around rambunctiously in class and shout answers. But even if there were such a time (which, seriously, I doubt...from my understanding classrooms have gotten less, rather than more strict), are you seriously arguing that boys are doing more poorly because they're forced to behave in a way appropriate to a classroom setting? And if this is the case, why are we deciding that this is a good thing, and not a defect inherent to the male gender. Because when girls were too shy to speak up in class, that was a defect...but when boys are apparently too addle-brained to sit down, well then. That's a feature!

Anyway, snark aside, the point is: this is a lame argument. Boys doing poorly because they are inherently unable to sit down and pay attention is a) not really true (because, um...in the super-strict classrooms of days gone by, boys apparently did well) and b) if it were true, misbehavior is not an impulse that should be encouraged anyway. Please try again.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Lets just ignore all the coddling female CS and CE majors get in undergraduate. It has absolutely nothing to do with professors being encourage to try and keep the number of number of women in said fields up.

Women who notice this, and are understandably insulted, they don't exist.

It's just a bunch of sexist, whining white boys who imagine this shit up!

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is not that teachers were "giving" something to boys that they were not "giving" to girls.
The great leveler in the modern classroom is group work and not moving on until everybody understands the work. This may sound good and fair, but it simply means that the class work cannot exceed the abilities of the least capable student.

Re:Real Story is

[rhakka]

why are you assuming that competitive based learning is better, or "boy friendly"? Perhaps friendly to a boy that is constantly told to compete with everyone he sees, but that doesn't mean it's an inherent trait of boys. Boys like to collaborate too, if it's not a zero-sum game that is presented to them.

Furthermore, why would you assume that if we are abandoning a practice in one field, that means we would want to take it up in another to balance it out?

If we decided rote memorization was not effective, and stopped using it in math, would we then need to pick it up in history class?

the idea that learning should be "competitive" is, frankly, ridiculous. If you learn something, you win. If I learn it too, we both win. Why would we have to pick a "winner" if the goal is simply to learn?

Re:Real Story is

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No,actually you just need to leave out the "of course you are wrong" bit and everything is cool. No need for an extreme. Same high expectations for everyone.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now that teachers are giving more time to girls..."

How is that not hamstringing? How is that more gender neutral.

The way I see it is that so long as people consider sex a factor in... well... anything, we are never going to reach this thing called "fair".

"White males tend to be the worst whiners."
Excuse me for proving your point, but that seems to be trolling to me.

Re:Real Story is

[oldhack]

This zero-sum mentality is nauseating.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right that it is not hamstringing (as in impeding), but they ARE being almost completely ignored (white males). It is easier for women to get into college (they don't need as high of test scores or GPAs) and they have a huge plethera of special organizations and scholarships for women only.

If I started a white male scholarship fund I would be labeled an ignorant, racist, bigot, but if I started a woman's scholarship I would be praised.

The answer is to try and remove imbalance, not to reverse it. Racism is racism, sexism is sexism. Whether it is originating from white males or targeting them (for benefit or detriment) it is still sexist/racist. Treat people like people.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a girl? Seriously, vicious competition IS an inherent trait of boys, most any man not mentally transgendered by pesticides and birth control in the water supply would confirm. Female teachers may try to stamp it out, but it's there. But you're right that boys DO like to collaborate - a group of boys will work together for a common end, like beating the current alpha male and perhaps his group of sycophants, so the group can then have round 2 among themselves for the alpha male spot.

Look, it's just the way males work. Not just human ones, either, most social higher mammals.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

I don't hate white men. I am one. I hate whiners, including Jessie and Al.

Re:Real Story is

[jc42]

There is evidence that boys and girls learn better in different sorts of environments.

The problem with such a claim is that, even if it's true in bulk, it misses the fact that the variance within each sex is greater than the variance between the sexes.

It's a lot like claiming that human males are taller than human females. Yes, on average, but the variance in either sex is greater than the difference in their means. It's quite easy to find specific male/female pairs for which the female is taller than the male.

You don't "solve" such problems by separating the sexes. That just gives you classrooms in which a few aggressive males dominate their male peers, and other classrooms where a few aggressive females dominate their female peers. You're a lot better off segregating them by their aggressiveness towards learning, putting like-minded students together.

As the undisputed top math geek in my high school, my two main competitors for the title were both female. And they were both the aggressive, argumentative sorts who could easily intimidate most of the guys with their superior math ability. Yeah, they violated the stereotype of the quiet female who's submissive to nearby males. I liked them a lot. So much for that other stereotype about how a female attracts a male.

Some years later, I find myself married to a woman who likes to tell people that her first official job title was "computer". Back in the 1970s, her first job was as the math wizard for a civil engineering firm. A few years later, they did get some of those new electronic computers, but by then, she was off doing a different job in a different state.

(Now she's a data analyst for a medical company, and spends a lot of her time working with medical statistics. She knows a lot more statistics than I do. But then, I like to observe that statistics isn't of much use for most software guys. We have a technical term for software that exhibits statistical behavior: buggy. ;-))

Re:Real Story is

[rhakka]

go idea and cite your sources.

Hunter/gatherer tribes learned long, long ago it's better to work together to get food than it is to get it separately. sure, a bigger dude might get a little more meat, but ultimately, co-operation is the adaptive trait that has caused us to thrive, not 'vicious competition'.

I like competition as much as the next guy... more than most, actually... but I dont pretend it's the most effective way to TEACH. that's a pretty big leap.

Did you really need to compete to learn to tie your shoes? Do addition? Pick up calculus? I joined a math team because I liked math enough to want to do it as sport, but I"m not dumb enough to require a "vicious competition" just to LEARN. And the girls on the team beat most of the boys, I might add. But then, the girls at my elementary school could beat the boys at basketball too. Must have been all that birth control in the spring water my rural maine town suffered from.

Re:Real Story is

[Duradin]

Yes, it was such an unfair advantage being a white male when I went to college.

Working at the supermarket, ringing up WIC (women infants children) vouchers I felt sooo sorry for the poor breeders. Here I was, working to buy myself ramen, rice and boxed mac 'n cheese while they have to put up with being handed vouchers for fresh milk (mac 'n cheese without any milk, powdered or fresh, is soooooo much better), real cheese (vastly inferior to the powder in the box), cereal (hah, they even had to put real milk on it!) and fresh fruit and vegetables (denied the true delicacy of the ramen flavor pack).

Sure, all I had to do was show up, work nights, stocking shelves, cleaning bathrooms, while hoping that no one would bother to rob the joint during my shift. And just for that, I'm handed the luxuries of male life. Nothing like squeezing out a kid or two and then going to the mail box.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Rural Maine town? Aha. Sucks to be you. Agricultural runoff => similar feminising effects. No joke.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_13464.cfm

Re:Real Story is

[drinkypoo]

One solution is sex-segregated classrooms.

Isn't this a nature vs. nurture situation? Are we teaching girls to be afraid to speak out, and teaching boys to shout each other down?

People will tell you that boys tend to behave a certain way, and girls a certain other way, without any prompting. But since everything down to your facial expression and body language is a form of prompting, that's a bunch of crap...

Moral of the story is, are the instructors the ones creating this situation? The parents? Or is it some fundamental gender difference? And if it is not the latter, can we solve this problem without segregating boys and girls? Shouldn't we be seeking a system in which we learn to work together?

Re:Real Story is

[drinkypoo]

the idea that learning should be "competitive" is, frankly, ridiculous. If you learn something, you win. If I learn it too, we both win. Why would we have to pick a "winner" if the goal is simply to learn?

Competition means running together so we both get faster. I mean, that's the word root... The thing though is to make a positive-sum game. It is not necessary to have a loser. Everyone can win.

Re:Real Story is

[rhakka]

fair distinction to make. co-operative competition (whole class attempting to get the best combined score, for example) serves to motivate. Positive-sum is a concept I hadn't heard before, I like it, thanks.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

Did I say anything about college in general, or you specifically? No, I did not. Just because you did not receive any unfair advantages does not mean that white males, in general, do not. I hope you can recognize the fact that your anecdote is simply that, and not in any way indicative of conditions in general.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

More gender neutral? then you would have to stop the bias towards girls and their way of learning.
Boys do not do well in the sit in a class room, "yes mame", please the teach for a gold star kind of environment that schools promote. They learn more actively and could care less about bullshit like gold stars, they need to be out doing and trying things hands on.

Of course that type of change would never fly in the femminized society we have today, the girls might feel "left out" socially, boo hoo, lets worry about feelings instead of education. We can always forcibly medicate the boys for made up illnesses like ADD/ADHD and others.
Theres obviously something wrong with them if they don't want to sit quietly and still at a desk for hours a day and change subjects and interests on command whenever one teachers droning stops and another class begins. After all the girls cope just fine, it must be a problem with boys.

Re:Real Story is

[spun]

Wow, that is such a stereotype of the male gender. Let me guess, that is YOUR learning style, and you are male, therefore, that must be all male's learning style. I'm a guy and I never had those problems in school. I could sit still, and deal with changing subjects fairly easily. I think the problem you saw was with you, specifically.

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

I got 4/5 on the AP calculus exam, 5/5 chem, 5/5 computer science, and some others, and started college with a full year's credit. But I regularly got Cs or Bs in math classes because of the bullshit like posters, homework checks, etc. I've never needed to take notes or do homework to get A's or understand the material.

So you point was?

Re:Real Story is

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Ditto and just wtf makes "drawing" and "homework checks" a "huge advantage to girls?" I have to agree with that other poster, the AC was riding the short bus because his story doesn't even add up.

Re:Real Story is

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Nothing like throwing in a little racism to get your sexist point across, eh?

Re:Real Story is

[warriorpostman]

White males tend to be the worst whiners.

Do you have any statistical evidence to back up this claim?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)

Re:Real Story is

[crossmr]

Which is the biggest percentage though? Who gets a better education if you split the class amongst a gender divide? Guys learn better, girls learn better. How many passive guys and aggressive girls exist and how does that compare to the amount of males being hamstrung right now?
Many stereotypes are born of truth. It is how they become stereotypes. Whether people like being singled out for them is a different reason. They aren't true for 100% of the people all the time, but if they were only true for 5% of the people 5% of the time, they wouldn't be a stereotype would they? In the mixed environment that hampers regular guys, aggressive girls will also be hampered. The few passive guys present might flourish as will the regular girls, but for all you know you're helping only 50% of the people learn in a good environment. Gender splitting might result in 94% percent of the people learning in a good environment. There are far more ways males and females can be made okay with each other that the occasional splitting for a math class, or certain other wouldn't destroy.
 

Re:Real Story is

[Eli Gottlieb]

He said "just". I'm with him on this one. Not just 1/4 (1/3 in some classes?) of my high-school math grades were based on homework checks, 1/4 of our damn class time was spent on homework checks.

And there's nothing to say "You won't need this in the Real World" like telling students to look up the value of a function in a table without ever explaining what the function *is* on the "inside".

Re:Real Story is

[Eli Gottlieb]

I agree with you, but there's a difference between productive structure of a work environment and simple suppression of all impulses. A boy who sits down and shuts up when told can still daydream rather than pay attention in class. You can never force someone to give you their full attention without a threatening their safety.

Re:Real Story is

[cptnapalm]

"more gender neutral fashion"

Want to explain why the verbal test gap remains? Or does that not count since it is in favor of the girls?

Fuck off with your whining.

Re:Real Story is

[alan_dershowitz]

Agreed, another problem is that many people are a combination of two of those styles. I personally am one of those people that needs all four in roughly equal quantities.

Re:Real Story is

[geminidomino]

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, that's not the approach they're taking. The word "high" preceding the word "expectations" is key.

Not much use when they essentially tell us "No one is better at anything when you don't expect anything more complicated than breathing without needing a self-help cassette."

Re:Real Story is

[Anonymous Coward]

Go slit your fucking wrists communist fucktarded piece of fucking shit.

- daveatneowindotnet (1309197)

I don't understand this gender difference swinging

[sw155kn1f3]

Isn't this a bit sexist? Just don't care and respect women, that's what is needed. No need to show if someone is superior or not.

Conflicting results?

[LeafOnTheWind]

Wait so:

result 1: While previously it had been believed that boys solved harder mathematics questions more adeptly, that trend has been reversed.

result 2: Our standardized test material contained no hard mathematics questions.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? Their results may be true, but that doesn't mean the study was valid.

Re:Conflicting results?

[grassy_knoll]

Does seem like the study was designed to reach a predetermined conclusion, doesn't it?

Re:Conflicting results?

[PsychosisC]

1. The study doesn't concern itself with hard mathematical questions. It is based on common math tests, aka No Child Left Behind mandated state tests.

2. The fact that the standardized test material contained "not many" (different from "no") hard mathematical questions is an aside from the point and conclusion of the study.

3. There is no trend reversal. It just shows that mathematical proficiency with respect appears to be very dependent on cultural factors. The study still shows that boys are better than math, just only among whites.

There might be problems with the study, but if so, they are a lot more subtle than you seem to believe.

Re:Conflicting results?

[snl2587]

At least they half acknowledged that by lowering the overall standard the results were no longer valid, even if it was mentioned only in passing and not the focus of the article. Now, if it wasn't for the misleading headline and all that text...

I don't doubt that girls can be equally good at math as boys, but I've noticed that the interest is often just not there. And that's the real reason why men outnumber women in the math-intensive fields of science. Not because we're better at it, but because we're actually interested.

Re:Conflicting results?

[peter_gzowski]

Result 1: While previously it had been believed that boys scored (marginally) higher on standardized math tests, this small gap has recently been eliminated up until high school. For certain cultural breakdowns (white boys vs. white girls), the high scores were dominated 2 to 1 by males. For other breakdowns (Asian boys vs. Asian girls) the trend reversed. Once they hit high school, boys seem better at solving more complex problems. Researchers conclude that cultural and social factors are contributing factors to this discepency.

Result 2: Not many state tests have hard math questions. This is consistent with Result 1 if they use federal tests (eg. SAT) or those state tests which do have hard math questions to evaluate whether boys seem better at solving complex problems. They may also mean that boys are better at solving the most complex problems on the not-so-complex state tests.

Re:Conflicting results?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always have a good laugh when a random slashdotter thinks they've blown a hole in studies designed by dozens of trained faculty at the nations top research institutions, and published in a peer-reviewed journal that has one of the highest impact factors out there.

Question to the OP:

did you read the publication, or just the news article?

If you didn't read the publication, don't bother commenting, since the 'news' articles based on pubs rarely describe what was actually tested for or found.

Re:Conflicting results?

[DCheesi]

But one of the gap hypotheses was that girls are better at basic computation, while boys (either on average or at the extremes of ability) are better at complex theoretical math. If you eliminate the harder problems, you're largely eliminating the complex mental gymnastics that the hypothesis proposes to be male-favoring. What you're left with is proportionally more computation (number crunching), which would favor the female skill-set. So the decline in difficult questions could very well explain the reduction in the gap at higher grade levels, where those harder questions used to be introduced...

Re:Conflicting results?

[BinBoy]

result 2: Our standardized test material contained no hard mathematics questions.

In a room with a low ceiling, a high percentage will jump the same height.

Re:Conflicting results?

[Belial6]

Your right, they might be genetically equal at math. They might not, or they might be better. Who knows. Until we have a culture that doesn't make it perfectly clear from birth that a girl can get all the things she wants easier by screwing than by being smart, we will not see women as a group compete on a level playing field. This isn't a jab against women. If boys were brought up being told that they could screw their way to a level or two from the top, they wouldn't try so hard either.

Seriously, if faced with the choice of work real hard to learn a lot of stuff so that you can become wealthy, or have lots of sex so that you can become wealthy, how many men here would choose the work real hard option? Every day, women are lured by the dark side. Every day they must make the choice, either consciously or subconsciously, as whether they keep working hard to be smart and successful, or to just start dating to achieve their goals. It is any surprise that a very large quantity of them choose sex over work?

If women want to become equal in business and the sciences, all they have to do is stop dating, sleeping with, and marrying men who are more successful than them. Start picking their mates based off of looks, and whether or not they put out. This will both reduce the pool of smart men that they have to compete with, as well as change the perception of little girls that they can expect sex to pay their way through life.

Re:Conflicting results?

[LeafOnTheWind]

Once they hit high school, boys seem better at solving more complex problems.

That was actually a hypothesis, not a result. If it were a result than the claim that "No gap found" wouldn't make sense.

What they did find was that, in standardized tests, Asian boys and girls score fairly equally, which would appear to reverse the hypothesis from the study 20 years ago EXCEPT that the study also revealed 'very few level 3 and 4 questions' (on a scale from 1-4, 4 being the hardest).

I'm going to quote from the article now, since I don't have access to the paper:

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.

It seems like they are insinuating that all the hypotheses from the 20-year-old study have been rebuked, but how could they possibly draw conclusions on complex math performance if their testing material didn't have any complex math?

Re:Conflicting results?

[Raffaello]

please mod parent up as both insightful and funny.

Re:Conflicting results?

[bsDaemon]

If guys could screw their way to the top, I seriously doubt that anyone would be complaining. Just sayin'.

Re:Conflicting results?

[drinkypoo]

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? Their results may be true, but that doesn't mean the study was valid.

But the study had a politically correct result! It must be valid! Blasphemer.

Re:Conflicting results?

[Plutonite]

The problem with research like this is that any inconvenient truth that comes of it would never make it into publication. It's not just about superficial political correctness, it's about the immense number of people who would be offended. Can you imagine research showing Ashkenazi Jews to be possessive of genes that allow for greater higher-math ability on average than, say, South American natives? Or Africans? What if boys really were better at real math and physics(modern graduate level), on average? I just can't see that being published. Society wants to blame injustice and make movies and give speeches, not make depressing statements about human evolution to people who have indeed suffered injustice in the past. Most people are just not objective or "scientific" enough to be able to grasp this. Minsky put it perfectly: we are the "Emotion Machine".

Re:Conflicting results?

[arth1]

In other words, it doesn't say whether girls are good at maths.
It just says that girls are not any worse at the simple maths that everyone is expected to learn.

Then there's this little gem:
"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." No, you can't infer that cultural reasons is the cause without begging the question.
In other words, they have already decided that there are no differences between genders, nor between races, and based on these presuppositions, they draw the conclusion that the discrepancy is cultural. Um....

The data shows that for white people, there is a higher variance for males than females, while "Asian" males don't display the same variance. It says absolutely nothing about the cause of that variance. This difference may be cultural, but it may also be linked to any number of other causes -- lactose tolerance, for example. We don't know, and jumping to conclusions like this is silly.
What studies have shown before and again show here is that white males are far more likely to be at the extremes (wiz kids or failing) than either white females or Asians of either gender. Disregarding this doesn't do anyone any favors. Is enough done for the white males who lag behind, or are they left behind? Is enough done for the white males who excel far beyond their classmates? Those who fall in the middle don't need any extra support -- it's the exceptions that do.

Re:Conflicting results?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Lower the standards and everyone is happy. Hurrah! Score another point for "equality".

Re:Conflicting results?

[peter_gzowski]

That was actually a hypothesis, not a result. If it were a result than the claim that "No gap found" wouldn't make sense.

I read your included quote that it was a conclusion in the 20-year-old study that boys were better at complex math problems once they hit high school (depends on your definition of "suggests"). The "no gap found" is for elementary and middle school, not high school.

What they did find was that, in standardized tests, Asian boys and girls score fairly equally, which would appear to reverse the hypothesis from the study 20 years ago EXCEPT that the study also revealed 'very few level 3 and 4 questions' (on a scale from 1-4, 4 being the hardest).

I read that Asian girls outnumbered Asian boys 2-to-1 amoung the highest scores. From the article:

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.

Your question:

but how could they possibly draw conclusions on complex math performance if their testing material didn't have any complex math?

They couldn't, but they only said that most state's test materials didn't include level 3 or 4 complexity math problems. This leaves open the possibility that they drew their conclusions from some state's test material, or federal test material, which did include this level of complexity.

Re:Conflicting results?

[LeafOnTheWind]

Do you live in the united states? If you do you should know that there is no federal test material. Education, to a certain extent, is left up to the states. As far as state testing goes, nothing compares with the sat in terms of difficulty and the sat has very few difficult math questions on it (same with act ). The only place from there is ap tests, which don't come close to being statistically fair.

Maybe because

[BigJClark]

Technology (Internet, computers) have evened out the playing field, so modern girls don't have to suffer from the dogma and can use the tools at hand without artificial barriers.

Re:Maybe because

[Wiarumas]

In Western culture, pull a string on a Barbie and she'll say "Math is hard!"

Maybe we are all equally capable at math and cultural factors hold us back rather than propel us forward (example, technology). If anything, our ability to rely on technology is holding us back - as an example, its a culture shock for a lot of freshman college students to not use calculators.

Re:Maybe because

[BigJClark]

Well, hence my point about the dogma, which it seems we are in agreement. However, technology as a tool is imperative for pushing our species to the next evolutionary level. However, I know in some of my upper level math courses, a calculator wasn't even needed. If I needed a calculator to do lines upon lines of redundant calculation, I would have died of boredom.

All that being said, I know about twelveteen ways to do long division. sic.

Re:Maybe because

[maxume]

Long division is the name of a specific procedure used to divide two numbers. There is basically only one way to do the procedure that is called long division. Maybe you mean that you knows about twelveteen ways to doos divisions?

Re:Maybe because

[broter]

In Western culture, pull a string on a Barbie and she'll say "Math is hard!"

My TA in upper division probability used to say that on the more difficult questions during office hours. The most hilarious part about that is that all us mathematicians were in agreement with Barbie.

Re:Maybe because

[broter]

Oh yeah, and calculators are very useful when you're not testing a student's ability to do arithmetic, but rather seeing how they approach "real" math problems (Of course, my Topology professor simply didn't add any problems that required other than basic arithmetic).

Re:Maybe because

[BigJClark]

One way with a pencil..
One way with a pen..
One way with a crayon..

Re:Maybe because

[maxume]

At that rate, I'm surprised that you can only come up with a dozen or so names for writing implements; a red crayon, a blue crayon, a big pencil, a little pencil, with a needle in blood, charcoal, with a stick in the sand, skywriting, with a laser, with a computer, etc...

Re:Maybe because

[Warll]

its a culture shock for a lot of freshman college students to not use calculators.

Wait, no calculators!?

So I take it I'm going to need to learn a bit more of my times tables?

Explanation

[sjonke]

The math in this study was done by girls.

Re:Explanation

[smoker2]

41 ?

Re:Explanation

[cptnapalm]

And oddly enough that is actually true. The study was done by five women.

Almost in MN

[peipas]

I was just commenting about this with a coworker this morning, and how the Minneapolis Star Tribune indicates Minnesota high school girls are still lagging behind boys. I said we just need to bump down the high school boys' performance a couple notches and we'll be good: no child left behind!

Re:Almost in MN

[gardenwall2]

"No child left behind." My translation: "Dumb down the schools so the bright child stagnates."

Re:Almost in MN

[sennyk]

I taught high school math for about 2 years. In Virginia the Algebra I test is all multiple choice. The school district teaches to the test. The test is super easy. They get to use TI-83 calculators. To give an example as to how some teachers taught to the test read this. While solving systems of equations some teachers took out the calculator and showed the students how to enter the problem into a matrix and had the calculator spit out the answer. Ax = b -> x = inverse(A)*b How's that for teaching to the test. Those kids learned how to solve a problem by typing it into a computer. There's no comprehension needed. I can teach a monkey to do that. On a lighter note, once when there was no solution or infinite solutions, the calculator spit out an error complaining about the matrix A being singular. One teacher came to me and asked what was wrong with the calculator.

Re:Almost in MN

[kabocox]

I said we just need to bump down the high school boys' performance a couple notches and we'll be good: no child left behind!

Shouldn't it be "No child out ahead?"

Re:Almost in MN

[JayAitch]

Mod sad, but true.

Re:Almost in MN

[mako1138]

I figured all the children in Minnesota are above average. Or is that just in Lake Wobegon?

Re:Almost in MN

[Anonymous Coward]

I said we just need to bump down the high school boys' performance a couple notches and we'll be good: no child left behind!

Shouldn't it be "No child out ahead?"

Or no child gets ahead

No Child Left Behind: The Football Version may also be relevant.

Re:Almost in MN

[Anonymous Coward]

yer, that's why my first opportunity to study calculus in school is now, when I'm a senior in HS and 17 years old >.

FUCK no child left behind, I'm going to Japan!

See ya suckers!

Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[mario_grgic]

I always thought the claim was that boys (after a certain age) have a better spacial judgment than girls, and that perhaps can translate into some very narrow and specific 3d geometry problem solving abilities (since presumably boys might have a better 3d visualization ability as a consequence).

But the claim always seemed a bit tenuous and overstated.

Increase a number of dimensions by one or more and spacial visualization in 3d advantage disappears and one has to use pure intellect to see anyway.

Re:Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[adonoman]

What? You mean you can't visualize 4, 5 and N dimensional spaces? Clearly you must not be a guy.

Re:Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

boys

better judgement

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.

Re:Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[fastest fascist]

Care to define 'pure intellect'?

Re:Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[Talderas]

As anecdotal evidence....

My mom can never figure out how to get a bunch of boxes in a car trunk. I manage to do it with a decent amount of space left.

Re:Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[mario_grgic]

Spacial judgment - you know like parking a car in a really narrow space, or driving really fast through a narrow bridge etc. Imagine a 3d object and rotate it in your head and observe its properties.

That kind of judgment.

Re:Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[mario_grgic]

No one can see an object with more than 3 dimensions, so one has to rely on purely intellectual and analytical reasoning to "see" its properties.

Re:Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[fastest fascist]

And being good at that kind of analysis is somehow fundamentally different from having a good sense of space how? I just don't see what your point was.

Re:Why ever claimed there is a difference?

[mario_grgic]

Well it is fundamentally different. If I ask a non-trained mathematician how many sides a 3d cube has, one can visualize a cube they have seen in the real word and count its sides in their head.

What if I ask you how many sides n-dimensional hyper cube has in n dimensional space? How about n-dimensional hyper-cube in m dimensional space where m > n?

You be the judge if these are fundamentally different.

Girls, whats that?

[Thrazzle]

Girls?!? Whats that?

Is that a new Linux distro without a Pentium flaw?

But is it valid?

[frovingslosh]

Yea, old news, I saw all of the reports yesterday. But they never mentioned if the math in this study was done by a boy or a girl, and if it was by a girl it might have been bad math.

More on point, I would be interested in knowing what agenda the people who did this study were operating under. While it may well be a valid result, it also just might be the politically correct answer that someone wanted to get, and anyone who questions it will be labeled sexist (or even modded down if they do it on Slashdot).

A girl answered a math problem?

[faloi]

You know what that means...A WITCH! - Family Guy

I've been sort of disheartened by the quality of math instruction in the US lately, and it's got nothing to do with gender. It certainly seems like newer students lack a lot of the critical math skills that were drilled into my head years ago, based on my limited exposure to new people entering the job market/taking the occasional class here and there.

About Linux users and girls:

[Zombie Ryushu]

I disagree that Linux users don't have girlfriends. In fact it looks like your average Linux user is in his 30s, married, has one or two kids and complains that his kids are horribly behaved, and therefore is miserable.

Ok. But let's look at the study a bit closer...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a highly publicized story about nothing. The results of the study were actually that the standardized tests that were analyzed were faulty in that they didn't provide questions that required critical analysis. (I don't know if they refer to this in Science, but they did in the CNN article about the same study.)

So we're publicizing this study, even though the "results" (that there is no gender difference in mathematical ability) it's based on are admittedly faulty.

This is a political matter, not a scientific matter. If you're a true scientist, you'll ignore it. Not that I'm against the idea of gender equality in mathematics - I believe that this is an interesting, outstanding question. However, the hasty results of this study hinder our quest for the scientific truth of the matter.

obviously

[AxemRed]

Did anyone really expect there to be a gap in ability? I hope not... I always figured the gap was in interest, and the real debate is whether or not that gap in interest is inherent in some way or is just the result of our culture and the way people are raised and socialized.

Re:obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would we expect there isn't a gap in ability?

You take any organ in the body, in fact even just a few cells from any organ in the body and give it to a scientist and they can tell you if it came from a man or a woman.

The brain is no difference, its a chemical machine. We know the physical structure of the brain affects the working of this machine. We know that the structure of womens and mens brains are different. But we're not allowed to even hint they may ACTUALLY be different.

Well, sorta. You look at any standardized developmental test for boys or girls before preschool.. And you have in that, codified by science... girls: walk earlier, talk earlier, have more vocabulary, etc... and that's fine.. that's accepted by science.. and yet, those differences by fiat are supposed to dissapear.

And we have the "evidence" this report is supposed to provide... 2:1 difference in men and women. .oh, but in ASIANS, that's different.. so that doesn't count. Oh and that 7% difference in the SAT.. that's uhm.. because there are more woman taking it diluting the pool, but only more on the low end, really. trust us.

And the diminishing upper-level math problems.. that doesn't mean anything. TRUST US. REALLY.

Their own evidence doesn't support them.

Re:obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

The conjecture was something along the lines that the male mean was slightly lower, but due to a higher standard deviation, the tails of the population would tend to be biased towards men. My anecdotal experience would seem to support this - the top/bottom 5 in a class of 25-30 seemed to always be at least 3 men, while the slightly above average group was heavily women.

Re:obviously

[geekoid]

It's a study to see if there is a gap, so there wasn't anything to expect.

I'm glad there isn't, because social problems we can work on as individuals.

Re:obviously

[fastest fascist]

Gaps in interest do tend to result in gaps in measurable ability.

Re:obviously

[raftpeople]

Did anyone really expect there to be a gap in ability? I hope not...

Absolutely. Male and female clearly are not identical (physically, hormones, chromosomes, etc.), to think this would have zero affect on brain function is not a very good assumption. It is logical to assume there are things each gender does better than the other.

Re:obviously

[rronda]

A gap in ability is perfecly possible as we know that the functioning of the brain in boys and girls is quite different (in a statistical sense of course). In the top of the distribution of math performance (ability + interests), as the study also points out, the gap between boys and girls seems to be big. This shows up more patently in international math competitions (where girls are vastly outnumbered in the prize winners). In general, one should not expect to know the answer before making the real experiment. So, I hope the people that conducted the study were not "expecting" to find what they found either.

Re:obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

While I definitely agree with you about the gap in interest, I'm 100% agnostic as far as prior expectations about gaps in ability. It would make perfect sense if boys were both more adept at math and thus became more interested in it, but it would also not surprise me to find that the causation was reversed and any performance gap was merely caused by a different level of interest. Men and women are totally different in many other ways as far as ability, temperament, and psychology are concerned, so I don't think we should be too hasty to rule out the possibility that some aptitudes are naturally stronger in men than women and vice versa (though neither should we jump to the conclusion that differences of preference must be caused by differences in innate ability).

Unfortunately these days the only "correct" answer to the question of why there are no female math majors (I was a math and physics major, and out of a class with 30 math majors, we had one girl; in the physics department I think there were two or three girls out of maybe 50 or 60 total) is that girls are discriminated against in math classes, particularly in higher education. To which I call a heaping pile of bullshit, because math teachers in higher education don't even look at their students, let alone interact with them or discriminate against them, they just write shit on the blackboard and everyone takes notes and leaves...besides which, the mass female exodus from science and math is already all but complete in freshman year of college, as is easy to note at any school that does not force people to take hard science or math - with very few exceptions, girls almost never choose to take these classes unless they have to.

easy deduction:

[circletimessquare]

white boys should breed with asian girls, creating an uberrace of math chomping supergenius kids

i for one welcome our eurasian einsteinchan overlords

Re:easy deduction:

[PotatoFarmer]

i for one welcome our eurasian einsteinchan overlords

It would never work out. They'd make well engineered high performance cars, and yet suffer from a complete lack of ability to drive them, thus dooming the race to extinction via traffic accidents.

Re:easy deduction:

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one would like to volunteer for this white boy/asian girl breeding program. You know, for science.

Re:easy deduction:

[Eli Gottlieb]

Wapanese detected. Launch missiles, EXTERMINATE! Exterminate! EX-TERR-MIN-AAATE!

Re:easy deduction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Psychometrician's, who typically study IQ and population demographics, have noticed that White-Asian (Amerasian) kids have 3 point higher IQ than their statistical cohorts. That means, on average, the Amerasian kids will have higher IQ's than either their white or Asian peers of the same demographic. North eastern asians have a superior visual IQ e.g. manipulation three dimensional objects in space, which correlates closely to mathematical ability. Whites and many asian-indian's tend to have a high "g" or all around IQ, which explains why the Jeopardy champions are usually Caucasians. Yes, I know it is not politically correct to point out racial differences. There are also sexual difference, so the study is likely flawed, or loaded in some erroneous way. Like it or not, we are not all equal in ability, but we are equal in God given right to life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness.

Re:easy deduction:

[bazorg]

I for one would welcome an asian girl.

Re:easy deduction:

[ZX-3]

I'm trying!

Re:easy deduction:

[meta-monkey]

As a white guy, I am highly supportive of the prospect of breeding with asian girls.

But like, the hot asian girls. Not the awkward korean girls with the huge glasses in my math classes. ...

Wait a minute...

Re:easy deduction:

[antifoidulus]

Jeopardy also has a significant cultural "bias" if you will(don't really want to call it a bias because that is a loaded term in todays society, but I cannot think of a better word). Jeopardy questions range from ancient history to pop culture, some are pretty easy for smart people who are well versed in the language, others are just impossible if you aren't part of the mainstream culture.

Re:easy deduction:

[Anonymous Coward]

They are already. See here

Re:easy deduction:

[Anonymous Coward]

white boys should breed with asian girls, creating an uberrace of math chomping supergenius kids

i for one welcome our eurasian einsteinchan overlords

I for one welcome the opportunity to breed with Asian girls.

Re:easy deduction:

[crossmr]

Let me give you a piece of advice, when she is 21-22 you will be kicking your own ass up and down the street if you don't go for her now.
One thing I've noticed in comparing Korean girls to western girls is that their beauty tends to mature a little later. Mainly because the traditional Korean teenager is driven by their parents and society to study like mad. A high school student typically doesn't get home until 10pm-midnight and this is up at 6 am to go to school again. They're required to study around the clock to get in to university.
As you're a white guy you're probably not going to high school in Korea, but that doesn't mean her parents still aren't pushing her like that.
If she is a nice girl, chances are if her parents are pushing her to study that hard they are raising her with traditional values and she will be, give her a chance. I think you will find yourself pleasantly surprised.

Re:easy deduction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but the article never said white boys outperformed Asian boys.

- Asian male AC

Re:easy deduction:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's already how it works if you haven't noticed.

A root cause you'll never hear about

[MikeRT]

Other girls.

Seriously. Anyone who has dated a geek girl knows that misogyny is a drop in the bucket compared to the problem that girls geared toward science and math face from other girls who will be absolutely VICIOUS in putting them down.

The reason this never gets debated is simple. It would blow apart the entire "sisterhood" myth of feminism. To admit that there are a number of women who use "girliness" as a cudgel to beat the tar out of intelligent women, while there are a number of men who actually want an intelligent, educated mate, would be to force them to admit that women, not "the patriarchy," are really what's keeping the culture stagnant.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

Anyone who has dated a geek girl knows that misogyny is a drop in the bucket compared to the problem that girls geared toward science and math face from other girls who will be absolutely VICIOUS in putting them down.

All that proves is that girls have tribal behavior just like boys, and will ostracize anyone who is different. That says nothing about the *average* intrinsic abilities of men and women.

Personally, I don't understand why there is even any debate that men and women are different. Somehow we're supposed to believe that men and women are physically different in nearly every way -- except for the brain. Evolution clearly decided to make the brains identical for political reasons.

People need to lighten up. We're talking about averages. Women can have traditionally male traits, and men can have traditionally female traits.

On the other hand, consider this, just to introduce some controversy (:D) -- there is no case where the world's best female athlete can beat the world's best male athlete at any physical sport. Could this truth also apply to certain narrow cases of neurology? [either male or female].

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Relic of the Future]

"The patriarchy" doesn't mean guys all got together and decided to keep women down. It's a societal construct which self-perpetuates gender-based division of roles; including "male==leader" and "female==likes shoes".

That women--under the burden of this construct--also assist in perpetuating these divisions, is an argument IN SUPPORT of its existence and its ongoing effects; NOT of it being "made up" to "sell" "feminism".

Just how foot binding, arranged mariages, and bride-burning are all strongly enforced by the women (most older women who experienced such things when they were younger) in the patriarcal cultures that practice(d) them. You don't have to be a dude to buy what the patriarchy is selling.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[buravirgil]

A root cause you'll never hear about IF "you" are a conceived audience of feminist troglydites...and voila...women are once again "really" what is? keeping culture stagnant...as far as VICIOUS...really? as in what a woman will SAY? versus the propensity for a testerone heavy humanoid to execute gunpowder, fire, blunt and sharp instrument and muscular advantage? Insight into human behavior IS gender savvy, but illustrating the subtlety of verbal power struggles with a metaphor of CUDGEL???...this argument is as idiotic as the Harvard guy that started this nonsense for which he should have been decapitated Saudi style...to exagerrate MY point

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[eht]

Not controversy, plain wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_the_Sexes_(Tennis)

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[langelgjm]

The reason this never gets debated is simple. It would blow apart the entire "sisterhood" myth of feminism. To admit that there are a number of women who use "girliness" as a cudgel to beat the tar out of intelligent women, while there are a number of men who actually want an intelligent, educated mate, would be to force them to admit that women, not "the patriarchy," are really what's keeping the culture stagnant.

First of all, the "sisterhood" thing was blown apart a long time ago. See WP's article on postcolonial feminism, for example.

Secondly, if some women use "girliness" against intelligent women, how much of that "girliness" is a result of a patriarchal society that tends to glorify large-breasted bimbos?

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

Not controversy, plain wrong

I don't know if you're just trying to be funny or not, but just in case, you'll note that Bobby Riggs was 55 years old and hardly the best male tennis player in the world, but gave Billie Jean King an actual competitive match. She only won 6-4, 6-3, 6-3. Of course, earlier Riggs had humiliated Margaret Court, age 30 and the best female player in the world, 6-2, 6-1.

Sometime in the 80s, Martina Navratilova was asked about this generally, and she was quoted as saying she would lose to the 100th ranked male player.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[BlueZombie]

There is nothing wrong with glorifying a large breasted bimbo. Appreciate everyone for their talents. Even if that talent consists of attractively stuffing a sweater!

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

Secondly, if some women use "girliness" against intelligent women, how much of that "girliness" is a result of a patriarchal society that tends to glorify large-breasted bimbos?

Oh, come on - is this even an intelligent argument? While the GP shows some bias (really, it's not only women who ostracize the more intelligent members of their sex, plenty of dumb male children doing that as well), you're really full of it. At least if you had invoked a totally unrelated thing (as in, how much of it is due to Venus being closer to the Sun than Mars) you would have been funny. Is substancelessly throwing blame around a reflex for you?[*]

For myself, I'll blame God - after all, He made Eve from Adam's rib, for His sake. A bone, with maybe a little muscle and some fat - no brains. Girls must have developed those all on their own, so it took a while - but as these studies show, they started to catch up and all.

[*] by the way, for reference, the "patriarchal society" which you invoke was for most of its existence interested in 'big' women who could manage homes and not die giving birth. 'Big-breasted bimbos' is something some women voluntarily transformed themselves into in recent times. To each his and her most convenient weapons in the fight for power - I don't see the football team's captain being a math ace either, if you catch my drift.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[pxc]

Eh... Not really. From the very article you linked, that wasn't any kind of "study" or experiment where they tried to match up the best players of each gender and have them play against each other. It was just some 55 year old sexist ass making a challenge to women dozens of years younger than himself.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Xtravar]

The mother plays such an important role in molding her children's minds and caring for them as they grow.

Not that I disagree, but I think this whole societal sexism thing has a bigger Freudian twist than we would all like to think.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

That match did not involve the best male athlete. It involved 'a' male athlete, in his 50s. King was apparently still on her game, but not at her best either.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[geekoid]

No, it's actually correct.
The best female Tennis player can't beat the best Male.

Sure you can take some older athlete that was top of the field 35 years earlier, and put them against a female that is at the top of the sport today, and the female would likely win.

Look at time sports. If it was equal we would expect the fast times in male and female events to be close together. They usually aren't.

This isn't about be better or worse, it's just the genders are different.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[geekoid]

I ahve an 8 year old daughter, and I see this behaviour in girls a little older then here.
I ahve been talking to a lot of my female coworkrs about girl behaviour.

So far I ahve this conclusion:
Girls are fucking mean.
They'll intentionally talk smack about some when they know they are listening but not part of the conversation.
what the hell is that about?

Girls will build someone up just to bring them down. Seriously, WTF?

As a guy we said what was on our mind and sometimes tossed some fists around. The it was done.
None of this planning to revenge some slight for days.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit, we women can do everything that men do, including being misogynist! Feminists are not in denial about it here is an article from a well-known UK feminist site.

Why are women so critical of each other?

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[fastest fascist]

The reason this never gets debated is simple. It would blow apart the entire "sisterhood" myth of feminism. To admit that there are a number of women who use "girliness" as a cudgel to beat the tar out of intelligent women, while there are a number of men who actually want an intelligent, educated mate, would be to force them to admit that women, not "the patriarchy," are really what's keeping the culture stagnant.

Where do you find your feminists? All the ones I've met have been quite keen to point out that women can just as well be supportive of "patriarchy" as men. Personally I see feminism nowadays as just another form of sexism, but the adherents I've met have had no illusions of any mythical universal sisterhood.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

What exactly is your point?

I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more girls that are bitchy to other girls than there are boys that beat and murder girls (or even physically intimidate them, if that was somewhere in your fountain of blather).

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution clearly decided to make the brains identical for political reasons.

Sorry, you're wrong
What we need to accept (not learn, because we already know it) is that men and women are different, physically. I don't see any problem if you consider women generally being plain stupid at math, as long as you accept that you have absolutely no idea about raising a child.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

Females are all over medicine -- did you know you need a lot of math and science skills for that? I know, it doesn't count, because you need people skills, too. And women certainly aren't putting each other down in those fields, they are supporting each other.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[mdarksbane]

And of course the second half of this is that the geek girls are even more misogynist toward the "vapid", "brainless", and "shallow" normal girls than most guys are. Guys will excuse a whole lot because of the genetic predispositions toward getting laid. Most women have no similar impulse.

My wife complains all the time about having to work with women, because they are "crazy."

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[mdarksbane]

People skills in medicine? Ha, you should meet my med school friends. :)

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[DaveV1.0]

yeah, right. Whoever voted you insightful needs to have their modding right revoked.

That is just more stupid feminist pseudo-sociological bullshit.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Sir_Real]

Thanks for pointing this out. This is an important and often overlooked point. Just because a group is victimized, doesn't mean they aren't also the victimizer.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[dogmatixpsych]

I also want to add that I sprinted in track in high school. I was decently fast but definitely not the fastest guy. My record time was pretty close to being competitive with female Olympic sprinters, and this was after only a couple months of training. I'm just supporting your post. Guys and girls are different, including their brains. Male and female brains develop differently. The problem is that there are a number of people in the world who are not satisfied with there being differences; instead of trying to help people be the best at what they can be, they try to make everyone exactly equal.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[phunctor]

Perhaps because it doesn't exist? If women like shoes, they must be subtly oppressed. Riiight. So, what else, beyond lack of evidence, would strengthen my belief in this construct? How many women have to claim their consciousness isn't "false" before gender feminists deign to hear their voices?
My point, such as it is, is methodological. Once you issue yourself a license to filter the evidence stream, as for example the false consciousness filter, you need never abandon your preconceived idea. Which is fine. Just don't claim it's evidence-based.
--
phunctor

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunh. In my life I've experienced way more overt and covert sexism and hostility from men than I have women about my career choice as a physicist/engineer. Granted, I'm the first to admit that I have a biased sample set: I tend to hang out with people in my field, and in both those fields the people tend to be men. That said, most other women in the hard sciences are going to have the same biased sample, and so I'd believe from my own experience that they're more likely to deal with guys judging them. This doesn't mean that women are blameless, but I just don't think they're as large of a factor as you think they are.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[jc42]

Look at time sports. If it was equal we would expect the fast times in male and female events to be close together. They usually aren't.

Actually, any number of commentators have pointed out that if you look at the best times today and 50 years ago, you'll find that most of the fastest females today easily beat the fastest males of 50 years ago. In some events, you only need to look back 20 years.

This is often used to argue that the time differences today are a measure of either training or drugs (or both). It does sorta make you wonder whether there would be a difference if there weren't social forces acting against the training (or drugging ;-) of female athletes.

It's sorta difficult to design a scientific method of measuring this. And the same problem exists with math ability, where anyone with half a brain can see the obvious social pressures against female training.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Locke2005]

there is no case where the world's best female athlete can beat the world's best male athlete at any physical sport. Bullshit. Women do better at Ultramarathons. "In 2002 Pam Reed, a 42-year-old mother of five, became the first woman to win the prestigious Badwater 135-mile ultra ... by a margin of nearly five hours." Sweeping generalizations like yours are usually wrong...

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Danny Rathjens]

"It's hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head." -- Sally Kempton

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[ElleyKitten]

Seriously. Anyone who has dated a geek girl knows that misogyny is a drop in the bucket compared to the problem that girls geared toward science and math face from other girls who will be absolutely VICIOUS in putting them down.

Unless you're only talking about high school (where most kids are vicious, whether you're geeky or fat or wierd or anything else they don't like) other girls are NOT the biggest problem for geek girls. In college, I took mostly geeky classes, so I was either the only girl or the other girls were just as geeky as me, so I didn't see non-geeky girls who would put me down to often. Once I got out of school, it became even easier to avoid girls who would judge me for being geeky. But you know who I can't avoid? Geek guys. So, even if more girls are cruel than geek guys are sexist, the geek guys affect me much more than anti-geek girls ever could. Everytime I try to explain something technical to a guy and he decides I must not know what I'm talking about, it hurts me and can (and probably has) hurt my career. When a more experienced tech at my current job started to take me under his wing and mentor me, and then completely stopped talking to me after I stopped wearing makeup (yes, I'm serious), that sexism hurts me more than all the comments girls made behind my back in high school. Now I get to wonder if it's worth stooping to the pettiness and wearing makeup again so I can get back in the good graces of someone who could probably help me a lot here, or if it would be wrong to try to move up solely on the base of my appearance, and I get to wonder if all the other guys here are just as sexist but less blatant about it. That's far from the only example of sexism I've experienced, it's just the most recent. Hands down, sexist guys are much more of a problem for geeky girls than anti-geeky girls are.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

Sweeping generalizations like yours are usually wrong...

Did you actually read that article? The margin in ultramarathons is smaller than usual, but the men are typically 5% faster. That she won a single race by five hours tells us that she wasn't running against the best men in the world.

Note that I didn't say that a woman can never win any race, anytime, against men (that is, of course, ridiculous). I said that the best women in the world never beat the best men in the world.

And anyway, what's your point? That it's a myth that world-class men are athletically superior to world-class women? Even if you managed to find a single sport where world-class women might edge the world-class men, it hardly invalidates the point, when thousands of other sports prove that it's clearly true.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Theaetetus]

Somehow we're supposed to believe that men and women are physically different in nearly every way -- except for the brain.

If you believe men and women are physically different in nearly every way, you've missed out on a lot of biology, anatomy, and genetics.

On the other hand, consider this, just to introduce some controversy (:D) -- there is no case where the world's best female athlete can beat the world's best male athlete at any physical sport. Could this truth also apply to certain narrow cases of neurology? [either male or female].

Absolutely, since it's not a "truth" at all. Aside from all the physical sports that women can compete equally in - fencing, for instance - when you standardize by scale, disparities frequently disappear.
For example: Florence Griffith-Joyner is 5'6-1/2" and holds the women's world record for 100m at 10.49s. She ran 5.64 times her height every second. Leroy Burrell, the men's world record holder, ran the 100m in 9.85s, but he's 6' tall. He ran 5.55 times his height every second, or 2% slower.

But wait, you say, I shouldn't correct by height, the gender is the important difference. Fine... Let's find a 5' male runner and see if he can outrun Flo-Jo.

Incidentally, this applies in other sports - the 1500m freestyle women's record holder did her record at .949 times her height per second, while the men's record holder only did .926 times his height per second.

So, yeah, I'm sure your 'truth' applies as equally well.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Personally, I don't understand why there is even any debate that men and women are different. Somehow we're supposed to believe that men and women are physically different in nearly every way -- except for the brain. Evolution clearly decided to make the brains identical for political reasons.

How exactly do you arrive at "physically different in nearly every way?" Smaller with an outside-in penis and very minor differences in hormone balances really isn't even close to every way. Seems like a very distinct, very small minority of ways to me. We are all made of the same stuff, we all have the same body temperature, we all have the same shape, our muscles all work on the same principles of physics, we eat the same foods, inter-sex blood transfusions and even organ transplants are common enough, etc, etc.

I think it is a gigantic leap of logic to say that very minor physiological differences should necessarily translate into differences at a level so much more abstracted from the physiology than simple physical tasks are from physical size and muscle density.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

when you standardize by scale, disparities frequently disappear.

This is the most absurd thing I've read this week. So, by your theory, Venus Williams and Roger Federer, who are both 6' 1", world-class, and in their prime, should be equally matched?

Then take a look at men and women body builders, both dedicated to being as large as possible. Do you see a bit of difference in how big each one can get?

Then take a look at women's basketball. There are plenty of tall women there, yet there are two (maybe three) dunks performed in the HISTORY of the league. And the two women who can do them can barely do them.

To claim that men and women have identical bodies beyond the sex organs is just plain delusional.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

How exactly do you arrive at "physically different in nearly every way?"

Why do you think testing of new drugs is broken out by male and female? Because drugs affect males and females differently. Sure, from a high level, men and women work very similarly, but the differences are there, and they are important. And "minor" hormone differences? Uh, no.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Theaetetus]

This is the most absurd thing I've read this week.

I provide data and actual numbers, you provide bluster. Sounds like this is going to be a short debate.

So, by your theory, Venus Williams and Roger Federer, who are both 6' 1", world-class, and in their prime, should be equally matched?

Could be... One of the biggest factors in tennis is arm span.

Then take a look at men and women body builders, both dedicated to being as large as possible. Do you see a bit of difference in how big each one can get?

What part of comparison by scale do you not understand? I'm specifically saying that if you take the fastest woman and the fastest man, the fastest women is running faster for her size than he's running for his size. And you go on to discuss the largest of each and then directly compare them.

Go back and re-read my post. Flo-Jo and Burrell. Respond.

Then take a look at women's basketball. There are plenty of tall women there, yet there are two (maybe three) dunks performed in the HISTORY of the league. And the two women who can do them can barely do them.

/facepalm
Look... what height are basketball nets for men at? 3.05m. What height are basketball nets for women at? 3.05m. Exactly the same.
Now, what height is the average player in the NBA? 6'6". What height is the average player in the WNBA? 5'11".

Now, gosh... I wonder why women don't dunk as much. Could it be the 7 goddamn inch difference, you putz?

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Scudsucker]

All the ones I've met have been quite keen to point out that women can just as well be supportive of "patriarchy" as men.

But then they're still blaming men for the actions of women, and still just as full of crap.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[fastest fascist]

As I said, I find feminism just another form of sexism, and I've taken up the gender-biased rhetoric with some self-described feminists. They claimed it's not meant to vilify men, but I don't see how it can lead to anything else.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Sure, from a high level, men and women work very similarly,

So you agree with me. Yes I took your quote out of context, but your context is all about a point that doesn't matter - low-level differences. If you had shown how those low-level differences quantitatively translate into differences at the high level, that would have been context worth leaving in especially since this study under discussion seems to show that they do not.

. And "minor" hormone differences? Uh, no.

Uh yeah. Out of the two to three hundred hormones in the human body, only estrogen and testosterone show a 10:1 ratio differences between sexes, all of the others are much closer. So "minor" it is.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Scudsucker]

Actually, any number of commentators have pointed out that if you look at the best times today and 50 years ago, you'll find that most of the fastest females today easily beat the fastest males of 50 years ago.

And what would happen if you took today's top male track athletes and pitted them against women from 50 years ago? Apples to apples, please.

This is often used to argue that the time differences today are a measure of either training or drugs (or both).

You're forgetting gear. Better shoes = faster running.

It does sorta make you wonder whether there would be a difference if there weren't social forces acting against the training (or drugging ;-) of female athletes.

Nope.

And the same problem exists with math ability, where anyone with half a brain can see the obvious social pressures against female training.

Anyone with half a brain can see that is total garbage. You'd have a great point about discrimination in training - if this were 1950. Other than the military, there are no limits on what women can do, only in what they are willing to do - and that's been the case for decades.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

Could be... One of the biggest factors in tennis is arm span.

I'm sorry. This has gone beyond absurdity into outright delusional insanity, assuming you're not just trolling. And I just can't bring myself to fix your logic flaws (on so many levels) regarding comparing averages. I think I'll just back away slowly at this point.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

So you agree with me. Yes I took your quote out of context, but your context is all about a point that doesn't matter - low-level differences.

No, I don't agree with you. "From a high level," humans and chimpanzees look very similar. Not that the difference between males and females is the same as the difference between humans and chimps, but the point is that cumulative low-level differences add up to significant differences.

Actually, I'm not even sure what your point is at this point. Are you claiming that men and women are physically identical, except for the sex organs?

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[nfk]

Funny that you would use the word sisterhood. There is quote that goes like this: "Never praise a sister to a sister in the hope of your compliments reaching the proper ears." I don't know why you say that is a root cause that you'll never hear about though. Where you live it may be different, but around here it is common sense (be it right or wrong) that in a group composed of only women there will be tension and vicious remarks, even if it may happen in subtle ways (until the day it explodes).

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

"From a high level," humans and chimpanzees look very similar.

Lol! Really, that's all I got, you really can't distinguish between micro and macro.

Actually, I'm not even sure what your point is at this point.

What part of:

it is a gigantic leap of logic to say that very minor physiological differences should necessarily translate into differences at a level so much more abstracted from the physiology than simple physical tasks are from physical size and muscle density.

do you not understand?

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Theaetetus]

Could be... One of the biggest factors in tennis is arm span.

I'm sorry. This has gone beyond absurdity into outright delusional insanity, assuming you're not just trolling. And I just can't bring myself to fix your logic flaws (on so many levels) regarding comparing averages. I think I'll just back away slowly at this point.

As I said in my post above - I have data and numbers, you have bluster - and I was right: this is a short debate.

If anyone else is reading this and wishes to see some more data from real studies on this, there's an article here.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are just as responsible for upholding the patriarchy and misogyny is not exclusive to men.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[wabbitinthemoon]

I thought this was a really insightful post until I got to this part: "a number of men who actually want an intelligent, educated mate". Is that number larger than zero? Is he heterosexual?

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

Lol! Really, that's all I got, you really can't distinguish between micro and macro.

You know, this actually (frustratingly) reminds me of debating creationism. Yes, I understand the difference between micro and macro, but you don't seem to. "Micro" and "Macro" are not quantities. The difference between them is relative, which is the point I was trying to make with using the term "high level".

Some differences between males and females are great, and some are subtle, but there is no denying that there are very fundamental differences. And subtle differences can be very significant. And yes, there are STRUCTURAL, PHYSICAL differences between men and women's brains. Here is but one article on the subject, from a woman researcher, no less. I quote:

"What is astonishing to me," Witelson said, "is that it is so obvious that there are sex differences in the brain and these are likely to be translated into some cognitive differences, because the brain helps us think and feel and move and act.

"Yet there is a large segment of the population that wants to pretend this is not true."

Now I'm done with this subject. Sheesh.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[buravirgil]

My point is the poster claims to myth bust and his very terms are machoistic metaphor. Your own diction, such as bitchy, pretends to communicate beyond insinuation in a tone of superiority. My point is beer swelling, caffeinated tech-heads loooove to believe the contentions of gender are a two-way street...when on this very day, King Spam commited the kind of murderous control typical of a man's psyche, but is far less common of women. And by the way, maxume, blather is an aural adjective and fountain usually implies the written word. That's a mixed metaphor-- hack.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

Good to see that you are willing to lower yourself to the level of sniping. Someday you may even lower yourself to the level of saying what you mean.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

There are dozens of men that have bested Flo-jo's time. Surely some of them are not as tall as Mr. Burrell. Investigate Maurice Greene, he is a 5.82 on your fun scale of fun.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to agree with this. For the most part woman socialize with other women. Only recently in western culture has females socializing with males been accepted to a great degree. Socializing only within a select group will often tend to preserve that groups culture and maintain conservative and sexist views. From personal experience, all the cool women (i.e. intelligent and personable) I know said they grew up with both male and female friends and this seems to hold true for my male friends too. Conversely, people who I've met who are ridiculous stereotypes of femininity and masculinity (i.e. bleach blonde Paris hilton wannabes and homophobic jocks) tended to keep to their respective genders. Additionally, all those misogynistic cultural practices in the world: female circumcision, foot binding, breast ironing. You'll find that the biggest proponents are mothers and grandmothers.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And yes, there are STRUCTURAL, PHYSICAL differences between men and women's brains.

AGAIN BIG FUCKING DEAL! Not a topic for debate, quit trying to say it is.

Here is but one article on the subject, from a woman researcher, no less. I quote:

What a dumbass article for you to cite. Here are quotes from the very same article, just a few sentences away from your quote that contradict your premise that the STRUCTURAL, PHYSICAL differences make a difference at the very high level of abstraction that the TFA deals with:

"Men's brains, for instance, are typically bigger -- but on the whole, no smarter."
It certainly tells you that, in a man, sheer overall brain size can't be a crucial factor in brilliance."

Wow a major difference PHYSICAL difference that ends up having no impact on the abstract levels. EXACTLY my point.

the more left-handed a person was, the bigger the corpus callosum.... she found that this held true only for men. Among women there was no difference between right-handers and left-handers.

More physical differences that end up producing the exact same results at a much higher level of abstraction. Homer-doh for you!

"No one knows how these neural differences between the sexes translate into thought and behavior -- whether they might influence the way men and women perceive reality, process information, form judgments and behave socially."

Wow, this "woman researcher" NO FUCKING LESS just shot your entire belief structure down in flames. You talk about creationism, all you've got supporting your theories here is faith. ZERO proof. ZEEE ROHHHH.

"you find that men and women have fundamentally different brain architectures while still accomplishing the same things,"

Woah! That's unpossible!

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clear from your comment that you have an unsophisticated grasp of the definition of patriarchy as it's used by feminists.

"Girliness", and indeed all of those learned behaviors all women are taught to assume from the very moment they enter the world, certainly falls under the purview of the patriarchy.

Rejection of these assigned behaviors results in steep penalties- social ostracism at best, and at worst, violence. Acceptance of and enthusiasm for performing these behaviors is rewarded. Is it any wonder, then, that women, whose only worth in this world derives from how well they fufill their submissive roles- from "hottie" to "mother" and so on- put so much emphasis on femininity?

In a patriarchy, women do what they can to get ahead, and in many cases, survive. Unfortunately, this includes colluding with the patriarchy for personal benefit.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Reality Master 101]

this "woman researcher" NO FUCKING LESS just shot your entire belief structure down in flames. You talk about creationism, all you've got supporting your theories here is faith. ZERO proof. ZEEE ROHHHH.

Wow... just... wow. You've actually managed to stun me. I shouldn't be surprised, but... the level of denial, and reading what you want to see, rather than what it actually says, is just breathtaking.

I'll just end with quoting the article again, which pretty much says it all:

"What is astonishing to me," Witelson said, "is that it is so obvious that there are sex differences in the brain and these are likely to be translated into some cognitive differences, because the brain helps us think and feel and move and act.

"Yet there is a large segment of the population that wants to pretend this is not true."

Astonishing indeed.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Eli Gottlieb]

male==leader

I've never understood that one. A species in which half the race all act as leaders cannot possibly succeed. Nor does it seem particularly efficient for them all to try to become leaders, with some simply failing and becoming laborers or something.

At some point a shepherd must have sheep.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Eli Gottlieb]

Of course women have a similar impulse. Have you ever seen the things they'll forgive on an attractive alpha-male figure?

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Anonymous Coward]

Diane Nyad, Susie Maroney, etc.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[evilviper]

there is no case where the world's best female athlete can beat the world's best male athlete at any physical sport.

There are a few cases where this rule does not hold true. The lower body weight of women can make-up for lesser sheer physical strength, and in endurance sports, that can eliminate the advantage. Certainly, the best female marathon runners are challenging, though haven't yet exceeded all of, the best male marathoners.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

I take it you are interested in facts that contradict the point you are trying to make? Or is there some obvious answer to my other post that I am missing?

The other post, where I point out a male runner who is faster by the clock than Flo-Jo and also runs 5.82 times his height every second:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=625961&cid=24344411

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Theaetetus]

I take it you are interested in facts that contradict the point you are trying to make? Or is there some obvious answer to my other post that I am missing?

The other post, where I point out a male runner who is faster by the clock than Flo-Jo and also runs 5.82 times his height every second:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=625961&cid=24344411

No, you're entirely right, but this doesn't contradict the point I'm trying to make, which was in response to the great-grandparent poster, who said:
there is no case where the world's best female athlete can beat the world's best male athlete at any physical sport And, I've shown there are several cases. Now, sure, the "best" is constantly changing, so we'll just have to keep following this. My point isn't that women are always faster or stronger, it's that they are not always slower or weaker.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

You haven't shown several cases. You can't judge 'fastest' by times and then only compare those people using some other metric, you have to compute your other metric for a wide range of top performers and then compare the best marks of the other metric. I don't see where you have done that.

Maybe women swimmers are faster for their size, but you haven't done anything other than point out that one woman swimmer is faster than one male swimmer if you compare their speeds in units of their heights. That's meaningless. I'm not excited enough about it to track down the heights of male swimmers, but again, there are several to choose from (and it isn't even clear that it makes sense to compare their performances in that way).

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Relic of the Future]

You bring up a good point.

It's easy to say "girls would do better in math if society didn't drive them from it", but it's, as they say, "just a theory", and another equally valid theory is "irrespective of socialization, girls aren't as good at math".

Why, it's the kind of thing one might do a scientific experiment on, to try to find out the truth. How about this for an experiment: We measure boys and girls math abilities in several different societies that have different emphasees regarding mathematical ability and gender roles. If it isn't found that girls universally do worse in math, then we could say that that would be evidence in favor of the theory I proposed, and against yours. Not necessarily conclusive evidence, but evidence none the less, which we could use to refine our respective theories and develop new experiments. That's how science works.

Now, let me do a quick google search and see if any such experiments have been done... Oh, hey, here's an article and discussion on just such a study: No Gap Found in Math Abilities of Girls, Boys.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Theaetetus]

... you haven't done anything other than point out that one woman swimmer is faster than one male swimmer if you compare their speeds in units of their heights.

Exactly. And since the original post was that a woman can never beat a man in an athletic event, I think I've successfully disproven that. Look, you were talking about logic a bit ago... It's never a good idea to speak in absolutes, such as "never", because a single example will defeat your statement. That's what I've done.

(and it isn't even clear that it makes sense to compare their performances in that way).

Want to compare performances in a way that's widely accepted? How about this - vertical jumping ability divided by weight. That gives a direct comparison of athletic ability between big guys and small guys and is widely used. When you include women, female athletes score just as well as male athletes. No difference.

If you're going to argue that we should only use metrics that are skewed towards size, then I have to ask what you have against guys under 6' tall.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

I don't think the original post was that a woman can never beat a man. Any dedicated amateur lady athlete is going to beat a huge chunk of all men in all sorts of events. The original post was that the best women don't beat the best men. Cherry picking your comparison (because you aren't necessarily using the best man and woman according to the manufactured metric) is exactly what you did and doesn't show anything about relative peak performance.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Theaetetus]

Cherry picking your comparison (because you aren't necessarily using the best man and woman according to the manufactured metric) is exactly what you did and doesn't show anything about relative peak performance.

Wrong... My metric is all about relative peak performance. You're just upset because I'm not using absolute peak performance, but you're unwilling to admit that, even though I've said it over and over.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

You misunderstand. Your metric doesn't work unless you use it to find the best man and woman. Using some other metric to find your man and woman and then using your metric to compare them is meaningless.

Since you haven't applied your metrics to a wide range of athletes and *then* compared the best performers, you haven't compared the relative performance of men and women, you have compared the relative performance of some men and some women, which doesn't mean a whole lot towards the comparison of men and women.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Theaetetus]

You misunderstand. Your metric doesn't work unless you use it to find the best man and woman. Using some other metric to find your man and woman and then using your metric to compare them is meaningless.

Since you haven't applied your metrics to a wide range of athletes and *then* compared the best performers, you haven't compared the relative performance of men and women, you have compared the relative performance of some men and some women, which doesn't mean a whole lot towards the comparison of men and women.

No - the original post was that a woman could never beat a man in an athletic sport, as I've now told you several times. I refuted that successfully. I'm not trying to compare all men vs. all women.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

Forgive my confusion, but this is the part of the original message that you quoted earlier:

there is no case where the world's best female athlete can beat the world's best male athlete at any physical sport

I guess thinking that comparing the best athletes requires actually bothering to find the best athletes (I would think any reasonable person would do this by considering all athletes) is just stupidity on my part...

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Theaetetus]

I guess thinking that comparing the best athletes requires actually bothering to find the best athletes (I would think any reasonable person would do this by considering all athletes) is just stupidity on my part...

Didn't you just say:

you have compared the relative performance of some men and some women, which doesn't mean a whole lot towards the comparison of men and women.

If you don't see the difference between a "comparison of men and women" and a comparison between two top athletes, the best in the world at that time, then I don't think you'll ever understand my post.

Seriously, your complaint is that I haven't truly found the "best" athletes. Tell you what - you find them. They're probably sitting right next to god. Shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to find two people fitting a subjective and arguable definition that is constantly changing and is essentially proof of an infinite characteristic, right?

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[maxume]

For your comparison with an alternative metric to mean anything, you have to use the alternative metric to find the best athletes. It has nothing to do with subjectivity or arguable definitions. My complaint is that you haven't done this, you have used traditional metrics to find athletes and then compared the athletes you found using the alternative metric.

Comparing some men (that you picked using traditional metrics) to some women (that you also picked with traditional metrics) says nothing about comparing men to women with an alternative metric (because the traditional metric may not pick the athletes that perform best using the alternative metric). I fear you have no interest in understanding this.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[nasor]

But wait, you say, I shouldn't correct by height, the gender is the important difference. Fine... Let's find a 5' male runner and see if he can outrun Flo-Jo.

I hate to break this to you, but Ira Murchison was only 5'3", and for a while he held the world record in the 100m at 10.1 seconds.

Today for men a 100m time of 10.49 is not great; there are many, MANY male highschool track runners who do better than that. I am sure that at least a few of them are under 5'6".

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Azundris]

If other girls are the primary problem, it's interesting that we generally see better scores in all-girl classes.

(But yeah, mod up the thing that's fishy but absolves men. ; )

That said while there are presumably experiences that women as members of the same (sex-) class share, we are not the Borg. Also, I'm not quite sure what your argument is supposed to prove -- wouldn't it be the obvious thing for the Patriarchy to do to pit women against each other and then put the blame on them? Surely divide et impera is no news to you. So just because you see women in conflict doesn't prove that the Patriarchy does not exist. Not by a long shot. In case that's what you were trying to suggest with the scare quotes.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Locke2005]

The point is that women have more slow-twitch muscle mass, while men have more fast-twitch muscle mass. Men to better at high-impact sports, but they burn energy a lot faster. Women have an edge in endurance sports. If you take into consideration the differences between men and women, I'm sure you could construct a sport where the best women almost always beat the best men. There are also gymnastics events that men don't even bother to compete at (e.g. balance beam). Yes, men have an advantage in the majority of sports because to date most sports have been designed to reward male characteristics. Men and women are different. That difference can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the application.

Re:A root cause you'll never hear about

[Slashdot Parent]

When a more experienced tech at my current job started to take me under his wing and mentor me, and then completely stopped talking to me after I stopped wearing makeup

Why did you stop wearing makeup? Did you change any other habits/behaviors at the same time?

The only reason I ask is that the guy may have reacted to some other change in your demeanor, perhaps whatever it was that made you decide not to wear makeup in the first place.

No surprise

[gweihir]

Girls have more fear of math. They are not worse at it. The typical observation is that girls do not dare try it, while boys perform badly and do not mind. This is a cultural problem, not a capability issue. Same is, incidentially, true ofr technology: Girls are afraid to touch it, while boys break it.

Re:No surprise

[bigplrbear]

Trust me, I know lots of girls who aren't afraid to touch IT

Re:No surprise

[Celarnor]

Where are these women that you speak of?

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

girls do not dare try it, while boys perform badly and do not mind.

Math class and the bedroom are so similar.

Re:No surprise

[fastest fascist]

This is a cultural problem, not a capability issue.

"Capability" is affected by a wide range of factors in an individual, ranging from a genetic predisposition to imprint upon gender roles prevalent in society, to the interactions between an individual's innate tendencies and the opportunities afforded them by their environment. It's extremely difficult to separate nature from nurture in individuals as well as societies, since they both affect each other.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

My mod point is yours sir!

Can you believe that after reading that, I stared for a moment at the screen asking myself...

but why would women be afraid of getting into "Eye Tee"...

=o)

Re:No surprise

[Maximum Prophet]

There was a study that gave girls and boys construction related toys and watched them play. What they found was that boys would pick up and try new tools much more often than girls. When shown how to use a new tool, boys and girls where equally adept at using them.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Girls are afraid to touch it, while boys break it.

As a male, I resent that. It was just... the tension! The drive was driving me mad! I simply can't be held responsible.

Re:No surprise

[rronda]

I know some of them too, but I am glad I haven't met the ones that break IT.

Re:No surprise

[WeirdJohn]

There is a culture amongst many girls that "girls can't do maths". I've worked teaching maths at many levels for many years, including specialised remedial coaching for Koori (Indigenous Australian) kids, and I think I've seen almost all the permutations. Almost every non-asian girl I've seen (including even my own daughter) gets the impression by age 9 that girls can't do maths.

What I find curious is that a large part of maths is done in Broca's Region, which is also where most language is done. Yet girls are "expected" to be better at languages.

I've found that most girl's are thrilled when they discover that they can do maths, that it's easy, and even fun. They take great delight in putting the boys in their place. The key is to build their self-esteem so they don't decide to become shallow air-heads around 15 when there's cultural rewards in doing so.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Girls are told more regularly that they ought not to be good at math -- by the kinds of jerks who post anti-female hate talk on Slashdot.

I don't know if you understand what it means for me as a female Slashdot reader to enjoy and learn from this site from day to day, to pretend to myself that I'm a part of an intelligent, humane, politically aware community here -- and then to be slapped in the face by threads such as this one, in which a ghastly number of Slashdotters disparage female readers as intellectually subhuman.

Then again, maybe you do understand, and you want to hurt female readers badly enough to keep them from competing with you for your nicely paid jobs. That's it, isn't it?

So the real headline should be

[blueZ3]

Girls just as good as boys at today's easier math?

Frankly, I've never bought that old CW about girls being worse at math than boys... especially since I met and married my math-major wife in college, who has always been much better at math than I am. It may be true that boys are more _interested_ in math than girls, and thus pursue it and are successful at it more often, but that's a completely different thing from saying that girls are somehow innately "worse" at math.

Re:So the real headline should be

[jd]

Tests have also shown that below the age of 10, white girls outperform white boys at maths, but this reverses above that age. Whether asian boys outperform asian girls below the age of 10 is not clear. However, the essence of this study and others is that the ability to do maths is not gender-based but is primarily a social thing. Those who are expected to be good at maths will outperform in maths those who are expected to be poor at maths, and that the ratio will be comparable between any such groups in any culture, no matter what the supposed factor is that makes people good at maths in each respective culture.

I do believe that it is not just cultural prejudice, but also a matter of communication style. It is harder to learn a subject when you do not communicate in the same way as the person doing the instructing. I firmly believe that classes should be streamed according to ability in that specific subject, but perhaps more importantly also streamed according to communication style. I believe that the former will accelerate learning where there is a minimal communication barrier, but the latter is vital if you are to maximize the number of people able to take advantage of this and not have people artificially slowed. Since we're talking about 50% of the population being hampered by communication and cultural issues, versus maybe 10% hampered by difference in ability, communication streaming would logically seem to offer the greatest initial gains. Ability streaming then converts the gains into maximizations.

Re:So the real headline should be

[kabocox]

Frankly, I've never bought that old CW about girls being worse at math than boys... especially since I met and married my math-major wife in college, who has always been much better at math than I am. It may be true that boys are more _interested_ in math than girls, and thus pursue it and are successful at it more often, but that's a completely different thing from saying that girls are somehow innately "worse" at math.

Um, I'd be mixed on that. I remember about the same level of ability in my math and cs classes between sexes. Now ratios though you'd have 1-2 females out of a class of 15-18 in either CS or Math. Now, this also somewhat proves the point. If girls had equal ability through out the population in math than the college math classes should have been about half of either sex. In my high school, math classes were divided by equal portions of sex.

We don't know that females are avoiding something that they aren't good at or or they avoiding a subject that they don't like or are they avoiding math because they aren't good at it? Female math majors are the exceptions not the rule.

Re:So the real headline should be

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> especially since I met and married my math-major wife in college, who has always been much better at math than I am.

Your opinions are determined by a sample size of one? You must have flunked real bad.

Re:So the real headline should be

[Wolfier]

I must agree more investigation should be carried out to see if it is the case.

Male performance (or anything about men, really) is theorized to have a way wider spread than female, who tend to aggregate near the average.

As a result, girls tend to perform better than boys as a whole when the overall bar of standard is lowered (you cannot distinguish the smart boys and the smart girls anymore, but the remaining boys can spread all the way to the bottom), while when things become really, really difficult, you'll find the brightest of boys on top - however, we're talking about maybe the top 5% here.

For more food of thoughts, read this article and thing about if it relates to examples around you. I find plenty.

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Clearly

[Anonymous Coward]

White girls are stupid.

Obviously ...

[jechoe]

it was a girl who ran the study!

*ducks*

Re:Obviously ...

[cptnapalm]

Five of them, actually.

dumbing down

[celle]

"But the researchers do note a disturbing trend towards omitting harder kinds of math questions from standardized tests."

So in other words they dumbed down the tests, just like in every other field. Reminds me of the military when they lowered the standards to allow women in the eighties.

Seems kind of biased to me.

But

[bigplrbear]

Anything you can do I can do better!

What does it mean for boys to be better?

[pjt33]

Depends. There are a lot of words in the article, but few figures, which makes the meaning of the key phrases ambiguous. Does "no gender difference in scores" mean simply that the hypothesis that the mean score is the same can be maintained at a reasonable confidence interval? Or did they also analyse the standard deviations? I can well believe that the mean scores are the same but that the boys have more outliers. In that case, to say that boys are better than girls at maths or to say that they aren't is a subjective choice.

Re:What does it mean for boys to be better?

[HappySmileMan]

The way many studies show this is that the average scores for boys and girls are roughly equal, with boys slightly outperforming girls, however girls tend to have a much lower deviation, most girls score about average, whereas boys are much more likely to score either very high or very low.

My problem with this article is that it writes off a 7% difference as an illusion. And doesn't actually give any of the figures, just results (which I can't really trust without figures, especially after how the one figure they do include contradicts the article headline)

Re:What does it mean for boys to be better?

[rhyder128k]

A interesting aspect to this phenomena is that the boys seem to be greatly affected by social background but girls less so. The boys' academic results (at school age) could be presented on a "smile" graph. So in other words, boys are over represented at the very top and at the very bottom.

Girls average better overall (in the UK). Naturally, there is nothing unfair about it when girls do better than boys.

I'm afraid I don't have my source reference for these facts to hand at the moment.

Re:What does it mean for boys to be better?

[dogmatixpsych]

Exactly. I don't have the links to the studies either but I just want to second the fact that there are studies that show exactly that. Anecdotally, that was also my experience in high school. I had this conversation with a friend when I was in 11th grade. It was obvious that, on average, girls did better than guys in school and got higher standardized test scores. However, the most intelligent people I knew were male. I knew more guys than girls who scored quite highly on the ACT/SAT (>32 or >1400). Our valedictorian was female though.

In statistics talk, girls have a distribution that is leptokurtic, whereas guys have a platykurtic distribution - just more extremes.

Granted, this whole conversation is based on one viewpoint of intelligence that may or may not be accurate. It's also based on standardized test scores, which are not necessarily accurate measures of intelligence. Technically, they are achievement scores (which do correlate highly with intelligence). It's well-known that with practice and training (e.g., how to take tests, learning key words, learning math tricks, etc.) you are able to significantly improve standardized test scores.

Re:What does it mean for boys to be better?

[Theaetetus]

My problem with this article is that it writes off a 7% difference as an illusion. And doesn't actually give any of the figures, just results (which I can't really trust without figures, especially after how the one figure they do include contradicts the article headline)

"You're dipping farther down into the distribution of female talent, which brings down the score," Hyde says.

What he's arguing - right or wrong is unknown, but we'd have to look at the data instead of just a summary - is that the group of girls taking the test goes from, say, the 40th percentile up, while the group of boys taking the test goes from, say, the 60th percentile up [numbers greatly exaggerated for clarity]. Because of more boys saying, "bah, I'm only at the 50th percentile, it's not worth taking it and doing poorly," fewer boys take the test and the average for boys is higher... This actually is a statistical illusion, if you believe his premise - that the smaller pool of boys taking the test is smaller because it doesn't include the lower-ranked students.

This premise does make some sense, too - due to gender-bias in our society, there are more blue-collar fields in which men can make a good living: carpentry, plumbing, electricians, auto mechanics, etc. Women are pressured away from those fields, so if they want a chance at a career, even if they have the same academic ability as the guy who gets a GED and goes on to be a successful plumber, they're going to try to go to college. No one hires a secretary, nursing or dental assistant, etc., without at least an associate's degree these days.

Re:What does it mean for boys to be better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but if they gave you the figures instead of the results it becomes a harder math problem, thus all the girls wouldn't be able to figure it out.

Re:What does it mean for boys to be better?

[big_paul76]

Uh, it actually explains why it does that.

The 7% difference is on the SATs.

And far more girls than boys _write_ the SATs every year.

So, what they suspect is, that the smaller sample of boys-writing-the-SATs is composed of a 'better class' of male students, say, (for the sake of the argument, numbers I just pulled out of my ass here) maybe the top 5-10% of boys.

Where, if you have say, the top 20% of girls (again, numbers I just made up to illustrate) writing the SATs, you can see how it would appear that "boys do better than girls", right?

Re:What does it mean for boys to be better?

[Wolfier]

Due to this difference in spread, it only means that if the test is made more difficult, a higher percentage of boys than girls are going to "pass" the test.

However, if the test is made easier, the reverse happens - a higher percentage of girls are going to pass the test than boys.

Maybe it's a redundant link, but it's a good read:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Re:I don't understand this gender difference swing

[digitrev]

Well, the idea is to see if there are any differences. Sexism is only sexism if it's baseless. If you have something like this to demonstrate that there are differences between the genders, then making decisions based on those differences is qualified. However, like they said, there is no difference. The smartest person in my school in every subject that I took in my last year of high school was female (except Music, but there were only 3 people). Of course, anecdotal evidence, take it with a grain of salt. The point is that finding out that there are no differences makes any attempts to make decisions based on gender alone an offensive and ignorant thing.

So if you want american kids with best math scores

[voss]

White guys need to start hooking up
with more asian girls....hmmm

Assuming we do this , 20 years from now
our country will have plenty of really hot
nerdy eurasian girls that are math geniuses :)

All in favor?

Re:So if you want american kids with best math sco

[east coast]

Aye! Aye! Aye!

I volunteer to be part of this experiment. Infact, I will give it my all!

ok, but let's look a bit closer...

[phuriku]

This is a highly publicized story about nothing. The results of the study were actually that the standardized tests that were analyzed were faulty in that they didn't provide questions that required critical analysis. (They mentioned it in passing in the Science article, but it's better seen in the CNN article about the same study.) So this study is being publicized, even though the "results" (that there is no gender difference in mathematical ability) are based on an admittedly faulty test. Anyone else see any problem with this? This is a political matter, not a scientific matter. If you're a true scientist, you'll ignore the study. Not that I'm against the idea of gender equality in mathematics - I believe that this is an interesting, outstanding question. However, the hasty results of this study hinder our quest for the scientific truth of the matter.

Everything I learned from The Simpsons was wrong.

[xenolon]

I thought that Girls Just Want to Have Sums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_just_want_to_have_sums

I think xkcd sums it up nicely.

[biased_estimator]

http://xkcd.com/385/

Remember what Barbie said:

[$RANDOMLUSER]

"Math is hard! Let's go shopping!"

Re:Remember what Barbie said:

[HumanoidCarbonUnit]

When I was little I had that Barbie. I told her she was dumb. I miss those days.

Title is incorrect

[Legion_SB]

The findings aren't that there is "no gap" in the math abilities of boys and girls.

The findings are that there is no performance gap between boys and girls when taking state standardized tests - tests which the article then goes on to point out have lopped off all difficult questions (with math problems rated from Level 1 to Level 4, they found that most state tests had zero Level 3 or Level 4 questions).

To oversimplify, I'm sure if I took a room full of 6th graders and had them do 2nd grade math, we wouldn't see a skill discrepancy between the boys and the girls. But that wouldn't tell us jack crap about their ability to do 6th grade math.

Girls are getting better at video games too

[BountyX]

My girlfriend just owned me in Call of Duty 4 and Halo...and now math? Guys, we're doomed to being eliminated from the human race, especially since science can now extract sperm from bone marror (see link).

Re:Girls are getting better at video games too

[geminidomino]

My girlfriend just owned me in Call of Duty 4 and Halo...and now math? Guys, we're doomed to being eliminated from the human race, especially since science can now extract sperm from bone marror (see link).

Math is one thing but dude, seriously. Turn in your geek card AND your testicles at the door.

Are you SURE women are as good...

[clonan]

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.

So she (Janet) did the MATH wrong....

Re:Are you SURE women are as good...

[celle]

No! The politicos of the current study made a mistake in their math.

Missed the point

[gmuslera]

They focused in skin color... hair color would had lead to a more eath-shaking conclusion.

obligatory xkcd ref

[Anonymous Coward]

How it Works

I'm not sure I'm allowed to say this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Or that there are genetic differences between white and asian people.

important point here...

[Tastecicles]

"...researchers do note a disturbing trend towards omitting harder kinds of math questions from standardized tests."

Any guesses as to why?

Here it is:

Schools (particularly in the UK) pride themselves on their ability to attract students from outside their catchment areas. To do this they have to look as good as possible. Not for the purpose of seeing how well their teaching methods are actually working, standardised aptitude tests are used by local education authorities and other organisations to rank schools by the number of A grade pupils they can churn out - notwithstanding the fact that a significant portion of said students leave school barely able to read or write and utterly lost on a pocket calculator. Still more cases exist where students leave with less common sense than they were born with.

Exams /should/ be hard. They /should/ tax the brain. They /should/ make one think and they /should/ force at least an attempt at lateral thinking. These days the hardest part of any exam is recalling what was written on a chalkboard two semesters ago. This is just plain wrong in my eyes, although in the eyes of a Government who wants to control the people the situation is just perfect. Keep the sheep stupid and they won't see beyond the boundaries the shepherd sets.

Agreed.

[apodyopsis]

Agreed. No difference at all.

The difference is in motivation - they simply are not interested.

After all, I am sure that all of us could spend hours doing many of the things and jobs that women find so fascinating (fashion, cooking, PA, advertising, sales etc) perfectly competantly - but its true that we simply do not want to.

Re:Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, it's worth noting that the vast majority of people of cook for a living (chefs) are like 90% men.

Re:Agreed.

[dogmatixpsych]

That assumes that motivational differences are not biologically/genetically based and also are completely distinct from natural aptitude. It could be that motivation leads to better performance or better aptitude leads to motivation, which leads to better performance. I think at some point we just need to accept that there are differences and go from there.

Re:Agreed.

[Theaetetus]

The difference is in motivation - they simply are not interested.

After all, I am sure that all of us could spend hours doing many of the things and jobs that women find so fascinating (fashion, cooking, PA, advertising, sales etc) perfectly competantly - but its true that we simply do not want to.

And why is this? Could it be that we tend to pressure women into socially acceptable "pink-collar" professions and away from technical professions that, incidentally, earn much more?

What are they measuring?

[j. andrew rogers]

Judging high-end mathematics aptitude by looking at low-end mathematics test scores is no way to run a study. Anyone can learn mathematics well enough to get a decent score on the SAT; it would be like using rudimentary literacy as the measure of Pulitzer prize potential. What next, flipping burgers at McDonald's will make you the next Iron Chef? No one seriously doubted that males and females learn mathematics with similar aptitude in any case, so this seems to be a combination strawman and low-rent dig at Larry Summers that misses the point more than anything.

The controversy, which is not very controversial, has to do with differences in genders to directly manipulate certain kinds of complex system models mentally. While it tends to manifest in some areas of applied mathematics, it does not reflect any ability to learn mathematics per se.

Re:What are they measuring?

[WeirdJohn]

Actually, you can get a great view of ability from low-end stuff, particularly with primary and high-school kids, which you won't see so easily with harder maths, except for perhaps identifying the precocious talents. The trick is to look at *how* they get their answers. For example:

17 x 19 by mental arithmetic

1) Uses a calculator, because its bigger than times tables

2) Uses the pen-and-paper algorithm. This kid can remember rules

3) 17 x 20 = 340, take away 17 gives 323 . A good sign.

Then ask for 18 x 23

The kid who says "2 x 17 is 34, 4 x 17 is 68, 68 plus 323 is 391, 391 + 23 is 414" has admirable maths ability, in particular will be good at algebra and symbolic manipulation.

The kid who says "2 x 18 is 36, 360 + 36 = 396, 396 + 18 = 414" has lots of maths ability, and may be a great mathematician one day IF we teachers lead them well.

There has been a lot of work over the last 20 years on the so-called "gender gap". The problem then was that specialised maths teachers were predominantly male, and they exhibited gender-bias in the classroom (which is an easy trap to fall into when its the boys who interact in the classroom, whilst the girls sit there thinking "girls can't do maths"). Now (in the name of equity) we have a situation where many boys are being left behind. We have a hell of a lot of maths teachers who are not very good at either maths or teaching it, we have had a bias towards employing female maths teachers (in the name of equity) in primary and high schools (compounded by the feminist argument that "all men are rapists" so we have fewer men willing to enter the profession and be automatically suspect). Because of the lower standard of maths teachers generally (but we do have some great teachers, male and female out there, but they are getting hard to find) we have had the standards lowered to preserve the illusion that the kids are learning maths. Lowering expectations results in lower performance, both in the teachers and the students.

Back to the main point.... as long as we don't allow these cultural lies to invade our classrooms, as long as we let the kids know that we believe and expect that they will learn this stuff and that it is really easy, as long as we don't say stuff like "OK, we're doing limits this module, and you'll have to work really hard because this is *hard* so don't get upset if you can't get it because most of you won't get it" or "this exam will be the hardest you've ever done, and I expect that most of you will struggle with it", then we can help almost every student discover their inner maths nerd.

In 30 years I've only met 4 students who couldn't do maths. In one case it was really a kid who *wouldn't* do maths, in two more it was badly managed ADHD with parents who were most of the problem, and in the last it was a mature entry uni student who thought that she could do a science degree with only a 4th grade maths background without doing 12 months of bridging work. This is out of thousands of kids. Break the culture of mediocrity, show them it can be done, that it makes sense and that they can do it and even excel.

Re:What are they measuring?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The kid who says "2 x 18 is 36, 360 + 36 = 396, 396 + 18 = 414" has lots of maths ability, and may be a great mathematician one day IF we teachers lead them well. A faster way is "18 x 23 = 18 x 22 + 18 = (20-2)(20+2) + 18 = 400 - 4 + 18 = 400 + 14 = 414"

Re:What are they measuring?

[WeirdJohn]

Yep, there's a lot of ways to do it. If I was to list all the "clever" ways to perform arithmetic I'd still be typing in 3 days time. 18 x 23 = 18 x 25 - 2 x 18 = 4.5 x 100 - 36 = 450 - 36 = 414 is faster (and simpler) still. Or 18 x 20 + 3 x ( 3 x 6) = 360 + 9 x 6 = 414. The point is that simple maths can give a good measure of maths ability IF you look at HOW they get the answers and not the final number itself. The first demonstrates they can think proportionally, the second reveals associativity. These are the clues that people can do maths, not their ability to memorise rules. Your method reveals ability to cross the geometric/algebraic realms, so they might (and I stress might) understand the equivalence between them. Further questioning would show that, questioning about HOW and WHY they chose that approach.

Re:What are they measuring?

[evilviper]

one seriously doubted that males and females learn mathematics with similar aptitude in any case,

WTF? Are you 12, and too young to remember blatant institutional sexism?

Until innumerable studies such as this were launched, there was indeed a long-standing, and strongly-held belief that males were inherently more apt at mathematics and the sciences, while women were more apt at more artsy and menial endeavors like housework.

Useless studies

[Chaduke]

I hate studies like this as they do nothing but implant ridiculous generalized notions into people who want a simple answer to complex questions. What really matters in terms of intellectual ability is that all humans of all sexes and races possess an enormous capacity for learning, and conclusions on ability should be made at an individual level, not groups.

Unavailable for comment..

[Kolie]

is Principle Skinner. "I dont have any opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything."

Standardized "Math" Exams

[Lorean]

Standardized math exams amount to rote memorization. No more difficult than ace-ing a Latin exam.

Re:I don't understand this gender difference swing

[sw155kn1f3]

Nazis used all kinds of "science" to make their point, they didn't just declare other races as inferior, they used scientists to base their claims. See my point? In TFA science is used in sex battle, to compare two sexes, which is sexist by nature. More than that they compare races, implying that asian men are inferior to asian women and inferior to white men.
Thank you, this is stupidest and not politically correct article I ever read in last 10 years, coming most likely from feminist "doctor".

Never really thought there was a gap, really

[zullnero]

I mean, maybe there was a gap if you took the average of a bunch of kids from either gender and compared them...but when I was in 5th grade, the two kids with the best math scores were a boy and a girl. And I had to work really hard to keep up with her...

Sex segregated classrooms?

[suburbanmediocrity]

Perhaps is a good idea.

I went to an all male high school. There was an adjacent all female school, so it wasn't like we were missing any of the socializing aspect however I do believe that it helped with the in-class learning as distractions were removed. But not too far.

The higher level/more difficult classes where you had to work in teams were mixed to prepare for the outside world.

The obligatory

[McBeer]

http://xkcd.com/385/

More superstars/flameouts among boys

[techvet]

It has been noted elsewhere that there are more superstars and flops among the boys, which may explain why the positions that require the experts are more likely to have males. On the other hand, males may be lagging in the reading area and we probably need to start working on that issue. Looking just at the averages does not tell the whole story.

summary obv written by boy

[Anonymous Coward]

"cultural and social factors, not gender alone"

gender is a cultural/social factor

the summary should say:

"cultural and social factors, not sex alone"

Math shouldn't be a guessing game.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the researchers do note a disturbing trend towards omitting harder kinds of math questions from standardized tests.

A "disturbing trend"? Tests are supposed to measure knowledge, not guessing ability. Adding questions to a test that no one can answer does not improve its quality! Why can't people wake up? Are students supposed to rely on the intuition god gave them to answer math problems? No wonder the state of math education is in shambles right now. There is only one way to learn math, and that is intense repetition. If students practice these "hard problems", they won't become "hard problems" anymore. Surprising, isn't it?

Re:Math shouldn't be a guessing game.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you must be a product of the modern US school system.

Not Surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not surprised by these results at all. The school system has been trying for years to achieve parity in education between boys and girls. And that parity was not attained by teaching progressively harder subjects, but by requiring easier tests. Additionally, differences between men and women are much more likely to appear at the extreme ends of their fields. That's why we have men's and women's sports, for example. I would think it is very likely that men are better than women in some academic fields and women are better than men at others, since the sexes have different hormones and brains that are not the same.

This is not to say that there will not be women or men in those fields who are just as good, they just won't show up in equal proportions.

xkcd

[Luke_22]

no, no!
This is how it works!

Re:I don't understand this gender difference swing

[Anonymous Coward]

It is anecdotal, and pointless. Girls do better in high school than guys. 7 out of the top 10 were girls in my graduation class. I was in the 35 percentile. I have an IQ in the 99 percentile. Think I couldn't have graduated in the top ten? Sure I could. I played 4 sports, held down a part time job and still made a's and b's. But I didn't give a shit cause I knew I would do just fine without busting my ass to make sure all my calc homework was done. Performance in school is about the worst way to tell if someone is actually good at something.

Another one.

[jacekm]

That is why so many people lost trust in science. We have bunch of politically correct "researchers" that can prove whatever desired by their political clients. Global warming has exactly the same problem. Even if the science is true, it is lost in nonsens of propaganda of Al Gore and other priests from the church of enivromentalism. Normal people do not know who to belive anymore. JAM

SEX DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL APTITUDE

[spicydragonz]

There are more male winners of the field's medal. This article makes a pretty convincing case that the reason is because males have a wider sigma and that there will be more male super geniuses than women. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm

Re:SEX DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL APTITUDE

[AaxelB]

There are more male winners of the field's medal. This article makes a pretty convincing case that the reason is because males have a wider sigma and that there will be more male super geniuses than women. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm

I have a fledgling theory related to that:

Women are biologically more stable than men. They're at less risk for most every genetic disorder, live longer, have stronger immune systems (I'm pretty sure I've read a study to that effect), are way less likely to take stupid risks or lash out violently.

I suspect that, in many different ways, women have a smaller standard deviation from the mean. Men seem to be a bit more biologically experimental, with far more outliers. If you take the very top achievers in pretty much any field, it's a relatively safe bet they'll be men, and there's no female to match Newton, Einstein, and Co. Similarly, on the other end, you'll find far more male murderers and other criminals, and far more mentally retarded men.

A possible explanation (though it obviously over-simplifies things) is that a woman's body needs to capable of nurturing a child for 9 months, and that's not a situation in which nature wants to be beta-testing new traits. Men have much less of an unbreakable commitment in procreation, so they can be a little less stable. It's worth the risk (and the failures), since you'll get more outstanding men, who can both make a positive impact on the world and, in doing a better job of surviving, positively impact the gene pool.

In summary, I think evolution takes more chances on men, resulting both in more "super-geniuses" and in more colossal failures. In contrast, women are given more tried-and-true genes and they don't end up outliers as often.

Re:So if you want american kids with best math sco

[Eli Gottlieb]

Nay, nay, a thousand times nay!

Anecdotal Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister once fell out of a tree, so all girls must fall out of trees, right? Oh, wait, you mean your anecdotal evidence of your 5th grade classmates or girlfriend or that one class you had IS meaningless? Wow! Who would have thought of that! But don't blame yourself, turns out evolution http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results made you that way

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be against progress and all...but really?

My graduating class was 91% male (Electrical Engineering). The computer science courses were not much better.

Now as an software engineering manager I lead a team of all males. This isn't by choice. In the 30 interviews I recently conducted for our most recent position, I only met 1 woman - she was only interested in a 40 hour work week (good luck in surviving in this business).

How can equality be claimed when they are shunning the math-based degrees and jobs?

Anecdotes don't make a fact, but I don't know of a single buddy who has had different experiences.

Focus on concepts and not on multiplication

[Bryansix]

Math Classes should focus on Math Concepts and should push students in this regard but should not make it so students have to waste a bunch of time doing multiplication and division by hand say past the 5th grade. Math classes should ALWAYS allow a calculator and a computer with a spreadsheet program and a program like mathmatica would be better. I do ALL my math in Excel now that I actually have a job and I can't figure out why anybody would want to WASTE a bunch of time on mundane math when it's understanding the concepts that matters.

Re:Focus on concepts and not on multiplication

[Anonymous Coward]

While I understand your point, the current generation of students entering college can't do even simple math by hand (reaching for a calculator to multiple 8 x 15 for example). Reaching for the calculator/opening an application SHOULD actually be the slower option for problems like this (I'm assuming randomly encountered problem, not do a batch together where Excel, etc make more sense). For calculators, we also now have the issue of graphing/symbolic manipulation. While these are great abilities, students need to be able to visualize a function and solve/integrate by hand for when they progress to problems that are beyond the calculators or over more generalized versions - extending multiplication to Rings and Fields for instance is much harder if you have been depending on the calculator for multiplication and long division. Similarly factoring by long division requires either a symbolic manipulation calculator or understanding how long division works by hand. It IS about the concepts and ensuring that the students know the necessary algorithms that form the basic math toolkit.

Re:Focus on concepts and not on multiplication

[maxume]

If you don't understand why 10 x 10 = 100, you aren't going to understand what 10y or y^2 mean, and you aren't going to have the skills to decide how to manipulate an equation.

The focus on repetitive arithmetic should end when the student has sufficiently demonstrated that they understand the arithmetic and are not simply doing it by rote, not at some arbitrary age/grade cutoff.

Re:Focus on concepts and not on multiplication

[NeoSkandranon]

The problem with allowing something like Mathematica is that you run the risk of the class becoming ABOUT how to use software, especially when you start dealing with possibly non-savvy students.

Re:Focus on concepts and not on multiplication

[Bryansix]

Most students don't get 1 on 1 tutoring on math so that just isn't going to work. You need to basically hold the student back in a certain math class if they can't progress.

Re:Focus on concepts and not on multiplication

[Phairdon]

If you are trying to find a solution that doesn't exist you might have to derive a new equation so the excel monkeys can plug in the values. Where do you think all the equations come from? Obtaining an equation from a natural physical law can be really complex. For instance, the derivations of some simple physics equations from Newtons 2nd law can be exceedingly complex and you need all your math skills to pull it off.

Mathematica is a tool to use to help with really complex derivations, but you need an in-depth knowledge of math to get the result you need.

Understanding the 'mundane' math is an important part of this process. What's mundane to you is not mundane to a student. I think calculus is mundane, but I did not when I was initially taking the class. I had friends in other classes who were allowed to use a TI-89 in their calculus classes, and they were always getting stumped when concepts from calculus had to be applied in future engineering classes when the TI-89 wouldn't spit out the answer.

Re:Focus on concepts and not on multiplication

[maxume]

To some point (8th gradish), I'm all for screwing the students who get it to the benefit of the ones who don't. What you are suggesting would make widen the division between students who are on pace and students who are off pace, which isn't wholly bad (but probably not a good goal to work towards if there is a commitment to universal education).

What I am suggesting would waste less of everybody's time(good students would move faster, bad students would spend more time learning and less time wondering, and teachers would spend more time teaching), if there was some easy way to pay for it.

Yes, Real Results

[bill_mcgonigle]

I think this study conclusively shows that:

• Given the current educational system/methods
• For the material tested by NCLB tests
• For a human who makes it/is interested in higher math

there's no difference in outcomes based on gender.

Any other questions go unaddressed.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing further research based on the theories that there exist better teaching methods for both boys and girls, exploiting the respective differences in brain organization (I know, that kind of heresy gets you Larry Summers'ed.) We've trended towards LCD on those, from what I've heard folks in the field say. One researcher I heard recently was talking about how mental agility exercises used by the elderly can be adapted and customized to benefit younger individuals, even in specific subjects. Whether boys or girls would perform better on math, on average, with an optimized curriculum, I believe is an open question. And so what if a boy does better? There are a heck of a lot of things girls are better at, IMHO, and math isn't necessarily the pantheon of human knowledge. And, so what if a girl does better? Why do we care, again?

What's correct? = or ==

[whyareallthenamestak]

This always trips me up. When I see "Girls = Boys at math" I automatically think Girls are Boys at math. It's the case whenever I see a single '='. So my question is: What is proper, = or ==?

Re:What's correct? = or ==

[greytone]

The = in the title is correct. The research was attempting to do an assignment and not a compare.

Re:What's correct? = or ==

[ninjapiratemonkey]

The = is correct, but not for your reasons, since it wasn't an assignment.
if it were an assignment, boys = girls would be different than girls = boys, but that's not the point of the title.
It's more of an algebraic equation, where each side would reduce to boys and girls. Thus, boys = girls and girls = boys are the same thing.

Re:What's correct? = or ==

[greytone]

Are you familar with my friend sarcasm? Point of the title was noted, and then promptly made fun of. //Thus, boys = girls and girls = boys are the same thing. Yes they both evaluate to false :P

Is that you Dave?!

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you insult us, you insensitive clod! You think you're the only Slashdot reader in the office, do you?

Reading comprehension anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, here is what the article says:

"Nearly 20 years ago, a large-scale study ... did suggest that boys were better at solving more complex problems by the time they got to high school."

[Now, this study:] "The study's most disturbing finding, the authors say, is that neither boys nor girls get many tough math questions on state tests..."

Of course there is no longer any differences between boys and girls, because the part that makes a difference has been taken away. Judging from the comments, reading comprehension is certainly not strong among the readers here.

Now to the people who blame everything on discrimination, and boys being in a privileged class. Today's classrooms are run predominately by female administrators, more than 90% of the teachers are female, curricula are tailored to girls (*). Even math problems are increasingly word based rather than equation based. And some call this merely correcting the disparities between boys and girls. Einstein was right when he said stupidity has no limits, such is this generation we are living in.

(*) For example, an earlier study points out that reading classes predominately use fictions as course material, something that girls prefer far more than boys, who on the other hand, prefer something that is real and tangible, such as history.

Re:Reading comprehension anyone?

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'm sorry, which men are these that don't like fiction? Give me a decent sci-fi novel and I'm quite happy. The fact that school English classes don't teach sci-fi may be responsible for the apparent "difference".

I do not believe that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once math babble goes ambivelant, a decision has to be made. Get to the point, pun intended. Math is a man's game, without the novel. Get it programmers? "Unix" doesn't apply to my pc world. Woops pun again.
    I learned it right away programming simply, some years ago, upon a task. It hasn't changed. Unless the woman went manly...and I can't stand that either, it is shoirt lived errors forever, no decisions and many unnecessities..kinda like the gal packing for a trip. No. no. It's not point a to b anymore...

Reminds me of Dr. Strangelove

[PylonHead]

Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

DeSadeski: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

Strangelove: Thank you, sir.

How to make geek guys happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, wait... so you're telling me there's an overabundance of smart Asian girls who're good at math, and nobody's told me this yet?

Come ON, people! Why am I not being informed of this?

Just because....

[Bullfish]

one sex has been shown to have a predilection for something doesn't mean you as an individual will, or that you can't buck the odds and shouldn't try.

Make the tests easy enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

and everyone will pass it. Everybody wins!

Pregnancy Gap

[Nymz]

Studies of 10 year old boys and girls have shown equal rates of pregnancy. But as they mature this gender gap widens, so 'obivously' there is a cultural bias here that must be corrected with affirmitive actions.

Re:Pregnancy Gap

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Fallacy of the Irrelevant Conclusion. Neither boys nor girls can ever become pregnant at age 10, but they can have mathematical ability which can be measured. Since these measurements are central to this debate, your analogy is inappropriate and misleading.

Further pregnancy, as a characteristic of the of the sexes, can in fact be said to define what "boy" and "girl" actually stand for, making your statement a tautology.

Though droll, your argument is invalid.

Re:Pregnancy Gap

[mds820]

Studies of 10 year old boys and girls have shown equal rates of pregnancy.

Now it all makes sense. That's what happened to me when I was 10.

Re:Pregnancy Gap

[ksd1337]

And among Slashdot readers, there is no pregnancy, as that would require sex. (It's a joke. Please don't mod me a troll.)

Re:Pregnancy Gap

[cptnapalm]

Neither boys nor girls can ever become pregnant at age 10

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblufftontoday.com%2Fnode%2F14132&ei=Iy-LSKqMHJOe8QSPndCDBQ&usg=AFQjCNFr8jm3QSpw1ZyLycc41fz5wwrLww&sig2=8W1bDl4ZpD8y6D8Y41dsYA

Re:I don't understand this gender difference swing

[LWATCDR]

The problem isn't if girls are better than boys at math or vs versa.
The problem comes in when we force individuals in to these generalizations.
Even if boys tend to be better than girls at math it should never mean that a girl can not be very good at math or that it is bad that she is good at math.

Maybe there are difference. But it only because a problem when we forgot that people are individuals.

But Barbie says...

[Jason Levine]

But Barbie says Math is hard. Girls aren't supposed to believe her? What's next? Girls not believing that a woman's figure is supposed to look like Barbie's? That's just un-American!

I guess

[Vexorian]

"No Gap Found In Math Abilities of Girls, Boys " I guess that's a better title for the article than "White girls suck at math, US to remove math from tests much easier" ...

All BS

[Trojan35]

We think that since we discovered what DNA is and have a caveman's understanding of how genes work, we can be an omniscient god and figure out each individuals pre-determined fate. I think that, especially in the science crowd, the Nature aspect is way overblown compared to the Nurture part of it.

You're certainly not gonna convince me it's nature by some craptastic standardized math test.

Re:All BS

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

We think that since we discovered what DNA is and have a caveman's understanding of how genes work, we can be an omniscient god and figure out each individuals pre-determined fate. I think that, especially in the science crowd, the Nature aspect is way overblown compared to the Nurture part of it.

I don't know who would think that. I read a good met-analysis of double blind studies with separated twins that estimated the influence of genetics. It was about 20%, leaving 80% for environmental factors. I think most people who look at the data clearly see that genetics are a factor, but certainly not as important as environment. In fact, didn't they cover this in a chapter of "Freakonomics" as well?

Easier test questions - no child left behind

[Whuffo]

In our modern "pay for performance" world, the metric used to determine the performance of teachers are the grades their students achieve on standardized tests.

Add some financial incentive via state and federal funding and it's now become important to not only the teachers but the schools to turn out students that excel on those standardized tests.

Being creative people, the school administrators found that the best and easiest way to obtain those high scores on the tests was to make the tests easier. The companies providing the tests were happy to comply with the wishes of their best (and only) customers.

Combine this with high school classes where half or more of the final grade is based on attendance (!) and what kind of education do you think our children are really getting?

Re:I don't understand this gender difference swing

[Kazrael]

Careful there. My guess is that you are basing this "fact" solely on grades. Grades are indicators of two things: intelligence and drive. You can be very, very smart and do very, very poorly because you don't apply it. You can also be very dumb and apply yourself and still do poorly. Smartest people may not always make the best grades... Einstein anyone?

Or maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's just that boys have gotten stupider.

Until puberty

[Thaelon]

Back when I was in 5th grade, there were 2-3 girls in my computer class that were much better programmers than I. Much better.

Fast forward to today. They're housewives. I'm a Software Engineer. It's sad and disheartening. I wish there were more women in my field.

It's like puberty fried their brains completely. If it weren't for that I could easily envision them being much better at what I do than I am. But something happened in the intervening years. The only thing that makes any sense is puberty. Until that point the differences between boys and girls are superficial, but prior to that they were much better at it than I was.

I'd like to see the results of this experiment re-run on the same people when they're in their late 20s or early thirties.

Re:Until puberty

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called high school. The natural difficulties of adolescence combined with pressure from your teachers and your peers is surprisingly good at crushing somebody's childhood dreams and turning them into a "normal" member of society.

Re:Until puberty

[turing_m]

Fast forward to today. They're housewives. I'm a Software Engineer. It's sad and disheartening. I wish there were more women in my field.

Chances are good that if they had a Y chromosome, they'd be software engineers now, and chances are they'd still be better than you are. Being wired the way they are (i.e. to want to raise families post-puberty if they are girls) ensures that the genes encoding for brilliance at programming get passed on more than 50% of the time. To me that's neither sad nor disheartening.

Re:Until puberty

[deltacephei]

...They're housewives...

Oh please. The overt generalization is bullshit. You sound like all the threatened males I've encountered over the years.

-FUCKING *FEMALE* SLASHDOT CHICK WITH PHYSICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE DEGREES

Re:Until puberty

[Humble Star]

They're housewives...

Good grief! They're probably doing that "menial" job better than you possibly could. Where do you get the self-righteous pretension to talk down to housewives? Maybe it's puberty that fried *your* brain. Do you honestly think software engineering is more important than homemaking?

Well, it's obvious that you do, and you're what's wrong with the educational system.

Re:Until puberty

[evilviper]

Back when I was in 5th grade, there were 2-3 girls in my computer class that were much better programmers than I. Much better.

Fast forward to today. They're housewives. I'm a Software Engineer. It's sad and disheartening. I wish there were more women in my field.

It's like puberty fried their brains completely. If it weren't for that I could easily envision them being much better at what I do than I am.

Have you considered the opposite possibility? That puberty didn't make the females any worse programmers, but that around puberty the males (ie. you) started improving their skills more dramatically?

Such is very widely known to be the case with physical abilities (testosterone is powerful stuff), and I could certainly envision some specific mental functions (perhaps mathematics) following the same path. Certainly, it is known that girls do better much at the start of elementary school, so it wouldn't be unprecedented to show such a difference. If that is in fact the case, tests at the end of high school may be too early to demonstrate the disparity. Tests of men and women in their 30s would better show any post-pubescent trends much more clearly, but except for post-grads, there's no common path that both men and women would have followed to be inherently on equal footing for such tests to be meaningful.

Re:Until puberty

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't really think about it but this is a lot like order parts from china, and then telling getting the Chinese company to spec and test the parts. Hmm, our parts don't pass the tests or meet the specs, simple solution lower the specs. Everybody wins right?

Re:Until puberty

[Thaelon]

It is not a generalization.

The specific women I'm talking about are now in fact housewives. No degrees. No careers to date.

There isn't anything wrong with that, if that's what works for them and their husbands, I wish them happiness. And if that's the road to it for them, they might be better off than me.

I'll I'm saying is I saw in them the potential to be better than me at what I do, and whatever their reasoning, they chose not to pursue a career in computers. And it happened somewhere between grade school and adulthood.

I'm lamenting the loss of female talent in my field. And wondering why.

You're the one getting all defensive and screaming at me.

Re:Until puberty

[Thaelon]

You're probably right. They can do it better than me. And I'm not talking down to anyone. You saw the word "housewives" and then saw read and could see no further reason for whatever reason.

Sorry you took offense to the term "houseives" but I refuse to waste time avoiding offending the easily offended.

Clearly, someone lamenting the loss of the opportunity to share their passions with more people of the opposite sex is what's wrong with the educational system. *eyeroll*

Grow up and reread my post.

Re:Until puberty

[deltacephei]

It's a generalization to reason from the few examples you have encountered, and make an unfounded claim that developmental changes which occur during puberty are responsible for lack of adequate representation. It's baseless reasoning, unsupportable, and serves to reinforce negative opinion of women in technical fields. And yes, those of us in the field, who actually like men a ton, and like working with them, get incredibly tired of hearing these ridiculous statements. A number of men I have encountered (definitely not all), have gone out of their way to be as evil as possible. Unfortunately I have found other female colleagues who have experienced the same.

I'll hazard a guess that within in your tech career you have been praised and encouraged by family, friends and teachers, starting at a young age. Maybe not by everyone, but typically a guy will mention some particular teacher or work mentor who helped inspire and light the spark of lifelong interest.

The average female tech is perenially questioned, outright told no and experiences deliberate road blocks put up by coworkers, bosses, teachers and professors.

The average female tech has experienced zero in the way of encouragement.

I'd have to google around to refind it; there was an exploratory study done where reviewers were asked to rate journal articles with and without names. It was found that removing the name, and therefore any suggestion of sex, led to higher ratings for female authors. When the same papers had the names put back on, they were downgraded in ratings more often. I'm now kicking myself for not bookmarking this, and no I'm not making it up.

If you are interested in learning outside of the examples you mentioned, seek out the few female programmers, engineers, scientists, mathematicians in your work area and ask for some history. You'd be surprised.

And screaming? Hmm. It's expected and sport on slashdot to make derogatory statement regarding female tech ability. These comments are often modded up as insightful and interesting. All they really serve to do is reinforce stereotypes.

Re:Until puberty

[Slashdot Parent]

Fast forward to today. They're housewives. I'm a Software Engineer. It's sad and disheartening. [...] It's like puberty fried their brains completely.

What's sad and disheartening? That you have to work and they don't?

Whose brains got fried, again?

Re:Until puberty

[Thaelon]

It's a generalization to reason from the few examples you have encountered, and make an unfounded claim that developmental changes which occur during puberty are responsible for lack of adequate representation.

I guess it's a generalization that I've seen girls that started out better than me, but failed to pursue it. But I'm not saying it's defacto proof of inferiority. Just that it's worth investigating further. Maybe the girls I know are a freak accident. I did grow up near a lot of chemical plants. I'm not saying that girls are inferior here. Or even that they all get fried during puberty. Only that I've seen examples that don't have a good explaination and it bears further investigating with the scientific method. It might turn out to be nothing. It might not.

It doesn't serve to reinforce anything. I'm not so dumb as to think that because a few select people chose not to go into tech that the whole sex is somehow broken. Only that there might be something there that bears investigating.

It's just a hypothesis that's yet to be subject to serious scrutiny. And as with all human behavioral sciences, it's a "soft" science where it's impossible to isolate all the variables. So we may never know one way or the other.

I'm sorry you've been mistreated, but that's hardly my fault. I'm a scientist at heart. Prove me wrong using the scientific method and I'll believe you, but I think there's something worth investigating.

I'll hazard a guess that within in your tech career you have been praised and encouraged by family, friends and teachers, starting at a young age. Maybe not by everyone, but typically a guy will mention some particular teacher or work mentor who helped inspire and light the spark of lifelong interest.

You guess incorrectly. My family was too lazy to encourage me in any particular direction. All through elementary school and high school I was told I had no choice but to go college, but no mention of where. But when I graduated, they didn't care or lift a finger. In fact I took a year off before college and did some CAD work. It didn't pay that well, so I went to college on my own dime. I'll be paying for it for years to come too. So no, where I am today is solely to my credit. So who is making generalizations here?

That you think I somehow had it easy is insulting. Fresh out of college I had to fight to get a job, and was literally competing with my college roommate for one of the only positions I could find. Just because you've had it hard doesn't mean men haven't. I got to where I am because I had 3.5 in college, a 3.85 in my major (CompSci) for starters. I have talent, and I apply it. Not because I have a penis.

As far as journalism goes, I never bother to read an authors name, period. So it's mostly moot to me. I'm sure the study you're talking about is true. I'm not saying there aren't ignorant sexist dipshits out there. Only that I'm not one of them. There are talented female techs in my field that I know personally, so clearly the entire sex isn't entirely determinant. The proof is right in front of me.

And screaming, yes, all caps sentences are considered screaming, but I think you know that. I never said a thing about female ability. There were girls I went to grade school with that were BETTER than me. But they didn't join the IT field. I just want to know why. Was it bigotry? Was it family problems? Was it aliens? I don't know, but I sure would like to find out.

The comment was modded up as insightful because it was insightful. Not because it was sexist. I made an interesting observation that bears further investigation. You're the one that chose to interpret my post in a certain way and chose to be offended when the observation was quite clinical and very carefully worded to be as neutral as possible. Sorry you took offense, but time spent avoiding offending the easily offended is time wasted.

What if it serves to spark an idea for someone to actually test the hypothesis? And one way or the other, we find the answer? Wouldn't that be cool? More knowledge is ever awesome.

Re:Until puberty

[deltacephei]

It doesn't serve to reinforce anything. I'm not so dumb as to think that because a few select people chose not to go into tech that the whole sex is somehow broken. Only that there might be something there that bears investigating.

I disagree. I do not at all think you personally would read anything into it, but other men definitely do and will take anything that can be construed negatively to reinforce their worldview. Consider that if sexist behavior wasn't such a constant we wouldn't be even be posting on this subject, in this way.

Here's a counter idea. Let's add to your proposed hypothesis with a second one. Note that in elementary levels boys generally do not attack the intellectual capabilities of girls, in fact a lot of great friendships and school project partnerships spring up in classrooms. Sex changes haven't happened and kids naturally are trusting of each other. So I would like to know why puberty induced aggression in males can translate into attacking/blocking/putting down women in the classroom and workplace throughout their adult lives. We commonly see that boys and girls as children can play games together and trade wins and losses, but post puberty a man hates to lose to a woman. Again, not all cases, not all men, but definitely a distinct population of males cannot stand the idea that a woman might win the game or have the better answer, and this also seems to go hand in hand with puberty. This same group is fine with other male colleagues, it's just that they get uncomfortable with women as equal work partners and then waste copious amounts of time blackballing, denigrating, etc.

Point taken on incorrect guessing of background, and assuming wrongly. Your story is both interesting and commendable. And, my statement was not at all meant to be insulting - you chose to take it that way - you cannot tell me that you have not heard other men remarking on the value of previous mentors in their lives. I was not at all attempting to demean, insult or otherwise injure you. Your remarks sound defensive and there is no need, your story, what can be pieced together that is, sounds like you had the chance to walk away and not push yourself and achieve your goals, but you did and that is awesome no matter who the person is, or their sex.

The puberty comment reminds me of arguments given against women in sports 40 years ago, prior to passage of Title IX. People are looking for all these silver bullet simple answers when the real answer, as it almost always is for social questions, is far more muddy and complicated. You got the all caps sig because to a woman, your hypothesis is pointless and was perceived as an attack. Your later comments have changed the attack perception however.

Here's another point. I have yet to meet a woman, techie or not, who relates any sort of retraction of abilities following puberty. Instead, what does happen at puberty is girls become highly aware of the daily "be a sex tart" message. The message is everywhere. The message is "we mostly just care how you look in a bikini." Then she gets a message from a few teachers and coworkers questioning why she is interested in math and science. Quantifying is soft science for sure, but even though we don't like it, no one really questions how effective advertising is. It's a billion dollar industry based on suggestions. We have a system that has suggested for centuries that women shouldn't go into technical areas, my money is on this, not on estrogen production.

Re:I don't understand this gender difference swing

[Anonymous Coward]

As a slashdot reader you may not be aware of this, but there are strong statistical differences between men and women. You may call that "sexism", but nature doesn't care much about your philosophical idealism.

Misspent Time and Money

[Anonymous Coward]

This study is probably a good thing in many ways, but I hate it when people try to make men=women. We can't possibly be exactly the same at everything. Evolution has pushed us toward completely different skill sets. Not that culture doesn't play a big influence, possibly huge. I'd buy that any true biological difference is probably swamped by cultural influence. But idiots that are trying to prove there is no innate difference are simply wasting my tax money. Have they even controlled for the fact that girls seem to take school more seriously than boys (as evidenced by the majority of women in school, especially toward higher levels of education)? This trend in attendance most likely translates into a similar trend in the attitude and dedication of men that are in school. Maybe the guys are "trying" 30% less, and achieving just as much... Not saying it's true, just that this study might be bogus.

What I've seen

[jmichaelg]

From what I've seen reported on the study, the authors were looking at averages being the same. That's what I've seen over the years as well. What I've also seen is the standard deviation for boys is greater. Boys are usually at the bottom, the middle and the top with the girls usually clustered in the center. Admittedly, my sample sizes are small and I'm looking at a self-selected group.

I've coached a Middle school math program called Mathcounts for the past 12 years. I coach in a Mathcounts region just south of the Silicon Valley. The program is organized around annual competitions that are structured as a hierarchy: school/region/state/national. Winning at one step gains a student, or group of students, access to the next level of competition. We've managed to do well at the regional competition and have sent at least one kid to the state level 10 out of 12 years.

At the regional level, gender has never been an issue - we send as many girls as boys to state. At the state level, gender is most definitely an issue as the top 16 kids out of the 150 or so regional winners are overwhelmingly boys. You'll usually see a 2 to 1 ratio and sometimes the boy's will sweep the top 16. In the sample I cited, I counted 6 girls out the top 38 contestants. Remember, I'm talking about the top 1% of middle school children in California. Most of the top kids are Asian which means anybody from India to Japan.

A key difference I've seen between my Asian and non-Asian students has been their parents. If I have a strong Asian student, strong odds are that the kid's parents are first-generation immigrants. First-generation parents tend to emphasize excellence far more than parents who have been here awhile.

Re:What I've seen

[evilviper]

What I've also seen is the standard deviation for boys is greater. Boys are usually at the bottom, the middle and the top with the girls usually clustered in the center. Admittedly, my sample sizes are small and I'm looking at a self-selected group.

Your observations are, in fact, consistent with significantly larger studies on the subject. Specifically, you might want to start by reading the transcript of "Is There Anything Good About Men?" by Roy F. Baumeister. http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Re:What I've seen

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Mathcounts is the first thing that came to mind for me, too. I participated in it for a couple years, way back when in middle school, and I read the newsletter and followed results for a few years after that and sort of kept up with the person coaching it, since I stayed involved with math team-related stuff in high school, too. I went all the way to the national level, and my anecdotal evidence agrees exactly with yours.

At the school/regional level, there was always a good mix of boys and girls, and my school in particular usually had more girls than boys involved in things like that. Moving up to the state level, though, which only the highest-scorers advance to, it became noticeably more skewed towards the boys, and the vast majority of the top ten (or even all ten of them) would be boys here (Massachusetts, specifically Boston-area), too. At the national level, only a handful of girls were there the year I went, and that seems to be pretty typical. Again, the top ones are usually almost exclusively male.

I also noticed the same thing with other math competitions like that in high school. At the local level, there was always a good mix, but the higher up it goes, the more the gender ratio shifts, until there are basically no girls left, and I'm sure plenty of people on here can attest to that continuing with the gender distribution of men and women in college math departments, whether among those teaching or the students themselves.

A lot of the girls I knew back then grew up to go to top schools and did very well for themselves, some of them even sticking with science-related fields, although generally not pure math (or even engineering or CS...a bunch of them wandered off into things like biology/medicine or geology). They certainly were and are quite smart and capable overall, so I don't know what it is that seems to filter them out from pure math and hard sciences.

Re:I don't understand this gender difference swing

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with being "treated like shit", but everything with the perceived value of the mate. Being kind does bring a bit a perceived value, but having lots of muscles (and showing you are able to use them) or having a shiny car do bring a lot more.

Oblig.

[lattyware]

http://xkcd.com/385/

Staistics, for God's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that's ever been reliably proven by statistics, is that statistics are completely and utterly unreliable.

How are you feeling BTW, with one testicle and one breast?

Next week: Sports!

[CorporateSuit]

Next week's study:

In ancient Greece, olympians performed their competitions nude because it was believed that the physical development of the sexes caused disparities between athletic development. A study done this week in England, however, proves the Greeks just how wrong they were. When 12-year-old girls raced against kindergarten students, they were found to win at the same ratio as 12-year-old boys. "The boys won 100% of their races against the 5-year-olds, and the girls won 100% of their races against the 5-year-olds. With no observable difference in athletic ability, we believe this study will finally aid in breaking down a wall of athletic segregation that plagues our sports industries" the study reports.

Boys Gooder at Math

[PGOER]

Boys are gooder at math, I boy, I like math. Maybe me not good at english, but maybe girls better at word knoledge. Really, schools are dumbing down math. I graduated in 1996, and I didn't own a calculator until I was in grade 9. I went to university, and now as an engineer I perform calculus on a calculator that wouldn't be acceptable for a grade 6 math program. The new graduates, who should be able to pull Maxwell's equations out from memory, like reciting their own name, they "axe me", "who the hell is Maxwell, and why do I need his equations?"

No.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

If you have something like this to demonstrate that there are differences between the genders, then making decisions based on those differences is qualified.

No, it is only qualified if the differences between the genders are independent of the decisions justified by said differences. If the decisions have the perverse consequence of causing even more differences, then you have to bring the decisions into question.

The Pygmalion effect means that you can't separate performance from expectation of performance. Expectations of superior performance are, all too often, self-fulfilling prophecies.

Other news

[Tator Tot]

And in other suprising news today... the Pope announced he was Catholic.

Study Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

What if this study was done by a prone-to-math-errors woman?

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, boys suck at fashion and life style, cooking and raising children.

Race question

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Asian girls are better than white girls at math. Everyone knows asians rule at match. This just confirms that there are racial differences and tells us nothing about gender.

*dons flame retardant suit*

Poor statisical analysis

[B-Con]

There are some disturbing quotes from that article that cast doubt on their conclusion that boys and girls are completely equal in math abilities:

>> 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.

They're reaching cross-culture and cross-ethnicity to find data pairs that cancel each other out. Statistically, I raise a wary eyebrow. But that's nothing compared to:

>> 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.

If girls have an average score, then no matter how many of them take the test that average should remain the same. That's what *average* means practically by definition. If you keep adding values from a population sample to an average, if that sample is well-chosen, those samples will consistently fall along a certain distribution and continue to do their job to hold the average where it should be.

If you have the scores 5, 10, 10, and 15, does doubling the population sample to get *another* set of scores of 5, 10, 10, and 15 change the average? Of course not.

And yes, 7% IS a statistically noticeable deviation. From a population sample that large, a deviation of 7% is significant.

I think the only way for their argument to hold would be to argue that there are many would-be low-scoring boys who fail to take the test. But that itself should be the subject of study, not just a side observation.

Not only are they wrong, but the College Board practically told them they were. They collected data, performed flawed analysis, and then ignored the fact that the people who administer the bloody test disagree with their results.

Re:Poor statisical analysis

[ciggieposeur]

If girls have an average score, then no matter how many of them take the test that average should remain the same. That's what *average* means practically by definition.

That's true only if there is a statistically random chance for any girl or boy to take the test. I believe the argument is actually that the test participants are pre-selected such that those more likely to score low don't take it at all, AND that more of the would-have-scored-lower boys didn't take the test skewing the boys average higher than the girls.

Not only are they wrong, but the College Board practically told them they were. They collected data, performed flawed analysis, and then ignored the fact that the people who administer the bloody test disagree with their results.

Given the history of SAT scores, I don't think the analyses from College Board are even worth the paper they are printed on.

Re:Poor statisical analysis

[B-Con]

> That's true only if there is a statistically random chance for any girl or boy to take the test. I believe the argument is actually that the test participants are pre-selected such that those more likely to score low don't take it at all, AND that more of the would-have-scored-lower boys didn't take the test skewing the boys average higher than the girls.

I mentioned that. If that is indeed the case, it serves as the underlying assumption for their entire argument. That itself should be the focus of the paper, it shouldn't be some side-note.

Re:unfortunately

[abstract daddy]

hey: if you want to traffic in racist thinking, that's the kind of thinking you get

What racist thinking? He was citing research. He also said quite clearly that everyone has the same rights even if not everyone is identical.

pointing out differences between the races is a self-defeating game if the idea is to focus on intelligence. simply because it is unintelligent to focus on racial differences in intelligence

So science should not be done if it reaches conclusions that are politically incorrect?

the only thing that can be deduced from examining the mental differences between the races is that we need to start a eugenics program to rid the human race of the genes of people who spend their time examining the mental differences between the races ;-P

So in other words, let's just kill anyone who questions lefist-liberal dogma.

Anon

[Anonymous Coward]

In junior high, girls are almost as tall as boys, almost as strong and almost as fast, . . . , THEREFORE, . . . girls in high school will be almost as tall, almost as strong and almost as fast.

There is a world of difference between the high school algebra, geometry, and trig classes that one gets in high school and the calc I - III, dif eq, and linear algebra classes that engineering and science majors in college get. Any girl or boy with a 110 IQ or above can ace the high school stuff through sheer effort, because it's not really that tough of material. The smartest kids don't get further ahead, they just spend less time on homework.

The study was conducted by a woman ...

[peter303]

... who messed up computing the results.

(Just humor, not flamebait.)

Equal rights?

[haeger]

There seems to be other things that influence the math score too. The following article points to a corrolation between equal rights and math score.
http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/June/200806091508371CJsamohT0.8132898.html

Interesting read.

.haeger

Nature vs Nurture?

[Comboman]

Right, but what they're trying to emphasize is that gender is not the discriminating factor. Rather, culture is.

That's the point the article is trying to make but I don't know if the data backs that up. There are both genetic and cultural differences between males and females, just as there are both genetic and cultural differences between whites and Asians. I don't see how this data can prove whether culture, genetics, or a combination of both are at work here.

Ain't No Matter None

[Tablizer]

Math is overhyped in education in my opinion. No, this is not sour grapes for not doing well, I did relatively well in the subject. The issue is that only a narrow handful actually use math much, and will forget most of it by the time they do. It would make more sense to hire a consultant, just like we do with law. Should we all learn detailed law in high-school IN CASE we need it later? My brother, who's an engineer, generally agrees. If its merely to "stretch the brain", there are more powerful puzzles.

Re:Ain't No Matter None

[ciggieposeur]

My brother, who's an engineer, generally agrees.

I'm an engineer and I agree too. Lord knows I don't want millions more people out there competing for my well-paying job...

That can't be right ...

[Bob-taro]

... I'll bet they had some girls calculate the survey results.

female and a geek

[Anonymous Coward]

As a female, and a geek, in grad school (biology) I have a few comments.

1) males can be intimidating. In high school the theatre tech club was all males. I was interested and while they didn't exactly welcome me I'm used to being an outsider so I did it anyway. The year I graduated, it was all girls. Some of them said they wanted to do it and when they saw me they were less intimidated.

Yeah yeah, girls shouldn't be coddled, if they want it bad enough it shouldn't matter how they are treated. But not everyone has this passion for something from the time they were six. The job is not just the work but the culture. The job definition gets mixed up with the culture.

2) I had a friend, smart girl, good at math. Went to a good university for computer science but switched out because the culture was so off-putting. She switched to actuarial sciences, now has a good job. I guess she wasn't as used to being an outcast as me. Plus, its hard to do good teamwork when you're not 'in the club'. Teamwork counts.

3) I'm doing a PhD in biology (molecular). There's lots of girls, but there didn't used to be. There seems to be this creep in sciences, girls go to where there's other girls. It isn't about what's easier, just a choice about what's friendly or not.

So, are girls not in math because they can't do it, or it hasn't reached a tipping point yet.

Note this isn't about the greater deviation of skill that the male population seems to have compared to females. Jobs aren't just populated by the super geniuses of the field. There's lots of 'average math' men in math, where are the 'average math' women?

Math vs Language

[pokerdad]

I don't know where the truth lies on this issue, but I do know this, if you say that boys are stronger than girls in math, you will get huge numbers of people to tell you are wrong and why, but if you say that girls are stronger than boys in language, very few will venture to disagree.

(On a purely anecdotal and personal level, my wife has a degree in math, which by her own admission, she did out of spite; several high school teachers told her that girls can't do math, so she made it her mission to prove them wrong. But when I mention to her that I don't think our son's language skills are as developed as some of his peers, her answer is always not to worry because boys aren't as capable as girls in language skills.)

How Strange

[ArmyOfAardvarks]

Anyone else notice how closely study results seem to mirror society's current prejudices?

I definitely agree...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, 110 percent!

This does not add up....

[Chas]

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Childish junior-high misogyny

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time there's a Slashdot item relevant to discrimination against women in the tech professions, the majority of Slashdot commenters respond with the kind of misogyny that discourages women out of the tech professions.

More women would appear in forums like this one under recognizably female names if so many members of these forums didn't spew hate talk at the entire female sex.

Re:Childish junior-high misogyny

[NotmyNick]

Every time there's a Slashdot item relevant to discrimination against women in the tech professions, the majority of Slashdot commenters respond with the kind of misogyny that discourages women out of the tech professions.

What, pray tell, is misogynistic about acknowledging that women are as capable as men in math skills, fart, and use the internet, that is, that they're fully human? Are you just one of those people that continually wishes to keep them in the role of victim?

"No Gap Found In Math Abilities of Girls, Boys "

[IainMH]

No Gap Found Between Maths Abilities of Boy and Girls.

There, fixed for you.

How did this get past peer review ??

[AftanGustur]

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.

Duhhh, this explanation does not pass Occam's Razor.

She is suggesting that the distribution of girls mathematical skills is somehow different than the boy's skills distribution who take the test.

If both groups (boys and girls) both follow the normal curve, as they should do, for each sex, then the difference between boys and girls is real.

For the sake of getting the "right" results, Janet Hyde seems to have made up a totally unprooven factor, "skewed math skills distibution in groups", to be able to still get the results of "no difference between boys and girls"

The easier you make the exams...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...the closer will be the average scores of men and women. As you go up the ranks of academia you'll find fewer and fewer women - even in mathematics departments of Scandinavian universities that people claim are more equal. (That statistic is easy to check with a web browser BTW) Fewer women are good at the hard stuff.

Childbearing/childrearing

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the old saying about how women make 70 cents for every mans dollar. Well come to find out that's only half the truth. It's been shown time and time again that women who are blissfully childfree by choice make just as much money as a man!

And I suspect this goes along the spectrum, childbearing does drop your IQ a bit, which makes sense in an evolutionary sort of way... women with less intelligence are likely to be more interested in staying at home and taking care of kids rather than out solving mathematical problems. Sorry if that offends anyone, but natural selection is not nice and it does not select for intelligence, it selects for what is most likely to carry on the traits that encourage reproduction.

As a childfree by choice woman, I make as much money as the men do and can compete with them intellecutally just fine.

The new feminists like to bitch about this, but if a woman wants to be equal with a man in the workplace she's got to forgo childbearing. Back in the 70s feminism was about women worrying less about having brats and more about their careers, now its all about pushing your way into things you don't qualify for because you spent 5 years out of the workforce doing mindnumbing tasks like diaper changing.

2.06 != nearly the reverse of 0.91

[Anonymous Coward]

n = 219 of Minnesota Asians (despite 2 of my cousins living there) does not really interest me and is probably more of a "statistical illusion" than the 7%. They conveniently hide the other state data, especially the California data, which I'm sure accounts for the Grade 11 positive d+-SE.

Which boys and which girls are we talking about?

[Deli Korkmaz]

What if, for the sake of argument, the average male was inherently better than the average female at mathematics? What is this difference? How much of the performance gap between the "average" male and the "average" female is due to this inherent difference and not cultural factors? Is this theoretical inherent difference between the genders as significant as that between individuals of either gender? In other words, does it make sense to talk about girls' problems in math, or rather to target special help for individuals of either gender who have math problems? Or how about, for that matter, grooming exceptionally talented individuals of either gender for science and math careers?

Whether or not this inherent gender difference even exists, it is still a near certainty that girls' math and science performance and participation is negatively affected by cultural factors, including the persistance of the debate as to girls' inherent inferiority in these areas. So wouldn't it make sense to try to identify and encourage individual girls who show signs of exceptional talent, so that their talents aren't unnecessarily lost to society? It's not as if the U.S. has an overload of native-born scientists and mathematicians these days.

FWIW, I read a study a few years back claiming that anemia lowers one's capacity for technical thinking, and that even the mild anemia suffered by the average high schooler who has started having periods was sufficient to explain the achievement difference between pubescent boys and girl. Any medical types want to comment?

gross

[Anonymous Coward]

eww! girls!

yech.

There's a hidden brilliance at work here

[Anonymous Coward]

She leads a massive scientific study based on standardized testing from 05' to 07' (the No Child Left Behind era). Using the highly controversial topic of "Girls vs Boys in Math" she gets her findings published in Science Magazine. Science as a concept is accepted as fact to most of the country, and sometimes even Government Agencies.
Right off the bat you have "proof" that sex has nothing to do with test scores (not that kind of sex, because that one definitely does effect testing). Those who choose to accept the finding as proof will become or already are positive proponents in the overhaul of a stereotype-laden US culture. For those who are against it, their first step in disproving Hyde's research begins with standardized testing. : "Well, there must be something wrong with the tests then".

The rich white men in US will not like this, and rich white men like to throw money at things until they either go their way or disappear. So they demand that the tests be fixed: "make them harder", or "make it so only guys can pass them" And voila! You have funding and support for the overhaul of standardized testing. Insert your optimism or pessimism here as to how that would turn out, but since none of their objectives can be achieved by reworking the tests, we get a chance for a total rewrite of the No Child Left Behind debacle right when a new president is taking office.

But then again, I am an optimist.

Re:"No Gap Found In Math Abilities of Girls, Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

No Gap Found Between Math's Abilities of Boy and Girls.

There, fixed for you.

Who is Math and why does he have abilities that consist of boys and girls?

make tests even simpler and girls will be better

[Anonymous Coward]

make tests even simpler and girls will be better 100%, no doubt about that :-)

Ignoring the point

[tguyton]

I feel like a lot of people are ignoring the main point of the OP - the difference appears to be cultural, not gender-based. Instead of arguing about discrepancies in teaching methods geared towards one gender or the other, we could be discussing the importance placed on math in Eastern vs. Western culture, or something along those lines. But simply arguing back and forth isn't going to bring anything new to light.

Cultural thang

[Vreejack]

My own brief experience as a inner-city math teacher would at first suggest that girls are better at math, but on reflection I think it merely seems that way because the girls are generally less arrogant about their own abilities and are more likely to ask for help, or to pay attention when I force it upon them. It is not unusual for me to to find myself trying to teach a boy who insists that he does not need my help (or anyone's) and can do it by himself (by doing nothing) even though he obviously cannot. It's a cultural thing, of course, but I have not been able to break through it yet.

Balance

[sqrt(2)]

I'm helping maintain equilibrium; both me and my girlfriend are horrible at math. Actually that means I'll need to produce two math competent offspring to keep the human race evened out.

OMG RACIAL CONTROVERSY

[Max Threshold]

"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."

Reminds me of that controversial book The Bell Curve. Its authors were blasted as racists and it remains controversial today despite the fact that the research that went into it has been widely accepted as sound... and then quietly brushed under the rug.

When the book was first published, I remember some discussion about it on Good Morning America (or one of those shows) in which it was noted that the correlations between gender and intelligence are as remarkable and deserving of study as those between race and intelligence. One thing that particularly struck me is that it tends to be males who either raise or lower racial averages, and that either way, it's exceptional outliers who swing the average, not the majority closer to the mean. In other words (and I choose this as an example because it was mostly blacks who raised hell about the book) there really is no "unexplained" 14 IQ points or whatever between the average black and the average white. The median and the trimmed mean for blacks and whites are about the same. It's just a handful of exceptionally stupid black males who swing the mean for the entire race.

Re:Career Tracks, Salaries & Equality

[TaoPhoenix]

Okay, this article discussion is getting tricky, but you found a piece of the answer. Here's my view.

In America, women take different social tracks from birth which lead them away from technical pursuits more often than not. This operates at a holistic national level that is easily supported by anecdotal evidence.

Of the girls who decide to go into a technical path of life, and get the necesary education, then that subset of resulting women on average likely raw talents on par with the overall pool of average men who also go down technical paths of life.

Then when it comes to navigating the organizational dynamics, there are indeed some political factors affecting the hiring placement of women candidates. There are also political factors affecting the assignment of pay packages.

In organizations whereupon policy has negated the petty politics, then that small subset of cases should see the women both performing and being paid on a par with men.

The tests must be flawed in some way

[caywen]

My common sense tells me the tests were flawed, because everyone knows that by the time girls can count to 10, guys can count to 11.

Can/Should/Will do

[gorrepati]

wont work. Either put up (show it by having atleast 30% or more of girls in engg. or related fields) or shut up. Note that this applies to everybody in just about anything.

Well...

[frank_adrian314159]

I always thought women were better at math - none of them ever confused six and twelve inches.

Stop applying for...

[spineboy]

jobs at a bra fitting plant.

Re:Can it be time? To end male bashing?

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I can only imagine the uproar were anyone to start using a phrase like "estrogen poisoning" to refer to the functioning of female brains.

NEW BUSINESS PLAN

[RJBeery]

1. Start new company
2. Hire ONLY FEMALES
3. Give them a 5% increase in standard industry wage
4. Undercut all those FOOLS that have male employees
5. Skip step 6
6. ??????????
7. PROFIT!

Re:NEW BUSINESS PLAN

[FattyBoeBatty]

Parent post makes an important commonly overlooked point. If women are just underpaid for doing the exact same work and producing the exact same results, then by hiring them a company would save X% across the entire workforce. Hire 'em all and you'd destroy your competitors.

Capitalism does not discriminate, and difference in pay is not evidence of discrimination.

ok, but how inheritable is IQ?

[big_paul76]

OK, sure, it seems quite reasonable that people of lower intelligence have more kids.

But it's probably been that way for a very long time. I'd imagine that some illiterate peasant bog-farmer had more kids than, say, Sir Isaac Newton, for example. (don't know if that's actually true, but you see where I'm going, right?)

What keeps us from already being in the grips of an Idiocracy type situation is that there's minimal link between your IQ and that of your parents. Yes, there is a link, but there's a lot of environmental factors that matter much more.

And there's lots of evidence that there's a whole lot of brain development that happens in the first 5 years of life or so. The difference between living in poverty and not, living in a stable household and not in those initial years has been shown to have a dramatic effect on success (however you wanna define it,) in later life.

Given a chance to flourish, good nutrition, a stable emotional environment, intellectual stimulation, decent schooling, etc., a kid born to below-average IQ parents might not be another Einstein or Gauss, but they'll do just fine.

Re:ok, but how inheritable is IQ?

[AaxelB]

I'd imagine that some illiterate peasant bog-farmer had more kids than, say, Sir Isaac Newton, for example. (don't know if that's actually true, but you see where I'm going, right?)

A bit offtopic, but a movie on the development of calculus they had us watch in high school said that near the end of his life, Newton said that the achievement he was most proud of was dying a virgin. So... yeah. Definitely didn't contribute to the gene pool, there.

Re:ok, but how inheritable is IQ?

[sir fer]

But it's probably been that way for a very long time. I'd imagine that some illiterate peasant bog-farmer had more kids than, say, Sir Isaac Newton, for example.

Sir Isaac didn't have any kids. By all acounts, he was gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Re:ok, but how inheritable is IQ?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

But it's probably been that way for a very long time. I'd imagine that some illiterate peasant bog-farmer had more kids than, say, Sir Isaac Newton, for example. (don't know if that's actually true, but you see where I'm going, right?)

Well, the peasant was lucky if 2 of his 15 kids lived long enough to reproduce themselves.

And there's lots of evidence that there's a whole lot of brain development that happens in the first 5 years of life or so

I forgot that genes don't play a role after birth!

You go on to state that there can be an effect, but that could just imply what percentage of the genes potential is reached.

Truly mind boggling that this is the issue de jour

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Caveat: my country may not be the same as yours. YMMV.

Where I live the breakdown of kids entering university is 3 girls for every 2 boys. Yet still all we hear about is how girls are "disadvantaged" and need extra resources thrown at them to improve their performance in university. Meanwhile the boys aren't even making it to university.

And the entrance split isn't the fault of the universities - they base their acceptance on high school results. In the high schools the honor roll positions and scholarships largely go to girls. And yet still we hear how girls are disadvantaged in school and need more encouragement and resources thrown at them to achieve equality.

One has to wonder what the definition of equality is in the educational sphere - nothing but female students?

Males tend towards the extremes on EVERYTHING!

[big_paul76]

Seriously, it's not just math. The "best" serial killers and mass murders have been men. Same with the 'best' totalitarian dictators. The tallest (and, IIRC, shortest) individuals have been men.

The standard deviation on virtually any trait you measure for men will be larger than it is for women.

There's a lot of theories why this is, but I don't think much of evolutionary psychology, so I'm not getting into that, but yeah, this is why it's ridiculous to point to the fact that almost all winners of the fields medal have been men as evidence for an innate math superiority on the part of men.

Re:Males tend towards the extremes on EVERYTHING!

[Anonymous Coward]

The standard deviation on virtually any trait you measure for men will be larger than it is for women. ... this is why it's ridiculous to point to the fact that almost all winners of the fields medal have been men as evidence for an innate math superiority on the part of men.

Is a greater ability to do average work superior to a greater ability to invent and push the limits? It depends on what you define superior as.

It's like the difference between Linux and Solaris. Solaris invented so many new and awesome things, like zfs and dtrace and many other things. But Linux has the vast hordes of average programmers (compared to the geniuses that worked on Solaris) that makes it more polished, with more drivers. Which is superior?

Personally, I'd say that with billions of people what will make the real difference is still the few people of exceptional greatness.

Re:Males tend towards the extremes on EVERYTHING!

[cptnapalm]

Insofar as the shortest, I think the current shortest is an Indian girl who is 1 1/2 feet tall. (roughly half a meter).

Inverse assumption in Europe

[AigariusDebian]

When i read the headline, I assumed that the found that boys can learn math as good as girls do. In my part of the world (Eastern EU) it is assumed that girls have much better math skills on average than boys.

It ain't that easy.

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

I know this from experience.

In Asia, it's almost the opposite.

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

I see it every day.

Guys in junior high mostly don't dare doing anything uncool.

Soccer? cool. Math? FUZAKERUNA.

So it's far more common to see girls doing anything academic in junior high.

And the funny thing, this even extends to the traditional martial arts. There are more girls than guys in my son's kendo club.

Another reason

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

The ravages of the hormone changes post-puberty do different things to girls than to boys. Definitely makes it harder for them to handle linear logic/math, but surviving the changes seems to give them an advantage in the non-linear stuff.

That much is true in Asia as well. But Asia has this really strange cultural bias against guys being caught doing anything that smacks of WORK, so the girls have a chance to get ahead a bit before their hormones kick in in high school.

I think the fear of work in guys is also hormonal, and the hormones kick in earlier than for girls. But asian culture has this knife that cuts down kids who stick out, which makes it that much harder for the boys to buck the peer pressure to join the soccer or baseball club.

Misogynist hate talk...

[Martha Bridegam]

Misogynist hate talk appears on this site every time an item appears about women or girls in the tech professions. So here's my question: Do you boys *really* blame women's slow entry to the tech professions on these lies about lesser abilities? Or do you understand it's your own misogyny that discourages women and girls out of the tech labs and classrooms? If the latter, are you consciously peddling shit about female incompetence as a cover story to protect your male privileges and salaries?

Re:Misogynist hate talk...

[rhyder128k]

A lot of people, like me, hold views that are at odds with the feminist orthodoxy on matters such as the workplace, education and affirmative action. People like you label it as hateful misogyny for two reasons. Firstly, to make the issue emotive rather than theoretical. Secondly, to re-enforce the taboo that exists around questioning the pillars of feminist theory in the social sciences.

Re:Misogynist hate talk...

[Martha Bridegam]

Classic: a group of men have a fine old clubby time inflating their own egos by trying to degrade women and girls. I object because their behavior is an attempt to drive out female persons like me from an entire area of human conversation. This "rhyder128k" person, presumably male, lashes back in entirely typical style: by trying to characterize me, an individual woman, as a representative of a category or ideology ("people like you," "feminist orthodoxy," "feminist theory"), and -- naturally -- by calling me (and my evil cohorts) "emotive," i.e. emotional, i.e. hysterical. I don't think this fellow realizes I am as fully, individually human as he is, and I object to bigoted attempts to exclude me for the same reasons he would if, for example, he were told that persons of his ancestry (whatever it may be) were incapable of reading or understanding this site.

Re:Misogynist hate talk...

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Becoming a tired classic : some study is made, and known to give the same result every single time. Girls and boys are not equal in math skills.

However once upon a time. Some "psychologists" manage to devise a test that changes the expected result to be more in line with political correctness. Mostly this just means the title (note how that upon closer examination white boys put down double the scores of white girls, so this is in fact for white girls a worse result than "average" for these studies, also the result mentions very clearly that there were no truly unknown problems on the test, so was this a test of math skills, or a test of carrying out given instructions correctly, an area where women have always outperformed men ?)

And *boom* it is published far and wide and accepted as universal truth, and I mean only the title, not the entire study.

This is, upon close examination, always the result of either fraud or skewing either the test, or the results.

There are way too many things too many scientists just REALLY want to be true, and this is one of them. Therefore, I for one will be trusting the many, many older and politically incorrect tests, and not let this one result override it.

It seems this Janet Hyde woman had priviledged access to SAT results, and therefore this study was at least partially sponsored by the government, who, surprise, surprise really wants women to score equally well. Although even she makes the point that the test has been dumbed down, and the question remains how well it tested analytical skills on hard problems. Clearly boys and girls do equally well on trivial, preprogrammed problems (then again, it is trivial to write a computer program that under those circumstances will have same or better performance, I mean if not presented with unknown problems).

You see this more and more. Even more controversial are cultural differences. Ever notice how even in Egypt where the general population is >90% muslim, the university (except the al-azhar, which does not teach anything we'd consider science), while run by muslims, has a majority non-muslims (which raises the question of how exactly the teaching staff manages to remain muslim ... can't be racism right ? muslims opressing non-muslims, a central part of the islamic religion, isn't racism apparently) (and let's just not mention how the same is true in gaza. Despite being less than a percent of the population, non-muslims outperform muslims academically in gaza, and in the west bank there is a small group of jews, a few hundred, versus several million muslims and even those few hundred ... but then that's so politically incorrect it cannot ever be mentioned, after all Jews are evil, especially in Israel, so nothing good can be theirs, right ?)

Re:Misogynist hate talk...

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Confusing

People are different from each other.

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Sure there are gender biases and cultural biases and racial biases and income level biases.

The source of the social problems from all this is that we refuse to look at the individual differences and insist on making the statistical biases the rule. That's turning statistics, logic, all reason upside down.

We should quit saying, women do poorly at subject C, therefore, Miss Q, you should avoid subject C at school.

Yeah, if we follow this path of logic very far, we end up down a road where standardized schooling becomes impossible. But I think that could be a good thing. Standards shouldn't be used as a straightjacket, they should be used as ladders and ropes for climbing and swinging on.

Ability is one thing, interest is another.

[jonadab]

Having the *ability* to do math does not automatically cause people to do math. They also have to decide they like math.

You'll notice that the women who *do* go into math tend to be very good at it. One could conclude that this is because women are actually better at math than men, but that's not true either -- there are also men who are very good at math. What's really going on is that a lot of women aren't *interested* in math.

In both genders, there are a few individuals who are exceptionally good at math, and they tend to go into math or related fields. In both genders there are individuals who can't do math to save their lives, and they usually *don't* go into math, which is just as well.

But in between you have individuals who are pretty good at math, but also pretty good at some other stuff. At some point they decide what they want to do with their lives... and when they're making that decision, the males are, on average, more likely to pick math, and the females are, on average, more likely to pick something else -- as evidenced by the fact that some fields are skewed almost as strongly the other direction. For example, the overwhelming majority of library workers are female. This is not because women are naturally better than men at working in libraries. It's because for various reasons they're more likely to *choose* to do that. And no, this isn't just a stereotype, it's really true. I work in a library and have attended numerous library-related conferences and things, and typically in a group of sixty people you can count the men on your fingers. The bias is so strong, that it overrides the otherwise male IT bias: the majority of library IT people are female. Ability isn't the issue. Desire is the issue. What people *want* to do with their lives is heavily influenced by their gender. (This is partly cultural, but not entirely.)

Eugenics, anyone?

[querent23]

Am I the only one that realizes the obvious implication of this study? That Asian women and White men must begin mating exclusively with one another? We won't even bind their feet (...at least, those of us who aren't rednecks won't...), and we'll split the house work (...at least, those of us who aren't rednecks will).

Are you sure?

[v(*_*)vvvv]

Who did the math behind this study? Was it a boy or a girl?

Re:Career Tracks, Salaries & Equality

[Anonymous Coward]

This study has been done before, and the same results were found. However, I've read that girls who are good at everything tend to focus on the fact that they're good in the humanities, while boys who are good at everything tend to focus on the fact that they're good at math. This is probably a result of those social tracks you're talking about.

Male logic quality shows at high difficulty

[Anonymous Coward]

Females may have their gifts, but males have too. One of these is mathematics. I have seen it in the field in school after school. The so called 'study' picked and chose from flawed sampling techniques, and made statistical computation errors cautioned against in beginning classes in the subject. The article referenced school districts lowering the course standards, first to create a false appearance of ethnic equality: e.g. everyone can add two plus two! ; and later lowering them again to achieve an illusion of parity as a serendipitous result falling out of efforts to 'leave no child behind'. Test fixing and the substitution of test prep courses for real education colors all so called results of studies. Politically motivated studies with paid for foregone conclusions from prostituted experts that we are supposed to somehow trust, done time after tiresome time have led to and will lead more in the future to a failed educational system. I have seen how 'females' perform when really stressed. In high school, one can sit on ones posterior for a hundred and eighty days of legally required instruction year after year and in seeming violation of basic physical laws appear to slide uphill. In college however, where in engineering school students now have to perform to real standards, the facade is shattered. You see, engineers have to really make society and its supporting structure actually work, and it takes logic and intelligence, skillfully applied, to do that. There are no social promotions in engineering and some businesses. Analytic geometry, the calculus series, and the follow on differential equations courses, handmaidens to materials science, strength of materials, and the engineering of materials courses demand the best. They demand performance! When men..and women..fail here, the toll is in counting the dead. No excuses and pandering will bring back those who died in the mezzanine collapse in the midwest years ago, or the failure of the silver bridge in the west. No one will bring back the thousands that drowned or were eaten by alligators before or afterward in the aftermath of Katrina. I took this entire math series and its concomitant engineering courses on the way to my engineering degree first in a community college and later at a state university. I think that my classes basically reflected typical populations of Americans, not the cherry picked scions of wealthy families interspersed with the rare poor person 'of ability' that could not be denied even there. In my democratic classes, failure, a student career death, was the everyday companion of real classes for the real world of not so clean solutions. My first class in calculus included analytic geometry, was taught at American River College in Sacramento, California, and was taught to NCEE (National Council of Engineering Examiners) standards. Social promotions and gender preference were left at the door here and it showed. I started with fourteen women and about fifteen men spanning all representative age and ethnic and working class groups. By ethnic I include 'race', a misnomer as supposedly 'black' categories obscure ethnics among them that can be more striking than equally pigeonholed 'white' or 'hispanic' categories mostly established to support entitlement systems. What happened was absolute carnage! Only five folks, myself among them, passed this course! The largest bloodletting was after the first exam and before the 'drop deadline' when over twelve left without prejudice to their records, allowing them to take lesser courses and become part of their own success story. Most of the women left this way rather than face defeat, usually as a result of failing that first test and bailing when the getting was good. The others dropped by the wayside in ones and twos like a battered battalion in a hopeless war. Only a handful took the final exam that claimed yet a couple more. Some of these failures were repeats. Gone were all the women, all the convicts on work release, all the so called activist minorities. A studio

Re:Male logic quality shows at high difficulty

[kissaki]

Sir I read your post and your discussion of the unpopular politically incorrect realities of the spirited male mind is not lost or wasted on me.

Re:anyone with a grounding in science

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomies are lies.

Why are we so insistent on proving

[kissaki]

the 'intellectual equality' between the sexes?

Answer: Because genius is and has been the domain of the trailblazing spirited male mind, and many people just 'can't stand it.'

Just my boring $0.02

[partowel]

Everyone has said what I wanted to type.

I'll keep this simple.

Men is equal to a woman, and vice-versa.

Different but equal.

Does this happen in real life?

NO.

I want MEN in my army, not women.

I want MEN to do MAN work.

Man work : hard, brutal, unforgiving, lethal,

sometimes you get paid, painful, outright

unpleasant to ALL the senses, etc.

Everything women HATE.

Man work : Anything a woman doesn't want to

do, EVER.

I would rather have a Master Chef that is a

man. They're just better at it.

I would rather have Master Teacher that is

a man. They're better at it.

Asperger's = overly male brain???

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing this statement repeated, but there is something that stands out as very odd. There is actually a statistical correlation between Asperger's Syndrome and transsexualism, both female-to-male and male-to-female. Asperger's Syndrome sufferers are considerably more likely to be transsexual than non-Asperger's people, though still rare.

This seems like a contradiction - if we have such male brains, why are we desperate to become female?

The teaching has changed

[Anonymous Coward]

and what passes as a math class these days is a disgrace.

Investigations mathematics is a wad of horseshit, and it was created by a group specifically set up for afirmative action. TERC is not some research group that went about looking at the best ways to maximize teaching effectiveness for all children. They're an agenda driven group that looks not for equality of opportunity but equality of OUTCOME.

This is a fundamentally flawed position on more levels than I can count, but to make it short: who wants to live in a world where job listings read like this:

3.15 opennings for qualified white men
3.25 opennings for qualified white women
1.5 opennings for qualified asian women

all other racial/gender profiles are full, thank you for interest in Megacorp.

This is the reality that TERC and similar groups are looking for - they want job and university placement to mirror the population within the geographic ranges of the target institution. Anything else is sexism or racism. Never mind 'trivialities' like the ratio of degrees granted to one gender/racial group in a field, never mind socioeconomic inequalities that would coincidentally lead to disparities in the attitudes between gender/racial groups.

Captcha is a real laugh for this topic: honest!

optimizing score

[Anonymous Coward]

"a disturbing trend towards omitting harder kinds of math questions from standardized tests"

That's called optimizing your score in relation to the remaining time and your personnal skill.

Trying to solve something you maybe won't is a waste of time and energy, and will only lower your score.

Bad article

[lpq]

The article is more pop-science to advance some specific agenda. First it claims they are equal, but then the article says "Hyde says that suggests that cultural and social factors, not gender alone, influence how well students perform on tests.". The article doesn't say gender or sex doesn't matter -- just that gender alone doesn't influence it. Like, "duh!". Diet, culture, genetics...sure, they influence -- but the fact is that gender does enter into performance. There nonsense statistic that even though girls used to do less well, and now still do 7% less well on the SAT, now its because more girls are taking the SAT -- so its not because they girls don't do better -- but because more of them take it?! Right...I believe that -- but they didn't count the boys with dark hair! That would shift it by 32% in reverse! Or is it the blue eyes?...

What seems to be the case is that there is a greater spread of distribution among males than among females. Anyone above at or above some 'midpoint' takes the test -- the males who are less intelligent than the average female don't take the SAT -- but the highest scorers (among whites, apparently) are males -- not females. Just that females are closer to average. Well in any field, if they try to employ people above average in that field, then since more females would cluster near average, they would hire more males from the top. Now why this is reversed in asian families is anyone's guess -- but there are "class" differences, where class=members of sex female, or members of sex male. There are societal expectations in each culture for each sex. That still does not mean males = females. Nor does it imply that sex-discrimination isn't occurring. There are other data that would need to be collected.

-l

Frigging hormones

[Drake_Casanova]

I believe hormones do play a significant part. In my experience the only female I knew who was adept at using Linux had a beer belly and an above average amount of facial hair. As we all know, hormones affect the way things grow and develop which does include the brain. I believe that women have less capacity/capability for certain higher level mental functions then men because of it and a higher capacity/capability for emotions.

The state of math education

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an interesting essay by Keith Devlin on the sad state of math education in the US. http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

Also: http://www.maa.org/devlin/

This Generation

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a 35-year-old woman who has gone back to college. I make the best grades out of all the students, male and female in every math class I take. That is pretty pathetic in my opinion, since I have been out of high school for a very long time. I do think there are social reasons that kids in general do not do well in math. They do not want to be considered a geek and want people to love them for what cell phone they have. Sad.

Nice idea, but not universally correct...

[Sally Forth]

I'm nearly 32, and it was in place when I was a teenager.

According to studies as well as psychologist opinion, girls largely base their self-worth on their fathers.

I know better than to try, but what the heck

[phunctor]

Different statements apply to individuals and to populations. Sex (to avoid the difficult term gender) does not predict the average math aptitude of random samples of males and females. Their population means are close as can be. Sex does predict the number of male and females individuals in such a random sample likely to differ greatly from the population mean. Their population variances are quite different.

When considering a non-random sample of math high-achievers, it requires no phallocentric conspiracy to account for a preponderance of the subpopulation with a larger variance, only Baye's Theorem.

If you hold unswervingly to the gender-feminist axiom that males and females have identical distributions of everything except reproductive organs, it will be necessary to reject this argument. But you're going up against lots of good data. I find the durability of said axiom when confronted by inconvenient data hugely amusing. Intellectual honesty is clearly not an issue when the mission is rolling back the patriarchy.

--
phunctor

Re:I know better than to try, but what the heck

[Relic of the Future]

Ah, well that's different then. I'd have to look at the study more closely to see what, if any, difference they looked for, or found, on the spread among various societies. It's a good question.

So I'll give you that point if you'll give that elementary and high schools, which are essentially random samples, should keep an eye out for these unwarrented discriminatory differences in expectations for math performance.

Jesus Christ

[Slashdot Parent]

Frankly, I've never bought that old CW about girls being worse at math than boys... especially since I met and married my math-major wife in college, who has always been much better at math than I am.

This tells us a lot more about your mathematical skills than your wife's.

For the love of all things holy, please study statistics for a minimum of 15 minutes before opening your mouth again.

moderators do you know what "redundant" means?

[Anonymous Coward]

It means the same point being repeated...if noone else mentioned it then by definition it is NOT redundant.