Slashdot Mirror
New Study Concludes Math Gender Gap Is Cultural, Not Biological
New submitter germansausage writes "A new study was published today in Notices of the American Mathematical Society, looking at data from 86 countries, to test the 'greater male variability hypothesis' as the primary reason for the scarcity of outstanding women mathematicians. It concludes that cultural and not biological factors are the chief causes (PDF) of the gap in math skills between men and women."
I have seen an interesting counter argument to this.
It states that females are biologically equal to males in maths abilities, but superior to men in language ability. It this is true, men would tend to crowd into math heavy fields (Since they have a natural advantage there) while females would be more widely spread out.
Which is not exactly true. In rich worlds 80% of woman pile into 10 of the 120 job categories (Medicine, teaching, public service) while men are more evenly spread out.
I worked on a grant looking at math skills and correlating with language, gender, age, and other factors amongst three population groups (white, hispanic, and navaho). We followed a group of third graders through the fifth grade, and a group of sixth graders through the eighth grade. Very interesting stuff, and at least in my corner of the US it was very obvious that as students moved on in school they liked math less, felt it had less value, and also performed worse on the tests. In the third grade group almost everyone believed that math was important, that they would use it in their jobs, and stated that they liked math. By the eighth grade only a few still felt this way, and of those almost all were boys. I was the programmer, created the test instruments, database for the results, etc, so I never saw the entire set of results, but heard that the young cohort pretty much proved that there was very little gender or cultural bias against math aside from poverty (which interestingly seemed to indicate a dislike of it).
I mean, there is this big cultural panic that women don't go into STEM and everyone wonders why. They point out that they are force fed dolls, and shows about mothering, princesses and other assorted crud, where boys are fed high strength stuff like GI Joe and Bob the Builder.
But that isnt the cause of the divide. The culture inside public schools is almost as immobile as governments, because the younger children adopt the values of the older ones to try to fit in, be cool, and seem more mature. The effect of peers on kids growing up has more profound effects than any specific media they are consuming - it is more a product of their behavior around one another than it is from what they watch on tv
I dont have any sources off the top of my head, but from other discussions on this topic, the general consensus is a home schooled boy and girl completely cut off from peer influence have absolutely no real discernible preference away from math, that statistically if you introduce math in interesting and purposeful ways, both of them can like it, and develop interests in it. There is no genetic or hormonal effect prohibiting either from developing a fascination with any particular field. So of course it is cultural, but I believe it is in the in-culture of public schooling, must less the culture of society as a whole, that keeps this problem from being dealt with.
The article lists five hypotheses:
They claim that all but #2 are ruled out by their data. What I can't figure out is the distinction between 2 and 3. 3 is that the gap is "due to differences in opportunities available to males versus females." 2 is defined in their reference [2] http://www.jstor.org/pss/2112795 as being about access to jobs and higher education. I don't understand the distinction.
I got interested in this stuff recently because I teach physics, and our statistics showed that women had a lower success rate in our classes than men. This was kind of worrisome, since women generally do better than men in college, and women do better than men at our school in math, and in the other sciences besides physics. Turned out that if we controlled for what class they were taking, the effect vanished. Lots of women were taking the physics class for biology majors, which has a low success rate. Almost no women take the physics class fo engineering majors, which has a higher success rate. In the class for biology majors, women actually did better than men. It impressed me with how subtle this kind of thing can be.
Find free books.
While it is true that many Scots take offense when a kilt is called a skirt, it is not due to a belief that a kilt is not actually a skirt. Clearly as a technical matter a kilt is a type of skirt.
The reason it is offensive is that usually anybody calling a kilt a skirt is not in a technical discussion about types of garment, and is instead intending to be insulting. And if you intend to be insulting to a Scot, he may or may not decide to offer your nose a grand insult.
And I am somewhat of a traditionalist, I did grow up in a highland dance band.
Also "traditionally" a kilt was a single piece garment that covered the whole body, and went further down the leg than the modern "short kilt" which was introduced in the 1700s. If you wore a modern kilt 500 years ago, they probably would also have called it a skirt. ;)
As a woman who worked in 3rd grade class rooms trying to teach children to program lego robots, the big fault with your statement is "ever had a boy *and* a girl." For some reason, that I don't entirely understand, put a box of legos in front of girls and boys and the boys will grab all the trucks and the girls will grab all the little people. Put the box in front of a group of *only* girls and their initial grab will still be for the little people, and then they will start to explore the rest.
In my experience, girls will play with boy toys when there are no boys around, but they will not do so if there are boys around because the boys will get the boy toys first and the girls will get the girl toys first.
*disclaimer: I grew up in a household of 3 girls where we had barbies and legos. And we played with the legos just as much as the barbies.
The goal of this study, AFAICT, is to prove Summers wrong in the name of PC. The fact that they mention the Summers controversy in the first paragraph kind of gives that away. Summers was talking about why 'women may have been underrepresented "in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions"'.
It's telling that the authors of this study chose to include data from 86 countries in order to prove their point. In fact, they choose to focus on countries like Tunisia and Bahrain to make their point. Why not the USA, where most of the people in the tenured positions are coming from? Because when they do, the best that they can come up with is a statement like this: "For example, Hyde and collaborators ([20], [25]) reported that girls have now reached parity with boys in mean mathematics performance in the United States, even in high school, where a significant gap in mean performance existed in the 1970s. Likewise, both Brody and Mills ([3]) and Wai et al. ([51]) noted a drop in nonrandom samples of students under thirteen years of age, from 13:1 in the 1970s down to approximately 3:1 by the 1990s in the ratio of U.S. boys to girls scoring above 700 on the quantitative section of the college-entrance SAT examination."
3 to 1 is still huge, and they are trying to make the case that this result might keep going until it is 1:1 like the mean result already nearly is. In fact, that the result of boys:girls in SAT score above 700 (a measure of variance) is still 3 to 1 while there is gender equality in the mean result is an indication that probably 3 to 1 is the most female favorable result that they are going to get. Because the SAT is a proxy IQ test, this is basically saying that while the mean is equal there are 3 times as many men as women in the IQ stratum from which the people who are gifted enough to enter tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions can be drawn from.
But let's ignore that and focus on Tunisia and Bahrain, shall we?
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Actually, I'm a reasonable approximation of a Scotsman by heritage, although 3rd generation in Canada.
Do any North Americans claim to be English? Some Americans are very quick to tell me where their great-great-great grandfather was born, if it was Scotland, Ireland, Norway, Germany, ... but no one has ever told me they're "English by heritage".
I'm curious, as I am English (though I usually describe myself as British).
I also find the whole "heritage" thing weird -- are you not Canadian? I assume your Scottish ancestor(s) left Scotland to find a better life.