Girls From Progressive Societies Do Better At Math, Study Finds (sciencecodex.com)

An anonymous reader writes: (edited and condensed)Research by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has found that the 'maths gender gap', the relative under performance of girls at maths, is much wider in societies with poor rates of gender equality. Published on Monday in the American Economic Review, the research shows that the performance gap between girls and boys is far less pronounced in societies that hold progressive and egalitarian views about the role of women. The researchers analyzed the relationship between maths scores of 11,527 15-year-old living in nine different countries and the Gender Gap Index (GGI) in their country of ancestry. The GGI measures economic and political opportunities, education, and well-being for women. The researchers found that the more gender equality in the country of ancestry, the higher the maths scores of girls relative to boys living in the same country. The findings were significant and robust even when the researchers controlled for other individual factors that may affect youths' maths performance. In particular, the results show that an increase of 0.05 points (or one standard deviation) in the GGI is associated with an increase in the performance of girls in maths, relative to boys, of 7.47 points -- equivalent to about one and a half months of schooling.

Comments

Because they do it at all

[kheldan]

Non-progressive societies don't encourage girls to do things like science and math in the first place, they expect them to adopt 'traditional female roles'.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

Non-progressive societies don't encourage girls to do things like science and math in the first place, they expect them to adopt 'traditional female roles'.

Should do a comparative study of marriage stability as well!

Perhaps women from such progressive cultures make terrible mothers and wives, perhaps men from such progressive cultures make terrible husbands and fathers...

Re:Because they do it at all

[thaylin]

In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers, because they actually want to do something other than be in the kitchen or on their backs. Girls in those types of households are not going to do well at math because they are expected to learn specific roles, that do not include it.

Personally I would take an engineering wife.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Anonymous Coward]

doubtful

That's the beauty of the scientific method. It gives us a framework to actually test such things, so we don't have to rely on "well I doubt it, therefore you are wrong and we should not study this further".

Re:Because they do it at all

[TWX]

I expect that things like divorce happen in progressive societies because we allow the individual to leave a marriage, and we allow either individual to make the choice.

Societies that either do not let marriages end, or else restrict who can initiate such a divorce, or even societies where such a divorce is possible but where one party may end up without any of the resources gained during the marriage. All of these conditions either prevent divorce, formally restrict divorce, or otherwise make ending a marriage impossible or impractical.

Re:Because they do it at all

[tnk1]

Define "better parent". Parenting skills probably don't hinge on whether a child is a math genius or not, but rather on the children being provided the opportunity to be functioning adults and to have the opportunity to excel at whatever they are interested in.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. You’re so enlightened.
Except did you ever think that a woman would want to be a stay at home mother and raise her kids. Probably not, because you're so force fed progressive garbage that the actual wants of the woman are obsolete. It's a two ways street. Society currently force feeds woman that they need to be a working woman to be seen as strong and empowered, when some of the strongest woman I've seen gave of 6 figure jobs to raise their kids.

I bet you'd like an engineering wife, then she could pay all your bills and you can play video games all day. I like your word usage to "take", guess her wanting you is of little interest. Like a piece of meat.

One of my best friends growing up, she came from an evangelical conservative home with a stay at home mother. She works for NASA now as an engineer. Your stereotype views are pathetic and shallow.

Re:Because they do it at all

[cayenne8]

I'm not surprised. How many times has she pleaded with you to stop 'ruining her life'? How many times has she confessed that her 'life is over'?

Those are some pretty dramatic consequences! You must be some horrible tyrant who 'never lets her do anything'.

In the old days (not THAT long ago, say 20+ years back), this used to simply referred to as being a parent.

A parent is NOT there to be a child's friend.

I became great friends with my parents when I was in my mid-20's or 30's or so....but when raising kids, you have to sometimes be unpopular and be the rules maker and enforcer.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

... then, if both parents are engineers, more than half their income will be taxed to pay for others' kids' kindergartening

Re:Because they do it at all

[unimacs]

In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.

Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.

They aren't "claims". Those are the laws, policies, and the stats. You pay less in taxes in the US, but you're getting less in return and just having to pay somebody else (more) for those services. For health care, you're paying insurance companies and your paying with lower wages because your company is paying the insurance companies. Your either saving for your kids' college education or they're going into debt or both. Instead of the government managing a pension fund on your behalf, you have to pay into a 401K, IRA, or equivalent.

I guess if you consider health care, retirement savings, and college tuition for your kids to be optional expenses, then yes, you come out way ahead in the US.

I'm an IT director at a 100 person non-profit. I'm making a decent wage, but not a fortune. My wife works part time (less than 20 hours a week). We have what's considered to be an upper-middle class income. She was working very little when our kids were really young. So it's not like the lifestyle you're describing is foreign to me. But, by the time our kids get through college I'll be just a few years from retirement and I wish we were socking more away. We don't live extravagantly and we have virtually no debt. If 50+ percent of our income went to taxes and we didn't have to worry about health care costs, college tuition, or saving for retirement, I would take that deal.

I know lots of people my age and older that have virtually no retirement savings. 68% of working age people in the US are not participating in an employee sponsored retirement plan. Presumably some of them don't need to, but I'm guessing that's a small percentage. We are headed for a real crisis.

Study Authors need to learn math

[jd.schmidt]

I have seen the data, yes girls do better in math in progressive societies, relative to boys, but they also do better in language and all areas of schooling relative to boys. In other words, girls do better in school overall and of course one of the measures of a progressive society is how well girls do in school. Thus they found that in societies where girls do better in schools, they do better in math also. What people should ask is how to get the best performance out of boys and girls and which countries have found a formula for that.

No shit sherlock?

[ilsaloving]

If this were The Register, this article would have the no-shit-sherlock icon posted all over it.

I bet research would further demonstrate that girls do better in pretty much everything, from STEM to driving, in more progressive societies. That's what happens when you don't treat females like cattle.

good

[argStyopa]

Now, finally perhaps the SJWs will focus their ardor where it belongs: on improving the lot in life of the 2 billion women treated ACTUALLY LIKE SHIT, instead of trying to fix the (dubious) "hardships" women face in the developed world.

Re:Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion

[s.petry]

Why is it that you can only talk about the extreme minority of "raising rich men's kids"? Why is it that you can only paint being a parent as this pathetic lowly task? Is there any job more important than raising the next generation of humans? No, but people fall into the delusion trap because they are told that the only thing that matters is having stuff that you buy from a store.

You don't have to think very hard about the debate to figure out that someone, mainly the consumer class, has been getting fucked over by this rhetoric for decades.

Men are completely incapable of growing a baby inside a uterus and giving birth, they are also incapable of breast feeding that baby. Meanwhile women _DO_ have a choice of having kids and raising a family. They also have a choice of working and getting educated. Discrimination laws already exist, and have for nearly half a century covering all possible aspects of work and education equality. Men are the ones given no choice (because "biology"), yet they are consistently painted as the evil oppressor. Delusion is rampant in this country.