New study on gender gap in mathematics/reading

[yenlee]

Heather MacDonald's logic is bit screwy to me. Consider the following excerpts from that article posted by Sunny:

"Actually, the study, summarized in the July 25 issue of Science, shows something quite different: while boys’ and girls’ average scores are similar, boys outnumber girls among students in both the highest and the lowest score ranges."

"...Science’s analysis of math test scores only confirms the hypothesis that cost Summers his Harvard post: that boys are found more often than girls at the outer reaches of the bell curve of abstract reasoning ability."

"...the tests used in their study are pathetically easy compared with what would be required of engineering or other rigorous math-based Ph.D.s."

So, um, what's the point that's being made here?

Interestingly, the author includes this nugget:

"Asians, however, showed a very slight skew toward females above the 99th percentile,"

which actually obliterates most of her argument. The point is that if you are trying to argue that gender differences in math ability are more cultural than biological, then it really only takes ONE culture to demonstrate this. (Note that this is distinct from saying that there are NO biological differences, which is just a straw man assertion.)

Unfortunately, I haven't read the original study, so I can't comment on whether MacDonald's characterization of the research is even accurate. (As I wrote earlier, studies like these don't affect my views on this issue anyway.)

[JBL]

[durt]

[JBL]

[durt]

[JBL]

This is a thread about women in mathematics, not about the New York Times or Heather MacDonald. As such, I think it was bad form for Sunny to post a screed aimed at the New York Times that had nothing interesting to say about the participation of women in mathematics. I have no particular interest in defending the New York Times or detailing the inanity of MacDonald's article because both of those activities are at best marginally related to the subject of this thread. Your posts, having no content related to the participation of women in mathematics, are of similarly little interest to me, except that they involve me directly. My post to which you partially responded is probably also off-topic for this thread, and when I initially posted it I didn't expect it to draw further comment.

(Both jmerry's and yenlee's posts contained content actually on-topic for this post. It's unclear to me why you think treating an obviously rhetorical question in yenlee's post as an expression of true confusion is an interesting rhetorical trick.)

[durt]

Your attempts to brush this all under the table are weak, dude. The NYT article is very similar to the article posted by the OP, so I fail to see why that's irrelevant. Note their titles: "Math Scores Show No Gap for Girls, Study Finds" and "Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds." Both are misleading. The study summarized by the NYT article found that boys' math test scores have greater variance; the study summarized by the OP's article found that the boys on average did comparatively better on the math section of a test than girls. These are not neglible findings.

But if you don't want to discuss any of this, fine. Feel free to answer the questions I posed earlier:

[jmerry]

You seem to be fixated on that one comment- how would you feel if "girls" were replaced with "people"? It would make exactly as much sense.
We're a bunch of introverts who are pretty bad at outreach and recruiting in general, so this is an issue to work on. Focusing on girls is natural for this thread, and I consider it a good goal in its own right.

I'm trying to approach this from an optimistic liberal viewpoint. I cheer the elimination of the gender gap for most students, acknowledge its continued existence in some places, and look for ways to further reduce it where it endures.

As for the reporting on this issue- of course headlines don't tell the whole story. There are many different questions you can ask, and you can't use the same test for all of them. Even within the two or three questions you can ask in one test or study, you can only give one simple answer in a headline. Given the audience of something like a NYT article, that should probably be the "bottom line" overall achievement measure.

[rrusczyk]

I'll mischievously throw this log on the fire. The author is a noted economist, and I don't think he's pushing a political view. He also won't be president of Harvard any time soon.

Regardless, these sort of data shouldn't be discouragement for specific females -- even if it's true that there are 3 times as many guys who are 3 standard deviations good, that doesn't mean you're not one of the women who are. (On the other hand, evidence suggest there are 3 times as many guys who are 3 standard deviations dumb, which I'm guessing most women would argue is an under-estimate )

Moreover, raw talent is only a small part of success. A very small part.

[orl]

[TZF]

[durt]

[crazychinesemaniac]

[TZF]

[yenlee]

Sorry, JBL, but I do have to disagree with you on something here. The article that Sunny posted was clearly relevant to the topic of this thread, as are most of durt's posts. I might quibble with Sunny for posting an article that I consider to be right-wing idiocy, but I wouldn't say that it's off-topic. (Btw, Sunny, why did your supervisor send you this article? Just curious.)

Among the many things durt has written in this thread, let me focus on one:

"And second, what supposed social forces are driving [girls] away [from math]?"

At the risk of sounding repetitive, allow me to rephrase some of my earlier points: It is nearly universally agreed that for all of mathematical history up to 50 years ago, "social forces" were responsible for almost all of the "gender gap" in mathematics. And while you may believe that the social environment has changed drastically in the last 50 years, it is irrefutable that the experience of growing up male in any culture is a fundamentally difference experience from growing up female. So why is it difficult to believe that social forces are contributing to the current "gender gap" in math?

I'm also confused (really confused, not just rhetorically) by durt's position on single sex education, because it almost implicitly accepts the proposition that social forces are relevant. So you believe that social forces can have an effect on mathematical education, but you're skeptical that they could drive girls away from math?

I saw Mean Girls, voluntarily, and I liked it. "From my grades to my lines, you can't touch Kevin G."

[Kent Merryfield]

[durt]

[Sunny]

[Quickster94]

well, I think it would put those ppl in a better environment, some ppl believe it takes away a lot of pressure, for eg, you wouldn't have to feel bad about liking/being good at math, b/c every1 else is. On the other hand, other ppl would probably develop a worse stereotype, b/c they are separate from the main group. It all goes back to "fitting in" i guess...

[yenlee]

durt, I knew that you would ask me that question ("What are the social forces driving girls away from math?"), but I don't see the point. Obviously, you yourself have heard the usual stated reasons and can easily come up with a list on your own, but you want to play a tiresome game in which I describe some such social force, and then you try to shoot it down. I'd prefer not to play that game, because my goal (in my recent posts) is not to identify these factors, but rather to indirectly argue the general plausibility and likelihood that environmental factors are the driving force behind the "gender gap." Or to summarize, the cause of the actual observed "gender gap" is primarily a consequence of how our *entire society* is constructed. In any case, I'm sure it will be nearly impossible to prove (to your satisfaction) that any one factor is both (1) significant and (2) environmental rather than innate.

Against my better judgment, I'll address your question anyway (see below). But you can also address mine: Are you just completely skeptical of the idea that the way our society is constructed could have anything to do with the observed gender gap, or do you think it's possible but probably not the case? And what is your criticism of my scientific argument that the hypothesis of innate superiority (or to split hairs, superiority via greater variance) of males is just flat-out illogical?

That's where I'd really like to stop this post, but since this is an issue that's important to me, I'm going to go ahead and list some social forces driving women away from mathematical fields.

Here's a list off the top of my head:

Click to reveal hidden content

Family pressures: Many people (including Summers) rightly point out that a big reason why women opt out of high-stress, high-workload careers is for family reasons, and obviously they are correct. The wrong conclusion to draw from this is that there is no problem (which is an approximation to Summers' attitude). The right train of thought (imho) is to think about why this is so. Society pressures women into spending far more time on childcare than men. Sometimes this causes women to leave work entirely, and sometimes it causes women to leave elite career tracks. While it is frequently argued that women naturally prefer this role, again I would wager that the preference that adult women actually have (whether innate or acquired) is not as strong as society requires. For example, many intelligent, educated women would love to take time off or work part-time while their children are very young and then return to elite career tracks. In practice, this is nearly impossible. Also, surveys have shown that even in two-income families, women spend a lot more time on both childcare and housework than their husbands. You might try to argue that women like spending more time with their kids, but can you really argue that they prefer spending time on housework? The fact of the matter is that our society expects more from wives at home, whether they are working or not.

Family pressures 2: It is far more common for women to make career sacrifices for the sake of the husband's career than vice versa. There are many reasons for this, some of which are related to the childcare issue above, but a lot of it comes from the (conscious or unconscious) belief that the husband's career is more important. For example, survey results show that a doctor-professor couple is more likely to think that the wife's career is "more flexible" independent of whether the wife is the doctor or the professor.

Female temperament: It's been argued that females are less competitive than males, and that's part of the reason why there are so few females who are CEOs or big shot scientists. It's plausible that this difference in competitiveness is innate, but as far as I know there is no scientific evidence. But even if the difference is innate, there is no a priori reason why competitiveness should be an essential part of the scientific enterprise. This could very well be a social artifact. Certainly both cooperation and competition contribute to the advancement of science, and it's possible that our current system is simply overvaluing competition.

Discouragement based on "science": For example, someone reading this very thread or about the Summers' brouhaha might decide that they are unlikely to cut it as scientist and give up that career track. This is not as stupid as it sounds. As it is, if you are a bright high school student who dreams of becoming a prize-winning scientist, the odds are against you. Speaking strictly probabilistically, given the added piece of information that you are female, if the "Summers hypothesis" (about the greater variances for men) is true, then your calculated probability of success may be lower. (This might require some more explanation.)

Discouragement based on perceived biases: Some females might not want to constantly second-guess or deal with the issue of whether their abilities and accomplishments are either underestimated or overestimated because of gender.

Unintentional discrimination: For example, psychological experiments show that people rating job candidates on the strength of their resumes rated resumes from males higher than identical resumes from females. Even well-intentioned people (including myself) are capable of making these sorts of errors, which is why it's important to have policies that encourage the hiring of females. People often think of these policies as giving an "unfair advantage" to women but the point is to combat the (admittedly difficult to quantify) unfair disadvantage. In my mind, the problem is that too many people believe that they don't have a biased bone in their bodies and believe themselves to be 100% objective and fair, which is preposterous.

Plain old discrimination: It's impossible to deny that there really are people who are out-and-out sexist.

The role model issue: Without female role models in certain careers, younger females might be less likely to seriously consider those careers.

The outsider issue: Many females might not want to be like Sunny and work in a room filled with men.

Parental influence: Many people's parents have a large role in shaping their career paths. Many of these parents have preconceived notions about which careers are appropriate or desirable for their daughters. Some parents might just have lower expectations for daughters when it comes to math ability.

Parents as role models: Most people's first conception of how a man is supposed to be comes from dad, and and their first conception of how a woman is supposed to be comes from mom. Dads are far more likely to be mathematically inclined than moms, primarily for historical reasons.

Socialization of children through toys: It may be true that boy toys more naturally lead to scientific curiosities than girl toys. One might argue that boys and girls have innately different toy preferences, but that doesn't exclude socialization as a factor.

Social stigma: The social damage of being a "math person" may be greater (in some subcultures) for females than males.

Romantic complications: Some boys (usually not the smartest ones) may be intimidated by girls who are smarter than they are. This is especially true for math, because as we all know, it's often really obvious when one person is better at math than another.