<p>
</p>
<p>I tend to agree that it has nothing to do with “ability”, and that there are both social factors AND biological differences that traditionally have made girls less likely to be interested in pursuing fields in math/science. My hs GC advised me to go into math 25 yrs ago. I just laughed in his face (and could kick myself now for not listening to him).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I observed at my S’s hs. Several female math stars (AP Calc at least in 11th grade, perhaps earlier) went into medicine or social sciences fields.</p>
<p>
I believe you will find that there is much parity (at least at the starting levels) in the life sciences and medical school. Now anything above that starting level…we still have some serious work to do. I assume by “biological differences” you mean the ability to produce eggs and a womb? Not some biological inferiority? I think that’s probably what you are saying but thought I’d make sure.</p>
<p>I work with many asian parents and access to learning materials and services for young children has never been better if you can afford them or if you know how to use them. So I would expect higher numbers of children taking the test over time and coming in with higher scoring.</p>
<p>Does the SAT address complex problem solving though? The Art and Craft of Problem Solving by Zeitz talks a lot about problems and problem-solving and the difference between exercises and problems. There is learning a subject and learning how to solve problems. The latter is frequently better done in a competition group using particular methods and techniques. Or perhaps using a service such as AOPS.</p>
<p>I work in an office with a lot of problem-solvers. If you bring in a math puzzle, there are several that may spend a few to a few dozen hours working on it. They may hear the problem and get back to you a day, week or month later but interesting puzzles bug people here. And I think that these people are the type that would do well in science and engineering. Is that nature or nurture? I have my thoughts on the matter. But I think that the measuring tools are flawed when we can’t nail down what we want to measure and what we have to work with.</p>
<p>In your age 12 study, when did kids start math? Did they take Kumon from a young age? Did both parents have Phds? Do parents and teachers use a rote approach, a problem-solving approach, rainforest math, or just let the kids explore whatever they want to while providing resources?</p>
<p>
I don’t know how you can say biological inferiority when the average ability is virtually identical. The argument has always been presented that the distribution of math ability is wider within males (more geniuses but also dulls) than females. I think QuantMech is wise when he states he reserves judgment til the numbers stop changing. That, of course, does not mean there can not be physiological differences in brain function between males and females.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say the was any biological inferiority. I was asking a question, making sure she hadn’t. Why would I assume any inferiority when I have a data point that provides me enough proof to the contrary. ;)</p>
<p>To clarify, I meant something more along the line of what Mr Payne said: physiologoical/neurological differences in the brain’s wiring, left brain/right brain etc, as opposed to gender specific differences relating to biological functions. Although those differences obviously can become factors during the socialization process. </p>
<p>Which brings it back to the nature v nurture question. Clearly, it’s a bit of both but it’s sometimes like the old “chicken and egg” question - which plays a more important role? Perhaps we need to look more closely at whether/how/at what age nurture and early socialization effects physiological development in very young children, and whether early brain development can “predispose” them, if you will, to certain interests and ultimately, certain career choices.</p>
<p>At the very high end, boys do out perform girls if we simply take a look at US Math Olympiad team members: 6 people this year, all boys. There is definite difference at that level. Whether it is the ability or simply lack of interest is unclear. United States started to send team to International Math Olympiad (IMO) competition since mid 70s. During the first 20 some years, no single female made the team. However, since mid 90s, three female students made the team (two of them made multiple times). That is an improvement.</p>
<p>I have two daughters; both are naturally good at math (as well as reading and playing computer games). D1 just graduated from high school. She qualified for USAMO every year in high school (four times), literally qualified without study. She did not have enough interest or motivation to get into the next level. D1 is one of the top female performers in math in the country among the current high school graduates, but she is not at the level of the IMO team members. Whether she has ability to get that far, I am not sure. But one thing that I am sure is that the effort she put into preparation is no more than 5 % compared to any of the team members, unfortunately. When I said 5% to my husband, a mathematician, he laughed at me and asked: Where did you come up with 5%, zero is zero."</p>
<p>Clearly the CB table show that currently boys outnumber girls by 2:1 at scores above 750. It gets down to about 3:2 if you measure from 700 up. Using 2007 california numbers.</p>
<p>What this means for applicants using the quartile info published for elite colleges is that a male applicant who scores at the margin of the upper quartile reported for all students is not actually in the upper quartile of male applicants. This is true at schools where the m/f ratio is close to 50:50.</p>
<p>It also means that the higher scoring female at the upper quartile margin is actually higher that the 75%ile female applicant.</p>
<p>Parents of boys beware of comparing yourself to the blended percentiles.</p>
<p>Found this article interesting and thought I’d share. </p>
<p>[American</a> girls eliminate the math gender gap - TwinCities.com](<a href=“American girls eliminate the math gender gap – Twin Cities”>American girls eliminate the math gender gap – Twin Cities)</p>
<p>I just finished reading this article in USA Today, and it made me think back to the early seventies, when I was not allowed to take Physics in High School because I was a girl. I had received A’s in Biology and Chem. and Math. and was planning on majoring in Engineering, but I was told that there had never been a girl in Physics before, so I was discouraged from taking it. It really put me at a disadvantage in College–there were 4 girls and several hundred boys in freshman engineering. It makes me so happy to see the tremendous strides in encouraging women to take these subjects.</p>
<p>It is an interesting article, NorthMinnesota. Unfortunately, we still have people who tell girls that they do not need to be as good in math – just read well. And we have boys who are told that they do not need to be as good in English – just do math and science. Do the kids pay a price? Sure. What often hurts them, however, is their district’s/state’s curriculum, which may not emphasize certain areas that must be mastered so a child can succeed at higher levels.</p>
<p>In contrast to Barbie saying “Math is hard!”, I read the subject of the thread as “American Girl Dolls eliminate math gender gap.” Well, I could believe that too: that Kit is one scrappy kid!</p>
<p>Thanks North Minn: Based only upon the anecdotal eveidence gathered at the rural public where I teach; that conclusion is a very easy to see. It’s been at least ten years since I noticed that the balance has shifted and the number of girls in (and excelling in) AP Bio, AP Calc and Physics are as plentiful if not greater than the boys. rcefn…at least today at my hs youwould have had loads of company in you high math and science classes</p>
<p>momreads I am sorry that you/yours have experienced such archaic thinking. Surely with a strong/smart role model like yourself those sorts of comments rankle rather than defeat but they certainly aren’t helpful. I would hope that they were the sorts of comments where you could “consider the source” and move on but I know that a misguided or ignorant comment from a trusted teacher can carry a lot of weight.</p>
<p>Slithey Tove: All mimsy aside, I read it similarly. As a sidebar: I do beleive that their reading of American Girl Books gave my girls an edge on the AP history test. Both of them pulled from Dear America books as well for their essays. In their class of 28 only 7 kids got threes or better they were two of them and the both earned 4s. I think the fact that I encouraged them to read historical fiction made an impact.</p>
<p>Math was always much eithier for my D. tnan most other subjects, her easiest being Spanish and absolutely hardest of them all History. She never needed to spend much time on math homework, I have never seen her doing Spanish, and she was doing her History forever with the constant help of her father. She got her 5 in AP History by huge effort that she put in, being motivated to never again take history in her life (at college).<br>
Math is easy if they do all homework assignments CORRECTLY (getting correct answer) at home. I told her that it all it takes. She followed, and this strategy worked. I do not know about any math gender inequality, I did not see any between my D and S. She was just much more studious, and grades were important to her. He wanted to do only what he enjoyed doing. Niether of them liked math too much, it was just an easy subject that they did not spent much time on.</p>
<p>In the early 1970’s my W was outright told not to take more advanced math courses (which she loved), chemistry, etc. by her school counselors. She was told girls did not need to take such things. This was in the affluent NE and not some Bible-belt area as one might be quick to conclude. She has been (rightfully) on the offensive ever since, and is now a principal and educational research scientist who has worked tirelessly to improve the math curriculum for both boys and girls.</p>
<p>go imom!!!</p>
<p>Pick your samples wisely and it’s not hard to come up with the conclusions … one desires. especially when employed at places with a clear agenda.</p>
<p>It’s been known for a long time that girls do better in a CLASS environment but do worse on standardized tests that assess mathematical reasoning and logic skills, all CRITICAL part of mathematical aptitude. The position of the “researchers” that the SAT is not an indication of overall ability, because it is not administered to a random sample of students border the ridiculous. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ALso, it would be nice to read an article that makes correct references to the SAT Reasoning, and not refer to the “Scholastic Aptitude Test” many years after such name was dropped. Pathetic!</p>
<p>Rather than wasting their time on worthless studies, should the glorious researchers not study the reasons why the United States continues to fall (hopelessly) behind in international tests, especially in middle and high school?</p>
<p>Rather than wasting their time on worthless studies, should the glorious researchers not study the reasons why the United States continues to fall (hopelessly) behind in international tests, especially in middle and high school?</p>
<p>THAT IS SOOOO TRUE!!!</p>
<p>I know one reason from my own background, although I agree there are many more reasons. Math and science subjects are NOT taught at American Schools the same way as in a lot of other countries. Both math and science have to be given much more emphasis in a program at elementary and HS and difficulty levels have to be risen. Believe me, it will not make kids feel inadequate and less confident. All kids love challenges and get really bored with tedious, monotonous, “busy” staff that current program is bombarding them with in all subjects. I apologize for getting of subject. I realize that this note belong to another thread.</p>
<p>What’s the boy-girl ratio at MOP?</p>