American Girls eliminate math gender gap...

Parent Cafe
141

<p>For my D the question of self-selection for her is a personality trait. She’s one of those people who has to be asked to participate; she won’t join ‘anything’ cold. So, she’s probably the best math student of her grade (don’t know the whole school so I can’t speak of other grades) and yet, she’s not even in mu alpha theta because no one ever asked her to join – this goes for SECME or any other science club at the school, too. We worry about this personality quirk of hers for college. It’s great to have the ability (her grades 4.0 uw with several science/math AP’s, and high standardized test scores, SAT I and II and ACT) but it would also be nice to see the initiative there to use that ability. And, I think because she’s not been immersed in the science/math culture, she’s not sure what to do as far as picking a college major using these subjects. We’ll see what happens; it’ll be fun. <g></g></p>

<p>zebes</p>

142

<p>If you think some top Tech execs are above using harsh language including f-bombs you have not read much about Gates and Jobs and Ballmer. All were prone to harsh and salty language.</p>

143

<p>Not directly on topic–but the mention of Bill Gates triggered recollection of an incident described in Poundstone’s book, “How Would You Move Mount Fuji?” --which focuses mainly on the puzzle-type questions often asked in Microsoft interviews.</p>

<p>In this particular case, a Microsoft job applicant had successfully made it through the full day’s worth of interviews and had reached the “as-appropriate” interviewer, who had the authority to offer him the job. Poundstone mentions that in this particular case, the as-appropriate interviewer was Karen Fries, “a strikingly attractive woman.” The applicant “suddenly got the idea that the real interviews were over and that, as a ‘reward’ for doing so well, they had handed him off to this babette/ receptionist/ whatever for small talk.” The result was an e-mail assessment from Fries that was “so vitriolic that it is still revered in a place that has never lacked for venomous e-mail.” </p>

<p>To borrow a line from Gilbert & Sullivan (with modifications): If you can’t wind up hoist on your own petard, then whose petard . . . </p>

<p>And, incidentally, to BCEagle91, if you’re looking for puzzles that might engage your daughter, I recommend Poundstone’s book, and also any of the logic puzzle books by Raymond Smullyan. There’s one called “The Lady or the Tiger?” which is currently available used on Amazon at quite reasonable prices. It goes all the way through Goedel’s theorem. (Dover Books ought to bring out a reprint.) Others include:
“What is the Name of This Book?”
“This Book Needs No Title” and
“The Magic Garden of George B. and Other Logic Puzzles”</p>

144

<p>My absolute favorite puzzle book is this one [Amazon.com:</a> 1000 Play Thinks: Puzzles, Paradoxes, Illusions & Games: Ivan Moscovich, Ian Stewart: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/1000-Play-Thinks-Paradoxes-Illusions/dp/0761118268]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/1000-Play-Thinks-Paradoxes-Illusions/dp/0761118268). It has lots of visual puzzles and some puzzles with wonderful visual answers that produce a much clearer answer than 1000 words would. It’s just a really cool book.</p>

145

<p>I’ve been puzzling over the self-selection phenomenon with regard to D, who is best at math and sciences other than biology (too much memorization for her) but doesn’t like them. She would be one of the girls at the top of the types of standardized tests studied, and she attended some tech type camps while in elementary school, has been encouraged by science teachers she likes (e.g., recruited to Science Olympiad in Middle School and enjoyed it but not enough to put in the time expected in high school), and her best male friends tend to be the math/science guys, who definitely are not yet condescending or rude and crude but seem pleased that there are some females who’ll hang out with them. I am wondering now if the fact that some of those guys ARE the “outliers”–D and her female science/calculus AP buddy would talk about calling “someone smart” when they got stuck on homework–has made her think of herself as less competent than she is, when she is clearly among the best in those subjects if you look at the high school as a whole.</p>

146

<p>When she (my datapoint) reached highschool she faced “those boys” that everyone thought were the super-smart kids. She always led in GPA, took the hardest courses and then some, but it was assumed by these boys (and their parents) that she did so by yoeman work, not native intelligence. This disdain was made apparent to her in several ways.</p>

<p>It was only when she starting competing in and beating them in math competitions and then scored higher than they did on standardized tests that she was accepted as an equal. It was literally like a switch was flipped. One day out-next day in. </p>

<p>By the end of high-school no students doubted her, though some adults still hung on. I guess some still do.</p>

147

<p>The issue that girls can be every bit as good as boys in math is not really relevant. They ARE every bit as good and many are BETTER. I do not have to look much farther than my own sibling, or a few of the daughters of regular posters here on College Confidential. </p>

<p>However, it remains that the “research” discussed in the OP is misleading as it incorectly eliminates one of the most used yardstick of OVERALL performance by students in the country, and one that transcends the vast differences among high schools. </p>

<p>Rather than using voodoo research, it would be more important to understand why our AVERAGE girls seem less interested in solving certain types of math problems, only to see the myth of lesser “aptitude” being reinforced. </p>

<p>From my vantage point, I think that boys and girls struggle *equally *with simple arithmetic and need a graphic calculator to find the answer to 33 by 11 in fewer than 20 seconds, not to mention being unable to return the correct change of $11.83 to a twenty dollar bill without a crutch. If this seems to afflict girls more than men, it so happens that most cashiers at MegaMall or Wal$$Mart are young females. </p>

<p>If the so called researchers at Berkely were correct, it would be a sign that the gap has been closed by lowering the standards and moving to a more universal mediocrity … equally shared by boys and girls. </p>

<p>Something that is absolutely irrelevant to high achievers such as Cur’s daughter, or to the many students who roam this board.</p>

148

<p>You could at least get the school right. </p>

<p>I think the lead author has a pretty good research background.</p>

<p>[May</a>, 2008](<a href=“http://psych.wisc.edu/Hyde/VITA.htm]May”>http://psych.wisc.edu/Hyde/VITA.htm)</p>

149

<p>Oh Barrons, sorry for having dropped an “e” in the august name. Also, I could claim I was trying to be nice to your UW-Madison by ascribing the authorship to the following “gem” solely to the co-author at Berkeley. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Next time, I’ll be more careful and make sure to give credit where it is due … if it is that kind of credit you value. </p>

<p>I think that I’ll pass on Dr. Hyde’s opinion and academic analyses of the value of the SAT.</p>

<p>PS I used an additional source:
[University</a> of California - UC Newsroom | Girls’ and boys’ math performance now equal](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18281]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18281)</p>

150

<p>Credit usually goes to the school of the lead author. Or discredit if that’s your opinion. Given the play it has received in the press, we’ll take it–your quibbles notwithstanding. You may wish to address them to Dr. Hyde.</p>

<p>“Study leader Janet Hyde, a psychology professor at UW-Madison, noted that, despite the fact that girls now take just as many advanced high school math courses as boys, and women earn 48 percent of all mathematics bachelor’s degrees, the stereotype persists that girls struggle with math. Not only do many parents and teachers believe this, but scholars also use it to explain the dearth of female mathematicians, engineers and physicists at the highest levels, Hyde said.”</p>

151

<p>

</p>

<p>Curmudgeon - Your high school sounds way different than ours. The refrain we hear is from boys and their parents complaining that super-achieving girls run the place! And actually, I have noticed in the past few years at awards programs how girls do seem to dominate the academic awards - in math and science along with all the other subjects.</p>

<p>I honestly think there has been quite enough focus on girls in our education system - it’s the boys who are at risk now.</p>

152

<p>It has been my experience that academic snobbery is not a male or female thing. I think that both genders are respected at our hs. However, D has received comments (from teachers as well as students) expressing surprise that she is “so smart” since she socializes with all sorts of people, including those less cerebral. Apparently, girls intersted in style, sports, boys, etc, are not supposed to be very intelligent?</p>

153

<p>

</p>

<p>I honestly disagree. When the ranks of surgeons, engineers,CEO’s, etc gets a bit closer I’ll re-think.</p>

<p>Part of D’s college criteria was women scientists in professorships. It’s important.</p>

<p>

Yeah. I know how they complain and what they say when they are complaining (see below). </p>

<p>Nope. It’s the same thing at our school in general.
Yep. Girls win all the awards while little Johnny’s parents whisper and sometimes whisper loudly “I hear she studies all the time. Little Johnny just refuses to crack a book. If he tried even a little he would have toasted her.” The boys are smart, while the girls are “hard workers”. You hear it here on CC, too. What a bunch of crap. :wink: In this instance math competitions and standardized tests can have substantial value in setting the record straight.</p>

154

<p>

Can you please source this statement with data. Anecdotes are never convincing.</p>

155

<p>curmudgeon,</p>

<p>So only equality of result will convince you that girls aren’t disadvantaged?</p>

<p>Please. At U.S. colleges, women have outnumbered men for quite a few years now, and as long as people keep expressing thoughts similar to yours, that trend won’t be reversing any time soon.</p>

156

<p>I’ll be inclined to believe that we have reached the % of women in science and engineering that corresponds to their actual interest level (i.e., % of women among all those who are seriously interested in science and engineering = % of women who are actually in science and engineering) when the numbers stop changing. They are still changing now.</p>

<p>For example, at [nsf.gov</a> - SRS S&E Doctorate Awards - US National Science Foundation (NSF)](<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates]nsf.gov”>Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities | NCSES | NSF), you can find statistical tables on the Ph.D. degrees awarded in science and engineering. The online tables cover 1994 to 2005 (full), with brief data for 2006, due to the time lags in data collection and processing. The 1994 tables provide data back to 1985. The % of Ph.D.s going to women in various fields is increasing over time. For example, in astronomy, women earned 15.9 % of Ph.D.s in 1985, 20.8 % in 1994 and 26.3% in 2005. In chemistry, women earned 19.7% of Ph.D.s in 1985, 27.7% in 1994, and 34.0% in 2005. In physics, women earned 9.3% of Ph.D.s in 1985, 11.3% in 1994, and 15.0% in 2005. For other fields, see the tables.</p>

<p>The representation of women on university faculties is generally lower than the % of Ph.D. recipients. Part of this is the time lag (post-Ph.D.) to become a faculty member, part of it is the turnover rate for the faculties, part of it may be differences in the % of women Ph.D.s among US citizens and permanent residents vs. non-citizens who return home. However, the % of women faculty members still seems to be a bit lower than might be predicted: For example, the American Chemical Society frequently publishes reports (in the magazine Chemical and Engineering News) on the number of women faculty members in the top 50 or top 100 chemistry departments in research universities in the US (with the rankings based on federal research expenditures in the departments). Currently it’s running at roughly 15% women overall, not depending too much on whether the top 50 or top 100 departments are considered. The representation of women is slightly higher at the lower faculty ranks (younger faculty) than at the higher ranks. The % of women faculty also is rising.</p>

<p>With the longitudinal view, you can be pretty sure that something was discouraging women in the past, although you won’t have a numerical handle on the situation in 2008 until about 2018.</p>

<p>Yes, there has been a problem for women in science and engineering.</p>

<p>Yes, I think there is also a problem of a different nature for young men, especially at the pre-college level. An acquaintance of mine had a bright son in a rural elementary school. His teacher complained that he asked questions to which she didn’t know the answer. He actually had an “educational plan,” which included the “goal” that he would not ask a question unless the answer was given in the textbook. (Yes, you did actually read that right, if it seems very strange.) High school graduation rates also indicate a problem, disfavoring boys.</p>

<p>But I don’t think it’s really either/or, help young men or help young women, because they encounter problems at different stages of education, and different people should be addressing the different problems.</p>

157

<p>IDK what you guys are talking about…at all the research labs I’ve worked at the women are treated the same as men…and some are actually heads of departments. Or maybe NY is more advanced than the rest of the nation, though I highly doubt that.</p>

158

<p>I just really don’t think either of my daughters have encountered gender bias within the schools they’ve attended. I do think something is going on among many of our boys. Many extremely bright boys my daughters started out with in a gifted program back in elementary school have gone the slacker route - achieved far less than they are capable of. As the mother of two daughters, this does not cheer me in the slightest. We really need all segments of our society to do well. The era of the “slacker boy” is upon us. Look at movies like Knocked UP.</p>

159

<p>Can I revisit the workplace issue for a moment? Are women in tech industries or in traditionally male jobs treated disrespectfully or subject to gender prejudice?</p>

160

<p>mammall, if I recall correctly, your older daughter will be starting college in the fall. It would be great if continuing improvements in gender equity meant that the “rolling tide” swept discrimination away, always a few years ahead of her! Some of the posts on this thread really give me pause about that, however.</p>

<p>Certainly the pre-college situation has changed a great deal since the year my mother was told by the physics teacher in a small college town that girls did not belong in physics. She took bookkeeping instead, and wound up placing first in the state on a competitive exam in bookkeeping. Yet I have suspected for a while that she would have been happier placing one hundred and forty-second in the state in physics. Anecdotally, in recent years, I have only heard of one incident of overt discrimination, pre-college (by a teacher, that is, not by other students).</p>

<p>If you or other posters doubt that there is any problem, I’d suggest reading an editorial that Dick Zare wrote for Chemical & Engineering News. Zare is the Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor of Natural Science at Stanford University; he chairs their chemistry department, has previously chaired the National Science Board, and holds the National Medal of Science. The editorial is at pubs.acs.org/cen/education/84/8420education.html</p>

<p>I’ve met Zare. In my experience, among the scientists at his level, he is one of the two who are most encouraging to younger scientists. “Brilliant” is over-used, but in his case it applies “for real”–also generous with advice, insight, and enthusiasm. I don’t know what he’s talking about when he claims he’s a “recovering sexist.”</p>

<p>(Incidentally, the Zare editorial is from 2006. 84 is just the volume number.)</p>