News, Girls worse at math? No way, new analysis shows. (college, degree)

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

This is largely about science. From my own observations and the research I've seen there is not a noticeable different in science in and of itself. But many areas of science are heavily laced with mathematics and in these areas you see a dramatic difference in achievement between men and women.

I honestly don't know why people resist the idea that men are better at advanced mathematics than women so much. There is such hostility to the idea that you get labeled a "sexist" for suggesting it. Despite massive changes in society regarding women, men still vastly out weight them in areas that required advanced mathematics. Yet, other fields have changed their composition remarkably over the years.

People resist the idea because it suggests inferiority. Women have held that burden for far too long. Again, this is changing. I recently attended a university commencement and was pleased to see that almost half of graduating engineering majors were female. I hope this is the case for more uni's in the future.

I have to go to work...

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I'll buy into that. Of course, this does little for the argument of innate ability. Soley resting upon publication as evidence for innate, physiological ability falls short as well.

I'm was not intending to suggest achievement gap in advanced mathematics necessitates some sort of innate advantage, there could be other explanations. But at this point, I think most can be ruled out.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

But, the important component here, and the point of the article as I understand it, is that boys have always excelled beyond girls in these tests. For this, our reasoning pointed towards innate ability.

This is part of the problem I think, each study is using a different metric for talent in mathematics.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Gender equality is not that recent? I don't know how to respond to this. It's ridiculous. Gender equality is not even global yet.

I suppose it depends on what you consider gender equality, the sexes are not equal no matter how much we want to pretend as if that is the case. There are physical and neurological differences. But in terms of women having the same sorts or rights as men, well then for the most part there is gender equality in developed nations. In advanced industrial nations much has changed in terms of gender equality over the last 5~6 decades, yet there has been only a modest change in the achievement gap between men and women in fields utilizing advanced mathematics. If indeed these variables are causally related, then why has a remarkable change in one not resulted in much change in the other?

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Again, give it time. Given that it was no too long ago that women weren't welcome at the university level, females have made great strides.

Give it time? Women have been welcome at the university level for decades. And females have not made great strides in advanced mathematics and its related fields, the fields are still dramatically dominated by men. In the US women have been going to college in large numbers since the baby boomer generation, quite some time ago. Many fields changed their composition has more and more women went to university, yet advanced mathematics remains stubbornly male dominated.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

That there is gender bias.

Again, I was merely suggesting it as an alternative explanation that was not pursued by the researchers. The researchers were rather obviously reasoning from conclusion to justification.

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

This is actually a good point. It highlights that girls falling behind in maths during HS has little to do with actual ability, since as you note, it's not even addressed, but that of social factors.

Girls falling behind in mathematics at the high school level does not necessarily imply they are worse at advanced mathematics. Their achievement at the college level does provide strong evidence that there is something more than "social factors" going on.

When I was a student in mathematics there was a noticeable decline in the number of women as the subject got more advanced. Not only that the achieve gap got worse and worse as the subject got more advanced, in particular when things got abstract. It would be actually interesting to see the drop out rates of women mathematics, physics etc majors.

Trying to tell people in these fields that there is no difference between the sexes is much like telling them that the cup in front of their face does not exist. The gap is so large and visible its hard to think of any other explanation.

Regardless, this study was rather poor and does not show a thing regarding this matter. But, it will undoubted by cited by hundreds of people as fact that there is no gender gap! Gotta love how that works.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

People resist the idea because it suggests inferiority. Women have held that burden for far too long. Again, this is changing. I recently attended a university commencement and was pleased to see that almost half of graduating engineering majors were female. I hope this is the case for more uni's in the future.

No, it does not suggest inferiority. It suggests that the sexes are not equal mentally just as they are not equal physically. Are men superior to women physically? Well it depends on the task!

By the way, I would fully expect many areas of engineering not to have a profound gender gap.

And why do you hope that is the case? Why does it even matter? I really don't understand this sort of sentiment. In what way is the world better off by having equal number of men and women engineers?

[sheenie2000]

Originally Posted by user_id

When I was a student in mathematics there was a noticeable decline in the number of women as the subject got more advanced. Not only that the achieve gap got worse and worse as the subject got more advanced, in particular when things got abstract. It would be actually interesting to see the drop out rates of women mathematics, physics etc majors.

I'm not sure the answer to this question. But when I went to college, I noticed everyone dropping and failing all the math classes lol.
In my experience it was more men dropping out but that was because 95% of the school was men. (It was a very small engineering school).
Of course though, this doesn't answer your question...I was one of like 7 women in my graduating class out of like 70.

But for me personally, I always had an easy time with math and advanced level math. Especially calculus, differential equations etc. But when it came to abstract concepts like discrete math I had a much harder time grasping it.
I could literally look at complex differential equations and figure it out in seconds. But the abstract stuff was harder.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by sheenie2000

But for me personally, I always had an easy time with math and advanced level math. Especially calculus, differential equations etc. But when it came to abstract concepts like discrete math I had a much harder time grasping it.
I could literally look at complex differential equations and figure it out in seconds. But the abstract stuff was harder.

I'm noticeably better at the abstract material. I could literally sleep in the abstract courses (real analysis, topology, set theory, etc), but had to work harder in the concrete classes. Initially, I was not even interested in Mathematics. I was good, but not great at the more introductory material and found it boring.

But one day I happen to take a logic classes in the Philosophy department that went over things like discrete mathematics and got interested.

[Sandpointian]

The thread moved off track, So I'll try to bridge the gap.

This link pointed to an article about the performance of 15 year old girls in high school not men vs. women in the publication of seminal contributions to international research.

Part of the confusion caused by an article that is itself exceptionally poor in design,

Girls Education
---------------
Why there any surprise that girls are not extremely capable in math at the frosh-soph level? Of course they are. In fact, I would not be surprised to see girls scoring better on almost any kind of test. Why? Examine the content of any type of test they would be exposed to, up to 4-5 years & beyond. High school algebra up through university calculus, diff. eqs., linear algebra, basic proofs, and real analysis. These are basic courses. In fact for 95% of math-based jobs, women are equally as qualified, since for 95% of such jobs, the math involved is rather elementary.

Students who do well have to know well the rules of the game. Have disciplined approaches. Do what they are told. Remain focused. These are all social aspects of adolescence in which girls score much better than exceedingly immature, rebellious, and physical boys. In fact, if we look at the median student on these tests up to the top decile, I would be surprised if girls do not win easily on any such tests.

Women in High-end Math-Based Research
----------------------------------------
This topic seems to be the topic that the thread wishes to battle over, even though it is wholly separate from the first topic. It is the object of Larry Summers's perfectly valid query and inspired provocation: are men and women hard-wired differently such that men have more naturally endowed to handle more abstract math?

Had we the tools and budget, the question is ultimately an empirical question, but one whose answer requires a robust collection of data and a very rigorous taxonomy of statistical & econometric models. But let's do an end around on CD.

What are the factors that can influence our measurement of abstract abilities?
1) DNA & Physiology. This is the variable Summers wished to explore more in depth. But...even this variable is not wholly exogenous: selection of mates, diet, physical activity, health, and "environmental conditions" are all known to play a role in enhancing or countering natural endowments.

2) Behavioral Factors for Single Females. The same factors that enhance the performance of girls work against females as they mature into women. Young women begin to self-select out of math and move into other areas. Those that remain in science, economics, law, accounting, finance are still sufficiently left-brained. Others move toward the arts, humanities, and other social sciences.

What explains the move away from math?

Economics? Math pays crap while anything connected to econ and law has paid a relative fortune. Walk into a math department. Walk into a B school or law school. Tell me which professors drive the hotter cars? Houses? At whom do backers pour money into?

Psychology? Again, walk into a math department. Walk into a B school or law school. Tell me which environment is more appealing. Which has the sexier profs? Students? Fashion? Bods? Who is more hip? Which has students who worship you and want to be you?

Sociological? Same experiment. Which department offers a chance for a better married life? For the beautiful 2.2 kids, a trophy home and no shortage of exotic vacations? Which department allows you to associate with people who can talk about a wide variety of topics with depth, clarity and empathy? Which offers a better shot at power?

OK. You should get the picture. Between ages 15-24, bright women disappear in droves from the applicant pool...and really do not seem to care about the last rung in the ladder of math achievement. Instead, for most, math is a means to and ends.

As they depart the path, their physiology changes. Time away from math builds "analytical rust," especially if the person departed the scene at a relatively elementary level of math (say first two years of undergrad math). Unsurprising, I was a high school all star baseball player whose would probably dislocate my arm is I threw a ball today. Muscles have effectively atrophied from nonuse. The brain is no different.

What about those that remain? Are they the best of their pool? Perhaps not, some are simply survivors and those more interested than talented. The others? Some are still driven by their desire to please a father figure. Others are determined to stick it out as a devotee to the feminist cause, more desire than talent.

Who is left? A scant few who are brilliant, despite all of the forces described above. Doubt me? Look at some of the quality of scientist that emerged from the Soviet Bloc or China, where women suffered far less discrimination. Brilliant and sexy. Nice combo.

3) Behavioral Factors for Married Females. Few women are going to sacrifice their marriage for such demanding career, one that requires such huge focus and commitment of time. Fewer still are going to abandon their children, children created from 40 weeks of nurturing. We have plenty of research from the corporate sector about the toll a professional life takes on married women/Moms. My wife is one. And yes, her cognitive development in more abstract thinking (unnecessary at her job) has reversed a bit after parenthood, despite a very successful professional career.

4) Behavioral Factors from Men. As a guy, I laugh when male colleagues put down women. A great example of this manifestation of male insecurity can be seen in interviews of James Watson, the Nobel Laureate. His bitter misogynous rants towards Rosalind Franklin are extremely telling. Franklin was a far better trained scientist, a biophysicist trained at Cambridge, than Watson, a zoologist from Indiana. The technical and abstract skills of the two fields is world's apart. Franklin's career advance suffered greatly from gender discrimination and was relegated to a supporting role and persistent thefts of her scientific output. To cut a long story short, while Crick and Watson were literally guessing at the structure of DNA (they went about it it in a rather cartoonish manner), they were handed photographic evidence produced by Franklin that gave them the structure of DNA, the Double Helix. But...not only did Watson barely acknowledge the importance of Franklin's research, he has been consistent every since in demeaning her as a scientist and as a person. So you think he was hiding something? Of course he was. He appears hate the fact that deep down that a mere woman with superior technical abilities should have been given as much credit as he.

Less so now, but beginning in high school and through college, women face subtle and not-so-subtle signals that they should ply their wares elsewhere. Very similar to the unspoken attitude toward Blacks. Some dinosaurs in the universities, immigrants from countries in which women are still institutionally discriminated against, still pop up in the news for displaying a rather childish attitude against women.

Note: I do not consider Larry Summers' comments in this light whatsoever. Cambridge Mass in the 21st century is political correctness run amok. His comments were taken out of context not only in that speech but out of context of his role as President of Harvard and of his long career. In fact, I think that the modern gender cases have nothing to do with promoting brilliant women but simply employing women in artificially equal shares as men. Like affirmative action for Blacks, such measures are counterproductive and simply create more barriers to true progress.

But for every Lawrence Summers, there are many math professors, even some women, who lower their expectations for women unnecessarily so.

5) Behavioral Factors Imparted by other Females. From my seat as a husband of a professional woman and father of two girls, females can be very harsh toward other females...Peer pressure in high school and college is excessive, especially in places where women are assigned subordinate roles via religious beliefs or other cultural means. To most women, math and research is not cool. I banking is. Most likely because it means they can sit around the house and do nothing, which many do...

In Sum
---------------
Sooo...any good researcher knows he/she must control for all relevant factors in order to isolate the true effect of DNA on women's abstract abilities. This is almost never done. Instead, the controls are via terribly weak proxies or absent all together. Until these controls are in place and do their job, we remain in the dark.

In my experience, I see no difference in capacity. However I have seen incredible differences the economic, psychological and social factors faced by young men and young women and the development of their abstract abilities, with a good % of these barriers put up by women themselves.

Were their no links between the psychosociological and the physiological, the empirics would be easier. But alas, these links do exist, thus making it much more difficult to answer the question. Things are also more complicated now because of a "blind" form of affirmative action which has pushed quotas for all women regardless of quality.

I am optimistic that advances in data analysis and better funding of elaborate longitudinal studies that help us better understand the potential of women. But I think if one opens one's eyes to the numerous layers involved and the barriers faced by budding female scientists, some self-generated, one should not be surprised to hear of results that suggests that DNA explains only a small and perhaps qualitatively insignificant portion of the abstraction gap.

S.
P.S. A final comment. Unless you happened to be at a top school or in front of an excellent professor, most math courses through undergrad are taught in a functional manner...not for advanced study. Plug and chug and solution boxes are the rule of the day. Formal proofs no longer have a central role in Math education. As the US continues on such a path, perhaps our studies should be elsewhere...

[Sandpointian]

whoops, I meant to write...

"Unsurprising, muscles have effectively atrophied from nonuse."

[user_id]

Sandpointian:

Yes, there are two issues here. The problem is people want to move from "Girls in secondary education" to "Girls and boys have no talent gap in mathematics". But this particular study seems pretty stupid even as far as "girls in secondary education" is concerned.

Regarding your list of reasons why perhaps women would be turned off by it, well you could give a rather similar list of Anthropology, Psychology, English, etc, yet these fields are filled with women.

Regarding further studies, sure if you really want to know a lot would have to be gone. But really, what is the point? Clearly study the differences in the ways men vs women learn Mathematics (or anything really) could be useful in the classroom, but knowing whether men are indeed better than women in advanced mathematics does not seem all that useful. In fact, if the answer is "yes" it could do more harm than good as it will be mischaracterized by most as "All men are better than women at mathematics". What is important is that men and women get equal rights in education (and of course else where), this seems to be largely the case nowadays.

Originally Posted by Sandpointian

P.S. A final comment. Unless you happened to be at a top school or in front of an excellent professor, most math courses through undergrad are taught in a functional manner...not for advanced study. Plug and chug and solution boxes are the rule of the day. Formal proofs no longer have a central role in Math education. As the US continues on such a path, perhaps our studies should be elsewhere...

I don't know whether you are making a comment about mathematics programs or not, but in terms mathematics program this is far from the truth. Even at low ranking colleges you will spend your Junior and Senior year almost entirely taking courses that involve nothing about abstract mathematics (and hence, proofs). The better programs do tend to push you into this material faster and develop it further, but both groups spend a good deal of time on it. After all, the abstract reasoning, proofs, etc are what mathematics is all about.

I think by "formal proof" you really simply mean "(informal) proof". But the vast majority of mathematics students (hell...even ph.ds) have never given a "formal proof" or even really know what such a thing is exactly. As a result its never had a central role in education, in fact the concept itself is rather modern. But the fact that what is taught in high schools and basic college mathematics does not even give one an understanding of what mathematics is all about is a rather sad statement on the education system. Most people seem to be under the impression that Mathematicians sit around adding up numbers all day, its rather amusing.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

I'm was not intending to suggest achievement gap in advanced mathematics necessitates some sort of innate advantage, there could be other explanations. But at this point, I think most can be ruled out.

Most of what can be ruled out?

This is part of the problem I think, each study is using a different metric for talent in mathematics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this study is based on PISA. And when arguments have been made in the past, in that boys are better at maths than girls, it was based on comparisons between the genders based on the same tests. SAT's are an example. I'm not saying that SAT's are a good measure to establish talent, but they've often been used to make claims of gender differences.

I suppose it depends on what you consider gender equality, the sexes are not equal no matter how much we want to pretend as if that is the case. There are physical and neurological differences. But in terms of women having the same sorts or rights as men, well then for the most part there is gender equality in developed nations. In advanced industrial nations much has changed in terms of gender equality over the last 5~6 decades, yet there has been only a modest change in the achievement gap between men and women in fields utilizing advanced mathematics. If indeed these variables are causally related, then why has a remarkable change in one not resulted in much change in the other?

Give it time? Women have been welcome at the university level for decades. And females have not made great strides in advanced mathematics and its related fields, the fields are still dramatically dominated by men. In the US women have been going to college in large numbers since the baby boomer generation, quite some time ago. Many fields changed their composition has more and more women went to university, yet advanced mathematics remains stubbornly male dominated

Rights are an aspect of gender equality. But, they do not address equal opportunity, which is a socially stratified issue. Sandpointian's example of Franklin and Watson highlights this quite well on the extreme end. It's quite easy to draw a line in the sand here and see it for what it is. On the other side, the subtleties of gender roles are often elusive. That, and the fact that they are so ingrained in our cultural makeup that we can't see the noses on our own faces.

Making the argument that males are more physiologically inclined towards higher maths with the inclusion that rudementary maths cannot be used as a rubric is sound with all things being equal. But, all things are not equal and disparity exists on the rudementary level. By your own admission, it's unlikely this disparity is due to talent but other factors, which imo are sociological. And if you're interested, we can discuss them. With this in mind, I don't see how you can reasonably leap frog over this point to arrive at your conclusions.

Again, I was merely suggesting it as an alternative explanation that was not pursued by the researchers. The researchers were rather obviously reasoning from conclusion to justification.

You haven't provided your reasoning though. I went to the site, and as best as I gathered, the same tests were used for all (within and between coutries). Why girls did as well as boys, and why boys have always done better than girls in such tests, isn't due to the tests themselves. If you think this is the case, please explain why.

Girls falling behind in mathematics at the high school level does not necessarily imply they are worse at advanced mathematics. Their achievement at the college level does provide strong evidence that there is something more than "social factors" going on.

Until recently (the past 5-7 years), girls were generally opting out of math electives in HS. If they were opting out in HS, I don't know why you would expect it to be any different in college.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by user_id

No, it does not suggest inferiority.

Yes it does. Through out history, women have been coined as intellectually inferior to men; compared to animals and children.

It suggests that the sexes are not equal mentally just as they are not equal physically. Are men superior to women physically? Well it depends on the task!

If you're going to state that men and women are not mentally/intellectually equal, then, again, you should provide evidence. The lack of presence of women in specific fields is not good enough. If it was, then the statement that males of european decent are intellectually more capable than Africans, Indians, etc, would be correct.

And why do you hope that is the case? Why does it even matter? I really don't understand this sort of sentiment. In what way is the world better off by having equal number of men and women engineers?

Again, it's a matter of opportunity and it's personal for me. I was raised with concrete statements regarding gender. My father instilled in me that women are not good at math. We are not capable of grasping techology. We are incapable of thriving in the sciences. To add insult to injury, being raised Christian, the supreme creator is male and women come from man. Like so many girls, when I entered HS, I didn't bother with math or science. I believed what I was told. I eventually found my way to the sciences just the same, but it was a battle. I had to get over the hurtle of believing I wasn't capable. And like you note regarding elementary maths, the work itself is not that difficult. To be clear, it's not about blame, but I am noting a lack of opportunity.