Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Girls can do just as well at math as boys -- even at the genius level -- if they are given the same opportunities and encouragement, researchers reported on Monday.
Their study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, contradicts studies showing girls can do as well as boys on average in math -- but cannot excel in the way males can.
This study is fairly stupid, it does not demonstrate much at all. They are first associating ability in mathematics with scores on standardized testing. Not only that, they are trying to make comparisons among two groups when key variables differ, most curiously the testing!
This study is fairly stupid, it does not demonstrate much at all. They are first associating ability in mathematics with scores on standardized testing. Not only that, they are trying to make comparisons among two groups when key variables differ, most curiously the testing!
The gender gap begins in HS, in the US at least, that is why standardized testing is used. I don't understand your last sentence. Several tests are noted and as I understand it, they are looking at within comparisons not between comparisons. Can you reword?
The gender gap begins in HS, in the US at least, that is why standardized testing is used.
Standardized testing is used because that is the only measure they have, in reality the people doing the study could not point out mathematical genius if was right in front of them. Its pretty elusive especially if you are not trained in it, you know like the psychologists that did the study.
Do you see a difference in the quality and amount of published work in mathematics by women in countries with a better "equality index"? This would be far more telling than looking at some stupid standardized tests which really do not measure mathematics ability as much as the ability to compute and follow rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I don't understand your last sentence. Several tests are noted and as I understand it, they are looking at within comparisons not between comparisons. Can you reword?
The tests differ country to country so trying so comparing the tests scores between two different countries it not exactly interesting.
You see there is another explanation of the result. The tests in countries with greater "equality indexes" are created in such a way that men and women score similarly. In what way did they exclude this? They did not. The study is rather shallow, but that is what is to be expected when the conclusion you want to show is already determined before you do the study.
Standardized testing is used because that is the only measure they have, in reality the people doing the study could not point out mathematical genius if was right in front of them. Its pretty elusive especially if you are not trained in it, you know like the psychologists that did the study.
For their age range, what do you recommend?
Quote:
Do you see a difference in the quality and amount of published work in mathematics by women in countries with a better "equality index"? This would be far more telling than looking at some stupid standardized tests which really do not measure mathematics ability as much as the ability to compute and follow rules.
To start, 15 year olds usually aren't publishing anything. So, we really can't compare kids to adults. And given that gender equality and the closing of gender gaps, worldwide, are recent events, I would not expect publication to coincide. Let's not put the cart before the horse.
Quote:
The tests differ country to country so trying so comparing the tests scores between two different countries it not exactly interesting.
I have not reviewed the tests myself. Although, I intend to since this issue is important to me. Obviously, you have. Can you post them?
I can see your concern with some country comparisons, but I'm suspect if the charge includes US and European country comparisons. If this is what you're suggesting, can you provide some specifics?
Quote:
You see there is another explanation of the result. The tests in countries with greater "equality indexes" are created in such a way that men and women score similarly. In what way did they exclude this? They did not. The study is rather shallow, but that is what is to be expected when the conclusion you want to show is already determined before you do the study.
If you're going to make the assertion, provide the evidence. One of the countries where girls are excelling over boys in maths in Finland, IIRC (or maybe Iceland, forgive my memory). Ok, you can state the measures used are biased. But, boys in Finland excel over boys in the US. The way it's reading to me, is that any country comparison is moot. I'm not going to agree or disagree with out seeing the tests themselves. I assumed they were of similar calibar, but given your charge, I'm open. I'll wait for the evidence.
PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World presents the results from the most recent PISA survey, which focused on science and also assessed mathematics and reading. It is divided into two volumes.
Volume 1: Analysis gives the most comprehensive international picture of science learning today, exploring not only how well students perform, but also their interests in science and their awareness of the opportunities that scientific competencies bring as well as the environment that schools offer for science learning. It places the performance of students, schools and countries in the context of their social background and identifies important educational policies and practices that are associated with educational success. By showing that some countries succeed in providing both high quality education and equitable learning outcomes, PISA sets ambitious goals for others.
Key findings
Finland, with an average of 563 score points, was the highest-performing country on the PISA 2006 science scale.
Six other high-scoring countries had mean scores of 530 to 542 points: Canada, Japan and New Zealand and the partner countries/economies Hong Kong-China, Chinese Taipei and Estonia. Australia, the Netherlands, Korea, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and Ireland, and the partner countries/economies Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Macao-China also scored above the OECD average of 500 score points.
On average across OECD countries, 1.3% of 15-year-olds reached Level 6 of the PISA 2006 science scale, the highest proficiency level. These students could consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge, and knowledge about science, in a variety of complex life situations. In New Zealand and Finland this figure was at least 3.9%, three times the OECD average. In the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and Canada, as well as the partner countries/economies Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Hong Kong-China, between 2 and 3% reached Level 6.
That is not to say the PISA tests are worth their weight in salt, but it's unlikely there is gender bias that can be weeded out in country comparisons.
As I said, its elusive. There is no real way to test for high talent in mathematics, and by mathematics I mean real mathematics not computation.
Research shows differences once you get to the extremes, these researchers for some odd reason think the 98~99% percentile of standardized tests represent these extremes in talent. But what reason is there to believe this? Not much that I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
And given that gender equality and the closing of gender gaps, worldwide, are recent events, I would not expect publication to coincide. Let's not put the cart before the horse.
There are not that recent. Do the "closing of gender gaps" in standardized tests correlate with the "closing of gender gaps" in advanced mathematics achievement? Does not seem to, women are rather rare in mathematics and related disciplines once you get to the advanced levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I have not reviewed the tests myself. Although, I intend to since this issue is important to me...
My point is that the tests are different in each case as a result you don't know whether the tests are crafted to achieve the "closing of gender gaps" rather than demonstrating such. Regardless, I don't have links off hand of the standardized tests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
If you're going to make the assertion, provide the evidence.
Provide evidence of what? I'm not doing the study, I suggested an alternative explanation of the data, one which is not ruled out by what the researchers did. I'm not suggesting this is the proper explanation, only that they do not rule it out. As a result their conclusions are rather weak.
Regardless, the authors of this research (like most) seem to not understand mathematics. The standardized tests, test what is essentially symbol manipulation and basic computational reasoning. But these skills are only a necessary condition for being good at mathematics, not a sufficient one. The ability to abstract and reason with abstractions is fundamental to mathematics, yet secondary education almost entirely focuses on the concrete. Actually, even at the college level mathematics majors are not really exposed to abstract mathematics until their Junior year. Its actually interesting too, because at this point there is a noticeable shift in people's talent in the field.
Anyhow, my point in the above is that mathematics (perhaps more than any other field) has a profound difference between what is done in the advanced level and what is done at the basic level. Therefore, testing at the basic level and looking at the 99 percentile is not that indicative of "genius level talent" at the advanced level.
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.
As I said, its elusive. There is no real way to test for high talent in mathematics, and by mathematics I mean real mathematics not computation.
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.
Quote:
Research shows differences once you get to the extremes, these researchers for some odd reason think the 98~99% percentile of standardized tests represent these extremes in talent. But what reason is there to believe this? Not much that I know.
For this age group, that's the measuring stick we have; tests. Maybe the boys and girls that reside in the top 1-2% aren't gifted in maths. 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. Fortunately, this particular talking point will be removed from the debate.
Quote:
There are not that recent.
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.
Quote:
Do the "closing of gender gaps" in standardized tests correlate with the "closing of gender gaps" in advanced mathematics achievement? Does not seem to, women are rather rare in mathematics and related disciplines once you get to the advanced levels.
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.
Quote:
My point is that the tests are different in each case as a result you don't know whether the tests are crafted to achieve the "closing of gender gaps" rather than demonstrating such. Regardless, I don't have links off hand of the standardized tests.
We know exactly why the PISA tests exist and it had nothing to do with looking at gender. They were implemented for country comparisons in order to improve education. Noting the closing of gender gaps is a side note and an after the fact consequence.
Quote:
Provide evidence of what?
That there is gender bias.
Quote:
I'm not doing the study, I suggested an alternative explanation of the data, one which is not ruled out by what the researchers did. I'm not suggesting this is the proper explanation, only that they do not rule it out. As a result their conclusions are rather weak.
All things being equal, and for PISA they are (crappy tests or not), no where have I seen evidence of gender bias.
Quote:
Regardless, the authors of this research (like most) seem to not understand mathematics. The standardized tests, test what is essentially symbol manipulation and basic computational reasoning. But these skills are only a necessary condition for being good at mathematics, not a sufficient one. The ability to abstract and reason with abstractions is fundamental to mathematics, yet secondary education almost entirely focuses on the concrete. Actually, even at the college level mathematics majors are not really exposed to abstract mathematics until their Junior year. Its actually interesting too, because at this point there is a noticeable shift in people's talent in the field.
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.
Quote:
Anyhow, my point in the above is that mathematics (perhaps more than any other field) has a profound difference between what is done in the advanced level and what is done at the basic level. Therefore, testing at the basic level and looking at the 99 percentile is not that indicative of "genius level talent" at the advanced level.
Again, I'll give you that 100%. But the gender issue goes much deeper than innate ability.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
