http://ramogames.com/blog/math-games-girls/

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tabc-4.pdf

As a women who earned a degree in Computer Science more than 25 years ago it concerns me that the percentage of women who got CS degrees has actually gone down between 1996 and 2005. I think it’s now a lower percentage than when I got my degree. Very sad.

And I don’t see how this downward trend could ever be explained away by any supposedly innate tendencies in male vs female abilities. There’s something else going on here but I have no idea what it is. What is making fewer and fewer women choose computer science? Educational choices are not made in a vacuum.

And even if there were any innate differences discovered, I completely agree with the earlier comments that we should treat people as individuals, and let folks choose careers according to their individual abilities and desires not silly preconceived notions based on gender, class, or other categories.

Now, because there are no good state assessments for those levels of problem-solving, the authors of this Science article were unable to answer that question. So it’s incorrect in this instance to say that the data do not support the hypothesis that innate gender differences can be responsible for performance differences; it’s that the data don’t exist. Which is an even greater problem, frankly, to the future of math and science careers in this country.

So I believe my point stands. If we allow valid social science statistics that point toward equality to be evidence of equality, we can’t reasonably reject valid social science statistics that point toward inequality as not evidence of inequality. Understanding why certain trends exist is tantamount to our success in manipulating the outcomes. The issue is far from settled and not because some asshole right-wing fringe group is trying to keep women down. We do not treat people equally because they actually are equal. What needs to be eliminated is value assessments and ranking based on our differences.

One doesn’t have to focus on biological explanations of gender differences but it would be inappropriate to ignore or dismiss lines of inquiry based on a distaste for the results or possible implications. Gender equality is a social goal based on the equality of the human person and notions of common humanity rather than on actual physical/biological/genetic equality; it is a qualitative equality, not a quantitative one.

If science (biological, medical and social) is going to be useful and informative, it is important that we ask honest questions and attempt to parse the validity of the data and methodologies used without bias as much as we can; that goes for left/right, conservative/progress biases equally. If there is a biological role for gender (or racial) differences in academic performance, there is no use ignoring them because uneducated buffoons would use such information to discriminate further. Education is really essential toward this end; emphasizing that data on mean performances does not translate into data on probabilities of individual performance.

Ignoring possible biological influences on gender (or racial) differences in academic performance and focusing solely on cultural sources could lead to a failure to promote inequality. In the Science article, a possible explanation for fewer women in STEM careers was hypothesized to be differences in abilities in complex problem-solving. “Earlier studies [had] indicated that, although girls equaled or surpassed boys in basic computation and understanding of mathematical concepts, boys exceeded girls in complex problem-solving beginning in the high school years, d = + 0.29.” These skills are essential for success in STEM careers. For complex (and in some ways troubling) reasons, the authors were unable to successfully examine strategic and extended thinking cognitive demands to any accuracy. But now let’s hypothesize that this is an accurate assessment of the data, that there is a gender-gap in item complexity that contributes to a gender gap in STEM careers.

Simply addressing the cultural inequalities surrounding this gap may not result in gender equality in those careers, if educators ignore gender differences in the problem-solving capabilities and styles of learning. One can imagine that changes in curricula that address this gender variance might better prepare girls (or racial minorities) for STEM careers, and focusing solely on cultural or socioeconomic factors could end up failing or ill-preparing all students for those careers (the authors suggest that the lack of data on extended and strategic thinking implies that American students may not be getting proper education at these levels).

Furthermore, I don’t think it is antithetical to the desire for social justice as reflected in equal opportunities for men and women to say that females might be poorer at complex problem-solving than males (if it is indeed true). The challenge we have as a society is to not dismiss the data because some dolts say that since girls are poorer at complex problem-solving, ergo girls iz dumb. The challenge is to say that we cannot and should not place a value judgment on complex-problem solving capabilities vis-a-vis other uses of brain-power or intellect. And that is a taller order, in my opinion.

* Even if there were more male math geniuses than female, what does that prove? Until you compare a group of random males and females who had identical education, identical support, have identical self-image, and identical five bazillion other conditions that contribute to the final test score, that statistic is meaningless.

* I have a reason to be skeptical that this study showed gender variance because I have seen so many other studies which people claimed show gender variance, but upon peer inspection show that there is none at all. The Benbow and Stanley studies are the ones that constantly get publicity, and constantly get touted as “proof” of inherent differences. This, despite that it didn’t pass peer review, as the peers found that
1) The males in the study had taken more math classes than the females.
2) Benbow and Stanley’s own data show that girls outperformed boys in the classroom (which they fixed by ignoring that and only using the SAT scores as evidence) .
3) Benbow and Stanley’s own data showed that the high-performing boys received more parental encouragement than the high-performing girls.
4) Most laughably, the statistics only show variance at the bottom of the curve! This was explained by the fact that more males had physical injury which slowed them down when they wrote the test - which is just another example of the bazillions of conditions that contribute to the final test score.

* How desperately invested in gender difference do you have to be to make the leaps of faith here? If you see some statistics about test scores and you manage to ignore the millions of conditions that go into a test score, jumping straight to the conclusion that you have proof of inherent differences, then there is no doubt of your tremendous bias.

* Timberwraith, THANK YOU for saying that. The idea that you have to be a genius in order to go into maths or physics or engineering is a huge part of the problem. Perpetuating that myth ensures that only those who identify themselves as geniuses go into those fields. That invariably means that the fields will be dominated by members of privileged classes. As someone with an engineering degree, I have a secret to tell you that so many other engineers don’t want you to know. It’s not that hard. It’s something that just about anybody can do with the right academic background, practice and self-confidence.

Jeez, if I’m going to be this mouthy, I should make my own blog. Not that the internet needs another.

Yeah. I think someone should take a look at the assumption that “PhD in Engineering” is a largely overlapping group with “people on the extreme end of the distribution of math ability.”

The correlation is probably about as close as “people duped into becoming terrorists.” If I recall correctly, many of the more famous terrorists in the recent decade had engineering degrees (and were men!).

As I understand it, the difference is that white boys’ scores still vary more than white girls’ scores do, but that doesn’t hold true for other races. Which refutes the idea that the variance is due to genetics and suggests that this has more to do with culture.

Yup, I’ve read that too. Although, I’m sure there are people who are willing to frame this in terms of biological differences between different races and ethnicities. I don’t support that explanation and I think it’s a dangerous road to travel down. That’s one of the potential shortcomings of focusing on biological explanations of gender differences: that kind of thinking is only a few steps away from generalizing the notion to race and ethnicity. Luckily, there’s a strong social prohibition against linking race, ethnicity and biological explanations of differing academic performance.

There’s another study that shows a correlation between indicators of gender equality and the gap between male and female math scores. That correlation also appears for the number of highest performing girls, thus suggesting that at least some of the variability in test scores for girls (that is, how flat the bell cure is) exists as an artifact of culture.

What I’ve read in a number of different places, is that the gap between girls and boys scores have been closing as the years pass. There’s a trend that indicates that culture does indeed have a measurable effect on the math performance of boys and girls. I’d love to see people try to argue that human beings’ biology has changed over the decades. :)

Besides that, both of the news releases indicate that women earn 48% of mathematics bachelor degrees. So, in spite of the supposed greater number of boy math geniuses, men and women seem to be neck and neck in the actual study of mathematics.

I find it hard to accept that differences at the extreme end of the distribution (we’re talking about the highest or lowest 1%) necessarily translates into who strives to become a part of which field of study. Again, the 48% figure that I just mentioned calls into question the notion that the number of people on the far extreme of the distribution (the number of dunces and geniuses) necessarily translates into who is drawn to which field.

I certainly wasn’t a math genius, but I did get a degree in engineering. I can assure you that I wasn’t surrounded by geniuses. When I went to college, folks who sought out that kind of degree were often looking for a skill set they could turn into $$$. Some people were extremely intelligent, some were run of the mill. It ran the gamut.

As I understand it, the difference is that white boys’ scores still vary more than white girls’ scores do, but that doesn’t hold true for other races. Which refutes the idea that the variance is due to genetics and suggests that his has more to do with culture.

From Jeff Fecke, the new guy at Alas, a bit of feminist triumphalism regarding a study finding no significant difference in math performance between boys and girls:

So, people, do you remember Larry Summers? Poor, poor Larry Summers, who was attacked mer

UW-Madison news release:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/14632

There is a similar news release at UC-Berkley, with a similar quote:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/18281

So, it’s their news release.

Some critics argue, however, that even when average performance is equal, gender discrepancies may still exist at the highest levels of mathematical ability. So the team searched for those, as well. For example, they compared the variability in boys’ and girls’ math scores, the idea being that if more boys fell into the top scoring percentiles than girls, the variance in their scores would be greater.

Again, the effort uncovered little difference, as did a comparison of how well boys and girls did on questions requiring complex problem solving.

Some news articles seem to be implying that there will be more boy math geniuses than girls (and more dunces, for that matter) while the original news release implies that this isn’t true.

It seems that only the wall street journal reported on the “boys higher variance” part of the study with this headline: “Boys’ Math Scores Hit Highs and Lows”

Here is Andrew Gelman of Columbia talking about the variance part of the study as well, and the contrasting parts that were emphasized by the WSJ vs the NYT (and virtually all other newspapers).
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/07/nyt_vs_wsj_on_g.html

Apparently, this study lends credence to Summers argument:

“But the study also found that boys’ scores were more variable than those of girls. More boys scored extremely well — or extremely poorly — than girls, who were more likely to earn scores closer to the average for all students.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html

Actually research from a variety of sources that show that in countries where women have the most freedom to choose their careers, the gender divide is the most pronounced.

According to Susan Pinker, the United States, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, and the United Kingdom, which offer women the most financial stability and legal protections in job choice, have the greatest gender split in careers. In countries with less economic opportunity, like the Philippines, Thailand, and Russia, she writes, the number of women in physics is as high as 30 to 35 percent, versus 5 percent in Canada, Japan, and Germany.

I also wonder how much effect curriculum changes over the last 20 years has had on higher test results being now be achieved by girls.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/summers-vindica.html

Please note that this post is problematic to the extent that you are praising an article for the part that you agree with (no difference in mean), but are also implicitly supporting the “greater variance” point that is the basis of Summers’ speech, and is also found by this study.