<p>If you do the cumulative stats on the math sat, using 590 as the cut, which is the 72nd percentile overall, we find that 245,144 boys score there or above, and 187,637 girls. So the excess of boys over girls is about 57,000 more boys than girls, out of a total group of 433,000 or so. I’d say thats still a big difference that far down the totem pole. And as you noted, it rises as the standard is moved higher. </p>
<p>And of course, the college board has already done a little of what you’re referring to in their recentering and other changes over the years. It used to be that the number of math 800s was miniscule. I think it used to be in the several hundreds nationally, but might have even been lower than that. Today’s 10,000 students is a very large number to be “tied” at the top level of a standardized test, even when its a national cohort. </p>
<p>I get a kick out of avoidingwork’s post. Except that I don’t agree about loving numbers(although that would be good ). I don’t care whether people love any activity. They just need competences which vary depending on what they are doing.</p>
<p>I am a “math girl”. I have taken just about every math course available, but I will probably NOT major in mathematics because jobs are hard to find other than teaching. I will major in engineering, physics or go into medicine.</p>
<p>My oldest daughter – a college senior & math major – already has two amazing job offers and multiple final round interviews to go. The jobs range from different types of consulting to investment banking – all careers that interest her. </p>
<p>Math skills qualify you for a wide variety of potential positions… not just teaching. Whether you want to be an accountant, actuary, lawyer, statistician in fields such as bioinformatics (my youngest is doubling in biology & math), etc., there are a wide variety of potential careers you can pursue – and since math majors exist in smaller numbers, demand may be higher for your skills.</p>
<p>Many collge math departments have potential careers listed on their websites. If you truly are a “math girl,” perhaps you should investigate some of the possibilities…</p>
<p>I believe that in their efforts to keep the average/median score at a certain level they have continually dumbed down the SATI, without achieving the desired goal. Instead of bringing up or stabilizing the average score, they have only succeeded in making it easier for the elite students.</p>
<p>In 2003 I tutored the SAT and just a couple days ago I downloaded the recent SATI off the collegeboard website to see if it had changed. I was surprised to see that they removed those “Column A, Column B, …” problems from the math test. As far as I’m concerned those were the only problems on the test that were even passably tricky.</p>
<p>Same with the CR exam. You don’t really need to know much vocabulary any more. I don’t know when it was that they got rid of the “antonyms” questions, but now they just have these “complete the sentence” questions, and most of the incorrect answers are so obviously wrong no wonder the scores for top students have exploded.</p>
<p>Thank you for the email. I was speaking of “pure” math. There are jobs in related fields such as business. When you get up into upper math such as proofs, combinatorics etc…you start thinking you are learning just for the sake of learning, which is good, but may not be too employable.</p>
<p>Cultural barriers to the participation of girls and women in mathematics have been dropping over my lifetime. Right now, we cannot tell what the eventual ratio of girls to boys in the top-scoring groups on math-related tests will be. As I understand the available data, this ratio is rising currently, but it’s hard to say where it will level off.</p>
<p>The number of young American women who become IMO competitors has increased considerably since Melanie Wood led the way. There are longitudinal data available on 7th grade SAT performances, from the work of Julian Stanley and Camilla Benbow. I don’t recall now, but I would be surprised if the girl:boy ratio at the high end has not increased over time.</p>
<p>I am certain, though, that solving difficult problems will make anyone more capable of solving new, harder problems. So I believe that letting anyone off on superficial grounds is harmful to that person. (“But I was born in March! People who were born in March just don’t do as well at mathematics.”) The tricky point is that the level of difficulty needs to be well matched to the current knowledge and ability of the student. I think it would help a lot if there were more opportunity to move up and down in mathematical challenge levels, on a short-term basis–perhaps with modules in mathematics, rather than a year-long course at a single level.</p>
<p>As a side note to parents of middle-school girls: At least one study has shown that iron levels after puberty are linked to performance in mathematics, in the sense that raising the dietary iron availability for girls <em>who are deficient in iron</em> has led to increases in math performance–with emphasis on the material between the stars–no need to make anyone magnetic!</p>
<p>I looked at some of the SAT material. The ratio of girls:boys at the 700+ level, at least, had remained pretty constant over the past decade, and had risen only slightly over the previous one. I certainly agree that barriers to girls in math are coming down, and that many more girls seem to be interested in it. And that’s a good thing; it should continue. But I think one has to remain open to the possibility that the number of girls with the highest level of math skills may never (or not for a long, long time) equal the number of boys at that level.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. Fundamentally, I am as PC as the next guy. I just don’t like to base my worldview on a factual premise that could turn out to be wrong – in this case the inherent equality of the genders in every single sphere of human activity. I firmly believe in their moral equality, and also that they are equal enough in potential so that one can never make a judgment about any individual based on aggregate statistics. But if it turns out that somewhat more boys than girls are really great at math, and somewhat more girls than boys are really great at resolving ethical issues, then no big deal.</p>
<p>Exactly. This was my main concern when I started this thread. I think it is equally damaging and limiting to give boys the “out” in the areas of humanities. When you write often , you become a better writer. If you read often and with increasing difficulty you become a better reader. When you draw frequently you become better at drawing. All of these skills, of course, are enhanced by appropriate instruction that is differentiated according to the students learning style and level of proficiency. </p>
<p>Part of my discomfort with the acceptance or presumption that one gender is better or more innately skilled at an area of discipline is based in my experience of the “hierarchy” of intelligences. It is frequently evidenced here on CC. The subtle or not so subtle perception that “math smart” is smarter than “humanities smart”.</p>
<p>It is never the case that “one gender is better or more innately skilled” at a particular discipline; it is often the case, however, that certain abilities are unevenly distributed between the genders. Say, dunking basketballs. Because, on average, men are taller and have more muscle mass in their legs to develop, many more men than women can dunk. Still, there are women in college and the WNBA who CAN dunk, and who would destroy any but the most elite male players one-on-one. Men are not better than women at dunking, but almost all of the great dunkers are men.</p>
<p>This is an apt example, because dunking basketballs as an issue is culturally defined in a way that is relevant to this gender difference. If baskets were set 8 feet rather than 10 feet from the ground, the male/female difference would be far less pronounced.</p>
<p>I mentioned this discussion to my daughter and she acknowledged that there are only three girls in her AP Physics class and three in her AP Calc class, which does seem odd (it’s a really academically challenging, highly rated HS). But I’d also note that the top math student at the school for the last three years (and one of the top in the nation and world) was a girl. So, yes, any one girl can be just as good as any boy (or better in that girl’s case) in math – but as a rule, girls do seem to lag.</p>
<p>I mentioned in a previous post that DD11 has a hard time in math, but at her 6th grade teachers’ conference yesterday, I found out she has a 96 in it, her best grade! The teacher said she’s picking up the concepts easily. She should be on the honors math track when she gets to high school. Whew!</p>
<p>I enthusiastically endorse the main point of EPTR’s comments in #68. I believe that everyone has a higher degree of plasticity of intellectual capability than people generally suspect. One becomes better at almost anything by working at it. </p>
<p>(On the issue of hierarchies of intelligence raised in the last paragraph, I don’t subscribe to that theory at all, but I have noticed some support for it in QMP’s generation, which I find worrisome.)</p>
<p>@JHS: If you are saying that the under-representation of women in university departments of mathematics should not be taken as a sign of active discrimination against women, or if you are saying that we should not view it as a problem if the gender ratios do not tend toward 1:1 over time in all fields, I have no problem with that.</p>
<p>I do have a problem with the impact on young women of the assumption that the current gender ratios reflect the “innate” ability of boys vs. girls–something extra on the Y chromosome, or a testosterone advantage in reasoning. (There may indeed be a testosterone advantage in testing; I’ve read one paper that claims that boys respond better to challenging, time-limited tests than girls.) For every talented young girl who understands that the statistical averages do not apply to individuals, and that for her, there is no pre-set limit on accomplishment, there is likely to be another–perhaps equally talented, but less self-confident–who is concerned that the gender ratios at the high end might reflect a gender-differential that applies to her, also. Mathematics is a field where performance may especially be undermined by self-doubt. The normal progression of high-level work in mathematics is “Full speed ahead” followed by “Run into a brick wall of incomprehension.” It takes time and effort to get beyond the hard points. Self-doubt based on gender makes it even harder.</p>
<p>There is also an adverse impact on girls who may not be aiming for the higher levels at all, but who would be advantaged by continuing math at least through calculus.</p>
<p>JHS >>It is never the case that “one gender is better or more innately skilled” at a particular discipline; it is often the case, however, that certain abilities are unevenly distributed between the genders. Say, dunking basketballs. Because, on average, men are taller and have more muscle mass in their legs to develop, many more men than women can dunk. Still, there are women in college and the WNBA who CAN dunk, and who would destroy any but the most elite male players one-on-one. Men are not better than women at dunking, but almost all of the great dunkers are men.<<</p>
<p>I’m not sure that the first sentence in your post is corroborated by the remainder of your example. I think that throughout this discussion we have all understood that there are outliers in all of the disciplines, the killer female dunkers that you reference. We get that. And I’m not sure that your example is as apt as you decided it is. Skills in basketball are relative to physical traits in a way that cognitive ability is not (unless we are dealing with anomalies or injury to the brain and exclusive of IQ). Boys are generally taller and more muscular than females therefore they are better (in general) at basketball. The reasons are obvious. Are mens and woman’s brains different? Maybe. I know that some research points in that direction.
My point is that even if there are physical differences in the brain between the genders, one is not superior to the other, nor is either better or worse at understanding and solving complex problems. My concern is that our society has devised ways to teach to the boys in a way that does a disservice to the females. This results in somewhat poorer performance on the part of the females and furthers the perception that girls are weaker in math skills.</p>
<p>Quantmech</p>
<p>Thank you for validating my thoughts. I’m curious, though, when you say that you don’t agree with my observations about the “Hierarchy” of intelligences…where do your strengths lie? Are you more proficient at math or lean more toward the humanities? I respect your opinion, regardless of your own personal strengths but my experience has been that those of us who are more proficient in the arts, literature, etc. are more acutely aware of the prejudice than those who are strong in the maths and sciences.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that the first sentence in your post is corroborated by the remainder of your example. I think that throughout this discussion we have all understood that there are outliers in all of the disciplines, the killer female dunkers that you reference. We get that. And I’m not sure that your example is as apt as you decided it is. Skills in basketball are relative to physical traits in a way that cognitive ability is not (unless we are dealing with anomalies or injury to the brain and exclusive of IQ). Boys are generally taller and more muscular than females therefore they are better (in general) at basketball. The reasons are obvious. Are mens and woman’s brains different? Maybe. I know that some research points in that direction.
My point is that even if there are physical differences in the brain between the genders, one is not superior to the other, nor is either better or worse at understanding and solving complex problems. My concern is that our society has devised ways to teach to the boys in a way that does a disservice to the females. This results in somewhat poorer performance on the part of the females and furthers the perception that girls are weaker in math skills.</p>
<p>EPTR, you raise a valid point on the perception of the “hierarchy” of intelligences. “QuantMech” derives from quantum mechanics, so there may be prejudice I’m not seeing. I was surprised to encounter it in QMP’s generation, where being viewed as “smart” did tend to be based on a student’s math track. QMP, who was further advanced in mathematics than anyone else in the graduating class, was quite indignant about this, actually. My own personal candidate for “the smartest person I have ever met” is an early medieval historian.</p>
<p>Fair enough. Dunking is not a good enough example. I should have come up with something more Carol Gilligan-ish. </p>
<p>Anyway, I love this line:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t seen one recently, but an absolute staple on CC is the thread where everyone complains that elementary and secondary education is completely geared toward girls, and designed to marginalize boys and to destroy their self-esteem. It’s good to remember that this isn’t exactly the case, and that it cuts both ways.</p>
<p>But my sense of the world is not so much that lots of girls are being frustrated by their math teachers, or put down. It’s more that they don’t get what’s so interesting about it, why it’s worth bothering with. It’s a bunch of puzzles that may be fun (or not), but that don’t have enough connection with their lives to take seriously. Most boys don’t mind that at all, the attitude is more, “It’s a challenge, it’s fun, got that, what’s on the next level?”</p>
<p>I agree that it isn’t really a question of girls being frustrated or put down by their math teachers. I think it is more subtle and long term than that. As far as girls feeling that math is not worth bothering with and that its just a bunch of puzzles (visions of vapid girls twirling their hair while they watch their male counterparts work on those perplexing problems), well that has not been my experience, at all. My family (three of us female, poor H) regularly discuss all kinds of topics, math, art, science, history. We are all curious about all kinds of things. My second daughter is excited and thrilled when she solves a calculus problem. I know that this is anecdotal and I can’t speak to your experiences but I wonder, if your observations are, in fact, indicative of the genders, what came first? Is it possible that girls appear uninterested and disconnected from math because they have been receiving the messages their whole lives that girls don’t “do” math well?</p>
<p>Well, my daughter has two parents who are structural engineers and use math daily (in our home business), so she knows Mom is good at math! And yes, we do talk about math a lot. She’s doing well in math right now, but she’s still not interested in it.</p>
). I don’t care whether people love any activity. They just need competences which vary depending on what they are doing.</p>