<p>U.S. public grammar schools and high schools are a female dominated universes that stress female values and teaching methods. Ergo, there is zero wonder as to why boys don’t seem to achieve as well as girls. The only surprise to me is the fact that mothers of sons do not object. </p>
<p>Alas, the subsequent results are to be expected.</p>
<p>I do object. Though in the pc universe, parents of white “advantaged boys” are merely considered whiners when they bring it up. Which is why my boys have gone to private schools that do a great job of teaching both boys and girls.</p>
<p>@ toblin -</p>
<p>replace the word “female” with “feminine” and I agree with you</p>
<p>toblin et all-
As a women’s studies major and mother of a son, I find it intriguing that in one generation we have gone from “Reviving Ophelia” to “the Trouble with Boys”. Can we really be arguing that in one generation we have gone from the problem of girls being discouraged to take higher math and science classes, to the lack of attention given to females in the classroom, the glass ceiling in business, and the silent woman in the boardroom to believeing that the same educational system that wasn’t calling on girls in the 90s is now out to get the boys in the 2000s?
I see the data, and have anecdotal evidence in spades as the mother of a 16-year old. My DS is one of only 2 males in the top 15 of the class. Boys smarter than him have “better things to do” than study hard, but he has sacrificed to maintain his GPA. If anything, his teachers in public high school (primarily male) adore him, because he is the only one in the room that reminds them on themselves. On this site we have both high achieving boys and the “smart but lazy” boys. I don’t blame the education system for the creation of 2200 SAT and 3.1 GPA. The motivation is not a teacher’s responsibility, but rather the students.
I do find it slightly discouraging that quality female applicants are not able to attend their dream school, but I am a firm believer in a diverse classroom, and diverse society. I feel that those that complain because a qualified URM gets in over an ORM with stellar stats is okay if it benefits the learning environment overall, and the same goes for gender.</p>
<p>MizzBee, I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that this generation of girls are very motivated to achieve. They will work constantly and strive in every single class they have. They are very motivated by grades, extremely hard workers, and are rather intimidating to many of the boys. I’m generalizing here, but it seems that the boys are only motivated to work hard if they are interested. And then they can be amazing. If it is boring to them, they lose interest and don’t put as much effort into it.</p>
<p>I really noticed that at my son’s high school, where all of the kids are fairly high achievers, but the girls are exceptional. My older son graduated, didn’t work as hard as he should have (except for in classes he really liked). Now he’s in a very tough college, taking the classes he desires…and working constantly, doing better than he ever did in high school, with no pressure from us. The motivation is internal, because he actually is fascinated with what he’s doing.</p>
<p>I guess I don’t see it as the parent of a math and science oriented girl. Since middle school D has been the only girl (or 1 of 2) on the math team, science bowl team, quiz bowl team, etc. . . Now she’s in advanced math courses, and she’s the only girl in a room of 25 taking “beyond calculus” math electives. If you look in the middle, or even the 75%ile, it’s majority girls, but once you get above the 95%ile, it’s boys, boys, boys.</p>
<p>I was surprised by Cal’s numbers, since it is 54% female. But perhaps using admit data alone is just an example of Simpson’s Paradox (great item for AP Stat students to look up.) (Hint: Cal receives a lot more male apps for its Engineering program and…admission to Engineering is significantly more competitive than that of Letters & Sciences.)</p>
<p>“Oddly, despite the Kenyon article, they are actually the least discriminatory.”</p>
<p>No conclusions can be drawn from these limited admittance stats. We would need the complete admission files of all applicants form discrimination conclusions.</p>
<p>Reading through the thread, no one seemed to point out that males have a higher standard deviation of intelligence than females. Significantly more males are born mentally deficient to the average American than are females. If you look at the special ed classroom at your local high school, you’ll see a couple of girls, and dozens of boys. </p>
<p>Also, it is far more frequent that males are pushed into trade fields due to being “handy” or “mechanical,” which typically require 2-year Associates degrees rather than 4 year degrees in Arts & Sciences. I don’t know the actual statistics, but I’m sure that if you looked at the breakdown of the genders of plumbers, electricians, HVAC, car mechanics, etc, you’d see they’re all heavily male. </p>
<p>And of 'course, far more males go to jail than females. I think I saw that mentioned once in the thread.</p>
<p>^ True, but this cuts down on the number of male applicants. More subtle is, considering the proportion of male vs. female applicants, why are there differences in admission rates and factors?</p>
<p>[It should have been “… of all applicants to form discrimination conclusions” ^^ above.]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This cannot be good since my S is the most efficient and proficient learner in our household. Not sure about actual IQ, BUT if males are significantly deficient the girls in ths house are in serious trouble!! ;)</p>
<p>“Significantly more males are born mentally deficient to the average American than are females.”</p>
<p>Oh yeah, I’m going to see how far I get with that one…the only females besides me in the house have four legs. Plus I work with mostly guys, now I have something I can use to my advantage. Though I’m sure it will get me absolutely nowhere, but it’s a good one to use when I need an appropriate insult :)</p>
<p>MizzBee, Well said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I object to sound teaching methods being wrapped in pink and blue ribbons. I object to people trying to dumb down my son’s education under the guise of “helping” him not get girl cooties on him. I object to the idea that expecting boys to be as well-rounded as we expect girls to be is in any way a disservice to boys.</p>
<p>As a mother of a boy and a girl, I have noticed a significant difference in maturity for a given age. My daughter was so much more ready for school than her brother was at the age of 5 and at the age of 15. </p>
<p>It seems like there is a greater span of the maturity levels of boys than girls–girls do vary but not as much as boys.</p>
<p>I know there is biological data showing that the prefrontal cortex of the brain develops more slowly in boys than in girls. That is the part of the brain used in planning ahead, thinking of consequences. The insurance industry knows this and this is why girls pay less for car insurance than boys. I think this is also why some boys just don’t care about their grades in high school as early as the girls do.</p>
<p>I think college admission offices know this too. That is why the upward trend is important–some boys don’t figure out that grades are important until late sophomore or junior year. Some are even later. I also think that some boys find the transition to high school more difficult because they are less mentally and physically mature than girls of the same age; so their coping skills may not be as good. They all do catch up eventually and you tend to see this in college.</p>
<p>Vossron, many earlier in the thread made the seemingly reasonable argument that far more females apply to liberal arts colleges than males, and yet, those schools wish their ratios to remain the same. The thread then took a turn into the reason why fewer males applied to these colleges than females. That is what I was trying to comment on. </p>
<p>Modadunn, a higher standard deviation would mean that a greater number of males are “smart” than females, and a greater number of males are “dumb” than females. I’m sure you were just poking fun at me, but I figured I’d clarify in case it was necessary.</p>
<p>Busdriver11, I was obviously talking about humans. You don’t need to come here and tell me you’re smarter than your dog. </p>
<p>Here’s a quick source backing that up, though I didn’t actually read it. I think it backs me up at least. If you’re interested there are lots of sources which have made the same conclusions. </p>
<p>[ScienceDirect</a> - Intelligence : Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979](<a href=“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4M6458N-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9645cabd1d74fe780450c1974a5abaa8&searchtype=a]ScienceDirect”>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4M6458N-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9645cabd1d74fe780450c1974a5abaa8&searchtype=a)</p>
<p>Ok, fair enough. In “those schools wish their ratios to remain the same” does same mean constant or a 50/50 balance? My impression is that schools don’t want the ratio to become so lopsided that applicants perceive a mostly-single-gender school, but they’re fine with their school being at a constant gender ratio, whatever direction it tilts, so that they don’t have to invoke a Kenyon bias.</p>
<p>“If you want to see if a school is gender blind, you need to show SAT and GPA range of admitted students broken out by gender (or at least median scores/GPA). And if the school is gender blind, the ranges of admitted students will be the same.”</p>
<p>This works only for schools that use solely SAT and GPA as admission criteria. If they use other criteria, those factors must also be tested.</p>
<p>“Busdriver11, I was obviously talking about humans. You don’t need to come here and tell me you’re smarter than your dog.”</p>
<p>Er, sure, Vladen. And I was obviously joking. I hope I’m smarter than my dogs (though it’s probably debateable according to all the males in my family). They are certainly better looking.</p>
<p>I read an article last year (can’t remember where) on how the majority of pregnant moms hope for a girl. Why? Girls can do everything a boy can do (sports, politics, business) plus you can dress them up and take them to a tea party! I had to think about that for a while–IMHO it’s kind of true.</p>
<p>I have to agree with other posters that commented on how k-12 schools do not meet the needs of boys. My colleagues and I have noticed this trend for the past 10 years. At my school, girls make up 75% of students in the top 10%, even when we divide it into the top 5%. Girls are the class presidents (my students watched a movie from the 80’s and all commented how weird it was that they had a male student body president–caught me by surprise). Girls get special invitations to attend “female engineering day” at Intel and are recognized monthly for their outstanding academic/community service by women’s clubs.</p>
<p>I have never seen the boys invited to a “reading/writing seminar” or any service clubs acknowledge their achievements. Girl power is a good thing but we would never talk about the power of boys.</p>
<p>When I got my teaching credential (twenty years ago) I was taught to not ignore the girls, because those aggressive boys would demand my attention. Hmm… not what I am seeing these days.</p>
<p>I think that women have done a great job at empowering their daughters. It is now time for the men to step up and show the boys how great they can be and to celebrate them (and yes us mom’s can help out as well).</p>
<p>My experience was very different. I found that S got plenty of attention in both elementary and MS. And that was for both academics and school based EC’s. When the boys tried out for things (school plays, etc) or ran for offices their chances were at least as good as the girls chances. In some cases boys made less effort so in those situations the girls took over and why not?</p>
<p>There were teachers who favored girls and teachers who favored boys.</p>
<p>As for college admissions, D applied ED to a school which is about 60% female so her gender may have been a disadvantage. However I refused to worry about it as there was nothing we could do. It was what it was. S is interested in a career field which is mostly male so he will have a similar issue when he does college apps. Again, I see no point in concerning myself with this. I talk to him about the things that he can control: grades, EC’s , etc.</p>
<p>One aspect of this problem, and, yes, it is a problem, is that our society increasingly values achievement over potential at too early of an age. Now if you take that assertion standing alone and without the explanation below, it will be easy to ridicule. Instead, give it some serious thought. How much does early achievement really reflect potential?</p>
<p>Music: At high level pre-college programs, summer camps, etc. the teachers are constantly searching for the high achieving “prodigy,” the one who can play a difficult concerto at age 8. While some of those musicians go on to achieve great things, many do not. Trust me on this one; I have first hand experience and have spoken with more than a few of these educators. And so we’re clear, without a hint of jealousy as I’m ecstatic about where and with whom my child is studying.</p>
<p>Sports: Watch the Little League World Series. Read the archived articles of the tournaments from the 80’s and 90’s and then look to see how many of those players eventually excelled in baseball. Look at your hometown sports leagues and see the parents who genuinely believe that if their child is the best eight year old in town it bodes well for high school recognition and beyond. And look at the high school coaches who are all too eager to profit from that belief with private lessons, camps, and other lucrative additions to their earnings. Again, I have first hand experience in this area.</p>
<p>Academics: We place emphasis on achievement as early as middle school as if there is a significant correlation between an eighth grade SAT score and college success. We weed out 90+% (let’s leave out the outliers for purposes of this discussion) of high school children based upon class rank when admitting students to highly selective colleges and universities. Other than Princeton, because they do not use freshman grades in admissions decisions, most of these schools are using grades earned by 13 year old boys and girls in admitting students to their institutions. Does anyone genuinely believe that differentiating the student who got a B in freshman world history from another who got an A in the same course has any basis whatsoever in evaluating the potential of those students?</p>
<p>Add to this, the “Tiger Mother” phenomenon where some parents (Asian and non-Asian, mothers and fathers) are driving artificial achievement by overemphasis in all of these areas (academics, music, athletics) and more. Does anyone remember the “America’s Funniest Home Videos” child who could name all of the U.S. presidents and recognize their pictures at age 3, and the gushing about how “smart” he was? We have national champions at earlier and earlier ages in youth sports. In basketball there are “National Championships” in second grade. There are “National Champions” in football and cheerleading at the fifth grade level. These are valueless determinations that are parlayed into a misallocation of teaching resources in favor of “high achievement” at an early age.</p>
<p>The boy/girl ratio is, in part due to this overemphasis on achievement at too early of an age. Girls mature earlier and have an advantage over boys when it comes to getting an A in history, math, or whatever else when they are 13 years old. That leads to girls, as a group, getting more resources earlier and beginning a cycle of higher achievement earlier. Over time, that advantage at the age of 13, diminishes to zero, the sexes having basically equal academic potential.</p>
<p>One final thought based upon my observations in the music education area. Female teachers are very careful to take care of their own. This to me is understandable because many of these teachers achieved during a time when they were the victims of discrimination so they seem to go out of their way to protect young girls. But male teachers gravitate to female students, presumably because they are more mature, more dedicated at earlier ages, and more malleable by both their parents and their teachers. This creates an atmosphere of apparent favoritism for female musicians at a young age and disheartens many boys who are interested in pursuing music.</p>