<p>How do you quantify intelligence, Mr. Payne? SAT scores? High school GPAs? Drop-out rates? Engineering, by nature, is a very different field from English or the humanities. Students who are more math and science oriented aren't any smarter than those who aren't - it's an insult to every liberal arts major to suggest that. </p>
<p>The major is generally harder, sometimes much harder, true. But when you are talking about intelligence, you can't compare that of a given engineering student with that of a given philosophy major based on their GPA, or really, any other criteria that has been suggested in the previous post. Especially when the GPA in question is a 4.0 - perhaps it's a significantly greater accomplishment to do that in engineering, but then, some of those liberal arts majors are very bright as well.</p>
<p>jazzymom: I don't disagree that schools should do what they can, or that teachers should do their best to teach the students in front of them. (My mother, by the way, taught at an all-male high school for 15 years.) But the "boy crisis" rhetoric drives me up a wall. In my life, and in my kids' lives, it's still very much a "man's world"; the subtle and not-so effects of male privilege are pervasive. I don't walk around feeling bad for having taken advantage of that all my life, or try to wring it out of my son, but it seems silly to suggest that we need to institutionalize it further because by some, noneconomic measures girls are slightly outperforming boys. Boys -- provided they can avoid prison, death, or high-level money sports -- seem to do just fine in the end. (I wasn't so excited about the "Reviving Ophelia" rhetoric a few years ago, either. It did describe something I could observe in the lives of people around me, but I noticed that somehow by the time they turned 20 a lot of those girls were back to kicking ass.)</p>
<p>By the way, a small example (and one that's relevant to the next point): This is my daughter complaining about required courses at her elite college: "They have a math placement test to determine which of six levels of calculus you go into, so that I don't hold back people who really know what they're doing. But I wish they had some test to determine whether you have a clue about reading poetry. Why do I have to sit in class with a bunch of guys who have never really done it, have no idea how to do it, don't think they ought to learn it, and insist on taking up class time to attack its legitimacy? The math kids get real math classes; I get more high school."</p>
<p>All you people discussing humanities vs. engineering grades: It is pretty well documented that average grades in engineering and sciences are significantly lower than in the humanities, and I think most people believe that reflects cultural patterns in those fields (and the subjectiveness of humanities grading) rather than comparative lack of intelligence on the part of the math/science boys. It is more difficult to achieve a high GPA in math/science than in the humanities, and the tougher-graded fields tend to be overweighted to men. So I think you are all right that men's lower average college GPAs do not necessarily mean that men are performing less well than women. On the other hand, it is a significant logical fallacy to suggest this means that a particular 4.0 engineer is more intelligent than a 4.0 philosopher. Arguing that both casts doubt on your math comprehension and suggests that you could do with some exposure to top-notch philosophers.</p>
<p>Mr. Payne, you make a slight error. If you compared 3.5 to 3.5, it would be easier to agree with you. As it stands, though, a poli sci or Asian Studies major can't get more than a 4.0. Nothing says that the 4.0 in those majors wouldn't get straight As in engineering - after all, that person did the best work under the measured system.</p>
<p>It's kind of like when my ex-boyfriend told me that I would not have gotten an 800 on the math SATs if I took it before the recentering. My response was that there was no way to determine that; if I got all the questions right, I might have done the same in 1995. </p>
<p>Likewise for a 4.0. The only proper measure is to compare people who have actually messed up. :)</p>
<p>People seem to be arguing while the ship is sinking. The ship is the broader social and economic reality of the US, while the argument is all about men versus women. </p>
<p>I know the sinking ship metaphor sounds dramatic, but if current trends are extrapolated for another fifty years, we will see <em>elite</em> women as a majority in many areas of life and economics. We will have a much larger male undereducated underclass along with a still large female underclass. And among the self-made billionaires and CEOs there will be many women. </p>
<p>This gender war stuff keeps us distacted from the broader changes going on. Like who is going to pay for the debt. It be ironic if women finally achieved (or even surpassed) economic parity with men at the same time that they had to pay huge taxes for past debt (which could be blamed mainly on men, of course, but it won't change the situation). The elite women might also have to live in gated, guarded communities given the way that inequality is associated with a break down of safety and civil society. I'd predict also those protected communities would be really expensive.</p>
<p>By the way, one of the few things boys read more than girls is science fiction. And alot of this has already been described in dystopian sci fi.</p>
<p>As I see it, helping boys is about helping all of us.</p>
<p>mr payne listen u elitist bastard you cannot say a person is "smarter" jsut because they are in engineering. there is no way to verily quantify intelligence like that and put a field above the other. PERIOD. fine u get more money and so what? is everybody intersted in monetary persuit? NO. im a biochemistry and cell biology major and i cant agree with any part of that statement whatsoever. if anything philosophy is notorious for a level of arduosity requiring alot of intellectual substance.</p>
<p>Yes. I think it's important to look beyond our own comfortable well-educated, kids-going-to-college, swimming-pool-in-the-backyard lives and care about the people who live on the socio-economic level where this "boy problem" really hurts. The low and low-middle class families who have a slimmer margin for error in their lives; mess up or drop out in that world and you don't get to go to Europe for a gap year and bounce back. I agree with you that it's not hard to foresee a growing underclass since low-earning men who become fathers and can't support families often do not stick around to play Mr. Mom. So the problem of boy failure contributes to a vicious cycle that is ultimately damaging to American society. </p>
<p>JHS: </p>
<p>I continue to not "get" (or accept) the POV that you and others have expressed that there should be no concern or action taken regarding the boy-girl achievement gap because it's still a "man's world" in the professional workplace and traditional corridors of power. To my mind, what that says is that until the elite world --- top earning professions, top government levels, top science and research jobs, top university jobs --- until all these areas reach parity between men and women, changes that could boost education and achievement levels for ALL kids (but particularly boys) can be put on hold. The education research community in universities that should really care about what is happening in America in the big picture seems uninterested in looking at ways to help boys because it's still a man's world among the elite?? IMO, that's just wrong. The depth and breadth of this issue is not about my high-achieving sons or your high-achieving daughter and what's frustrating about men in poetry class. It's about the number of boys and young men who are being inadequately prepared for either higher education or well-paying jobs. The chancellor of NYC schools is not concerned about a boy-girl gap in the city's elite private schools after all. </p>
<p>Actually, I think your daughter has a good point and maybe her college should create levels of poetry study to offer a choice for those who are serious about it and those who are just filling a requirement. I'm sure there are some men who want to take those classes seriously too and they shouldn't have to put up with high school antics either.</p>
<p>With all the focus on this topic in recent months, Im surprised that there hasnt been more discussion/debate around the merits of single sex schools. There is little doubt in my mind that the learning styles and educational needs of girls and boys, particularly in the early years, are different. Wouldnt single sex schools, at least at the elementary school level, be a means of better accommodating each?</p>
<p>There's definitely a really good argument to be made for single sex schools. But serge's opinion is probably prevalent among students - at least, current students who are beyond the "girls have cooties" age. But even for young children, isolating gender may not such</a> great future social consequences.</p>
<p>(Note: the comic is an exaggeration, of course)</p>
<p>it wont have very good social consequences at all. interactions with the other sex are very important for later development. if you go to a same sex school your whole life and lack any interaction with girls. how are u going to get over the insecurities and ever ask a girl to a date? or have emotional maturity? alot of pedantic people always try to look at the "academic" consequences and overlook the social interactions.</p>
<p>For the same reasons that I value ethnic and cultural diversity, I also value co-ed colleges. Male and female students do have different experiences and perspectives to bring to discussions.</p>
<p>Marite, I completely agree at the college level, and probably at the high school level too. But I think single sex education at the elementary school level would probably have more advantages than disadvantages.</p>
<p>Like I said in an earlier post, I'd be interested in how average grading in different fields accounts for the differences in average GPA between the sexes, how predictive the SAT is between the sexes (more so for women than men, they say, actually underpredicting significantly for men), and other things. Such findings don't really take into account difficulty, but average grading. Studies show that the grading in the humanities and social sciences tends to be higher than the sciences and techinical majors. That is not a judgement on "ease" or "difficulty."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I continue to not "get" (or accept) the POV that you and others have expressed that there should be no concern or action taken regarding the boy-girl achievement gap because it's still a "man's world" in the professional workplace and traditional corridors of power. To my mind, what that says is that until the elite world --- top earning professions, top government levels, top science and research jobs, top university jobs --- until all these areas reach parity between men and women, changes that could boost education and achievement levels for ALL kids (but particularly boys) can be put on hold. The education research community in universities that should really care about what is happening in America in the big picture seems uninterested in looking at ways to help boys because it's still a man's world among the elite?? IMO, that's just wrong. The depth and breadth of this issue is not about my high-achieving sons or your high-achieving daughter and what's frustrating about men in poetry class. It's about the number of boys and young men who are being inadequately prepared for either higher education or well-paying jobs. The chancellor of NYC schools is not concerned about a boy-girl gap in the city's elite private schools after all.
<p>ariesathena: "Mr. Payne, you make a slight error. If you compared 3.5 to 3.5, it would be easier to agree with you. As it stands, though, a poli sci or Asian Studies major can't get more than a 4.0. Nothing says that the 4.0 in those majors wouldn't get straight As in engineering - after all, that person did the best work under the measured system.</p>
<p>It's kind of like when my ex-boyfriend told me that I would not have gotten an 800 on the math SATs if I took it before the recentering. My response was that there was no way to determine that; if I got all the questions right, I might have done the same in 1995.</p>
<p>Likewise for a 4.0. The only proper measure is to compare people who have actually messed up. "</p>
<p>I thought you were smarter than this. I did wonder if anyone would mention it though. :)</p>
<p>My point still stands however. Lets assume for a second that that both majors follow a standard Gaussian distribution (or something to that effect) about the mean. Naturally there will be more 4.0s within the grade with the higher average. Just by definition that would mean the percentile for someone with a 4.0 in the major with a higher mean would be lower.</p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>Three people have 4.0s in the Liberal Arts College out of 200 people. (Mean GPA of 3.2)
One person has a 4.0 in the College of Engineering out of 200 people. (Mean GPA of 2.8)
Assuming that each major has the same distribution of intelligence, I can infer that the Engineering 4.0 has the higher intelligence (simply by correlating intelligence with grades). Now, if you want to argue against that correlation, I'll <em>gladly</em> accept that argument (and then proceed to unleash an even more unbeatable argument).</p>
<p>Of course, a sample size of 400 proves nothing, but over 200,000 graduates? Trust me, it means a lot.</p>
<p>Oh, and in some years, there isn't even a 4.0 Engineering graduate.</p>
<p>zoogies - "How do you quantify intelligence, Mr. Payne? SAT scores? High school GPAs? Drop-out rates? Engineering, by nature, is a very different field from English or the humanities. Students who are more math and science oriented aren't any smarter than those who aren't - it's an insult to every liberal arts major to suggest that.</p>
<p>The major is generally harder, sometimes much harder, true. But when you are talking about intelligence, you can't compare that of a given engineering student with that of a given philosophy major based on their GPA, or really, any other criteria that has been suggested in the previous post. Especially when the GPA in question is a 4.0 - perhaps it's a significantly greater accomplishment to do that in engineering, but then, some of those liberal arts majors are very bright as well."</p>
<p>How do I quantify intelligence? By taking a culture free IQ test. I don't care about who is math or science "oriented". I care about strictly logical and analytical reasoning. I don't see "math or science oriented" anywhere in that line. :)</p>
<p>I have never said that liberal arts majors aren't bright. I simply said that a 4.0 in Engineering has a better correlation to intelligence that a 4.0 in Political Science (and virtually all other humanities). This is a very hard point to argue. In fact, in order to prove me wrong you'd have to argue that the average student in humanities is smarter than the average student in engineering.</p>
<p>serge - "mr payne listen u elitist bastard you cannot say a person is "smarter" jsut because they are in engineering. there is no way to verily quantify intelligence like that and put a field above the other. PERIOD. fine u get more money and so what? is everybody intersted in monetary persuit? NO. im a biochemistry and cell biology major and i cant agree with any part of that statement whatsoever. if anything philosophy is notorious for a level of arduosity requiring alot of intellectual substance."</p>
<p>Trust me on this one - you aren't helping your cause.</p>
<p>Mr Payne, you must realize the sciences fall within the liberal arts majors? If not, look it up. Dictionary.com is a great place.</p>
<p>I'm not sure about the correlation between intelligence, discipline and GPA. What I do think is important is how grading pratices differ and what results from that. Don't you agree that's more important, at least in this case?</p>
<p>"Mr Payne, you must realize the sciences fall within the liberal arts majors? If not, look it up. Dictionary.com is a great place."</p>
<p>Pardon me for my inexactness. I meant the humanities. I suppose I could include the social sciences as well. Hell, I'll even include literature and the fine arts. Basically everything not covered by the natural sciences...
[I could probably even include natural sciences (and math) because they most likely would just be outweighed by those other items...]</p>
<p>"I'm not sure about the correlation between intelligence, discipline and GPA. What I do think is important is how grading pratices differ and what results from that. Don't you agree that's more important, at least in this case?"</p>
<p>Assumption: GPA correlates to intelligence. I can't speak for other majors, but from my experience there is a reasonably high correlation between performance in Engineering/Math/Physics classes and intelligence. Probably not as good a correlation as individual effort, but still fairly high.</p>
<p>Now, based on the simple <em>fact</em> that Engineering GPAs tend to have significantly lower averages, then on a percentile basis the intelligence of a 3.0 in Engineering is higher than a 3.0 in Liberal Arts (I can still say this if we average all of the liberal arts majors). Now, why anyone would take the slightest bit of offense to this point shocks me. It's simply a logical conclusion to Engineering having a lower mean GPA than Liberal Arts.</p>
<p>Now, someone might take offense to me saying that I believe that the 99th percentile Engineering Graduate is smarter than the 99th percentile Humanities graduate. Now, I could also create this argument, but it would be much less solid and it would be based on things I previously mentioned - such as higher entering GPA, higher SAT scores, lower graduation rates, lower exiting GPA, higher exiting salaries, etc.</p>
