<p>Not to derail the topic (who am I kidding, it’s already derailed), but…I always thought guys had higher insurance rates because people think they’re more prone to peer pressure or whatever? So more prone to reckless driving (speeding, etc, etc, etc.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait a minute, men get into more accidents than women in general (and I’m not saying girls vs guys here, just trying to provide stats):
[Yahoo</a>! Auto Insurance | Why Do Men Pay More for Car Insurance?](<a href=“Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos”>Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos)</p>
<p>Black people don’t drive better/worse than Mexicans and Whites don’t drive riskier than Asians, but there is a gender difference.</p>
<p>Cue all the hardcore feminists crying out in rage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, and my point is, that doesn’t justify said sexism, anymore than age old racism was justified by previous public indifference to it.</p>
<p>CE527M: yeah, but Repede’s talking about average accidents per miles driven, not total accidents. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s easy to refute the evidence that guys, on average, are slightly better drivers than girls (per Repede’s point), possibly because of better reflexes/hand-eye. It isn’t an insult on anyone’s intelligence or character, lol.</p>
<p>STheart: Wait, are you responding to CE57M’s post? Because if so, you need to work on your critical reading skills, lol.</p>
<p>I understand your point now.</p>
<p>Wow. Well I’m the OP 
I’m kind of surprised that this blew up so big.
The thread kind of got off topic with the “Are men or women better drivers?” thing. I don’t think that’s related (especially that there are more male race car drivers part, lol). I’m just asking for some theories for these statistics, I don’t care about the driving statistics at all. That’s opening a whole new can of worms.</p>
<p>I kind of have a hard time believing it has to do with innate talent/intelligence–boys doing better on the SAT or girls doing better in school. I’ve read about the bell-curve theory and everything, and I’ve read about how it’s a myth, so I don’t know which to believe. I’ve also read about the left-brain, right brain theory, and I’ve read about how it’s a myth. This kind of leads me to believe that the brain is a lot more flexible than we give it credit for, so whatever differences we have, we should not be seeing a 30 point difference on the math section of the SAT, and we shouldn’t be seeing a disproportionate amount of boys failing more than girls. I think the differences are exaggerated, and should never be excused. You should never “boys will be boys” or “girls just don’t like math” but we say it all the time and wonder why boys fail school and girls rarely major in math. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.</p>
<p>In other countries girls have gotten equally high scores (sometimes higher scores) in math–and not in school, on standardized tests (although it’s not the SAT’s). People say girls don’t like math or “dry” subjects, yet in India both sexes major in engineering equally–and a lot. If these were truly as innate and biological as we say they are, these facts would make no sense. If <em>entire countries</em> are raising girls’ math scores (also boys’ reading scores, I’ve read) to be equal, then we have no excuse. Maybe we learn differently, but obviously there are some ways we learn the same and those countries have adopted those methods.</p>
<p>So I think we are different, but if we had less bias in society we’d see more boys in advanced language classes, and more girls in advanced math classes. We’d see the differences in school grades and SAT scores shrink, too. It could also have to do with the demographic of those who take SAT, as BrothersGrimm said on the first page.</p>
<p>You could also Google “stereotype threat”, that might make my argument more legit.</p>
<p><em>thumbs up</em></p>
<p>I was confused by this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was the SAT scored differently in 1996? Is 4 points lower in verbal really all that significant a difference? How about 35 points in math? (Missing a single question can lower your score by >10 points.)</p>
<p>Because if girls and boys scored same , you wouldn’t have asked the question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. When you’re talking about millions of test takers, it is very significant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it? I dropped Stat, so I can’t comment.</p>
<p>Some people seem to be confused on the meaning of “significant.”</p>
<p>Significant means essentially that there is a measurable difference. For instance, if the average score for girls was 503.021 and for guys was 503.022, it might be just purely a coincidental difference. A significant difference means that if they were to repeat it, the same group would likely still score higher. When talking about stats, “significant” doesn’t necessarily mean “large.”</p>
<p>I tend to believe that individuals have an innate quantifiable intelligence (not stating IQ, which is not innate measure but merely a way to compare between people and populations), and that the median of this is roughly the same for both males and females, but males having a higher standard deviation. I think that could account for the difference, where those of above a threshold are more likely to take the SAT than those below that threshold, thusly meaning the average male test taker is smarter than the average female test taker, but doesn’t necessarily account for it.</p>
<p>If we’re going to bring India into the discussion, it’s incomparable to the US because there are so many Indians who don’t get educated. If you want to go this route the only countries you could reliably compare the US to are other counties where the vast majority of under-15s go to school, which is largely only developed countries (you might say Cuba and some countries of Eastern Europe fit the bill too but we have less data from them).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m well aware of its connotation, and I’m questioning whether 4 points lower in verbal would count as statistically significant.</p>
<p>I don’t even understand why the question of boys vs. girls is remotely relevant beyond pure posturing and superiority complexes. A 4% difference in IQ points in vast demographic averages shouldn’t affect how individuals are judged. Unreasonable guilt by association is one of humanity’s worst biases, IMO.</p>
<p>LOL @ how pseudo-intellectual I just sounded. But you get what I mean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it was scored differently… the standard deviations were lower so the scores crowded closer to the mean. so 4 meant more then than it does now. would it be statistically significant? maybe. but meaningful? i don’t think so, that’s hardly a meaningful difference if you ask me. on the other hand then math difference seems substantial. if ability followed the same normal-ish distribution for guys and girls than innocent shifts in the mean of ability could make it so an overwhelming number of one gender occupy the spots of those that are more talented. but it’s common to assume that the the difference in the means doesn’t reflect any (or much) difference of ability, and rather the varying external influences on boys and girls and things like that… which is the question of “why” girls score lower.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i like your theory. it sounds good anyway. i would believe it!</p>
<p>apparently you have a logical mind…</p>
<p>Because girls tend to go for social sciences and majors that are not math/engineering related. Ones that are not too strenuous intellectually and are easy As.</p>
<p>…Wut? </p>
<p>10char</p>
<p>Could it just be that boys rule and girls drool? I don’t see why everyone is afraid to admit boys are the being smartest ones.</p>
<p>The NYTimes article being from 1997, we may be working with old data here…</p>
<p>But it is true that HS grades don’t necessarily reflect how well you mastered the material, more like how well you followed the rules (kept a notebook, turned in worksheets on time.) I had to talk my brilliant (no, really!) son into following the rules in some of his classes. He easily mastered the material by listening in class and by reading the textbook. To have to keep a daily journal, or organize his notebook in some silly time-wasting way according to the teacher’s rules, annoyed him no end.</p>
<p>I persuaded him some other kid who wasn’t as smart was going to get HIS scholarship to a good college if he didn’t go with the program and get the grades he deserved.</p>
<p>Exactly what mommusic said.</p>
<p>A lot of girls get excellent grades by going after every extra credit point–and very rarely will a high school aged boy do that. So–2 students earn the same 88 on exams–the boy will get the B and the girl will do a whole bunch of extra credit to get the A. But they both have the same amount of knowledge.</p>
<p>Also a lot of the stuff my boys had to do in high school had nothing to do with learning the subject matter. My son got a C when required to turn in a poster for an AP literature class (really? a poster? I can’t say I blamed him for doing the minimum) His poster met all the requirements on the assignment rubric–but it was a piece of white posterboard with black marker bullet points. No errors in spelling or grammar. A girl turned in a fancy pink posterboard, nicely decorated, pretty marker colors and ribbons–but 3 spelling errors and 2 grammar errors–and got an A-. My son eked out a B in the class (A’s on the exams, but didn’t get a lot of the fluff points, lost points when the teacher docked him for his brown-paper bag bookcover being ripped during “cover check”, and refused to do extra credit) and the girl got an A+. My son got a 5 on the AP exam and the girl got a 2.</p>