Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2283083,00.html

by greendestiny • 18 years ago

12 24 18 years ago

education.guardian.co.uk

ardit33• 18 years ago

good. Now they can start studying some computer science. Being in a class with 95% guys, is depressing. Some more balanced demographic, makes it more fun.

But I wonder if they even want to......

sfg2• 18 years ago

My only real problem with this is that I do not really care about what is achieved in children's mathematics classes. Surely, the better test of true ability in this field would be to look at researchers and research accomplishments.

hashtable• 18 years ago

Valuing research mathematics over everyday math is arbitrary and subjective.

sfg2• 18 years ago

Of course it is subjective, it is is me that does not care about children's mathematics. I make no claim for the wider world. That's why I said "My only problem" and not "the problem".

Its not entirely arbitrary though. I care about research mathematics as to do well at it(or to do it at all) requires very strong mathematical abilities. To do well in classroom mathematics is as much, and probably more, to do with being a good student.

So it seems to me that by looking at children's mathematics rather than research mathematics your results are going to be confounded by the issue that your measuring mathematics ability via a proxy(schoolroom mathematics) rather than the real thing(research mathematics). Your results might still be correct, but I find it hard to know if that is the case.

I suppose, if your just interested in day to day average numeracy skills then looking at children is fine, except even then I would prefer the study was performed on adults rather than regularly drilled students. That way you will find out who is more capable of retaining numeracy skills and who has the higher natural levels of numeracy, rather than just finding out which students revise the hardest and listen to the teacher most attentively.

ivankirigin3• 18 years ago

The problem here is mean vs variance. The biggest performers in math and science are going to be at least a few standard deviations away from the mean.

Identical mean and slightly higher variance in men would significantly contribute to the ratios we see today.

Either way, the goal shouldn't be to make everyone feel good about innate abilities. The goal should be to find the reason why one person is innately better than someone else in a particular skill. Step 1: understanding. Step 2: enhancement. Step 3: repeat.

Similar to the recent JL post: forget the gap, focus on the product. It matters most.

mlinsey2• 18 years ago

Sure, variance is another question (and one not addressed either way by linked article), but there were some folks in the other thread arguing that maybe men are evolutionarily predisposed to be better at math than women. If that were true, you would expect to see differences in the mean and not just the variance.

ivankirigin3• 18 years ago

The conversation is usually about the higher end. Higher variance would also lead to a greater number of math underachievers. I'm pretty sure the numbers play this out, but I think lower bounds on achievement tend to be heavily skewed by 'nurture'. Also, this assumes a symmetric curve. This highlights the gross over simplifications even a more advanced model suffers from. We're modeling brains here, after all, with one or two numbers.

But you are technically incorrect. You can see more of a certain group in the high end if there is higher variance with equal mean.

tx3• 18 years ago

Why is it even worth discussing? Or even worth discovering? Why do we always break ourselves down (by age, gender, education, whatever) into groups and bump them into each other?

tungstenfurnace2• 18 years ago

Exactly. Why is it important whether boys or girls or Chinese or gay people are better at maths? Why are scarce research funds going into this?

Questions I would be more interesting in: how can elementary maths be made more interesting? And how can we save children who aren't interested in maths from having it forced upon them?

jrockway• 18 years ago

I would rather find the answer to the question, "How can we make it more interesting for them."

Regardless of whether or not mathematics interests you, it's a vital skill like reading. I don't really like "reading"* per se, but I still need to do it anyway.

* s/reading/analysis of fiction/

mynameishere2• 18 years ago

Why do we always break ourselves down

Identity politics. Follow the money. If you can get a person in authority to declare, "We are all equal, given 'fair' conditions," then you have an opportunity to make the following argument:

  1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly.
  2. Men and women make different incomes.
  3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly.
  4. Corrective action is needed.

This is a standard move in identity politics, and you will see it whenever two groups are different. Different people = different outcomes. But the vast bulk of people, including scientists, have been trained from birth to say, "All men [sic] are created equal".

Once you decide that society isn't treating a group fairly, it is time to correct that. How? Affirmative action, set-asides, diversity training, repairations, etc.

What's in store:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...

tx3• 18 years ago

Then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly.

But the thing is - you can't. Our approach to statistical drug studies is more careful and mathematically sound than studies about our own identities.

There isn't enough evidence in #1 and #2 to jump to #3, and normally outside of sensitive politics absurd like that simply goes ignored, kinda like child speak.

Lemme offer you similarly absurd statement:

Men and women are equal, yet men don't live as long as women do. Therefore, men's quality of life is lower and they are discriminated against.

gaius• 18 years ago

That is mere statistical manipulation. Here in the UK, we have a "Minister for Women", Harriet Harman. She compares the hourly rate paid to full-time male workers to the hourly rate compared to part-time female workers in her statistics to conclude that women are worse off, which in turn she uses to justify advocating quotas etc. The Guardian's politics are very similar.

greendestiny3• 18 years ago

Breaking things into groups allows for contrast, and to discover patterns. Instead of a program which might allow a small proportion of students to better at maths (with better teaching perhaps), this could lead to an improvement in the mathematical ability of 50% of the population. That has huge economic and societal implications.

The worst thing about breaking things into groups is members of groups other than the target seem to be simply blind to the importance of it.

tx3• 18 years ago

It doesn't work. It's enormously difficult to construct a solid study with one properly isolated variable that's the subject in question. Even much, much, much easier tasks as exploring effects of smoking have been done over and over again, only to be declared invalid by yet another variable not accounted for. Statistics is hard to get right, this is why there are so many jokes about it. And trying to come up with a "proof" of anything by separating everybody into just two groups is idiotic.

Yes, it makes one feel good about oneself, and can score you some votes if you're a politician, but it's a waste of time - it doesn't prove anything and only reminds blacks and women that they're "in a group", i.e. must be different by some criteria. This is what I call "recursive racism/sexism".

It is not OK to say "first black president is a great achievement of America". The real achievement would have happened if nobody even noticed the color of his skin, you never heard of CNN anchormen talking about Bush's eye color, haven't you?

ComputerGuru• 18 years ago

The Economist is the one that originally published the research, 2 months ago. Here's their take, with graphs & numbers:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...

d0mine• 18 years ago

Such articles are always misleading.

  There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain

If you are interested in such questions just read the original research: PISA 2003 http://is.gd/Si0

Full report in English: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf

Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

Related Stories