Girls as good as boys in math - research article - Gifted Issues Discussion Forum

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/education/25math.html?_r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin

This little note (the part I bolded) was disturbing to me:

Quote

The researchers looked at the average of the test scores of all students, the performance of the most gifted children and the ability to solve complex math problems. They found, in every category, that girls did as well as boys. (To their dismay, the researchers found that the tests in the 10 states did not include a single question requiring complex problem-solving, forcing them to use a national assessment test for that portion of their research.)

TEN states!

*sigh*

I am glad they're finally figuring out that girls can do math though. It's about time!!!

Quote

(To their dismay, the researchers found that the tests in the 10 states did not include a single question requiring complex problem-solving, forcing them to use a national assessment test for that portion of their research.)

Yep, gotta pull out the Singapore Math Challenging word problems books this weekend!

That is why math competitions are so important.

I'm wondering which 10 states.

lol Kriston we cross-posted!

Hey, great minds wonder about the same disturbing stats!

Well at least NCLB is good for SOMETHING.

This is such an interesting - and politically dangerous - issue. Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard, made his job much more difficult than it needed to be by provocatively and stupidly discussing it in a ham-handed way. But the issue also shows how poor journalists are at reporting scientific data. The NYT article reports that:

Originally Posted by NYT

The researchers looked at the average of the test scores of all students, the performance of the most gifted children and the ability to solve complex math problems. They found, in every category, that girls did as well as boys.

But that's just not what the actual article says. The article does say that there is no statistically significant difference between the average performance of boys and girls. But it says that the variance is greater for boys than for girls. That means, pace what the NYT reports, that there are more boys in the upper tail (and presumably in the lower tail, too) of the distribution. When it comes to the most gifted mathematics students, in other words, and presumably the most incapable as well, the boys are overrepresented. Interestingly, the variance ratio (the ratio of male variance to female variance) differs by ethnicity. The article does not give us the full detail of the data, but it reports that for whites in grade 11 in Minnesota the variance ratio for those in the 99th percentile is 2.06. That means that there are roughly twice as many boys in that category as girls. By contrast, for Asian Americans in grade 11 in Minnesota the variance ratio at the 99th percentile is 0.91. In other words, there are slightly more girls than boys in that category. Still, when all the ethnicities are grouped together,

Originally Posted by Science

All VRs, by state and grade, are >1.0

The variance ratio is less than many have assumed, and not nearly significant enough to account for the fact that, for example, only 15% of the current students in engineering Ph.D. programs are women. But the article does report a difference in the tails. It makes no claim whatsoever to explaining this difference: it could be due to social typing, innate difference, or some combination of these and other factors. Obviously the significance of the results differs dramatically depending upon what causes them. But the main thing is that it's a subtle issue that the journalists are running roughshod over. Any discussion of the topic needs to go beyond simplistic cheerleading.

BB

I think you make a good point about the data. I had read another article on a longitudinal study of mathematically gifted youth that suggested that boys tend to be more focused in their pursuits, working intensely on a specific area or two and really excelling, while girls tend to be more global, making connections between multiple (often apparently unrelated) fields. Basically, boys went for more depth where girls went for more breadth. This may explain some of the discrepancies you point out.

Here is a brief quotation from the article:

Quote

although more mathematically precocious
males than females entered math-science careers,
this does not necessarily imply a loss of talent because the
women secured similar proportions of advanced degrees
and high-level careers in areas more correspondent with
the multidimensionality of their ability-preference pattern
(e.g., administration, law, medicine, and the social sciences).
By their mid-30s, the men and women appeared to
be happy with their life choices and viewed themselves as
equally successful (and objective measures support these
subjective impressions).

The full article can be found here http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/DoingPsychScience2006.pdf

Interesting! Thanks, you two! I always take the so-called scientific analysis that I read in newspapers and magazines with a grain of salt. It's good to get a little more detail.

Yes, I missed the "average" word they snuck in there.

Originally Posted by acs

I had read another article on a longitudinal study of mathematically gifted youth that suggested that boys tend to be more focused in their pursuits, working intensely on a specific area or two and really excelling, while girls tend to be more global, making connections between multiple (often apparently unrelated) fields.

That describes me--BS in Engineering and MA in History. And here I thought I was special.

You are!

I must be "special" too. BS in computer science/math minor and BA in history/secondary education. LOL!!!!

Thanks, Kriston.

It is good to have company, EandCmom. I always get the strangest looks from people when they find out I was an engineer and an historian. Now that I have learned more about giftedness it does not seem quite so illogical. I see myself going into teaching eventually. I hope my experience will give me a good multidisciplinary approach.

I like people with diverse interests. It makes conversations with them more fun.

Originally Posted by BaseballDad

But it says that the variance is greater for boys than for girls. That means, pace what the NYT reports, that there are more boys in the upper tail (and presumably in the lower tail, too) of the distribution. When it comes to the most gifted mathematics students, in other words, and presumably the most incapable as well, the boys are overrepresented.

BB

BaseballDad brought up a very good point. At High school level or even AP level, girls match up with boys very well. They are probably do slightly better in such classes as AP Calculas, AP statistics in most schools.

But at more elite level, boys still rule. If you go to any state or national level math competition, you will notice the absense of girls at top 10. No amount of sugar coating can hide that.

I just check the statistics of AMC 12 (a test that many high school boys and girls take). Doing well in AMC 12 is first step towards Math Olympiad. AMC webside lists average AMC 12 score is 60.8 for girls and 69.3 for boys in 2008. That difference is pretty significant. In addition, the gap did not close in last 5 years.

My younger D is in this year's PROMYS program (a pretty elite math camp by Boston U) where they spend 6 weeks stuying number theory. The boy to girl ratio there is 3 to 1. Out of 18 girls there, some 15 are asians and rest are white people.

Don't get me wrong, I root for girls (I have two daughters). It is great news that girls are closing the gap (at least at lower level), but it is bottle half empty or half full thing. In my opinion, girls still have a long way to go to catch up in Math.

I guess the question is weather this is a result of innate ability or of social expectations and biases. Girls are not expected to be good in math and even when they are there is pressure for them to hide it.

I don't think the gap will close until social expectations/pressures change.

Yes, I personally don't take too well to the sentence "No amount of sugar coating can hide that." The issue isn't sugar coating. It's the potential for societal bias against girls.

If all things were equal, then you might be able to use phrases like that. But all things aren't equal. We simply don't know what girls are capable of doing in math. We do know that the discrepancies aren't as big as we were led to believe. That's important.

It's also important to remember that any analysis of trends has NOTHING to do with the individual abilities of individual girls. Trends are often used to discourage individual girls from pursuing careers in math or science, and that's a shame.

It's like saying no woman can be a bus driver because the average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Well, test the individual person's strength if strength is relevant to the job of driving a bus. But don't use trends and averages as law. I think that's what has been happening to girls in math and science.

I am sorry if I came across the wrong way. I was trying to point out that the actual situation is not as rosy as the original article has painted.

If you are interested in gender difference in SAT Math test. Check out the following URL.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_132.asp

In 1966, difference of average SAT math score between boy and girl is 40 points (535 vs 495). In 2006, the difference is 34 points (536 vs 502). Hardly a cause to celebrate.