the shaft
November 16, 2007 8:38 AM Subscribe
In classrooms nationwide, girls are pulling ahead of boys academically. Recent federal testing data show that what starts out as a modest gap in elementary-level reading scores turns into a yawning divide by high school. In 12th grade, 44% of girls rate as proficient readers on federal tests, compared with 28% of boys. And while boys still score slightly higher on federal math and science exams, their advantage is slipping.
Even 44% is kind of lame, isn't it? Why don't we have more like 80% for both genders?
posted by Foosnark at 8:43 AM on November 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Foosnark at 8:43 AM on November 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
Academic achievement is meaningless. Call me when they earn 90% of what their male counterparts do. Though I do like the idea of an all girl upper tier university system. That would be damn funny and kinda hawt.
posted by srboisvert at 8:49 AM on November 16, 2007
posted by srboisvert at 8:49 AM on November 16, 2007
Girls feel like they have more to prove since there is still that lingering (stupid) assumption that girls are not as smart as boys. I know for a fact that the females I went to school with worked harder on average than the boys. There were only maybe 2 guys in the top 10 of my high school class. Almost all of the Truman, Rhodes, etc. scholars from my university class were female.
posted by fructose at 8:49 AM on November 16, 2007
posted by fructose at 8:49 AM on November 16, 2007
Srboisvert-
Call me when they earn 90% of what their male counterparts do
What?! Yes, the discrimination in the workplace is all their fault. While there is some evidence to suggest that women are less likely to counter salary offers, overall it is a bias on the part of the employer that creates the unfair wage gap.
posted by fructose at 8:51 AM on November 16, 2007
Call me when they earn 90% of what their male counterparts do
What?! Yes, the discrimination in the workplace is all their fault. While there is some evidence to suggest that women are less likely to counter salary offers, overall it is a bias on the part of the employer that creates the unfair wage gap.
posted by fructose at 8:51 AM on November 16, 2007
Y kant r kidz reed?
It's fucking criminal, our education system. Nobody ever wants to spend more on education (except out of sin taxes, which makes for an interesting dilemma - do we want less gambling, or more education dollars?) and then the shitheads in Washington want to strip more money from the system to give to private schools in the form of vouchers, since "of course" the private schools do a better job. Public schools *could* do a better job, if they were properly funded!
It's like when Clint Eastwood tells the guy to pick up the gun. "but sir, they you'll shoot me!"
"Pick it up, I said!"
*bam!*
"You saw, he had a gun!"
I tutor at an inner-city community college, and every day get people that come in with high school diplomas but can't add five and six, think twenty time three is a hundred, and had no idea that 4x5=5x4. And they're *cool* with not knowing that - heck, some of them get pissed at *me* if I assume they can multiply!
We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, but can't toss 1% of that budget to prop up education. Fucked up.
posted by notsnot at 8:57 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's fucking criminal, our education system. Nobody ever wants to spend more on education (except out of sin taxes, which makes for an interesting dilemma - do we want less gambling, or more education dollars?) and then the shitheads in Washington want to strip more money from the system to give to private schools in the form of vouchers, since "of course" the private schools do a better job. Public schools *could* do a better job, if they were properly funded!
It's like when Clint Eastwood tells the guy to pick up the gun. "but sir, they you'll shoot me!"
"Pick it up, I said!"
*bam!*
"You saw, he had a gun!"
I tutor at an inner-city community college, and every day get people that come in with high school diplomas but can't add five and six, think twenty time three is a hundred, and had no idea that 4x5=5x4. And they're *cool* with not knowing that - heck, some of them get pissed at *me* if I assume they can multiply!
We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, but can't toss 1% of that budget to prop up education. Fucked up.
posted by notsnot at 8:57 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
notsnot: If only lack of money was the only problem leading to these abyssal test scores. Hell, it's not even the #1 problem.
posted by absalom at 8:59 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by absalom at 8:59 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
I, for one, welcome our new vagina bearing overlords.
Seriously though, I'm not sure this surprises me. When I graduated from a public high school about 5 years ago, a noticeably larger percentage of the girls went on to post-secondary education, as compared to the boys.
Good for them, I guess?
posted by patr1ck at 9:02 AM on November 16, 2007
Seriously though, I'm not sure this surprises me. When I graduated from a public high school about 5 years ago, a noticeably larger percentage of the girls went on to post-secondary education, as compared to the boys.
Good for them, I guess?
posted by patr1ck at 9:02 AM on November 16, 2007
Even though I went to a "good" public high school here in Canada, I noticed this split.
I always felt there was an anti-intellectual thing going on among the boys that just wasn't as common among the girls.
posted by utsutsu at 9:04 AM on November 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
I always felt there was an anti-intellectual thing going on among the boys that just wasn't as common among the girls.
posted by utsutsu at 9:04 AM on November 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
Like any system where competition has been suspended its atrophied and useless. There is zero incentive for anyone in a system without competition to do anything more than the minimum acceptable. From that standpoint, vouchers are just about the best idea there is.
If the feds don't want to step up to the plate and fix arguably one of the most important institutions in our nation they need to get the hell out of way.
Also, WTF is wrong with our country when 44% and 28% are numbers that are reported without screaming and klaxons?
posted by zennoshinjou at 9:04 AM on November 16, 2007
If the feds don't want to step up to the plate and fix arguably one of the most important institutions in our nation they need to get the hell out of way.
Also, WTF is wrong with our country when 44% and 28% are numbers that are reported without screaming and klaxons?
posted by zennoshinjou at 9:04 AM on November 16, 2007
I just find it interesting that in most of the debate on academic achievement, girls falling behind is a symptom of a failing educational system while boys falling behind is a symptom of something wrong with the boys. Stereotypes are ok when they prop up what you believe, I guess.
And yeah, those numbers are messed up.
posted by dreamsign at 9:05 AM on November 16, 2007 [9 favorites]
And yeah, those numbers are messed up.
posted by dreamsign at 9:05 AM on November 16, 2007 [9 favorites]
Isn't this just a distraction from the more serious problem of cooties?
posted by brain_drain at 9:14 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by brain_drain at 9:14 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Girls feel like they have more to prove since there is still that lingering (stupid) assumption that girls are not as smart as boys. I know for a fact that the females I went to school with worked harder on average than the boys.
Both of these sentences may be true, but they are logically unconnected.
In any case, here's what I think is going on: the US has a strong anti-intellectual streak. Extreme value place on sports is one manifestation. Boys are very, very encouraged to play sports and are discouraged from academics. Girls, on the other hand, are discouraged in sports (culturally speaking--obviously there are exceptions). But the stigma of girls studying has faded with the rise of women in business, so they put their energy there.
posted by DU at 9:14 AM on November 16, 2007
Both of these sentences may be true, but they are logically unconnected.
In any case, here's what I think is going on: the US has a strong anti-intellectual streak. Extreme value place on sports is one manifestation. Boys are very, very encouraged to play sports and are discouraged from academics. Girls, on the other hand, are discouraged in sports (culturally speaking--obviously there are exceptions). But the stigma of girls studying has faded with the rise of women in business, so they put their energy there.
posted by DU at 9:14 AM on November 16, 2007
Lets not forget the fact also that until recently (if you take a medium-length historical view) women were actively discouraged from learning anymore than was necessary to run a household while the man went out into the world.
I'm nthing the anti-intellectualism. While the movie was just so-so, Idiocracy has a message that I wish I could say didn't scare the crap out of me because it could so verily easily come to pass.
posted by zennoshinjou at 9:18 AM on November 16, 2007
I'm nthing the anti-intellectualism. While the movie was just so-so, Idiocracy has a message that I wish I could say didn't scare the crap out of me because it could so verily easily come to pass.
posted by zennoshinjou at 9:18 AM on November 16, 2007
I take it in this case that the purported cause of boys falling behind, at least in Illinois, is that the standardized tests aren't gender neutral. And the evidence that they point to isn't that there are huge double digit gaps between the scores. For example, girls were reported scoring 0.5-3.3 percent higher than boys on certain math tests. And differences like this seem to be the cause for concern. I really wonder what it would mean for the test to be gender neutral. Is the idea that neither gender should be scoring higher than the other? Why think that the tests are the problem if there is one?
posted by inconsequentialist at 9:23 AM on November 16, 2007
posted by inconsequentialist at 9:23 AM on November 16, 2007
Call me when they earn 90% of what their male counterparts do.
Ring-ring! For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women’s Favor (NYTimes)
posted by the jam at 9:28 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Ring-ring! For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women’s Favor (NYTimes)
posted by the jam at 9:28 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
The main issue here is that any "education system" that I've ever seen will strip away the natural curiosity that a human has to learn things in order to "get a grade."
Kids are taught from an early age that it's not real learning that matters, but what rather what you can score on an exam.
Lucky is the person who is able to avoid this indoctrination; I was one of the people who had to unlearn it, but going to graduate school will do that for you.
posted by King Bee at 9:31 AM on November 16, 2007 [5 favorites]
Kids are taught from an early age that it's not real learning that matters, but what rather what you can score on an exam.
Lucky is the person who is able to avoid this indoctrination; I was one of the people who had to unlearn it, but going to graduate school will do that for you.
posted by King Bee at 9:31 AM on November 16, 2007 [5 favorites]
I found a lot of guys were wasting their time with sports when I was in high school. Or just generally jerking off. (Possibly literally.)
So was I. When I got to college, I met a ton of frighteningly smart girls, who worked hard and did very well. I dropped out and got a dumb IT job. They're getting advanced degrees, or second or third degrees, or starting out in law, and ... I'm not. My university was about 65% female when I was there, if I remember correctly.
Anecdotal – and, you know, I get paid nicely now – but I really do feel like there's something up.
Maybe girls are just more rewarding to teach. Or cuter. My nieces sure are cute.
posted by blacklite at 9:33 AM on November 16, 2007
So was I. When I got to college, I met a ton of frighteningly smart girls, who worked hard and did very well. I dropped out and got a dumb IT job. They're getting advanced degrees, or second or third degrees, or starting out in law, and ... I'm not. My university was about 65% female when I was there, if I remember correctly.
Anecdotal – and, you know, I get paid nicely now – but I really do feel like there's something up.
Maybe girls are just more rewarding to teach. Or cuter. My nieces sure are cute.
posted by blacklite at 9:33 AM on November 16, 2007
I was expecting to find something recent about a trend that is occuring. Instead it was a 2003 article, a 2005 debate about the 2003 statistics, a commentary from a book fair in 2001, and some Illinois recent figures. Nothing newer? I'm not trying to be critical so much as wanting to know.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:35 AM on November 16, 2007
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:35 AM on November 16, 2007
School is for girls. The world of high stakes testing has pushed schools into more and more desk work. At my son's elementary school they have eliminated one recess to allow more time for test preparation. A teacher told me that the boys had a particularly time sitting still for so long without any time to run off their energy, but they were just going to have to learn to do so.
posted by LarryC at 9:37 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by LarryC at 9:37 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
What?! Yes, the discrimination in the workplace is all their fault. While there is some evidence to suggest that women are less likely to counter salary offers, overall it is a bias on the part of the employer that creates the unfair wage gap.
That was my point. School performance doesn't matter. If it did men wouldn't make almost a third more than women. This is one of those poor boys trend pieces that always strike me as ridiculous. 25 years ago girls kicked boy ass academically at my high school.
Those poor poor men - victims of an unjust sex war just have to keep getting the best jobs, promotions and salaries in order to console themselves. Why, I can only think of a single other sex that has it as bad as men do. Men are in the bottom 2 on the list of oppressed sexes. Something must be done or men will fall behind! Won't someone think of the man children?
Ring-ring! For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women’s Favor (NYTimes)
That's excellent news but be careful with over interpreting it. That is not comparing pay for the same work. That is comparing a group with 58% female college graduates with 38% male college graduates. So probably very different job distributions. It is also only one small portion of the population (young folk).
posted by srboisvert at 9:39 AM on November 16, 2007
That was my point. School performance doesn't matter. If it did men wouldn't make almost a third more than women. This is one of those poor boys trend pieces that always strike me as ridiculous. 25 years ago girls kicked boy ass academically at my high school.
Those poor poor men - victims of an unjust sex war just have to keep getting the best jobs, promotions and salaries in order to console themselves. Why, I can only think of a single other sex that has it as bad as men do. Men are in the bottom 2 on the list of oppressed sexes. Something must be done or men will fall behind! Won't someone think of the man children?
Ring-ring! For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women’s Favor (NYTimes)
That's excellent news but be careful with over interpreting it. That is not comparing pay for the same work. That is comparing a group with 58% female college graduates with 38% male college graduates. So probably very different job distributions. It is also only one small portion of the population (young folk).
posted by srboisvert at 9:39 AM on November 16, 2007
Aside from anti-intellectualism and many other factors, I hypothesize that men have more perceived job opportunities without a college degree than women. You don't need a BA to work in construction or sanitation.
It is also true that women, as a whole and on average, do not earn as much as their male counterparts, but there are more complex social factors at work than graybearded bosses simply seeing two candidates and determining that each male candidate should earn x and each female candidate should earn .90x. Women are less likely to counter salary offers and less likely to go through life without delivering a child and acting as its primary caregiver. And it's even more complex than that, and different factors are at work at different socioeconomic levels and with individual cases.
The reality of white, male CEOs who earn hundreds of millions doesn't correspond all that much with the individual cases of, say, a woman who becomes a paralegal and her boyfriend who becomes a security guard.
Another hypothesis I'm going to pull out of my butt: men have an easier go of professional networking outside of a college setting, especially in male-dominated fields.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:43 AM on November 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
It is also true that women, as a whole and on average, do not earn as much as their male counterparts, but there are more complex social factors at work than graybearded bosses simply seeing two candidates and determining that each male candidate should earn x and each female candidate should earn .90x. Women are less likely to counter salary offers and less likely to go through life without delivering a child and acting as its primary caregiver. And it's even more complex than that, and different factors are at work at different socioeconomic levels and with individual cases.
The reality of white, male CEOs who earn hundreds of millions doesn't correspond all that much with the individual cases of, say, a woman who becomes a paralegal and her boyfriend who becomes a security guard.
Another hypothesis I'm going to pull out of my butt: men have an easier go of professional networking outside of a college setting, especially in male-dominated fields.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:43 AM on November 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
While the movie was just so-so, Idiocracy has a message that I wish I could say didn't scare the crap out of me because it could so verily easily come to pass.
Agreed. I didn't like the movie itself all that much, but too often I find myself seeing or hearing about something, and referring back to that movie in my head.
I think the whole issue of girls' vs boys' approach to academics is complicated. The push toward anti-intellectualism is present for both genders. For some boys it may seem nerdy or fey to do well in school, and to some girls it may seem like it gets in the way of being cute or getting boys. Recently I was listening to a This American Life episode where a young woman started an academics-themed game show for girls, and by the end of its short run the questions had to be brought down significantly: not just because the girls didn't know the answer to seemingly simple questions, but also because their attitude showed them to be hesitatant to even try. More and more, I'm dismayed at how high a premium is being placed on being hot 'n sexy, even for young girls. And unfortunately, the hot 'n sexy celebrities that girls try to emulate are not really all about chillin' at the library.
On the other hand, you also have both boys and girls who are driven to excel in school. In my high school graduating class, the top 10 students were almost all girls. I'd be interested to see this whole thing examined more closely, because IMO, it's not just a gender issue that drives whether girls or boys do better. There is more to it than just that.
posted by DrGirlfriend at 9:45 AM on November 16, 2007
Agreed. I didn't like the movie itself all that much, but too often I find myself seeing or hearing about something, and referring back to that movie in my head.
I think the whole issue of girls' vs boys' approach to academics is complicated. The push toward anti-intellectualism is present for both genders. For some boys it may seem nerdy or fey to do well in school, and to some girls it may seem like it gets in the way of being cute or getting boys. Recently I was listening to a This American Life episode where a young woman started an academics-themed game show for girls, and by the end of its short run the questions had to be brought down significantly: not just because the girls didn't know the answer to seemingly simple questions, but also because their attitude showed them to be hesitatant to even try. More and more, I'm dismayed at how high a premium is being placed on being hot 'n sexy, even for young girls. And unfortunately, the hot 'n sexy celebrities that girls try to emulate are not really all about chillin' at the library.
On the other hand, you also have both boys and girls who are driven to excel in school. In my high school graduating class, the top 10 students were almost all girls. I'd be interested to see this whole thing examined more closely, because IMO, it's not just a gender issue that drives whether girls or boys do better. There is more to it than just that.
posted by DrGirlfriend at 9:45 AM on November 16, 2007
What I don't understand is how US school funding is fundamentally unconstitutional, and nobody gives a shit. Equal protection under the law should mean that all schools are funded equally, not based on local income taxes. Get up go to your window stick your head out clap some erasers and scream 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!'
posted by Gungho at 9:47 AM on November 16, 2007 [6 favorites]
posted by Gungho at 9:47 AM on November 16, 2007 [6 favorites]
That's excellent news but be careful with over interpreting it.
Certainly!
That is not comparing pay for the same work. That is comparing a group with 58% female college graduates with 38% male college graduates. So probably very different job distributions. It is also only one small portion of the population (young folk).
I see your point, but at the same time I'd like to stress that it is entirely relevant that people who graduate college go into different fields than those who do not. It is also relevant that women don't earn the same pennies-on-the-dollar as men for the same work, but those numbers don't necessarily reflect the same exact positions and the same exact working hours. I'm not trying to deflate claims that women are discriminated against (they are), but much of that discrimination is more sublimated into our culture than simply someone seeing a woman and consciously saying "A WHOAH-MAN! I MUST PAY HER LESS."
Also: young folk grow into old folk. Older women aren't necessarily rushing back to school in record numbers, but the fact that younger women are doing so is entirely of note, and as a result of not only that but many other factors, their work experience is going to be quite different than those of older generations.
Times change. How they'll change is anybody's guess, but times change.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:50 AM on November 16, 2007
Certainly!
That is not comparing pay for the same work. That is comparing a group with 58% female college graduates with 38% male college graduates. So probably very different job distributions. It is also only one small portion of the population (young folk).
I see your point, but at the same time I'd like to stress that it is entirely relevant that people who graduate college go into different fields than those who do not. It is also relevant that women don't earn the same pennies-on-the-dollar as men for the same work, but those numbers don't necessarily reflect the same exact positions and the same exact working hours. I'm not trying to deflate claims that women are discriminated against (they are), but much of that discrimination is more sublimated into our culture than simply someone seeing a woman and consciously saying "A WHOAH-MAN! I MUST PAY HER LESS."
Also: young folk grow into old folk. Older women aren't necessarily rushing back to school in record numbers, but the fact that younger women are doing so is entirely of note, and as a result of not only that but many other factors, their work experience is going to be quite different than those of older generations.
Times change. How they'll change is anybody's guess, but times change.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:50 AM on November 16, 2007
Thats the whole issue with public school funding- the government takes this one foot in one foot out stance where they say "funding is up to state government (for all intents and purposes), but we reserve the right to meddle, refuse you the right to teach any sex ed that isn't abstinence based and to top it all off make what little financial help we do provide tied to arbitrary test scores that drive the will out of even the most dedicated children to do anything but learn how to pass a test."
The government has to either fund it in full or truly take their hands off and leave it to state and local government. Its sheer madness.
posted by zennoshinjou at 9:51 AM on November 16, 2007
The government has to either fund it in full or truly take their hands off and leave it to state and local government. Its sheer madness.
posted by zennoshinjou at 9:51 AM on November 16, 2007
academic achievement is not meaningless. it's a generally accepted indicator of educational trends, and a factor in the development and passage of legislature, so, yeah, it's not meaningless.
earnings actually seems the least "meaningful" statistic, unless you think that the world's richest people are the most ambitious/successful/productive.
I think women are biologically predisposed towards ambition and success. In ass-pulling evolutionary biology speak, men provide the sperm and women provide for the young. Why wouldn't they be more ambitious?
There's been a brewing storm of ingredients for women to finally rise to the equal status of males in Western civ, but they're obviously going to have to do it themselves. And perhaps they are. You. Go!
SF Weekly has a current fluff piece running about how "women strivers" aren't settling for "male slackers." what she doesn't mention is that it's *always* been this way (imo, of course). The men take stuff by force; the women spend thousands of years earning it back ... then the men take stuff by force again. I've seen Planet of the Apes.
merely advocate prescribing more attention-focusing Ritalin for the boys, who receive the drug at four to eight times the rate of girls, according to different estimates
and then that could always be a factor. no? a generation of hyper boys, minds addled by Ritalin.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:03 AM on November 16, 2007
earnings actually seems the least "meaningful" statistic, unless you think that the world's richest people are the most ambitious/successful/productive.
I think women are biologically predisposed towards ambition and success. In ass-pulling evolutionary biology speak, men provide the sperm and women provide for the young. Why wouldn't they be more ambitious?
There's been a brewing storm of ingredients for women to finally rise to the equal status of males in Western civ, but they're obviously going to have to do it themselves. And perhaps they are. You. Go!
SF Weekly has a current fluff piece running about how "women strivers" aren't settling for "male slackers." what she doesn't mention is that it's *always* been this way (imo, of course). The men take stuff by force; the women spend thousands of years earning it back ... then the men take stuff by force again. I've seen Planet of the Apes.
merely advocate prescribing more attention-focusing Ritalin for the boys, who receive the drug at four to eight times the rate of girls, according to different estimates
and then that could always be a factor. no? a generation of hyper boys, minds addled by Ritalin.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:03 AM on November 16, 2007
It's because boys are out finding porn in the woods, and working on their flashing techniques.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:14 AM on November 16, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:14 AM on November 16, 2007
Even if girls vastly outperform boys, what difference does it make when the schools suck to begin with? My niece gets straight A's, yet her spelling and grammar can be terrible.
posted by Camofrog at 10:21 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Camofrog at 10:21 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
I see your point, but at the same time I'd like to stress that it is entirely relevant that people who graduate college go into different fields than those who do not. It is also relevant that women don't earn the same pennies-on-the-dollar as men for the same work, but those numbers don't necessarily reflect the same exact positions and the same exact working hours. I'm not trying to deflate claims that women are discriminated against (they are), but much of that discrimination is more sublimated into our culture than simply someone seeing a woman and consciously saying "A WHOAH-MAN! I MUST PAY HER LESS."
Do you not find it interesting that a single study that looks at an extremely narrow segment of the population and deliberately fails to control for education counts as evidence for you for some sort of trend when you point out that the countless other studies showing women in the same jobs earn less fail to provide some sort of exacting control of hours worked and precise job similarity when in fact many of them do? I agree that discrimination is often unconscious. In both the treatment of women and the treatment of research on women.
posted by srboisvert at 10:27 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Do you not find it interesting that a single study that looks at an extremely narrow segment of the population and deliberately fails to control for education counts as evidence for you for some sort of trend when you point out that the countless other studies showing women in the same jobs earn less fail to provide some sort of exacting control of hours worked and precise job similarity when in fact many of them do? I agree that discrimination is often unconscious. In both the treatment of women and the treatment of research on women.
posted by srboisvert at 10:27 AM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
In 12th grade, 44% of girls rate as proficient readers on federal tests, compared with 28% of boys.
In other words, congratulations, ladies, on your ability to suck less than your male counterparts. 44% proficient is still 100% pathetic.
And whoever it was that said something upthread about boys having less of a need for a degree? One word: Housewife.
posted by Reggie Digest at 10:30 AM on November 16, 2007
In other words, congratulations, ladies, on your ability to suck less than your male counterparts. 44% proficient is still 100% pathetic.
And whoever it was that said something upthread about boys having less of a need for a degree? One word: Housewife.
posted by Reggie Digest at 10:30 AM on November 16, 2007
srboisvert: did you even read the article that was linked?
The wage gap between men and women in the 21-30 age went across racial, education, professional lines. In several formerly male-dominated fields (like being a lawyer, doctor, personel manager, economist, etc.), women are now out earning men.
In terms of race and education:
The gender wage advantage for women in their 20s was widest among whites with some college education, blacks and Asians with advanced degrees and Hispanic women who were high school or college graduates
You man dislike the fact that it covers a small segment of the population but the study shows that there has been a change in the last 35 years for this age group. That means something.
posted by Stynxno at 10:43 AM on November 16, 2007
The wage gap between men and women in the 21-30 age went across racial, education, professional lines. In several formerly male-dominated fields (like being a lawyer, doctor, personel manager, economist, etc.), women are now out earning men.
In terms of race and education:
The gender wage advantage for women in their 20s was widest among whites with some college education, blacks and Asians with advanced degrees and Hispanic women who were high school or college graduates
You man dislike the fact that it covers a small segment of the population but the study shows that there has been a change in the last 35 years for this age group. That means something.
posted by Stynxno at 10:43 AM on November 16, 2007
DU, I wasn't trying to logically connect those. I'm using those personal accounts to show that I've noticed this overall trend in my own education.
Anyway, boys not being able to sit still is not necessarily a problem they're born with.
Society teaches boys and girls to act differently. Girls are encouraged to be patient, caring, and maternal. Boys are taught that they need to act rough and tumble. Just watch toy commercials. "Boys are built different" is the slogan of one. Yes, they have different genitals and some hormonal differences as well. Their brains aren't markedly different from their female toddler counterparts.
The news will grab onto any study that remotely indicates a difference in mental function of the sexes and put it on the front page but doesn't report on the scientific evidence that shows that actually, the sexes are not very different in that way.
posted by fructose at 10:45 AM on November 16, 2007
Anyway, boys not being able to sit still is not necessarily a problem they're born with.
Society teaches boys and girls to act differently. Girls are encouraged to be patient, caring, and maternal. Boys are taught that they need to act rough and tumble. Just watch toy commercials. "Boys are built different" is the slogan of one. Yes, they have different genitals and some hormonal differences as well. Their brains aren't markedly different from their female toddler counterparts.
The news will grab onto any study that remotely indicates a difference in mental function of the sexes and put it on the front page but doesn't report on the scientific evidence that shows that actually, the sexes are not very different in that way.
posted by fructose at 10:45 AM on November 16, 2007
There is zero incentive for anyone in a system without competition to do anything more than the minimum acceptable. From that standpoint, vouchers are just about the best idea there is.
I generally support vouchers, but that statement about zero incentive without competition is false. Competition can be one powerful incentive, but the sum total of human motivation is hardly contained by it.
I walked into my county DMV office in my home state the other day to register a car. They've eliminated lines by adopting a number system. People are greeted and briefed quickly by a receptionist, given forms they might need. They're given a number. Then they sit in a waiting area until their number (and the desk to report to) is announced. This is a huge improvement over the previous system where everyone stood in a single line to wait. Also, their records/forms system has been updated. Most of the time you don't need anything other than your most recent inspection. If you need something else, they don't rattle off a list of forms, they print it off and give it to you.
There's no competition to the DMV, and it's the quintessential hopeless bureaucratic nightmare institution. What caused the marked improvement?
What makes the stars who do shine in the current educational system go to the extra trouble?
There is a creeping reductionism the coincides with market evangelism that makes every problem look like the proverbial nail. Falling prey to it compromises not only the use of market-based solutions but most other tools in the box.
posted by weston at 10:45 AM on November 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
I generally support vouchers, but that statement about zero incentive without competition is false. Competition can be one powerful incentive, but the sum total of human motivation is hardly contained by it.
I walked into my county DMV office in my home state the other day to register a car. They've eliminated lines by adopting a number system. People are greeted and briefed quickly by a receptionist, given forms they might need. They're given a number. Then they sit in a waiting area until their number (and the desk to report to) is announced. This is a huge improvement over the previous system where everyone stood in a single line to wait. Also, their records/forms system has been updated. Most of the time you don't need anything other than your most recent inspection. If you need something else, they don't rattle off a list of forms, they print it off and give it to you.
There's no competition to the DMV, and it's the quintessential hopeless bureaucratic nightmare institution. What caused the marked improvement?
What makes the stars who do shine in the current educational system go to the extra trouble?
There is a creeping reductionism the coincides with market evangelism that makes every problem look like the proverbial nail. Falling prey to it compromises not only the use of market-based solutions but most other tools in the box.
posted by weston at 10:45 AM on November 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
weston- in terms of your question about what makes people in the system go to the extra trouble- incentives aren't bound by the system one is in. What if his parents are intellectual and the child wants to please them? The incentive of the positive attention derived from that behavior obviously supercedes the lack of incentive to grow within the educational system insofar as it is a motivator for that child.
Also, I was speaking on a macro level here- while competition certainly is a major motivator on both levels, I don't think we can have any meaningful discussion in this topic if you want to drill down into the complex constellations of incentive that drive all the agents in any given system.
posted by zennoshinjou at 10:53 AM on November 16, 2007
Also, I was speaking on a macro level here- while competition certainly is a major motivator on both levels, I don't think we can have any meaningful discussion in this topic if you want to drill down into the complex constellations of incentive that drive all the agents in any given system.
posted by zennoshinjou at 10:53 AM on November 16, 2007
Do you not find it interesting that a single study that looks at an extremely narrow segment of the population and deliberately fails to control for education counts as evidence for you for some sort of trend when you point out that the countless other studies showing women in the same jobs earn less fail to provide some sort of exacting control of hours worked and precise job similarity when in fact many of them do? I agree that discrimination is often unconscious. In both the treatment of women and the treatment of research on women.
I do find it interesting! I agree wholeheartedly that discrimination affects how research on discrimination (humans studying humans will always have this problem). I also maintain that each study has worthwhile points and large holes, just as any study about human behavior is going to have. I don't reject studies which claim that women earn less on the dollar than men - I just say that the study says what it says, and not more than it says. Similarly, I hope you wouldn't reject numbers indicating that women are increasingly better educated and, in some places, better paid than their male peers of the same age, even though you have an appropriate skepticism for silly claims that this means Sexism is Over and that Boys are in Trouble.
What's important, for any study, is to see what the numbers say, how we got the numbers to say that, and what the numbers can't say.
There IS a trend of women doing better and going further with their education than men, and in a highly urban environment such as NYC, it makes perfect sense that the better-educated will earn more than their counterparts, and wouldn't you know it, a study showed what common sense would show.
Whether that increase in earnings will remain constant over time, and whether that increase in earnings will carry over on a large scale through the rest of the country, and how that increase in earnings will impact gender relations as a whole, is entirely unknown. It is also entirely possible that women may wind up earning more than the average male, but that professional women will earn less than their professional male counterparts. We may enter a world where the bell curve for pay is flatter for men, or a world where women earn more than men only when they are young.
We must also always bear in mind that what happens to a group as a whole does not necessarily happen to individuals as individuals. Middle-class urban women in certain fields may earn more than middle-class urban men in certain fields, but not in other fields, or not in the upper-class, or not in more rural or conservative areas.
We may find that these women who earn more now will not do as well after they start families, or that they will not do as well when either they or their employers anticipate that they will start families. I'm not saying that it's their "fault" - welcome to our culture - but that does seem to be a fairly critical turning point, and one that is not as easy to summarize as other problems.
You seem to think I'm trying to refute discrimination against women, which I am not. "Discrimination" does not necessarily entail someone making a choice to discriminate. Culture may form relationships in such a way that leaves people to, of their own seeming volition, give things up. This happens in addition to regular discrimination in the sense of some male boss thinking "look at this broad, isn't it cute how she's trying to negotiate." Women who are taught to be "nice" - or who have learned to fear that men will not accept women are who are not "nice" - may not take as hard a tack as their male counterparts. Women who wind up as the de facto head of the household will have less time to devote to their careers than men who do not have such cultural expectations. Those above them will make the economically rational decision to promote those who devote more time to the company.
I see these as larger threats, because they are not as easily spotted in the moment they happen, and there is not necessarily any villainy on the individual level.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2007
I do find it interesting! I agree wholeheartedly that discrimination affects how research on discrimination (humans studying humans will always have this problem). I also maintain that each study has worthwhile points and large holes, just as any study about human behavior is going to have. I don't reject studies which claim that women earn less on the dollar than men - I just say that the study says what it says, and not more than it says. Similarly, I hope you wouldn't reject numbers indicating that women are increasingly better educated and, in some places, better paid than their male peers of the same age, even though you have an appropriate skepticism for silly claims that this means Sexism is Over and that Boys are in Trouble.
What's important, for any study, is to see what the numbers say, how we got the numbers to say that, and what the numbers can't say.
There IS a trend of women doing better and going further with their education than men, and in a highly urban environment such as NYC, it makes perfect sense that the better-educated will earn more than their counterparts, and wouldn't you know it, a study showed what common sense would show.
Whether that increase in earnings will remain constant over time, and whether that increase in earnings will carry over on a large scale through the rest of the country, and how that increase in earnings will impact gender relations as a whole, is entirely unknown. It is also entirely possible that women may wind up earning more than the average male, but that professional women will earn less than their professional male counterparts. We may enter a world where the bell curve for pay is flatter for men, or a world where women earn more than men only when they are young.
We must also always bear in mind that what happens to a group as a whole does not necessarily happen to individuals as individuals. Middle-class urban women in certain fields may earn more than middle-class urban men in certain fields, but not in other fields, or not in the upper-class, or not in more rural or conservative areas.
We may find that these women who earn more now will not do as well after they start families, or that they will not do as well when either they or their employers anticipate that they will start families. I'm not saying that it's their "fault" - welcome to our culture - but that does seem to be a fairly critical turning point, and one that is not as easy to summarize as other problems.
You seem to think I'm trying to refute discrimination against women, which I am not. "Discrimination" does not necessarily entail someone making a choice to discriminate. Culture may form relationships in such a way that leaves people to, of their own seeming volition, give things up. This happens in addition to regular discrimination in the sense of some male boss thinking "look at this broad, isn't it cute how she's trying to negotiate." Women who are taught to be "nice" - or who have learned to fear that men will not accept women are who are not "nice" - may not take as hard a tack as their male counterparts. Women who wind up as the de facto head of the household will have less time to devote to their careers than men who do not have such cultural expectations. Those above them will make the economically rational decision to promote those who devote more time to the company.
I see these as larger threats, because they are not as easily spotted in the moment they happen, and there is not necessarily any villainy on the individual level.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2007
weston- also thought I should point out your DMV counter-argument is kind of a straw man. In that instance competition doesn't just not exist; its forbidden. We cant make a rogue DMV to test your theory of innovation without competition being strong in its own way, so any point made in this manner is speculative at best.
ps. I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, just saying...
posted by zennoshinjou at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2007
ps. I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, just saying...
posted by zennoshinjou at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2007
That was my point. School performance doesn't matter. If it did men wouldn't make almost a third more than women. This is one of those poor boys trend pieces that always strike me as ridiculous. 25 years ago girls kicked boy ass academically at my high school.
Those poor poor men - victims of an unjust sex war just have to keep getting the best jobs, promotions and salaries in order to console themselves
Men make more money than women do, so it's okay that boys are underperforming girls in school?
posted by Kwantsar at 12:11 PM on November 16, 2007
Those poor poor men - victims of an unjust sex war just have to keep getting the best jobs, promotions and salaries in order to console themselves
Men make more money than women do, so it's okay that boys are underperforming girls in school?
posted by Kwantsar at 12:11 PM on November 16, 2007
Wait till you see the discrepancies based on class!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:40 PM on November 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:40 PM on November 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
srboisvert: did you even read the article that was linked?
I did Stynxno. I just didn't look at the graph. Based on your comments I went to the source to see if I could find the basis for those claims. As of June 2007 the same author was providing data that shows that women with college degrees DO NOT out earn men with college degrees [see Table 3]. I couldn't find any information where women out earn men as lawyers, doctors or economists (the previous table 3 shows the opposite).
I couldn't find any further information on the specific breakdowns with regard to college education other than this study by the same author making pretty much the opposite claims
The data has apparently been sliced and diced until apples are compared to oranges in order to make it look like women are out earning men other than in the most meaningless way - a demographic shift in the constituent population of New York rather than a rise in the well being of women. It is interesting that there is a demographic shift but my bet is that is really all this study shows.
Also I'd much rather the original analysis had passed peer review rather than being rehash of newspaper column.
Men make more money than women do, so it's okay that boys are underperforming girls in school?
Is the goal to allocate resources so that 50% parity is achieved in academic performance? Males must never be at a disadvantage?
posted by srboisvert at 1:12 PM on November 16, 2007
I did Stynxno. I just didn't look at the graph. Based on your comments I went to the source to see if I could find the basis for those claims. As of June 2007 the same author was providing data that shows that women with college degrees DO NOT out earn men with college degrees [see Table 3]. I couldn't find any information where women out earn men as lawyers, doctors or economists (the previous table 3 shows the opposite).
I couldn't find any further information on the specific breakdowns with regard to college education other than this study by the same author making pretty much the opposite claims
The data has apparently been sliced and diced until apples are compared to oranges in order to make it look like women are out earning men other than in the most meaningless way - a demographic shift in the constituent population of New York rather than a rise in the well being of women. It is interesting that there is a demographic shift but my bet is that is really all this study shows.
Also I'd much rather the original analysis had passed peer review rather than being rehash of newspaper column.
Men make more money than women do, so it's okay that boys are underperforming girls in school?
Is the goal to allocate resources so that 50% parity is achieved in academic performance? Males must never be at a disadvantage?
posted by srboisvert at 1:12 PM on November 16, 2007
If it did men wouldn't make almost a third more than women. [...] Those poor poor men - victims of an unjust sex war just have to keep getting the best jobs, promotions and salaries in order to console themselves.
They also have to work about 20% more hours per week and take riskier jobs. Have you considered the possibility that factors other than sex alone - longer hours, fewer vacations, professional and economic risk, and astronomically higher workplace fatality rates - contribute a nontrivial amount of the wage gap?
If you're willing to accept that an academic gap is not the product of discrimination, but rather of free choice, why couldn't this hold true for a gap in market value?
posted by kid ichorous at 1:23 PM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
They also have to work about 20% more hours per week and take riskier jobs. Have you considered the possibility that factors other than sex alone - longer hours, fewer vacations, professional and economic risk, and astronomically higher workplace fatality rates - contribute a nontrivial amount of the wage gap?
If you're willing to accept that an academic gap is not the product of discrimination, but rather of free choice, why couldn't this hold true for a gap in market value?
posted by kid ichorous at 1:23 PM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Is that what it means for young boys to be prescribed ritalin 4-8 times more frequently than girls, "a disadvantage?" Also, you might want to read the article again, or better, have a girl read it to you.
posted by Raoul de Noget at 1:24 PM on November 16, 2007
posted by Raoul de Noget at 1:24 PM on November 16, 2007
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
When I was in primary/secondary school (1984-1995), school pretty much boiled down to memorization and following directions. I knew, in the abstract, that this was called "learning," but it never even occured to me that school was supposed to involve any actual thinking.
In general, I think that girls are more skilled at doing the kind of schoolwork that was required of us. Is this because girls are naturally more compliant? Or does it have something to do with socialization? I don't have answers to these questions and I don't pretend to. However, I do know that boys in general prefer work that is more "hands-on." Once again, I don't pretend to know whether this is because of socialization or what. But for many boys, myself included, this is the only way we can learn. This explains why we consistently (for now, anyway) get better grades in math and the sciences - because the only way to learn these subjects is by *doing*.
Myself, I dropped out of highschool when I was 16. I didn't fit in socially, and the curriculum didn't engage me intellectually. Mind you, I wasn't a stupid boy. I learned AppleBASIC at 7 and C++ at 15. I knew more about computers than most people at my school, including the grownups. But at the time, programming wasn't thought of as a very important skill, so I didn't receive any instruction or encouragement in this field.
Fortunately, after bumming around for a few years, I did wind up going to college and graduating with a CS degree. I now have a well-paying job, and am probably doing a bit better than my peers, financially speaking.
It pains me to think of how many boys won't go on to college because their primary/secondary schools failed to inspire them. In college, you learn that history isn't just a random collection of facts, but a multitude of stories, a cacapohony of opinions waiting to be heard and wanting to convince you. You learn that there's more to writing and personal expression than the junior-high-school-template-five-paragraph-essay. You learn that whatever it is that you're interested in, there's more that you can learn about it and people who will help you learn it. Most importantly, you learn that learning itself requires critical thought and questioning; that it's an interactive, never-ending process that will actually make you a better person.
And god help those poor boys who go around coked-to-the-gills on ritalin because their well-meaning parents don't want to see them grow up and become schlubs.
What a world we live in.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:27 PM on November 16, 2007
When I was in primary/secondary school (1984-1995), school pretty much boiled down to memorization and following directions. I knew, in the abstract, that this was called "learning," but it never even occured to me that school was supposed to involve any actual thinking.
In general, I think that girls are more skilled at doing the kind of schoolwork that was required of us. Is this because girls are naturally more compliant? Or does it have something to do with socialization? I don't have answers to these questions and I don't pretend to. However, I do know that boys in general prefer work that is more "hands-on." Once again, I don't pretend to know whether this is because of socialization or what. But for many boys, myself included, this is the only way we can learn. This explains why we consistently (for now, anyway) get better grades in math and the sciences - because the only way to learn these subjects is by *doing*.
Myself, I dropped out of highschool when I was 16. I didn't fit in socially, and the curriculum didn't engage me intellectually. Mind you, I wasn't a stupid boy. I learned AppleBASIC at 7 and C++ at 15. I knew more about computers than most people at my school, including the grownups. But at the time, programming wasn't thought of as a very important skill, so I didn't receive any instruction or encouragement in this field.
Fortunately, after bumming around for a few years, I did wind up going to college and graduating with a CS degree. I now have a well-paying job, and am probably doing a bit better than my peers, financially speaking.
It pains me to think of how many boys won't go on to college because their primary/secondary schools failed to inspire them. In college, you learn that history isn't just a random collection of facts, but a multitude of stories, a cacapohony of opinions waiting to be heard and wanting to convince you. You learn that there's more to writing and personal expression than the junior-high-school-template-five-paragraph-essay. You learn that whatever it is that you're interested in, there's more that you can learn about it and people who will help you learn it. Most importantly, you learn that learning itself requires critical thought and questioning; that it's an interactive, never-ending process that will actually make you a better person.
And god help those poor boys who go around coked-to-the-gills on ritalin because their well-meaning parents don't want to see them grow up and become schlubs.
What a world we live in.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:27 PM on November 16, 2007
anti-intellectualism is bred in schools, where boredom is considered normal (and somehow good for you, since it teaches you to "deal with the real world") and doing the least possible is modeled by teachers who have been raised in the same system.
and yet so many of you continue to see school as the "way it's done" and send your children there, piping up with how you can't afford homeschooling (can you afford to have a passively dumb child?), or cherrypicking out the homeschooled weirdos out there as an excuse for how it's bad for children.
i substitute teach sometimes at a charter school. the older kids have gotten to know me a little bit, and know why i quit teaching. one day someone asked me what i thought about a new rule that was being imposed on them, and it led to a further discussion on the problems inherent in school-as-we-know-it. my opinion: school causes brain damage. after some discussion about what i meant, not one of these kids disagreed with me. and yet they continue to go, and parents continue to see it as a necessity to life. (*their* lives, really... but i won't get into my feelings about the cultural reinforcement for disinterested and detached parenting--the number of parents who "can't wait for kids to go back to school" in the fall leaves me wanting to scream.)
i try not to care, thinking that i'm not too fond of all the new homeschoolers who try to recreate all that's bad about schools at home in some misguided effort at smartening up their children. who drive their children back to school when they can't get themselves out of the intellectual loop of how they think children ought to learn and give up. it's hard to deal with people who ask for your help but don't want to listen to either you or their children.
but damn it, so many of you people are smart. so why do you waste your children's lives and their intellect with places that stunt them? school is a land of fakery! its a place where everyone pretends that teaching/learning is going on, but is really just a place to keep kids off the streets so parents can work themselves to death.
school is especially bad for boys, because they are partial to kinetic learning, and being able to walk around, interacting. this is frowned upon, and girls have generally learned how to function in a sitting/quiet environment. but this adaptation is only good for creating passive cubicle workers. i want something better for the children i know. don't you? what are you waiting for? more proof? more stats? how many stories like this will it take before you do more than shake your head sadly or shake your fist at the sky?
posted by RedEmma at 1:32 PM on November 16, 2007 [8 favorites]
and yet so many of you continue to see school as the "way it's done" and send your children there, piping up with how you can't afford homeschooling (can you afford to have a passively dumb child?), or cherrypicking out the homeschooled weirdos out there as an excuse for how it's bad for children.
i substitute teach sometimes at a charter school. the older kids have gotten to know me a little bit, and know why i quit teaching. one day someone asked me what i thought about a new rule that was being imposed on them, and it led to a further discussion on the problems inherent in school-as-we-know-it. my opinion: school causes brain damage. after some discussion about what i meant, not one of these kids disagreed with me. and yet they continue to go, and parents continue to see it as a necessity to life. (*their* lives, really... but i won't get into my feelings about the cultural reinforcement for disinterested and detached parenting--the number of parents who "can't wait for kids to go back to school" in the fall leaves me wanting to scream.)
i try not to care, thinking that i'm not too fond of all the new homeschoolers who try to recreate all that's bad about schools at home in some misguided effort at smartening up their children. who drive their children back to school when they can't get themselves out of the intellectual loop of how they think children ought to learn and give up. it's hard to deal with people who ask for your help but don't want to listen to either you or their children.
but damn it, so many of you people are smart. so why do you waste your children's lives and their intellect with places that stunt them? school is a land of fakery! its a place where everyone pretends that teaching/learning is going on, but is really just a place to keep kids off the streets so parents can work themselves to death.
school is especially bad for boys, because they are partial to kinetic learning, and being able to walk around, interacting. this is frowned upon, and girls have generally learned how to function in a sitting/quiet environment. but this adaptation is only good for creating passive cubicle workers. i want something better for the children i know. don't you? what are you waiting for? more proof? more stats? how many stories like this will it take before you do more than shake your head sadly or shake your fist at the sky?
posted by RedEmma at 1:32 PM on November 16, 2007 [8 favorites]
Though I do like the idea of an all girl upper tier university system. That would be damn funny and kinda hawt.
I think I've seen that movie. Bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.
posted by Slothrup at 1:45 PM on November 16, 2007
I think I've seen that movie. Bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.
posted by Slothrup at 1:45 PM on November 16, 2007
You've nailed it perfectly, RedEmma. But the next time you write a long treatise on the inadequacy of public education, it would probably be a good idea to use the occasional capital letter.
posted by Reggie Digest at 1:49 PM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Reggie Digest at 1:49 PM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Athleticism is not mutually exclusive with intellectualism.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:57 PM on November 16, 2007
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:57 PM on November 16, 2007
there's a book by Nancy Lopez about this, and it's actually pretty good.
posted by lunit at 2:09 PM on November 16, 2007
posted by lunit at 2:09 PM on November 16, 2007
Reggie Digest: if my stylistic choices in an informal comment section of a blog lead you to think that i *can't* use caps in the appropriate venue or are a sign of a lack of intelligence on my part... then well... i guess i think you're attaching false importance to exactly the sorts of things that teachers tend to--which leads to drooling and disinterest on the parts of students. the homeschooler in my house knows a wide variety of ways to use language. and guess what? he knows when using caps is important, and when deliberate misspellings etc. are fun or a matter of style. it's how RedEmma talks.
BTW, i know i'm venting/ranting. and i know that there's no winning in dissing the choices of 90+% of parents. i'm expecting angry denial and lashing out. there's just no other venue where i can say these sorts of things without unpleasant social sanction. even homeschooling boards try to squelch the anti-school talk, since it alienates so many. i bite my tongue a lot in the teachers' lounge, and anywhere i'm likely to encounter parents. this is me unbiting my tongue.
posted by RedEmma at 2:18 PM on November 16, 2007
BTW, i know i'm venting/ranting. and i know that there's no winning in dissing the choices of 90+% of parents. i'm expecting angry denial and lashing out. there's just no other venue where i can say these sorts of things without unpleasant social sanction. even homeschooling boards try to squelch the anti-school talk, since it alienates so many. i bite my tongue a lot in the teachers' lounge, and anywhere i'm likely to encounter parents. this is me unbiting my tongue.
posted by RedEmma at 2:18 PM on November 16, 2007
Take a look through popular culture and look at how many smart-girl/dumb-boy pairings there are. Particularly when you're talking about youths and teenagers. Academic performance and intellectual ability just isn't nearly as much of a social advantage for boys as it is for girls. In fact, being seen as "smart" can be a massive, even dangerous, social disadvantage if you're male and in the typical public-school swamp.
Gender roles for children encourage girls to be studious and 'smart,' for boys there is little of the same encouragement and much in the opposite direction.
But of course, everything changes once you start talking about the 'real world,' post-adolescence and post-school. Almost inevitably, some of the same students who do very well (academically or socially) in school will fall flat once they graduate, because they've been emphasizing the wrong things.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:20 PM on November 16, 2007
Gender roles for children encourage girls to be studious and 'smart,' for boys there is little of the same encouragement and much in the opposite direction.
But of course, everything changes once you start talking about the 'real world,' post-adolescence and post-school. Almost inevitably, some of the same students who do very well (academically or socially) in school will fall flat once they graduate, because they've been emphasizing the wrong things.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:20 PM on November 16, 2007
Or any sitcom couple, actually... where there's a dumb one and a smart one. You would be very hard pressed to find an example where the man isn't the "dumb" character.
posted by the jam at 2:35 PM on November 16, 2007
posted by the jam at 2:35 PM on November 16, 2007
This article argues that this is really a race/class issue, not a gender issue, since apparently, the real problems are with poor inner city boys while amongst the middle class, boys aren't really falling behind.
posted by Maias at 2:35 PM on November 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
What I find really appalling here is the fact that we've just been told that only one-third of high school seniors know to read (roughly), and other than a quick comment or two, nobody has said boo about it.
Let me repeat this so that it sinks in:
Only about one third of high school seniors know how to read.
This should be causing panic, and instead folks just quietly muse about the differences between boys and girls.
Less than half and less than a third aren't that much different on a functional level. 44% and 28% are both total failure of the system.
Talking about that 16% difference, instead of the giant 64% of kids who can't read, strikes me as a total waste of time.
posted by Malor at 3:23 PM on November 16, 2007 [4 favorites]
Let me repeat this so that it sinks in:
Only about one third of high school seniors know how to read.
This should be causing panic, and instead folks just quietly muse about the differences between boys and girls.
Less than half and less than a third aren't that much different on a functional level. 44% and 28% are both total failure of the system.
Talking about that 16% difference, instead of the giant 64% of kids who can't read, strikes me as a total waste of time.
posted by Malor at 3:23 PM on November 16, 2007 [4 favorites]
I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT REGGIE DIGEST WAS SAYING AT ALL.
posted by gum at 3:25 PM on November 16, 2007
posted by gum at 3:25 PM on November 16, 2007
Unless I missed it, there wasn't a single anecdote in the comments above giving a counterexample (a school where the boys are more successful that the girls) to the linked studies' gender balance conclusions.
Not that I think there aren't any counterexamples out there, but I've always been perplexed by the notion of academic gender bias against girls being anything but a historical thing. I graduated from a U.S. public high school fifteen years ago and 9 out of the 10 top graduating class were girls and most sorts of academic recognition awards went to girls. I subsequently went to a small private college and the vast majority of the students majoring in mathematics and in most of the sciences were women.
I think that in general women are more intelligent than men, both in terms of "book smarts" and "common sense". I think that greater intelligence on the part of women is one factor among many that explains not only the disparity in academic performance but also the disparity in average pay. Someone mentioned up above, and I've also read independently, that there's different risk-taking behavior between the sexes, on average, in regards to employment.
Men are more likely to take jobs that expose them to injury and environmental hazards. I'll bet they also are more likely to take risks in squeezing more money and benefits out of their employer. And even if they were likely to take a large enough risk to get fired, in the industries I've worked in your salary frequently increases anyways in switching to a new job.
I think there's definitely discrimination against women in the workplace, I've witnessed it first-hand, but I think that even if it and other factors were eliminated, guys might still end up making more money than women because on average they're more likely to take dumb risks that end up getting them more money.
posted by XMLicious at 4:16 PM on November 16, 2007
Not that I think there aren't any counterexamples out there, but I've always been perplexed by the notion of academic gender bias against girls being anything but a historical thing. I graduated from a U.S. public high school fifteen years ago and 9 out of the 10 top graduating class were girls and most sorts of academic recognition awards went to girls. I subsequently went to a small private college and the vast majority of the students majoring in mathematics and in most of the sciences were women.
I think that in general women are more intelligent than men, both in terms of "book smarts" and "common sense". I think that greater intelligence on the part of women is one factor among many that explains not only the disparity in academic performance but also the disparity in average pay. Someone mentioned up above, and I've also read independently, that there's different risk-taking behavior between the sexes, on average, in regards to employment.
Men are more likely to take jobs that expose them to injury and environmental hazards. I'll bet they also are more likely to take risks in squeezing more money and benefits out of their employer. And even if they were likely to take a large enough risk to get fired, in the industries I've worked in your salary frequently increases anyways in switching to a new job.
I think there's definitely discrimination against women in the workplace, I've witnessed it first-hand, but I think that even if it and other factors were eliminated, guys might still end up making more money than women because on average they're more likely to take dumb risks that end up getting them more money.
posted by XMLicious at 4:16 PM on November 16, 2007
Girls need college a lot more than boys do.
If you don't have a degree, how can you prove you aren't only in it to get married to someone higher-earning than you?
posted by shownomercy at 4:28 PM on November 16, 2007
If you don't have a degree, how can you prove you aren't only in it to get married to someone higher-earning than you?
posted by shownomercy at 4:28 PM on November 16, 2007
I, too, am curious as to what I might have been saying. Do tell, gum.
posted by Reggie Digest at 4:31 PM on November 16, 2007
posted by Reggie Digest at 4:31 PM on November 16, 2007
Back to my original point: What Malor said, minus the slightly alarmist misrepresentation of statistics.
This boys-vs.-girls thing, aside from the interesting pharmacological angle, seems a bit of a red herring. There is a much, much, much bigger problem here. Standards are dropping. Kids are getting A's when they deserve, at best, C's and D's. These barely-literate straight-A students flood the post-secondary institutions, who are forced to lower their own grading standards or surrender their respective spots on the podium for highest GPA or whatever. The kids go on to become doctors and teachers and politicians. Eventually, Gatorade is used to water crops.
Reading is important. (But you don't have to take my word for it.)
posted by Reggie Digest at 4:47 PM on November 16, 2007
This boys-vs.-girls thing, aside from the interesting pharmacological angle, seems a bit of a red herring. There is a much, much, much bigger problem here. Standards are dropping. Kids are getting A's when they deserve, at best, C's and D's. These barely-literate straight-A students flood the post-secondary institutions, who are forced to lower their own grading standards or surrender their respective spots on the podium for highest GPA or whatever. The kids go on to become doctors and teachers and politicians. Eventually, Gatorade is used to water crops.
Reading is important. (But you don't have to take my word for it.)
posted by Reggie Digest at 4:47 PM on November 16, 2007
agreed, Reggie Digest.
i've spent the last seven days, five hours a day, reading the current crop of SAT essays. so far, i've learned that 1984 is a lesson on conformity and teaches us that allowing people fewer options leads to contentment, and that The Great Gatsby is a story about how money brings you happiness. (there are way too many saying the latter to make it funny.) not to mention the culturally sad assertions that too many choices for colleges (or whatever) make teenagers unhappy, and the variety of clothing stores is what enables us to be individuals.
i wish all Americans could read these essays for one hour, in all their confused thinking and incredibly bad grammar. then they should watch me score them, using the rubrik i am required to.
i used to go out to the bar after a few hours of this, drink next to my friends and freak out over it. now it doesn't even faze me. that, my friends, should make you weep.
posted by RedEmma at 5:41 PM on November 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
i've spent the last seven days, five hours a day, reading the current crop of SAT essays. so far, i've learned that 1984 is a lesson on conformity and teaches us that allowing people fewer options leads to contentment, and that The Great Gatsby is a story about how money brings you happiness. (there are way too many saying the latter to make it funny.) not to mention the culturally sad assertions that too many choices for colleges (or whatever) make teenagers unhappy, and the variety of clothing stores is what enables us to be individuals.
i wish all Americans could read these essays for one hour, in all their confused thinking and incredibly bad grammar. then they should watch me score them, using the rubrik i am required to.
i used to go out to the bar after a few hours of this, drink next to my friends and freak out over it. now it doesn't even faze me. that, my friends, should make you weep.
posted by RedEmma at 5:41 PM on November 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
We cant make a rogue DMV to test your theory of innovation
MVD Express
posted by yohko at 6:34 PM on November 16, 2007
MVD Express
posted by yohko at 6:34 PM on November 16, 2007
I find it amusing...I mean depressing..at how many posters say, well, if girls are excelling at school, that's because it's not real learning anymore...just boring old memorization! I mean, sour grapes, guys? C'mon. Can you just not handle the idea that women might ever outperform men in academics? If we did have an equal society, wouldn't women sometimes outperform men academically, but not necessarily always? Would it average out to 50-50?
We don't know yet, cause we haven't had the chance to try. I'm a raging feminist, but I don't fear that women will always outperform men mentally and turn around to oppress their former oppressors...but I'm beginning to think that some posters here do. There's a lot more difference between individuals academically than between men as a whole and women as a whole.
If this study is valid, I would posit that motivation has a lot to do with it. For the last few millennia, women were a slave class. Less than 100 years ago, we couldn't even fucking vote in this country, much less have widespread access to higher ed. Maybe this is just a statistical correction--women leaping for opportunities their mothers and grandmothers were denied. Just like some immigrant groups that came to the U.S. and did the same.
posted by emjaybee at 7:46 PM on November 16, 2007
We don't know yet, cause we haven't had the chance to try. I'm a raging feminist, but I don't fear that women will always outperform men mentally and turn around to oppress their former oppressors...but I'm beginning to think that some posters here do. There's a lot more difference between individuals academically than between men as a whole and women as a whole.
If this study is valid, I would posit that motivation has a lot to do with it. For the last few millennia, women were a slave class. Less than 100 years ago, we couldn't even fucking vote in this country, much less have widespread access to higher ed. Maybe this is just a statistical correction--women leaping for opportunities their mothers and grandmothers were denied. Just like some immigrant groups that came to the U.S. and did the same.
posted by emjaybee at 7:46 PM on November 16, 2007
Athleticism is not mutually exclusive with intellectualism.
Not in theory, but in all that time spent in practice.
posted by cytherea at 8:24 PM on November 16, 2007
Not in theory, but in all that time spent in practice.
posted by cytherea at 8:24 PM on November 16, 2007
C'mon. Can you just not handle the idea that women might ever outperform men in academics? If we did have an equal society, wouldn't women sometimes outperform men academically, but not necessarily always? Would it average out to 50-50?
You miss my earlier point. (which is fine; I am often far from clear) It used to be that gender differences meant, automatically, that the tests were designed improperly and had to be recalibrated. Because you can't have gender differences. Test results certainly couldn't say anything about gender.
So now the tests indicate higher academic performance for women/girls. The conclusion? sour grapes, guys?
Uh, ok. How about a little consistency? Or again, are stereotypes ok so long as they are the ones with which you already agree?
posted by dreamsign at 8:41 PM on November 16, 2007
You miss my earlier point. (which is fine; I am often far from clear) It used to be that gender differences meant, automatically, that the tests were designed improperly and had to be recalibrated. Because you can't have gender differences. Test results certainly couldn't say anything about gender.
So now the tests indicate higher academic performance for women/girls. The conclusion? sour grapes, guys?
Uh, ok. How about a little consistency? Or again, are stereotypes ok so long as they are the ones with which you already agree?
posted by dreamsign at 8:41 PM on November 16, 2007
emjaybee:
being better at jumping through these sorts of hoops is not something we should be happy about, no matter which oppressed group has learned to excel at it. (leaving aside the level of overall achievement on the part of both genders, which is dismal.) it's like being the most powerful gang behind prison walls.
remember Audre Lorde? something about the master's tools and the master's house? well i say, fuck dismantling this house. our children don't have time to wait and argue over which brick to save and which one to throw away. time to move to a new neighborhood altogether.
posted by RedEmma at 12:08 AM on November 17, 2007
being better at jumping through these sorts of hoops is not something we should be happy about, no matter which oppressed group has learned to excel at it. (leaving aside the level of overall achievement on the part of both genders, which is dismal.) it's like being the most powerful gang behind prison walls.
remember Audre Lorde? something about the master's tools and the master's house? well i say, fuck dismantling this house. our children don't have time to wait and argue over which brick to save and which one to throw away. time to move to a new neighborhood altogether.
posted by RedEmma at 12:08 AM on November 17, 2007
In 12th grade, 44% of girls rate as proficient readers on federal tests, compared with 28% of boys.
You have got to be kidding me. I think we need a, if you can't read, you can't vote law put in place.
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:45 AM on November 17, 2007
You have got to be kidding me. I think we need a, if you can't read, you can't vote law put in place.
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:45 AM on November 17, 2007
I think we need a, if you can't read, you can't vote law put in place.
Hi, I'm Mr. Disenfranchisement, here to make sure your poor minorities can't vote. It would be nice in a perfect world, but instituting literacy requirements for voting inherently leads to nasty discrimination.
posted by Room 101 at 7:14 AM on November 17, 2007
Hi, I'm Mr. Disenfranchisement, here to make sure your poor minorities can't vote. It would be nice in a perfect world, but instituting literacy requirements for voting inherently leads to nasty discrimination.
posted by Room 101 at 7:14 AM on November 17, 2007
Those literacy numbers don't surprise me at all. I'm a graduate student at a state university, and I have to teach mathematics courses. I would say about 80% of my calculus II students are illiterate.
Not illiterate in the sense of "reading math books is harder than reading novels" (because that's true), but in the sense that they really can't read. I have to read to them. It's fucking pathetic.
posted by King Bee at 7:31 AM on November 17, 2007
Not illiterate in the sense of "reading math books is harder than reading novels" (because that's true), but in the sense that they really can't read. I have to read to them. It's fucking pathetic.
posted by King Bee at 7:31 AM on November 17, 2007
Hi, I'm Mr. Disenfranchisement, here to make sure your poor minorities can't vote. It would be nice in a perfect world, but instituting literacy requirements for voting inherently leads to nasty discrimination.
Yes, discrimination against people that can't read. I mean how much could you possibly understand about any issue if you can't read. Maybe we should have picture ballots, that just have a big picture of the candidates heads and they can circle the one they like best.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:51 AM on November 17, 2007
Yes, discrimination against people that can't read. I mean how much could you possibly understand about any issue if you can't read. Maybe we should have picture ballots, that just have a big picture of the candidates heads and they can circle the one they like best.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:51 AM on November 17, 2007
Another way of putting this: take two groups of high school seniors, one consisting of 10 girls, the other 10 boys.
If these statistics can be believed, about three boys will be able to read, and about four girls will be able to.
Why on earth are we talking about the one girl, and not the 13 kids out of 20 who can't read at a functional level?
posted by Malor at 11:05 AM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
If these statistics can be believed, about three boys will be able to read, and about four girls will be able to.
Why on earth are we talking about the one girl, and not the 13 kids out of 20 who can't read at a functional level?
posted by Malor at 11:05 AM on November 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
I just find it interesting that in most of the debate on academic achievement, girls falling behind is a symptom of a failing educational system while boys falling behind is a symptom of something wrong with the boys.
what? did you get this backwards? Because it seems like the opposite is what people tend to think - if males do better on tests, people say, well, boys are naturally better at math and science, it's just genetics. But if girls excel, then something's messed up in the system - it's certainly not a correction after years of shifting attitudes or anything. It means that the tests themselves are obviously not testing real intelligence but just rote memorization, and it's only because they're dumb compliant girls that they do better. When boys fail, they're rebellious free thinkers. When girls fail, they're just not that smart...
Which is not to say that these tests are in themselves full of meaning or indicative of greatness or anything like that - I was one of those rebellious kids myself, who thought grades were pointless (discussed here) - but let's not change what they mean based on who's doing well on them.
Also, it's not like we're talking about finals in french poetry or anything - this is basic reading comprehension. And I agree, these numbers are frightening. As an adjunct college teacher, I often face the difficulty of what sort of standard to hold students to (especially when you get into trade vs academic futures, and whether there's a point of teaching the classics to uninterested students pursuing biz degrees, etc), but I would think reading would be a hoop we could all jump through...
posted by mdn at 12:29 PM on November 17, 2007
what? did you get this backwards? Because it seems like the opposite is what people tend to think - if males do better on tests, people say, well, boys are naturally better at math and science, it's just genetics. But if girls excel, then something's messed up in the system - it's certainly not a correction after years of shifting attitudes or anything. It means that the tests themselves are obviously not testing real intelligence but just rote memorization, and it's only because they're dumb compliant girls that they do better. When boys fail, they're rebellious free thinkers. When girls fail, they're just not that smart...
Which is not to say that these tests are in themselves full of meaning or indicative of greatness or anything like that - I was one of those rebellious kids myself, who thought grades were pointless (discussed here) - but let's not change what they mean based on who's doing well on them.
Also, it's not like we're talking about finals in french poetry or anything - this is basic reading comprehension. And I agree, these numbers are frightening. As an adjunct college teacher, I often face the difficulty of what sort of standard to hold students to (especially when you get into trade vs academic futures, and whether there's a point of teaching the classics to uninterested students pursuing biz degrees, etc), but I would think reading would be a hoop we could all jump through...
posted by mdn at 12:29 PM on November 17, 2007
it seems like the opposite is what people tend to think
Seriously? I've not once heard this topic raised since the scores have started moving this way -- including in this thread -- that the "girls just work harder" and "boys are lazy" excuses get used, rather than looking, as we did 20 years ago when girls were behind, at the system that decides how to teach and how to evaluate what is learned. Now I do sometimes hear the "rebellious free thinker" type of line when it comes to boys not doing as well, trying to put a positive spin on why a boy would be flunking out of school, but tell me how that is not still attributing failure to the boy's traits rather than the system of instruction and evaluation? It wasn't that long ago that a test that found significant gender differences in favour of males was presumed a bad test. End of story. I'm not suggesting that's a rational way to do things. It's just interesting that we've divorced ourselves from that mindset with no excuses but somehow also no explanations. Just stereotypes we like better these days.
posted by dreamsign at 11:23 PM on November 19, 2007
Seriously? I've not once heard this topic raised since the scores have started moving this way -- including in this thread -- that the "girls just work harder" and "boys are lazy" excuses get used, rather than looking, as we did 20 years ago when girls were behind, at the system that decides how to teach and how to evaluate what is learned. Now I do sometimes hear the "rebellious free thinker" type of line when it comes to boys not doing as well, trying to put a positive spin on why a boy would be flunking out of school, but tell me how that is not still attributing failure to the boy's traits rather than the system of instruction and evaluation? It wasn't that long ago that a test that found significant gender differences in favour of males was presumed a bad test. End of story. I'm not suggesting that's a rational way to do things. It's just interesting that we've divorced ourselves from that mindset with no excuses but somehow also no explanations. Just stereotypes we like better these days.
posted by dreamsign at 11:23 PM on November 19, 2007
« Older Preparing a turkey the MANLY way | ZOMBIE BOOB TUBE TELEVISION Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:42 AM on November 16, 2007