3 ms·

There's some pretty damning evidence mentioned in the article that's unrelated to the headline: > As a result, even in situations where girls outperformed boys

There's some pretty damning evidence mentioned in the article that's unrelated to the headline: > As a result, even in situations where girls outperformed boys in science, they typically outperformed them in reading by an even larger margin. and: > [..] boys' self-sufficiency ratings were higher than their test performance in about half of the countries; for girls, this was only true in seven percent of the countries, which suggests that boys' confidence isn't entirely justified These findings would suggest that it's in the interest of science to encourage girls to take up careers in the field. There's an enormous amount of talent that's currently wasted, with resources going to less-qualified yet over-confident boys.

wasp1024 9y ago
What kind of reasoning is this? Academic tests are outdated in many ways (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uINT8kdFQUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uINT8kdFQUM) and so are the tests. Lets approach this from a gender neutral stand point, just cause a person outperforms someone in an exam or test is not indicative that person will outperform the same person in a real world job? Lets work on a system that promises benefits to user regardless of gender, hears out the opinions regardless of gender... that more of productive convo, than just coming out saying things like "There's an enormous amount of talent that's currently wasted, with resources going to less-qualified yet over-confident boys"