4 ms·

Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds

12 points by greendestiny 18y ago

ardit33 18y ago
good. Now they can start studying some computer science. Being in a class with 95% guys, is depressing. Some more balanced demographic, makes it more fun. But I wonder if they even want to......
sfg 18y ago
My only real problem with this is that I do not really care about what is achieved in children's mathematics classes. Surely, the better test of true ability in this field would be to look at researchers and research accomplishments.
- hashtable 18y ago
  Valuing research mathematics over everyday math is arbitrary and subjective.
  - sfg 18y ago
    Of course it is subjective, it is is me that does not care about children's mathematics. I make no claim for the wider world. That's why I said "My only problem" and not "the problem". Its not entirely arbitrary though. I care about research mathematics as to do well at it(or to do it at all) requires very strong mathematical abilities. To do well in classroom mathematics is as much, and probably more, to do with being a good student. So it seems to me that by looking at children's mathematics rather than research mathematics your results are going to be confounded by the issue that your measuring mathematics ability via a proxy(schoolroom mathematics) rather than the real thing(research mathematics). Your results might still be correct, but I find it hard to know if that is the case. I suppose, if your just interested in day to day average numeracy skills then looking at children is fine, except even then I would prefer the study was performed on adults rather than regularly drilled students. That way you will find out who is more capable of retaining numeracy skills and who has the higher natural levels of numeracy, rather than just finding out which students revise the hardest and listen to the teacher most attentively.
    - greendestiny 18y ago
      It'd be interesting to see how these disparities change (or not) with age and through into university study. I've always heard that girls mature faster, which may mean that differences in ability by sex that appear in childhood are different in adulthood. Completely aside from that, it does show how broad societal trends can affect maths learning for females.
ivankirigin 18y ago
The problem here is mean vs variance. The biggest performers in math and science are going to be at least a few standard deviations away from the mean. Identical mean and slightly higher variance in men would significantly contribute to the ratios we see today. Either way, the goal shouldn't be to make everyone feel good about innate abilities. The goal should be to find the reason why one person is innately better than someone else in a particular skill. Step 1: understanding. Step 2: enhancement. Step 3: repeat. Similar to the recent JL post: forget the gap, focus on the product. It matters most.
- mlinsey 18y ago
  Sure, variance is another question (and one not addressed either way by linked article), but there were some folks in the other thread arguing that maybe men are evolutionarily predisposed to be better at math than women. If that were true, you would expect to see differences in the mean and not just the variance.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    The conversation is usually about the higher end. Higher variance would also lead to a greater number of math underachievers. I'm pretty sure the numbers play this out, but I think lower bounds on achievement tend to be heavily skewed by 'nurture'. Also, this assumes a symmetric curve. This highlights the gross over simplifications even a more advanced model suffers from. We're modeling brains here, after all, with one or two numbers. But you are technically incorrect. You can see more of a certain group in the high end if there is higher variance with equal mean.
    - mlinsey 18y ago
      Everything you said here is true but I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said. You are focusing on the highest end of the curve, presumably because that's where things like advancements in math (and the status it brings) lie. I'm saying that even if you leave aside the entire discussion about a possible gender gap at the ends of the spectrum, there were other people who were suggesting that the gender gap in mathematical ability might be just like the gender gap in physical strength. This study seems to indicate that this isn't the case, therefore it's a valuable part of the discussion.
tx 18y ago
Why is it even worth discussing? Or even worth discovering? Why do we always break ourselves down (by age, gender, education, whatever) into groups and bump them into each other?
- tungstenfurnace 18y ago
  Exactly. Why is it important whether boys or girls or Chinese or gay people are better at maths? Why are scarce research funds going into this? Questions I would be more interesting in: how can elementary maths be made more interesting? And how can we save children who aren't interested in maths from having it forced upon them?
  - jrockway 18y ago
    I would rather find the answer to the question, "How can we make it more interesting for them." Regardless of whether or not mathematics interests you, it's a vital skill like reading. I don't really like "reading"* per se, but I still need to do it anyway. * s/reading/analysis of fiction/
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - tungstenfurnace 18y ago
      If a skill is truly vital then I will _want_ to learn it, sooner or later, whatever my present interests are. So there's no need for 'needs' to overrule 'wants'. (And in particular no need for thousands of people to be paid to deem what children's needs supposedly are.) For example, if I'm interested in a sport then eventually I'll want to learn elementary arithmetic to keep track of scores and the league tables. If my favourite thing is fantasy computer games I'll eventually want to read the names of other characters, etc. The new knowledge in both cases will enhance my love of the activity and I will not regard it as a sacrifice to learn it.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  Why do we always break ourselves down Identity politics. Follow the money. If you can get a person in authority to declare, "We are all equal, given 'fair' conditions," then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. 4. Corrective action is needed. This is a standard move in identity politics, and you will see it whenever two groups are different. Different people = different outcomes. But the vast bulk of people, including scientists, have been trained from birth to say, "All men [sic] are created equal". Once you decide that society isn't treating a group fairly, it is time to correct that. How? Affirmative action, set-asides, diversity training, repairations, etc. What's in store: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWYyM2I0NTRjZWY3NDA2Njk http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...
ComputerGuru 18y ago
The Economist is the one that originally published the research, 2 months ago. Here's their take, with graphs & numbers: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11449804 http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
d0mine 18y ago
Such articles are always misleading. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain If you are interested in such questions just read the original research: PISA 2003 http://is.gd/Si0 http://is.gd/Si0 Full report in English: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf

12 points by greendestiny 18y ago

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

sfg 18y ago

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

hashtable 18y ago
Valuing research mathematics over everyday math is arbitrary and subjective.
- sfg 18y ago
  Of course it is subjective, it is is me that does not care about children's mathematics. I make no claim for the wider world. That's why I said "My only problem" and not "the problem". Its not entirely arbitrary though. I care about research mathematics as to do well at it(or to do it at all) requires very strong mathematical abilities. To do well in classroom mathematics is as much, and probably more, to do with being a good student. So it seems to me that by looking at children's mathematics rather than research mathematics your results are going to be confounded by the issue that your measuring mathematics ability via a proxy(schoolroom mathematics) rather than the real thing(research mathematics). Your results might still be correct, but I find it hard to know if that is the case. I suppose, if your just interested in day to day average numeracy skills then looking at children is fine, except even then I would prefer the study was performed on adults rather than regularly drilled students. That way you will find out who is more capable of retaining numeracy skills and who has the higher natural levels of numeracy, rather than just finding out which students revise the hardest and listen to the teacher most attentively.
  - greendestiny 18y ago
    It'd be interesting to see how these disparities change (or not) with age and through into university study. I've always heard that girls mature faster, which may mean that differences in ability by sex that appear in childhood are different in adulthood. Completely aside from that, it does show how broad societal trends can affect maths learning for females.

ivankirigin 18y ago

The problem here is mean vs variance. The biggest performers in math and science are going to be at least a few standard deviations away from the mean. Identical mean and slightly higher variance in men would significantly contribute to the ratios we see today. Either way, the goal shouldn't be to make everyone feel good about innate abilities. The goal should be to find the reason why one person is innately better than someone else in a particular skill. Step 1: understanding. Step 2: enhancement. Step 3: repeat. Similar to the recent JL post: forget the gap, focus on the product. It matters most.

mlinsey 18y ago
Sure, variance is another question (and one not addressed either way by linked article), but there were some folks in the other thread arguing that maybe men are evolutionarily predisposed to be better at math than women. If that were true, you would expect to see differences in the mean and not just the variance.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  The conversation is usually about the higher end. Higher variance would also lead to a greater number of math underachievers. I'm pretty sure the numbers play this out, but I think lower bounds on achievement tend to be heavily skewed by 'nurture'. Also, this assumes a symmetric curve. This highlights the gross over simplifications even a more advanced model suffers from. We're modeling brains here, after all, with one or two numbers. But you are technically incorrect. You can see more of a certain group in the high end if there is higher variance with equal mean.
  - mlinsey 18y ago
    Everything you said here is true but I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said. You are focusing on the highest end of the curve, presumably because that's where things like advancements in math (and the status it brings) lie. I'm saying that even if you leave aside the entire discussion about a possible gender gap at the ends of the spectrum, there were other people who were suggesting that the gender gap in mathematical ability might be just like the gender gap in physical strength. This study seems to indicate that this isn't the case, therefore it's a valuable part of the discussion.

tx 18y ago

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

tungstenfurnace 18y ago
Exactly. Why is it important whether boys or girls or Chinese or gay people are better at maths? Why are scarce research funds going into this? Questions I would be more interesting in: how can elementary maths be made more interesting? And how can we save children who aren't interested in maths from having it forced upon them?
- jrockway 18y ago
  I would rather find the answer to the question, "How can we make it more interesting for them." Regardless of whether or not mathematics interests you, it's a vital skill like reading. I don't really like "reading"* per se, but I still need to do it anyway. * s/reading/analysis of fiction/
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - tungstenfurnace 18y ago
    If a skill is truly vital then I will _want_ to learn it, sooner or later, whatever my present interests are. So there's no need for 'needs' to overrule 'wants'. (And in particular no need for thousands of people to be paid to deem what children's needs supposedly are.) For example, if I'm interested in a sport then eventually I'll want to learn elementary arithmetic to keep track of scores and the league tables. If my favourite thing is fantasy computer games I'll eventually want to read the names of other characters, etc. The new knowledge in both cases will enhance my love of the activity and I will not regard it as a sacrifice to learn it.
mynameishere 18y ago
Why do we always break ourselves down Identity politics. Follow the money. If you can get a person in authority to declare, "We are all equal, given 'fair' conditions," then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2. Men and women make different incomes. 3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly. 4. Corrective action is needed. This is a standard move in identity politics, and you will see it whenever two groups are different. Different people = different outcomes. But the vast bulk of people, including scientists, have been trained from birth to say, "All men [sic] are created equal". Once you decide that society isn't treating a group fairly, it is time to correct that. How? Affirmative action, set-asides, diversity training, repairations, etc. What's in store: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWYyM2I0NTRjZWY3NDA2Njk http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...

ComputerGuru 18y ago

The Economist is the one that originally published the research, 2 months ago. Here's their take, with graphs & numbers: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11449804 http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

d0mine 18y ago

Such articles are always misleading. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain If you are interested in such questions just read the original research: PISA 2003 http://is.gd/Si0 http://is.gd/Si0 Full report in English: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf