tl;dl: * Sex differences in general intelligence are small, so the F>M achievement gap in higher education likely is not explained by women being smarter. * T

tl;dl: * Sex differences in general intelligence are small, so the F>M achievement gap in higher education likely is not explained by women being smarter. * The gap emerges already in elementary school and the gap in elementary school is predictive of performance in higher education. * The gap in elementary school is not new, and can likely be attributed to females maturing earlier in their attention skills and being less unruly. * So girls/women may have always been more fit for school, but they lacked incentives to make something of themselves and were held back by their biology in earlier times. * What is new is a strong incentive for girls to succeed in school due to the economic opportunities and reduced investment in the children and birth (e.g. birth control). * The gap mainly exists in lower-to-middle income families, not so much higher income, so a good environment can presumably aid boys to be more focused, or boys may be more sensitive to a poor environment. * It concludes with anecdotes by a teacher about how a return to more manly competition may not actually be helpful for boys as it discourages slow learners. Rather, boys should be more supported, and they need to get over the stereotype that nerdiness and conscientiousness is for the girls. Plus the topic of boys falling behind should not be a taboo.