| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2006 03:14:13 PM |
| Object: |
Math, Science, and Gender |
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement. In an Education Forum in the 27 Oct
2006 Science, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn offered a review of
meta-analyses of research on gender differences, which suggests that
girls and boys are more similar than different in their psychological
traits and cognitive abilities. The authors argue that too often,
small differences in performance -- reflected in studies such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card -- are
exaggerated and end up reinforcing subtle, persistent, biases, e.g.,
that girls lack mathematical and scientific aptitude. Efforts to
improve math and science performance in schools, they suggest, should
focus more on factors such as differences in students' aggression and
activity levels than on gender ( listen to the an interview with Dr.
Hyde in the 27 Oct podcast;
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl#20061027 ).
.
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Gender roles and the need for hard science. |
04 Nov 2006 02:33:57 AM |
|
|
Hi Sam_Wormley, I'm very right handed/footed,
and sometimes I wonder if women vs. men isn't like that too,
i.e. just as either hand could do the job, so could either gender;
yet one is invariably favored over the other.
Then there's the powerful urge some women have to birth and raise kids,
a skill that famously does not require _Hard_ science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Gender roles and the need for hard science. |
04 Nov 2006 02:40:11 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Sam_Wormley, I'm very right handed/footed,
and sometimes I wonder if women vs. men isn't like that too,
i.e. just as either hand could do the job, so could either gender;
yet one is invariably favored over the other.
Then there's the powerful urge some women have to birth and raise kids,
a skill that famously does not require _Hard_ science.
You have no idea what hard science is, relfie boy. You think your
meaningless prattle is the same thing as actual science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
02 Nov 2006 03:44:52 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement. In an Education Forum in the 27 Oct
2006 Science, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn offered a review of
meta-analyses of research on gender differences, which suggests that
girls and boys are more similar than different in their psychological
traits and cognitive abilities. The authors argue that too often,
small differences in performance -- reflected in studies such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card -- are
exaggerated and end up reinforcing subtle, persistent, biases, e.g.,
that girls lack mathematical and scientific aptitude. Efforts to
improve math and science performance in schools, they suggest, should
focus more on factors such as differences in students' aggression and
activity levels than on gender ( listen to the an interview with Dr.
Hyde in the 27 Oct podcast;
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl#20061027 ).
Efforts to improve math and science performance in schools, Uncle Al
suggests, should be based upon objective ability. If technical
abilities depend on "aggression and activity levels" then boys will
always win, as they do. If you wish your future mothers to be
aggressive and active, shoot them up with anabolic steroids. They'll
compete with the boys one on one, though they're gonna be kind hairy
everywhere and have low voices.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
02 Nov 2006 10:03:08 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:454A66D4.3EFDBA6F@hate.spam.net...
[snip river of *****]
FOaD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
03 Nov 2006 05:53:56 AM |
|
|
In article <454A66D4.3EFDBA6F@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement. In an Education Forum in the 27 Oct
2006 Science, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn offered a review of
meta-analyses of research on gender differences, which suggests that
girls and boys are more similar than different in their psychological
traits and cognitive abilities. The authors argue that too often,
small differences in performance -- reflected in studies such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card -- are
exaggerated and end up reinforcing subtle, persistent, biases, e.g.,
that girls lack mathematical and scientific aptitude. Efforts to
improve math and science performance in schools, they suggest, should
focus more on factors such as differences in students' aggression and
activity levels than on gender ( listen to the an interview with Dr.
Hyde in the 27 Oct podcast;
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl#20061027 ).
Efforts to improve math and science performance in schools, Uncle Al
suggests, should be based upon objective ability. If technical
abilities depend on "aggression and activity levels" then boys will
always win, as they do. If you wish your future mothers to be
aggressive and active, shoot them up with anabolic steroids. They'll
compete with the boys one on one, though they're gonna be kind hairy
everywhere and have low voices.
Heaven forbid that teachers start teaching math rather than
promoting social promotion equality.
The side effect of even thinking about genders in these classes
is that the males won't get taught so they can be perceived as
keeping up with the females. IOW, it is the teacher who isn't
teaching the math and has nothing to do with kids' abilities
to learn.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
03 Nov 2006 06:48:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <454A66D4.3EFDBA6F@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement. In an Education Forum in the 27 Oct
2006 Science, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn offered a review of
meta-analyses of research on gender differences, which suggests that
girls and boys are more similar than different in their psychological
traits and cognitive abilities. The authors argue that too often,
small differences in performance -- reflected in studies such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card -- are
exaggerated and end up reinforcing subtle, persistent, biases, e.g.,
that girls lack mathematical and scientific aptitude. Efforts to
improve math and science performance in schools, they suggest, should
focus more on factors such as differences in students' aggression and
activity levels than on gender ( listen to the an interview with Dr.
Hyde in the 27 Oct podcast;
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl#20061027 ).
Efforts to improve math and science performance in schools, Uncle Al
suggests, should be based upon objective ability. If technical
abilities depend on "aggression and activity levels" then boys will
always win, as they do. If you wish your future mothers to be
aggressive and active, shoot them up with anabolic steroids. They'll
compete with the boys one on one, though they're gonna be kind hairy
everywhere and have low voices.
Heaven forbid that teachers start teaching math rather than
promoting social promotion equality.
The side effect of even thinking about genders in these classes
is that the males won't get taught so they can be perceived as
keeping up with the females. IOW, it is the teacher who isn't
teaching the math and has nothing to do with kids' abilities
to learn.
Gender has nothing to do with proficiency in mathematics.
A good mathematician has to be stout and strong of bone.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~ci3/hasse-noether/Noether.gif
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~ci3/hasse-noether/correspond.htm
:o)
Sue...
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
03 Nov 2006 08:03:37 AM |
|
|
In article <1162558115.255001.4320@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <454A66D4.3EFDBA6F@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement. In an Education Forum in the 27 Oct
2006 Science, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn offered a review of
meta-analyses of research on gender differences, which suggests that
girls and boys are more similar than different in their psychological
traits and cognitive abilities. The authors argue that too often,
small differences in performance -- reflected in studies such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card -- are
exaggerated and end up reinforcing subtle, persistent, biases, e.g.,
that girls lack mathematical and scientific aptitude. Efforts to
improve math and science performance in schools, they suggest, should
focus more on factors such as differences in students' aggression and
activity levels than on gender ( listen to the an interview with Dr.
Hyde in the 27 Oct podcast;
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl#20061027 ).
Efforts to improve math and science performance in schools, Uncle Al
suggests, should be based upon objective ability. If technical
abilities depend on "aggression and activity levels" then boys will
always win, as they do. If you wish your future mothers to be
aggressive and active, shoot them up with anabolic steroids. They'll
compete with the boys one on one, though they're gonna be kind hairy
everywhere and have low voices.
Heaven forbid that teachers start teaching math rather than
promoting social promotion equality.
The side effect of even thinking about genders in these classes
is that the males won't get taught so they can be perceived as
keeping up with the females. IOW, it is the teacher who isn't
teaching the math and has nothing to do with kids' abilities
to learn.
Gender has nothing to do with proficiency in mathematics.
I know. I was the best.
A good mathematician has to be stout and strong of bone.
Nope. A good math type learns the few basic rules and then
applies them to make new ones. It's easy and not unlike
OS development, programming, and debugging.
/BAH
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
03 Nov 2006 04:36:27 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Efforts to improve math and science performance in schools, Uncle Al
suggests, should be based upon objective ability.
Sounds great. So how do we measure objective ability? With tests? I remember
just recently reading (possibly on this very group) about a study which
found that a group of girls who were exposed to fake research claiming to
show that girls are inferior to boys in math ability, and subsequently
tested on their math ability, did worse than a control group that wasn't
shown the research. So supposing that girls in the real world are exposed to
such claims, and supposing that the psychological effect found in this study
is real (both of which I find easy to believe), tests of this kind don't
measure objective ability. So what do we do? Give the girls a few extra
points to compensate for the inaccuracy? Ignore the problem and end up with
a few boys in honors classes who are less deserving than a few girls who
didn't make it?
Of course this is just an isolated example of the much bigger problem that
tests never test the right thing. And probably the only sensible response to
that problem is to try to design the best tests we can, and act as though
the results are perfect, because we have nothing better to go on. But I just
want to make the point that by taking this so-called objective approach, you
may well be amplifying an existing bias. People who are inaccurately
assessed by your best-effort test have probably been inaccurately assessed
in the same direction by previous best-effort tests.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
03 Nov 2006 08:13:00 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement. In an Education Forum in the 27 Oct
2006 Science, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn offered a review of
meta-analyses of research on gender differences, which suggests that
girls and boys are more similar than different in their psychological
traits and cognitive abilities. The authors argue that too often,
small differences in performance -- reflected in studies such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card -- are
exaggerated and end up reinforcing subtle, persistent, biases, e.g.,
that girls lack mathematical and scientific aptitude. Efforts to
improve math and science performance in schools, they suggest, should
focus more on factors such as differences in students' aggression and
activity levels than on gender ( listen to the an interview with Dr.
Hyde in the 27 Oct podcast;
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl#20061027 ).
Honestly, I don't understand why there is any emphasis at all on "gender
differences", "representation inequities" and the like. Isn't it more
important that *everyone* show some degree of scientific competence, as
in critical thinking abilities? The primary school curriculum needs to
demand more from underperformers, regardless of gender. A goal of
educators should be instilling the positive value of learning and
discouraging anti-intellectual behaviors (which sometimes masquerade as
anti-authoritarianism).
I agree with this article. Is there something to be gained by directing
a particular class of individuals towards certain vocations?
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
04 Nov 2006 05:28:30 AM |
|
|
In article <eifit8$2i3$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement. In an Education Forum in the 27 Oct
2006 Science, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn offered a review of
meta-analyses of research on gender differences, which suggests that
girls and boys are more similar than different in their psychological
traits and cognitive abilities. The authors argue that too often,
small differences in performance -- reflected in studies such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card -- are
exaggerated and end up reinforcing subtle, persistent, biases, e.g.,
that girls lack mathematical and scientific aptitude. Efforts to
improve math and science performance in schools, they suggest, should
focus more on factors such as differences in students' aggression and
activity levels than on gender ( listen to the an interview with Dr.
Hyde in the 27 Oct podcast;
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl#20061027 ).
Honestly, I don't understand why there is any emphasis at all on "gender
differences", "representation inequities" and the like.
When I was working, that abomination called EEO was the club used.
I always called it work prevention. It was a RPITA.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender |
03 Nov 2006 10:31:19 PM |
|
|
In article <eifit8$2i3$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>, Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> writes:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement. In an Education Forum in the 27 Oct
2006 Science, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn offered a review of
meta-analyses of research on gender differences, which suggests that
girls and boys are more similar than different in their psychological
traits and cognitive abilities. The authors argue that too often,
small differences in performance -- reflected in studies such as the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report Card -- are
exaggerated and end up reinforcing subtle, persistent, biases, e.g.,
that girls lack mathematical and scientific aptitude. Efforts to
improve math and science performance in schools, they suggest, should
focus more on factors such as differences in students' aggression and
activity levels than on gender ( listen to the an interview with Dr.
Hyde in the 27 Oct podcast;
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl#20061027 ).
Honestly, I don't understand why there is any emphasis at all on "gender
differences", "representation inequities" and the like. Isn't it more
important that *everyone* show some degree of scientific competence, as
in critical thinking abilities? The primary school curriculum needs to
demand more from underperformers, regardless of gender. A goal of
educators should be instilling the positive value of learning and
discouraging anti-intellectual behaviors (which sometimes masquerade as
anti-authoritarianism).
I agree with this article. Is there something to be gained by directing
a particular class of individuals towards certain vocations?
Is there something to be gained? You kidding? Thousands of people
derive gainful employment from fixing social problems, regardless of
whether the problems exist:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Math, Science, and Gender ... with a twist |
03 Nov 2006 04:54:27 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Math, Science, and Gender
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/314/5799/599
The role of gender in math and science performance has fueled
considerable debate on issues ranging from education practices to
career choices and advancement.
.... with a quite unexpected twist:
The Growing Prevalence of Women in College Education: By Fields
http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/Distribution.htm
Take a look, particularly, at the historical track for the sciences.
This will become all the more striking when the data for other nations
are added. Even the Engineering track is showing the first signs of
moving along the the same trendline and the whole set of tracks can
almost be fit onto a single trendline (up to a conformal factor and
time translation), much like the time-line depicting the evolution of
stars.
There are notable exceptions, including particularly Comp. Sci. which
has shown an unusual oscillation, but also a recent resurgence. Math
headed in the same directions as other fields, such as Biology and
Psychology, but hit a (probably) brief plateau just short of 50-50 in
the latest years listed.
The Growing Prevalence of Women in Education
http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/Education.htm
The Education Gender Gap Goes Global
http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/WorldEducationGap.htm
(A reference to the Scientific American article from a few years back
will be added in here)
Female Majorities in College: Law, Med & Public Policy Schools, and
PhD's
http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/ProSchool.htm
The Gender Gap in GCSE's and Elsewhere in British Education
http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/GCSEGenderGap.htm
The Emerging Gender Gap in Scotland
http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/Scotland.htm
The articles archived (at home) on the international arena will also be
linked to soon. One example of particular prominence (of a huge number
throughout the world):
Mongolia's Universities: A Woman's World
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/culture/articles/pp020302.shtml
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
