
The STEM education gender gap is more complex than people think - revanshan
http://acculturated.com/women-calculus-gender-discrimination-claims-dont-add/
======
sctb
Previously:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12225301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12225301)

------
makosdv
I'll probably get a bunch of down votes for saying this, but anyway...

I suspect that is has a lot to do with the varying IQ distributions between
the genders. Females tend to be closer to the mean, whereas males have wider
variance. If you are of average intelligence, calculus just won't make sense
to you and that will end your STEM education right there. There are just more
males with above average intelligence than there are females, so naturally
more males will "survive" calculus to continue in STEM fields. On the other
hand, there are more males with below average intelligence than females, which
is one reason why most criminals are males.

~~~
jdmichal
It looks like the idea has been studied:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Mathematics_performance)

In a 2008 study paid for by the National Science Foundation in the United
States, researchers found that... while boys and girls performed similarly on
average, boys were over-represented among the very best performers as well as
among the very worst.

------
wheaties
The pendulum will swing both ways eventually. If we want a society that
doesn't punish one group in disproportion to another, we're just going to have
to accept that eventually the previously dominant group now needs help in
certain areas.

------
pboutros
>In fact, today Title IX, the federal law that was supposed to ensure equal
educational opportunity for both sexes, is known almost exclusively as a tool
for advancing women’s interests.

Yes, that's kind of the point. And that's ok.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> Yes, that's kind of the point. And that's ok.

I think your viewpoint is at the crux of the debate. We run into a few ethics
questions with no obviously correct answers:

(1) _If_ discrimination based on sex is wrong _per se_ , then isn't it
unethical for the government to engage in it? (I.e., is it okay to crack a few
eggs to make an omelette? Is it okay to sacrifice one innocent virgin to spare
the whole village from the volcano?)

(2) Is there an aspect of vengeance to this? And if so, isn't it collective
punishment against today's young males, because of some perceived benefit
their fathers had (but they don't)?

(3) If the goal is to restore some kind of equilibrium, then how would we know
when to stop? And what do you say to those young males who are discriminated
against during a period of over-shoot? "I'm sorry Johnny that we wouldn't
spend as much time teaching you math as we would your sister, but think of all
the girls who benefited!"

(4) How do we choose which supposed social good to prioritize? For example,
why is it preferable to increase women's incomes, at the expense of men's
opportunities?

(5) Is it truly just for the government to address one perceived inequality
(by preferential treatment of girls in school), without putting equal effort
into addressing areas where _men_ have traditionally been at a disadvantage
(child custody, incarceration rates, etc.)? If the government's policy is only
to address those inequalities where _women_ come out behind, then the end-game
is apparently not equality, but something else. (Matriarchy? Vengeance?
Collective punishment?)

~~~
pboutros
>with no obviously correct answers.

Regardless of the point-by-point response, I think the general idea is that
women have historically been disadvantaged in education, so Title IX _de
facto_ helps alleviate that problem, although there are obvious negative
externalities that result from a blanket application. I do think that a couple
of your (x) arguments assume malice where there likely is none, but I've
responded point-by-point below.

\--

(1) This is the question at the heart of any sort of redistributive action
government takes -- it seems like we, as a society, have decided that it (or
things analogous to it) are ok, at least some of the time.

(2) I would hope not! That's certainly not how I've thought of it, as a young
male.

(3) Presumably when the indicators of discrimination are no longer so
blindingly obvious (ranging from unequal pay to glass ceilings). I don't,
however, suspect that it's going to be that simple. I think that a lot of the
biases fueling the problem are culturally inherent, and can't be resolved just
with legislation. Although the idea behind Title IX seems like a step in the
right direction.

(4) By participation in a _democratic_ society. Great question though! I'd
like to think that it isn't zero sum.

(5) First of all, I don't think that we necessarily have to do one at the
expense of the other. I also don't think that there's any sort of fairness
mechanism by which we get to make things universally better for everyone all
at once. We work with the Congress we've got, and the Administration we've
got, and the Supreme Court we've got (x50 for the state level!) to do the best
we can. That being said, I think it's ok to prioritize some problems over
others, and problems affecting ~50% of the population are generally worthy of
increased scrutiny IMO.

~~~
belorn
(2) Sounds as someone who had the privileged to never been excluded and
treated like a second class citizen because of your gender.

~~~
pboutros
Yep - or someone who ostensibly would have been the target of the alleged
'vengeance' but doesn't feel victimized as a result of it.

I'm not saying that Title IX is perfect - nothing is, especially not
redistributive policies. What I am saying, though, is that the notion that it
is motivated by vengeance is a little paranoid and a little silly.

