

Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds - greendestiny
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2283083,00.html

======
ivankirigin
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
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
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
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.

~~~
ivankirigin
If you want ammunition against those claims, you should go back to math, not
these studies: all claims show the gap to be small and the mean to be very
close.

Most importantly he variance between groups is smaller than between
individuals. This means that you have no way of knowing when you meet someone
whether they are good at math because of their sex. That's the most important
lesson for most people: don't be biased, because you're probably wrong.

The same argument applies to the race/IQ discussion. Variance between groups
is smaller than between individuals.

So even if the claims of innate superiority are correct, you should treat
individuals with respect.

------
ComputerGuru
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=1...](http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11449804)

------
ardit33
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......

------
tx
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?

~~~
mynameishere
_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=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...](http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWYyM2I0NTRjZWY3NDA2Njk)

~~~
tx
_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._

But the thing is - you can't. Our approach to statistical drug studies is more
careful and mathematically sound than studies about our own identities.

There isn't enough evidence in #1 and #2 to jump to #3, and normally outside
of sensitive politics absurd like that simply goes ignored, kinda like child
speak.

Lemme offer you similarly absurd statement:

Men and women are equal, yet men don't live as long as women do. Therefore,
men's quality of life is lower and they are discriminated against.

~~~
mynameishere
Err, the logic is sound

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens>

That's not the point. In politics, if you can trick people into believe
rubbish X causes trash Y which leads to bullshit Z and make money off it, then
that's what you do. Generally, it's best to have a semi-reasonable argument.
In the case above, the flaw is in the statement "Men and women are equal",
which is obviously not the case. (Nothing is equal to anything, except in pure
mathematics.)

Really, saying "men and women are equal" is a moral statement, with built-in
failure, like the commands in the sermon on the mount. This leads to built-in
transgression. Which leads to guilt. Which leads to submission. And so on.

~~~
yummyfajitas
There is a moral statement to be made about sexual equality, but it is not the
same statement that is made about income or intelligence. Various political
groups find it useful to conflate the following types of equality:

1\. Equality under the law/Equal rights as humans -- the law should treat men
and women equally. "It is wrong to punish men more severely for crimes than
women."

2\. "Societal" equality -- the attitudes and viewpoints of mainstream society
should consider men and women to be equal. "It is wrong to believe that women
should have children."

3\. Statistical equality -- men and women must be statistically identical for
a politically useful class of statistics (e.g., intelligence). "Anyone who
speculates that women are not as smart as/have different variance/etc is a
sexist."

4\. Equality of outcome -- men and women should achieve the same outcomes, for
a politically useful class of endeavors. "Professors in every field should be
50% male, 50% female."

#1 and #2 are moral questions, #3 is a scientific one. #4 is a consequence of
#1,#2 and #3. The moral statements are hardly rubbish, they are perfectly
legitimate moral claims (I even agree with #1). The bullshit is trying to
claim that 1 == 2 == 3 == 4.

------
d0mine
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>

Full report in English: <http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf>

------
sfg
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
Valuing research mathematics over everyday math is arbitrary and subjective.

~~~
sfg
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
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.

