""There is a clear advantage to being female to study physics: a greater chance of top grades and a lower chance of failure and lower grades. This holds at both AS and A2", says their preliminary paper."
I'd consider dropping out if my science teacher couldn't distinguish correlation and causation in their paper.
More seriously, I found the idea that high-performing students are dropping physics to optimise their overall average as an interesting thing. It's a shame when students sacrificing knowledge and skills that may have long term benefits in favour of a short term grade boost.
On another note: wouldn't the majority of students who drop out of physics be among the 'brightest students' at their school?
Except to them it isn't. Their entire life they have been playing the grade game and have learned how to optimize it. Like any group of people given a metric they will try to game it. Not to mention it isn't like everyone is telling them that to get a good job they need good grades in college too. Not one is telling them that the game is about to end.
Above a Field's medal winning mathematician having a conversation with a 17 year old A level student.
Actually, my perception is that the grade gaming started fairly recently in the UK, around 10 to 15 years ago. The rhetoric of 'raising standards' came to mean 'more passing and higher grades'.
As regards the parent post's last sentence ('Not one is telling them that the game is about to end.') some of my brighter Further Education students (vocational training) seem to have guessed. They are not going to University directly or at all but via placements in company training programmes or services training.
This is really sad because I clearly remember all the way back to high school calculus class and again in college that we spent a lot of time with the definition of the derivative, deriving the rules before applying them, and having that whole business be on the test along with the regular plug-and-chug problems. It was at a liberal arts college. Roughly half of the math majors were headed into high school teaching, the other half were double majors with some other STEM discipline.
That's definitely the case. It was the early 80's. Calculus in high school was still not widespread. We took it at 7 in the morning, before the regular school day, from the physics teacher who was delighted to finally teach calculus for the first time ever. He basically followed a mainstream college curriculum in class.
But the subsequent college course followed the same pattern, and I don't think it was atypical for the time. It took a couple tries to drive it into my skull, but I did end up majoring in math.
Turning math into a series of multiple choice questions that are answered by cranking through memorized algorithms... don't get me started.
UK does not use MCQ, but the emphasis on age 16 and age 18 exams in Maths is definitely cranking out the working. Some problem solving, but not so much proof.
Your experience is a really good illustration of the first phase of what I think is a common 'pattern' or 'process' in education reform.
Phase 1: An exceptional teacher decides to do something and a group of highly motivated students (also self-selected students) responds well. Results are good.
Phase 2: This activity is highlighted as 'good practice' and showcased in conferences by head teacher/managers
Phase 3: Managers in other institutions say 'we must do this' and impose the outer form of the activity on staff who are not perhaps thinking of that and students who are not self-selecting.
Phase 4: Results not so good in copying institutions. Staff blamed. Much mumbling.
Knowledge is situated and good teachers will modify things to suit their students in their particular institution.
I've read the blogpost. I feel sorry for the kid, to tell you truth... But I guess that's what you get when asking a 'Field's medal winner' to explain something you don't understand.
I recall reading about Feynmann, he was very eager to help students as long as they were prepared. If they presented a question to him, partially or totally unprepared he was extremely pissed. But then again, he is a Nobel prize why should he waste his time with someone who didn't do his homework?!
> No one is telling them that the game is about to end
I'm not sure about that. During college, there was a few doors that were only open to students with some level of grades. I applied for an exchange program requiring recommandations from the college teachers, one them had the honesty to tell me straight "why should I recommand you with the very average grades you have now?"
I did better at the next evaluations, and entered the program I wanted, leading almost directly to my first full time job after graduation.
Even after entering professional life, there are so many companies with extremely naive perfomance grading, where at evaluation time you get comments like "we understand you put a lot of effort in <hard to quantify but long term positive stuff>, but following the letter of the rules, we have to cap your reward to this level because you didn't do <easy to quantify but almost irrelevant stuff >". Playing the game goes a long way in these organizations.
To make it clear, I think people who care about learning and only so much about grades would have different privileges at school (better relations with the teachers, less stress, etc.) Same goes for college, where a student growing on a personal level and being curious about extra cursus stuffs will get attention and be more prepared for some aspects of their future professional life.
I think these students go a different route, but not essentially better or worse than those playing the game.
Isn't it somewhat the same thing ? Most of the time the people that care about popularity/politics will also take care of ripping the low hanging fruits to make it look good on paper. It's a good way to deflect criticism when anyone starts to ask questions.
The first point at which grades become important is the GCSE at 16 - perhaps they might start playing the game at 14/15 when choosing their options, but I don't this being the case all their life.
I have students who are excellent at both Computer Science and Systems & Control, who are not opting for the subjects at GCSE. Many have stated that they have chosen a softer subject to study that will give them some respite from study.
With most students being forced to study 3 Sciences, Maths, English Language, English Literature, a Foreign Language and a Humanities subject, there is little wonder that they want at least one subject, from their optional choices, that they deem easy, if not particularly worth while.
All of which are effectively meaningless for the pupils, only possible consequence might be the set they're given when they first enter secondary school - which should be readjusted very quickly if incorrectly assigned.
That's a common misinterpretation of "correlation does not imply causation". It'd be more accurate to say "correlation implies causation but the direction of causation must be derived separately." If there's a real correlation between A and B (i.e. the correlation isn't a coincidence), that must mean that either A causes B, B causes A, or a third factor causes both A and B.
In context, since we know that femaleness is (barring certain rare disorders) caused by the sex chromosome of the sperm that reaches the egg, which is essentially random, we can be fairly sure that it's not caused by school grades or anything that would affect school grades, which does allow us to conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that femaleness (indirectly, of course) causes higher grades.
> If there's a real correlation between A and B (i.e. the correlation isn't a coincidence), that must mean that either A causes B, B causes A, or a third factor causes both A and B.
Pirates being correlated with global warming isn't a coincidence; pirates decreasing and global warming are both (indirectly) caused by the Industrial Revolution.
It's true that you can never be completely sure that any correlation isn't a coincidence, just like you can't be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can, however, be sure beyond a reasonable doubt with enough of a sample size and a strong enough correlation.
Out of curiosity, do you personally believe it's likely (say, >5% chance) that it's a coincidence that girls have better grades than boys?
My interpretation was that he suspects that the higher performing female students were the ones that were less likely to drop out due to the negatives that come from the male-domination of the subject. So rather than the professor's assertion that "females are the highest scorers", he is suggesting that "the females that don't leave are the highest scoring females".
Well in the last 20 years or so softer and easier GSCE and A levels has been a trend have to keep the schools average up to keep Ofsted happy.
Schools also game the system and put a lot of effort in getting D students to get a C at GCSE level (exams taken at 16) as this is what they are scored on.
> some girls might find a very male-oriented physics A-level class "off-putting"
Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The result of girls not taking advanced physics because it is male-dominated is that it continues to be male-dominated.
Reminds me of my AP Physics C class in high school which had a total of 3 female students in a class of 25.
There were 20 or 25 of us. It's hard to say you don't understand when it's a really large group.
In A2 it was so much easier when there were only five of us.
What the best way to tackle this asymmetry? Teacher asks the class if they understand, students who need help stay quiet.
On a side note, I dropped advanced physics at highschool because it was incredibly boring. Spent ages drawing error bars on graphs, instead of learning about the laws of nature. It had always been my favourite subject up to that point.
Oh yeah, the error bars. As a physics teaching assistant in grad school, I was assigned to the freshman lab course, taught by a theoretician. The course was practically dominated by error bars, which were incredibly poorly explained, and taught in an almost doctrinaire way. That, and the equipment was so old and flaky that it produced nonsensical results.
The kids emerged from that course, convinced that physics is subjective.
They should decide whether they're teaching physics, or teaching experimentalism. The latter is valuable, but if so, it should be taught as such.
One thing that people are trying is to just pick people to answer questions. They don't ask a question and let some one who wants to answer to answer it, they ask the question and them pick someone to answer it. This means you learn from the people who don't normally answer whether they understand or not and you understand where they don't understand.
It needs some shift of expectations. Not knowing the answer to a question is fine and being allowed to say, in fromt of a bunch of people, that you don't understand is a good thing.
Isn't this one of the oldest educational strategies in the book? Or has it somehow gone out of favor? Nearly every education-related movie has a scene of the teacher specifically picking students to answer questions (often the slacker-protagonist).
Current OFSTED wisdom centres around 'checks of learning'. Plus the fact that experienced teachers can read cues including facial expressions &c (sort of like Douglas Adams and deadlines, he liked the wooshing sound they made past his ears). When you have confused 10 out of 25 students, it sort of bounces off the ceiling and hits you in the mid-forehead if you have any sensitivity.
Plus homework (error analysis is really important).
PS: 'boring' is a problem. We don't push the error bars so much (upper and lower bounds and their impact on accuracy is a GCSE Maths Higher topic). Institute of Physicists in UK did a survey in 80s of members and concluded that most studied the subject at University despite 6th form work rather than because of it!
Physics at A-level in the UK suffers greatly from the efforts to keep each A-level independent, despite the huge overlap between physics and mathematics (particularly the "further mathematics" A-level). The resulting course is simultaneously very easy for students who are doing double mathematics, and very difficult for students who aren't. I wonder how much of the gender difference in the article is simply due to more girls taking physics without mathematics (the article mentions those intending to apply for medicine, who IME usually wouldn't take the mathematics A-level).
The Denver chapter of the Colorado Mountain Club used to (and may still) have "practice climbs": all climbers were belayed from the top of the pitch. A fellow I met at one of these said that he considered that he hadn't learned anything if he didn't fall three times in the course of the day. I would probably never have been a good rock climber in any case; but had I understood and embraced that approach, I might have been a better bad one.
Whats the employment outlook for the brightest girls who stay in physics vs drop out of physics? Just trying to broaden the discussion beyond whats good for just the people who benefit by physics enrollment (perhaps specifically of girls).
I'd consider dropping out if my science teacher couldn't distinguish correlation and causation in their paper.
More seriously, I found the idea that high-performing students are dropping physics to optimise their overall average as an interesting thing. It's a shame when students sacrificing knowledge and skills that may have long term benefits in favour of a short term grade boost.
On another note: wouldn't the majority of students who drop out of physics be among the 'brightest students' at their school?